@@JB-xl2jc Swing and a miss. He was asked something that he didn't quite understand the use of term, and didn't want to perjure himself when the term wasn't defined. That's just called "not wanting to get in trouble." Liquidity means many things, though usually it means "has more money than debts owed" while in this specific case, it only meant "income > spending" Those are two definitions of liquid, and he doesn't want to slip up when the lawyer asked a vague question that doesn't define the term appropriately. A stock exchange is liquid if it has as much money in the bank as assets that traders are holding on the platform. That's the standard definition, but it did NOT apply here.
@@Nathan-dt2tu Spending more than you take in is a cash flow problem, not a liquidity problem. I think the witness wanted to point out that difference by defining liquidity before the attorney snuck in that irrelevant "spending more than he was taking in!!" jibe at the end.
The lawyer was asking such MISLEADING questions. Liquidity doesn't show if a person is broke. Almost all of us have liquidity problems i.e our short term liabilities are more than our short term assets (i.e cash coming in) The Accountant CLEARLY stated that Depp has multiple Long Term Assets (properties, etc) Depp can easily sell off one of his LT Assets to pay off loans or ST liabilities. In no way is he facing "money problems" just because of liquidity. We all take loans because we have liquidity problems and we pay it off over a period of time. I was SO PISSED with his questions. He clearly doesn't understand hiw money and finances work.
Im sure he does know what it is, but his objective is to make Depp look broke. All he has to do is convince the jury... and the jury is manipulated by these questions. For all we know the lawyer just plays dumb to get this done.
He knows, he's just acting dumb to position himself so he can sneak in that one line, "spending more than he was taking in!!". Well, not knowingly (spending more) of course, because if he'd known people had been ripping him off for years and wiping out his assets, you can bet he'd have stopped spending so much. But the lawyer wants something else...to paint him as irresponsible, etc...whatever...such a strange defense for defaming someone.
Accountants are just human computers, such a dull job that requires computing power and not intelligence or being smart. There is a distinction between someone who is intelligent and someone who can analyse and compute. Not that there cannot be an overlap (and in fact I’d say there often is) but they’re different things.
@@Welari12 You often hear about how certain groups of people are very intelligent and you develop these ideas in your head that there exist infallible geniuses you couldn’t relate to. For me, as an English person, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were the go to for where intelligent people resided. I’ve been fortunate to spend a fair amount of time with students of these places and low and behold they just turned out to be normal people. People that don’t understand things sometimes, make mistakes and do all sorts of stupid things. Yes they are very knowledgeable about the subjects they study but they aren’t these mythical beings of extreme intellect we like to imagine. I learnt that wherever you, you’ll find someone stupid. We all are in at least some respect.
@@jaymercer4692 I've also heard once you get to Uni it's less talent and more hard work - you can't just keep winging it in the perfect scenario as a "gifted kid".
Accounting requires ability to analyze, self correct and learn, because generally you are working with hard unbending numbers, and even more ruthless laws. Being able back up everything you do with a paper trail and process you used. A lot of lawyers can get through a lot of cases on pure bullshit and emotional appeal, and 90% of their arguments can and will be changed at any time. Case in point, Rottenborn 10 minutes after this clip defends against the hearsay objection he used previously, with much less basis, but gets it overruled, by the same judge that allowed it before. Its different kinds of intelligence, but I would say the accountants are gonna be on average more intelligent than lawyers because it is a requirement.
@@zombiegun71 I think the jury likes Johnny more and after all these people speaking and have said she is the one that starts arguments and such I don't see how she can win. With all the recordings she has why does she not have any of him abusing her or photos of all the marks he supposedly left on her. Yes he has drug and drinking issues but so does she if what people are saying is true that she was drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine a day. She seems like the abusive one not him and her legal team knows it and are trying to get things that have nothing to do with if he was abusing her because the point of this trial is about if she lied when saying he abused her because it cost him money and his reputation by her saying he did.
Yahh I dont wanna judge Amber Turd's lawyers too hard. Even though they're definitely grasping at straws at this case, this is the job they were hired to do
Because he's using it in the stupid, sloppy cultural connotation of "having disposable money available." He literally could've just "money problems" in the sense he was using it.
Amber's lawyer not only doesn't know his terminology,but he is also extremely rude to the witness (Plus the witness is old man aka having respect for old people,in my opinion is sign of good (behavior) discipline and respect towards people).He talks to him like he is a random dude on the street.Disrespectful and shameful 🙄.Shows how dumb and shady the lawyer is.
they obviously are vultures trying to win a case that will get them a lot of money they couldn't give a shit about the lives of the people they are representing
Amber's lawyer was not shady or dumb, or rude, he was asking specific questions, while not allowing witness to change the narrative. That's called cross-examination. In fact the witness was rude and uncooperative, to the point that Johny's lawyer was trying to indicate to him to stop arguing by shaking his head. It got so bad, that the judge had to explain to him, that now he is supposed to answer the asked questions only, and he will get the chance to explain them afterwards on redirect. I do think that Amber's lawyers so far haven't had a great performance, I also support Johny, but please don't mistake standard court procedures as being rude and shameful :)
I feel bad for the lawyers. Such a thankless job. I hope they are overcharging her. Actually, I don't think you can overcharge for a job as lousy like this...
Lawyers are supposed to have the skill to analyse the data they have and decide if this is a case to pick up or ignore. They went on and took the case even when more than half of the data they had was full of baseless claims and lies made up by Amber. I find it difficult that these lawyers couldn't understand that most of the infornation they had were baseless and hollow. Either they knew it and still sided with Amber or they simply believed that she was the victim and went on with it. Whatever the reason, this case might be the worst thing happened to them.
I’m no lawyer (yet, I start law school in the fall) but one of those cliches you always hear is never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. This doesn’t quite fit perfectly but if you don’t know the definition of a word within your question you should probably rephrase your question, not only for your own sake but the jury’s sake too…
He knows the definition because he provides it later. I think he was trying to get the witness to say Depp was having money problems as the witness saying it sounds more compelling to the jury than the lawyer saying it and the witness just giving a yes or no answer.
Then he should have rephrased his questioning. If you rewatch his style if questioning, it's more of intimidation + a level of stupidity = dumb arrogance = high incompetence. He's goal is to try his best to get the witnesses to say incriminating things against Johnny by pressuring/intimidating him. But it ends up making him look too stupid to do this type of work. the witnesses just look dumbfounded then either sigh or give that 'this is ridiculous' smile. I have yet to see him ask a proper sensible question. And properly verify things. Until then my opinion of him retains that he's like a riled up bull who's supposed to chase red but ends up charging on every colour there is.
shocked when the witness replied "can you define liquidity for me" attorney didn't "object" then state "leading" your Honor, the witness is trying to lead me.... ... this show is definitely going to win a globe for "best new comedy in a genuine working environment" .. props.. saturday night live has material for the next 2-3 decades, you guys rock!
@@wectyler3817 yeah that mostly involves abuse…we all know Johnny does drugs and drinks. He has been very open about it..ambers lawyers keeps asking questions that are not relevant to the abuse claims that defamed Johnny and got him fired from many roles.
Since the previous guy who replied seems to be part of Heard's legal team (lol), no they have not. They have not proven that Johnny Depp did indeed abuse her, only that he has a drinking and probably a drug problem. Their whole defense is practically "well sir he's a drunk, so he has to be beating her" The sad reality is there is a chance that Johnny won't win this trial strictly off the fact that Amber did not name drop him. Although anybody with a brain would could see the evidence brought forth by Depp, and obviously tell what her intentions were
I don't think everybody knows about assets and liabilities. Not everybody is a financial analyst. I don't get why everybody is laughing at him? I bet almost nobody here knows what short term assets and short term liabilities are.
I'm not a business major but I learned liquidity/liquidation when I took my ECON101. This lawyer was embarrassed the other day when he called hearsay during his own line of questioning and is now trying to embarrass other people. Pathetic.
@@sabotage7773 He very definitely objected to his own question - the judge even called it out. In the "Amber Heard's Attorney Objects To His Own Question" video it is at the 40 second mark.
The lawyer balked at the words assets and liability...you shouldn't need a business degree to understand that. I'd guess most middle schoolers know what those are
I really have an issue with comments calling this man “the old man “. He’s an educated, highly intelligent, respectable man. Now, say what you want about Heard’s lawyers… those people are the exact opposite of this gentleman!
@@kripaharris237 Very successful lawyer where to him, tabloid articles are facts and not hearsay and objecting to his questions. Key to success, right?
My Trial Strategy professor in law school had what he called the "2 syllable rule." We couldn't use any word longer than 2 syllables on anything we turned in or presented, unless there was no other substitute. Big words annoy the jury and the judge. So "altercation" would be "fight" and "liquidity problems" would be "spending more than he was earning." Any time I see lawyers try to be fancy, I remember the 2 syllable rule.
If you went to business school you might know the word can have different means. It could mean "cash". It could be "quick assets". It would mean "current assets", or it could mean enough assets to cover all the debt. The word is liquid (pardon pun) depending on how it is used and in what context.
@@rh6625 Yes, but the attorney should have defined it when asked by the business manager since the attorney was the one who used the term in his own question.
For the record the Lawyer probably does know the economic terms my friend who works in law said this is a tactic a lot of litigation lawyers use to trip witnesses to get them to change their testimony or make them feel uneasy. Rottenborn has won numerous high profile litigations for some of the top companies in the USA so he definitely knows what he is doing, he's using a psychological tactic to get him to admit that Johnny is the reason for his career issues not Amber.
Well and look how that turned out for him he sounds like a total flop ...the witness was calm n collective it would have to take the lawyer more than that to pursue him so MISSION FAILED 😂
@@BTS-iw3gb so what? You can’t possibly trigger every witness, that’s part of the job and you have to deal with this. Also, it does not help when you don’t have a case on the facts
"I don't speak all these business terms that you speak." Bro, YOU literally asked the question with that fucking term. Also, I don't think you should brag about not knowing basic business terms when YOU'RE A LAWYER. You should probably know basic business term that even 5th graders are familiar with.
he did that for two reasons: 1) trying to force words from the witness that would be beneficial to his client's case; 2) make sure the testimony is done in simpler words not to lose the attention of the jury give the guy more credit, he is likely smarter than 99 percent of people commenting here and has a very impressive track record of won cases
At it's simplest of forms... Liquidity is like walking into a gas station and attempting to pay for an item with a credit card. But say their CC machine is down... And you have no cash on hand. TECHNICALLY... YOU HAVE A LIQUIDITY PROBLEM.
The fact that a lawyer doesn’t know the meaning of liquidity is strange and that he doesn’t know the terms of business school. I mean I’m a pharmacist and am familiar with some of these terms because we had a business course in school which I’m sure all the other mahors have
There is so much Amber’s layers don’t understand that’s it embarrassing for her. I can’t even imagine what kind of notes she’s constantly writing unless she’s writing WTF over and over again.
I think I am going to sneak into the courtroom tonight before they close and leave a few jugger pins on Ambers team desk with a note that reads, "hale why not, you are paying them right?"
Really?! No one is talking about the court officers in the back threatening to kick someone out for laughing so much? 😂. This trial is this generation’s OJ trial. Will be remembered and joked about for decades
Notice the officers confronting the ladies in the back? ..I would assume for laughing all the time. The older lady looked like she said "not me, it was them". lol
And yet they still haven't thrown the lawyer out and ordered him to be disbarred, even though he doesn't even understand his own questions.... You can't just ask some bullshit, even though you don't even Know WHAT you are asking from the victim...
@Bla Bla of course it is, but that's my point. The court should have thrown him out at the latest on day 2 or 3 (in fact, there shouldn't even have been a day 2 or 3 in the first place)
I love how he asks for a definition, gets denied, then provides one
Pretty common really, clarifying a question while also giving yourself plenty of time to speak and giving your opponent an opportunity to slip up
@@JB-xl2jc Swing and a miss. He was asked something that he didn't quite understand the use of term, and didn't want to perjure himself when the term wasn't defined. That's just called "not wanting to get in trouble." Liquidity means many things, though usually it means "has more money than debts owed" while in this specific case, it only meant "income > spending"
Those are two definitions of liquid, and he doesn't want to slip up when the lawyer asked a vague question that doesn't define the term appropriately.
A stock exchange is liquid if it has as much money in the bank as assets that traders are holding on the platform. That's the standard definition, but it did NOT apply here.
@@Nathan-dt2tu you are both correct, why add a demeaning sentence such as “swing and a miss”. Your reply doesn’t detract from his reply or vice versa.
@@Nathan-dt2tu Spending more than you take in is a cash flow problem, not a liquidity problem. I think the witness wanted to point out that difference by defining liquidity before the attorney snuck in that irrelevant "spending more than he was taking in!!" jibe at the end.
LMAO
The lawyer was asking such MISLEADING questions. Liquidity doesn't show if a person is broke. Almost all of us have liquidity problems i.e our short term liabilities are more than our short term assets (i.e cash coming in) The Accountant CLEARLY stated that Depp has multiple Long Term Assets (properties, etc) Depp can easily sell off one of his LT Assets to pay off loans or ST liabilities. In no way is he facing "money problems" just because of liquidity. We all take loans because we have liquidity problems and we pay it off over a period of time.
I was SO PISSED with his questions. He clearly doesn't understand hiw money and finances work.
I have liquidity problems every month then I get paid and it's all good again for a bit 😂
Yea, just hold ice cream instead of like properties, no more liquidity problem!
No they know how money and finance works, they just hope the jury doesn't
Im sure he does know what it is, but his objective is to make Depp look broke. All he has to do is convince the jury... and the jury is manipulated by these questions. For all we know the lawyer just plays dumb to get this done.
If you’re that pissed with the questions then you better hope you never have to go to court because you’d crumble on cross examination 😂
He knows, he's just acting dumb to position himself so he can sneak in that one line, "spending more than he was taking in!!". Well, not knowingly (spending more) of course, because if he'd known people had been ripping him off for years and wiping out his assets, you can bet he'd have stopped spending so much. But the lawyer wants something else...to paint him as irresponsible, etc...whatever...such a strange defense for defaming someone.
Objection your honor. Speculation.
@@JarlTryggve After HE asks the question! It was tears funny.
Dont be silly, we all know that a big time movie production chooses their actors based on how well they can manage their money (sarcasm)
I think they’re also trying to paint Johnny as already being in a drunken rage from the meeting before Amber’s Birthday party 🤔
He said bringing in not taking in. If you're gonna quote anything get the words right.
If there’s one I’ve learned from this exchange: lawyers aren’t as smart as they think, and accountants are smarter than they think.
The actual takeaway should be closer to: Don't assume a person's intelligence based on their profession.
Accountants are just human computers, such a dull job that requires computing power and not intelligence or being smart. There is a distinction between someone who is intelligent and someone who can analyse and compute. Not that there cannot be an overlap (and in fact I’d say there often is) but they’re different things.
@@Welari12 You often hear about how certain groups of people are very intelligent and you develop these ideas in your head that there exist infallible geniuses you couldn’t relate to. For me, as an English person, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were the go to for where intelligent people resided. I’ve been fortunate to spend a fair amount of time with students of these places and low and behold they just turned out to be normal people. People that don’t understand things sometimes, make mistakes and do all sorts of stupid things. Yes they are very knowledgeable about the subjects they study but they aren’t these mythical beings of extreme intellect we like to imagine. I learnt that wherever you, you’ll find someone stupid. We all are in at least some respect.
@@jaymercer4692 I've also heard once you get to Uni it's less talent and more hard work - you can't just keep winging it in the perfect scenario as a "gifted kid".
Accounting requires ability to analyze, self correct and learn, because generally you are working with hard unbending numbers, and even more ruthless laws. Being able back up everything you do with a paper trail and process you used.
A lot of lawyers can get through a lot of cases on pure bullshit and emotional appeal, and 90% of their arguments can and will be changed at any time. Case in point, Rottenborn 10 minutes after this clip defends against the hearsay objection he used previously, with much less basis, but gets it overruled, by the same judge that allowed it before.
Its different kinds of intelligence, but I would say the accountants are gonna be on average more intelligent than lawyers because it is a requirement.
Not even the how to get away with murder lawyers could save Amber Heard from this trial
Only Saul Goodman could win this case, but he does care for his image so he probably wouldn't take it
Not even turners lawyer could get her out of this.
@@6654andrei or Jose Baez
My money is on amber winning simply because she is a woman
@@zombiegun71 I think the jury likes Johnny more and after all these people speaking and have said she is the one that starts arguments and such I don't see how she can win. With all the recordings she has why does she not have any of him abusing her or photos of all the marks he supposedly left on her. Yes he has drug and drinking issues but so does she if what people are saying is true that she was drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine a day. She seems like the abusive one not him and her legal team knows it and are trying to get things that have nothing to do with if he was abusing her because the point of this trial is about if she lied when saying he abused her because it cost him money and his reputation by her saying he did.
Amber's lawyers really need to be disbarred after this.
theyre not even worthy of being called a joke
Yahh I dont wanna judge Amber Turd's lawyers too hard. Even though they're definitely grasping at straws at this case, this is the job they were hired to do
Their License Called "Incompetence"
Definitely They Should Be Disbarred
His name is literally Rottonborn. It writes itself.
To be fair they don’t have any case plus their client is repeatedly lying to them and the court
If anyone says “liquidity”, then it is up to them to know what it is. The lawyer said it, and then said he doesn’t know business terms. Wow. Sad.
Because he's using it in the stupid, sloppy cultural connotation of "having disposable money available." He literally could've just "money problems" in the sense he was using it.
Amber's lawyer not only doesn't know his terminology,but he is also extremely rude to the witness (Plus the witness is old man aka having respect for old people,in my opinion is sign of good (behavior) discipline and respect towards people).He talks to him like he is a random dude on the street.Disrespectful and shameful 🙄.Shows how dumb and shady the lawyer is.
You should...talk to a random dude on the street...with respect as well hahaha
@@bryank4020 💀💀💀
they obviously are vultures trying to win a case that will get them a lot of money
they couldn't give a shit about the lives of the people they are representing
Depending on who is in the jury this could absolutely bite them in the ass.
Amber's lawyer was not shady or dumb, or rude, he was asking specific questions, while not allowing witness to change the narrative. That's called cross-examination. In fact the witness was rude and uncooperative, to the point that Johny's lawyer was trying to indicate to him to stop arguing by shaking his head. It got so bad, that the judge had to explain to him, that now he is supposed to answer the asked questions only, and he will get the chance to explain them afterwards on redirect. I do think that Amber's lawyers so far haven't had a great performance, I also support Johny, but please don't mistake standard court procedures as being rude and shameful :)
I think the public is caught between hating Amber and hating amber’s lawyers at this point.
I feel bad for the lawyers. Such a thankless job. I hope they are overcharging her. Actually, I don't think you can overcharge for a job as lousy like this...
Lawyers are supposed to have the skill to analyse the data they have and decide if this is a case to pick up or ignore. They went on and took the case even when more than half of the data they had was full of baseless claims and lies made up by Amber. I find it difficult that these lawyers couldn't understand that most of the infornation they had were baseless and hollow. Either they knew it and still sided with Amber or they simply believed that she was the victim and went on with it. Whatever the reason, this case might be the worst thing happened to them.
They’re talking to these witnesses like they’re criminals 💀
I’m no lawyer (yet, I start law school in the fall) but one of those cliches you always hear is never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. This doesn’t quite fit perfectly but if you don’t know the definition of a word within your question you should probably rephrase your question, not only for your own sake but the jury’s sake too…
He knows the definition because he provides it later. I think he was trying to get the witness to say Depp was having money problems as the witness saying it sounds more compelling to the jury than the lawyer saying it and the witness just giving a yes or no answer.
Pretty sure he knows but wants it to be explicitly said in basic terms for the statement to be more damning
Then he should have rephrased his questioning. If you rewatch his style if questioning, it's more of intimidation + a level of stupidity = dumb arrogance = high incompetence. He's goal is to try his best to get the witnesses to say incriminating things against Johnny by pressuring/intimidating him. But it ends up making him look too stupid to do this type of work. the witnesses just look dumbfounded then either sigh or give that 'this is ridiculous' smile. I have yet to see him ask a proper sensible question. And properly verify things. Until then my opinion of him retains that he's like a riled up bull who's supposed to chase red but ends up charging on every colour there is.
You wont be a good lawyer. It’s a jury trial people. He is making sure the jury understands. Plain and simple.
It's business 101, anyone with 2 minutes to spare and Google can grasp what liquidity is.
shocked when the witness replied "can you define liquidity for me" attorney didn't "object" then state "leading" your Honor, the witness is trying to lead me.... ... this show is definitely going to win a globe for "best new comedy in a genuine working environment" .. props.. saturday night live has material for the next 2-3 decades, you guys rock!
Hahaha
not even saul goodman can't do anything at this point for Amber
At least he’d have a proper go and charm, not completely alienate, the jury.
We need Chuck here
@@ExistentialSadness chucks dead 🤡
Oh he could... help her disappear
That's why the Clintons exist. They can help her accidentally disappear
Have they asked any questions relevant to him abusing her yet or are we still just finding out about his drug use and other random details of his life
It's a defamation trial.
@@wectyler3817 yeah that mostly involves abuse…we all know Johnny does drugs and drinks. He has been very open about it..ambers lawyers keeps asking questions that are not relevant to the abuse claims that defamed Johnny and got him fired from many roles.
@@wectyler3817 Disney didn’t fire him because they just found out he did drugs. They fired him because he supposedly physically abused Amber Heard.
Lol thats all they got and im pretty sure about 99% of hollywood does the same shit
Since the previous guy who replied seems to be part of Heard's legal team (lol), no they have not. They have not proven that Johnny Depp did indeed abuse her, only that he has a drinking and probably a drug problem. Their whole defense is practically "well sir he's a drunk, so he has to be beating her" The sad reality is there is a chance that Johnny won't win this trial strictly off the fact that Amber did not name drop him. Although anybody with a brain would could see the evidence brought forth by Depp, and obviously tell what her intentions were
At this point I feel bad for this lawyer, the firm he represents, and the law school who educated him.
I don't feel bad for anyone that tries to manipulate and lie to people by defending someone whom they know is guilty/lying.
Why?!
And the horse he rode in on :D
I don't think everybody knows about assets and liabilities. Not everybody is a financial analyst. I don't get why everybody is laughing at him?
I bet almost nobody here knows what short term assets and short term liabilities are.
Amber’s lawyers are struggling on the Struggle Bus
Broooo Johnny depps lawyer is like “yea we got this in the bag”
I'm not a business major but I learned liquidity/liquidation when I took my ECON101. This lawyer was embarrassed the other day when he called hearsay during his own line of questioning and is now trying to embarrass other people. Pathetic.
it was another lawyer that called hearsay on his question, not Rottenborn, get your facts straight
@@sabotage7773 He very definitely objected to his own question - the judge even called it out. In the "Amber Heard's Attorney Objects To His Own Question" video it is at the 40 second mark.
Its a jury trial Einstein. Clarifying for the jurors.
@@hijackstudios it was a different lawyerr
@@draemanplays Check the video at that timestamp. There is 3 objections in the video and the relevant one is the 2nd.
The lawyer balked at the words assets and liability...you shouldn't need a business degree to understand that. I'd guess most middle schoolers know what those are
Totally agree, everyone that has ever done their taxes or works in business know these words.
He knows the answer. He's just trying to get the accountant to say it a different way: Depp was spending too much money
Disrespecting an elderly man is the the way to get thr jury on ur side
I love how Johnny just having a laugh with his lawyers from Amber's defense and lawyers bs
Liquidation is basic a term that every lawyer knows...this guy is a quack 😂
and that's a gotcha? an adviser telling his client how to resolve an issue at hand? smh...
Oh noooo, someone is doing their job.
I really have an issue with comments calling this man “the old man “. He’s an educated, highly intelligent, respectable man. Now, say what you want about Heard’s lawyers… those people are the exact opposite of this gentleman!
Older gentleman
Mature gentleman
Gentleman of a certain age
This is where I feel the Judge should be intervening.
Chronologically advanced
Everyone on that stand has been annoyed and pissed off at Heard’s lawyer. They go together perfectly.
I am now convinced AH got her lawyers from a coupon cutout! Elle Woods does a better job than her legal team 😂🤭😆
Actually that guy is a highly successful lawyer
He has a plan
@@kripaharris237 Very successful lawyer where to him, tabloid articles are facts and not hearsay and objecting to his questions. Key to success, right?
It isn't business school, it's dictionary.
I love how he looked at Amber when asked if he gave Johnny advice on how to get out of the problem.
Looking the other way and then back. Body language total "Well I hoped that worked?"
I’m more curious about what was going on in the back
My Trial Strategy professor in law school had what he called the "2 syllable rule." We couldn't use any word longer than 2 syllables on anything we turned in or presented, unless there was no other substitute. Big words annoy the jury and the judge. So "altercation" would be "fight" and "liquidity problems" would be "spending more than he was earning." Any time I see lawyers try to be fancy, I remember the 2 syllable rule.
This is a good rule to remember when talking to teenagers too.
“Business school terms” LOL. Liquidity, what a complex word.
If you went to business school you might know the word can have different means. It could mean "cash". It could be "quick assets". It would mean "current assets", or it could mean enough assets to cover all the debt. The word is liquid (pardon pun) depending on how it is used and in what context.
@@rh6625 Yes, but the attorney should have defined it when asked by the business manager since the attorney was the one who used the term in his own question.
"Can you define that for me?"
* defines it *
"Ok so since I don't understand, let me define it for you."
What was going on in the background, the cops walking up to the women in the audience and everyone pointing to the left...?
Of course he knows, he’s trying to simplify it for the jury
I like to use words I don't know either and then call myself out.
For the record the Lawyer probably does know the economic terms my friend who works in law said this is a tactic a lot of litigation lawyers use to trip witnesses to get them to change their testimony or make them feel uneasy. Rottenborn has won numerous high profile litigations for some of the top companies in the USA so he definitely knows what he is doing, he's using a psychological tactic to get him to admit that Johnny is the reason for his career issues not Amber.
most of the casuals on youtube are not lawyers, so they will never understand the sweet science and just jump to dumb conclusions, nothing new here
@@sabotage7773 Ah yes, assuming ignorance over malice is indeed a dumb conclusion. Thank you uhh... "modern ethics", whatever that is.
Well and look how that turned out for him he sounds like a total flop ...the witness was calm n collective it would have to take the lawyer more than that to pursue him so MISSION FAILED 😂
@@BTS-iw3gb so what? You can’t possibly trigger every witness, that’s part of the job and you have to deal with this. Also, it does not help when you don’t have a case on the facts
Props to the witness you rock dude💪🔥🙌
Her lawyer:"I like your funny words, magic man"
"I don't speak all these business terms that you speak." Bro, YOU literally asked the question with that fucking term.
Also, I don't think you should brag about not knowing basic business terms when YOU'RE A LAWYER. You should probably know basic business term that even 5th graders are familiar with.
he did that for two reasons: 1) trying to force words from the witness that would be beneficial to his client's case; 2) make sure the testimony is done in simpler words not to lose the attention of the jury
give the guy more credit, he is likely smarter than 99 percent of people commenting here and has a very impressive track record of won cases
At it's simplest of forms...
Liquidity is like walking into a gas station and attempting to pay for an item with a credit card. But say their CC machine is down... And you have no cash on hand. TECHNICALLY... YOU HAVE A LIQUIDITY PROBLEM.
I wonder how Amber is feeling about her lawyers at this point. I wonder if she now wishes she had different lawyers.
@@the6ig6adwolf She's not the one suing bro
Soon shell be abusing them and they'll see what jonny put up with
Bro was taking a vocabulary test during his testimony.
He even gave the lawyer a chance to define it for himself/the court... lmao
Loving all these fails from Turd's Legal Team!
“I don’t speak words to good, I’m more versed in bird law.”
It's kind of like when people say they "leveraged" something, when really all they're saying is they used it.
"I don't speak all the business terms that you speak" Ahahahahahahaahaha
It’s giving public defender😩🤣
He has to ask those questions to lay a foundation and preserve the record.
The fact that a lawyer doesn’t know the meaning of liquidity is strange and that he doesn’t know the terms of business school. I mean I’m a pharmacist and am familiar with some of these terms because we had a business course in school which I’m sure all the other mahors have
The lawyer was stumped by his own question. 🤡🤡
What a joke 🤣🤣
shrewd goings on in a court in Virginia these hazy days of spring and those that had sprung
The high sparrow doesn't mince his words.
He uses liquidity and doesn't know what it means. LMAO
There is so much Amber’s layers don’t understand that’s it embarrassing for her. I can’t even imagine what kind of notes she’s constantly writing unless she’s writing WTF over and over again.
Impressive witness. He knew dates, places, people just off the top of his head, no notes. Perfect recollection.
Liquidity: when bed poop melts into fine linen.
I think I am going to sneak into the courtroom tonight before they close and leave a few jugger pins on Ambers team desk with a note that reads, "hale why not, you are paying them right?"
Brilliant witness! Nothing “old man” about him!
Plot twist: her lawyers like johnny depp
Look at the birdies, look at the birdies
“ooooh self burn those are rare “
Anyone else notice the two court officers in the background looking for someone who may have been causing trouble? They were sitting on AMBER's side.
I didn’t, until I saw your comment. Probably checking if more of her people are using their cell phones when they shouldn’t.
Business school terms? That was something introduced in at least my highschool.
Huhh, do he not understand his own question???
Security seems to find someone suspicious
AH's Lawyers: We're very smart.
Also AH's Lawyers:
Amber needs to call “ Better Call Saul”!! Sike!!! He cant save her now
#JusticeforJohnnyDepp of course he was spending more. He was letting his penthouses out and amber turd and her "friends" weren't paying rent
I love this guy 😅
Man, Jonathan Price looks really pissed.
Where did she find these winners to represent her?🤣🤣🤣
Really?! No one is talking about the court officers in the back threatening to kick someone out for laughing so much? 😂. This trial is this generation’s OJ trial. Will be remembered and joked about for decades
Lawyer: Dude, he broke or what?
Surprised he didn't say "Objection, Hear Say"
Lawyers ARE the business world
I'm more interested in what's going on at the back with the court inspectors questioning people :D
Lawyers R us...
amber's lawyers are never gonna get work again after this istg lmao
Dont use words you don’t know the definition of. That lawyer is such a dunce.
Don’t be so ignorant. The attorney obviously knows what liquidity means. He just wanted to put it in his own words to make it sound worse.
Old man is on game. One word can very different, or variations when it comes to its definition.
So a layman can understand? He just gave you the definition.
Notice the officers confronting the ladies in the back? ..I would assume for laughing all the time. The older lady looked like she said "not me, it was them". lol
It is not that they do not know, but they want to avoid getting objection about foundation. The jury need to understand too.
The way they all smirk when the lawyer says he doesn’t know “business terms” like…..your job is literally business
Mr. Rottenborn!!
correct correct correct correct correct correct correct correct correct correct correct correct
Do you understand the terms that are coming out of my mouth ~ No... Do you understand them O.o
You asked a question while you don't know what it means? Ok.
how stupid is the lawyer asking a question without knowing the meaning of the word liquidity hahaha
And yet they still haven't thrown the lawyer out and ordered him to be disbarred, even though he doesn't even understand his own questions.... You can't just ask some bullshit, even though you don't even Know WHAT you are asking from the victim...
@Bla Bla of course it is, but that's my point. The court should have thrown him out at the latest on day 2 or 3 (in fact, there shouldn't even have been a day 2 or 3 in the first place)
atleast he didn't object to hearsay
I am hopeless at business but I knew what the lawyer meant
I am waiting for the defence to start providing witnesses and Johnny's team to cross examine. Let's see what happens then
Amber's lawyers don't know lawyers terms either and yet this circus keeps dragging
Business school terms? Wtf? 🤣🤣
When your wife drinks $500.00 dollar bottles of wine the bank account dwindles fast I suppose.
Remember that one teacher that didn't know what annoying means?
JDs accountant cant hide his disdain for the unprofessional and incompetent way he is being questioned !
Liquidity-the availability of liquid assets to a market or company. Lol