POP QUIZ! You're representing Jim in a jury trial involving a car wreck. The other party's witness, named Michael, is testifying on direct examination and says, "Dwight told me that he thinks Jim was speeding while driving because apparently Jim was trying to beat Dwight to a potential client." What all should you do in this situation and why?
The lawyer objecting to his own question was pretty hilarious. Although... I'm still confused, because wasn't he objecting to the ANSWER that was given, as hearsay?
Man i don't know why I'm here I'm an ace attorney fan and this feels so sick hahahah i want to be on a mock trial although I don't want to be an attorney
@@tawdryhepburn4686 i made this comment for myself, listing only the ones I found pertinent to my mock trial the coming week. Btw I was the prosecuting attorney and we won the trial
When you’re in mock trial and all you know how to do is be a witness but your teacher decides to make you an attorney this year and you have three months to learn all the objects and how to Direct and cross a witness
I am a paralegal student. I had a mock trial with a real judge. I was responsible for cross examination. I watched this video and I rocked it! Thank you so much for sharing this. It's a great video. I'm sure your paid course is good. Thank you again. I really lean from your videos
Thank you so much! I'm familiar with mock trial, but I've only been a witness before. This has been a major help in preparing me to be an attorney for the first time.
I love how all the objections are centered around the fact that the Jury are a bunch of easy to manipulate individuals who can't think for themselves. I only wonder why can't the Judicial system include professional Jury members who have experience in the field in question (Homicide/Drug Dealing/Forgery... etc) depending on what are the charges, why isn't that a thing ??
Because then it wouldn’t be fair, especially if those “professional jurors”, develop a bias. I’d rather take my chance at a random selection of noob jurors than ones who might be already be coming in with a made-up mind from previous experiences.
I understood most objections from simply watching the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trials BUT I simply don't understand why it's hearsay if somebody literally repeats what THEY themselves said. Just doesn't make sense to me
I've seen about a handful of your videos and they're all great. You're very clear and the way you lay out the information is easy to follow and digest. You sound like a very competent lawyer. If I may make one recommendation... dress more like an attorney. As any sales person worth his commission check will tell you, potential clients judge you in the first couple of seconds based almost exclusively on your appearance. It's not about fairness; it's just the nature of the beast. I recommend levelling up your street cred with a wardrobe in keeping with how you already present yourself: a competent lawyer! I hope you take that as the constructive feedback it is intended to be, and not a snobby attack on your fashion choices. Either way, keep up the content, it's priceless.
I really appreciate the kind words and constructive feedback! When it comes to recording videos these days, I make sure that I have the least resistance as possible. The microphone, camera, tripod, and lights are never moved so I can just fire everything up and start recording in minutes. I find that if there's a lot of set up time, then that resistance can dissuade me from actually recording (especially because I don't always have a lot of free time to record the video). Dressing up for a video has a similar effect. It's just so much easier to turn everything on and start recording with what I was already wearing.
I'm also here because of the Depp v Heard trial, to boost my understanding. Thanks for the good explanations, I don't believe I knew the last one. #JusticeForJohnnyDepp
Good ass video thanks. Looked at the views excepting to find hundreds of thousands based on the fact it was so professional and edited well, but only to see it has a few hundred. Great video really
Im playing the ace attorney trilogy and now I have an ambition to study law, it probably morphed my idea of being in a court room, what's your opinion?
Ive spent the the last 5 years an over 100k in court with my X as shes tired to get custody of our now 8 year old daughter, her new boyfriend has way more $ than me to , but after 5 years an 4 shity lawyers your videos an me as my childs lawyer an by the way im not an attorney, im just not the pos drug addict an abusive parent , that constantly gets caught in lies an disobeys every state guideline an court order ! Your awsome man an ive watched an read so much over the years an honesty i feel like you have helped me more than 4 lawyers an over 100k spent ! How much do i owe you bro ? LoL cause your worth every dime !
What if you are arguing a bench trial instead of a jury trial? Can you just say "Objection" and leave it at that and the judge will/should know what you are objecting to (if you at least are in the ball park of being right)? Also, what if you don't object at all? Will the judge himself ignore what he heard when he decides the case if it was improper but not objected to?
I really liked your video but I was a little confused as to the "Argumentative" objection. As I understand it, "argumentative" is when the lawyer tries to argue their case during questioning, i.e. to get the witness to agree to theories or conclusions rather than to provide facts. Argumentative questions would be ones like "So the defendant was already setting up his alibi when he said he was going to be out of town, correct?" or "A positive identification of a rapist who used tape on locks would weaken your assertion that he entered through the laundry room window, wouldn't it?" In contrast, a question such as "What made you change your mind (as to the identity of the intruder), was it the testimony that the intruder used tape on locks instead of crawling through open windows?" would be more along the lines of badgering or harassment. Theories should be saved for the closing argument.
Glad you like the video! The argumentative objection is hard to define because it's very dependent on what is happening in the moment. Objecting to questions that ask for legal conclusions typically don't fall under Argumentative (check out FRE 701 and 702). Instead, Argumentative is usually when the cross examiner goes from asking questions to simply arguing a point with the witness in an effort to get the witness to say exactly what the cross examiner wants. But, cross examination is sort of an argument itself because you want to ask leading questions that tell the story you want to tell during closing (or at least part of it). As such, Argumentative is something you have to determine in the moment because it focuses less on the question itself and more of the tone/intent of the question or statement.
During Direct, my witness explains a relevant conversation they had with another witness. Could a hearsay objection become sustained by opposing counsel?
Make sure to get a ruling .... many judges loathe judging “clear it up counselor” is not a ruling .... the elephant in the room is going to be making a bill of review when you know you are right .... with the quality of this content, I would love to see your content: let’s say in an assault case the judge does not lot you use a video the victim did at the hospital that contradicts the visible injuries reported and/or how the injury happened ...
You're exactly right! Making sure that you get a ruling from the Judge helps keep the record clean. And what you're referring to is what's called (at least in my jurisdiction) an "offer of proof." That's definitely something I should make a video about at some point! Thanks for the feedback and input!
Additional exemption to leading questions is direct examination of adversarial witnesses (rule 611) so if youre questioning someone whom is aligned with your opposition on direct or even someone whom youve valid and credible reason has been tampered with (be sure you can articulate this to the judge) you can request the witness be considered hostile and from there youll be able to handle the line of questioning with "kid gloves" via leading questions to a reasonable degree
I’m representing myself in an administrative appeals case w NH dept health and human services. I’m hoping to bring down the non profit agency taking care of my sister and the dept of HHS Lol. I have so much proof I’ve been completely ignored and the attorney generals office has serious concerns about what’s been allowed. I’m psyched to go in and use my law and order knowledge. I’ve been studying for 6 months on tortes and parental alienation and the dsm book. I’m calling witnesses etc. fingers crossed!
Really like the delivery of the video. Also coming from the Johnny Depp vs AmberTurd. I'd say would be cool to see your reaction to the court case as well.
The objection beyond the scope of the trial just means that the question asked or the answer given was not within what the trial was trying to determine. Does that help? :)
99% of the time it'll be used during cross examination, however, there may be a situation when you can try it during direct. If someone keeps asking the same open-ended question during direct, you may want to also make a 403 objection as well since that deals with not wasting the court's time.
So this is only for a trial, is that correct? I’m going to court to contest a restraining order & represent myself. Are objections allowed outside of a trial hearing?
I have a question...In the Casey Anthony trial, Jose Baez was cross-examining one of Casey's male friends. Baez asked him if he was in Casey's house when Caylee drowned in the pool. So I shouted out "Objection! Begging the question!" (and I'm not an attorney). Is there any objection that can be made when at attorney does what Baez did--asking a question which pre-supposes that his theory of the case is true?---that Caylee died by drowning in the swimming pool, as opposed to the State's contention that she was killed at the hands of Casey Anthony, i.e., the reason why there is a trial in the first place?
Sorry to see no one responded. I’m not really familiar with the defense of the case. It that’s the defense on cross examination to the prosecution’s witness, it sounds like it would be leading the witness because there wasn’t foundation for the question. If they wanted to make that argument, they could lay foundation during their defense and possibly call that witness back. Opposing counsel is limited to asking cross examining questions that are relevant to the witness’s initial testimony.
In the Karen-Read-trial the Judge did allow only to object, not to explain why - I found this was so difficult for the jury not to know why there was an objection. Sorry she asked the prosecutor, if he wants to object, when he didn't in the first place - is this allowed?
The jury can safely disregard with reprimand to the presiding judge for issuing any such order as they are in charge of the proceedings.The idea of the truth emerging from argument refereed from the neutral bench is flawed, but more or less what the founders put in place. These has been replaced over the years by the ABA. If any of it is due process why would it ever be necessary to falsify felony transcripts into fake history? These official records should always be accurate accounts of what happened.Why not? What is the meaning of this practice? No the members of the American Bar Association haven't plausible denial. I...can... prove it.
Looks like you were sent the emails yesterday at 1:59 PM and 2:12 PM (central time). You may need to check your spam folder or Promotions folder. And happy to help!
Hi Jarrett! I followed the link and submitted my info for the objections cheat sheet about 10 minutes ago. Is there a slight delay? I would really like to access this!
How do you object if you are representing yourself and the judge AND the prosecutor are abusing their oath of office? Can you imagine being in a courtroom facing lies on top of lies on top of lies?
WHAT IF--- a party wants to admit a "mortgage" that is supposed to be a lien on property, BUT the "mortgagor" had no title, and therefore the mortgage is void? ..we cannot just assume the "mortgagor" had clear title to the property, because then we would just have people recording mortgages on property that they had no title to...florida is a hot spot..
Objection! The autopsy report has been updated. Objection! You are not a clown, you are the entire circus. Objection! Guilty! Objection! That was .. objectionable! Objection! Darker and more bitter than the depths of hell ... Coffee Did I get them all? They can speak for themselves, they know who they are.
Hello. How about add the name of the discussed objections as a caption into the video? There is only you all the time on the screen (which is boring btw), and when I skip to the middle of the video, I don't know what objections you are talking about. And putting chapters ant timestamps to the video would be nice as well.
POP QUIZ! You're representing Jim in a jury trial involving a car wreck. The other party's witness, named Michael, is testifying on direct examination and says, "Dwight told me that he thinks Jim was speeding while driving because apparently Jim was trying to beat Dwight to a potential client." What all should you do in this situation and why?
Law Venture objection your honor. Hear say.
Objection your honor, lacks foundation
Out of court statement by Dwight offered in court for its truth .... Dwight can offer this himself (he is on the beet farm )
Just plain ole hearsay
Objection hearsay
Had to watch this to fully understand why everything is being objected in the Johnny/Amber case.
BINGO me too !!
Same here lol
Same
The lawyer objecting to his own question was pretty hilarious.
Although... I'm still confused, because wasn't he objecting to the ANSWER that was given, as hearsay?
The views of this skyrocted lol
3:02 objection leading
6:43 objection speculation
8:51 objection calls for speculation
10:34 objection hearsay
13:41 objection asked an answer
16:14 objection relevance
19:14 objection argumentative
21:09 objection non responsive
22:55 objection compound
24:27 objection narrative
thx
Thank You So Much! 😎👍
Amber Heard's lawyers need a 10:34 infinite loop
THANKS
Good video, but the dude could have done what you did, you shouldn't have had to...
Me watching this during Johnny depps trial
same hahahaha
Elaine gave you some real proper leading examples for sure she was basically an autocue for her witnesses :')
Why doesn’t this have more likes? It literally saved me in mock trial
Glad the video helped!
same
Man i don't know why I'm here I'm an ace attorney fan and this feels so sick hahahah i want to be on a mock trial although I don't want to be an attorney
Seriously? That's amazing!
Same!
I am saving this video to understand Johnny Depp and Amber’s trial 🤣🤣
Thank you btw you saved the day
me 2
Came here to understand Johnny Depp’s hearings 😹
3:02 objection leading
6:43 objection speculation
8:51 objection calls for speculation
10:34 objection heresy
13:41 objection asked an answer
19:14 objection argumentative
Thank you !
hearsay*
That isn’t 10…
@@tawdryhepburn4686 i made this comment for myself, listing only the ones I found pertinent to my mock trial the coming week. Btw I was the prosecuting attorney and we won the trial
@@MrToasterWaffles ah! Thanks for explaining. And good idea.
When you’re in mock trial and all you know how to do is be a witness but your teacher decides to make you an attorney this year and you have three months to learn all the objects and how to Direct and cross a witness
CURRENTLY ME
SAAAAAMEEE I only have two weeks 😭
I am a paralegal student. I had a mock trial with a real judge. I was responsible for cross examination. I watched this video and I rocked it! Thank you so much for sharing this. It's a great video. I'm sure your paid course is good. Thank you again. I really lean from your videos
Glad you did well! And I appreciate the kind words!
I have a mock trial coming up, and your videos are really helping me be better prepared! Thank you, Jarrett!
Happy to hear it and good luck!
Thank you so much! I'm familiar with mock trial, but I've only been a witness before. This has been a major help in preparing me to be an attorney for the first time.
I love that he actually gives advice how to use these abjections. Dude were just here to understand Jonny/Turd trial. :)
All attorneys know the only way to object is yell and a gust of wind will attack the witness or prosecutor
#sorcery
Gyakuten Saiban anyone?
I love how all the objections are centered around the fact that the Jury are a bunch of easy to manipulate individuals who can't think for themselves.
I only wonder why can't the Judicial system include professional Jury members who have experience in the field in question (Homicide/Drug Dealing/Forgery... etc) depending on what are the charges, why isn't that a thing ??
Because then it wouldn’t be fair, especially if those “professional jurors”, develop a bias. I’d rather take my chance at a random selection of noob jurors than ones who might be already be coming in with a made-up mind from previous experiences.
That's not what a " Jury of your Peers" means...
Too easy to be corrupted
This needs to aired in every law school's evidence class. This is GREAT!!!!!!
Haha I really appreciate it!
Got a big case in 3 hours this helped alot. Er also could you do a tutorial on how to make a case in 3 hours?
I understood most objections from simply watching the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trials BUT I simply don't understand why it's hearsay if somebody literally repeats what THEY themselves said. Just doesn't make sense to me
The short answer is that the quote wasn't under oath. Therefore, the substance of the quote wasn't under oath and could be untruthful.
As Judge Judy once put it, never tell the court what anyone else said, did or saw. Only what you saw, did and said
@@LawVenture oh my goodness thank you! That one question is the whole reason I was on this video, it didn’t make sense before
I've seen about a handful of your videos and they're all great. You're very clear and the way you lay out the information is easy to follow and digest. You sound like a very competent lawyer. If I may make one recommendation... dress more like an attorney. As any sales person worth his commission check will tell you, potential clients judge you in the first couple of seconds based almost exclusively on your appearance. It's not about fairness; it's just the nature of the beast. I recommend levelling up your street cred with a wardrobe in keeping with how you already present yourself: a competent lawyer! I hope you take that as the constructive feedback it is intended to be, and not a snobby attack on your fashion choices. Either way, keep up the content, it's priceless.
I really appreciate the kind words and constructive feedback! When it comes to recording videos these days, I make sure that I have the least resistance as possible. The microphone, camera, tripod, and lights are never moved so I can just fire everything up and start recording in minutes. I find that if there's a lot of set up time, then that resistance can dissuade me from actually recording (especially because I don't always have a lot of free time to record the video). Dressing up for a video has a similar effect. It's just so much easier to turn everything on and start recording with what I was already wearing.
Gonna have a mock trial in about a week as a literature project, this is going to be a great help
have my first mock trial tournament in like two months; you a real one
Really impressive Jarrett, thank you, wishing you much success, I hope you will produce more.
I definitely have a ton of content ideas scheduled out for this channel! And thanks!
Thank you for educating the members of the public. Many of us are self reppin and this valuable.
Hey Jarrett I am in the middle of 2 cases right now. Your videos are so helpful! Great job!
I'm working on my first small claims case and watching your video is helping. 10:31
I'm also here because of the Depp v Heard trial, to boost my understanding.
Thanks for the good explanations, I don't believe I knew the last one.
#JusticeForJohnnyDepp
Where's the music when he yells objection?
Good ass video thanks. Looked at the views excepting to find hundreds of thousands based on the fact it was so professional and edited well, but only to see it has a few hundred. Great video really
I really appreciate it! And I'm hoping that if this video keeps getting likes and comments like this, then it's just a matter of time
I am here after watching johny depp trial
You are so right. I'm here after seeing that trial.😅
Need this for the Johnny Depp trial lol
Im playing the ace attorney trilogy and now I have an ambition to study law, it probably morphed my idea of being in a court room, what's your opinion?
Don't bring parrots as a witness
@@thetorocat *AHEM* a radio, an orca,a helicopter, a dead man
Ive spent the the last 5 years an over 100k in court with my X as shes tired to get custody of our now 8 year old daughter, her new boyfriend has way more $ than me to , but after 5 years an 4 shity lawyers your videos an me as my childs lawyer an by the way im not an attorney, im just not the pos drug addict an abusive parent , that constantly gets caught in lies an disobeys every state guideline an court order ! Your awsome man an ive watched an read so much over the years an honesty i feel like you have helped me more than 4 lawyers an over 100k spent ! How much do i owe you bro ? LoL cause your worth every dime !
I’m humbled by the kind words! 🙌
Great video, Jarrett! Really impressive. Every lawyer should master these objections.
what if you’re in a hearing that only has a judge no jury. Such as a custody hearing . Can you make objections ?
Now I need to go back and watch all the Law & Order episodes and see if they are using the objections correctly.
Let me know what you find out haha
Thanks for the great help, I have a mock trial... Nah, just watched depp/amber trial!... Objection hearsay!!
What if you are arguing a bench trial instead of a jury trial? Can you just say "Objection" and leave it at that and the judge will/should know what you are objecting to (if you at least are in the ball park of being right)? Also, what if you don't object at all? Will the judge himself ignore what he heard when he decides the case if it was improper but not objected to?
THIS WAS SO HELPFUL. Thank you!
Happy to hear!
Awesome video!!! How do I get to the cheat sheet?
I really liked your video but I was a little confused as to the "Argumentative" objection. As I understand it, "argumentative" is when the lawyer tries to argue their case during questioning, i.e. to get the witness to agree to theories or conclusions rather than to provide facts. Argumentative questions would be ones like "So the defendant was already setting up his alibi when he said he was going to be out of town, correct?" or "A positive identification of a rapist who used tape on locks would weaken your assertion that he entered through the laundry room window, wouldn't it?" In contrast, a question such as "What made you change your mind (as to the identity of the intruder), was it the testimony that the intruder used tape on locks instead of crawling through open windows?" would be more along the lines of badgering or harassment. Theories should be saved for the closing argument.
Glad you like the video! The argumentative objection is hard to define because it's very dependent on what is happening in the moment. Objecting to questions that ask for legal conclusions typically don't fall under Argumentative (check out FRE 701 and 702). Instead, Argumentative is usually when the cross examiner goes from asking questions to simply arguing a point with the witness in an effort to get the witness to say exactly what the cross examiner wants. But, cross examination is sort of an argument itself because you want to ask leading questions that tell the story you want to tell during closing (or at least part of it). As such, Argumentative is something you have to determine in the moment because it focuses less on the question itself and more of the tone/intent of the question or statement.
See replies to Jonathan Psiter
During Direct, my witness explains a relevant conversation they had with another witness. Could a hearsay objection become sustained by opposing counsel?
"The testimony clearly contradicts the evidence!"
what subject you need as well them classes as well
Is it allowed for the state to parade the version of the defense counsel while they are doing Direct Examination on their witness?
Make sure to get a ruling .... many judges loathe judging “clear it up counselor” is not a ruling .... the elephant in the room is going to be making a bill of review when you know you are right .... with the quality of this content, I would love to see your content: let’s say in an assault case the judge does not lot you use a video the victim did at the hospital that contradicts the visible injuries reported and/or how the injury happened ...
You're exactly right! Making sure that you get a ruling from the Judge helps keep the record clean. And what you're referring to is what's called (at least in my jurisdiction) an "offer of proof." That's definitely something I should make a video about at some point! Thanks for the feedback and input!
Your content is well-made. It's a crime those lousy gaming contents is getting more likes and subscribers than this. Keep up the good work.
Well the law isn't the sexiest topic to watch on TH-cam... but it's probably top 5 though... so I don't know what the deal is haha
don't be like that please. Game and reaI law talk are two different things... don't even try to compare the popularity.
thanks. this is so helpful for the jd ah trial
Additional exemption to leading questions is direct examination of adversarial witnesses (rule 611) so if youre questioning someone whom is aligned with your opposition on direct or even someone whom youve valid and credible reason has been tampered with (be sure you can articulate this to the judge) you can request the witness be considered hostile and from there youll be able to handle the line of questioning with "kid gloves" via leading questions to a reasonable degree
Is this for Canadian or American law?
I was excited to recieve the free objection sheet you mentioned in the intro but I have not yet receive it. :(
Very well put, very educational, and yur music is classically soothing
Glad you think so!
Can I only object in the presence of jury or can I object when jury is not present when the other party is talking?
I have a lot question a about law school or program and college school as well
Can motion to strike the testimony work in the same way as disregard the testimony
I’m representing myself in an administrative appeals case w NH dept health and human services. I’m hoping to bring down the non profit agency taking care of my sister and the dept of HHS Lol. I have so much proof I’ve been completely ignored and the attorney generals office has serious concerns about what’s been allowed. I’m psyched to go in and use my law and order knowledge. I’ve been studying for 6 months on tortes and parental alienation and the dsm book. I’m calling witnesses etc. fingers crossed!
You forgot the most important one for Amber Heard’s team: “Objection: We’re losing”
Really like the delivery of the video. Also coming from the Johnny Depp vs AmberTurd. I'd say would be cool to see your reaction to the court case as well.
And you even have captions! Props to you. Thanks for the good explanations. Really helped me to understand the objections.
Hi, I just signed up law venture and for some reason, I did not get the cheat sheet sent to me.
Thank you. Very informative
You're very welcome!
See Jonathan Psiter replies
What does objection beyond the scope mean
The objection beyond the scope of the trial just means that the question asked or the answer given was not within what the trial was trying to determine. Does that help? :)
Is asked and answered only for cross examination?
99% of the time it'll be used during cross examination, however, there may be a situation when you can try it during direct. If someone keeps asking the same open-ended question during direct, you may want to also make a 403 objection as well since that deals with not wasting the court's time.
So this is only for a trial, is that correct? I’m going to court to contest a restraining order & represent myself. Are objections allowed outside of a trial hearing?
Good morning please send me the link to Cheat sheet please.
I have a question...In the Casey Anthony trial, Jose Baez was cross-examining one of Casey's male friends. Baez asked him if he was in Casey's house when Caylee drowned in the pool. So I shouted out "Objection! Begging the question!" (and I'm not an attorney). Is there any objection that can be made when at attorney does what Baez did--asking a question which pre-supposes that his theory of the case is true?---that Caylee died by drowning in the swimming pool, as opposed to the State's contention that she was killed at the hands of Casey Anthony, i.e., the reason why there is a trial in the first place?
Sorry to see no one responded. I’m not really familiar with the defense of the case. It that’s the defense on cross examination to the prosecution’s witness, it sounds like it would be leading the witness because there wasn’t foundation for the question. If they wanted to make that argument, they could lay foundation during their defense and possibly call that witness back. Opposing counsel is limited to asking cross examining questions that are relevant to the witness’s initial testimony.
Here because of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trail. :)
Thanks, Mr. Stone. This was a great lesson.
You’re very welcome!
How do you object to an entire case ?
@2:11 "Avengers, Assemble!!!"
Objection, relevance.
See replies to Jonathan Psiter
I’m representing myself and this has been such a great channel to learn law
For myself:
Leading = Your Honor, this question feeds the answer to the witness.
Speculation =
Speculation = The witness is not an expert and therefore cannot testify on said issue
In the Karen-Read-trial the Judge did allow only to object, not to explain why - I found this was so difficult for the jury not to know why there was an objection. Sorry she asked the prosecutor, if he wants to object, when he didn't in the first place - is this allowed?
"Jury will disregard"
No they won't
It's really hard to "unring the bell," which is why a Motion in Limine is extremely important
-bull
some year
The jury can safely disregard with reprimand to the presiding judge for issuing any such order as they are in charge of the proceedings.The idea of the truth emerging from argument refereed from the neutral bench is flawed, but more or less what the founders put in place. These has been replaced over the years by the ABA. If any of it is due process why would it ever be necessary to falsify felony transcripts into fake history?
These official records should always be accurate accounts of what happened.Why not? What is the meaning of this practice?
No the members of the American Bar Association haven't plausible denial. I...can... prove it.
Are Facebook posts made by the op hearsay
The reason why I'm watching it is I'm super interested in law and doing my own personal study starting with objections my class uses objections a lot
Thank you, I filled out the requests and would love to see that cheat sheet, thanks!
Looks like you were sent the emails yesterday at 1:59 PM and 2:12 PM (central time). You may need to check your spam folder or Promotions folder. And happy to help!
@@LawVenture That's where they were thank you
@@LawVenture Hi! Where can I get the cheat sheet? I don't see the link.
Thanks!
Hey there! If you go in the description below the video, the link is right after "** FREE Cheat sheet: 21 Trial Objection + BONUS"
Hi Jarrett! I followed the link and submitted my info for the objections cheat sheet about 10 minutes ago. Is there a slight delay? I would really like to access this!
I just got it. Thank you!
@@BrettWB88 Glad to hear it!
Where's the "Objection! Counsel for plaintiff is lying and interrupting me constantly!" Is that one?
Very good. Thank you.
How do you object if you are representing yourself and the judge AND the prosecutor are abusing their oath of office? Can you imagine being in a courtroom facing lies on top of lies on top of lies?
Not me preparing to take myself to court in my head.
See Jonathan Psiter replies
WHAT IF--- a party wants to admit a "mortgage" that is supposed to be a lien on property, BUT the "mortgagor" had no title, and therefore the mortgage is void? ..we cannot just assume the "mortgagor" had clear title to the property, because then we would just have people recording mortgages on property that they had no title to...florida is a hot spot..
It’s good to know exactly what and when to object but you don’t want to piss the judge off. Lol
Objection! The autopsy report has been updated.
Objection! You are not a clown, you are the entire circus.
Objection! Guilty!
Objection! That was .. objectionable!
Objection! Darker and more bitter than the depths of hell ... Coffee
Did I get them all? They can speak for themselves, they know who they are.
This is a great video 👌
This guy is on to something.
Imagine your public defender was watching this video before the trial
Hii sir I am not getting trial objection in my inbox
Sorry for the delay! I had to pause the emails while the website was undergoing some maintenance. You should be getting the email soon!
See replies to Jonathan Psiter
objection lack of foundation?
Link doesn’t work
Thanks for the heads up! The website was down for a few days so maintenance could be performed. You should be good to go now!
Amber Heards lawyer sent me.
Who else is here cuz of Johnny and amber Defamation case?
so thought
Learn Your Land with Adam Haritan was going to show and say hello to his brother
See replies to Jonathan Psiter
Can’t find objections cheat sheet
It's in the description, but here you go: bit.ly/2ufpAXw
Good video but name the objections in the time stamp/ags please.
*tags
Im here to fully understand what the hell is happening in Johnny depp and Amber case lol
Hello. How about add the name of the discussed objections as a caption into the video? There is only you all the time on the screen (which is boring btw), and when I skip to the middle of the video, I don't know what objections you are talking about. And putting chapters ant timestamps to the video would be nice as well.
See replies to Jonathan Psiter
Mine's the best objection 😎
“Do you take this man, to have and to hold.”
Amber heards lawyer: “Objection lack of foundation.”
I am stuby how lawyer is always to be a lawyer
OBJECTION!
See replies to Jonathan Psiter