Use code "Lack" for 10% off Attorney Shield! attorney-shield.com/discount/LACK Yikes - Opinion dropped 2 days after I posted. I may have Nick on to talk about it. Let me know if it's something you're interested in hearing? caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/116525460.html Karen McDonald facebook.com/KarenMcDonaldMI Nick Somberg facebook.com/Somberglaw/photos Invest in Attorney Shield! www.startengine.com/offering/attorney-shield Submit your video: forms.gle/CUpEtoKF4cw7apur6 LackLuster Media LLC PO Box 514 Chester, WV 26034 Best Dashcam - amzn.to/45fVYsW MERCH - www.youtube.com/@LackLusterMedia/store - - Social - - Facebook: facebook.com/lacklustermedia.official Twitter: twitter.com/DaleHillerYT DISCORD: discord.gg/SUcPuym IG: instagram.com/lackluster_media/ TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@lackluster_official Project1983.org I receive commissions from featured links on verified purchases, at no cost to you.
*While I do not believe that "Standing" as it has been developed under Article 3 analysis is a valid position for a court to take, we are stuck with it. The entire Standing concept has been developed as a supra-Constirutional opinion which can be used to gut Article 3 redress. That said, this was a very **_very_** interesting debate, especially in light of the spanner that is **_"Fee Speech et al"._* *Thanks for "rebroadcasting" it !*
Hello! I'm the plaintiff in this case. First, let me say-excellent video! However, I wanted to clarify a few points. My original post was about an assistant prosecutor named Qamar Estamos-Enayah, and the elected official at that time was Jessica Cooper, against whom we initiated the lawsuit. Karen McDonald was not the elected prosecutor at that time. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that I had a separate hearing to hold the prosecutor in contempt for falsifying a contempt charge against me, which was distinct from this lawsuit. Thank you for sharing this story! I’m happy to provide any further input if needed.
That makes more sense, at 0:43 it says she didn't take office until 2021, but that court hearing/post was mid 2020. Thanks for clearing up the mild confusion I had in the details.
Hey thank you for trying to bring transparency to our courts. I appreciate the effort. I amsure you got some heat over this but don't think your efforts aren't appreciated.
No. We are not. There's a difference between legitimately trained and educated journalists and amateur photographers and videographers. Either way, free speech is a thing.
All court cases should be recorded and publicly available. All cases are matters of public interest. The government doesnt want court to be recorded because they dont want there corruption being exposed. If they dont allow us to record then they can lie all they want without accountability
@@CandyGramForMongo_ The judge does not necessarily "own the courtroom". If the courtroom is open to the public, then they should not be able to prohibit recording. That is a violation of fundamental rights. Only if the courtroom is closed can you say that the judge "owns the courtroom". Of course, we know the judges do think they own the courtroom, and can violate everyone's rights by prohibiting recording.
Judges and prosecutors don’t want their incompetence on display either. I’ve attended some hearings with blatant violations of civil rights or judges trying to goad people into self-representation and they are just as corrupt as the police.
This is the best thing I’ve seen online in years. We the people should demand that all court recordings should be available after 6 months. We can not have government officials immune to the scrutiny of the public. Love this guy, he is amazing.
And why even have court recorders? They’re not always 100% accurate. The argument that cameras would cause grandstanding is not relevant. The presence of jurors causes grandstanding, it’s up to the judge to control it. There’s case law that states simply filming police isn’t obstruction.
That’s why you always record the police. Because they presented to the DA and they make a story up and why did they make the story up? They put you in prison or nothing. For decades your life too.
That’s why you always film the police and sheriff. District Attorney get their information from pigs who lie. District Attorney will tell the jury that lie with more lies added. Then you go to prison years or decades. Filming the police and sheriff stops that. Look who’s going to jail know days pigs/cops or sheriff. This case is about banning public servants from being filmed during the course of their duties. Public trial is that public airwaves are public.
"Is recording a public trial being held live online and posted by the court itself a crime?" *_Absolutely fucking not._* Once the information is public, it is public. Judge: "Was he recording in the courtroom?" Idiot Lawyer: *No.* Judge: "So, his recording was done outside of the courtroom?" IL: *Yes.* Judge: "Why do you keep bringing up courtroom policies when a courtroom was not the location where the filming occurred?" IL: *I have no other argument.* Judge: "Why the fuck are we here?" IL: *Because I'm stupid.* Judge: "Denied. Your client can be sued for violating his 1st Amendment right."
Funny however what Unicorn says is what should be true. I want transparency in all aspects of government! Once the material has been released to public it is clear that it will stand there forever! This is just someone who has FELT threatened! If that’s the case then we would never have any political cartoons! Think about it for a minute… yeah made me scratch my head too! ✌️❤️🇺🇸⚖️
THEY DO HAVE IN COURT RECORDING! The courts make their own recordings and you can get copys of the recordings by paying a fee. News outlets do it all the time!
She literally tried saying something akin to “don’t focus on previous case law, just focus on this particular case because the previous case law blows up my entire argument”
The fact that the judges are questioning this…. Crazy. You don’t broadcast something then complain about it. They would want the “Court room” to be everywhere to expand their power.
If the case has made it this far they kinda have to, otherwise the dodgy prosecutor could claim it was unfair and win on appeal or something. I always think some of the questions from these courts sound stupid
THEY DO HAVE IN COURT RECORDING! The courts make their own recordings and you can get copys of the recordings by paying a fee. News outlets do it all the time!
@@skooterfd through a FOIA request where they get to review the footage first and make any edits of the footage or audio they deem appropriate or necessary and in some places they can even hide behind the law and not release the footage.
Good luck enforcing a rule that says "no recording of live public broadcasts online". Any artist knows if you post something online you lose control of it immediately
Only 5 mins in but I couldn’t believe the hypothetical counter questions about “altering” and “over flow recording (outside the court room)” which had nothing to do with this case. Massive distraction from his case and completely brain dead not to recognize that.
@@TheBoobanThank you, yes! That hypo served no purpose other than to eat thru his 15min argument time. I was inflamed asa I heard that, first, hypo. That time is precious and that hypo just completely led down a whole diff path. 😤😤😤
If Congress says no cameras, it can be challenged in court. If the White House says no cameras, it can be overruled by Congress or the courts. If the a judge says no cameras, that's the end of discussion. What happened to checks and balances?
Congress probably has the ABILITY to pass a Federal law allowing recording in courts (at least Federal ones), but they completely lack the WILL to do so.
The reason the court doesn't want recording because they don't want to be held accountable by the public for their actions while on the clock for the public.
Yes the supreme Court has already ruled years ago that we have the right to record which goes with the freedom of press not the Free speech rights in the First amendment.. and these federal judges act clueless like they don't know that we have a right to record. Anything you can see or hear you can record.
Did this whole episode make you wonder why you never chose "judge" as the profession to pursue? They sounded absolutely *SIMPLE* with the questions they asked
@nymenris2821 it's not ignored. It's an affirmative right meaning you have to ask for a speedy trial. Most people don't ask because the more time you have to prepare the better.
Not really, people who are corrupt have the balls to be corrupt, there's a penalty for the game they play, freedom has a price and it's whatever people put up with from those who are corrupt🤷 if the people were that fed up they'd be in the streets by the tens of thousands with guns demanding an end to corruption.. Americans have been chemically castrated by the poison in the water supply and food not to mention brainwashing on social media
Impossible to have transparency when there are 2 systems where 1 group can do whatever with impunity, while the other gets the full weight of the system against them.
As the state lawyer said, first Amendment rights are at their lowest point in court. But that is protecting the constitutional rights within the court. WTF? We don't want to chill their rights. BS, that is literally this case. Such a shame law doesn't count in court.
What’s worse is that I would have said what if she got the notes from the stenographer and published it because it’s public record, unless it’s sealed? All in all, this is just nuts!
The fact that the government consistently argues to limit and stifle our rights is horrible! Judges tend to rule against the people anyway! The whole process is disgusting!
@@daddymcpapi7520 And transcripts are "incomplete' if you know how to play them. All sorts of rude or aggressive tones that'd make you look awful in a recording won't be reflected in a transcript.
@@cameronjames3499is tone really so important tho? I mean it's not like Dancing Queen by ABBA would become creepy if sung by an older male lounge singer or something 😅
The silver lining is the DA has been drug through the court system for years now as a defendant in a lawsuit. All because she tried to maliciously prosecute someone like a power drunk freak. I bet she thinks about it every day
@superbmediacontentcreator Then nothing inside the courtroom should be censored and is fully protected by the 1A to film, broadcast or to otherwise do what one wishes with it. I’m sick of the ‘limited’ argument by the government. An inalienable right is not to be limited. The government, including the courts are corrupt from stem to stern. Any judge ruling to limit a protected right should be charged with tyranny and subject to the full punishment of that crime.
I believe cameras are in court rooms. They don’t want you recording in there because they don’t have control of the videos if you do it but they do if they do it see the picture.😱🤔🤔🤔🤦♂️🤦♂️🎯💯
Funny, the government sure seems to think the PEOPLE should be recorded everywhere and broadcast when it suits their agenda but that same government wants NO recording of THEM.
Well it is not secret. You can get the court transcript just for the asking. You can also go see any trial you want of they have seating. Bit you cannot just have people doing there own filming. One reason those who are in the Jury have every right to expect there privacy will be respected especially with a big case dealing with gangs and drug cartels.
Once you post something publicly you cannot undo it. "You can't unscramble and egg" "You can't un-ring a bell" If they did not want it used by the public they should not have made it public!
It’s infuriating to hear judges that can’t get thru their heads what the real case is. They literally couldn’t understand that once it’s live on the web that they can’t control it. The government did it!
Yes! She argued "protectons" for peoples in the court. Those protections would not be violated by someone recording the live stream. They would be violated by the court who released the information to the public.
You're misunderstanding the intent of these lines of questions. It's not the judge's job to automatically take one side. They are deconstructing each argument to get the heart of the matter on record so as to make sure their ruling addresses the actual situation and not a bunch of extra nonsense, as well as giving as much info as possible to the next court of appeal.
@@oldjarhead386that’s why they are asking those questions. This isn’t a regular court. They might be establishing case law so they have to break down each argument and ask questions that might seem obvious to you. But they have to be asked.
Yeah the first judge that speaks kind of trips over himself and basically said that recording information is not speech itself. Bruh it's literally the first amendment you treat freedom of the press the exact same way you do speech in this context, you're gathering information to share with the public
Clearly this judge does NOT understand what broadcasting is. If they are BROADCASTING the hearing on TH-cam, it becomes public domain and they by nature lose control of that information. If they want to keep control of the information, then DON'T broadcast it to the public. Broadcasting by nature means OUTSIDE the courtroom. This is identical to an artist sitting in the courtroom, making a drawing that is their interpretation then putting it on the evening news with commentary from a reporter who also sat in the courtroom and then gives a commentary on the evening news about what he thinks happened in the courtroom in "snippets". The government only releases' the snippet's of body cam video, of redacted documents but that SAME government doesn't want the same thing being done to them. This is tyranny.
It’s really quite simple - anything I can see or hear from public, I can record. If you’ve plastered your court hearing on a public forum, a public space, it can be recorded
thats what i thought at first. but what happened was he recorded his own zoom hearing and then posted that to youtube. they are trying to argue that it is the same as him sneaking a camcorder into his own court hearing at the courthouse and then posting that recording.
Exactly. TH-cam is owned by a private company. It is not owned by the state. Once the broadcasted it, it became public. They should have broadcast on the state website or court website.
@robyee3325 No, the court was broadcasting it on youtube, then the lawyer recorded their public recording. The judge charged the lawyer for recording the public recording
I think you have the right idea. I think the recordings shouldn't be live to avoid the grandstanding that you see in court procedural dramas. We don't want judges and prosecutors directly using the courtroom to try to ensure reelection. But the recordings should be made and be accessible after the fact so that people can properly understand what happened in the courtroom. I think an immediate result would be a lot of judges being censured for being human. Statistical analysis already shows that judges tend to be more harsh at different times of the day on cases with similar circumstances. When they are awake and aware at some points in the day, they make different rulings than when they are sleepy or fatigued. Also, a particularly emotionally charged case might also lead a judge to rule in a way that isn't equitable. I'm totally fine with this, but it should be handled gracefully rather than as a witch-hunt where perfection is demanded of human actors.
This is EXACTLY they type of video we need. The government wants the public to be ignorant of the judicial process so they can't defend themselves. Then after they get railroaded they use the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" or law enforcement says "You don't know the law you HAVE to do what I say", and if you do they berate you for being a "Roadside Lawyer". This protects the 1st amendment ability use speech to know and understand the law.
What is really disgusting to me is that the court always makes a distinction between the people and the government. Especially with those words: Of the people, by the people, for the people. It seems like someone lost their understanding of what kind of government we have. It's not the governments property, it's the people's property. We have every right to see ant and all evidence of anything we should want to see. Some restrictions may apply but not like this, and not with so much on the line. This judge sounds like he would ban the Bill of Rights because it's too broadly written. 🙄
This kind of lunacy being perpetrated by role having so much power is mind boggling! If the court chose to live stream the court proceedings, where Joe Public can easily view and record, why can’t the attorney, who by all means is a part of the public, reference said publicly published material??? This is a waste of tax payer funds and an exercise in stupidity! The court has already stated there’s no assumption of privacy in public! They broadcasted via a publicly accessible site yet they think the public viewer is barred from using it? Madness.
The court gave up "sanctuary" when they decided to literally fucking BROADCAST the proceedings on YT. And having moved its way to such a high court, Imagine the tax dollars that were converted to ash in pursuit of this pathetic excuse for precedent. If only the payers of said tax dollars could demand a refund.
But those poor judges might not get all of the ad revenue for their TH-cam page.dont you care about the judges right to use the legal system for a profit?
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the moment anything is broadcast it is saved somewhere on the internet and anyone could make a copy to their own box just by recording the screen
@@bluecreekps3 The short answer is that a live broadcast from YT is public, so virtually anyone (some countries like China, block TH-cam) could otherwise access the stream and then record the stream; not just via camera but through screen capture software on a PC. The content itself at this point is only available through TH-cam. However, other sites could link or embed the video on their page; the source is still TH-cam and not a separate copy of the content on that site. Similarly to streaming the same channel on multiple TVs is essentially coming from the same source. Longer answer... Further access can depend on if the stream was, as a matter of fact, broadcasted live or uploaded as a recorded video to the channel. No matter the scenarios, the content is always saved to Google's servers. A live TH-cam stream is recorded and archived on their platform; the archive itself can only be accessed by authorized Google staff or the channel owner, not publicly, yet. However, the archived video can be made public by the channel as a standard accessible video. In this case, it could be shared and re-watched. Although, TH-cam's pages and videos are coded so the normal user cannot download the video, in reality the source of the video (the file itself) is saved somewhere on Google's servers. So, other sites and browser extensions have figured out how to strip the file details and location from the page, granting the ability download/save the content as an offline, local copy. Thus, allowing even further distribution.
I wonder how a US court will prevent me, in Sweden, from making a recording of public broadcast and from rebroadcasting it? I see a problem with jurisdiction.
@@rory1461 - Ohh, the US can certainly ASK for me to be extraditeted, but such an extradiction would only be granted by the Swedish jurisdictional system if rebroadcasting the proceedings of US court process is illegal in Sweden. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I have a hard time imagine that such a law exist in Sweden. There might be something about broadcasting from Swedish court, but for foreign courts?
In certain situations, preventing recording and public access to information can protect witnesses and victims that testify and protect the identities of jury members. It would not be good to allow recording in all court cases as witnesses and victims may become reluctant to testify for fear of retaliation or ousterization from a community. Without the testimony of the witnesses and victims of the offense or defense, it could be the difference in finding a person guilty or innocent of the charges put against them.
I agree with that actually. This could set a very dangerous precedent for witnesses/victims/jurors. I think it should still be allowed to be recorded just not their names/faces but if its a witness testimony that results in a conviction or a ruling in general, then just the audio should be allowed since the transcript is public record anyway. We should at least be able to physically hear it
@garretg818 Some people have distinctive voices that could be identifying if linked to the case, but if they use a voice changer, then it could be alright. Another problem I see would be limiting the recording to the court only as you could not trust outside sources to censor the identities of people and keep what was stricken from the record from being released. It would also become a problem recording all court cases because there is a risk of the recordings being released as people sometimes mishandle records or could leak the record for money. Where there are transcripts of the court case, they don't include certain details that are stricken from the record by the court reporter. You can see that allowing recording in courtrooms could lead to a host of problems in protecting people. It would also be a lot harder to seal the case files in cases involving children, usually cases are sealed when they involve children as the court doesn't want the case to follow them the rest of their lives for something that happened to them or something they did when they were young and foolish.
Witnesses and jurors, who could be killed would disagree with you… Children who were molested by adults would disagree with you and the parents would too… There’s so many reasons why all court proceedings should not be available to the public… For one ….some things are just not your damn business
It's amazing how judges always seem to be conflicted between following the law and following their own interests when it comes to recording in the court rooms.
What I’m hearing is that the real problem is the unconstitutional court policy on banning video in the court room, and if having no cameras in the physical court room really is for disruptions then all courts should live stream on zoom for everyone to record as they please.
Well I have seen a lot of court trial on camera but I think it is up to the judge. But I think most court cases are filmed, they are just not on social media. You can get court transcript unless the cases has been sealed which is very rare.
The government cannot possibly think that, if they broadcast a public trial they have any control. They don’t have ownership rights. Everything they have is ours. The people, you can request all the video but your going to pay a lot of money and waiting time. Any random person can click the link and watch the trial…record it, photograph it,audio what ever…it’s public info… What he should argue he is gathering intelligence on the prosecution crimes and violations
In certain situations, preventing recording and public access to information can protect witnesses and victims that testify and protect the identities of jury members. It would not be good to allow recording in all court cases as witnesses and victims may become reluctant to testify for fear of retaliation or ousterization from a community. Without the testimony of the witnesses and victims of the offense or defense, it could be the difference in finding a person guilty or innocent of the charges put against them. This case could set a dangerous precedent as it can be used in future cases and could be depremental to our justice system. Another problem I see is many times in court witness testimony, evidence or an oral argument is stricken from the public record the court reporter removes the information from the court transcript this would not be the case if the case was allowed to be filmed by outside parties. With this instance with the court disseminating the case for all to see it is not an issue if a person records the case but if the case was not being broadcast and was only broadcast between the judge, jury, plaintiff, and defendant, then recording the proceeding could become a privacy issue for the victims, witnesses, and jury's.
@@wildowarkson8774 idk, seems like a ton of youtubers do it for relatively cheap lmao; government has hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal. Stop dumping money into useless crap and put it into things like this. Problem solved.
Back in the old days, in small towns where everyone knew everyone, people sitting in the court already knew the names of all the jurors, all of the witnesses and likely everyone in the gallery. NOW suddenly they think the jurors have the right to be anonymous.
That's a fair question. I would think recording isn't speech until the recording is shared, so it needs to be treated as speech regardless. This seemed to be the thoughts of the judge as well
@@nic.h i thought turner v driver covered the right specifically to record the police and not whether or not recording is a form of speech. although the circuit court in the turner case did base their decision on first amendment protections covering recording, I don't know if that necessarily means that recording is speech by itself or if they just decided that the prevention of subsequent speech (which preventing recording certainly is at least) was unduly burdensome. I am really unsure about that though so if anyone can double check that and see if I am miss understanding the decision
@@huntersawyer9324 I actually didn't recheck the case and was basing my comment on my vague recollection and the comment made at 12:33 which cited it as such. So I may well be wrong. Edit: I should probably stop being lazy and go reread it ;)
She wanted to talk hypothetical when it suited her but as soon as the shoe was on the other foot, she got defensive and only wanted to focus on that case. Absolute fool
However, judges are free to alter that record as it occurs,,, "Strike that from the record"; "Off the record"; "Sidebar"; "Let the record reflect..."; "Read into the record..." - all methods whereby the courts create fraudulent records!
What blows my mind is the line of questioning around controlling the editing process of the public. As if to say, “Ok, you can watch but you can’t have an adversarial opinion or we can arrest you.”
I am not a lawyer, a law student, or a paralegal. But from what I'm hearing, he wants to post things that are already publicly available, and they don't want him to post only parts of the whole? But the act of just recording the already public proceedings is being blocked, because they don't want to risk someone making someone else look in a bad light? If I'm understanding this correctly, the fact that he has to sue to get the right to actually use the public information via copying it is a huge part of the problem. I have to agree; it's freedom of speech.
"There is no press in this case" Yes, there absolutely is. When the government broadcasts a court proceeding and a person records it, THAT'S JOURNALISM. Journalism isn't a corporate sponsor. It's recording and possibly distributing writings about events.
Yeah and I would even argue that broadcasting something online for all to see IS press in itself. Press is simply content that is gathered for purposes to be released to the public. The live court proceeding was captured for purposes of being shown to the public. So press takes video from press, seems like by their standard then whoever set up the live stream should also be held in contempt
Isn’t it interesting how the government is attempting to try and redefine ‘the press’? Every single citizen IS ‘the press’ as protected in the 1A. But they absolutely don’t want recognize that.
Also a judge has zero power outside of their court room regardless of what they believe. They can make a judges order regarding conduct in their court room. But they have zero power to order you around on a sidewalk or city park.
There should be transparency for EVERYTHING governmental! Courts, Jails, Cops, Sheriff’s, Fed’s EVERYONE/EVERYTHING should be transparent....but when there are 2 different systems, the last thing they want is transparency🤔If there were only 1 system then transparency wouldn’t matter, but when one group can do anything with impunity and another gets the full force of the system thrown at them, transparency is impossible!
They don't want "transparency"; They want CONTROL. They only want state sponsored media outlets to disseminate court hearings, so they can control the discussion about the case in the states favor. EX: Karen Reed "trial" (Blatant corruption); Even after repeated tampering/obstruction instances by the state, the "approved media", were still professing her guilt...
Yeah, then you would never have rape victims going to court, you would never have people that are embarrassed that they were victims empowered with the idea they could seek retribution
And the only thing that our country guarantees is that you have the right to confront your accuser. Our legal system, though protects victims that's why you don't have a right and never will to see every court hearing
I would also love to know what you mean by one system? Because you're claiming two systems but you're forgetting the fact citizens occupy this imaginary second group., and I called imaginary because the way our legal system is set up. It's enforced by the people that it's restricting
@@walterzimmerman9018victims name, face, voice can be hidden from court, it happens in other countries.. the point is if the accused is found guilty it should be made public.. even if not the accusation should still be made public but due to our court system it was not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.. but it should still be made public.. if Jeffrey Epsteins original court hearings with the same charges, and the most powerful legal team in the country at the time, were put on display for the public, think of how many lives would have been saved.. how these lawyers who made back room deals to get him weekend jail and house arrest for basically rape charges would have never represented him in the first place if the whole country could have seen their arguments in court, no? Transparency is a double edged sword, but in the interest of the public it should always be available.. it outweighs any victims interests being that they can be protected other ways - names hidden, voice recorders used, hidden behind a veil in court, etc.
My argument is that my or your home is NOT a courtroom. The courts declaring that MY home is THEIR courtroom while on zoom is absurd and dangerous. If they want total control, hold court in courtrooms.
Someone needs to email the judge who said nobody reads transcripts other than judges and lawyers and tell him 10,000 people listened to this court recording within 30 minutes of it being published.
But they listened to the audio, didn't read the transcripts. Transcripts are just the text that has to be read, not listened to (audio recording like this one) or viewed (video)
You’re absolutely correct but may be missing my point. The judge will likely be shocked that 60,000 ordinary people listened to the oral arguments of this case within hours of it being published. If the audio recording was not available then AI or LackLuster could have read out the transcript and it still would have gotten loads of views.
@@stediasse You can easily make your pc or phone read the transcript for you. You don't need to physically read it, but could go to the reading part if it piques your interest. Same as being able to read what's on screen here while simultaneously listening to this video
@@stediasse And if you argue that a transcript given on paper can't be read through phone then you're wrong too, since there's apps that can read the texts from pictures taken of those papers
So wonderful that they can publicly put the case online. On a side note, all court rooms should be broadcast live on everyone on the internet. Unless the case is sealed it absolutely is public and should be made so. I strongly believe many in the public would be outraged by what they see happening in some court rooms as numerous example of cases discussed online have shown. Back to the topic at hand. So they publicly put the court Zoom video online for everyone and now no one can record it or share it? That’s just plain nonsense and why is this even being discussed. I believe the real issue here is the power they have and their strong desire to not have anyone know what they are doing visually as they know most do not want too nor have the time to read a bunch of court room case outputs nor are the transcripts provided for free. So now both are readily available for all. We as citizens should demand this. Especially as any true freedom of speech that is the foundation of this country requires the public has the right to scrutinize and share.
If it’s a public trial. Then it should be recorded, audio and video at all times so the general public can view it over the public airways if they wish. That’s why it’s a public trial. I can go down there and sit in the court, and listen to it, why can’t I sit at home and listen and watch on TV. Over the public airways because there’s a public trial.
Which part of he was not in the courtroom does the defence attorney understand? Taking a photo from a YT live unrestricted broadcast while at home doesn’t even violate the court policy! What a joke…
All cases should be available to have any portion rebroadcast on the evening news. Anything a Judge says “Can and should be held against them” in the next election!
Seems pretty simple, if you do not want people recording it, then don't broadcast it live for millions to see. I fail to understand why they're so dense that they can't comprehend this simple concept.
Public court means making the court proceedings public, which is great for transparency. A public forum generally invites discussion with the public - something that you don't want in court proceedings. Do you really want Joe Schmoe interjecting in your trial and giving the judge/jury their thoughts on your case, or questioning witnesses?
If I'm selected for jury duty and tell them I'm for sale, not guilty verdicts run $50k what would they do? Everyone else gets a kickback it's time to make being a juror profitable again!
Listening to this debate made me so frustrated. The judge consistently kept bringing up all of the most crazy, unusual situations as arguments. Talk about grandstanding. IT WAS BROADCAST TO THE PUBLIC. 🤦
Listen to some more Appeals arguments. That kind of wild hypothetical and adversarial debate between the judges and attorneys is common. It's also required as the attorneys do not get to ask questions or debate each other, only interacting with the judges' panel.
Absolutley made my blood boil listening to his pretended intelligence just to interject an asinine argument. I'm not a judge, and the law is clear... if it's public, they can not control it or anyone whatsoever. It is a violation of the First Amendment.
A prosecutor who is willing to do this, is willing to do ANYTHING for their own sake. This is horrific that the she just attacked him, without ANY reasoning.
Who are these JUDGES ? I AM HORRIFIED! The answer IS MORE SPEACH , NOT LESS . If they don't trust the people to figure out what is true or false, WHY HAVE a JURY ?
@12:37 Wow Batousai you go boy......... makes case law and now he gets honorable mention in apellet Court hearings. The auditing Community should be proud.
Yeah idk why this is all necessary when that simple phrase should be the end of the discussion. A video livestream on TH-cam can be viewed from a public place, that’s it.
@@experienceofchris1108 The fact the prosecutor won at the lower court is shocking!!!🤦♂️ The court proceeding was LIVE STREAMED and broadcasted to everyone on the PLANET.. how the hell can it be restricted after the fact !!??😳 Absolute madness..
If the court is putting anything into public view the public has the right to do whatever they want with that information. The court can't limit who watches, records or listens to public information.
@9:50 wow the really sad part is you can plainly hear that these judges would like to believe that they can broadcast something out into public space and still have control over how it's disseminated once it's let loose in the wild? I would already have to say that they obviously do not understand electronic transmission and complete grasp of Zoom hearing.
I can’t believe the lower court overruled the motion for summary judgment! The hearing was broadcast on YT therefore, ends all government authority over that content. I’d argue cameras need to be in all courtrooms which broadcast every trial free for The Public to access. Courts belong to The Public! Don’t they..?
Use code "Lack" for 10% off Attorney Shield!
attorney-shield.com/discount/LACK
Yikes - Opinion dropped 2 days after I posted. I may have Nick on to talk about it. Let me know if it's something you're interested in hearing?
caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-6th-circuit/116525460.html
Karen McDonald
facebook.com/KarenMcDonaldMI
Nick Somberg
facebook.com/Somberglaw/photos
Invest in Attorney Shield!
www.startengine.com/offering/attorney-shield
Submit your video:
forms.gle/CUpEtoKF4cw7apur6
LackLuster Media LLC
PO Box 514
Chester, WV 26034
Best Dashcam - amzn.to/45fVYsW
MERCH - www.youtube.com/@LackLusterMedia/store
- - Social - -
Facebook: facebook.com/lacklustermedia.official
Twitter: twitter.com/DaleHillerYT
DISCORD: discord.gg/SUcPuym
IG: instagram.com/lackluster_media/
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@lackluster_official
Project1983.org
I receive commissions from featured links on verified purchases, at no cost to you.
You should do one for tourists/business. People visiting for a short time need it.
unless they delete the video. i can down load videos from here. hahhahaha wow. this country needs big time help
Please do a video on state militias. What is it? Why do we need it? Why did we lose it?
I'm surprise the plaintiff attorney didn't bring up the fair used Is doctrine.
*While I do not believe that "Standing" as it has been developed under Article 3 analysis is a valid position for a court to take, we are stuck with it. The entire Standing concept has been developed as a supra-Constirutional opinion which can be used to gut Article 3 redress. That said, this was a very **_very_** interesting debate, especially in light of the spanner that is **_"Fee Speech et al"._*
*Thanks for "rebroadcasting" it !*
Hello! I'm the plaintiff in this case. First, let me say-excellent video! However, I wanted to clarify a few points. My original post was about an assistant prosecutor named Qamar Estamos-Enayah, and the elected official at that time was Jessica Cooper, against whom we initiated the lawsuit. Karen McDonald was not the elected prosecutor at that time. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that I had a separate hearing to hold the prosecutor in contempt for falsifying a contempt charge against me, which was distinct from this lawsuit.
Thank you for sharing this story! I’m happy to provide any further input if needed.
That makes more sense, at 0:43 it says she didn't take office until 2021, but that court hearing/post was mid 2020. Thanks for clearing up the mild confusion I had in the details.
Hey thank you for trying to bring transparency to our courts. I appreciate the effort. I amsure you got some heat over this but don't think your efforts aren't appreciated.
Can this be pinned @lackluster
boosting this post
The fact that you had to defend yourself for merely redistributing content the court CHOSE TO BROADCAST to the public is beyond stupid.
"there's no press in the case"
I'm so sick of agents of the state only acknowledging main stream media as press. We. Are. All. Press.
Yes, all the people are the press. I literally yelled that at my phone whenthat was brought up
Also is there no press because it's being suppressed.
But there was nobody with Letters of Marque from the Lord High Credentialer of Scriveners.
No. We are not. There's a difference between legitimately trained and educated journalists and amateur photographers and videographers. Either way, free speech is a thing.
@@YIKESMF not in the eyes of the constitution there's not. There's lots of case law on the subject.
All court cases should be recorded and publicly available. All cases are matters of public interest. The government doesnt want court to be recorded because they dont want there corruption being exposed. If they dont allow us to record then they can lie all they want without accountability
It blows my mind that a judge could argue a recording prohibition would apply to a public broadcast. The judge owns the courtroom and nothing else.
I just posted the same point 👍🏻
They type transcripts, a picture is worth a 1000 words
@@CandyGramForMongo_ The judge does not necessarily "own the courtroom". If the courtroom is open to the public, then they should not be able to prohibit recording. That is a violation of fundamental rights. Only if the courtroom is closed can you say that the judge "owns the courtroom".
Of course, we know the judges do think they own the courtroom, and can violate everyone's rights by prohibiting recording.
Judges and prosecutors don’t want their incompetence on display either. I’ve attended some hearings with blatant violations of civil rights or judges trying to goad people into self-representation and they are just as corrupt as the police.
Why is policy above the law? All government employees should be subject to scrutiny.
It’s not, but they like to overstep their authority because they have giant egos.
This is the best thing I’ve seen online in years. We the people should demand that all court recordings should be available after 6 months. We can not have government officials immune to the scrutiny of the public. Love this guy, he is amazing.
And why even have court recorders? They’re not always 100% accurate. The argument that cameras would cause grandstanding is not relevant. The presence of jurors causes grandstanding, it’s up to the judge to control it. There’s case law that states simply filming police isn’t obstruction.
Judges have way to much power and no consequences for abuse
That is TRUE of All Government and that is the Problem!
So pray…. And vote….. ha!
This isn't the problem here. Read the case, it's about prosecutors having too much power.
Agreed
@@whylie1555both of those change nothing. Otherwise we wouldn’t be allowed to either
These DAs are pure evil.
That’s why you always record the police. Because they presented to the DA and they make a story up and why did they make the story up? They put you in prison or nothing. For decades your life too.
That’s why you always film the police and sheriff. District Attorney get their information from pigs who lie. District Attorney will tell the jury that lie with more lies added. Then you go to prison years or decades. Filming the police and sheriff stops that. Look who’s going to jail know days pigs/cops or sheriff. This case is about banning public servants from being filmed during the course of their duties. Public trial is that public airwaves are public.
They are traitors, just like a lot of the judges.....
They're all on the take
Well. We know how she feels.
She’s anti-free speech.
"Is recording a public trial being held live online and posted by the court itself a crime?"
*_Absolutely fucking not._*
Once the information is public, it is public.
Judge: "Was he recording in the courtroom?"
Idiot Lawyer: *No.*
Judge: "So, his recording was done outside of the courtroom?"
IL: *Yes.*
Judge: "Why do you keep bringing up courtroom policies when a courtroom was not the location where the filming occurred?"
IL: *I have no other argument.*
Judge: "Why the fuck are we here?"
IL: *Because I'm stupid.*
Judge: "Denied. Your client can be sued for violating his 1st Amendment right."
We wish. Sometimes they vote out of spite
Funny however what Unicorn says is what should be true. I want transparency in all aspects of government! Once the material has been released to public it is clear that it will stand there forever! This is just someone who has FELT threatened! If that’s the case then we would never have any political cartoons! Think about it for a minute… yeah made me scratch my head too! ✌️❤️🇺🇸⚖️
Also does their stream bring profit?
THEY DO HAVE IN COURT RECORDING! The courts make their own recordings and you can get copys of the recordings by paying a fee. News outlets do it all the time!
@@skooterfd Not all the time. There have been many cases where news outlets have to use artists' renditions of subjects of the court.
She literally tried saying something akin to “don’t focus on previous case law, just focus on this particular case because the previous case law blows up my entire argument”
......and THAT is the KEY here.....
The fact that the judges are questioning this…. Crazy. You don’t broadcast something then complain about it. They would want the “Court room” to be everywhere to expand their power.
If the case has made it this far they kinda have to, otherwise the dodgy prosecutor could claim it was unfair and win on appeal or something. I always think some of the questions from these courts sound stupid
He sounds like a complete moron.. I felt my own braincells dying.
The courts do not allow recording in the court room for the simple fact that they don't want to be caught being corrupt.
Or making stupid mistakes
Exactly.
@chrisbudesa I agree with more than the corruption argument
THEY DO HAVE IN COURT RECORDING! The courts make their own recordings and you can get copys of the recordings by paying a fee. News outlets do it all the time!
@@skooterfd through a FOIA request where they get to review the footage first and make any edits of the footage or audio they deem appropriate or necessary and in some places they can even hide behind the law and not release the footage.
Good luck enforcing a rule that says "no recording of live public broadcasts online". Any artist knows if you post something online you lose control of it immediately
Only 5 mins in but I couldn’t believe the hypothetical counter questions about “altering” and “over flow recording (outside the court room)” which had nothing to do with this case. Massive distraction from his case and completely brain dead not to recognize that.
@@TheBoobanThank you, yes! That hypo served no purpose other than to eat thru his 15min argument time.
I was inflamed asa I heard that, first, hypo. That time is precious and that hypo just completely led down a whole diff path.
😤😤😤
I think using the word "artist" Is a stretch😂
I can't help but to agree.
The government is an artist. Con artist.
If Congress says no cameras, it can be challenged in court.
If the White House says no cameras, it can be overruled by Congress or the courts.
If the a judge says no cameras, that's the end of discussion.
What happened to checks and balances?
Congress probably has the ABILITY to pass a Federal law allowing recording in courts (at least Federal ones), but they completely lack the WILL to do so.
@@coolraul07 I expect the current court would just rule that law unconstitutional.
The reason is they do not want the public to be informed.
Our useless Congress could pass a law making it legal to record in court.
The what the 2nd amendment is for. So we check them and get back into balance.
The reason the court doesn't want recording because they don't want to be held accountable by the public for their actions while on the clock for the public.
Judge: "Is a recording speech?"
All of us who have been paying even the smallest amount of attention to court cases in the last 20 years: 🤦
Scary stuff
Yes the supreme Court has already ruled years ago that we have the right to record which goes with the freedom of press not the Free speech rights in the First amendment.. and these federal judges act clueless like they don't know that we have a right to record. Anything you can see or hear you can record.
Did this whole episode make you wonder why you never chose "judge" as the profession to pursue? They sounded absolutely *SIMPLE* with the questions they asked
Omg that’s the judge? wtf has happened to this country.
The wheels of justice sure do turn slowly when it comes to people’s rights.
Yeah verily…!
They move even faster when removing or limiting those "rights".*
They move in the way that makes it easiest for them to thoroughly and completely grind our rights into the dust.
It’s almost like we should have some kind of right, let’s call it the right to a speedy trial, oh wait that already exists it’s just ignored
@nymenris2821 it's not ignored. It's an affirmative right meaning you have to ask for a speedy trial. Most people don't ask because the more time you have to prepare the better.
Corruption has no limits, yet freedom comes with many limits
Not really, people who are corrupt have the balls to be corrupt, there's a penalty for the game they play, freedom has a price and it's whatever people put up with from those who are corrupt🤷 if the people were that fed up they'd be in the streets by the tens of thousands with guns demanding an end to corruption.. Americans have been chemically castrated by the poison in the water supply and food not to mention brainwashing on social media
💯🎯💯🎯👆👆👆
Verified
It comes with a gigantic asterisk
Freedom has the potential to limit corruption. Therefore, corruption has an interest in limiting freedom.
They can’t stand it when there is any transparency at all. It offends them. We’re hitting a slippery slope.
Impossible to have transparency when there are 2 systems where 1 group can do whatever with impunity, while the other gets the full weight of the system against them.
*We are long past "hitting" that slope: we have been sliding down that particular sloped razor for decades now.*
As the state lawyer said, first Amendment rights are at their lowest point in court.
But that is protecting the constitutional rights within the court. WTF? We don't want to chill their rights. BS, that is literally this case. Such a shame law doesn't count in court.
The only things holding us back from going down said slope is the second amendment
What’s worse is that I would have said what if she got the notes from the stenographer and published it because it’s public record, unless it’s sealed? All in all, this is just nuts!
If the court broadcasts this information to the Public then it is Public !!! End of !!!
The fact that the government consistently argues to limit and stifle our rights is horrible! Judges tend to rule against the people anyway! The whole process is disgusting!
These "fair and impartial" judges are sure concerned about the interests of government. 🙄
they fear the scrutiny of their conduct if recorded and shared on social media. like he said, nobody reads transcripts.
@@daddymcpapi7520 And transcripts are "incomplete' if you know how to play them. All sorts of rude or aggressive tones that'd make you look awful in a recording won't be reflected in a transcript.
@@cameronjames3499 fantastic point, my friend!
It's a foreign entity on American soil loaded with freemason's Zionist-communists traitors ..
@@cameronjames3499is tone really so important tho? I mean it's not like Dancing Queen by ABBA would become creepy if sung by an older male lounge singer or something 😅
The fact that this has to go to trial is the problem. No consequences for the rogue and criminal DA. The process is the punishment.
Wrong, you can sue for malicious prosecution after you win your first amendment case
Exactly. Well said. The process is already malicious
The silver lining is the DA has been drug through the court system for years now as a defendant in a lawsuit. All because she tried to maliciously prosecute someone like a power drunk freak. I bet she thinks about it every day
@@PassiveMoney1979 yes, IF you have enough money to get past ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for prosecuters.
Yep, I like how you put that.
All courts should be open
@superbmediacontentcreator
Then nothing inside the courtroom should be censored and is fully protected by the 1A to film, broadcast or to otherwise do what one wishes with it. I’m sick of the ‘limited’ argument by the government. An inalienable right is not to be limited. The government, including the courts are corrupt from stem to stern. Any judge ruling to limit a protected right should be charged with tyranny and subject to the full punishment of that crime.
Of course. They would be if it wasn’t just a giant scam
I love these court arguments. Post more please, if and when you can.
These judges are absolutely obsessed with arguing a case that isn’t in front of them.
Cameras need to be in every court room in America. A Secret court is never a good idea.
I believe cameras are in court rooms. They don’t want you recording in there because they don’t have control of the videos if you do it but they do if they do it see the picture.😱🤔🤔🤔🤦♂️🤦♂️🎯💯
Funny, the government sure seems to think the PEOPLE should be recorded everywhere and broadcast when it suits their agenda but that same government wants NO recording of THEM.
I would say all trial should be release after the trial is concluded. All jurors should be kept private.
Well it is not secret. You can get the court transcript just for the asking. You can also go see any trial you want of they have seating. Bit you cannot just have people doing there own filming. One reason those who are in the Jury have every right to expect there privacy will be respected especially with a big case dealing with gangs and drug cartels.
A secret court protecting a secret police.
Once you post something publicly you cannot undo it.
"You can't unscramble and egg"
"You can't un-ring a bell"
If they did not want it used by the public they should not have made it public!
You can’t un-blow a load
It’s infuriating to hear judges that can’t get thru their heads what the real case is. They literally couldn’t understand that once it’s live on the web that they can’t control it. The government did it!
Yes! She argued "protectons" for peoples in the court. Those protections would not be violated by someone recording the live stream. They would be violated by the court who released the information to the public.
You're misunderstanding the intent of these lines of questions. It's not the judge's job to automatically take one side. They are deconstructing each argument to get the heart of the matter on record so as to make sure their ruling addresses the actual situation and not a bunch of extra nonsense, as well as giving as much info as possible to the next court of appeal.
@@JamesCasatelli Their first job is to understand the arguments then practice law.
@@oldjarhead386that’s why they are asking those questions. This isn’t a regular court. They might be establishing case law so they have to break down each argument and ask questions that might seem obvious to you. But they have to be asked.
Yeah the first judge that speaks kind of trips over himself and basically said that recording information is not speech itself. Bruh it's literally the first amendment you treat freedom of the press the exact same way you do speech in this context, you're gathering information to share with the public
Great posting. I've sought out oral arguments on cases and they are a bit of work to listen to. This one is very good. Thank you for bringing it.
Just thinking why are we not able to record judges in their official capacity isn’t that a contradiction in its own ?
Prosecutor's are just hungry to win a case no matter what the cost or whose life is ruined!
Prosecutor Harris has left the chat
Clearly this judge does NOT understand what broadcasting is. If they are BROADCASTING the hearing on TH-cam, it becomes public domain and they by nature lose control of that information. If they want to keep control of the information, then DON'T broadcast it to the public. Broadcasting by nature means OUTSIDE the courtroom. This is identical to an artist sitting in the courtroom, making a drawing that is their interpretation then putting it on the evening news with commentary from a reporter who also sat in the courtroom and then gives a commentary on the evening news about what he thinks happened in the courtroom in "snippets". The government only releases' the snippet's of body cam video, of redacted documents but that SAME government doesn't want the same thing being done to them. This is tyranny.
It’s really quite simple - anything I can see or hear from public, I can record. If you’ve plastered your court hearing on a public forum, a public space, it can be recorded
thats what i thought at first. but what happened was he recorded his own zoom hearing and then posted that to youtube. they are trying to argue that it is the same as him sneaking a camcorder into his own court hearing at the courthouse and then posting that recording.
Exactly. TH-cam is owned by a private company. It is not owned by the state. Once the broadcasted it, it became public. They should have broadcast on the state website or court website.
@@robyee3325 as far as I can understand it. The court livestreamed it to TH-cam.
@robyee3325 No, the court was broadcasting it on youtube, then the lawyer recorded their public recording. The judge charged the lawyer for recording the public recording
All courts should be broadcast live in the spirit of public hearings
I think you have the right idea. I think the recordings shouldn't be live to avoid the grandstanding that you see in court procedural dramas. We don't want judges and prosecutors directly using the courtroom to try to ensure reelection. But the recordings should be made and be accessible after the fact so that people can properly understand what happened in the courtroom.
I think an immediate result would be a lot of judges being censured for being human. Statistical analysis already shows that judges tend to be more harsh at different times of the day on cases with similar circumstances. When they are awake and aware at some points in the day, they make different rulings than when they are sleepy or fatigued. Also, a particularly emotionally charged case might also lead a judge to rule in a way that isn't equitable.
I'm totally fine with this, but it should be handled gracefully rather than as a witch-hunt where perfection is demanded of human actors.
This is EXACTLY they type of video we need. The government wants the public to be ignorant of the judicial process so they can't defend themselves. Then after they get railroaded they use the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" or law enforcement says "You don't know the law you HAVE to do what I say", and if you do they berate you for being a "Roadside Lawyer". This protects the 1st amendment ability use speech to know and understand the law.
When the overflow room is live streaming on the Internet, the restrictions no longer apply.
Using the process as a punishment. We need to be able to hold the government accountable for that
What is really disgusting to me is that the court always makes a distinction between the people and the government. Especially with those words:
Of the people, by the people, for the people.
It seems like someone lost their understanding of what kind of government we have. It's not the governments property, it's the people's property. We have every right to see ant and all evidence of anything we should want to see. Some restrictions may apply but not like this, and not with so much on the line. This judge sounds like he would ban the Bill of Rights because it's too broadly written. 🙄
Being falsely arrested is absolutely an injury.....
"Theoretical injury" 😂
@@SatanicKale The armed robbery of the most valuable property you own, the inutes of your life is NoT a theoretical injury, ignoramus....
@@SatanicKale Being armed robbed of the most valuable property you have, the minutes of your life, is a concrete, objective injury, NOT theoretical.
@@6StimuL84 I was taking a jab at the prosecutor who kept saying it was theoretical
@@SatanicKale Got ya, misunderstanding......
This kind of lunacy being perpetrated by role having so much power is mind boggling!
If the court chose to live stream the court proceedings, where Joe Public can easily view and record, why can’t the attorney, who by all means is a part of the public, reference said publicly published material??? This is a waste of tax payer funds and an exercise in stupidity! The court has already stated there’s no assumption of privacy in public! They broadcasted via a publicly accessible site yet they think the public viewer is barred from using it? Madness.
The court gave up "sanctuary" when they decided to literally fucking BROADCAST the proceedings on YT. And having moved its way to such a high court, Imagine the tax dollars that were converted to ash in pursuit of this pathetic excuse for precedent. If only the payers of said tax dollars could demand a refund.
The judge was on a power trip and now we are footing the bill cause he refuses to admit he was wrong
But those poor judges might not get all of the ad revenue for their TH-cam page.dont you care about the judges right to use the legal system for a profit?
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the moment anything is broadcast it is saved somewhere on the internet and anyone could make a copy to their own box just by recording the screen
@@bluecreekps3 The short answer is that a live broadcast from YT is public, so virtually anyone (some countries like China, block TH-cam) could otherwise access the stream and then record the stream; not just via camera but through screen capture software on a PC. The content itself at this point is only available through TH-cam. However, other sites could link or embed the video on their page; the source is still TH-cam and not a separate copy of the content on that site. Similarly to streaming the same channel on multiple TVs is essentially coming from the same source.
Longer answer... Further access can depend on if the stream was, as a matter of fact, broadcasted live or uploaded as a recorded video to the channel. No matter the scenarios, the content is always saved to Google's servers. A live TH-cam stream is recorded and archived on their platform; the archive itself can only be accessed by authorized Google staff or the channel owner, not publicly, yet. However, the archived video can be made public by the channel as a standard accessible video. In this case, it could be shared and re-watched. Although, TH-cam's pages and videos are coded so the normal user cannot download the video, in reality the source of the video (the file itself) is saved somewhere on Google's servers. So, other sites and browser extensions have figured out how to strip the file details and location from the page, granting the ability download/save the content as an offline, local copy. Thus, allowing even further distribution.
@@bluecreekps3 they don't understand the internet they forgot the first rule of the internet. the internet is forever
If they invite the public or publicly broadcast, its public.
they didnt though. he recorded his own zoom hearing and posted that to youtube. they are saying its the same as if he snuck in a camcorder into court
@robyee3325 It was both, he was invited via zoom, but it was also livestreamed to the public on youtube.
I wonder how a US court will prevent me, in Sweden, from making a recording of public broadcast and from rebroadcasting it? I see a problem with jurisdiction.
I guess the US has extradition as an option if the offence is egregious enough.
@@rory1461 - Ohh, the US can certainly ASK for me to be extraditeted, but such an extradiction would only be granted by the Swedish jurisdictional system if rebroadcasting the proceedings of US court process is illegal in Sweden.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but I have a hard time imagine that such a law exist in Sweden. There might be something about broadcasting from Swedish court, but for foreign courts?
Then if there is some law in Sweden against rebroadcast it would be a crime in Sweden, I don't know if such a law exists there @JanBruunAndersen
All court proceedings should be recorded(audio and video in full), and be released to the public in the first place.
In certain situations, preventing recording and public access to information can protect witnesses and victims that testify and protect the identities of jury members.
It would not be good to allow recording in all court cases as witnesses and victims may become reluctant to testify for fear of retaliation or ousterization from a community.
Without the testimony of the witnesses and victims of the offense or defense, it could be the difference in finding a person guilty or innocent of the charges put against them.
I agree with that actually. This could set a very dangerous precedent for witnesses/victims/jurors. I think it should still be allowed to be recorded just not their names/faces but if its a witness testimony that results in a conviction or a ruling in general, then just the audio should be allowed since the transcript is public record anyway. We should at least be able to physically hear it
@garretg818 Some people have distinctive voices that could be identifying if linked to the case, but if they use a voice changer, then it could be alright.
Another problem I see would be limiting the recording to the court only as you could not trust outside sources to censor the identities of people and keep what was stricken from the record from being released.
It would also become a problem recording all court cases because there is a risk of the recordings being released as people sometimes mishandle records or could leak the record for money.
Where there are transcripts of the court case, they don't include certain details that are stricken from the record by the court reporter.
You can see that allowing recording in courtrooms could lead to a host of problems in protecting people.
It would also be a lot harder to seal the case files in cases involving children, usually cases are sealed when they involve children as the court doesn't want the case to follow them the rest of their lives for something that happened to them or something they did when they were young and foolish.
Eh. There are cases that witnesses shouldn't be recorded. Transcripts are enough.
Witnesses and jurors, who could be killed would disagree with you… Children who were molested by adults would disagree with you and the parents would too… There’s so many reasons why all court proceedings should not be available to the public… For one ….some things are just not your damn business
It's amazing how judges always seem to be conflicted between following the law and following their own interests when it comes to recording in the court rooms.
If the court has nothing to hide then all Court proceedings should be available to the public at any time including while they're ongoing.
What I’m hearing is that the real problem is the unconstitutional court policy on banning video in the court room, and if having no cameras in the physical court room really is for disruptions then all courts should live stream on zoom for everyone to record as they please.
Well I have seen a lot of court trial on camera but I think it is up to the judge. But I think most court cases are filmed, they are just not on social media. You can get court transcript unless the cases has been sealed which is very rare.
The government cannot possibly think that, if they broadcast a public trial they have any control. They don’t have ownership rights. Everything they have is ours. The people, you can request all the video but your going to pay a lot of money and waiting time. Any random person can click the link and watch the trial…record it, photograph it,audio what ever…it’s public info…
What he should argue he is gathering intelligence on the prosecution crimes and violations
You know how expensive is to live broadcast ? Let alone broadcast every single case. If your state taxes aren’t high enough they’ll soon be.
In certain situations, preventing recording and public access to information can protect witnesses and victims that testify and protect the identities of jury members.
It would not be good to allow recording in all court cases as witnesses and victims may become reluctant to testify for fear of retaliation or ousterization from a community.
Without the testimony of the witnesses and victims of the offense or defense, it could be the difference in finding a person guilty or innocent of the charges put against them.
This case could set a dangerous precedent as it can be used in future cases and could be depremental to our justice system.
Another problem I see is many times in court witness testimony, evidence or an oral argument is stricken from the public record the court reporter removes the information from the court transcript this would not be the case if the case was allowed to be filmed by outside parties.
With this instance with the court disseminating the case for all to see it is not an issue if a person records the case but if the case was not being broadcast and was only broadcast between the judge, jury, plaintiff, and defendant, then recording the proceeding could become a privacy issue for the victims, witnesses, and jury's.
@@wildowarkson8774 idk, seems like a ton of youtubers do it for relatively cheap lmao; government has hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal. Stop dumping money into useless crap and put it into things like this. Problem solved.
I said it before, they're trying to eliminate the First Amendment!
15:23 "in this day and age..." SHUT UP! I'm sick of hearing this phrase that people blurt out that means nothing.
I've heard this day and age since I can remember, 60 odd years so far !
Back in the old days, in small towns where everyone knew everyone, people sitting in the court already knew the names of all the jurors, all of the witnesses and likely everyone in the gallery. NOW suddenly they think the jurors have the right to be anonymous.
Same
Right?! Has the constitution been repealed “in this day and age “? I hate that phrase especially from cops
@@Ganjagrlit’s going on my bingo card for tyrant cops
We need more attorneys like this guy and ron durbin to fight these prosecutor criminals and criminal judges
“Is recording really speech?”
Did a judge really ask that question?
He is an idiot
That's a fair question. I would think recording isn't speech until the recording is shared, so it needs to be treated as speech regardless. This seemed to be the thoughts of the judge as well
@@huntersawyer9324 wasn't that covered by Turner v Driver they referred to
@@nic.h i thought turner v driver covered the right specifically to record the police and not whether or not recording is a form of speech. although the circuit court in the turner case did base their decision on first amendment protections covering recording, I don't know if that necessarily means that recording is speech by itself or if they just decided that the prevention of subsequent speech (which preventing recording certainly is at least) was unduly burdensome. I am really unsure about that though so if anyone can double check that and see if I am miss understanding the decision
@@huntersawyer9324 I actually didn't recheck the case and was basing my comment on my vague recollection and the comment made at 12:33 which cited it as such. So I may well be wrong.
Edit: I should probably stop being lazy and go reread it ;)
These are some of my absolute favorite uploads. Thank you for compiling all of these and sharing with us.
It lost me about 5 mins in
@@MrScrawnjuan Yes, I am sure he has many viewers who only want to see raw police abuse body cam stuff.
Agree 100% love the police interaction as well but this content is top tier for me.
She wanted to talk hypothetical when it suited her but as soon as the shoe was on the other foot, she got defensive and only wanted to focus on that case. Absolute fool
Hypocrites.
Trying to hold onto their power.
Absolute competent, good lawyer.😂😂😂
All courts are on record. Interesting how the system loves to keep saying it’s not public or can’t be recorded. Very interesting.
However, judges are free to alter that record as it occurs,,, "Strike that from the record"; "Off the record"; "Sidebar"; "Let the record reflect..."; "Read into the record..." - all methods whereby the courts create fraudulent records!
What blows my mind is the line of questioning around controlling the editing process of the public. As if to say, “Ok, you can watch but you can’t have an adversarial opinion or we can arrest you.”
The "banning of pens" argument was really on point. 13:08
I am not a lawyer, a law student, or a paralegal. But from what I'm hearing, he wants to post things that are already publicly available, and they don't want him to post only parts of the whole? But the act of just recording the already public proceedings is being blocked, because they don't want to risk someone making someone else look in a bad light? If I'm understanding this correctly, the fact that he has to sue to get the right to actually use the public information via copying it is a huge part of the problem. I have to agree; it's freedom of speech.
They're arguing he can't record any of it because watching a youtube video in your home is the same thing as being inside the courtroom.
@@slugbones Wow. It so isn't. That is ridiculous.
"There is no press in this case"
Yes, there absolutely is. When the government broadcasts a court proceeding and a person records it, THAT'S JOURNALISM.
Journalism isn't a corporate sponsor. It's recording and possibly distributing writings about events.
Yeah and I would even argue that broadcasting something online for all to see IS press in itself. Press is simply content that is gathered for purposes to be released to the public. The live court proceeding was captured for purposes of being shown to the public. So press takes video from press, seems like by their standard then whoever set up the live stream should also be held in contempt
Isn’t it interesting how the government is attempting to try and redefine ‘the press’? Every single citizen IS ‘the press’ as protected in the 1A. But they absolutely don’t want recognize that.
These types of judges would rule The Federalist Papers weren't Free Speech because Alexander Hamilton wasn't employed by a newspaper.
When they are threatened by transparency, we have a problem
Also a judge has zero power outside of their court room regardless of what they believe. They can make a judges order regarding conduct in their court room. But they have zero power to order you around on a sidewalk or city park.
Policy is not law. To prosecute for court policy is like legislating from the bench then prosecuting for said judicial crimes.
There should be transparency for EVERYTHING governmental! Courts, Jails, Cops, Sheriff’s, Fed’s EVERYONE/EVERYTHING should be transparent....but when there are 2 different systems, the last thing they want is transparency🤔If there were only 1 system then transparency wouldn’t matter, but when one group can do anything with impunity and another gets the full force of the system thrown at them, transparency is impossible!
They don't want "transparency"; They want CONTROL. They only want state sponsored media outlets to disseminate court hearings, so they can control the discussion about the case in the states favor. EX: Karen Reed "trial" (Blatant corruption); Even after repeated tampering/obstruction instances by the state, the "approved media", were still professing her guilt...
Yeah, then you would never have rape victims going to court, you would never have people that are embarrassed that they were victims empowered with the idea they could seek retribution
And the only thing that our country guarantees is that you have the right to confront your accuser. Our legal system, though protects victims that's why you don't have a right and never will to see every court hearing
I would also love to know what you mean by one system? Because you're claiming two systems but you're forgetting the fact citizens occupy this imaginary second group., and I called imaginary because the way our legal system is set up. It's enforced by the people that it's restricting
@@walterzimmerman9018victims name, face, voice can be hidden from court, it happens in other countries.. the point is if the accused is found guilty it should be made public.. even if not the accusation should still be made public but due to our court system it was not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.. but it should still be made public.. if Jeffrey Epsteins original court hearings with the same charges, and the most powerful legal team in the country at the time, were put on display for the public, think of how many lives would have been saved.. how these lawyers who made back room deals to get him weekend jail and house arrest for basically rape charges would have never represented him in the first place if the whole country could have seen their arguments in court, no? Transparency is a double edged sword, but in the interest of the public it should always be available.. it outweighs any victims interests being that they can be protected other ways - names hidden, voice recorders used, hidden behind a veil in court, etc.
My argument is that my or your home is NOT a courtroom. The courts declaring that MY home is THEIR courtroom while on zoom is absurd and dangerous. If they want total control, hold court in courtrooms.
Someone needs to email the judge who said nobody reads transcripts other than judges and lawyers and tell him 10,000 people listened to this court recording within 30 minutes of it being published.
But they listened to the audio, didn't read the transcripts. Transcripts are just the text that has to be read, not listened to (audio recording like this one) or viewed (video)
You’re absolutely correct but may be missing my point. The judge will likely be shocked that 60,000 ordinary people listened to the oral arguments of this case within hours of it being published. If the audio recording was not available then AI or LackLuster could have read out the transcript and it still would have gotten loads of views.
@@stediasse You can easily make your pc or phone read the transcript for you. You don't need to physically read it, but could go to the reading part if it piques your interest. Same as being able to read what's on screen here while simultaneously listening to this video
@@stediasse And if you argue that a transcript given on paper can't be read through phone then you're wrong too, since there's apps that can read the texts from pictures taken of those papers
This was fun to listen too. Thanks man.
So wonderful that they can publicly put the case online. On a side note, all court rooms should be broadcast live on everyone on the internet. Unless the case is sealed it absolutely is public and should be made so. I strongly believe many in the public would be outraged by what they see happening in some court rooms as numerous example of cases discussed online have shown. Back to the topic at hand. So they publicly put the court Zoom video online for everyone and now no one can record it or share it? That’s just plain nonsense and why is this even being discussed. I believe the real issue here is the power they have and their strong desire to not have anyone know what they are doing visually as they know most do not want too nor have the time to read a bunch of court room case outputs nor are the transcripts provided for free. So now both are readily available for all.
We as citizens should demand this. Especially as any true freedom of speech that is the foundation of this country requires the public has the right to scrutinize and share.
"Does a courtroom become a public forum just because it openly broadcasts the proceedings?"
Obviously, yes? How is that even necessary to ask?
All his questions were dumb.
@@TheBoobanYou're not wrong
The Judge isn't bright enough to understand something this simple.
"Is recording really considered speech?" Was what blew me away
You see the corruption, don't you?
If it’s a public trial. Then it should be recorded, audio and video at all times so the general public can view it over the public airways if they wish. That’s why it’s a public trial. I can go down there and sit in the court, and listen to it, why can’t I sit at home and listen and watch on TV. Over the public airways because there’s a public trial.
That would be nice and even nicer yet, how social media stop blurring out videos of public officials.
Which part of he was not in the courtroom does the defence attorney understand? Taking a photo from a YT live unrestricted broadcast while at home doesn’t even violate the court policy! What a joke…
Idk why but I love listening to these. I love how the judges question both parties where you can’t really tell who they’re siding with
The irony of these judges being concerned of courtroom recordings being cut up and put on TH-cam
It really feels as though these judges have a fundamental misunderstanding of live streaming
All cases should be available to have any portion rebroadcast on the evening news.
Anything a Judge says “Can and should be held against them” in the next election!
What a fitting name for the prosecutor
my first thought,lol
Yes and she fits the voice to 🎉😂
We do want an open court. A COMPLETELY open court. 100% transparency.
Seems pretty simple, if you do not want people recording it, then don't broadcast it live for millions to see. I fail to understand why they're so dense that they can't comprehend this simple concept.
"We want a public court, not a public forum"
What an odd thing to say
my exact sentiments
I caught that too 👍🏻
Really just means they want the appearance of being transparent without any of the responsibilities of being transparent.
Public court means making the court proceedings public, which is great for transparency. A public forum generally invites discussion with the public - something that you don't want in court proceedings. Do you really want Joe Schmoe interjecting in your trial and giving the judge/jury their thoughts on your case, or questioning witnesses?
If I'm selected for jury duty and tell them I'm for sale, not guilty verdicts run $50k what would they do? Everyone else gets a kickback it's time to make being a juror profitable again!
Listening to this debate made me so frustrated. The judge consistently kept bringing up all of the most crazy, unusual situations as arguments. Talk about grandstanding. IT WAS BROADCAST TO THE PUBLIC. 🤦
It's their job to try to think of these things in their application on the extremes and to poke holes in the arguments.
Listen to some more Appeals arguments. That kind of wild hypothetical and adversarial debate between the judges and attorneys is common. It's also required as the attorneys do not get to ask questions or debate each other, only interacting with the judges' panel.
@@mattmilner5935 none of the hypotheticals had anything to do with the facts in this case. What ifs have no place in a courtroom.
Absolutley made my blood boil listening to his pretended intelligence just to interject an asinine argument. I'm not a judge, and the law is clear... if it's public, they can not control it or anyone whatsoever. It is a violation of the First Amendment.
A prosecutor who is willing to do this, is willing to do ANYTHING for their own sake. This is horrific that the she just attacked him, without ANY reasoning.
Who are these JUDGES ? I AM HORRIFIED! The answer IS MORE SPEACH , NOT LESS . If they don't trust the people to figure out what is true or false, WHY HAVE a JURY ?
Having to ask the courts to hold themselves accountable to the rules everyone else does shows how badly the system is.
@12:37 Wow Batousai you go boy......... makes case law and now he gets honorable mention in apellet Court hearings. The auditing Community should be proud.
Open fields doctrine. If it's able to be seen by the public then there is no expectation of privacy
Yeah idk why this is all necessary when that simple phrase should be the end of the discussion. A video livestream on TH-cam can be viewed from a public place, that’s it.
@@experienceofchris1108
The fact the prosecutor won at the lower court is shocking!!!🤦♂️
The court proceeding was LIVE STREAMED and broadcasted to everyone on the PLANET.. how the hell can it be restricted after the fact !!??😳
Absolute madness..
It was f$&@ng posted on TH-cam, why is this being debated? If I took a screenshot shot and put it on my Facebook would I get sued? This is ridiculous
Thank you for posting the full recording!
@9:30 that is a dangerous line of thought on the judges part. Glad the lawyer redirected
So glad he rebuttled that tri pod argument, so ridiculous when they are literally broadcasting it themselves.
If the court is putting anything into public view the public has the right to do whatever they want with that information. The court can't limit who watches, records or listens to public information.
The defense attorney made a HUGE mistake by saying there's no press involved in this case, as if to suggest that only sanctioned media is press.
Courts are not gatekeepers of who says what about any court proceeding.
Her name is Karen, that explains everything. Shocker!
Her name is Karen. Very very fitting 😂
😂😂😂😂
So, our Supreme Court backed freedom to record ⏺️ is still being questioned
Anyone can walk into a courtroom and watch a trial, so the courtroom is open to the public unless the public has a camera to hold them accountable.
If it’s a non public forum then they shouldn’t be live broadcasting them…. That makes it a public forum
@9:50 wow the really sad part is you can plainly hear that these judges would like to believe that they can broadcast something out into public space and still have control over how it's disseminated once it's let loose in the wild? I would already have to say that they obviously do not understand electronic transmission and complete grasp of Zoom hearing.
For real!!🥴
I can’t believe the lower court overruled the motion for summary judgment! The hearing was broadcast on YT therefore, ends all government authority over that content. I’d argue cameras need to be in all courtrooms which broadcast every trial free for The Public to access. Courts belong to The Public! Don’t they..?
28:03 This is a wrong-headed argument. The First Amendment states We Are All Press.
Fascinating. Thanks for broadcasting the arguments. Quite a learning opportunity