Real Lawyer Reacts to Liar Liar (Part 2)(The Divorce Trial)
Рет қаралды 1,677,309
Күн бұрын⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
IF THE PRENUP IS VOID, ISN’T THE WHOLE MARRIAGE VOID? This is part 2 of my reaction to Liar Liar. Here, I cover the entire second half of the film including the entire divorce trial. Jim Carrey (as attorney Fletcher Reede) is struck by a magic spell and can’t lie. But is he a good lawyer? Today we’re going to review one of the funniest legal movies of all time: Liar Liar. Stay until the end for my Legal Realism Grade!
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
(clicking the links really helps out the channel)
Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
▶ Why Indochino Suits? (50% off Premium Suits + free shipping) [legaleagle.link/indochino]: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.
▶ Why Ties from TheTieBar? (Free shipping on orders over $50) [fave.co/2ImLY9I]: Normal ties are too fat. Skinny ties are too skinny. So these days I only wear ties that are exactly 2.5” wide. They are fashionable without being hipster. You see them in all of my videos. TieBar ties are perfect, come in every color I want, and never cost more than $19.
▶ Why these Tie Clips? [amzn.to/2WIQ6EE]: It’s really hard to find affordable tie clips that are the right size (1.5”), look good, and are great quality. These tie bars are all three. Plus the 3-pack gives a variety of styles. They pair perfectly with 2.5” ties from TheTieBar (above).
▶ Why these Pocket Squares? [amzn.to/2UfsKtL]: I like my pocket squares perfectly, well, square. Like straight-out-of-Mad-Men square. The only way to do that is with a stiffer material that keeps its shape. I’ve exhaustively tried dozens of pocket squares, and these are by far the best. It’s how I get the perfectly flat pocket square you see in my videos.
--------------------------------------------------
The last time I watched Liar Liar, I wasn’t yet an attorney myself. I remember watching Liar Liar years and thinking how cool it would be to become a lawyer myself. That was obviously a long time ago. It was great to be able to watch the movie with fresh eyes and know which parts were realistic and which were not. I practiced in Los Angeles for a long time, so I recognized a lot of my old haunts including the office parks and courthouses. Surprisingly, I think the movie is funnier now having years of experience as an attorney.
SEE PART 1 OF LIAR LIAR HERE: • Real Lawyer Reacts to ...
Would you like me to react to another one? Let me know in the comments!
You can find more Real Lawyer Reacts Here (including my reaction to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more): goo.gl/42fKce
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. Today I'm taking a break from teaching law students how to crush law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
@LegalEagle 5 жыл бұрын
Do you agree with my grade? What episode should I do next? Also, check out my reactions to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more: goo.gl/42fKce
@AnonEyeMouse 5 жыл бұрын
Not so much an objection as much as a hypothetical. If a couple were to divorce and be required to split a house as it is over half their combined assets' worth, could they sell it to their young child for a token amount, accept the offer as guardians, and then take turns residing in their child's home as guardians and executors (rather than sharing custody by moving the child from one home to another) thus avoiding inheritance taxes?
@ifitis22 5 жыл бұрын
Better call saul again i loved the first episode you did on it
@SaintNobody 5 жыл бұрын
Can we get your review of a law school classic, "The Paper Chase?"
@kayleighgardner1188 5 жыл бұрын
You should do a reaction episode to Fracture!
@grantwheeler2984 5 жыл бұрын
LegalEagle Could you please react to A Time to Kill (1996) It’s a great courtroom movie
@deathcard2003 Жыл бұрын
I was a Juror in court once, and the court phone rang and the judge picked up, listened for about 10 seconds and then goes "NO I DO NOT NEED VINYL SIDING FOR MY HOUSE" and slammed the phone down. It was the funniest thing I ever seen in my life.
@shadowbeast2276 7 ай бұрын
That sounds awesome.
@FantasmagoriaAhoy 5 ай бұрын
Real life is more bizarre than fiction.
@Chloe.Miller21 5 ай бұрын
That's absolutely hilarious 🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀💀
@TheKrispyfort 4 ай бұрын
I saw a Local Court Magistrate comment that the prosecution should remember that the [state] police were not known for being particularly forthright with information. My jaw almost hit the floor witnessing that.
@yeldarb141983 Ай бұрын
There was a rather high profile murder case a few years ago where the Judge's cell phone went off in the middle of the trial. Caused a big stir, had to be embarrassing for the judge, though, especially if he had chewed other's out for similar disruptions...
@ClashBluelight 4 жыл бұрын
the rules of fletcher's curse: 1: he may not lie. 2: he may not twist the truth on any way including something as basic a reframing an idea from a different angle. 3: he does not have the option to remain silent. if there is a fact, or angle of a fact, that he knows he must present it loudly. this is what i picked up watching the movie myself a few years ago. the curse is not as simple as "don't speak/write direct falsehoods" like most people think it is.
@419malice 4 жыл бұрын
In other words, he has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
@ClashBluelight 4 жыл бұрын
@@419malice exactly.
@Thegbear 4 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION, rule number 2 is distinctly broken by the fact that when he beats himself up, he never outright says “I kicked my own ass”, he frames it in the context of a man ‘at the end of his pitiful rope’ did it, which means he must therefore have some liberty to twist the truth.
@ClashBluelight 4 жыл бұрын
@@Thegbear no, he was at the end of his rope. and he says "i'm kickin' my ass" which is 100% accurate.
@Thegbear 4 жыл бұрын
@@ClashBluelight I'm talking about when he talks to the judge about it after the fact, he never says "I kicked my own ass", he bends the truth. I'm not referring to when he speaks to the man who walks in on him.
@samuelbarber6177 3 жыл бұрын
I’ve learned at least one thing from LegalEagle... “The Bailiff will tackle you.”
@Firebreaf 3 жыл бұрын
The real reason the girl in The Ring is upset is because the bailiff won't stop tackling her.
@someguywithatophat7599 Жыл бұрын
maybe I want the bailiff to tackle me
@CesarACastillo 10 ай бұрын
Seriously they really will. I was a State dependent as a kid and my status as a child did not stop a bailiff during a custody battle between my parents and the State of California from appropriately restraining me when I tried to run to hug my crying mother on the stand.
@gunzakimbo 3 жыл бұрын
"Who did this?!" "A MADMAN your Honor! A desperate fool at the end of his pitiful rope!" "What did he look like?" "About 6'2, 180 pounds, big teeth kinda gangly."
@ArmageddonisUnleashe 3 жыл бұрын
*covers mouth with hand*
@margauxf4321 3 жыл бұрын
I will ALWAYS have this line memorized from childhood 😅
@coolchrisb Жыл бұрын
Plot hole - he is lying with this bit and as he cannot tell a lie he shouldn’t b able to say this
@themilkmanshallrise1885 Жыл бұрын
@@coolchrisb He's describing himself because he was the one who beat him lol.
@coolchrisb Жыл бұрын
@@themilkmanshallrise1885 he’s not 6ft2
@Mech299 5 жыл бұрын
"Do not enter the well like that, the bailiff WILL tackle you" Spoken like someone who knows from experience. x)
@deltaone2837 5 жыл бұрын
There a videos of bailiff tackling people on the internet. I'm always looking forward to people commenting with this quote. I've never been disappointed.
@aeternusdoleo4531 4 жыл бұрын
You never see that on Judge Judy...
@grimmestreaper2707 4 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oauZdLiYqcfDp30.html
@Twisted_Code 4 жыл бұрын
@@aeternusdoleo4531 because technically Judge Judy isn't a "real" judge. Television courtrooms aren't completely "fake" in that they decide real cases, but they enforce the decision with contracts between the parties that appear on the show. As such, such courtrooms do not necessarily reflect all of the rules and customs of "real" courts
@deadwinterknight1981 4 жыл бұрын
@@Twisted_Code Judge Judy is definitely a real Judge. She was a lawyer from 1972-1982 and was then appointed as a Judge until 1996 when her show started she is still a genuine Judge on her show she just does arbitration though on it. She has worked over 20,000 cases in her career before starting her show so show her the respect she deserves.
@sheilafiah 5 жыл бұрын
Normal language: They were f*cikng loudly Lawyer language: They were engaging in conduct so loudly
@GDGAI 5 жыл бұрын
Sheila Afiah Objection:You switched the i and the k.
@jackthorton10 5 жыл бұрын
Gentlemen’s words in a gentlemen court
@peterf.229 5 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION!!!! you mean they were fucking loudly.
@classicnosh 5 жыл бұрын
If I were a lawyer, I'd say: Objection! We cannot prove or disprove that this coital cacophony was rendered by anyone in this courtroom and does not prove "in flagrate dilecto". I move that it should be stricken from evidence.
@crushersbutlessedgynow 4 жыл бұрын
600th like lets gooooooooo
@pompeii7839 3 жыл бұрын
Lawyer: "I object!" Judge: "To yourself?" LeglEagle: Upheld
@corinnepowers9646 2 жыл бұрын
Someone in a recent high profile case must have studied law with Fletcher. :P
@TreyM1609 2 жыл бұрын
Reminds me of amber heard’s attorney. OBJECTION! Judge: it was your question Attorney: I still object
@CrippledMerc 4 жыл бұрын
Man I love Jim Carrey’s physical comedy aspect to his characters. It’s iconic.
@virginiafernandez6846 3 жыл бұрын
He’s awesome
@ashenmoonclash 2 жыл бұрын
Could possibly be the greatest physical emotion actor of all time currently.
@Suninrags 2 жыл бұрын
@@ashenmoonclash Chaplin would be proud
@HovektheArtist 5 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION!!! That suit advert was too smooth
@Cleverconveyence 5 жыл бұрын
@@VirtualWil yeah same, guy has a knack for these videos
@Star-pl1xs 5 жыл бұрын
i literally paused the video to make sure someone mentioned that hardly even hiccuped the flow of the video
@jamiewoodley3821 5 жыл бұрын
Lmao was thinking the same thing, literally burst out laughing lol fair play, fair play
@Liv-eb9yv 5 жыл бұрын
seamless
@gorillaau 5 жыл бұрын
Overruled! It wasnthe first advert in a long time that I paid attention to.
@keleynal4424 4 жыл бұрын
Objection! Fletcher was unable to stay silent when asked a question because he was unable to lie by omission. He adheres to the court mandate of “the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth”
@jshaw3793 2 жыл бұрын
Makes sense
@tbuckley2031 Жыл бұрын
I always took it as even though he’s a lawyer and that’s how he defines the truth his natural instinct is to lie in any situation so he’s panic lying and just shouting
@16Nire61 3 жыл бұрын
I gotta ask: Ever had a moment where you felt like screaming, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!" at a client? X3 That's my favorite moment in the movie.
@rpavlich Жыл бұрын
Many times.
@kyripiro224 8 ай бұрын
Lol I love when Jim Carrey shouted that 🤣🤣🤣
@RarelyEvenn 3 жыл бұрын
"Why are all these people in this court?" Well, Fletcher is very famous for winning against all odds. Perhaps, they came to see his performance.
@jasonbikeracer1 3 жыл бұрын
Do you not need to have business in the court in order to enter the court room?
@RarelyEvenn 3 жыл бұрын
@@jasonbikeracer1 You can watch, yeah.
@icp7201 2 жыл бұрын
@@jasonbikeracer1 Usually, most cases are open to the public. In japan, in fact, there isn't even an age limit. A toddler could enter the chamber and watch the proceedings. But, in cases that envolve minors, the proceedings are private, in order to preserve their identity and well being
@barnabusdoyle4930 2 жыл бұрын
There are thousands of people in the US who would pay great money to watch Jim Carry play one of his characters in person. I’m surprised more people aren’t in the courtroom
@TheBlockerNator Жыл бұрын
I always assumed it was because the Cole Family is rich, so they're either really popular and people want to see the trial or they're family and friends of them.
@megan5867 Жыл бұрын
The thing she says at the end about the children is way too true. It's disgusting when people use their children to hurt their ex and it's why I stopped working in family law. In my opinion it should be considered abuse.
@mickey4125 Жыл бұрын
That's why I've long had immense respect for my parents. They separated when me and my two sisters were all under 5. I won't go into what caused it, but the fallout could have devastated us all. My parents kept their problems from us, and both made sure we were always loved, and spent equal amounts of time with each parent each week. They vowed that, whatever differences they had, it just would not be fair to weaponise their children against each other. For them, but obviously more so for us. I didn't even find out why they separated until i was like 15. Unfortunately, nowhere near enough people get as immensely lucky as my sisters and me. (I don't mean financially btw, we've always been dirt poor)
@QuothTheRavenNevermore27 Ай бұрын
@@mickey4125just because someone is a shit partner does not mean they are a shit parent has always been my take. They could have been godawful to their spouse (regardless of gender) and the most loving thing ever to their children
@KingoftheJuice18 4 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION: Doesn't the husband's lawyer have to prove it's the wife on the tape? How does the court know it's not actors or another couple?
@FracturedPixels 4 жыл бұрын
In the state of California, the audio-tape is hearsay, and the act of recording the audio on the tape was invasion of privacy, making it inadmissible in court regardless of whether or not the female voice was that of Mrs Cole.
@KingoftheJuice18 4 жыл бұрын
@@FracturedPixels Well, calling it "hearsay" is just another way of expressing the concern I raised: how do we know it's really her and what she's doing?
@mr-cactus1519 4 жыл бұрын
Even if it was admissable, (assuming the following happened) Fletcher would have had to prove it was Mrs Cole, and he would've objected when the tape played
@ScootyPuffSr7 4 жыл бұрын
Furthermore it could be argued that the people on the tape are only simulating sexual sounds since in reality that is what they are doing. Unless the actors are very Method of course. ;)
@Sewingbee23 4 жыл бұрын
Fletcher does use this objection
@goldenpun5592 3 жыл бұрын
I honestly don't like the 2 party consent law. We have that in PA as well. There was a guy who's kid was being bullied and he wanted to prove they weren't doing anything to stop the bullying from happening and he recorded a private meeting with some of school staff and they admitted to not doing anything, or something along those lines and he goes, "Got it" and reveals he was recording. They then went on to press charges on this guy for illegal wiretapping. He just wanted to protect his kid and how he's faced with jail time. I also saw where a teen was using his school issued tablet to record people bullying him and he is facing wiretapping charges as well. Sure you don't want people to record you in private places, and there should obviously be laws against peeping, spying, etc. But if you're taping someone who's doing wrong to you or someone else, or threatening you, or someone else...You should be protected
@haoye2413 Жыл бұрын
I also believe everyone should have the right to record all conversation and use them as evidence. At the same time, I do understand the 2 party consent law is trying to protect people from answering leading question. Such as if you try to provo someone and anger them enough, the other party might say something like "I am going to kill you". Calibrated leading questions are used very often, especially in negotiation, sales and marketing. It is hard for non train personal to notice if they are falling in the trap of calibrated questions. On the other hand, it is also hard for the court to determine the premise of the questions.
@rpavlich Жыл бұрын
In CA recordings can be made of domestic violence
@KhrysPKreme 9 ай бұрын
Texas may be hell, but at least we have one party consent.😢
@brandywinebridget 7 ай бұрын
The problem isn’t with 2 party consent per se-It’s that there isn’t an affirmative defense for situations like that. 2 party consent is very important for protecting privacy-Before revenge porn laws became a thing, it was one of the very few ways to sue for that-but there are definitely glaring problems.
@TheKrispyfort 4 ай бұрын
In Australia you can only record unannounced for the purposes of accuracy of recall when seeking to safeguard your legal rights or the legal rights of others and never for the purposes of display nor publication. You're allowed to ensure an accurate transcript.
@ieet 3 жыл бұрын
I OBJECT! Her actions doing the last 13 years clearly showed that she would have voided the marriage, by her conducting adultery all the way through since the beginning of it.
@jeremiahealy3657 4 ай бұрын
My question is, would the marriage be valid, unless maybe it's a common law marriage, but that's usually about 10 years, and I think both parties still have to consent. that part always messed with me.
@jeremiahealy3657 4 ай бұрын
Lol nevermind I got my answer
@CopShowGuy 4 жыл бұрын
When you drop the "big legal bomb" that cracks the case wide open, the judge is required to render a verdict after the mic is dropped.
@ProAtTyping 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! That sponsorship plug was too damn smooth.
@chaosawaits 5 жыл бұрын
Best sponsorship plug I have ever seen. I wasn't even mad
@IRONMANAustralia 5 жыл бұрын
I second this, and I was actually noticing the fit of your suit mere moments before - true story. So nice work. If anything it got cut unnaturally short, but that's the right side to err on I guess, (the plug, not the suit).
@chaosawaits 5 жыл бұрын
@@IRONMANAustralia An advertisement can never be cut too short, imo
@IRONMANAustralia 5 жыл бұрын
@@chaosawaits I know how you feel. A lot of people feel that way about their lawn too. Speaking of which, if you want a mower than can't cut too short, just go right over to Bob's Grass Emporium and use the code "IRONMAN" for an insane discount on top-of-the-line lawn care products.
@altcommand 5 жыл бұрын
I disagree.
@qelizabeth_i_5013 4 жыл бұрын
"Gentleman Callers"... I love when Law Dad tries to talk about sex
@jiminbang5822 3 жыл бұрын
Says the Queen Elizabeth with many... friends... ;)
@qelizabeth_i_5013 3 жыл бұрын
@@jiminbang5822 excuse you, but there is no evidence of such a matter. I ensured that...
@jiminbang5822 3 жыл бұрын
@@qelizabeth_i_5013 What matter?
@qelizabeth_i_5013 3 жыл бұрын
@@jiminbang5822 there is no evidence that I have ever. been intimate with anyone, hence my nickname “The Virgin Queen”. I have never had any “friends” like those you refer to... at least there’s no record of it
@jiminbang5822 3 жыл бұрын
@@qelizabeth_i_5013 Whoa! What am I referring to? Jumping to conclusions, hmmm?
@FourthDerivative 2 жыл бұрын
Objection: Fletcher can't just "remain silent", it's established in the film that he has to speak truthfully when prompted even when he'd rather not say anything
@bigchooch4434 5 жыл бұрын
19:25 Objection, I've never seen "she said she was 18" work as a valid legal defense
@BillKayNJ 5 жыл бұрын
Objection; A person stating that they were told someone else's age would be considered heresay, but since the birth date and marriage documents show her age (both accurate and falsified), it would not be deemed as such.
@peterf.229 5 жыл бұрын
Objection, I knew someone that got busted for having sex with a minor, the girl had a fake ID, and he still got busted for it..
@quincyking010 5 жыл бұрын
@@peterf.229 ya I had a friend that happened to. It was extremely fucked up
@nrm8831 5 жыл бұрын
In Florida at least the statute specifically says that it isnt a defense
@Sidecutter 5 жыл бұрын
I don't see how you can possible be held culpable if you went as far as checking their ID. Like...you as a citizen cannot be expected to be expert enough to spot a good fake ID, and you can't reasonably be expected to go requesting copies of birth certificates or other verification from everyone you might sleep with.
@kayla4484 5 жыл бұрын
Legally Blonde!!! Exercising gives you endorphins, endorphins make you happy. Happy people don't kill their husband.
@RedRoseSeptember22 5 жыл бұрын
It's "Happy people just don't shoot their husbands" lol.
@KevinCrouch0 5 жыл бұрын
@@RedRoseSeptember22 Exactly. Knives or poison or something instead
@markwhat3637 5 жыл бұрын
Objection Transitive arguments
@jordanmiller3824 5 жыл бұрын
so you were in.......the shower....
@ykl1277 5 жыл бұрын
@@markwhat3637 which part of the chain do you object to? Some people don't get endorphin for exercising? Some people with endorphin don't get happy or some happy people kill?
@katietoole8345 3 жыл бұрын
LegalEagle: Fletcher is really gonna need a new suit. Me: *spits out coffee cuz I know where this is going.
@aalever 10 ай бұрын
12:43 My mobile phone went off mid-case when I was called to jury service in the UK. It was a new phone, thought I'd turned it off, apparently not. Started ringing, everyone looked in my direction, I was mortified and ripped the battery out. The judge reminded the court that all mobile phones must be switched off during the hearing, then they carried on.
@MacAnthony209 5 жыл бұрын
"Voidable. Sort Of. Maaaybe. That Is NOT The Game." Hilarious
@aesgaard41 5 жыл бұрын
Wouldn't the judge have started to question Fletcher Reede's sanity at some point and had him removed????
@bluecomet1109 5 жыл бұрын
I agree but then again we forget...its just a movie
@jackthorton10 5 жыл бұрын
Sustained
@robstrickenfeary 4 жыл бұрын
Judges don't have a big enough IQ to notice those things.
@asdasdasdora 4 жыл бұрын
Fletcher refered to him as "the "honorable" ", implying that he is rumored to be incompetent.
@GarthTheMighty 4 жыл бұрын
The judge actually does acknowledge this. He’s exercising a lot of discretion out of “sheer morbid curiosity.”
@gmaxion2001 4 жыл бұрын
Objection: Would red flags not go up with the IRS when the Cole's did their taxea and Mrs. Cole's stated birthday and her actual birthday don't match?
@clockworkgamma 3 жыл бұрын
IRS dosne pay that much attention.
@clockworkgamma 3 жыл бұрын
@@carolmarie1979 your individual experience does not justify the normal tendency for most or all people.
@Tester-sh1mn 3 жыл бұрын
Why should there be red flags? The only thing the IRS cares about is knowing that “here comes tha money!”
@scifidiva523 2 жыл бұрын
Overruled. The IRS doesn't keep track of birthdays, the Social Security Administration does and shares the information with the IRS. As long as her stated birthday matches what the SSA has on record, no issue will be flagged. Assuming that she doesn't work, then there is a good chance that her date of birth never comes up currently when filing taxes, given that she is not close to being a minor anymore nor close to claiming social security benefits. The biggest reason for the birthday being noticed is if taxes are filed online, as the birthday is used by some companies to help validate identity. However, given the amounts in question, I doubt that the Coles file online instead of having a professional tax preparer.
@chadchelo 2 жыл бұрын
The IRS only care about getting as much money as possible, not if your marriage license is valid or not
@Gewlicious3 3 жыл бұрын
Have you thought of reviewing “Grandma got run over by a Reindeer?” There’s a very drawn out courtroom scene and tis the season 👀
@icurnvs776 3 жыл бұрын
Seconded
@kaylawolfie1111 3 жыл бұрын
Third
@MrMuxix 3 жыл бұрын
Forth
@callyannbrewington1216 3 жыл бұрын
5th!!
@Randoman 2 жыл бұрын
33rd
@boofstain1508 4 жыл бұрын
i love how you take jim carry's acting as normal. explaining mannerisms would make this video 10x longer.
@JeremyNyberg 2 жыл бұрын
There is no explaining Jim Carrey's mannerisms.
@hman2912 Жыл бұрын
Wouldn't make for great viewing
@lt3880 Жыл бұрын
Its actually entirely accurate, many lawyers behave this way
@johnfitzgerald1131 5 жыл бұрын
That bathroom scene ("I'm kickin' my ass...) is one of my favorites of any movie ever.
@tubeyoukonto 2 жыл бұрын
13:45 Objecting to himself. A joke in 1997, reality in 2022. In the Amber Herd Johnny Depp trial.
@connarkent282 Жыл бұрын
Thats what I was thinking. Her lawyer kept on doing it to all of his questions
@steviejohn 3 жыл бұрын
"So click on the playlist, and I'll see you in court" that makes it sound like you are threatening to sue me if I click on the playlist
@harley69 5 жыл бұрын
You should do the courtroom scenes from To Kill a Mockingbird. Not only is it an American classic but I personally believe that it's the most legally accurate courtroom movie
@darkmantlestudios 5 жыл бұрын
I second this
@omnise 5 жыл бұрын
agreed
@eliv127 5 жыл бұрын
Yah that would be a really good one if u haven't done it already. Plus ur kinda linient on the movies realism man. you disagreed with most of the stuff in this one and still a B+
@Chrono_Mitsurugi 5 жыл бұрын
@@eliv127 i like that. Most of the video is just him having a good time and sharing some points of view due to his experience as a lawyer. Its not a hardcore movie review.
@christianali5431 5 жыл бұрын
I second this motion, but also like to put forward evidence based upon what we know about the legal system. The second book by Harper Lee “go set a watchmen,“ [which would have been her first book, if her publishers did not love the look at scouts childhood so much more than the rest of the story] while disappointing to many fans of “to kill a Mockingbird,“ does not actually burst as many bubbles as you would think. A lawyer is supposed to work for his client and is paid for it, Regardless of what he personally thinks about this client. This means that, as painful as it might be to hear, Atticus finch could defend a black man from rape accusations [completely false] in spite of being racist. Not to mention that Atticus knows that his client is innocent. His personal feelings about race don’t factor into it. So, Atticus could still be a bigoted old man even though the events of to kill a mockingbird did happen.
@AL-ov9wx 5 жыл бұрын
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you do a product placement. Organic, quick, and simple.
@GiftsTrix 5 жыл бұрын
Ads increased the quality of non-paid for content. They are incredibly valuable for content creators and the audience because of this.
@AL-ov9wx 5 жыл бұрын
Flynn Livescmd most plugs I’ve seen are 2 minute - 2.5 minute plugs in a 12-ish minute video. This was a 5 second plug in a 25 minute video. I think you’ll survive.
@SubieNinja 5 жыл бұрын
id rather have a plug from the content creator rather than the regular standard youtube interruptions because you can just right arrow key through it unlike some of the non-skippable ads
@RebSike 5 жыл бұрын
Flynn - it was one sentence and, shockingly, he didn't even mention the name of the brand. Cry a river.
@tirsden 5 жыл бұрын
People have also been asking where he gets his suits in comments, so it's relevant on those grounds as well.
@tvens8567 3 жыл бұрын
11:09 Objection: That was too smooth of a self-promoting plug
@criddlegakes2650 Жыл бұрын
"Who did this?!" "A mad man, Your Honour! A desperate fool at the end of his pitiful rope!" Still one of my favourite lines in movie history.
@Leon-wz1js 5 жыл бұрын
Objection: the Electronic Surveillance Act of California went into effect in 2016, while the film in question was recorded in 1997, which predates the statute mentioned. Evidence is thereby admissible without consent by any parties involved.
@kylemeyer2139 5 жыл бұрын
@@darkopz he also made a note that California requires all party consent for recording.
@confusedwhale 5 жыл бұрын
Leon: I object to your objection. CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55] ( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. ) Penal code 632 was added in *1967* , which is before the movie was released, states that "A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding... ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year... or both." Therefore, the law Attorney Stone is referring to has existed before both the movie and the law you stated.
@freakofcockload 5 жыл бұрын
@@confusedwhale Potentially more germane to the trial: PENAL CODE - PEN PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. ) TITLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS CRIMES [626 - 653.75] ( Title 15 enacted 1872. ) CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55] ( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. ) 631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility. (c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. (d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994. (Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 428. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.) Note the date in subsection (d), (c) ostensibly stifles all 'evidence' obtained via surveillance as admissible. So unless, as Mr. Stone suggests, Mrs. Cole was loud enough to be recorded without the aid of any electronic surveillance equipment, this definitely makes the hurtle for the tape to be admitted into evidence that much more difficult. But who knows, maybe they were just in a very echoey room? 😂
@icmann4296 5 жыл бұрын
I do not understand the basis for 2-party consent. If someone says something to me, why should they have an expectation of privacy? For example, if someone is threatening me or extorting me, why should they be afforded legal protection from me recording their illegal threats to facilitate a rightful criminal prosecution for those illegal threats? I understand 3rd party consent. Or whatever the principle would be labelled to protect against arbitrary surveillance from someone not party to a conversation. But if someone talks to me, I should be able to record it if I choose to prove any future claims I make about what was said TO ME and by whom. Can someone explain why that should not be the case?
@rmsgrey 5 жыл бұрын
@@icmann4296 A recording taken out of context can be misleading. And, generally, people will say things in private that they wouldn't want heard in public. Or someone might brag about having done certain things that they haven't actually done in order to enlarge their reputation. A written law is a bad place to try to thread the needle between entrapment on one side (where someone who knows the conversation is being recorded tries to steer it towards incriminating-sounding statements from the other person) and a record of illegal behaviour on the other.
@razorbackpiperguy2898 5 жыл бұрын
On the subject of leading questions, I heard a very funny exchange in court a couple of weeks ago. One attorney asked 3 or 4 leading questions rapid fire, and the other attorney stood up to object. He said, "How many leading questions does she get to ask?" Her response, "As many as I want until you object. I'll move on." Judge put his head down to try and hide his smile. It was great.
@jessicareed3417 5 жыл бұрын
Link
@kosgoth 5 жыл бұрын
Do you have to object to each question? or can you just object to the whole set? Do you have to clarify each thing you are objecting to?
@williamwinder3466 5 жыл бұрын
You can object to a line of questions
@qazwiz 5 жыл бұрын
PLEASE TELL ME there is a "court tv" type recording of that exchange.... one cannot be human if one doesn't wish to view that exchange!
@meekmeads 5 жыл бұрын
Definitely mind games
@mikeg6311 3 жыл бұрын
I OBJECT! By your own testimony in this video, you convinced me that Liar Liar, while an entertaining movie, should receive a grade no higher than C+ for legal accuracy.
@rating9392 6 ай бұрын
I object to your objection. The grading of the movie is simply opinion. Hence, you may give the Movie a C+ while LegalEagle may give it a B+. It's subjective. Someone else may give it a C or a B-. It all depends on what weight you put on particular errors. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I, for one, always go with the opinion of the expert. Lol, it's fun to think of things like a lawyer 😅
@fizzlepop720 3 жыл бұрын
There's a little known law movie called "From The Hip," starring Judd Nelson, who plays a lawyer with very unorthodox methods. Also has a very underrated performance from John Hurt. Would love to see you review that one.
@FantasmagoriaAhoy 5 ай бұрын
Robin "Stormy" Weathers! My high school Creative Writing teacher had us watch it. Great flick!
@rockdeworld 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! Would you provide a link to a video of a bailiff tackling someone? That would be amazing. Also the flames are great.
@stefanwalicord2512 5 жыл бұрын
Second the motion
@thewolfpack7009 5 жыл бұрын
Third that motion.
@thejackal1106 5 жыл бұрын
4th the original motion
@theramo0 5 жыл бұрын
5th
@qdllc 5 жыл бұрын
@@theramo0 - 6th. In my area, if you ask for permission to approach, it's not an issue.
@michaelfrosh 5 жыл бұрын
How about reviewing the court proceedings from the Netflix show Daredevil, specifically season 2’s trail of the Punisher
@kersonwoodyjames5784 5 жыл бұрын
i thought about that, honestly daredevil has lots of cool legal elements to it, not just the punisher trial @LegalEagle
@Vegasbill80 5 жыл бұрын
Yes!! This is the one that goes on the list!
@CaptainVincentRiley 5 жыл бұрын
That would be great!
@R3fug333 5 жыл бұрын
Season 1 Episodes 1 and 3 Season 2 Episodes 2, 6 and 8
@fluffychan6000 5 жыл бұрын
You could also show how Matt was a horrible lawyer. He missed part of the trial because of personal issues instead of asking for a continuance.
@AllardRT Жыл бұрын
About him not being able to keep his mouth shut if he's not allowed to lie - well, what he's really doing is always speaking his mind, which to a child would be the same as never lying - and seeing as it was the child who made the wish, it kinda makes sense.
@beartackle 3 жыл бұрын
I'm so glad I found your channel. I'm not into law, but the way you explain things with a fun movie made this so enjoyable to watch! Great job and I'm looking forward to watching more if your videos!
@kei.13 5 жыл бұрын
You should review the TV Show "The Grinder" The plot is literally about a TV Lawyer who starts practicing real law with his actual lawyer brother who keeps trying to show him how TV law is completely different from real law.
@ellalivingston3947 5 жыл бұрын
Yeah he should do that one!
@davidpuckett3079 5 жыл бұрын
sustained and i completely agree
@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 5 жыл бұрын
I liked that show; it's a shame it didn't get picked up for at least another season or two. I'm a sucker for things making fun of rich phonies, whether they're real or not.
@MadCheshireHat 5 жыл бұрын
@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 this show actually sounds interesting; it was canceled? That sucks.
@davidlamb1107 5 жыл бұрын
@@MadCheshireHat It was hilarious. Rob Lowe was the TV lawyer and Fred Savage was the exasperated real lawyer. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fLWhjLCgrsmqiHU.html
@elqi8129 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! Throughout the video, you said things along the lines of 'Just because he can't lie doesn't mean he has to tell the truth' but based on the evidence and the film's internal logic, the magic wish doesn't just cause him not to lie but causes him to be honest.
@notmakingcontent 4 жыл бұрын
Overruled. What he means is that there's ways that he can make a decent defence for his client without needing to lie. For example, he can object not because "this is bad for my case" but rather "This evidence was against the 2 party consent law" saying that the client was illegally recorded without her consent.
@RorRiiZzLE 4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I got that as the message from the film as well. I think he’s just commenting more about those moments in particular and how he “could’ve” lied through omission, but the message of the movie was not allowing that. It’s just the way the artists went with it. I do wonder though, how much truth and to whom and when does he have to speak it? Because he was able to kinda truthfully weasel his way out of a couple things, he also didn’t always blah about everything he’s done wrong (like the cop/parking tix scene). So, I think not having a consistent amount of lying or truth telling and having it come on bursts to different people at many different times is why I think he really still felt like he could’ve lied through omission.
@LucianUchiha 4 жыл бұрын
Rory Smith the movie established that he couldn’t even lie to himself, by himself in a room with no one else in it, see the pen scene. It also established that he couldn’t lie through omission, doing so caused him to sputter out the truth, see scenes with Greta. The cop’s question when he pulled him over was “do you know why I stopped you” and Fletcher responded with “depends on how long you’ve been following me”. The cop then states: “Let’s take it from the top, shall we?” Fletcher then lists off every crime he committed while speeding. His blabbering about his tickets stems from the further question: “Anything else?” So by omission, he cannot lie either. All of this ties together with Max’s birthday wish of no lying. This wasn’t a black and white wish, it was vague and as such, it applied vaguely and covered any form of lying. “I wish my dad couldn’t lie for one whole day.” And as I’ve pointed out, it is a wide covering thing.
@justuslm 4 жыл бұрын
@@notmakingcontent I think the magic makes it impossible for him to say things that could be considered as avoiding the truth if the truth is not defined by factual accuracy, but rather by moral standards (based on the morals of his own superego, presumably). Under this definition, he cannot really weasel his way out of things, and a good example is the cop, where for example, responding with "no" to the question if he knows why he has been pulled over would be truthful, as he doesn't know it because he doesn't know how long he has been followed, but it wouldn't be moral because he may have broken more laws than the cop has seen. However, he can create circumstances under which he doesn't have to weasel his way out of things, such as beating himself up. _This means that the notion of moral truth only affects what he says, not his actions._ That also explains why he explains the laws he broke to the cop, but is still able to break them in the first place, even though he knows that is immoral (proven by the fact that he deems it necessary to disclose the crimes because of the curse). Of course, this also makes it interesting to take note on what Fletcher now considers immoral, because it basically includes everything he would do to make a case for his client, which somewhat makes sense as the "most moral thing" is to be impartial, and a lawyer is, by design of their position in court, virtually never impartial. This means that Fletcher, on some level, values absolute morals over the specific morals connected to the position as a lawyer, where you are only a part of a process that tries to be impartial in its entirety, not in every participant. This could serve to show that Fletcher was never well suited for this profession in the first place, as all of his actions that made him a good lawyer were, while justified in his own mind, still going against his moral compass.
@MrDragonorp 4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, it's not that he can't lie. He has to be 100% honest and truthfull, including giving all the relevant facts.
@PPikes 4 жыл бұрын
I absolutely LOVE this channel 🙌 a real lawyer giving real info on these Hollywood law movies! So many things I didn't realize were real or fake!
@storkksoundmedia7778 3 жыл бұрын
“Your honor I object!” “On what grounds?” “Because it’s devastating to my case!” “Overruled.” 😂😂
@fluffyeevee383 5 жыл бұрын
YOUR HONOR I OBJECT!!! And why is that Mr. Reed? BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO MY CASE! Overruled GOOD CALL Literally the reason I watched this video to see his reaction to that
@johannesdolch 4 жыл бұрын
"You're Honor" ?
@swimsvg1855 4 жыл бұрын
@@johannesdolch he is honor
@rafaelrafaelrafael 4 жыл бұрын
You're honor, I'm object.
@storkksoundmedia7778 3 жыл бұрын
Best line in the movie haha
@WrecklessEating 5 жыл бұрын
These are very entertaining. Great channel.
@VikingVern 5 жыл бұрын
WrecklessEating what’s up Matt Zion!!!!
@felixd6001 5 жыл бұрын
And formative! Stimulates your brain and pulls society up
@Mr1worldin 5 жыл бұрын
WrecklessEating holy shit I didn’t know you guys watched this channel xD
@knwilliams13 5 жыл бұрын
My guy Matt!!!
@MyFanMadeFilms 5 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION! This was *extremely* entertaining to the point I subscribed for more.
@tomg3818 4 жыл бұрын
"Engaging in conduct so loudly" LMFAO
@GrimmBones 2 жыл бұрын
"I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR" "...to yourself?" Ah, I see where Amber Heard's lawyer got this from now.
@BrandyFord-xv5rx 7 ай бұрын
😂😂
@EnTyme53 4 жыл бұрын
I love that the "Think Like a Lawyer" pose is the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney pose.
@chaosawaits 5 жыл бұрын
I just want to point out how cool it is that so many commenters actually write "OBJECTION" and take this really seriously. I'm not a lawyer but this is one of the most fun channels on KZfaq
@lzi9452 5 жыл бұрын
chaosawaits Lets hope hope memelords don’t ruin it by trying to be funny when they eventually reach a million subscribers.
@ussinussinongawd516 2 жыл бұрын
@@lzi9452 2 years and 2 million
@kylestoddart 2 жыл бұрын
Except like 90% of youtubers. They don't respond to comments.
@cartnonarcs9519 Жыл бұрын
I Objectively fell out of my chair in laughter. Overruled. Great video.
@animefn 3 жыл бұрын
I went to subscribe, only to realize I was already subscribed. These videos are so fun and informative!
@PhantomSavage 5 жыл бұрын
You should REALLY cover a movie called "From The Hip" with John Hurt and Judd Nelson. Some really interesting and fun courtroom scenes and tactics in that movie.
@sce2aux464 5 жыл бұрын
Seconded!
@dazxmedia 5 жыл бұрын
thirded
@bigtb1717 5 жыл бұрын
I just watched that movie for the first time a couple weeks ago. Would be fun to see him "Lawyer" that movie.
@vexzusdragon8556 3 жыл бұрын
Awesome movie
@Stormkrow280 3 жыл бұрын
John Hurt was Always entertaining R.I.P.
@aman7488 5 жыл бұрын
The Trial of R Kelly from the Boondocks should DEFINITELY be reviewed :D
@darksbrawl2701 4 жыл бұрын
I love watching these I can watch these over and over and I’ll have to watch it 100 times to get tired of it
@bogtrotter17 2 жыл бұрын
I was summoned to jury duty in richmond va and while I left my phone in my car I saw a couple of other potential jurors essentially hide their phones outside of the court building. We also had to deal with some lady who was upset that jury duty takes time and her job was simply too important to spend all day at court. While the rest of us did our duty she loudly whined and was nearly held with contempt. It was really uncomfortable. I meanwhile spent about 4 hours not working on a Monday before being dismissed. Just do your part.
@slanderbender6060 5 жыл бұрын
I love that you can tell he really enjoyed this movie and, unlike the other stuff he evaluates, he had seen it before and thought it deserved nearly one hour of analysis and a two-parter special. Good for you. I, too, love this film and am not ashamed of it
@peterf.229 5 жыл бұрын
I need to rewatch Liar Liar.. its my second favorite Jim Carrey movie, my top favorite is Me, Myself and Irene.
@beckiehubley5798 3 жыл бұрын
@@peterf.229 I think my favourite is The Truman Show. But I've never watched Me, Myself and Irene.
@cosmodeus1720 5 жыл бұрын
Here's one for you: the Chewbacca Defense from South Park.
@andybearchan 5 жыл бұрын
This!!!
@AleXannon92 5 жыл бұрын
Impossible even for him It just doesn't make sense.
@cosmodeus1720 5 жыл бұрын
@@AleXannon92 I even found a wikipedia article for The Chewbacca Defense. That does not make sense!. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
@bleach_drink_me 2 жыл бұрын
Glad this came up on my feed. I enjoyed both parts.
@TxSonofLiberty 3 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION: The PI has the homeowners consent to record all events on his property. The property is under surveillance, and just like you can't object to cameras watching you in a store or business, you cannot use the two-party consent to protect you on someone else's property.
@rogerahier4750 Ай бұрын
No, but it can protect her because it's also her house.
@WillRock07 5 жыл бұрын
Just wanna say the segway into the lawyer suit advertisement was goddamn genius lmao
@jazy921 5 жыл бұрын
Uhmm objection, it's actually spelled "segue" and not "segway", unless you're referring to a motorized, two-wheel personal vehicle, in which this case it does not.
@EvelinaNinudottir 5 жыл бұрын
Your sponsored content is so elegantly merged into the video, it's actually convincing me that the products must be good.
@veta0104 Жыл бұрын
This is still one of my absolute favorite movies! So well done
@rodney2134 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this walk down memory lane. I'll have to track it down &watch it again.
@jessicacostilla3571 5 жыл бұрын
I would love for you to do Legally Blonde 1 & 2 and the court scene in Big Daddy
@Alexandra-wp2qo 5 жыл бұрын
Yeeeeeeees
@wolfyeb 5 жыл бұрын
Yea, i'm kinda surprised that wasn't the lead in. I'd love to see what you think of the ammonium thioglycolate defense.
@theLOSTranger234 5 жыл бұрын
I approve this!
@NetAndyCz 5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, please do Legally Blonde!
@WooWoo0821 5 жыл бұрын
Big daddy yes
@VicenteTorresAliasVits 5 жыл бұрын
There are some things I wished you had covered: -The scene where FLETCHER insults every member of the firm and they all laugh. Even if they find him funny, would they still want and/or be allowed to make him partner after saying things like "slut"? -Why wasn't FLETCHER's 2nd question to the lover "And how do you know my client?" and go from there? -When FLETCHER has a change of heart, he tells the judge "I think there's been a mistake" and he replies "Please, it's been a long day and I'm tired." Regardless of the working hours, wouldn't a judge be obliged to double-check if there's something that could affect his verdict? -FLETCHER constantly raises his voice (usually at the judge), exageratedly spits water all over the table, makes jokes about MRS. COLE's hair color and bra size and calls DANA a hag when she objects... and he's not held in contempt until *after* the trial?
@dominickschrute3084 4 жыл бұрын
Fletcher can't ask the man that question because they had worked out lies to the questions and the curse permitted him from engaging in that kind of deception. He explains that to the two of them in a scene outside the courthouse. The judge isn't obligated to stay, he'd already ruled and Fletcher was making a moral claim not a legal one. I'm no lawyer but I've spent too much time in courtrooms, and I'll also say that if it's time court to end, everybody is ready to gtfo of there. Sitting in court until 5 pm is mind numbing for everyone.
@HAMF9666 3 жыл бұрын
"I'm kicking my ass." - Jim Carrey
@RaeofSunshine91 3 жыл бұрын
Only found this channel recently. Love your videos. Would like to see you take on the Chicago Justice series
@wartoc3708 5 жыл бұрын
Objection?: This is civil court not criminal. The judgement to allow the evidence (obtained legally or not) is up to the judge.
@sheriff0017 5 жыл бұрын
It's often not. In my jurisdiction (family matters are federal matters in my country), the Court has to exclude illegally obtained evidence unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting illegally obtained evidence - citation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138. That statute contains matters the Court must consider in making its decision.
@rogerahier4750 Ай бұрын
@@sheriff0017 Sooooo, it's up to the judge.
@bigfatcarp93 5 жыл бұрын
I really, really want to see you do Daredevil. Like, a LOT of Daredevil. Like many episodes.
@Filomatia 5 жыл бұрын
up this comment.
@thiccvicx 3 жыл бұрын
Please review Monty Python's "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu"
@plushiesaurp2068 3 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video, I love how approachable you make the law - something that is mostly cnsidered very confusing and complicated. I'm learning so much and having a great time! Would you ever talk about the musical Chicago? Either just the trial itself, or the movie overall. It' one of my favourite films and there are some aspects I woud love to hear a professional talk about!
@CoridanNJ 5 жыл бұрын
How about a react to a Judge Judy episode?
@RabblesTheBinx 5 жыл бұрын
Or Judge Joe Brown. He could do the episode involving my parents. It was glorious.
@reeba4824 5 жыл бұрын
Lol yesssss that would be interesting
@malfattio2894 5 жыл бұрын
Or judge Rinder lol
@janinavargas824 5 жыл бұрын
Yyyyaaaaasssss
@walternelson2687 5 жыл бұрын
@@RabblesTheBinx Or the episode with my parents. The guy's a jackass.
@thehoodedteddy1335 4 жыл бұрын
Could he have like, called himself off the case with the excuse that he is very clearly having some sort of psychological break?
@nowandaround312 3 жыл бұрын
I guess he had accepted the curse by that point and did not sincerely believe that he was mentally ill
@lilymarinovic1644 2 жыл бұрын
@@nowandaround312 remember he cannot lie. So he cannot claim illness if he isn't actually ill.
@connordorman117 Жыл бұрын
@@lilymarinovic1644 but he probably isn't thinking he is cursed, wouldn't he think that his inability to lie is some form of mental condition?
@lilymarinovic1644 Жыл бұрын
@@connordorman117 haven't seen the film in a long while but doesn't his child make the wish in front of him? So he knows.the reason that he cannot lie and that it isn't just him going nuts.
@connordorman117 Жыл бұрын
@@lilymarinovic1644 I thought the kid made the wish while he was at work.
@RatedRKO269 19 күн бұрын
I’m a new subscriber and loving this channel. One thing I’ve learned is how many films have lawyers enter the well despite it not being allowed - something I never knew. I wonder why so many films have lawyers do this.
@Jacki17belfast 3 жыл бұрын
Just found this channel it’s so interesting. Can your next movie review be the run away jury? One of my favourite movies and would love to know what they did well and not so well.
@purewitz 5 жыл бұрын
You should do, "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law" next.
@lancecombes 5 жыл бұрын
I second this!
@thedrunkenhatter1839 5 жыл бұрын
Motion carried...court adjourned
@MrHeavy466 5 жыл бұрын
Everybody get in here!
@BrokeBot 5 жыл бұрын
did ya get that thing I sent ya?
@bluebearyq 5 жыл бұрын
Oh my god, yes!
@pyguy7 5 жыл бұрын
*OBJECTION!* It has become apparent by the KZfaq comment section and viewer witnesses that James of Legal Eagle has not reacted to "DAREDEVIL" as of yet and are making a formal complaint. The plaintiffs request a recess so that the defendent may review this evidence and this malfeasance may be exonerated.
@roshskanthalagan6133 5 жыл бұрын
Honestly. Not sure there is much legal drama in daredevil for him to look at
@ShamelessFNGRL 5 жыл бұрын
@@roshskanthalagan6133 There's definitely not enough Murdock in court... but I wouldn't mind him taking a look at the Aaron James court case scene, but I also don't want him to rip DD apart so much that it's no longer enjoyable to watch mindlessly (if that were the case). The movie however, he should knock himself out with that one. Would love to see.
@michaelmarini4627 5 жыл бұрын
@@roshskanthalagan6133 There are loads of court cases in that show. Matt Murdock is a lawyer in that one.
@shaelynmartin1996 5 жыл бұрын
I would love to see him respond to the Punisher court hearing. No there isn't much of Matt Murdock in that one, but Foggy gets some excellent screen time.
@TSkillz407 Жыл бұрын
Found you because of Dr Mike and now I’m watching your channel and subscribed. 🎉. I object that you haven’t done more law and order svu and medical show episodes.
@susanlain4604 2 жыл бұрын
Love your videos. Please review The Lincoln Lawyer. I would love to see what your take is about the situation the lawyer was in
@Cristopher.C 5 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION! He's not José Canseco 24:56
@ddeerrtt5 5 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION! This is not the second episode of Better Call Saul.
@rustyshackleford851 5 жыл бұрын
Right? Do every BCS episode
@robertpatter5509 Жыл бұрын
Legal Eagle: "That's a very interesting question." Me: " By interesting you mean..." Legal Eagle: "Expensive" Runkle of the Bailey: "And that's how you play it"
@susanlain4604 2 жыл бұрын
Love your videos. Please review The Lincoln Lawyer would love to hear your take on the situation the lawyer is in.
@herronariela7469 5 жыл бұрын
Do the movie mrs.doubtfire next, there's a lot of broken laws there
@seanfroelich6666 5 жыл бұрын
Yes please that would be awesome
@peterf.229 5 жыл бұрын
a walk by fruiting ;) that has to be illegal
@barbarayoung7109 5 жыл бұрын
Yes!!!
@Blasted2Oblivion 5 жыл бұрын
Matpat did a video on that very movie. As he isnt a lawyer, I cant speak to his accuracy but, he seems to do his research and said that the charges would result in a lifetime in prison.
@CrownMe13 4 жыл бұрын
Aaron for those that don’t know matpat runs the show film theory
@TonkusLee 5 жыл бұрын
I would love to see you react to the Netflix series "Making a Murder" the Steve Avery case
@ninja9p598 5 жыл бұрын
YEEEEESSSSS PLEASE!!!!
@rocghost2190 5 жыл бұрын
Hmmm that would be interesting
@utschemezmuer 5 жыл бұрын
The Real Crime Profile made a great podcast series about that documentary from a law enforcement viewpoint btw
@SkyFortressDamocles 5 жыл бұрын
Yes please !
@Hershey002 5 жыл бұрын
Yes! I agree!
@havenandaura 3 жыл бұрын
Wait, so you're telling me whenever somebody walks into the well in movies/shows you're actually not allowed to during testimony?
@marktheobald7169 3 жыл бұрын
Love the show really informative but I would love to hear your thoughts on a few of the John Grisham books.
@whoiswillo 5 жыл бұрын
So, while not based in the U.S. Justice System, there is a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "The Measure of a Man" that deals with several legal concepts and I'd absolutely love to hear you comment on how the show uses them.
@weepingscorpion8739 5 жыл бұрын
The Drumhead would also be a potential candidate.
@JayeCole 5 жыл бұрын
whoiswillo good shout! I would love to see that episode reviewed as well!
@wartang 5 жыл бұрын
I would also like to add encouncter at farpoints trial.
@CRX2200 5 жыл бұрын
Death Wish from Star Trek Voyager would be interesting, too :)
@wartang 5 жыл бұрын
@@AscendingAce fair point. I withdraw my question.
@JoanVetulani 5 жыл бұрын
"The Man Who Sued God" with Billy Connoly would be great to see broken down, as the case in the film is quite interesting.
@Alex-cn9uj 3 жыл бұрын
I don't know how you find time to make youtube videos. These are great! 👍
@RichieS83 4 жыл бұрын
I'm surprised that "To Kill A Mockingbird" isn't on your video reviews! Please can you do this one next? 😁 Also I love watching your videos! Great content. 👍👍
@heyitisTIANNA 5 жыл бұрын
I love your channel! It would be cool if you did 'Miracle on 34th Street'. It's my favourite Christmas movie and I've always wondered how legally accurate it is
@dawn8293 4 жыл бұрын
Tianna Salvati-Taylor sustained
@californiacurt 5 жыл бұрын
I'm just here for words like "persnickety" and phrases like "gild the lily". Love this channel!
@bombardier420 5 жыл бұрын
Persnickety caught me off guard for sure hahahahaha. Guild the Lily not so much, but I bet my listening to Adam Carrola has jaded me to that one 😆
@daylarfarshot523 3 жыл бұрын
Had alot of fun watching this set. Liar Liar is one of my favs. Another one of my favorites is Star Trek 6: Undiscovered Country. You might have fun with the klingon court scene in that movie and would enjoy seeing your take on it.
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 3,5 МЛН
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 3,1 МЛН