Judge Jails Young Thug's Lawyer After He Exposes ILLEGAL MEETING
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- It's the lawyer that's the OG 💎Get 15% off a subscription to Spellbook with code LEGALEAGLE legaleagle.lin... ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin...
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.lin...
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.lin...
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.lin...
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.lin...
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.lin...
Facebook: legaleagle.lin...
Tik Tok: legaleagle.lin...
Instagram: legaleagle.lin...
Reddit: legaleagle.lin...
Podcast: legaleagle.lin...
OnlyFans legaleagle.lin...
Patreon legaleagle.lin...
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
Judge: "My secret illegal meeting was secret, so how'd you find out about it?"
I have my ways but I will not betray my source, so just put me in jail with my client please🤐
I imagine this lawyer is going to get all the clients after this.
@@UniverseUndone7 Also you know that lawyer is going to be a celebrity in jail, assuming he ever serves a minute of that sentence.
@@meekrab9027He bonded out, everybody in the jail can't afford his price because it just went WAY up lol
"There will be no tattling in my courtroom!"
@@meekrab9027 I think he wound up spending a couple of days in jail.
Presumably he came out of there with a shit-ton of future clients.
judge "can i see some case law"
lawyer "heres some case law"
judge "i dont like that case law"
"good news your honor, you're about to be the case law."
@@youmukonpaku3168 She should have said that in court 😅!
Yeah,like you got any thing Newer like 😂
@@youmukonpaku3168
"You're being found in contempt of court for murdering the judge"
he is in fact not bound by case law.
I saw the title and thought "That is a bit presumptions is it not?" before I learned his art name was Young Thug.
😆
Same x)
lmaooo dats actually fuckin hilarious. As a huge fan of hip hop I’ve known bout Thug since like 2015 and I’ve been following this case since he got arrested in 2022. And considering this has been one of the biggest topics in the legal world rn it’s kinda surprising to me to see ppl who have never even heard of Thug lol.
@@sm4shv3v0 I don't live in the US and I listen to a very low quantity of hip-hop. (And probably not a lot of recent one at that. Tbh idk.)
But even in my favorite styles, I follow very few bands closely enough to be aware of the juridic situation of their members anyway.
@@lc1138 good point. Im your classic American who’s barely left his home state never mind the country so i tend to think in a bubble. Kinda ignorant of me. Like hip hop does have a global reach yet i still imagine most ppl arent aware of the majority of hip hop artists. Maybe big names like Drake, Kendrick Lamar, J Cold, Eminem, Jay Z, and Tupac as they have huge global fanbases.
To quote an old saying, "When exposing a crime is considered committing a crime, you know you live in a country that's run by criminals."
What was very telling to me, was how actually pretty calm everyone in the courtroom is. Not a single person with a "Huh? What?" reaction. Which kinda tells me this sort of thing happens more often than we probably know.
I sometimes think that trial lawyers take beta blockers, or maybe a small amount of Xanax, before appearances.
I’ve watched 94 days of this trial, and something crazy happens everyday.
@@TheGotoGeek they definitely take something, but unless you actually went to law school and learned Latin, then most of the numbers and words are going over your head.
I rather believe that they have done a LOT of homework on this issue on both sides and have all their ducks in a row, which is why they are so calm. All they have to do is present the evidence because they know they're in the right and need all their arguments entered in the court record for the appeals and Georgia Supreme Court to review later. The judge is increasingly shown to be in the wrong, which is why he keeps grasping further and further at straws to try to justify himself.
stupid quote... so cops can violate ur rights to catch you now? dude...
Never in my life did I think I’d hear Legal Eagle breaking down Young Thugs rap career … and I’m here for it .
I always supsected he is a huge fan. Just the vibes I get from him ;)
"I think tbe judge is not following the law"
Judge: "i have investigated myself and find no wrongdoing by myself."
Yuhhhh bro said “lock me up with him then!” That’s the hip-hop lawyer for life now.
Hip hop gonna stop self snitching after thug
A 30 year old ruling is to old to be relevant? Don't tell him the Constitution was written in the 1700's
“You have chosen to enact your 5th amendment privilege… we are finding you in contempt” I think the words you’re looking for is 5th amendment RIGHT. Not privilege. His wording told me everything I needed to know long before his actions.
He doesn't mean "privilege" in the way we have come to view privilege. The 5th Amendment right is a privilege, meaning the information is privileged-- meaning they cannot be compelled to testify if it would tend to incriminate them. Attorney-client "privilege" or spousal communications "privilege" are other examples of that use of privilege. Unfortunately, though, you cannot assert the 5th Amendment right if you've been granted complete immunity for anything you'd testify to because nothing you testify to will incriminate you.
@@rheap129 That's absurd. You can suffer adverse effects beyond just criminal prosecution.
It's a blatant violation of the 1st amendment regarding compelled speech.
@@TheFinalChapters What would that have to do with the 5th Amendment invocation though?
Also, while the government cannot tell you what to say, you *can* be compelled to testify, and you do have to tell the truth under oath. That’s the purpose of subpoenas and administration of oaths. So while in this particular case , if what’s alleged is true, what they’re doing is improper, by no means is it improper for a court to simply compel someone to testify or be held in contempt. That quite literally is what a subpoena does.
@@TheFinalChapters The 5th Amendment does not say anything about "adverse effects". It only says that you can't be forced to *incriminate yourself.* Legally, that only means giving evidence that can be used against you in a *criminal trial.* If it has been guaranteed that the evidence you give can not be used against you in a criminal trial, then the 5th Amendment no longer applies, and can no longer be used. It is not a general purpose "get out of testifying" card. It only protects you against the threat of criminal prosecution, nothing else.
And the 1st Amendment only applies to *public speech.* It does not apply to testimony in a court of law, and it never has.
@@foogod4237 It applies to all speech, regardless of context. However, it's not absolute, so there are limits.
With that in mind, the bar for compelling speech is unbelievably high. While you can compel someone to come to testify, compelling them to actually testify a specific thing is *much* harder.
And of course, negative inferences can be made if the testimony is refused.
I honestly wouldn't mind being a law student right now with this crazy RICO case, Trumps cases, Hunter, Supreme Court shenanigans.......
It would be wild sitting through a law ethics class 😂
The lawyer did learn this from his “client” because his client wasn’t in the room. Whoever told the lawyer about the meeting is not the lawyer’s client. 13:07
1. The lawyer could learn this from his client after his client learned this from someone else. Hearing about things you didn't participate in is very common. And it actually is the core business of a judge. By law he can't be a direct participant to any case that is presented to his court and he must recuse himself if he finds out he is involved.
2. The quote is "information gained in the professional relationship with a client" not "information received directly from the client". So any other source of information that is in relation with the case fits the description since the case is what defines the professional relation between an attorney and his client.
Judge Glavnille was removed from the case!! Massive W
And people wonder why the American legal system is so convoluted and broken. No legitimate oversight and a refusal to accept that position is not privilege. America has earned this label and this jurist. Wear them both with pride.
Can't some other individual from the judicial side remove a judge for this? Isn't he considered prejudiced from this point on? I suspect this kind of person won't be pleased if he's been overruled, and therefore not be fair to the defense?
Honestly, that is going to be the best advertisement that lawyer will ever need; "I care that much about the rights of my clients and sources that I would literally go to jail rather than betray their confidentiality!"
If I ever am indicted for racketeering in Georgia, I know who I'm hiring.
Brian Steel always does this kinda stuff when he appears in cases
@@gabrote42In a bad "always has to make a scene way"? Or a "always goes above and beyond" way?
@@edwardallenthreewell i would hope you arent gonna need a racketeering lawyer in the 1st place LOL but yeah always sad when incompetence of the judge, prosecutor or some other state actor derails a trial like that. Instead of there being a proper proccess with evidence all everyone is remember is this stupid judge and feel simphatetiv towards the lawyer which might transfer to the defendant as well if its a mistrial and goes to the next trial, so regardless of young thug is guilty or not hes probably way better off just because of an incompetent judge
@@Gildedmuse The second one. Look up some of his cases, some are pretty funny. Not quite "Opposing counsel used ChatGPT" level funny but pretty good.
The lawyer's new slogan:
I will go to jail for you.
The amount of clients he will get after this 😂
Guy just became the number 1 defense lawyer in the US.
This judge needs to be investigated and review all his cases... this is obviously not his first time using corruption.
Oh yeah they need to dig DEEP
He seems very comfortable for someone caught breaking the law.
WHO?!? Seriously WHO would do the investigation? They are all on the same team.
It's insane. I thought Mr Steele was just exaggerating about the judge's kindly disposition towards the State but Jesus, it's blatantly obvious now.
This isn't corrruption. This is stupidity.
Or STAGGERING levels of arrogance. A Judge is not part of the prosecution.
And this is TELEVISED! It makes me terrified about the shady sh!t that happens in the untelivised cases.
You SHOULD be terrified.
Not much. Honestly this will likely get the judge sanctioned if not disbarred.
We already have documented cases of them being on the take for private prisons and intentionally sentencing kids to jail for kickbacks whenever they had the chance.
Thats the thing, this illegal meeting was off camera so who knows what was happening.
AFAIU, Georgia just routinely televises its open court proceedings.
The irony is that the court, which usually hands out gold stars to snitches, throws a tantrum when someone tattles on them. 😂
🔔🔔🔔🔔 🤣
Exactly what I was thinking.
I didn't even think of that. Kinda funny when you separate it from the situation.
Rules for thee not for me
Supreme Court is still whining about who leaked the anti-Roe decision.
Honestly, this lawyer's career is going to be stellar from this point on.
"My integrity is so true I will be jailed by a corrupt judge rather than tell on someone who informed me of an illegal meeting between the judge and the prosecutor."
How generous of the judge to provide the basis for a fresh new lawyer contempt of court case! Now they won't have to refer to one all the way from 1994 anymore. 😂
FOR REAL 😂😂😂
lol yea. sooo generous ❤️ 🤣
2024 It was interesting to watch the Judge dismiss precedent after precedent against his own ruling.
You gotta think it's basis for a mistrial as well
The year is 2054. A lawyer being held in contempt is trying to use a case from 2024 to justify his position.
This judge needs to be removed from the bench. He clearly has no intention of presiding over fair trials.
I work at a court in California - obviously none of my co workers are following this - and when I let them know what was at the center of it, they could not believe what the judge had done. Even what are typically referred to as "exparte" hearings, here, STILL have to notice other side by a certain time, to give them at least an opportunity to appear. to have done it with no notice, and with the expectation that somehow the other side wouldn't find out, is suuuuuper sus.
Always fun when a judge disregards the law in favor of his own personal feelings.
If the law was just the judge would be imprisoned but I think we all know that's not going to happen
I've unfortunately seen enough of this from local judges where I used to live to know that it's not as much of an exceptional situation as it should be. Heck, I've seen an attorney openly admit to blackmailing witnesses in court with the judge's consent (the attorney suffered no penalties and the "evidence" was allowed, leading to a criminal conviction), and I've seen a judge actively conspire with a plaintiff due to a close personal relationship to the point that they admitted as such on the record (and they obviously ruled for the plaintiff).
They're just really, really lucky that someone actually decided to challenge it in such a high profile case. In lower profile cases, no one cares enough to make sure there's justice as long as someone goes to jail.
Was the judge maybe trying to protect the witness from being killed? Maybe we don’t have the full story yet. But, yeah, looks bad.
Being found in contempt for refusing to follow a potentially illegally issued order regarding a judge's potentially illegal activity is...certainly one way to play that.
This judge really doesnt see a problem with his behaviour
Hes probably threatened info out of other lawyers
Don't worry I have faith in the BAR I am sure he will get a small fine and a strongly worded letter also lose his pizza party privileges for the year.
@@killjoy1887 Ain't that the truth
@@killjoy1887I doubt it. Because the BAR disciplines lawyers, not judges. No say over judicial pizza parties.
@@maeburekaisermost judges are required to have a BAR card.
Also, Georgia should have a Judicial Oversight Committee.
A simple look through the Georgia Constitution should be enough to get the ball rolling.
Just hearing him go over who young thug is, with no judgement in his voice, was so refreshing. Like so many people on the news when they talk about him make light of him being a rapper and you can hear their disapproving tone. It’s great to hear the legal eagle just be factual and properly state who he is and what he has done.
I loved it, and at the same time, it was funnier because he was so deadpan.
Speaks well of him as a lawyer since that's literally his job!
His little dissertation should be remixed
I agree. And I say that as someone who disapproves of Young Thug. Both as a criminal, and a shitty rapper.
That part was cringe, I skipped over it. Wish he had a timestamp for if you wanna skip the d riding. Thankfully it didn't last too long. Didn't come here to listen to his wikipedia page.
It's disturbing how many law scenarios recently have been a case of:
Lawyer - "Your honor, it's the law. These are his constitutional rights."
Judge - "Yeah, but it's my court."
We have way too many judges that have no interest in serving justice and only wish to "make examples of people".
@@bushman1492that’s the problem with the US vis-à-vis France: they think they’re so special and exceptional just because they’ve become independent and implemented a democracy at around the same time as the French Revolution; here’s the thing, France is already in its FIFTH Republic, and for pretty good reasons, wheres the US… got stuck with the same constitution for 235 years now, which, even with all the amendments and whatnot, is not normal by any standard. They just lucked out until now, and judging by the seriously stupid oversights on the part of the founding fathers and other politicians over the years, we may be witnessing the first true challenges to its fitness for purpose.
And that's just it. It's not their court, it belongs to WE, THE PEOPLE. We just allow them to sit in a chair at our discretion.
That's what happens when judges seek election from the "bootstrap" "tough on crime" crowds. Real justice doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
@@MainyehcBingo. Even the guys who were involved in writing it figured we'd have a new one by now. They figured we'd have a new one by 1810!
@@Mainyehcthis is a big issue in political theory actually, the living constitution vs the originalist. Living meaning the constitution should be changing and evolving vs the originalist meaning it should stay how it is. We unfortunately have too many old, stuck in their ways people that think that the constitution is some holy scripture or something that doesn’t need to be changed.
Judge: "I demand to know who narc'd about my illegal meeting!"
Defense: "It was pure speculation on our part, up until you admitted to it."
That would have been hilarious, but also perjury on part of the lawyer. The moment the judge would be able to prove that you *did* in fact know about it, you would get slammed for it.
@@Alblaka A better response would be its pure suspicion on our part, and then you can explain away any evidence you have as being the grounds of the suspicion if discovered.
Great answer
What the hell Is going on over there? If you colonists don't behave we'll have to take the oody country back
@@PCDelorianThat's basically what Information and Belief is.
"1994 was 30 years ago. Do you have any more recent case law?"
"No, this issue doesn't come up very often. It seems most judges aren't as incompetent as you are."
Sry, there isn't much case law regarding judges blatantly breaking this particular law
Precedent is precedent regardless of time. Thats whats kicking me.
@@bendooley550also 1994 was only exactly 30 years ago. In comparison to the 300 year weight of precedence, that's practically the blink of an eye.
same excuse used by a certain some else....
@@blackoak4978can you show me the law where it says an ex parte can’t be called without altering the other party in emergency circumstances? Or circumstances in which alerting the party would defeat the purpose of the ex parte? Not saying any of you guys are wrong, just can’t find that law anywhere.
"Don't you have a more up-to-date precedent to cite?"
"Sir, other judges have avoided breaking this law for 40 years. You get to be the new latest precedent."
At this point, I really have to be up front and ask honestly, just how much money and real property was transferred during their ex parte "meeting"? Sounds like RICO was being violated by most of the officers of the court.
Of course, corruption and Georgia courts... Well, I repeat myself.
@@spvillanowait who would pay who in this case??
@@spvillanowait who would pay who in this case??
@@zwenkwiel816 good question, as RICO cases can get convoluted.
gotta correct you hear 30 years*, I am not forty yet
7:04 I love how after the judge holds Copeland in contempt the camera pans over to the seal reading "Constitution" and "Justice". The cameraman knew what they were doing lol.
The camera man wrote an article about how the deputies told him that Glanville ordered he NOT record the witness getting arrested before he even took the stand. If that’s true, then Judge Glanville knew he was going to plead the 5th
yeah that was some The Office shit lmao
@@justjenna458wait hold up that’s super interesting. Why would not want the person being filmed
@@shoazdon7000interesting, right? I wonder why Glanville didn’t want that filmed either
The cop/court cop that arrests him even shakes his dead once ordered.
Best legal ad ever. “I WILL go to jail for you!”
with*
@@AkariSarzul With "with" it's not so great anymore 😁
Second only to "I'll literally be shot to prove your innocence."
@@Alblaka You dont prove innocence. Litterally 0 defendants have ever been found innocent.
@@DemolitionManDemolishes why not? If you're a lawyer would you rather go in alone. Or go in with a rich and famous rapper/alleged gang leader?
Like going in alone you might end up with people who aren't as friendly...
They were going to give full immunity to Copeland when he was ALLEGEDLY the trigger man of murder?!? That's crazy!!! He doesn't want to even testify for the state (i can understand why), and they are pretty much begging him by a "get out of jail" card. When that didn't work, they used the "go directly to jail" card. Why would they not charge him if he ALLEGEDLY did the actual crime, especially when they knew he was not going to cooperate???
The state messed up by dismissing the charge of MURDERING A PERSON w/o a plea agreement, and now they think they can use unethical tactics to get what they want. They f'd up and should have to deal w/the consequences.
Sound like the same issue with the Alec Baldwin case where the prosecutor wanted to go after a celebrity in order to make a name for themselves and withheld evidence that got the case thrown out. After this, I think the case will be tossed, even if it needs to go to an appeals court to do so due to gross negligence on the judge and prosecution's parts
So if a judge ordered me to do something literally illegal in a courtroom, I'm legally obligated to follow that order, just because a judge said so? This judge can get stuffed
Ironically the 'but I was told to' defence is also literally not considered a valid defence 😅
Hopefully the upper court will hold the judge and contempt, and set up to the exact same sentence.
Try defending yourself from an unlawful arrest. The law is for the rich.
@StarvingAutist I mean it's besides the point but Young Thug is rich and presumably so is his lawyer so they'll have a better chance than most
Talk about catch-22, follow the order and be arrested for something illegal, not follow the order and be arrested for not following the order. All logic has left the chat.
You can't have the defense attorney arrested and removed from the court AND THEN continue the trial without the attorney present. WTF is this judge thinking????
Right?!
"lol I win"
I think that because Young thug had more than one lawyer present, it was presumed that they could continue. Still pretty sketch though
@GoErikTheRed incorrect. The defendant has the right to the counsel of his choice. The court has to respect and protect that right. Just because there are multiple attorneys doesn't allow the judge to remove one.
@@mikeb.2925 If he did not clearly specify which lawyer was HIS CHOICE though, then the case still could go on with multiple lawyers present. He just needed to specify whether he was okay with that or not.
How is the court supposed to know that the one of his three lawyers was the ONE he chose when he did not specify that after the fact?
As a professional criminal I can confirm this judge is encroaching on my profession and should leave criminal activity to more experienced persons.
just engage in general opportunistic criminality or do you specialized in a particular field of illegal activity?
If he's admitting to being a professional criminal he's either a CEO or Lobbyist.
@@rickitynick4463or a congressmen
@@rickitynick4463this is giving ceo vibes🗣️💥
😂😂😂
It's like he realized he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, then started panicking and went on a huge downward spiral, lashing out at anyone he could in the hopes that it would distract from his act of corruption, not realizing he's just digging his hole deeper and deeper. Damn, I wish I had popcorn
imo, he either A: never anticipated the secret meeting to be leaked and knew it was not legal at all, or B: got hella confused on the Georgia court law about ex parte and doubled down out of embarrassment for making a pretty grave error. either way, it's nuts that he's just tossing his weight around like that and i hope they get a mistrial over this because that judge is not to be trusted in any capacity.
"All that was an ex parte conversation, how did you find out about any of that"
is like saying
"I hid the body, so how did you find it?"
the good old "nobody drove by while we were doing that"
Love how a judge get to decide to ignore a ruling just because it’s old. This corruption is insane.
Idk if Young Thug is guilty or not, but even if he is, and is found guilty, this shit will make for the easiest appeal I've ever seen
@@TheBrainSpecialist I think this is going to be eventually ruled a mistrial with the prosecution having to decide how to retry this case so they don't look more thuggish than the defendants. The bright side is that they would have a different judge.
Sovereign immunity covers a lot of vile activity.
Yeah, and maybe have a better case against him that doesn’t involve music lyrics and Witnesses that don’t actually want to testify. Maybe they need an entire new Judge and prosecution team.
30 years old. That's not even that old! The judge asking for "something newer" was the weakest of weak sauce. Judge is working real hard sawing off that tree branch he's sitting on.
Holy wow that is flagrant violation of the law, wtf.
Also, never in my life have I heard of a *trial* court being able to claim "this caselaw is too old to count" when the case law hasn't been overturned.
Considering most maritime case law is older and still valid, it's some crazy bs.
Maybe the Supreme Court used similar thinking on Roe v Wade? 😉
@@gvigary1 they did the opposite -- they cited case law from before our country was founded to throw out case law more recent
what's scary is that the 90's isn't exactly a long time ago. So many millennials must be rapidly growing grey hairs as they hear this argument
@@gvigary1 Thing is, the Supreme Court is an appeals court that /actually has authority/ to overturn precedent. A trial court does not.
Also, Eric Clapton has been indicted for his musical confession that he shot the sheriff. Clapton still maintains that he did not shoot no deputy.
Johnny Cash has been posthumously indicted for shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die.
And Freddie Mercury has been posthumously indicted for his confession to his mama that he just killed a man. Put a gun against his head, pulled his trigger, now he's dead. Prosecutors claimed that the charge is corroborated by Mercury's "Killer Queen", which speaks of "Gunpowder, gelatine, dynamite with a laser beam", clearly boasting about his expertise with lethal explosives.
😂🎉
🤣🤣🤣
Additionally, within "Killer Queen", Mr. Mercury says this is "guaranteed to blow your mind"; perhaps another reference to the lethal shooting of the man confessed to his mother?
@@northstarjakobs Mercury also says "I'm gonna make a supersonic man out of you" (and even extends the same courtesy to women later). Just remember it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.
Top banter
That judge is the picture of impropriety
He's a "Young Thudge"...
He should get in line. The people above him include:
Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge Eileen Cannon, Justice Samuel Alito, Judge John Murphy (Fl.), this judge, Justice Brett Kavenaugh. And many more.
well... less so than the SC... unfortunately.
I'd argue he's in the conversation, but that two or three on SCOTUS and one in Florida have first claim to that title.
does it just seem like judicial corruption is on the rise and it has always been like this (we just didn't hear about it as often) or is this a new phenomenon? this is like straight out of a bad legal drama
7:10 The cameraman zooming into the word "constitution" is hillarious
_Oh yes, "constitutional" judge right here folks..._
That judge needs to be held accountable.
This is laughably transparent of how he is engineering this trial to have a specific outcome.
At the very least it should be the easiest appeal case ever which if young thug is actually guilty is a travesty of justice
@@jinzokan3499regardless of result its a traversty of justice because the judge is doing the case improperly
@@danang5 That should make it easy to appeal the ruling then, if the ruling is not to the liking of the defense. They need to just grant a mistrial, there's no way this dog and pony show will hold up.
Makes us wonder what kind of "kickback" the judge is getting, a new car perhaps 💀?
My fingers are crossed that he'll do another video about this because apparently there was a SECOND secret meeting. Like this case is absolutely wild and I need more details.
Steel's co-counsel was like "If Steel goes, you'll need to arrest me too." Whole squad is boss.
They were making the record, literally the defense couldn’t have done anything smarter than to capitalize on this massive error to its full possible extent.
Yeah and judge back peddled reallll quick when he realized the defense attorneys were doing that. Lol “well I asked Mr. Steel, I’m not asking YOU.”
The defense called his bluff, if protecting the source was a jailable offense then lets just take this to its logical conclusion and jail the entire defense... Which would be further grounds for recusal... Which the judge admitted to start, he said if the case goes to appeal then they can review the record, it's almost as if he wants off the case 🤦♂️
Judge: "How dare you not tell me who informed you I was violating your client's constitutional rights!"
He's also throwing everyone from the ex parte meeting in jail for criminal contempt cause one of them snitched
@@AdrianFlipflop Thats actually hilarious, like who is he trying to protect right now 🤔
@@Hurricayne92hes trying to protect himself. he could easily lose his job for what he did, or even catch some jail time
Dude about to have the most street cred of any lawyer since fuckin Johnny cochrane
>mfw Chewbacca asks to be jailed alongside Han and Lando so they can prep their case
@@MultiClassGeek The real Chewbacca defense.
*Johnnie Cochran
“ if you don’t tell me how you found out I did something illegal, I’m going to hold you in contempt of court”
Our justice system, ladies and gentlemen.
Criminal contempt at that!
The 'Serious Trouble' podcast (Ken White of 'popehat' fame) had a really good take on this IMO. The funniest part was the _prosecutor_ recognizing the danger to their case and trying to get the judge to walk it back a little by allowing Young Thug's lawyer to stay and represent his client.
The lawyer asking to be jailed with his client so they can prepare is also priceless. That's just a beautiful "f*** you" to the judge.
I think that Young Thug caught a very lucky break here. The judge's conduct is textbook reversable error IMO.
Also gave the shady judge an opportunity to appear "generous" by allowing him to be jailed with his client, which he immediately capitalized on
When the prosecutor said to back down, you know the judge is out of line.
Yeah it's like this judge has never heard of trying to PREVENT successful appeals. Ya know, by doing things by the book
@@displayer6023 I don't think the judge is shady per se, I just think he's temperamentally unsuited to the job.
This guy is a US Army Brigadier General. I think he's used to having people salute and obey his orders, and he failed to keep that separate from his "day job" as a judge in an open and adversarial legal process.
@@patrickchase5614 There is a word for that: Corruption.
It's not just that the judge crooked, it's that he's so confident while being crooked, it's terrifying.
Must've gone to the same law school as Eileen Cannon.
And he knows his court is being recorded too. Like, he has to know that there's no way this is going to stay quiet. And it's also an excellent reason for anyone found guilty in his courtroom to call for a mistrial. Or an investigation into the judge at the very least!
Most judges are corrupt af. They think they are above the law.
@@PositiveOnly-dm3rx No, they aren't. Most judges are what they are supposed to be--fair, impartial, and honest. That's why it's such a problem when people like Alieen Cannon, Clarence Thomas, and of course this guy go off the rails like that.
The right-wing stooges are actively TRYING to sell the idea that "all judges are corrupt" or "you can't trust the justice department" because they're all finally being held to account for their crimes. Getting an army of goons to overthrow the justice system is their only hope at avoiding prison now.
So please stop playing into Trump's hand.
@@SadisticSenpai61 It would be hilarious if the lawyer tries to press charges on the judge for false imprisonment. 😅
the fact that a judge had an unscheduled and uninformed meeting with prosecuton counsel and witnesses, without defense counsel presence automatically calls for recusal at best.
100%
And on a RICO Murder Trial!😮
A judge can't recuse from the case they're already hearing after the jury has been seated without a mistrial. And that's what should be demanded: a mistrial with some kind of investigation into prosecutorial misconduct. That Copeland and his family has been threatened only means a deposition would be admissable if he were unavailable, as he would be if he were killed. But they need that deposition... Maybe some witness protection...
@@a24396 A mistrial is def needed. But more than that is needed? Is there a way for a higher court to sanction a judge or something?
@@a24396steel demanded a mistrial, took off his suit jacket, and got taken into custody.
Corrupt judges will be corrupt judges period. With no accountability for these kinds of massive corruption scandals. It will just continue to happen until the people finally have enough and take matters into their own hands
Young Thug has the *best* lawyer and the *worst* judge. And yeah, that's goddamn metal af
No it's not. It's nothing to do with "Metal"
What the hell are you even talking about?
@@drunkpaulocosta Shut it gatekeeper
@@drunkpaulocosta Going to jail because you are upholding your principles is not only metal af, it's also punk af and based af.
@@drunkpaulocostau r not very metal
I'm genuinely surprised that lyrics are being used as evidence. We have people singing about summoning dragons and living in post apocalyptic Martian colonies or whatever.
Guess we should jail John Mellencamp for admitting to being a gangster and a thug in hey soul sister.
We should hold corrupt officials to a much higher standard.
Yes.
It’s odd that they don’t in America. In the England and Wales it’s common for people in authority to be subject to greater sentences.
@@col.hertford9855 The Horizon IT scandal would like to differ.
We should hold them in jail until their day in court.
Yeah, let the law abiding ones get away with stuff
1. How many times has the judge done this and gotten away with it?
2. The fact that no matter what happens he wont be held criminally liable for anything is rediculous. The most he can get is disbarment and losing his job is insane.
3. How many times has the prosecutor done this with other judges? Again no criminal liability is rediculous.
2. Being disbarred is a serious matter. If it happens, his current life is basically over; he'll have a lot of trouble finding a job in law with that kind of history.
@@momom6197he wrongfully incarcerated this lawyer,...took his freedom away. Our Judiciary is in great need of oversight.
@@momom6197 corruption should be always be criminal, he /should/ be prosecuted criminally in a court fairer than his. There should be no judicial immunity in a case as blatant as this. Losing your career is something that can happen due to severe incompetence, losing your career is not enough for someone who has been corruptly working to falsely incarcerate defendants and then works corruption to cover it up by falsely incarcerating their lawyers too.
99% chance he does not get charged with anything. But from the moment he knew that the meeting was illegal, anything he did in furtherance of the conspiracy is outside his official duties and a DA could charge him for it. Considering the political nature of the DA's office, that 1% chance has more to do with politics than morality or law, but it is actually possible for that judge to face criminal liability for this.
@@TrabberShir I highly doubt the DA will do anything since one of the DAs own prosecutors what in that meeting and apparently saw nothing wrong with it.
Judge - Tell me who told you about my illegal and unethical activities so I can retaliate against them.
“When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.”
Edward Snowden
Ah thank you. I was wondering who said that quote.
LOL, that's a terrible attributation. It's not the exposing that got him, it was the breaking the law to expose it that got him.
He tried to warn us and we ignored it.
@mcspaddin why are we more concerned about what he did vs. what the government did and continues to do?
@@NeoAstrisk I'm not necessarily, but two wrongs don't make a right. That and the OP comment is so laughably not relevant to the situation because of what I pointed out.
There's rule of law and evidenciary process for a reason. There's certainly situations where breaking those is necessecary for the greater good, but you'd still be breaking the law. Steel has clear ground over Snowden in that he hasn't actually broken any laws.
Steel has asked for a mistrial MULTIPLE times through out the trial for multiple issues. And the judge obviously denies it every time.
Steel certainly has a golden opportunity with this one.
The appeal can definitely declare a mistrial.
I know nothing about law. I am concerned that the Judge's attention was entirely on getting the name of the person who 'snitched' rather than looking into what they may have missed in the right process of arranging the meeting at all.
Lawyer here and I am concerned about the same exact thing. Ex parte meetings with a sworn state witness are unheard of. This implicates so many of the defendant’s rights - right to a fair trial, right to confront witnesses against him, right to be present, to a public trial, to effective assistance of counsel, to exculpatory evidence, to due process (which requires a neutral judge). All of these rights are potentially violated when the judge is taking the state’s key witness, who is already sworn in, out back for a meeting without the defense. Even worse is that the judge purportedly encouraged the witness to take the fifth and thus prevented the witness from testifying in a way that could have been favorable to the defense. It gives the appearance of a tainted trial. One would think that the judge would be able to provide a damn good reason for this meeting on the spot, but no, he’s more concerned about who tattled.
They didn't miss anything. They deliberately and knowingly violated the law. They are not looking for a way to repair a wrong done to the defense. They are looking for a way to silence the person who reported them.
So the judge got caught, got mad for getting caught, and punished the lawyer for not snitching?
Oh yeah this case needs to be taken to a higher court and the judge should be jailed for a few weeks
All cases of his should be reviewed
"1994 was 30 years ago, do you have any more recent case law?"
"No, but the case law is about to be updated."
"can we circle back in about two weeks, and cite ourselves?"
"No, judge, no one else has been corrupt enough to challenge it in the last 30 years"
@@youmukonpaku3168ngl citing themselves would be legendary 😂
@@chrono1182 Do not cite the ancient case law to me witch, I was there when it was written last tuesday.
Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what a corrupt judge looks like.
How can you tell without knowing the purpose of the meeting? It sounds as if Copeland would rather face legal consequences, than face retaliation from the RICO conspirators. If that was the purpose of the meeting, then it might seem reasonable to the judge to meet with Copeland, the Sherrif's office, and the prosecution, without the attorney who is duty-bound to report back to his client. The judge is wrong, not corrupt, in that case.
@@EinsteinsHair Finding someone in contempt of court over it is.
@EinsteinsHair it doesn't sound like that is a legal reason to have an ex parte meeting with the judge. Protecting a witness from the accused is a matter for the prosecution, not the court.
I don't understand the situation Copeland is in. If it is true that he is required to testify, it makes sense for the judge to explain that to him; but there is no reason for the defense to not be there to hear that explanation.
What do you mean by "looks like"? you can't know if someone is corrupt based off How they look.
or a defense team that are a part of the criminal syndicate
I literally paused the video to check the comments for reference of the Key and Peele skit. Didn't see it, then resumed the video and he played the Key and Peele skit. Lmao
A judge can just say a ruling is too old? where the hell is that rule when it matters
Judge: Show me the case law
Attorney: _receipts_
Judge: I wasn't expectin you to call my bluff, so imma just do what I want anyway
Arizona sure didn’t. They used a law before they were even a state. It’s only “too old” if it doesn’t fit their agenda.
they cant funnily enough , only if there is more recent case law that contradicts the previously established rulings. this judge is dubious at best
@@hm9892 Yeah it only takes a second to remember all the human rights taken away by the Supreme Court and their reasoning for it to go "What?...No!"
@@XXMatt0040XX yeaaa , unfortunately many of the current justice systems around the world are just as corrupt/non-nonsensical. not much is likely to change unless about half a dozen countries all decide to get their act together
I'm tickled by the 20-25 lawyers showing up to tell that they are here to defend their breathern.
Are you hating on those people? What's your problem dude? There's nothing to even defend from, calling out a heinous and corrupt judge is not itself a wrongdoing.
@@Jordan-rb28I do t think he is saying anything negative about them
Your reading comprehension is way off @@Jordan-rb28
@@Jordan-rb28think you need to reread their comment. They’re saying other lawyers are coming out to defend Brian Steel/YT from this.
the judge literally said "that was ex parte. all of that was ex parte. how did you find out about that?"
bruh. that's a bruh moment.
Is the judge aware that the 5th amendment applies to him?
@@smalltime0 Probably. His arrogance in believing he is untouchable is likely what led to him making such an incriminating statement.
The judge said "That's ex parte. If all that was an ex parte conversation, how did you find out about any of that?"
The judge wasn't admitting to it. He was clarifying the allegstion and then stating that IF it was ex parte, how could he have found out.
@@tima6044 that's not how the english language works. he said it in the indicative, not the subjunctive. the way he worded it, it's an admission.
@@jurgnobs1308 I'm a native English speaker, thank you very much. He was succinctly stating exactly what the lawyer was implying, but didn't admit to doing it.
for anyone wondering, the judge was recused and is no longer presiding the case
Love that a judge can just ignore a law or precedent simply because they think it's too old. Especially considering how many laws and precedents are older than 1994.
No kidding. Some of our common law predates 1776. The entire point of "Text, history, and tradition" is that you ought to respect precedent and interpretation from a long time ago.
There are options. The defense's job is to make sure it's all on the records and his objections are recorded and any conviction should have fertile ground to be thrown in the trash on appeal. That, and the judge can be brought in front of an ethics committee for sanction.
@@tomwallen7271 Ethics committee is for mild misconduct. This is not on ethics level. This is in the territory of felony.
Another thing that happened that's at least as egregious. After Steel was held in contempt, the judge tried to force Young Thug's other defense attorney to solo that day's proceedings, despite his saying that he was not prepared to do so.
A nice double-whammy of Sixth Amendment violations (right to competent representation and right to your defense of counsel).
This second lawyer (Adams is his name, I believe?) also questioned why it was only Steel being held in contempt when he knew of the ex parte meeting also.
Just start asking about the ex parte meeting as well until you also get held in contempt
I'm not siding with the judge here. But Steel wasn't held in contempt for knowing about the meeting. He was held in contempt for not complying with the judge's order. Just knowing about the meeting is not reason to be held in contempt. It's only if the judge asks how you found out about the meeting and you refuse to comply that the judge has any rationale (such as it is) to hold you in contempt.
Since this judge is probably corrupt and involved in illegal activities, he's probably not looking to make this worse by jailing more people for his crimes, so he's probably not going to ask anybody else for the information. He was probably really hoping Steel would fold and give him the name. Now that his bluff has been called, he's not likely to want to involve more people and make things even worse. So as long as the judge doesn't ask Adams how he found out about the meeting, there is no cause to hold him in contempt.
I'm a paralegal in Atlanta and have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Steel in an appeal. He is amazing! This dude is a boss and very well respected here. Also his contempt charge was overturned and he did not go to jail
I don't believe the contempt charge has been overturned. The emergency relief he received was allowing him to bond out, the underlying charge is still there.
Sorry I didn't mean overturned. He just didn't end up in jail this weekend.
Wow, that's pretty cool.
Its YSL Brian now
@@ramonpena8491 nah...YSL Silver Steel
My man abt to pull the PD "I investigated myself and found no wrong doing."
The lawyer is hereby granted an open invitation to the cookout effective immediately.
about to be Levy in the Wire
Judge should have his rescinded.
That judge should be in jail, not the lawyer, what an absolute joke of a trial.
If the young thug with all the money he has to pay the best lawyer is being wronged by justice, imagine those who go to jail without any defense and still disrespected
They get to waste less money with same outcomes
Sadly that was my first thought
All the backroom deals happening with these old rich fuqs buying their way out of court and leaving tje victims holding not just the injustice but the lawyer and court fees as well
The money angle is one of the things annoying me. Several legal analysts have lead me to believe this is nearly certain to end in a mistrial, all for nothing but the Judge is putting off dealing with all this after the trial has run it's course knowing full well it is likely all for nothing. Lighting the defendant's and the taxpayer's money on fire...
@@davewood406 That’s the point, despite the money he still suffers disrespect, but the one who has a mediocre defense can suffer even more. Remembering that this is the life of a person who can spend years unfairly inside a cell.
@@bebebaybay1141 the guy that was on the stand all last week has the most to lose. If I’m not mistaken the prosecution was going to hold him until all the court cases were heard. Which could be years.
Hearing this without basically no legal knowledge it is still clearly absurd
judges can to ex parte decisions, but are limited in the scope of them.
lots of people here alleging misconduct without any evidence.
also consider the dude i very clearly guilty and this is likely the one and only thing that may get him off.
Pretty stupid of the judge to hold a *secret* ex parte meeting then, if that was the only thing that would get the defendant off.
@@ethandubois7536 ex parte is by definition secret.
@@nonyabisness6306 No, it is not. The other party has to be informed of the meeting prior and given the opportunity to respond. They are also to be informed of the substance of the meeting.
@@Lyth I suggest you look it up again. That's not what an ex parte meeting is.
the moment, you as a defense council, have to cite direct case law, against a judges order, something has gone very wrong in that room
that judge has created a circus
Not necessarily
That's not how that works.
Do you know how many laws there are and how many court cases there have been?
Generally, defending or prosecuting is not the judges job in a court, you bring arguments to him/court.
Besides, I didn't think that was actually the defence but a group of lawyers discussing what happened with the judge.
This entire trial has been a circus thanks to the judge and prosecution
The judge ADMITTED before the court and reporter and attorneys, that he broke the law. He's fully legless from hereon.
It's likely that the state supreme court will ultimately throw out the contempt charges, so the judge will get his more recent precedence to use next time he illegally finds somebody in contempt of court. It's also likely to be a bit of a moot point as this should be grounds for his removal from the bench and disbarrment.
@@SmallSpoonBrigadeI’m just waiting for him to bring this up again in a later case. Then a lawyer could bring up the 94 case and when he asks, is there anything more recent? They could respond, yes your honour, there was that case very recently you were involved with
Mistrial or overturned on appeal with this judge.
A law from 1994 is too old for the judge to observe, explains how he feels about the constitution.
"I am punishing you for pointing out that I've done something wrong. See you next week."
8:42 - The judge was actually stupid enough to use the legal terminology describing their meeting?! He hasn't even given himself a micrometer of wiggle room to claim that he didn't know any better, he just damned himself with that clip!
I think he was attempting to discredit the statement by saying, "if it was ex parte then how do you know?" But he seems to have failed by asking for the specific source to be disclosed which makes him look more suspicious.
I was in misdemeanor court with a young ADA once and the judge asked the lawyer if he knew when the defense lawyer would be there. The ADA started talking about the case and the judge has to stop him and say she wasn't trying to have an ex parte conversation and then when the defense lawyer got there, the judge disclosed the event
That judge is SOOO ANGRY that someone snitched on him.
So I'm hearing a mistrial and I'm only 30 seconds in... this is going to be entertaining as hell isn't it?
oh yeah
And keep in mind, the person they're doing all of this to is a RAPPER. Idk, if I was a judge prone to misconduct I would not choose the guy really good at writing insulting poems as my victim.
@@sophiejones3554 I hope he releases one called "Ex Parte" that's all about keeping secrets, but that doesn't allude to a specific person, just so he stays in the clear. Judge deserves to spend the rest of his life knowing that one's inspired by his corruption.
@@KidarWolf exactly :)
Fun fact. Case law never expires. So even if a case law is from 1960 it still stands as the guideline. Where did this judge go to law school?
He got his law degree on the back of a cereal box.
Idk apparently the supreme Court just doesn't care about that.
I've heard of cases where they successfully used case law from the 1800s. The shade that lawyer threw when she explained it doesn't happen often... whew. Spicy.
I wonder if he is one of those "elected" judges who have no clue what the law actually is. But fascists are gonna fascist I suppose. They should make this a constitutional rights case.
Heck, there are laws on the books from the 1800s and earlier that are still perfectly valid, and even still enforced.
This feels ridiculously illegal, and the judge is coming off as a thug in a robe with the way he’s disregarding the law he pretends to uphold.
Why did my dog just jump up?
@@ssighs2304some of the bulls**t must've wafted over from the courtroom
Unfortunately if the judge was in the pocket of a rival gang or even the actual YSL this is how he would run a courtroom. Intimidate a witness jail anyone who questions the witness intimidation.
Old Thug v. Young Thug
The judge should be fine for millions , fired and arrested
What is the deal with corrupt judges lately? Did they all just realize that nothing will be done so they can do whatever?
Especially in Georgia.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's a recent thing. It's just harder to keep it under the radar than it was even 20 years ago.
Not only is it harder to keep under the radar with modern technology, we currently have a not-insubstantial section of the population actively looking for corrupt judges to point at as justification for certain political views.
Sousveillance occurred.
Became harder for those in Authority to hide how they have always behaved.
it's always been that way just now we have social media
what i've learned most from this channel is that I will _never_ get good counsel because I am neither rich, nor powerful, nor famous.
You don't need to be any of those things, you just need to be literate, intelligent, and belligerent.
Better Call Saul!! You need a "criminal" lawyer to deal with stuff like this.
You and us all buddy
the lawyers for the stars got their start working for people that couldn't afford good lawyers. Plenty of good lawyers that are undiscovered
If it’s high profile enough you can get someone to do it pro bono
Wasn't this on a Law & Order episode? It was basically a defendant who was legally allowed to lie on the stand because it involved the mafia, as him telling the truth would have been a death sentence, but behind closed doors he told the judge and prosecutor the truth, leaving his lawyer out of it, because his lawyer also worked for the mafia.
But that is different as the defense is still there, just not the lawyer.
@@jeraldbottcher1588 It's also different because it's fictional.
@@SylvanApe You would be stunned and/or embarrassed to know how many US-Americans think movies are true.
A lot of people in the US thought that the place called Wakanda was actually real. They thought a Marvel-Movie was real ...
I can't decide who's worse, the judge who had an ex parte meeting with a witness that was under oath, or the prosecution claiming that Georgia Code says that ex parte communication is legal.
The scale leans towards the Judge who also had the gall to just ignore case law and precedence because he didn't like it. Citing old case law isn't a problem. Its the only thing constitutional law does, not that this is a constitutional case, I am just saying new case law is only more important than old case law when newer overrules the older.
Nothing they want more than to win a case after setting that precedent so other courts can also use it (as they likely already try).
@@madhippy3
Something that came to my attention, due to Mitch stacking the Courts, was the politics involved. Within the Judicial political parties, they call them Heritages and Societies, are different concepts of what it is to be a Judge. Some of these concepts we, the masses, think are part of the process are really not. Other philosophies exist, and if you get people who hold bad ideology into the right positions... they change how Cases are ruled on.
Scary to find out the concept of Precedent is one of those things.
There are a lot of Judges whom believe, for reasons that are obvious, that they can ignore Precedent if they so desire. Some are in the 'originalist' camp, using the excuse that they should be applying a law exactly as it was intended centuries ago. Some are even more old school, believing in systems that predates legal codification itself. It just happens the more Authoritarian of these groups make each Judge a sovereign within their own courts, vassal only to the judge with a grander title.
Mitch shopped around for a few that hated Precedent and favored these older systems.
At least the prosecutor has the excuse that it's their job to make arguments to further their case. Even if that means making bad arguments sometimes.
What about on top of that, they mutually engaged in what appears to be aimed at getting people convicted. Something likely harder/impossible if they actually followed the legal rules. That's not just a bending/corruption of the legal system, but likely a criminal venture in its own right. I get they want to convict people, but they have to play by the rules. The rules are there to safeguard fair trails, at least to a reasonable degree. Looks like the judge and prosecution (both!) simply ignored all that and created their own rogue "justice system". On top of that, the judge demonstrated what looks like the worst possible display of abuse of the powers vested in him. The collusion between judge and prosecution here is directly undermining the legal system, arguably even an attack on the state itself. That is no light matter. That's pretty much the treason, by definition. Take into account the special authority/position/standing/powers of a judge and you might even call it high treason. True, it certainly is a stretch. But think about it. Besides the bad optics, what it really means for a legal system if/when judges and prosecutors (can) act deceitful (possibly with impunity) to get people convicted. I'm pretty sure that the USA has some choice words for that, if it happens anywhere else in the world, in particular within countries it doesn't quite like.
Judge gets caught in secret meetings, defense attorney calls judge out on it and judge decides to throw focus away from illegal meeting but rather laser focuses on wanting to know the source of the information. In other words, forget about the crime committed, I want to know who the snitch is! Insane!!!
It gets even more insane whern you remember they are prosecuting a RICO case.
Same thing happened when someone leaked the Supreme Court docs when they were planning on overturning Roe v Wade. They didn't care that they looked corrupt as shit, they wanted to know who snitched on them being corrupt as shit.
This feels like something out of an episode of South Park.
"You did something illegal."
"Tell me who snitched or I'll put you in jail with all of the other people I've convicted!"
Not to mention the irony of a judge presiding over a conspiracy trial being involved in a conspiracy.
Sounds like a good way to make a future prison break
The judge has been removed from the case due to this meeting
This judge is dangerous. He's so brazenly ignorant of the law he's doing this on camera with national media attention. When i first heard about this i thought "that's like, really bad and not at all how that's supposed to work, right?" They might as well just call this a mistrial now
the American “justice” system has nothing to do with justice
The blatant corruption is insane. The judge should be disbarred for this, not just recused from the case.
Who knows how many people he’s railroaded.
Why would they do that when we can't even get rid of qualified immunity
Jailed.
@@kylezo It's time we ensure that judge's understand there is no such thing as qualified immunity. The only question is which Amendment we use to hold them accountable. The 7th Amendment, or one with a lower number.
defense should move for a Bad Court Thingy
He's the worst judge I've ever witnessed.
Judge Cannon.
But you have witnessed him!
Judge Alito
Judge Aaron Persky
Y'all forgetting Julius Hoffman?
I love that when someone challenged his right to ask that question (and thus hold Steele in contempt for not answering it), his response was basically "well, I say it's in the court's right, so you're wrong."
If that judge keeps his job that is a travesty of justice. He should never be allowed anywhere near the practice of law again.
It's Georgia.
What do you think is gonna happen?
its america. don't hold your breath for any consequences for the judge.
If? He will. Worst case, he'll have this trial taken from him. That's it. He'll continue serving, being allowed to issue whatever rulings and contempt charges he want, and collect his salary until he dies. This is AMERICA. We don't hold our authorities to our standards here.
Oh, are we talking about Clarence Thomas?
Lmao you think this a travesty? This is business as usual. This is status quo, this system was built by property owners for the protection of property owners. Not for the rabble. You know, like the ICJ.
Being willing to go to jail with your client to prove corruption is such a baller move. That lawyer is going to have his pick of clients. Also, that judge is going to have problems in his future.
I thought it a nice twist to ask for the same jail. I reckon the defence lawyer would be toast for future employment if he had disclosed confidential information.
Like I might not be on the defense's side in the case itself, but boy HOWDY am I on that lawyer's side.
It's a really bad reading of the law, but corruption? I'd hate to say so in public without evidence.
Look, if he's gonna be spending all weekends in jail, might as well get some work done
What's up with all these judges being overtly corrupt all of a sudden? They used to have the courtesy to keep that on the down-low.
Look into who was appointin judges there not too long ago and youll find the answer. Just like how all the corrupt ones at various district courts are the fault of the person who appointed them from 2016-2020
More news and cameras on courts recently
@@Jplays23 Probably, there's a lot of judges between state, local and federal courts, just having more YT channels covering this stuff is going to rake up the muck. There's a reason why most judicial proceedings are done with the public being allowed to witness the proceedings. It's mostly things that are purely administrative and things of a sensitive nature that are done in private. Most of the time, the public has the right to attend the trial to make it less likely that this kind of conduct will occur.
These days it's harder to stay under the radar since resistance is getting loud. Whenever capitalist rule is meaningfully challenged, liberals will side with fascists to uphold the capitalist system of power and wealth distribution. This means that by necessity, these kinds of moral failures become more and more common and present as law is flouted in place of "order".
I feel like it's been this way for a long time but the advent of legal youtubers is something that these judges are NOT prepared for. I mean, who's going to report on this properly? The news? The news doesn't have time to sit down and explain ex parte to viewers for 20 minutes like LegalEagle (They've got 2 minutes to cover this story at best!) so unless more obvious moves and determinations are made, the news might mention and report on it lightly but you'll be amazed at how quickly that sort of thing is brushed under the rug and forgotten. Especially because most people don't CARE about that sort of thing unless it impacts them directly or huge public figures like politicians. And a large percentage of the media and public is going to be more dismissive against any negative actions taken against someone like Thug anyway on the basis of him being black, a rapper, and the gang associations. However, video essays and expert explanation content are a new thing, within the last few years, and suddenly all this dirty laundry that normally would only be exposed on a small scale, with poor unclear explanation, and forgotten VERY quickly is suddenly on a channel with 3.2 million subscribers pulling in over half a million views in 2 days.
This is something so absurd, I was expecting it to be some Ace Attorney plot...
OBJECTION!!!! *weird finger wiggle*
Judge: "You're going to jail for 20 days."
Steele: "You ain't keeping me from my client that long. I'll go to jail, but where _he_ is."
Merchant: "Also, you can't actually do that."
Judge: "Do you have case law saying that?"
Merchant: " _Yes I do._ "
This whole thing feels like an inverted Law & Order episode. I wouldn't say that makes me _happy_ , but it does make me hopeful.
Oh, I can almost guarantee that either this is going to be a mistrial, or the judge is going to force it through to the end, then go to appeal, and the next judge is going to take all of 5 minutes and say "Bet" and drop all charges. Then the original judge is probably going to be disbarred.
Think an American show called good wife was a defence lawyer show.
The best part is that Steel wrote the Amicus brief ON the case law they used!!! 😂😂😂
@@Kaede-Sasaki You mean the scene where she countered the threat of being held in contempt with the "complaint with the judicial conduct commission" card and won the stare-down?