I didn't understand a word of this. Thanks Nick!

I like how Rekieta can explain it better than a Journalist in a court room saying it's a win for Heard, smh.

THIS kind of content is part of why I love this channel. Having someone who knows wtf they are talking about breaking down legal speak is too good

Got it....that's what I figured. As a former juror on a month long case, I have a slight idea what some of them might be thinking now...and we DON'T think like lawyers and we do not interpret like a lawyer...I predict it will come down who they thought was lying...end of story. I think JD has a chance. I think Amber is screwed.

She hasn't lost any work before this case. Any work she loses after is on her. Since the public got to see how screwed up of a person she is.

So the TLDR is the Court TV reporter knew what she was talking about, but she didn't say it correctly. I.e. she reported inaccurately, just as Nick said.

HER Agent stated LACK OF CHEMISTRY with Jason Momoa was why she had to fight for AM 2

I don’t understand why everyone is giving her so much credit because she’s cute and dresses nice? I honestly don’t think that she’s been objective as everyone is believing. I’ve heard her reports a couple of times from Court TV and I wasn’t impressed at all. I think everyone has been involved on their own stuff that they really haven’t been paying attention to what she’s been doing outside of court. She reported some crazy crap and I was like, you were there in court and you’re still putting in your own narrative into it? This is why I listen to you and a few of the other people. I like people saying it like it is with the facts and evidence presented. I don’t want you going easy on either side because of gender. However, it’s clear Amber is a freakin liar and you guys aren’t afraid calling her out on her shIt.

I don’t believe or understand how Adam Waldmans statements have been defamatory in any event, irrespective of if he was acting on instruction. He reported to the LAPD his concerns of perjury, which he would have only done because he believed perjury had been committed, nothing he said was knowingly to be untrue. The hashtags haven’t been proven to be attributed to his statement and the spike in negative hashtags toward AH occur 3 days prior to his statement, they coincide with the audio tapes, the public drawing their own conclusions.

I am impressed that this guy has been able to explain agency law (known as vicarious liability here in England & Wales) so well (using a puppet as an analogy) whilst sipping whisky… like a boss!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for explaining all this. You are absolutely brilliant & I dig your sense of humor.🎉

So basically Court TV lied and ignored the fact it was factually impossible for their statement to be true for the sake of fame. And then they blame TUG for being a slanderer for views…

She needs to be picked on though. She's a journalist AND an attorney in Arkansas & Tennessee (according to her Twitter bio). For both reasons she should be better, or at least held to a higher standard, when making comments in her role as a journalist on Twitter. She could have used more of the thread option or couched her words in more uncertain terms (appears, might, etc). She could have been more accurate in her terms ("all the shit you just said" -Captain Hillard USMC, Independence Day). She was neither and she should be called out on her lack of accuracy and told to do better. We need all of our so called journalists to be better.

I feel like this was a Court TV talking mouth that just wanted to run to get it on Twitter first, without a care that this isn't even a thing YET. Very irresponsible of her.

This is what happens when reporters run to be the "first one" to break news. She has ended up been the news and not in a very positive way. Oh, well!

How does one report on legal matters as a court reporter and get it wrong. Seems like spin to get Amber press and give an improper impression that the judge ruled in Amber's favor.

Wow, you made that crystal clear! Great words to dumb it down for us non-lawyers. Thank you so much. I am amazed at how much work lawyers have to do, how attentively they need to listen in court, all the minutia they need to remember. God Bless our justice system, and all the lawyers and judges within that system!

More excellent reporting from you, and even Emily looking into this. Thanks again for covering this. Mainstream are utterly useless. I wonder if they are even watching this trial

If he was going to hit her... That audio with the disgusting laughter, where, by the way he is clearly drinking wine (she wants to sip from his glass) and probably high on weed... He would have reacted, instead of just awkwardly trying to stay his ground (where she apparently had come chasing him to this house from the one he had left her at)... I'm so disgusted. Oh, and just a note he always calls her "baby", she is the one that calls him "babe". She clearly wrote that bullshit on that f-ing mirror.

At this stage in the trial we've seen so much bizarre stuff it wouldn't surprise me if the closing statement was "Sorry Your Honor, we've just noticed a typo in our filing; we meant to accuse Amber Heard of defacation...." Nice vid btw, it's not clear to me, but it's a hell of a lot clearer. XD

Speaking to inform vs. speaking to impress.

So JD will take the stand for them to fish it out of him and every question asked will be objected to. But yet AH team continuously stated they don’t want to be disrespectful to the courts time or whatever the hell they were saying.

SHIESTER LAWYERS!

Wait!…doesn’t this mean that their arguments in court that JD blacked out due to drugs and wouldn’t remember work against their theory that he knew the statements to be false?

Rekieta, I love what you do for us. I have a family, don't have time to watch the full Trish, but am completely enthralled by this case. You are where I go on the live streams, and yes, I watch the night streams too. Thanks so much! love from Minnesota

Seems like a suspicious tweet from someone whom doesn't understand legalities.

SOLID explanation. Thanks Nick for breaking down legalese so the commonfolk can understand.

EVERYBODY HAS A MOVIE CAMERA. !!!! A couple of days ago you pointed out how important that is. I agree. Interesting factoid: SF author Elizabeth Moon wrote a short story 3 decades ago in which that was common in her story. I don't remember the name of the story but I will find the name and get back to you. "These are the dreams our stuff is made of" Meanwhile: To hell with the main stream media !

Thank you Nick for your legal analysis and schooling us on the actual law!♥️♥️♥️👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Hey Nick Rekieta thank you for having legal vice I've been watching his channel and legal mindset thank you I guess I have to also think critical Drinker which I already have for having you on a live stream that's where I found you. you guys do such a great job!

I suppose it's the same as saying that AH's PR guy sitting next to Ms Painter and whispering in her ear in clear view of the camera has nothing to do with her tweeting the way she did on behalf of AH to try to change the social media narrative to favor AH as she fails hard in court. Is AH responsible for any defaming, misleading or inaccurate statements her PR guy is feeding Court TV's representative. Or is he acting on his own even though this is the very job he's paid to do.

Thanks for clipping this out Nick - I saw it last night and realized it was gonna require a rewatch to understand.

Love your channel!! So glad that I "rediscovered" you after Rittenhouse!!! You're awesome!! Thank you!

Thank you for going through all this. Your clear explanations really help in understanding the various nuances of the case I wouldn’t know about on my own.

Honestly ever since this trial started, learning about the ins and outs of how this trial can go and the law and how it works, it’s very interesting.

The first analogy of the Amazon driver making Amazon liable is correct only on the precept that the driver was acting on behalf of Amazon at the time. If the driver used an Amazon van outside their instruction then the driver accepts sole responsibility.

Question for anyone that can or wants to answer. If JD is called back to the stand and questioned about his attorney and objections are continuously called for attorney/client privilege that could mislead the jurors to think he is hiding something. Would or should the jurors be told JD is protected by law and that shouldn’t be negatively looked upon? Maybe jury instructions? Just asking for a friend. Yup me, I am that friend, 😝. Damn it, I wanna know.

Thank you Nick!!!!!!! This was just what I needed! So very well explained and broken down!! 👌🏻🤗

Thanks @Rekieta Law. Always on point.

Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate the time you take to explain legal jargon .

I don't think it matters much to jurors who think she's guilty because they'll likely think "he wouldn't have said it if she wasn't lying and making it up"

Rackets, I just have to say, I love that you take the time to explain things in a way that us (laypeople) can understand!! And you do it with energy!! This is why you are, hands down, my favorite commentator!! I'm sure this has been an exhausting trial for you, but I'm so glad it's going on, because when there isn't a trial going on (aka: filling my day with your voice in my head 😂) I never know what to do!! So thanks again, and give all our love to THE Lady Rackets for letting us borrow you for, like, 13-14 hours a day!! She's a trooper too & deserves serious kudos 🙌🏽❤️😊

THIS IS WHY I LOVE LAWTUBE!!! EXCELLENT explanation and once again, I’ve learned something new. Blessings!!

I LOVE the law lesson we learned! Keep up the good work!

When I actually understand 99% of what you are putting down, it means you are effective as fuck. Keep up the good work, I hope to be as effective someday (if I get into law school)

Hello from Ireland. Thank you for a very clear explanation. Keep up the good work!

And yet, somehow a more credible source than Law & Crime.

THANK YOU for explaining this! I'm learning so much from you and Lawtube . I'm addicted to watching lol. I don't what I'll do until the next trial you and lawtube cover .

Thank you for explaining this. I think the judge has been very fair throughout this case and she has the patience of Jove. I think AH's case is weak because of lack of evidence. The thing that confuses me is why Court TV were in the courtroom on Friday when the public and jury were excluded. I am a Brit and our courts are different.

Principal/agent…not principle… I used to practice law, btw. This inability to get the spelling right on the source tweet irks me & makes me less likely to trust what they posted.

I really hope that the jury can see past Turd's lies.

Amazing explained!!! Got it. Thanks. "Now the question is, does jd have his hand up to the a** of aw to control his mouth". Can't stop laughing 🤣🤣🤣. Wish you guys thrive, 'cause you're doing a great service by spreading accurate and objective information. It's what a lot of people is searching. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

While Adam hasn't really been able to answer anything. he did actually once imply that anything that he has said was all him saying it. Which may also end up being another nail in the coffin on Amber Heards case.

Thank you Nick! I finally understand this whole mess and again!!! CourtTV and their shit 😡

What a great explanation for the general public :D great content right here and great streams! :D

Saw a couple of links to Court TV in my news feed randomly today - never heard of them before. Very biased towards AH, new PR team methinks...

Totally understandable the way you’re laying it out Nick @Rekieta Law!

Rekieta was proven wrong because the Judge agreed that the jury can construe that the relationship between Depp and the lawyer is a principal and agent relationship.

I'ma little high so if I can understand this then so could the CourtTV lady. Thank you for doing mental acrobatics FOR us. 🤣

PLEASE address Warner Bros statement saying JD had nothing to do with AH contracts/money

You nailed it on the explanation. Excellent lawsplaining.

Clearly delivered. Well done.

She knew what she was doing when she tweeted that! Court tv has been on ah side low key! Especially that reporter! I don’t buy it

The grammar nerd in me greatly appreciated your proper use and differentiation of "imply" and "infer." thank you.

Even with his statements Amber hasn't lost any work. She didn't lose any contracts, she also didn't prove her defense case.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and explaining this.

Why can’t Depp keep testifying “I can’t recall…”……..”I don’t remember “…?

I mean, even if Adam was speaking on behalf of Johnny Depp, it still doesn’t mean that those statements were responsible for 100 million in damages.

You are awesome!! Miss Terd needs to be held accountable for her despicable deeds! She needs to pay no less than 7 million. I really think she was planning this from beginning. If she had picked some guy that was half as nice as Johnny she would have gotten away with it. Waldman may be short but she will always be a liar.

Never stop sending it

Only been up for 3 mins and already near 500 views! You definitely built something here nick! Keep it up!

How is there even a claim for her if the statements that are made against her are true? Everything he has said so far is true

Thank you for explaining this I was really looking for a better explanation , you made it easy to understand

I have learned so much from you and law videos...now my husband thinks he's always on the stand when I'm asking him question. So do my kids

That means AH's teams will have to recall Johnny Depp and question him on this. Otherwise, there's no link. So the rumors that AH will recall JD could be true. But this would eat up their entire 8 hours. They have nothing on counterclaim if they don't go for this. And it's likely all directed by AH. But they have so many other issues like mentioned in this video. The judge will have to find excuses on why to let the counterclaim proceed. It'll look like the biggest dodge ever.

The hand up the butt part cracked me up. That's when it became crystal clear for me.

Thanks! When’s the stream were you read the old superchats

You explained this very well. Thank you nick!

Thanks Nick! I was so confused when I saw that tweet. Also, I love how you explain it slowly like talking to a five year old LOL

Thank you for your analysis. Very informative.

Thank you very much. But why were AH attorneys allowed to keep referring to the “Depp\Waldmen” statements? Anybody…

Thanks for clarifying and laying things out thoroughly Rekieta 😎

They're putting Johnny on the stand Monday.

Thank you for the very clear explanation. You did very well explaining this to a layman.

Improperly framed mostly. Thanks as always Rackets. Watched live so thats why im commenting already lol

If Waldman got email, pics, etc and went to the LAPD on his own, with no prompting from Johnny would Depp be held accountable.

I wondered why Loreal and WB never fired her sooner but I realize now it is because they feared of being sued by her as well. Once this trial is done they have no choice but to get rid of the trash.

This is really effective teaching. Thank you. I understand now.

That was so helpful thank you!!

I watched this last night when you were live, again just now, and watched Emily D Baker explain it to. I now understand it. And my conclusion is that Waldman and Depp won’t reveal the agent/client relationship. In other words, I don’t think Heard’s team will be able to prove it!

Intriguing..Thanks for the clarification Nick. First time I let my brain function to full capacity early Sunday morning here in Oz.

If i was in the Jury and you were explaining this, and having seen the evidence, I would definitely think that the Principal (regardless of his instruction to Waltman) thought at the time that what he was saying was true, that he was innocent and the accusations were based on a hoax...If they agree that he is telling the truth and she is lying... So as a layperson to me it all comes down to who I believe. If she had kept it simple I might have had my doubts (being a super fan of Depp's), but seeing the outrageous, vicious things she is saying on the stand, as well as how she has powered her career and image off of those accusations (Un Embassador and all those things, how many interviews and actions she has reitirated herself over and over, after the op.-ed, the fact she retwitted!!!!) I understand all the "nuances" of your wonderful explanation, but my opinion at the end of the day, that would be my conclusion.

Nick Rekieta the mini painter. Always awesome to find a fellow hobbyist. :D

So basically, Waldman could’ve been speaking on Depp’s behalf, and thus any statement Waldman makes is considered to be a statement Johnny Depp made him make. Adam Waldman doesn’t need to know if the statements Johnny is making him say are true or false, because they are not his statements, they’re Johnny’s, so if Johnny knows he’s lying, he’s responsible. Johnny has to have told Waldman to say these things for it to count, otherwise these are Waldman’s statements and Johnny can’t be held responsible.

All I got is jack daniels...I dont think I'm qualified to drink with you

Nick: "If he says Johnny Depp told me to say ..." My mind: OBJECTION HEARSAY

Thank you for explaining this.

Thanks for explaining this.. I was lost at the beginning, but get it now

This was wonderful. Well explained!

It certainly seems like green dress girl should stick to beauty pageants and looking hot in the gallery, and avoid trying to argue the intricacies of legal proceedings with like 6 different licensed attorneys. Rekieta should just shout at her “You are out of your element, Chanley!”