After the defendants attorney starts off with, "What we have here" my reaction was "a failure to communicate " when you said it right after that I nearly fell out of my chair laughing!😂
Ditto did quite a few clicks on the FF button and was doing something else with this as backround ..the prosecutions questions for the witness went in circles for an hour …
I wish future lawyers had to watch these kinds of trials. Then they wouldn’t be as nervous as I was when I thought trial was supposed to look like LA Law…
@@sydneysomer9958 court is where the trial is (that was supposed to be a play on "home is where the heart is" but obviously it doesn't rhyme with that or anything so it just reads like a regular statement)
I watched that entire trial when it happened and I had no clue about sov cits. I thought he was just being ridiculous. Now that I know I have even more respect for the judge not actually losing her crap on him every time he spewed his BS.
The comment about the defense attorney being post-stroke, makes absolute sense! I have a nursing background and have seen this in Neurology Units quite often.
Witnesses need to slow down. Wait to see if there is an objection. If not, think if this is actually a clear question and say "can you rephrase that" if it isn't.
Imagine the defense attorney in a big 6 week trial, something like Depp vs. Heard or The State vs. Darrell Brooks!! Id find not guilty just to get her to STFU!!!
Security needs to keep hands to himself. Whether it's excessive or not, it wouldn't have started if security didn't want to stop someone doing away they're allowed to do
I listen to LTWM videos on my daily commute. I’m on my third day and still here. 🤣 No way I’m leaving now. I’ve stuck with it this far with the Defense attorney 😱
In an altercation, it’s better to lose the physical fight rather than to strike first. That puts you in a lot stronger position than you responding to a threatened strike.
I agree with the jury. I default to "innocent until proven guilty" and the city did not prove guilt. I maintain a lot of doubt. Especially after the one guy testified that the security guard was being aggressive, and the security guard was not very credible at all. That alone, gives me reasonable doubts.
I agree. Good thing there was the witness that thought he was the best evidence state had. Lol I think he was the one that got the not guilty verdict. If the security guard wouldn't have reached several times for the phone it would have been guilty. I don't believe just because security gets a paycheck they can take things from others there. If someone is rattling keys and it's annoying they can't just snatch them out of your hands. They can ask you to leave, block you and call police. Was the "journalist " a jerk, annoying and looking for an argument yes I believe so.
Yeah it sounds like Mike knows this guy from something else (called him a 'knuckle-dragger') and that's clouding his judgment. Or he's saying it to drive engagement b/c it's mind-boggling to say this is a guilty verdict.
I thought there was drama at the very beginning of the trial about the position of the podium. The judge told them it wouldn't be moved, when she got her turn to address the court I noticed it was moved?
I would be terribly afraid having her represent me at trial. I would be afraid that jurors would drift off, more than normal, and miss an important point.
My immediate reaction as well. I can’t believe she passed a bar exam, not only based on incompetence, but she would still be filling out her identification info when the time was up.
A major problem with the video is that the fraudirors manipulate viewers’ impressions by calling out protests to actions the innocent LEO’s aren’t doing (stop hitting me, when an observer (like mom) can’t see what’s going on between the parties. They play with the zoom to manipulate how close someone seems to be them, I’ve seen that on several of their videos where they were called out. They edit events so that critical elements are seamlessly deleted. And their self-righteous insistence that they have the right to do what they’re doing is completely lawful, when it’s not colors perception to those either not familiar with the law or the behavior of these thugs. They’re also masters of what used to be called splitting but is now referred to as triangulation. They’re nasty to an extreme to one party and butter wouldn’t melt, etc., to another, then play the one they’ve been flattering against the other. When you see them in action they’re unable to utter a sentence without vulgarities and incessant demeaning comments. Currently they’re under the misconception that public employees, especially LEO, have to accept whatever abuse they dish out, no matter how horrific, including Glenn Cerio’s extremely racist rant against an AA officer who maintained a grace and dignity as very few of us could have maintained. (And for which reason, Cerio should be grateful his ugly head is still attached.) Both the SovC-its and the Frauditors are malignant narcissists, and use the same tactics. The way I keep myself from reacting as I think they deserve is to realize that narcissists are predators who are emerging in growing numbers, thanks to our consumerist-based economic systems reinforcing their behavior. Ultimately they’ll either cull or be culled from our excessive populations…hopefully while the planet will still be salvageable. Sorry. It’s the pain meds I’m on, along with realizing just how much this inane vs. insane (my favorite case law decision) will spur on these pos. There are ways to cut this all short but the unfettered aggression persons like Farley are getting away with -and actually making money on from a lunatic following-seems to be tapping into a truly dangerous trend right now.
@@katecoe8322agreed. Seems that at the very least, a caveat should be given before the video exhibits are shown to the jury, detailing a complete listing of edits to the raw video that were made by the defendant or on behalf of the defendant. It doesn’t solve for the false cries for effect, but at the least, informs the jury that they are viewing the aspects of the interaction the defendant deemed important.
Yeah, the defense attorney's speech patterns definitely resemble post stroke. The way that she will kind of get stuck half way through a thought. The way that she at times stains to get the words out. And the come and go nature of it. Overall, if she did have a stroke, she is doing remarkably well.
There's so many incidents of this nature, whether it's a welfare office, post office, police department, city hall, etc.....I think there needs to be some case law to clearly establish when and where these 1A activities are ok and when they're prohibited, and why.
The security guard was a terrible witness for the state and lost the case. He admitted he had not been in the area that you cannot record and he grabbed at the phone which both were against policy. It sickens me because even my 12 year old said this defendant is a DB.
It sickens you? The 1st amendment allows you to record anywhere in public, including inside publically accessible areas in public buildings. There's no expectation of privacy in public.... if you grabbed that security guards phone and he beat you up, you'd be charged with assault.... why do you think that is. You can't grab people or their property, and people have the right to defend themselves
@rhinotools1143 yes it sickens me. Unfortunately it is not against the law to be an a-hole. When my 12 year old autistic boy recognizes the guy is a DB that should tell you something.
@@robertjandorf8125 yup it is sickening. In the country I live in it IS illegal to be an asshole, at least being a verbal asshole is punishable by law. Any insult can get you a fine. It is even kinda like a felony, you will have that charge and conviction in your criminal record. Even if you insult somebody indirectly you brake the law, for example if you say: "It's not my opinion, but my buddy would say that you are an asshole!" The person you indirectly insulted can press charges and the fines are between 200-2000$ and in repeating heavy cases you can get prison time for up to a year. although that is extremely rare. The reason this is illegal is: The human dignity shall not be violated. Don't know if I translated it right, but it is the very first Sentence of our laws. Although we have freedom of speech, you are not allowed to degrade/violate a humans dignity. It is a little bit sad, that it isn't prosecuted nearly enough, because the rate with which you encounter insults is rising, because people have less respect and don't care about the consequences, if there are any in the first place.
Just google this guys name. He goes around recording people, creating confrontations and showing disgusting behavior to police. He has other court cases. It will catch up with him eventually.
Ppl confront him just like every other auditor. He records in public places, the whole point is to show ppl like this security guard that they don’t follow laws. In a cheap excuse yea it’s kinda messed up but tbh it’s the law, he’s allowed to record in areas and ppl try to stop him and in that way they are breaking the laws, and shyt like this happens. The auditor is in the right. He got harassed the second he hit the door, in a area of the building he was allowed to record in, the security guard started it, trying to grab the phone and by touching the defendant he is in the wrong, the defendant had all right to knock the security guard one time. He was treated wrongly from the jump. There’s videos of other security guards doing the the right thing and the behavior isn’t like this security, the security was wrong , per the law
I missed the live stream, sad. I was able to speed this up to 1.25 speed and it isn't so bad, happy. She sure asks a lot of questions she evidently doesn't know the answer to. I thought that was a never for attorneys. Never ask a question in court that you don't already know the answer.
The witness that laughs saying you don't expect this at the welfare office..... I'm a welfare caseworker. Yes, I do expect this. I often have clients threaten me. A fellow coworker had a client smash a computer monitor into her face. She was out on worker's compensation for months, then never came back. So yes, this isn't uncommon.
I felt like it was likely that this wasn’t the most peaceful job, but I decided that that might be a stereotype. Like with most stereotypes, there is a reason that they exist.
@@Suzi64gradhe's what's knows as a '1st amendment auditor' (I call them 1st Amendment Agitators) A perfect example of 'Just bc you can doesn't mean you should' Most are annoying AF, but They follow each other online and keep telling each other how awesome they are
@@Suzi64grad yes, he's obviously one of them....but you make a great point about the lawyer. Most SCs prefer to blather for themselves in court. At least he got a lawyer who is as boring as all of them.😂😂😂
Talk about the misuse and overuse of the word "Indicate." There were very few indications made by him, and the majority of what he said were statements.
Darnit, Mike. I haven't sang during a court trial this much since Judge Middleton was standing on a corner in Winslow, Arizona. Seriously, I think he chose this lawyer hoping the jury would fall asleep.
I was driving and listening to this; since I wasn’t actually watching it, there were several times when I thought I had lost service due to how long the pauses were when the defendant’s attorney was asking questions. 😂
What a great witness! 😂😂 I can believe him for sure, as he has just no idea where he is ...in the morning, just to have a morning stroll, then, oops! 😂😂😂
Typical defense strategy. Get the jury to think the issue is whether or not he saw signs, not the real issue of his assault after he was told he could not video record.
The signs are irrelevant. Fact is that he is allowed to record, and yet the security guard for whatever reason assaulted him first. He was warned to back off and when he didn't, the defendant defended himself... He never entered the area where recording is prohibited so the guard had no right to assault him. Even the security guard admitted recording is allowed in the hallway and lobby. Yet he approached him in the Hallway and assaulted him. He has the right to defend himself with a reasonable amount of force. He warned the guard and then punched him 2 times until he backed off. The jury got it right, the video doesn't lie.
@@RedeyedJedi00exactly. I'm glad there are at least some people in the comments that understand the scope of self defense and recording in public spaces.
@@RedeyedJedi00it baffles me that charges were even brought. Even the way this was framed in court seemed so bizarre that the defense attorney didn’t do a better job driving home this point from the beginning. Man assaulted by overzealous security guard enforcing a rule that either does not exist or is unlawful.
Just because you give up your rights, doesn't mean that someone is a jack-ass, bully, or voyeur, because they don't/haven't given up their rights. There are too many people like you, that will defend the ones that have taken your rights.
Oh my goodness, I am betting that this defense attorney has had an injury that makes her talk this way. But it's nearly unbearable to listen to at normal speed.
Why do you think that? I hadn't considered her having an injury or something going on with her brain. But thinking about it, something is very wrong for sure.
It's hypno-speech. By monotone droning, extending her monologs as much as possible, and inserting no inflection, she wipes all but her input from the listener. Her drone becomes the sum total remembered.
@@ludditeneaderthal it also sounds like people that have had strokes, or traumatic injury like a head gun shot, that have learned to talk again. If there is some hearing loss, they are almost always monotonal.
I HAD to bump this to 1.75X speed, there is NO way I’d have been able to stay with this live and remain on normal speed. She was painful in SO many ways! Add that, her spending so much time on signs and layouts of the building was insane. Lawyers should not be able to do that unless they can tie it into something. In this case, it doesn’t matter about signs, entries, doorways, etc. Did the guy hit him and if so, was it self defence!? Period. Get on with the facts and stop this dumb sh*t.
If he’s found guilty he’s got great grounds for appeal. It’s been shown countless times that a curative instruction sometimes is not enough to prevent jury bias.
I disagree with Mike; that's a first for me! The security guard's story wasn't credible - he claims the defendant walked up to him and clocked him immediately without saying anything ... I don't believe that one bit. Then it changed to him "blocking the view" of the phone before getting hit. Come to find out he was allowed to record in that area so why would he obstruct the defendant? I get the feeling (and I think the jury did, too) that the security guard wasn't as innocent as he tried to be on the stand. The story tells itself when you're truthful! Note: I hated the defense's lawyer and I don't support these First Amendment audits, but I try to pretend I'm part of the jury and instructed to keep an open mind. I think *everyone* got all worked up over being recorded and that's common in auditor videos - they're always drama-fuelled. I assume emotions ran high, the security guards tried to exert too much authority, and the defendant was arrogant/self-entitled. The question is whether he hit the guard and there seems to be no evidence showing he did. Just because I don't like the guy doesn't mean he should be found guilty.
I agree with you. The security guard wasn’t credible. His even testified he blocked him from coming in, which I’m sure escalated the situation. Also he left out vital details about trying to take the man’s personal property and that’s not in his job description. He also failed to mention this in his report to his supervisor, which is shady in itself.
I am guessing they only released/used audio of the incident because if they released video the goatfighter would win a 1st Amendment suit against them and possibly a assault and battery against the guard. Doesn't mean I subbed to the guys channel. Maybe bobblehead boy should have taken the mistrial he created by not prepping the 1st witness - a freaking cop - on the prelims!
These scabs should be prosecuted. Their purpose is to disrupt and get clicks and views. If you are paid for the video you provide, you must have a release. Everyone included can strike this video. No money, no frauditors.
I think the judge erred in denying the defense of property instruction. What the defendant perceived the guard’s intent was and whether the force used was reasonable are both jury questions.
Well the defense attorney obviously did such a good job only talking about the recording aspect that commenters on TH-cam(some not all) and the jury thought that this was a right to record case not an assault case lol
You claim the expectation to not be battered in public extends especially to not be assaulted while conducting a protected activity. The guard could've prevented it by following his duties instead of trying to strong arm his property away. He was allowed to record in that place under DHS 2010 memo updated in 2018 for permitting recording in the corridores, hallways, foryers, and lobbies of ANY publically accessable building under time, place and manner restrictions.
Mike, while I agree with your conclusion on the trial, I'm also not concerned with his verdict of Not Guilty - that will likely embolden him, and he'll get into more conflicts in the future. Sooner or later, his luck will run out.
The result seems right to me. If the security guard got grabbyhands and reached for the guy's phone, well, he can't do that and he might get pushed off. If the guy's a problem beyond what the security guy can handle, call the cops and have him trespassed.
@@mgrom2 Nope. Not to take someone's property. I don't condone the loser punching him but that's the law. You can't touch someone's property. I think the defendant was in the wrong in terms of being an instigator but the American way is your person is not to be touched.
@@montemask I can trespass anyone I want. If you're standing on my front lawn shouting something, and I don't want you there, I can tell you to get off my property. Because, well, it's my property.
@@laughingcoyote111 yes sir, you're correct. On your front lawn. But in a public building, a man would need to commit some type of unlawful offense, to be trespassed.
The attorney is of the philosophy, that if you think this is ever so important, then we'll award it with the deliberious, mindful, thought it deserves.
Obviously, the State didn't prove their case. Neither one of them should be putting hands on each other. However, the defendant seems to be lying, in my opinion. He'll end up in court again. His not guilty verdict is going to embolden him further I'm betting. Some of these first amendment auditors are spoiling for a fight so they have content.
This is one of those guys that go around and belligerently records things and people that they have absolutely no business with, simply because they feel it is their right. Then they go to court because their “rights” were “violated”. How about quit sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong and mind your own business.
Our defendant was so excited to have a comment AND a subscriber that he managed to get his lawyer to tell the judge AND all of us about it. Good for him.
For everyone "having a cow" over the defense attorney's "weird speech cadence", that is how people were taught to "eloquently" speak back in the 1950's and 60's (they considered what they were going to say before they spoke); back before people started speaking way too fast to be clearly understood.
@@NicolaMaxwell Yeah there's no evidence for that. If this were the case, not only would all people my age be speaking this way (they don't obviously), but we'd see a lot more tell tale signs of diligence in her speech and she stutters and picks wrong words, also makes piss poor arguments and just seems out of her depth.
@@NicolaMaxwell Plus peaking slowly in this context means that when you do take the trouble to pause, when you do speak itc omes out clearly and often pretty verbose. Otherwise, what's the point? She does neither. You're right - she's a crap attorney in so many ways. What would be bloody hilarious is if other dipshit frauditors looked at her "winning" this case and maybe hiring her in future. That'll be funny.
These security guards who have to deal with these Feralauditors need to take smoke machines to work - as soon as the auditor starts videoing, just start the smoke machine.
I feel like ive been assaulted for watching the entire video. I cant get this time back. Tho the pain of waiting for her to give a pic to the jury, i would've enjoyed it more if all of the sudden someone just went bday suit streaking across the room behind the bearded mannequin in the back! 😂
This is insanity. Filmed with a device in a building that's filmed with multiple devices, now we're watching, with devices, a guy filmed with a device watching a filmed court hearing with multiple devices watching the film and arguing about filming in a building what ultimately is a filmed security gaurd batter someone just because they're filming.
After the defendants attorney starts off with, "What we have here" my reaction was "a failure to communicate " when you said it right after that I nearly fell out of my chair laughing!😂
That's my Axl!!
This is the attorney that was munching on her sandwich while in zoom court. So unprofessional.
I think I've never been so thankful to miss the live and be replay crew
Omg ikr! I put it on 1.75x and she was still slow!! I couldn't understand anyone else if I put it on 2x but I wish I could just put her on like 4x😂😂
Ditto did quite a few clicks on the FF button and was doing something else with this as backround ..the prosecutions questions for the witness went in circles for an hour …
I get the fact that lawyers bill by the hour, but this defence lawyer is taking the
p!ss.
The defense attorney is speaking in double-double space like a college essay.
She’s trying to meet the minimum word requirement
I’m listening on 1.25 speed. I’d bump it up, but then every one else is too fast.
It's a bad sign when you have to be told the video is not frozen, lol.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Had the need to check my remote on several occasions to check if I needed new batteries! 😂
I wish future lawyers had to watch these kinds of trials. Then they wouldn’t be as nervous as I was when I thought trial was supposed to look like LA Law…
They probably do! Had there been TH-cam long ago, it would have taken me way less time to learn the fiddle.
Is this a courtroom??
@@sydneysomer9958 court is where the trial is
(that was supposed to be a play on "home is where the heart is" but obviously it doesn't rhyme with that or anything so it just reads like a regular statement)
The Officer can't say he knows my client from previous encounters, he can't CONFIRM my client's an idiot in open court!
I work for DCS and cases and privacy issues are never discussed in the lobby.
Mike, I'd pay to see you jumping up and down screaming for a mistrial 😁
😂
Thos woman lawyer must speak this way to stretch out billable hours. This is a slam dunk case and she's fumbling past a lot of relevance.
As I kept watching…. I kept wondering…. Are these bitches winging this shit!?
Do you think it’s just her natural cadence, or is she unprepared and trying to figure out what to say as she goes?
is that a courtroom? Why does it look like a business seminar for middle managers?
Right. It so dose. It make it looks like that they have no court building
"In this bulding, we're all spaced out. Buh-buh-buh- Benny and the Jets"
😅😅😅
The defense attorney actually graduated law school?! 😂….Also, the city’s attorney looks like a first year college student….😂.
I loose it ever time the gopher spins and gives the greatest stink eye ever !! 😂😂😂
*lose - losing, as in misplace.
“loose” - Many people online have a loose grasp of spelling.
Daryl Brooks stalled less than that defense attorney.
The prosecutor was worse, not stalling but misspoke just about every word.
Early on in the trial, I thought she went to her car
@@jasonhanney547😂😂😂
I’m dead 😂
I watched that entire trial when it happened and I had no clue about sov cits. I thought he was just being ridiculous. Now that I know I have even more respect for the judge not actually losing her crap on him every time he spewed his BS.
The comment about the defense attorney being post-stroke, makes absolute sense! I have a nursing background and have seen this in Neurology Units quite often.
Witnesses need to slow down. Wait to see if there is an objection. If not, think if this is actually a clear question and say "can you rephrase that" if it isn't.
Imagine the defense attorney in a big 6 week trial, something like Depp vs. Heard or The State vs. Darrell Brooks!! Id find not guilty just to get her to STFU!!!
The prosecutor really needs to get some asked and answered objections in.
Security needs to keep hands to himself. Whether it's excessive or not, it wouldn't have started if security didn't want to stop someone doing away they're allowed to do
I listen to LTWM videos on my daily commute. I’m on my third day and still here. 🤣
No way I’m leaving now. I’ve stuck with it this far with the Defense attorney 😱
The judge and his constant,”uh uh’s” is driving me crazy 🙀
The whole cast of characters are unreal! 😳
Right!!??, it's annoying and distracting
Yeesss! I wish Mike could delete them!
In an altercation, it’s better to lose the physical fight rather than to strike first. That puts you in a lot stronger position than you responding to a threatened strike.
Unless they use a knife or gun 😂
It has taken me ALL day to listen to this at work. Thank God I've been drinking coffee. Why am I so fascinated with this trisl, lmao😂 😂😂😂😂
Idk, but I also can’t stop listening.
Like choosing to participate in my own torture.
I agree with the jury. I default to "innocent until proven guilty" and the city did not prove guilt. I maintain a lot of doubt. Especially after the one guy testified that the security guard was being aggressive, and the security guard was not very credible at all.
That alone, gives me reasonable doubts.
I agree. Good thing there was the witness that thought he was the best evidence state had. Lol I think he was the one that got the not guilty verdict. If the security guard wouldn't have reached several times for the phone it would have been guilty. I don't believe just because security gets a paycheck they can take things from others there. If someone is rattling keys and it's annoying they can't just snatch them out of your hands. They can ask you to leave, block you and call police. Was the "journalist " a jerk, annoying and looking for an argument yes I believe so.
that''s why they get 12 people, it's a reasonably high bar
Yeah it sounds like Mike knows this guy from something else (called him a 'knuckle-dragger') and that's clouding his judgment. Or he's saying it to drive engagement b/c it's mind-boggling to say this is a guilty verdict.
@@justatest90😂😂 Who really cares tho
I thought there was drama at the very beginning of the trial about the position of the podium. The judge told them it wouldn't be moved, when she got her turn to address the court I noticed it was moved?
I would be terribly afraid having her represent me at trial. I would be afraid that jurors would drift off, more than normal, and miss an important point.
The man who had four strokes within a year could speak more clearly, quickly and succinctly than the defense attorney, she was horrible.
My immediate reaction as well. I can’t believe she passed a bar exam, not only based on incompetence, but she would still be filling out her identification info when the time was up.
A major problem with the video is that the fraudirors manipulate viewers’ impressions by calling out protests to actions the innocent LEO’s aren’t doing (stop hitting me, when an observer (like mom) can’t see what’s going on between the parties.
They play with the zoom to manipulate how close someone seems to be them, I’ve seen that on several of their videos where they were called out.
They edit events so that critical elements are seamlessly deleted.
And their self-righteous insistence that they have the right to do what they’re doing is completely lawful, when it’s not colors perception to those either not familiar with the law or the behavior of these thugs.
They’re also masters of what used to be called splitting but is now referred to as triangulation. They’re nasty to an extreme to one party and butter wouldn’t melt, etc., to another, then play the one they’ve been flattering against the other.
When you see them in action they’re unable to utter a sentence without vulgarities and incessant demeaning comments.
Currently they’re under the misconception that public employees, especially LEO, have to accept whatever abuse they dish out, no matter how horrific, including Glenn Cerio’s extremely racist rant against an AA officer who maintained a grace and dignity as very few of us could have maintained. (And for which reason, Cerio should be grateful his ugly head is still attached.)
Both the SovC-its and the Frauditors are malignant narcissists, and use the same tactics.
The way I keep myself from reacting as I think they deserve is to realize that narcissists are predators who are emerging in growing numbers, thanks to our consumerist-based economic systems reinforcing their behavior. Ultimately they’ll either cull or be culled from our excessive populations…hopefully while the planet will still be salvageable.
Sorry. It’s the pain meds I’m on, along with realizing just how much this inane vs. insane (my favorite case law decision) will spur on these pos.
There are ways to cut this all short but the unfettered aggression persons like Farley are getting away with -and actually making money on from a lunatic following-seems to be tapping into a truly dangerous trend right now.
Ohhhh it's so painful. The officer seems more comfortable in court than either of the attorneys.
@@katecoe8322agreed. Seems that at the very least, a caveat should be given before the video exhibits are shown to the jury, detailing a complete listing of edits to the raw video that were made by the defendant or on behalf of the defendant. It doesn’t solve for the false cries for effect, but at the least, informs the jury that they are viewing the aspects of the interaction the defendant deemed important.
@@katecoe8322 how do you feel about civil rights? also what's the name of your favorite case law?
Hey, Mike. Merry Christmas to you and the law dogs.
4 strokes and deaf, seemingly suffering from dementia.
Good thing he's running security at a government facility🙄
I would have been objecting for relevance nearly the whole time...
Public forum doctrine is in effect INSIDE ANY GOVT building. They can impose restrictions such as requiring ID,or NO FILMING
No they can’t. If they are discussing private info they need to take it behind a door! This is insane to me that people actually believe this.
Nope. Public building. First amendment. Enjoy it while we still have it. Restrictions have to be reasonable and serve a purpose.
Where do you find this law ...
Yeah, the defense attorney's speech patterns definitely resemble post stroke. The way that she will kind of get stuck half way through a thought. The way that she at times stains to get the words out. And the come and go nature of it. Overall, if she did have a stroke, she is doing remarkably well.
I think she's reading everything directly and losing her place now and then. No emotion-deadpan reading.
My assessment is this- shes a solid defense attorney, she just needs to lay off the Xanax!! 😅
Oh, it's a female? 😅
Holy total beastmode! Three long live streams in one day!
As another 5b have learned so much from your channel. Thank you!
Can someone check this room for carbon monoxide???
There's so many incidents of this nature, whether it's a welfare office, post office, police department, city hall, etc.....I think there needs to be some case law to clearly establish when and where these 1A activities are ok and when they're prohibited, and why.
This defense attorney's questioning is as painful as pulling eye teeth.
Eye teeth are easy. Tricuspids are harder to pull because they have 3-4 roots.
No, I've had a tooth pulled. It's worse!
The hamster turning the wheel in her brain broke 3 of its legs
@@Sky_KingMVBut for the last teeth I had pulled, they knocked me out. If only that could be done during her questioning, we’d all be a little happier.
Weird questions!
Should have been guilty of battery.
The security guard was a terrible witness for the state and lost the case. He admitted he had not been in the area that you cannot record and he grabbed at the phone which both were against policy. It sickens me because even my 12 year old said this defendant is a DB.
I think he may be married to the defense attorney! 🤔😉😂
@@jmiller4193 wow
It sickens you? The 1st amendment allows you to record anywhere in public, including inside publically accessible areas in public buildings. There's no expectation of privacy in public.... if you grabbed that security guards phone and he beat you up, you'd be charged with assault.... why do you think that is. You can't grab people or their property, and people have the right to defend themselves
@rhinotools1143 yes it sickens me. Unfortunately it is not against the law to be an a-hole. When my 12 year old autistic boy recognizes the guy is a DB that should tell you something.
@@robertjandorf8125 yup it is sickening. In the country I live in it IS illegal to be an asshole, at least being a verbal asshole is punishable by law. Any insult can get you a fine. It is even kinda like a felony, you will have that charge and conviction in your criminal record. Even if you insult somebody indirectly you brake the law, for example if you say: "It's not my opinion, but my buddy would say that you are an asshole!" The person you indirectly insulted can press charges and the fines are between 200-2000$ and in repeating heavy cases you can get prison time for up to a year. although that is extremely rare.
The reason this is illegal is: The human dignity shall not be violated. Don't know if I translated it right, but it is the very first Sentence of our laws.
Although we have freedom of speech, you are not allowed to degrade/violate a humans dignity.
It is a little bit sad, that it isn't prosecuted nearly enough, because the rate with which you encounter insults is rising, because people have less respect and don't care about the consequences, if there are any in the first place.
I agree with Mike, if he punched the guard. I don’t want it to be the standard that if someone is wrong they can be punched.
The guard attacked first ..tried to grab someone's other property.
Guards only duty is observe and report..not confront or steal.
Age doesn't matter
Remember, Chilli decastro trial is coming up in Nevada. Someone already requested to have a camera in court. 😊
He won his appeal :(
sweet Jesus, i hope the Defense Atty isnt paud by the hour....she is slower than a snail.
OMG where did you find this defense attorney I'm surprised the jury did not fall asleep
Also we might have been able to cut this time by a 3rd if we could remove all the "ummm" and "ahhh". Esp the judges. 🥴
wherever he found her it was a good find because he won.
He won so she couldn't have been that ineffective.
How is that lady a lawyer?
Just google this guys name. He goes around recording people, creating confrontations and showing disgusting behavior to police. He has other court cases. It will catch up with him eventually.
pretty chad isn't it
Ppl confront him just like every other auditor. He records in public places, the whole point is to show ppl like this security guard that they don’t follow laws. In a cheap excuse yea it’s kinda messed up but tbh it’s the law, he’s allowed to record in areas and ppl try to stop him and in that way they are breaking the laws, and shyt like this happens. The auditor is in the right. He got harassed the second he hit the door, in a area of the building he was allowed to record in, the security guard started it, trying to grab the phone and by touching the defendant he is in the wrong, the defendant had all right to knock the security guard one time. He was treated wrongly from the jump. There’s videos of other security guards doing the the right thing and the behavior isn’t like this security, the security was wrong , per the law
We call them Frauditors, and they're all potentially dangerous for various reasons.
Same story. Another frauditor that cares nothing about the Constitution or clarity. They only want hits on YT.
Idiots like this will end up doing more harm towards our 1st amendment rights than good.
Oh I’ve always wondered how these played out in court! Thank you for this. Watching now… 🤩
I missed the live stream, sad. I was able to speed this up to 1.25 speed and it isn't so bad, happy. She sure asks a lot of questions she evidently doesn't know the answer to. I thought that was a never for attorneys. Never ask a question in court that you don't already know the answer.
As usual awesome video. The quality of everything you do is fantastic
Good stuff Mike.😊
55:08 do you remember the Night Court episode in which an attorney has "Tortoiseitis". I... will... be..... brief.
th-cam.com/video/fNeKg4IutSI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=udJNDaI5ElLPj46E
The witness that laughs saying you don't expect this at the welfare office..... I'm a welfare caseworker. Yes, I do expect this. I often have clients threaten me. A fellow coworker had a client smash a computer monitor into her face. She was out on worker's compensation for months, then never came back.
So yes, this isn't uncommon.
Yikes!
I felt like it was likely that this wasn’t the most peaceful job, but I decided that that might be a stereotype.
Like with most stereotypes, there is a reason that they exist.
Question…Is Mr Farley one of those sovereign nuts? Wasn’t sure since he has an attorney.
@@Suzi64gradhe's what's knows as a '1st amendment auditor' (I call them 1st Amendment Agitators)
A perfect example of 'Just bc you can doesn't mean you should'
Most are annoying AF, but They follow each other online and keep telling each other how awesome they are
@@Suzi64grad yes, he's obviously one of them....but you make a great point about the lawyer. Most SCs prefer to blather for themselves in court. At least he got a lawyer who is as boring as all of them.😂😂😂
So the defense ran out and photo graphs. In a lobby that you’re not suppose to photograph!🤦♀️
Jury duty was a great show. I hope they do a second season.
Talk about the misuse and overuse of the word "Indicate." There were very few indications made by him, and the majority of what he said were statements.
Darnit, Mike. I haven't sang during a court trial this much since Judge Middleton was standing on a corner in Winslow, Arizona.
Seriously, I think he chose this lawyer hoping the jury would fall asleep.
Can you tell me what video that’s in?? 🌵
She won. Must have been effective enough.
I was driving and listening to this; since I wasn’t actually watching it, there were several times when I thought I had lost service due to how long the pauses were when the defendant’s attorney was asking questions. 😂
Glad to see the kid from Malcom in the Middle was able to get rid of the wheelchair and become an attorney!
What a great witness! 😂😂 I can believe him for sure, as he has just no idea where he is ...in the morning, just to have a morning stroll, then, oops! 😂😂😂
Typical defense strategy. Get the jury to think the issue is whether or not he saw signs, not the real issue of his assault after he was told he could not video record.
The signs are irrelevant. Fact is that he is allowed to record, and yet the security guard for whatever reason assaulted him first. He was warned to back off and when he didn't, the defendant defended himself... He never entered the area where recording is prohibited so the guard had no right to assault him. Even the security guard admitted recording is allowed in the hallway and lobby. Yet he approached him in the Hallway and assaulted him. He has the right to defend himself with a reasonable amount of force. He warned the guard and then punched him 2 times until he backed off. The jury got it right, the video doesn't lie.
@@RedeyedJedi00exactly. I'm glad there are at least some people in the comments that understand the scope of self defense and recording in public spaces.
@@RedeyedJedi00it baffles me that charges were even brought. Even the way this was framed in court seemed so bizarre that the defense attorney didn’t do a better job driving home this point from the beginning.
Man assaulted by overzealous security guard enforcing a rule that either does not exist or is unlawful.
@@jacuzzibusguy prosecutor should be publicly shamed.
Wasn't Fortunado. a character in Poe's A Cask of Amontillado (Sp.)
I'm with Mike. Defendant is a jackass, bully, and possible voyeur. What do you expect from court held in the Banquet Hall?
Just because you give up your rights, doesn't mean that someone is a jack-ass, bully, or voyeur, because they don't/haven't given up their rights.
There are too many people like you, that will defend the ones that have taken your rights.
Good job jury! Followed the law instead of Mike's feelings.
Oh my goodness, I am betting that this defense attorney has had an injury that makes her talk this way. But it's nearly unbearable to listen to at normal speed.
Why do you think that? I hadn't considered her having an injury or something going on with her brain. But thinking about it, something is very wrong for sure.
It's hypno-speech. By monotone droning, extending her monologs as much as possible, and inserting no inflection, she wipes all but her input from the listener. Her drone becomes the sum total remembered.
@@ludditeneaderthal it also sounds like people that have had strokes, or traumatic injury like a head gun shot, that have learned to talk again. If there is some hearing loss, they are almost always monotonal.
I HAD to bump this to 1.75X speed, there is NO way I’d have been able to stay with this live and remain on normal speed. She was painful in SO many ways! Add that, her spending so much time on signs and layouts of the building was insane. Lawyers should not be able to do that unless they can tie it into something. In this case, it doesn’t matter about signs, entries, doorways, etc. Did the guy hit him and if so, was it self defence!? Period. Get on with the facts and stop this dumb sh*t.
@@ricktaylor14001 I agree. I had to bump the speed to 1.75 also.
If he’s found guilty he’s got great grounds for appeal. It’s been shown countless times that a curative instruction sometimes is not enough to prevent jury bias.
Peter Navarro? Is he gonna sing ' Puff the magic Dragon ' ?
Because we never saw the video, it is difficult to see how the jury made that determination.
Better on replay, cause you can speed it up to counteract the extremely slow speech pattern of defense attorney.
I disagree with Mike; that's a first for me! The security guard's story wasn't credible - he claims the defendant walked up to him and clocked him immediately without saying anything ... I don't believe that one bit. Then it changed to him "blocking the view" of the phone before getting hit. Come to find out he was allowed to record in that area so why would he obstruct the defendant? I get the feeling (and I think the jury did, too) that the security guard wasn't as innocent as he tried to be on the stand. The story tells itself when you're truthful!
Note: I hated the defense's lawyer and I don't support these First Amendment audits, but I try to pretend I'm part of the jury and instructed to keep an open mind. I think *everyone* got all worked up over being recorded and that's common in auditor videos - they're always drama-fuelled. I assume emotions ran high, the security guards tried to exert too much authority, and the defendant was arrogant/self-entitled. The question is whether he hit the guard and there seems to be no evidence showing he did. Just because I don't like the guy doesn't mean he should be found guilty.
I agree with you. The security guard wasn’t credible. His even testified he blocked him from coming in, which I’m sure escalated the situation. Also he left out vital details about trying to take the man’s personal property and that’s not in his job description. He also failed to mention this in his report to his supervisor, which is shady in itself.
I am guessing they only released/used audio of the incident because if they released video the goatfighter would win a 1st Amendment suit against them and possibly a assault and battery against the guard. Doesn't mean I subbed to the guys channel. Maybe bobblehead boy should have taken the mistrial he created by not prepping the 1st witness - a freaking cop - on the prelims!
Why don’t you agree with 1A Audits? It helps hold our government and state officials accountable, in a World full of corruption.
@@1Smooth1 Because these guys doing these are total assholes
Glad I wasnt on the jury....I would have fallen asleep listening to her questions!
This woman hasn’t been watching the Law Nerd TH-camrs on Uncivil Law, Lawyer You Know, LTWM , Law and Lumber 🐐🐐🐐 Maya juror shenanigans
These scabs should be prosecuted. Their purpose is to disrupt and get clicks and views. If you are paid for the video you provide, you must have a release. Everyone included can strike this video. No money, no frauditors.
I think the judge erred in denying the defense of property instruction. What the defendant perceived the guard’s intent was and whether the force used was reasonable are both jury questions.
I am used to California, where sidebars are conducted at the bench out of hearing of everyone but the judge and attorneys.
That’s not necessarily a state rule, but by judge, considering the environment of the courtroom.
@@doribellan As long as it is out of the hearing of the jury.
@@davident1 Yes. That ability differs by courtroom.
Um, You Tube IS social media.
I always thought
U-Tube was part of the "Outer Net
😂. All Stay Safe
💯✅🇺🇲😜❤🕊️
Aw look, the La Quinta Banquet Court. Where's the goat?
Well the defense attorney obviously did such a good job only talking about the recording aspect that commenters on TH-cam(some not all) and the jury thought that this was a right to record case not an assault case lol
Just when I think it can't be more hilarious, she asks another great question 😂😂😂😂
the main thing here is that no one should be allowed to film within the DHS building...its just not right to air anything that goes on there
But you're wrong!!
I don't think this is Post-Stroke behavior, I think it is Mid-Stroke behavior. LOL
Trying to figure out if she's a worse lawyer than all objections lawyer.😅
she can’t be that bad because she got her client a not guilty 🤦🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️
You claim the expectation to not be battered in public extends especially to not be assaulted while conducting a protected activity. The guard could've prevented it by following his duties instead of trying to strong arm his property away. He was allowed to record in that place under DHS 2010 memo updated in 2018 for permitting recording in the corridores, hallways, foryers, and lobbies of ANY publically accessable building under time, place and manner restrictions.
Mike, while I agree with your conclusion on the trial, I'm also not concerned with his verdict of Not Guilty - that will likely embolden him, and he'll get into more conflicts in the future. Sooner or later, his luck will run out.
This is 45 years of my life I’ll never get back! And this is only the first witness! Someone wake-up the jury!
The result seems right to me. If the security guard got grabbyhands and reached for the guy's phone, well, he can't do that and he might get pushed off. If the guy's a problem beyond what the security guy can handle, call the cops and have him trespassed.
Doesn't work that way. What the defendant was doing was well within his constitutional rights. Period
@@mgrom2 Nope. Not to take someone's property. I don't condone the loser punching him but that's the law. You can't touch someone's property. I think the defendant was in the wrong in terms of being an instigator but the American way is your person is not to be touched.
You can't trespass someone for no reason. Especially if he's acting on the 1st amendment.
@@montemask I can trespass anyone I want. If you're standing on my front lawn shouting something, and I don't want you there, I can tell you to get off my property. Because, well, it's my property.
@@laughingcoyote111 yes sir, you're correct. On your front lawn. But in a public building, a man would need to commit some type of unlawful offense, to be trespassed.
The attorney is of the philosophy, that if you think this is ever so important, then we'll award it with the deliberious, mindful, thought it deserves.
He threw the punch because there was an old security guard in front of him. If there was someone of equal stature he would have exited the building.
Did the video show him throw a punch?
That guy needs to retire!
Mike thought he was going to get a guilty verdict!!! And he didn't!!! Lol😅lol😅
Obviously, the State didn't prove their case. Neither one of them should be putting hands on each other. However, the defendant seems to be lying, in my opinion. He'll end up in court again. His not guilty verdict is going to embolden him further I'm betting. Some of these first amendment auditors are spoiling for a fight so they have content.
Wrong
@@edgegymnastics8409You have your opinion I have mine. Good day.
He wasn’t breaking the law. So the security guard should have left him alone. Period.
Dude I don't care. Bye
cant force anyone to fight anymore than a cop forces you to speed on the freeway.
This is one of those guys that go around and belligerently records things and people that they have absolutely no business with, simply because they feel it is their right. Then they go to court because their “rights” were “violated”. How about quit sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong and mind your own business.
Since we could not see the videos, I have to side with the jury.
So man following the law defends himself against attempted theft.
😂😂 Guess who just missed the entire point.
Our defendant was so excited to have a comment AND a subscriber that he managed to get his lawyer to tell the judge AND all of us about it. Good for him.
😂🤣 You’re probably very correct!
😂😂😂
Ask Ashly if it’s ok to hit her for getting to close
My favorite episode so far. This is hysterical 😂😂
For everyone "having a cow" over the defense attorney's "weird speech cadence", that is how people were taught to "eloquently" speak back in the 1950's and 60's (they considered what they were going to say before they spoke); back before people started speaking way too fast to be clearly understood.
While that is true, I don't think that's the thing here.
@@NicolaMaxwell Yeah there's no evidence for that. If this were the case, not only would all people my age be speaking this way (they don't obviously), but we'd see a lot more tell tale signs of diligence in her speech and she stutters and picks wrong words, also makes piss poor arguments and just seems out of her depth.
@@NicolaMaxwell Plus peaking slowly in this context means that when you do take the trouble to pause, when you do speak itc omes out clearly and often pretty verbose. Otherwise, what's the point?
She does neither. You're right - she's a crap attorney in so many ways. What would be bloody hilarious is if other dipshit frauditors looked at her "winning" this case and maybe hiring her in future. That'll be funny.
@@NicolaMaxwellI hope Mike reads your comment just to read the human delay defence attorney.
These security guards who have to deal with these Feralauditors need to take smoke machines to work - as soon as the auditor starts videoing, just start the smoke machine.
I'm shocked a sovereign citizen auditor could afford a lawyer who had a stroke
I feel like ive been assaulted for watching the entire video. I cant get this time back. Tho the pain of waiting for her to give a pic to the jury, i would've enjoyed it more if all of the sudden someone just went bday suit streaking across the room behind the bearded mannequin in the back! 😂
This is insanity. Filmed with a device in a building that's filmed with multiple devices, now we're watching, with devices, a guy filmed with a device watching a filmed court hearing with multiple devices watching the film and arguing about filming in a building what ultimately is a filmed security gaurd batter someone just because they're filming.
Perfect summary!
@@mikecatania6364 'preciate that. Seems battery is the odd one out.