24th, April 2025

Entry Title: The Necklace That Cross-Examined Us All

Filed Under: Surveillance, Scandal & Subpoenas

Dear Diary,

Court today resembled less of a trial and more of a low-budget espionage thriller, filmed live under fluorescent lighting and the gaze of a deeply tired judge who just wanted her lunch break.

We were deep into a custody trial.

The kind with enough emotional landmines to level a small village.

On the stand: Camille, the mother’s “lifelong best friend,” who had somehow transformed into a hostile witness with a French twist scarf and the moral ambiguity of a Bond villain.

She was poised. Too poised. Her testimony was unnervingly detailed—word-for-word reenactments of private conversations, complete with timestamps, emotional tone, and alleged “energy shifts.”

I tilted my head. Something was off.

And then I saw it.

The necklace. Chunky. Oversized. Sitting atop her blouse like it knew it didn’t belong there. Not quite Claire’s, not quite Cartier—but absolutely suspicious.

As she leaned forward to sip from the witness stand's pitcher (which, for some reason, she poured like a Regency duchess offering tea), the light hit the pendant.

And there it was: a tiny pinhole camera, right where the gemstone should be.

I whispered to my co-counsel, “That’s not a necklace. That’s surveillance with a clasp.”

We asked to approach the bench. Opposing counsel—promptly turned the shade of unseasoned oatmeal and lost all jaw tension.

The judge raised an eyebrow, the way only women who have raised teenagers and run dockets can.

“I’ll hear counsel in chambers,” she said, already knowing this was about to be a production.

In chambers, I presented Exhibit WTF: A freeze-frame from the mother’s social media where Camille is clearly seen adjusting the same necklace, next to a mobile app displaying a live feed.

A live feed, Diary.

To a shared Dropbox folder titled: “CamilleCam.”

They claimed it was for personal safety.I argued it was a walking violation of Rule 192.3 and potentially federal wiretap laws.

The judge? She removed her glasses, rubbed her temples, and said:

“I knew this case was cursed when the parties brought matching emotional support snakes to mediation.”

A mistrial was declared. The witness was held in contempt pending further review. And opposing counsel tried to argue that “fashion-forward recording devices” were a grey area in the Texas Rules of Evidence.

Bless his heart.

Some people bring witnesses. Others bring wearable wiretaps programmed with folder names like “She Lying Again.”

Let it be known: If your accessories require a charging cable, they don’t belong in my courtroom.

I remain, as ever— Mic’d. Mad. Meticulously Dressed.

Disclaimer: This entry is a fictionalized satire. Any resemblance to actual people, events, or lawsuits is entirely coincidental—but not impossible.

Tag someone who’s definitely hiding a camera in their earrings.

#DiaryOfABlackLawyer

#SheWoreASpyCamToCourt

#YourHonorIObject

#CourtroomChronicles

#ContemptAndCostume

#LegalSatire

#FashionablyInvasive

#NetflixShouldCall