Defense KNEW but didn't disclose that Youngs Security Clearance had been revoked, without him knowing & told the jury he was still employable Absolutely Disgusting!
The defense attys are scumbags for asking the witness about Youngs Security Clearance, when they KNEW it had been revoked & intentionally failed to disclose it to the Plantiff!! They just lost hope for an Appeal lol. I HOPE HE WINS!!
I'm a CPA. His analysis is really flawed. Including prior year W-2 income that won't continue with business income projections makes no sense. His 2021 income was gained from a 1 time event, and without that event in other years, he had losses or minimal income. Going forward, without any other additional income streams available, he may simply go back to minimal or no income.
I would like to know how Zach does not know what those repeated 300k + deductions are when he had to turn over supporting docs for his taxes. Also, when did accountants get security clearance to view the "classified" items to file taxes, but the jury gets nothing but "it's classified".
If CNN truly thought they did nothing wrong, they would not have issued a public apology. Its pretty clear to me that before running the story, they did not have any interest in finding out who Zak was or who he worked for.
He should look for big bucks, big Punitive bucks... CNN and most Liberal media do this routinely and need to start to be held accountable. Big bucks should send a message and that's the point....
@@bevrichards993Right..They're saying CNN did issue an apology, but they would *not* have done that, if they really believed they didn't do anything wrong and we're standing behind their reporter and the story. And defamation cases are not always about money. Sometimes it means more to someone to have their name cleared in the public eye, and have all the details of what really happened brought to light. So they can maybe one day return to work or a sense of normalcy at some point, without having to walk around wearing a scarlet letter.
Is the accountant saying that his W2 income pays his business expenses? "My job paid for my freelance expenses. I did that to avoid getting a loan. People do this, but he's not even saying that clearly. To do this, you have to continually obtain income from an employer.
How is he a money grub exactly? He was legally hired by corporations to get several women out safe, and he did. A money grub would have just taken the money and not cared if the woman got out or not.
@@amandawesterfield7447 Well just for starters he's asking for damages when he's been able to access socialized medicine FREE in another country while tax payers have to pay for OUR courts to hear this farce. He probably got PPP loans too. He's racked up tens of thousands in sketchy "expert" witnesses rather than getting an actual job when his prior work (very expectedly) dried up. He's a professional leech.
Youngs storie is false, and how did those veterans and lots of people get on to Afghanistan grounds. When no one was aloud to come in and or leave. Plus these people still had to have thousands of dollars to get over there and negotiate.
Paid experts tend to be very combative with opposing counsel. They claim to be unbiased because they have worked for both sides, however, if a paid expert got the reputation of giving testimony that doesn't align with the side that paid them, infrequently or not, I suspect they wouldn't be hired as often.
The general was definitely not a hired gun, there were several answers to the plaintiff's attorney that were a lot less favorable than they could have been and he seemed totally fair to the defense.
@@MathisGries I agree. I was thinking of the doctor when I wrote that. He refused to yield any ground and was too insistent that CNN could be the only cause. He portrayed incompetence rather than resolve.
@@bevrichards993 It's suspicious that they couldn't get the medical records from the treating doctor. A lawyer from here might not be able to get them, but the patient himself sure could have. At the very least, a doctor here, with the patients permission, could have. I think there is something incriminating in the records, perhaps notes about malingering, that the plaintiff didn't want released.
I'm playing catch-up & so far, the first three Experts weren't combative at all, which makes them more credible. They answered with only "Yes" or "No" and allowed the Plaintiffs attorneys to expand, where & when it was needed.
Defense KNEW but didn't disclose that Youngs Security Clearance had been revoked, without him knowing & told the jury he was still employable
Absolutely Disgusting!
❤ This Judge is unbiased & fair, he's amazing! I wish there were many more like him!
Agree. Thought he was very thoughtful in making rulings
@k0-litigates225 ❤️
Wow how incredible was the general’s story
The defense attys are scumbags for asking the witness about Youngs Security Clearance, when they KNEW it had been revoked & intentionally failed to disclose it to the Plantiff!! They just lost hope for an Appeal lol. I HOPE HE WINS!!
I'm a CPA. His analysis is really flawed. Including prior year W-2 income that won't continue with business income projections makes no sense. His 2021 income was gained from a 1 time event, and without that event in other years, he had losses or minimal income. Going forward, without any other additional income streams available, he may simply go back to minimal or no income.
I would like to know how Zach does not know what those repeated 300k + deductions are when he had to turn over supporting docs for his taxes. Also, when did accountants get security clearance to view the "classified" items to file taxes, but the jury gets nothing but "it's classified".
I am out of touch, what is this case about? What are you referring to exactly?
The judge ruled that they couldn't consider additional income
@@lesliesmith1103some accountants have a security clearance, particularly those who work for the government or on classified programs.
Tyvm for this coverage ,my sis was active there then .Ty for your service !!!!
If CNN truly thought they did nothing wrong, they would not have issued a public apology. Its pretty clear to me that before running the story, they did not have any interest in finding out who Zak was or who he worked for.
They did issue an apology. They also offered to settle the case but the guy is looking for big bucks out of this.
He should look for big bucks, big Punitive bucks... CNN and most Liberal media do this routinely and need to start to be held accountable. Big bucks should send a message and that's the point....
CNN called that an "apology" but, it wasn't sincere & they never accepted accountability. They definitely gaslit!
@@bevrichards993Right..They're saying CNN did issue an apology, but they would *not* have done that, if they really believed they didn't do anything wrong and we're standing behind their reporter and the story.
And defamation cases are not always about money. Sometimes it means more to someone to have their name cleared in the public eye, and have all the details of what really happened brought to light. So they can maybe one day return to work or a sense of normalcy at some point, without having to walk around wearing a scarlet letter.
Is the accountant saying that his W2 income pays his business expenses? "My job paid for my freelance expenses. I did that to avoid getting a loan. People do this, but he's not even saying that clearly. To do this, you have to continually obtain income from an employer.
Age 72.6 for average business owners to retire at ! Heck no!!
Reminds me of the cop who said " No one told me he had a gun so I didn't check for a gun"
If the CNN attorneys are charging for each minute used during the sidebars & jury questions, that's petty AF! They mad Bro 😂
I hope Zak the patriot wins.
If Al Capone had Richard Bolko as his accountant he would have avoided jail time, he's talking sophistry.
Akselrod is doing a great job exposing Zachary as a liar and a money grub.
How is he a money grub exactly? He was legally hired by corporations to get several women out safe, and he did. A money grub would have just taken the money and not cared if the woman got out or not.
@@amandawesterfield7447 Well just for starters he's asking for damages when he's been able to access socialized medicine FREE in another country while tax payers have to pay for OUR courts to hear this farce. He probably got PPP loans too. He's racked up tens of thousands in sketchy "expert" witnesses rather than getting an actual job when his prior work (very expectedly) dried up. He's a professional leech.
@@John-kv7jo cnn apologist?
@@letitiaruelas5409 No a realist. Are you a family member or friend of Zach's trying to defend this liar, deceiver and pariah?
He preyed on the desperation of Afghans fleeing persecution. He made promises he couldn't keep and exaggerated his capabilities.
And there you have it 7h33 "I was a fact checker!
I have such a crush on Judge Henry hehe 😍
I'm a fan too. He has nervous tics.
🥰 He's definitely a cutie! He's also unbiased & fair, which makes him even more attractive. 😊
@@bevrichards993 he does? I haven't noticed anything. 🤔
Psychologist = Professional Guesser
Youngs storie is false, and how did those veterans and lots of people get on to Afghanistan grounds. When no one was aloud to come in and or leave. Plus these people still had to have thousands of dollars to get over there and negotiate.
Paid experts tend to be very combative with opposing counsel. They claim to be unbiased because they have worked for both sides, however, if a paid expert got the reputation of giving testimony that doesn't align with the side that paid them, infrequently or not, I suspect they wouldn't be hired as often.
The general was definitely not a hired gun, there were several answers to the plaintiff's attorney that were a lot less favorable than they could have been and he seemed totally fair to the defense.
@@MathisGries I agree. I was thinking of the doctor when I wrote that. He refused to yield any ground and was too insistent that CNN could be the only cause.
He portrayed incompetence rather than resolve.
Amazing how he used the exact same terminology as the Plantiff. Just like he was paid to do.
@@bevrichards993 It's suspicious that they couldn't get the medical records from the treating doctor. A lawyer from here might not be able to get them, but the patient himself sure could have. At the very least, a doctor here, with the patients permission, could have.
I think there is something incriminating in the records, perhaps notes about malingering, that the plaintiff didn't want released.
I'm playing catch-up & so far, the first three Experts weren't combative at all, which makes them more credible. They answered with only "Yes" or "No" and allowed the Plaintiffs attorneys to expand, where & when it was needed.