The hits keep coming…Giuliani guilty on all defamation counts for repeatedly lying about two election workers causing them to suffer through hundreds of credible death threats from MAGgots thanks to repeatedly refusing to follow the judges orders and being under numerous contempt and sanction orders including a new $130000 sanction because he can’t follow any instructions or maintain a single legal position without contradicting himself.

Now the judge is sending it to the jury with a guilty verdict with instructions that Giuliani has refused to comply with submitting financial documents so is intentionally hiding his net worth and the jury should take that into account when determining damages.

This is the level of competence all MAGA lawyers exhibit constantly, worse than a first year law student, and it’s destroyed your party and turned it into a criminal terrorist organization all for one failed cult leader. Expect 91 felony convictions at this rate, many state felonies that can’t be pardoned.

Bonus - AZ, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Michigan secretaries of State are all working to define the process to remove Trump from their ballots in accordance with amendment 14 section 3 of the constitution Trump tried to permanently “suspend” (the constitution he has vowed to ignore and destroy if returned to power). I don’t think they’re the only ones.

Sorry if I’m being over sensitive….anything that seems to legitimize the bastardized definition of CRT, in my eyes, is buying into the intentional political ruse to paint any anti racism program, plan, or organization, even unpleasant history with the “CRT” label (and everyone knows CRT is the Devil), and I find that upsetting, even when it’s unintentional….maybe more so when it’s unintentional because that means the rebranding and improper conflation is working.

I think you know, CRT is an advanced law class taken by law students, not a racist movement to erase white people from history as the right claims, not a diabolical plan to make all white children self hating BLM activists, and it really irks me how successful the publicly admitted, intentional, blatantly racist scapegoating and misrepresentation has worked.

It seemed you were accepting the right wing definition even as you dismissed the (I assume anti) “CRT” movement by comparing it to unconstitutional anti German/foreign language laws in the past. Apologies if I misunderstood or came across as accusatory.

Oh no!
Good….Trump (likely) only has $93 million in liquid assets….1% of the 10 billion he’s claimed. None of his properties have shown a profit in at least two years, and they all are essentially owned by the banks that loaned him the money to buy them.
Better….he has $750 million in loan debts due in the next few years.
Best…. he also has between $100-$300 million in back taxes to pay or go to prison.

Sounds like Daddy Trump is going to be sleeping on your couch soon, he already spent all your political donations on defending his own criminal cases, and they’re all still moving forward. His lawyers are making arguments first year law students would laugh at, not actual defenses….and have bled both his and the RNCs coffers dry.
D’oh! Bad year to be a Trumpster.

Congratulations! Your video, Law Student Sent To Ex-Gay Therapy, Puts Counselor to Shame., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 88 Badge!

Your video, Law Student Sent To Ex-Gay Therapy, Puts Counselor to Shame., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The first time I saw this video, I was a first year law student, lamenting that I hadn't taken the road not traveled. For about a week straight, I would play this as soon as I woke up to get right and face the day. Sometimes it brought tears to my eyes. Right now, I am writing this message in my high school science lab, with the video playing up on the overhead. My students asked me why I became a high school science teacher when I have a license to practice law. This is my answer.

47 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

am I the only one that was hoping for some actual robots? I had this cool mental image of a terminator robot getting talked down by a law student

Congratulations! Your comment on Law Student Prevails Over State Robot Thug has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 12 Badge!

oops, duplicates a plenty:
http://videosift.com/video/Judge-Rips-Law-Student-a-New-Poo-hole
http://videosift.com/video/Some-Stiff-Competition-for-Judge-Judy

*kill

All I see here is a law student attempting to weasel out of a ticket.

This clip's an utter embarrassment to both men.

A policeman isn't a legal expert and it would be unfair to expect them to be. But he should at least have a basic understanding of the laws he's routinely enforcing and the ability should be there to communicate them. This here was appallingly bad.

I notice the guy on the bike didn't comment on the allegation or provide us with the footage of him going through the lights. And the policeman would have no reason to lie over something so trivial. So I'll assume a strong possibilty he jumped them. Then he uses his legal knowledge from the get go in an effort to wriggle out of dealing with the issue of guilt, which sadly the policeman is ill equipped to handle. It bugs me when the issue of right and wrong gets sidelined for who's best at playing the game.

But at least it saved this guy a ticket and the tale probably scored him kudos with his law student buddies. Amazes me that he'd want to share it with the rest of us though.

Wouldn't it have been a far better situation if the cyclist had apologised, accepted his mistake, and the policman had used his discretionary powers to simply ask him to be a little more careful.

According to Huffington Post this was done as a parody video made by a law student for the "University of Calgary annual Law Show talent show".

When you know that this is playing to a room full of law students you can see how this is being played for laughs. While the students are really law students what they say is all scripted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/students-create-dear-me-video_n_1306514.html

HOLY CRAP, NOT THIS AGAIN.

As a Swedish law student, let me tell you one thing, which I can, with absolute certainty; "sex by surprise" DOES NOT EXIST AS A CRIME IN SWEDEN.

I can't speak to any of the truth about the accusers backgrounds or chain of events or anything like that. But as to the content of Swedish law I can tell you that EVERYTHING in this video is absolute bullshit. It is simply untrue and infuriates the crap out of me.

As best as I can tell, someone pulled this stuff about "sex by surprise" and that the existence or not of a condom makes it rape STRAIGHT OUT OF THEIR ASS. And for some reason the rest of the world just seems to run with it, without fact checking it. So please, for the love of @#%$, let's put those things behind us. There's no such thing as sex by surprise in Sweden, and wearing or not wearing a condom is no prerequisite for the crime of rape.

This is the matter of law here; she (in both cases) claims that the sex started out consensual and then she told him to stop, and he wouldn't. Is this rape? In most countries the answer is actually yes, if it can be proven, but it usually comes down to a he-said/she-said battle of evidence.

The rest (when, what they did after, who said what, etc.) are matters of evidence, which might make the accusation more likely or not, but are not the matter of law.

So once more for the cheap seats; 'sex by surprise'; there's no such crime (but of course putting your penis into someone who's sleeping and yelling 'surprise' when they wake up still isn't a good idea; because it's rape, not because it's 'sex by surprise'). Sex without a condom; not even close to any kind of rape any more in Sweden then it is anywhere else in the world.

So there.

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?