Real Law Review: Why Stormy Daniels Must Pay Donald Trump’s Attorneys’ Fees

Real Law Review: Why Stormy Daniels Must Pay Donald Trump’s Attorneys’ Fees

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments


– Michael Avenatti and
his client Stormy Daniels lost one of their defamation suits against President Trump and will now have to pay Trump’s attorney’s fees. Let’s talk about why. (twinkly music) Hey Legal Eagles, let’s
think like a lawyer. Today we’re gonna talk
about defamation law and one of my favorite laws in California, the Anti-SLAPP statute. Yes, lawyers actually have favorite laws. Today we’re gonna cover three things. First, what in the word is an Anti-SLAPP? Number two, why did
Avenatti and Cliffords, AKA Stormy Daniels, lose this
particular defamation lawsuit and number three, how much
will Avenatti and Cliffords have to pay President Trump? As always, hit that bell
and leave an objection if you disagree with me in the comments and let me know what legal
topic I should cover next. And as usual, Stella, the legal beagle is reading all of your comments. So please keep things Stella-safe. Alright, so onto the
the Anti-SLAPP statute. Anti-SLAPP statutes exist to protect and act in furtherance of
someone’s right to petition or free speech in connection
with a public issue. The bottom line is that legislatures know that some people will use litigation as a sword instead of shield because they know that litigation
is very, very expensive. A lawsuit can be used
to censor certain people if used in the wrong hands. So for example, if you
didn’t like a Yelp review or someone’s opinion, you might sue them and even if you lost that lawsuit, you might be able to inflict huge pain and force them to remove their speech by forcing them to incur huge legal fees. So in response, many states passed what are called Anti-SLAPP statutes. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. So, Anti-SLAPP, you wanna prevent people from stifling speech by
using strategic lawsuits. California has one of the strongest. For complicated reasons I won’t go into the court in this particular case used the Texas statute
but most of the analysis remains the same. So an anti-SLAPP motion
is presented as a special motion to strike. When you file an anti-SLAPP
motion it stops the case, they force the plaintiff to show that the complaint is
both legally sufficient and supported by prima facie evidence. Usually the plaintiff
doesn’t have that burden. They can simply file a lawsuit by showing that their claim has legal merit. Not that there is supporting
evidence necessarily, that’s what discovery is for. By the way links to all of these documents including Judge Otero’s
decision in this case will be down in the description below. As well as a lot of the relevant law. But, now here’s where it gets particularly interesting
from my perspective. If you file an anti-SLAPP
motion and the court rules in your favor, it will both
dismiss the plaintiff’s case but it will also award the defendant attorney’s fees and court costs. The court fees are mandatory
and they are not discretionary. In the American system usually, regardless of who wins the case both the plaintiff and the defendant have
to pay for their own fees but if you lose an anti-SLAPP motion which means the court says,
you filed a strategic lawsuit for the purposes of stifling speech, then you as the plaintiff have to pay for the legal fees of the defendant. So that can be a great
reason why as a defendant you would want to file
one of these motions because you can get attorney’s
fees from the plaintiff. So let’s dig in to the facts of this case. Now based on the procedural
posture of this case, the court is assuming the
plaintiff’s facts to be true. Now that’s only for this very
discrete part of the case. It’s testing to see if the facts as given by the plaintiff state a legal claim. If the case went forward, then Clifford, AKA Stormy Daniels would have to prove her allegations with
facts but at the moment, the court is taking these
allegations as true. So according to her complaint,
Miss Clifford alleges that she began an intimate relationship with Mr. Trump in 2006. Five years later she
claims that in May of 2011 she agreed to cooperate
with In Touch Magazine to talk about her relationship
with Donald Trump. She apparently agreed
to speak to the magazine after her ex-boyfriend
approached the magazine without her approval. Clifford alleges that a
few weeks after she agreed to talk to In Touch
Magazine, an unidentified man approached her and
threatened her in Las Vegas. Clifford alleges that
the man approached her, threatened her daughter
and told her to quote, “Leave Trump alone and forget the story.” Then, after Mr. Trump
was elected President, Clifford worked with a
sketch artist to provide a sketch of what she
remembered the undisclosed man looked like and release
that to the public. The day after Mr. Trump tweeted out from his Twitter account
at @realDonaldTrump, stating quote “A sketch years later “about a nonexistent man. “A total con job, playing
the Fake News Media “for Fools, but they know it.” Exclamation point, Trump posted this Tweet in response to another
Tweet which compared the sketch that Miss Clifford released to a photo of her
ex-boyfriend side by side. According to Clifford’s argument she claims that Trump meant
to convey that she was a liar, that she could not be trusted and she was falsely
complaining about crimes that never happened. On the basis of Trump’s
Tweet she contended that it was false, it
constituted defamation and that it constituted defamation per se, because it charged her with
committing a serious crime. Now all of this is
pending in federal court in the Central District of California which is located partially in Los Angeles and this is before Federal
Court Judge James Otero. Judge Otero is a smart,
very capable judge. I actually externed on the 9th Circuit which is the court directly above the Central District of California. Literally next door to
Judge Otero’s chambers. So I used to know Judge
Otero’s clerks very, very well. So let’s talk about Judge Otero’s analysis in this particular case. There is a two-part analysis
that the court must go over. First, is to determine
whether the defamation suit that Miss Clifford filed is related to President Trump’s free speech
and public participation?. Here, the court had no problem determining that it was in fact related
to Trump’s free speech. No surprise there, this is
quintessential free speech, Twitter is quickly becoming
this generation’s public square. So it’s no surprise that the court found not only free speech but
public participation, almost anything that
relates to the President should probably be considered
public participation for the purposes of an anti-SLAPP suit. So, that takes us to the second question. Did Cliffords establish a
prima facie case of defamation and the court said she did not. So the court agreed with
President Trump’s argument that the Tweet in question
constituted rhetorical hyperbole and rhetorical hyperbole,
normally associated with politics and public discourse
is one of those things that cannot constitute defamation. The First Amendment often protects opinion and rhetorical flourishes
and extravagant exaggeration used for rhetorical effect. And the court found that
President Trump’s Tweet was exactly that kind
of rhetorical language. A published statement that
is pointed or exaggerated or heavily-laden with emotional rhetoric or moral outrage cannot
generally constitute a defamatory statement. Now the context particularly matters. In filings before the court
and in a public setting, Miss Clifford challenged the legitimacy of President Trump’s victory in 2016. Now you can agree with
those statements or not but it’s pretty clear
that she presented herself as an adversary to the
President and the court found, I think correctly, that Trump’s Tweet served as a public
rejoinder, a contradiction of the claims that Clifford was making against the President. To me, and I think a lot
of First Amendment lawyers, this seems like the right outcome. You might agree or
disagree with the President but it’s important to have
a marketplace of ideas and opinions and as
Judge Otero pointed out in his decision quote, “If this court were to prevent Mr. Trump “from engaging in this type
of rhetorical hyperbole “against a political adversary, “it would significantly hamper
the office of the President. “Any strongly-worded
response by a President “to another politician or public figure, “could constitute an
action for defamation. “This would deprive the
country of discourse “common to the political process.” I think that’s right. The next political opinion to
be silenced could be your own. The point of the anti-SLAPP
statute is to prevent lawsuits from silencing the little guy and while Trump obviously
doesn’t fit the definition of the little guy, for many people legal
fees can be crushing. So you may not like
certain political rhetoric, but on balance, we’re
better off with more speech and not less and we certainly
don’t want to bankrupt people for their political opinions. So I think that’s why this
was a relatively easy decision for Judge Otero. This is a pretty clear
case of political rhetoric and rhetorical hyperbole. This is one of those rare defamation wins for President Trump who
often threatens to file his own defamation suits
but seldom actually does. And although he usually
rails against defamation and libel laws in this country, he was actually able to use
those against the plaintiff in this particular case. Now moments before I started filing this President Trump tweeted out quote, “Federal judge throws out Stormy Daniels,” misspelled, “lawsuit versus Trump. “Trump is entitled to full legal fees.” End quote, “@FoxNews,
great, now I can go after “Horseface and her third-rate lawyer “in the great state of Texas. “She will confirm the letter she signed. “She knows nothing about me, a total con.” You know, it’s statements like
this that make it really hard to defend political
speech but I still think the court got it right
in this particular case but I should point out that
Trump’s tweet is not correct. This ruling has nothing to
do with the sister litigation over the Michael Cohen
non-disclosure agreement or the other cases
involving Michael Cohen, President Trump, Stormy
Daniels and Michael Avenatti. This was just the discrete
case of defamation over the 2018 Tweet which
implied that Stormy Daniels was a liar and a quote, total con job. It also has nothing to do
with how much Cliffords does or does not know about the President or whether she engaged
in a sexual relationship which I think at this point is
a matter of public knowledge. So even in victory, the
President gets a lot of the legal aspects of this wrong. That’s not surprising,
this is complicated stuff. Okay, so that takes us
to point number three. How much is this going
to cost Stormy Daniels? Here, the fees are mandatory and Trump’s lawyers are expensive. The court will generally
pay for reasonable attorney’s fees but 9 times out of 10 the court will generally look to the fees that the defendant actually incurred and will order the plaintiff to pay those. But again, this ruling only
applies to this specific defamation case and not
the three to six other Cohen, Trump, Clifford matters that are before Judge Otero
and are still pending. So even through this case was stopped in the very early early stages it still required lots
of different attorneys on both sides, lots of legal briefing and a ton of argument. Thus Trump’s lawyers are
likely to ask for and get, somewhere between 50 and
$100,000 from Stephanie Clifford. So do you agree? Please leave your objections
in the comments below and until next time,
I’ll see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Real Law Review: Why Stormy Daniels Must Pay Donald Trump’s Attorneys’ Fees

  • LegalEagle Post author

    What legal issue should I tackle next? Check out my other Real Law Reviews: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUvQ_mNbE83XujugJUpexqpw6jtNpjOV6 Also, check out my reactions to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUvQ_mNbE83XwzqDWj6Sc9-UspQpxBy72

  • Lorna Fletcher Post author

    So calling the plaintiff a liar is protected "rhetorical hyperbole"?

  • Carlos Long Post author

    I object! Individual 1 has been named as an unindicted felon in election fraud allegations and since this is a crime disputed by #1…a falsehood, how can Stormy be liable for court fees?

  • Groktar Post author

    OBJECTION!
    As far as I know you are not a judge, so you cannot sustain or overrule an objection.
    Also, I love the way you're always non-partisan and objective in these things. This is sadly rare.
    As for what to do next – review and grade more Suits episodes, this show is awesome!

  • William Cruz Post author

    In what way is a porn star a political adversary? So anybody can say anything about someone as long as its established that they dont like each other?
    That judge was just part of the conservative judicial activism to protect donald trump at all costs.

  • Larry Douglas Post author

    I feel like the analysis was probably right in this case, but I don't exactly understand how a case for defamation is made. For example what protects, if anything, Stormy Daniels going to the tabloids with her story? If Trump wanted to sue her instead for defamation for something like that, would the publication to that third party be privileged as some sort of free press thing, or would it come down to if the claims were false or not, whether she acted negligently when publishing, or else some kind of special damages? If Stormy Daniels filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, how would Trump go about proving defamation or that it wasn't extravagant rhetorical hyperbole? What forms of speech does that exception apply to? Anyone who knows the answers to any of that, you're a diamond, and if you're reading this at all thank you.

  • Marco Trejo Post author

    Why do I feel like he's not wearing pants?

  • TheBrothergreen Post author

    I think that trump's pattern of language discredits the theory that he is speaking rhetorically when he charges the media with being "fake," malicious, and biased. His charges against the fourth estate, and their sources, are legitimate attacks, not "rhetorical flourishes."

    I also think that the argument that the judge's hands were tied by the first amendment, and that if he sided with Daniels (on this ruling which did not even consider the merits of the case, but only whether the case was proper) the president politicians would never be allowed to engage in hyperbolic language again related to a political adversary, is patently absurd. Indeed, I would caution the court that a PRESIDENT who can say literally anything "rhetorically" without fear that a suit against him can EVER be brought holding him accountable for his actions is, itself a treacherous slope. Remember, in essence, this ruling says that, regardless of the validity of the case, nay, ASSUMING that the standard burdens for such a case are met, it is still improper to burden a politician thusly by holding him accountable for his statements.

    I'm not saying I agree with daniels, or that I believe she had a valid case based solely upon this tweet; all I'm saying is that "No. Being a politician should not make you immune to such charges." The case should have went forward.

  • Mr Evan Post author

    OBJECTION! That is not a beagle.

  • Christian Weatherley Post author

    4:38 Legal Eagle does resemble the undisclosed man quite a bit!

  • Travis Morton Post author

    Wait wait! Why Texas..? Was that where the case was filed for some reason..? Is that even possible?

    EDIT: Ah, research done, I think I know what took place. Trump’s lawyers exercised what looks like a New York-particular methodology (“Choice-of-Law?”) which I think gives a degree of latitude to defence attorneys in choosing the legal standards they choose to apply. Is that right? Trump wanted to use Texas law and justified it because Daniels is from Texas, yes? And it happened to be useful to him because it is (not surprisingly) really broad with regards to what constitutes free speech. If I had to guess, I’d say that was strategically sound (and he is an infamous litigator..) and very interesting. Personally I think it’s a smarmy move, but I really don’t like the man.. As it stands, might Avenatti have chosen a different venue without the choice-of-law thing..? Or do most states have similar statutes? (I think statute is the right word, here..)

  • Marta Pe Post author

    Stella, the legal beagle <3 <3 <3

  • ANDREW KNIGHT Post author

    —————————

    THE FUTURE BY
    NOVEMBER 2020

    —————————

    DONALD JOHN TRUMP Sr

    sitting in the

    ELECTRIC CHAIR

    about to be

    EXECUTED for TREASON

    the PRIEST :
    " ANY LAST WORDS "

    DONALD JOHN TRUMP Sr :
    " BUT…HILLARY'S…EMAILS "

    the
    SWITCH IS THROWN

    ⚡👱⚡

    THE END

    —————————-

  • Kitten Khat Post author

    sounds like she got some bad legal advice

  • Peter Pann Post author

    How about Cyber-bullying, I think that would be interesting, there is enough of it going on on facebook, twitter etc.

  • Aaron Smith Post author

    OBJECTION! This is misleading to the court, clearly Stella is NOT a beagle.

  • James Lewis Post author

    There's no "s" in "Clifford", the actual surname of Stormy Daniels.

  • Crunch Post author

    You should make legal beagle merch simmilar to jacksfilms' be a klondike merch

  • Matthew Davis Post author

    You should review Daredevil Season 2 episode 8. The defense attorney being a superhero must give for some interesting ethics violations!

  • k37z9x5 Post author

    May i ask what is the pubkic knowledge on whether clifford had sexual relationship with trump?

  • Thomas Connors Post author

    OK "think like a lawyer", i'm contemplating cooking and eating my pets and possibly some of my relatives… now what?

  • Austin Jackson Post author

    "That doesn't surprise me, this is complicated stuff"
    Remember when presidents had law degrees ?

  • Rick Ford Post author

    Why wouldn’t his position of power not affect this ruling? His position as president is what is making this act of defamation more troubling. He is actively using his position to hurt people’s reputation, cause financial burden, and put them in physical danger. Why wouldn’t Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 or any another statute that holds people in power in check have standing? He is the head of the executive branch…

  • CLP Post author

    This will mark the first time in history that Trump's lawyers ever got paid the full amount they billed and in the time frame they requested.

  • James Kennedy Post author

    Objection! (to Horseface).

  • Mark Gunderson Post author

    OBJECTION: Not a beagle, your honor.

  • Todd Young Post author

    Pretty sure you are left of center, but really respect you don't spin and stick to factual established law. Love your videos. Right of center fan.

  • Judy Johnsen Post author

    Thank you from breaking this down.

  • CRAIG LEE Post author

    With the increase in medical / recreational marijuana, what will be the impact of Rorabacher – Farr on the application for purchasing of firearms.

  • Gage Baumgard Post author

    If Trump is protected by this, then why did Alex Jones lose his suit by the families of the Sandy Hook victims?

  • Terry Prothero Post author

    Great legal analysis. But I question whether this law really does help the little guy. Who would have the attorney fees up front to even file these motions? The threat of a frivolous lawsuit can still stifle speech in any case. A really neat thing for you to cover next would be some of these shows like COPS where people are being shown busted by the police. Your analysis of those situations would probably be pretty funny. I'm sure the list of legal mistakes people make would be pretty lengthy. And an evaluation whether the police are following proper procedure in each case would be interesting as well.

  • magincap70 Post author

    I've half watched this video six times… what is the tweet in question?

  • Liss Wesp Post author

    Came for the legal explanation, stayed for Stella <3

  • Chicken Permission Post author

    So to get around slander or defamation just call it rhetorical hyperbole. That way you can lie about anyone.

  • jaue82 Post author

    Everyone listening to this guy. Ask yourself. Is he even a lawyer? Maybe just wearing a suit and throwing out terms and reading google lol

  • wikiwikiwee1 Post author

    Objection: that dog is not a beagle

  • Erik Nyberg Post author

    Look at you avoiding to show how similar the sketch actually was to her ex, very sly.

  • Jackson Cabot Post author

    That's not a beagle

  • Kory Toombs Post author

    Is it me or do both the left and right agree on this particular outcome?

  • Kristen Roberts Post author

    Good job, you made this very easy to understand

  • Nicolai Veliki Post author

    You do know that Stella is not a beagle…

  • Tom T. Post author

    For context, as a structural engineer, $50-$100k is about what my company would charge for the entire structural design on something like an elementary school.

  • Telhias Post author

    Objection 6:26 : Twitter is not becoming a public square but a private, albeit popular one. Twitter arbitrarily decides who can and cannot speak on their platform and what speech is allowed. Speech on a public square cannot be controlled by a private company.

  • Michael Frontera Post author

    When a porn star and the President of the United States are suing each other, you know shits bad.

  • Kyle N Post author

    Would declaring bankruptcy make it to where you dont have to pay the fees?

  • David O Donovan Post author

    Sit back and enjoy the ride…
    …episode of Trump are great content thank God. 🙂

    Watching the build up to the beginning of the apocalypse is scary but fun.
    Until then;
    KAG!
    Love from the Republic of Ireland. I've never been to the USA in case anyone read this thinks I'm a USA hack that has never been outside the USA.
    I love you all reading this and around the world.
    God bless the USA.
    Great interesting videos BTW.

  • ImpartialDawn Post author

    Horseface BTFO

  • MrAwesomedude808 Post author

    OBJECTION! I just wanted to say that. Move along!

  • Fredrik Dunge Post author

    You shouldn't ever be forced to pay for someone elses legal fees unless that person has a problem paying those, which donald trump does not.

  • Dick Midnyte Post author

    I object, that's a bichon fries not a beagel

  • nepalnt2121 Post author

    >:I bark bark stella… bark bark

  • Max Mogavero Post author

    For Stella: Wuf.

  • TheRealConservative Post author

    I don’t know if you have gone over this but can you do a video on the books on your shelf.

  • C A Post author

    Why? It's easy, they're liars!

  • Frankie Bernal Post author

    Money talks.

  • mranster Post author

    Objection. The country would be better off with a lot less of Trump's hyperbole and rhetoric.

  • Mc Anna Post author

    Awwwww Stella <3

  • Mike Donovan Post author

    Objection: Stella looks like a poodle to me.

  • Reverend Brother Christopher Lawson Post author

    If Stella, "the Legal Beagle", ever tried to sign a legal document, she might be revealed as "the doodle poodle". LOL

  • Brent Knickerbocker Post author

    It looks like you are holding a banana in the pic for the vid

  • kenny Post author

    only thing i can say is that John Hammond / Richard Attenborough was right, "blood-sucking lawyer".

  • Christine Rowland Post author

    What About Lyeing To The Supreem Court!

  • James Hutchings Post author

    'Rhetorical hyperbole' strikes me as a strange doctrine. It seems to be saying "lying is such a common part of political speech that it should be allowed".

  • workoutfanatic787 Post author

    antislapp actions are insanely subject to abuse though. 14 months later, I'm still on a 20k slapp-atty fees appeal, representing respondent.

    My client was slapped after suing a contractor for trespass, conversion, 17200, etc., on the basis of the contractor's "petitioning" by obtaining a permit to renovate property adjoining my client. So I dismissed the contractor as we already had his principals as named defendants. We won the fee motion handily, and yet his atty filed a frivolous appeal on the basis that my argument in the slapp fee motion contradicted the position I took on a subsequent demurrer.

  • Pixality Post author

    Objection! So pretty much no one can ever claim defamation against trump because all of his tweets are that ridiculous. His followers dont take it as hyperbole and it causes real damage. I dont even think its hyperbole when you speak that way all of the time. Hes smart though. He says so many outrageous things people just hope he cant be serious.

  • G Robinson Post author

    think the judge knew where his political bread is buttered

  • Derek Magruther Post author

    Objection that dog is clearly not a beagle

  • RabbidKong Post author

    Objection! I need to pee

  • MississippiRebel Post author

    OBJECTION – how can you be in favor of more speech and still be a liberal lol? We all know who is shutting down debates and who wants to silence everyone that has a different opinion because they are all liberals! I don't think I have ever seen or heard about conservatives protesting or rioting because a liberal was giving a speech at a college or some other place. Also talking about the 9th circuit court, everyone knows it is nothing more than a bunch of activist liberal judges that could care less about the constitution.

    I can't wait to see how liberals react when Trump gets elected again. Maybe they will actually do what they promised the first time and leave the country.

  • TheBcoolGuy Post author

    You look like Trump junior.

  • Mutt Fitness Post author

    Objection: do My Cousin Vinny if you haven't already.

  • Suck My D1ck Post author

    Horseface is a slang word for a heroine addict. Or maybe it was oxy…same category. Remember her huge pupils on CNN?

  • Generic Eric Post author

    Objection: That is not a beagle.

  • Justin Sander Post author

    I love hearing the analysis. Since almost everything is illegal somewhere at some time almost everyone will stand before a judge for something. As a layman its good to learn enough to at least not hinder ones own attorney and or case. I do not know if I could ever retain the information nessisary to become even a paralegal, but watching your videos has taught me enough to know what to expect if I ever did end up in a court room.

    On a blatant side note I bet that white spot in your beard on your cheek drives your significant other and opposition counselors insane. If I was one of your clerks I would stealthily and anonymously leave beard dye kits in random places for your to find. I never noticed it before, but for some reason it kept grabbing my attention in this video like it was mocking me lol. Hope you could tell I'm just jabbing your ribs. I love your videos and thank you sincerely for all the learning I have received from them.

  • Wawagirl17 Post author

    This is the best timeline.

  • Marlinspike Post author

    Objection:
    The dog is too cute to be reading anything. Should use auto books so the dog can enjoy endless petting and briskets. It’s a law look it up. 😂

  • Marlinspike Post author

    Wow them prices makes me scared to ever go to court. However I think that is the point.

  • gary jones Post author

    Worst case of showboat glory hog lawyer I've ever seen. The money's insurmountable for this client.

  • Col Violet Post author

    Thats not a beagle

  • Paddy Barnes Post author

    DJT sleeps with a professional sex worker and she pays him?! Well played sir. Also, here’s hoping Avenatti and Geragos are cell buddies in federal prison.

  • The Roach Den Post author

    Objection, Stormy Daniels is shot the hell out.

  • OhioStateTexan Post author

    Objection: would you please make a mistake so I can make a real objection? IOW, well done.

  • kenns9 Post author

    you keep saying the judges name, as if you want people to hunt him down and kill him because he ruled for trump.

  • Matt Barr Post author

    "You're a 3rd rate lawyer with a 4th rate deck" – Trump

  • Curt D Post author

    We need these same anti-SLAPP laws for those patent trolls

  • edgar2prado Post author

    I love your videos. But keep your dog taxonomy straight. And forgive me for the macho stereotype. But I HOPE that's your wife's dog. And just in case, do your homework before getting another, and stay well away from Beagles and Dachshunds.

  • Andrew Cobb Post author

    OBJECTION: I don't have an objection, but I wanted you to look at this comment. Will Avenatti get paid from this? If so, what are the ethical/legal implications? This seems like a losing case from the get-go – ignoring how hard it would be to prove, is it illegal for counsel to recommend pursuing case they know they can't win?

  • aippli Post author

    Objection : Stella isn’t a beagle!

    (Right?)

  • Mider999 Post author

    I have a question, does The price of a lawyer make a difference.

  • Eddie Rowe Post author

    Objection: Improper foundation for Stella being a beagle.

  • J Whippet Post author

    Can you imagine if rhetoric wasn't protected? You call someone a son-of-a-bitch and are sued bc you knew his mother was not a k-9.

  • Wizmut Post author

    I don't believe that dog is actually reading these comments.

  • Steve Lee Post author

    Time for an update on Avaneti’s troubles!

    And Trump’s comments this week about how he wouldn’t turn over info from a foreign government about his opponents.

  • Steven Conkle Post author

    I would like to see a legal review of the movie "Lizzy Borden"

  • Terrell Thomas Post author

    Good adternoon, Sir. Is there a legal precendent for Reparations for Slavery?

  • Zachary Musselwhite Post author

    League Beatle Safe

  • mick cv Post author

    Heres why: because a pornstar banged a guy and she got paid $130k and then she sued him about it??

  • Copperclaw Post author

    I feel like there's only two degrees of separation for lawyers.

  • Matthew Melson Post author

    OBJECTION: a great human being is an opinion by the youtuber.

  • BIG FAT FISH Post author

    OBJECTION! We all know your not wearing pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *