Real Lawyer Reacts to It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia – McPoyle v. Ponderosa (Bird Law!)

Real Lawyer Reacts to It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia – McPoyle v. Ponderosa (Bird Law!)

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

– So I’m gonna need to
keep this thing moving. – Are you gonna bang the– – Very, very true. – –the hammer? – The gavel. – Is there a– – Hammer’s called a gavel. (upbeat music) Hey Legal Eagles, let’s
think like a lawyer. Today we are covering the
highly requested episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, McPoyle versus Ponderosa:
The Trial of the Century. This is particularly exciting for me because I think by the end of this episode we will finally solve the mystery of why people keep asking me if I know anything about bird law. I have no idea what that means, but I think it originates in this episode of It’s Always Sunny. So, let’s dig in and find out. Remember to comment in
the form of an objection, which I will either sustain or overrule. And while you’re there
let me know what movie or TV show I should do next. And of course, stick around
until the end when I give this episode of It’s Always
Sunny in Philadelphia a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado let’s dig in to McPoyle versus Ponderosa:
The Trial of the Century. – Yeah, Bill, you gotta relax, okay? Uncle Jack and I, we got this case. Now listen to me, Liam
McPoyle’s gonna come at you hard all right but I’ve done my research. I got something with this bird theory that’s gonna blow the– – All right. There’s the birds. (bird chirps) – I’m well versed in bird law. – Pondy, keep your eye on the prize. This goes well, party time. – What is that? Is that drugs, Frank? – Yeah. – No, dude I need you
keeping him clean, all right? That’s why you’re here. – I gotta have the drugs
here to keep him clean. – Well, that doesn’t make sense. – That does not make sense. Okay, so within the first 30 seconds of this episode someone has brought a bag full of drugs into court. Somehow I’m going to go
out on a limb and say that is not going to be the most accurate legal drama I have ever reviewed. Don’t bring drugs into court. Bad idea, very likely to get searched. Very likely to be arrested,
don’t bring drugs to court. – Come on man, everybody’s got a thing. Don’t leave me out, Frank’s got a thing, Dee’s got a thing, Dennis has got a thing. – Dennis has thing? What
are you talking about? – Oh. – What are you doing here? – There’s gotta be a way to get this court to let me out of
my alimony payments. Have you guys seen Maureen? The woman has gone almost full cat. – So, not only would that
distract from his case, but there is absolutely no
way that an unrelated party can go in and request a
family law matter be thrown on the docket of the superior court. Family law courts and the superior courts are two completely separate entities. The family law courts handle things like divorces and child support. They do not handle your general
jurisdiction civil lawsuits. That’s what the superior court is for. The superior court is where you’ll end up if you have a civil lawsuit. They have different judges and they have completely
different sets of laws that they are going to
apply on a daily basis, and you can’t just show
up in court one day and ask that something
be thrown on the docket because your ex-wife is
pretending to be a cat. (he laughs) God. – You’ll be dealing with me today. – And you’ll be dealing with me today, Jack Kelly, lawyer, good to see you again. – Are those fake hands? – No. – What is with the fake hands? – fake hands. – You know what? Good luck with all of that today. – So in reality, before you
even get close to a courtroom you’re going to go through
a process called discovery. Discovery is the process by which you get information from the other side and the other side gets
information from you. You are allowed to request
relevant documents. You’re allowed to ask
the other side questions. And you are allowed to
question them in person under oath through depositions. So, before you ever get
close to a courtroom you’re going to have to interact with the other side
whether you want to or not. Many, many times through discovery there is no longer any
trial by sandbagging. You have to turn over relevant information to the other side and the other side has to turn over relevant
information to you. So, you would never
just introduce yourself for the first time at trial. This episode appears
to have skipped through one of the largest portions
of a civil lawsuit. – Okay, we have McPoyle versus Ponderosa seeking damages for the loss of an eye in the form of a one time
payment to the sum of $200. Are the plaintiffs present? – Okay, the judge would never
ever let it proceed to trial. That is such a small amount. Number one, it should
be in small claims court not the general jurisdiction
of a superior court, which can take any amount in controversy up to millions or billions of dollars. It’s funny that the judge
here has made a snide remark because it’s not realistic for a $200 matter to go forward, it’s crazy. – Your Honor, if I may. Charlie Kelly, co-council,
background in bird law. – Nephew. – Yeah. But excited to
be in the people’s court and a big fan of black
judges too, stop touching me. – Oh, boy, okay, so I don’t think Charlie Kelly here has a law degree. I don’t think he has passed the BAR. He cannot introduce
himself as a lawyer here, and I think that that is a problem for his co-council who
actually is a lawyer. I think because of the
representation as a lawyer that’s a potential grounds
for sanctions by the BAR here both for Charlie but also the co-council. This is not normal at all. – Okay, look, all I need
are the facts to this case. I have a very long day ahead of me. So, I’m gonna need to
keep this thing moving. – Are you gonna bang the hammer? – The gavel. – Is there a … – Hammer’s called a gavel. – My client is odd. You might even refer to
his family as very creepy, but they are saints
compared to Bill Ponderosa and the sordid lot of
degenerates he associates with. Terrible people who ruin lives, ruined mine, cost my client his marriage, ruined my first, now my
second one is teetering. – You’re not allowed to
bring in character evidence except under very specific circumstances, none of which are present here. Character evidence is where you’re saying that someone has a certain
character for acting in a certain way and therefore, they likely acted in that
way that is in conformity with their character
on a specific instance. Courts, I think rightfully, look down on that kind of tenuous specious argument, and they don’t allow that to come in except under very rare circumstances. And additionally, in an opening statement, you are not supposed to be arguing, which is what this attorney is doing. So, despite claiming to
be a very good lawyer, he’s not doing a great job so far. It looks like he’s
allowing his personal bias to enter into his opening statement. – Your Honor, I’ll keep it brief. I just have three things to say. One, Liam McPoyle has a
history of lying, two– – That’s character evidence. – My client is a loving
family man, and three– – More character evidence. – He is innocent. – Oh boy, okay, so that
lawyer’s opening statement was actually very similar to the other lawyer’s opening statement. It is filled with character evidence, sometimes you can bring
in someone’s character for truthfulness, that
is slightly different than normal character
evidence, but, still, that opening statement
is number one, terrible, number two, strange because he’s wearing these giant hands for some
reason, and number three, this lawyer didn’t explain
or provide any facts as to why his client is innocent of the things that are
being alleged against him. And I’m not even sure
what’s going on here other than claiming that there was
a loss of the use of one eye. But neither of the lawyers
here have done a very good job in their opening statements, at all. Are they ever going to explain
why he’s wearing giant hands? – I’m gonna stop you right now, are you just gonna talk
about your hands for awhile? – No your honor, no more
questions for the witness. – Deandra, here is the statement
that you gave to police. – Okay the order of this
questioning is totally backwards. The plaintiff bears the
burden, and so they have to call their witnesses first, and then when you call a witness, you question that witness first, you then get a cross examination, and then under some circumstances you get a redirect
examination of the witness. It is not at all clear that the plaintiff has done the first round of questioning. I think for dramatic effect they switched the order of the questioning. – Bill did it, that– (bleeping sound) drug addict is out of his
mind, I’ll testify to that. I swear on my mother’s grave
that Bill spiked that milk, no doubt about it, he’s
guilty, guilty, guilty. – So here, he doesn’t
actually get an answer from the witness, so, there
wasn’t actually any testimony that was elicited not that
there’s a jury listening. But the judge may actually
care what’s on the record, and what is not on the record, and all he’s done here is ask a question and elicited no response from the witness, and therefore he hasn’t
gotten any evidence that will help him in this trial. Now, this document may also be hearsay, it sounds like it might’ve been
a sworn statement to police. So under some circumstances,
it might not be hearsay. Remember, that hearsay is
an out of court statement, used to prove the truth
of the matter asserted. Here he is definitely
using it for the truth of the matter asserted that Bill Ponderosa is guilty or liable for
whatever he’s being accused of. But, the main problem here
is that he hasn’t gotten an answer from the witness, and he hasn’t entered this
document into evidence. So, there’s no evidence
to talk about right now. – I’m sorry, what did you say? – He spiked it, and then
he tried to bribe me. (audience groans) – No further questions, your honor. – Ma’am, do you know what perjury is? – Mm-hmm. – [Lawyer] If you would like to know more about what constitutes
perjury or defamation, check out my episodes of Real Law Review, which I’ll link down below. I think Dee would’ve benefited
from seeing some of those. – You know, I feel like I’m
not being utilized properly. – Well that’s cause you
don’t have anything, so you’re not being utilized at all. – Yeah but what if I get
to deliver the bomb shell? – Ohh. – What bomb shell? – You guys don’t have a bomb shell? Oh my god, every good
case needs a bomb shell. Oh Jesus Christ, without
it, you’re screwed. – Okay. – You know what, you know
what, I’ll find one for ya. I’m gonna do like a hero
cop Mark Fuhrman thing. And then sort of transition
and do a caito calen. – Yeah, I wish you would do none of it. I wish you’d do none of it, man. – In reality, cases
rarely have bomb shells. That’s the whole point of discovery, is not to be able to
sandbag the other side or to pull out some crazy theory, or fact in the middle of trial. In reality, you want the case to end as soon as possible, whether
that’s through settlement, or through trial, or through dismissal. So you don’t want things
to wait until the end, and in real life, you
don’t have bomb shells. Those are disposed of a long, long time before you ever get to court. – Your honor, nothing
represents the tragic aftermath more than the dramatic
transformation of this woman. – Cat. – Excuse me? – As I transition from woman to cat, I must insist on being
referred to as a cat. – Objection, she’s not a cat, your honor. (Maureen hisses) – Also what is the
relevance of this testimony? – If the witness wants to consider herself a cat, I will allow it. I just need to know
where all this is headed. How is this relevant? – Well it’s– – Thank you. – Clearly relevant the attack
had a psychological impact on all the parties that
evening, no further questions. – Okay first of all, that has no relevance as to whether the person did the thing that they were accused of, which I guess is spiking some milk with bath salts. And number two, they’re not
suing for psychological damages, so all of this testimony,
whatever psychological effect it had on other people, has
no bearing on this case. And whether it injured other
people who are not plaintiffs here, again, not relevant
to this particular case. So, all of this is irrelevant. – Your honor, do you see
what’s going on here? This is crazy, you know what,
I’m gonna approach the bench. – No! – Can I just approach it real fast? – Absolutely not. – Alright, earlier you
referred to my ex-wife as a cat, per her request, now surely you wouldn’t force a man to
pay alimony to a cat, right? So motion to establish me
having to pay alimony anymore. – I will not allow that. – Okay, well so, can we just,
we’ll pop it on the docket? We can put it at the end
of the day, if you want. I just want to clear it up
while I got her in a courtroom. – I will not allow that either, sit down. – Alright, I mean, that was
probably the right result here. There’s no reason why he
should have this matter heard in front of this judge in this court. None of that is related to family law. I probably don’t need to tell you that people in the gallery are not allowed to make legal arguments or
request relief from the court. – He totally did it. (audience whispering) – Okay, well, then I
guess we will never know, ladies and gentleman. – Uncle Jack, he just confessed! – He did? – Yes! – Yeah, Ryan stabbed
Liam, I totally saw it. – Oh my god, we won! (audience cheering) – So you see this a lot in
legal movies and TV shows. There will be one good piece of evidence that comes out on the
stand, and then suddenly everyone is celebrating as if
they have won the court case. This is not the end of the game, this is just the very beginning. There will be lots of other testimony, and rarely is one fact dispositive, and certainly not this particular fact. – Lyon, was Ryan drinking
milk at the wedding? – Of course, everyone was. – So, who did the stabbing
doesn’t matter, your honor. Because they were all still
drugged on Bill Ponderosa’s spiked milk, which is the
point I’ve been trying to make the entire time, so just to be clear, you’ve proven my case, you lose. (audience groans) – Okay, a couple of things, number one, you’re not allowed to make argument in the middle of a cross examination. This happens in movies and TV shows but it is not realistic at all, you are allowed to ask questions, you are allowed to receive
the answer from the witnesses. But you are not allowed
to just turn around and start talking to the judge
and talking to the other side and arguing your case. (intense music) – Okay, Mr.McDonald,
you recently found out some very interesting information, care to share it with the court? – Yes, I’ve recently been informed that Ryan McPoyle only drinks Mother’s milk. (audience gasps) Which means, there’s no way
he could’ve drank the milk that Bill spiked, which means he was sober when he attacked his brother, which means Bill is innocent, case
closed, kaboom, bomb shell! – Alright just as an
attorney is not allowed to make argument during
a cross examination, neither can the witness
go off and make argument. If he has evidence, great,
state your testimony, state the percipient facts that you
personally have witnessed. But you can’t then just go on this tirade making argument about what you can infer from the different kinds of evidence. So, everybody’s making argument here, it’s very entertaining, it
is not realistic at all. – How did you come upon this information? – Oh I banged Margaret McPoyle. – I’m curious how she told you
because Margaret is a mute. – It’s still hearsay either way. – I had her write it down. – Alright, just because
she has written this down, does not make it any less hearsay, it is still an out of court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted that only Mother’s milk is
consumed by the individual. Oh boy, this is so weird. – Your honor, Mother is the
name of the McPoyle family cow. The cow that provided
the milk for the wedding, the milk that was drugged
by Bill Ponderosa. – That mute– (bleeping sound) lied to me, for sex! – Bomb shell diffused. – Abrahmowitz! – Alright so there are
a lot of problems here. The lawyer is again making argument without getting testimony
from the witness. You need to save your argument
for the closing argument. He’s getting testimony from
someone sitting in the gallery. Just call her to the
stand, you can have a deaf or mute person testify
through an interpreter. That’s a very easy thing to do. And, you have to enter this
picture that is being discussed into evidence, otherwise
none of this counts at all. – This is the McPoyle family crest. On it you will find a bird, a Pocono Swallow, to be more accurate. A very rare, very elusive bird. You’ll notice its trademark unibrow, highly uncommon in most aviary circles. And my research shows
that unlike your typical North American barn
swallow, the Pocono Swallow, if kept under the proper conditions– – What does this have to do with anything? – 80 to even 85 years, much like a parrot, or some of the more
resilient coastal gulls. – Your honor, where is this going? – I don’t know, but it
better lead somewhere fast. – He’s gonna say I”ll allow it. – Your honor, I can assure you that this will be our final argument. – Well if it’s gonna help end all of this madness, I’ll allow it. – I’ll allow it! (he laughs) Again, you’re not allowed to
just bring in random posters into evidence, you’re not
allowed to make argument, whether should be some testimony going on. Charlie has said that this will constitute their final argument. But the problem is, 100% of
what he is talking about, never came out in court, so all of this is not in evidence, you’re
not allowed to make argument based on facts that did not
come out in the trial itself. So all of this is improper,
whether this is in place of testimony, or whether
it’s in place of argument. It’s all ridiculous, it
doesn’t seem relevant at all, and it’s 100% improper. – Bye bye birdie. Ready boys and girls, because
here where it gets good. Ryan McPoyle didn’t
attack Liam, Royal did. And Lyon was lying about
Ryan attaching Liam to protect Royal from the
chair, or lethal injection, or perhaps some sort of
small bird guillotine. I wouldn’t understand the physics of it, I’m not an executioner, I’m just the best God damn bird lawyer in the world. – Okay, I guess that could be true. He could be the best
bird lawyer in the world. That’s not really a thing, but he is one of the worst trial
lawyers I have ever seen. He does nothing but improperly argue at times when he should
be eliciting evidence. He is relying on speculation,
on facts not on the record. On hearsay, on irrelevant testimony. He tried to get evidence
out of the gallery, he tried to bring in new
evidence that hasn’t come out during his closing arguments. He’s basically breaking
every rule that exists in civil procedure at this time. This is the biggest train wreck of a trial I have ever seen in my entire life. And I have seen a lot
of trials, this is bad. – So bottom line, and listen up numb nuts cause it blows a whole in your
case, birds don’t drink milk. – Facts not in evidence, improper opinion. – Didn’t the bailiff ask
everyone to remove their hats? – That is true, Mr. McPoyle, would you please remover your hat? (McPoyle makes grunting sound) Mr. McPoyle, please remove your hat. – Perhaps he is too insane
to understand the question. Why don’t I just … (bird squawking) (audience gasping) – So as ridiculous as this part is, there is actually a part of
the Code of Civil Procedure that does allow for a physical inspection of the other side, you
have to make a motion with the court and there
are certain hurdles that you have to go through,
because you can imagine that people could abuse the
right to physically inspect the other side or to ask the other side to get a medical examination. But there are actual
provisions of the code that allow you to do
that when it is relevant to the specific case, who knew? – Your honor, this is Mr. Belka Maier. He’s the professor of ornithology at the University of Penn. Mr. Maier, it’s safe to say you’re a bit of an expert on birds, yes? – I believe you’re correct. – And you would understand this Pocono Swallow quite well, wouldn’t you? – Yes I do. – Then please ask it if it attacked Liam. – Okay, I probably don’t
need to tell you this, but you are not allowed to conduct a second examination
of a different witness, while you have a first
witness on the stand, in the first place, you just
have to excuse the first one then call the other person
back up to the stand. If you need to readdress
issues with the first witness, you can call them again
as a rebuttal witness. Or ask for a redirect,
but you’re not allowed to have someone sit at counsel table and ask them separate questions,
he’s not even under oath. This is all very, very improper. – In my 35 years on this bench, I have never seen such a
mockery made of this courtroom. You people have wasted my time, you’ve wasted the taxpayer’s time, and this justice has heard enough. – Finally. – I am throwing this case out. I should’ve done it hours ago. – Yes you should’ve thrown out this case, it was ridiculous. – This court has ruled, now I suggest that you people get the
hell out of my courtroom before I put you all in jail. – Yep, rule number one,
never piss off the judge. (upbeat music) Okay, now it’s time to give
McPoyle versus Ponderosa a grade for legal realism. (gavel banging) So they didn’t get a whole lot right. They had counsel tables, and
wood panels on the walls. On the other hand, you have
lawyers making argument instead of asking questions,
you have neither side really getting any evidence
out, you have facts that were never mentioned at any point. So they basically get everything wrong. Now I’ve never done this,
but I think this episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia deserves a flat F, I would
not allow this in my court. Do you agree? Leave your objections down below, and check out my other reactions over here where as always I will see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Real Lawyer Reacts to It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia – McPoyle v. Ponderosa (Bird Law!)

  • Alex Short Post author

    Would you consider doing a video about the laws and trial in the movie Idiocracy????

  • Abendschein Post author

    Harvey Birdman, attorney at law! That's where it's from I thought?

  • eldric grubbidge Post author

    But the ornithologist is essentially an interpreter. Surely a lawyer can have an interpreter help with talking to a witness?

  • KHOffday Post author

    OBJECTION! This video totally besmirched Charlie’s honor and all other bird lawyers and we demand satisfaction.

  • Michelle Woods Post author

    Wow, haven't seen Carl Winslow since Family Matters! He's aging well.

  • Camilo Iribarren Post author

    Objection: Review Franklin and Bash series:

  • niloofar alavi Post author

    The lawyer looks the same as the lawyer on it's always sunny omg

  • leutrim topalli Post author

    you need to watch the show to understand

  • Mom Post author

    All this did was make being a lawyer sound like a boring job

  • Juan Garcia Post author

    You should react to the A Few Good Men trial. Im wondering if they did it right or if it's just all hollywood

  • Julesy69 Post author

    sounds like someone is not well versed in bird law 😏

  • rob w Post author

    God damn that is one helluva good bird lawyer

  • Pavel Komarov Post author

    All the violations of the process are kind of the point.

  • Jacob Rubio Post author

    Can you lawyer the Big Daddy courtroom scene?

  • lordis belingsly Post author

    is bird law real?

  • Jonathan Perry Post author


  • 3Nice Mnyama Post author

    Objection: CAW

  • Mike M Post author

    Your name is Legal Eagle. Clearly you are familiar with Bird Law.

  • saucy gang tv Post author

    How u going to call yourself legal eagle but not know bird law

  • Foxy Foo Post author

    Now how can I trust a lawyer who SELF ADMITTEDLY doesn't know bird law as well as the legal legend himself, Charlie Kelly?

  • Foxy Foo Post author

    Of course the REAL issue is that you can't examine 2 witnesses at the same time, not that Charlie asked an ornithologist to speak bird parseltongue

  • vonVile Post author

    Do the Rake episode "Man's Best Friend."

  • Wade Post author

    This is one of the best comment sections on YouTube! It's Always Sunny fans are the best. However, this guy obviously isn't versed in the various intricacies and lawyerings of Bird Law.

  • Brian Avila Post author

    Flash of Genius 2008

  • Parker Dolan Post author

    Lol if you really wanted to analyze a tv show or movie this prolly wasn’t the best lol. The cereal defense was best!!!

  • Mikey O'keefe Post author

    Only a lawyer could transform always sunny into something boring…

  • Folarin Osibodu Post author

    Can this guy shut up so we can enjoy the scene?

  • Christian Post author

    Who's this buzz Killington?

  • Cardboard Jessop Post author

    ok mr fancy-pants attorney… you made a few good points… and I'll take your advice under cooperation… but i too know a little about the law and various other lawyerings…
    and the court of bird-law is not governed by reason. With all bullbird aside, the hot plate says one can keep a gull as a pet, but hummingbirds are illegal tender. I'll just regress, because i feel i have made myself perfectly redundant.

  • Therealprophet Post author

    Do the “hero or hate crime” of its always sunny!

  • Daniel Post author

    Bird Law is a recurring gag in the show, and your have the legal eagle schtick. That is why. This is not new, this episode is not where the concept is originated, it's just an inclusion.

  • Tyler Harris Post author

    ( bird lawyers don’t apply )

  • THEE mexican Post author

    Objection: Filibuster!

  • Peter Conway Post author

    A friend and I started watching IASiP. it showed promise at first, exploring humor in social issues. But it quickly descended into stupidity. We never finished the second season; the characters were unbelievably crass and idiotic. We didn't find humor in that. The entire series got an F from us.

  • Acester1642 Post author

    OBJECTION! This episode deserves an A+!

  • ZbyMic Post author

    Objection: Through my reasearch I have not found any evidence of any official documents excusing you of any accounts of… donkey brains! So how could you be trusted, I mean we wouldn’t want a donkey brained lawyer out there deciding people’s fates would we?

  • Glodon Romsegg Post author

    Please do "Hero or Hate Crime"

  • Michael Hart Post author

    I brought weed and a pipe to my sentencing. never got searched. no metal detectors. walked out with probation and a suspended sentence for a bogus weapons charge. lol gotta love canadian justice system!🤣

  • Mountain Mamma Post author

    Should call this series "sucks the fun out of…."

  • dan w Post author

    1st off jim halpert, seriously? critiquing a sitcom court scene from it's always sunny????

  • mountjoy 420 Post author

    Battlestar Galactica: final two episodes of season 3 need to be lawyrred

  • Pat Post author

    19:33 if that's rule 35… is there a rule 34? 😉

  • TheKane2305 Post author

    Why is Jim Halpert pretending to be a lawyer? What the hell does he know about bird law anyway? We know it’s not governed by reason

  • Afrotanium Film Productions Post author

    Big fan please do a Burn Notice series how many laws has Michael Westen broke

  • Zeus Cronus Post author

    Can you do some tape cases ?

  • Casual King Post author

    It originated from a much earlier episode of its Always Sunny, it’s about as close to a catch phrase as Charlie has.

  • Danny Devito Post author

    charlie can't even write except for the fact that he wrote a play in hieroglyphics but he still can't write in like…actual words

  • Jeremy Waters Post author

    Funniest part is he looks like the lawyer from it’s always sunny

  • Ontu Post author

    However the judge obviously had Dennis' case looked at later on, because of the, you know, implication.

  • Arturo Gómez Tagle Post author

    Pretty sure Charlie would have jurisdiction on this matter. lmao

  • Brian Mackle Post author

    Came here because youtube algorithm knows I love me some Sunny and recommended it. Subbed because I learned a lot. Well done.

  • KTChamberlain Post author

    I would like to see you analyze The Three Stooges short "Disorder in the Court". I imagine it would be fun to analyze that funny short based on California laws from 1936.

  • ElisahB Post author

    What kind of Harvard lawyer doesn’t know bird law??

  • jeb bryant Post author

    Objection bird law originated in a earlier episode of always sunny

  • Dylan MacKinnon Post author

    There is a 3rd episode where they tackle legal issues. It is called Hero vs Hate crime, and in it, they go to mediation.

  • nrm6032 Post author

    I agree with the grade for legal accuracy but damned if it isn't a funny show

  • Allen Johnson Post author

    This episode is not the beginning of bird law

  • Lonnie Leu Post author

    i need to watch more of this channel to know whether or not hes trolling us..

  • Quorange Post author

    Only real Lawyers have those large hands

  • Sipher117 Post author

    Objection: Stating that a specific moment in this show is a bad idea is completely redundant because every action in this show is a bad idea

  • Luke Kelchner Post author

    This isn’t an objection, I’m just 1 minute into this video, never seen your videos before, and I gotta say I’m overwhelmed by how neat and clean and clear your product it. I feel like I’m just watching a tv show. I just had to say something…so cLEARRR

  • Pinefrost Productions Post author

    while these shows and movies are very entertaining to watch you react to, i suggest you react to “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Is Atticus Finch really as great as they say he is?

  • Priscilla Jean Post author

    origins s5 e1

  • EpicKrimson Post author

    The ending was the best part. Can't believe you didn't cover it

  • westwaterproductions Post author

    This guy is taking a comedy show way too serious! It's Always Sunny RULES!!!


  • Connor Vaillancourt Post author

    Explaining the hand thing: many pedophiles are caught because their hands are identified by police in child porn. Basically what they do is they look at uncommon traits in the hand like a mole in a certain place or a scar, and what they do is compare it to the suspect's hands to see if they were the person in the cp. It's been clear that uncle jack is clearly a pedophile and takes pictures of children (as seen in the gun episode) which could mean he might be involved in… videos too. So it's not that uncle jack is insecure about his hands, it's that he doesn't want them being recognized and that's why he makes people put their hands over his in pictures (so it looks like they're his hands) and why he's wearing these ridiculous gloves in a court room.

  • Naief Alromi Post author

    Hey please do airbud , that movie was genuinely horrific

  • Alice the Memelord Post author

    Yeah well you might be a fancy pants lawyer, but let's you and me go toe to toe on bird law and we'll see who comes out the victor.

  • Steven Hagerty Post author

    First question, can you handle a case representing an eagle who is on trial for felony tax evasion? My bird law experience is limited but my clients situation is dire and we have reason to believe that he has been falsely accused of this crime. Second question, I notice you don't seem to be aware of the nature of comedy.. Where you aware that this presentation of bird law was shown through the lens of comedy and is not a representation as to the nature and accuracy of a real bird law trial. Please contact my firm at 1-800-CRO-MILK immediately regarding my client Mr Freedom the Bald Eagle.

  • Dolphinboi Post author

    Objection, this show sucks

  • Brittany Garrison Post author

    Call me if you wanna do Philadelphians react to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

  • Jeremy Ghost Post author

    Definitely doesn’t know much about bird law

  • Frederick V Post author

    Are you now familiar withe bird law sir, world series defense invoked.

  • chelseafcrocks82 Post author

    there's a lot of memeing in the comments, but we rly love your videos and how educational they are

  • Broken Wave Post author

    You clearly aren't versed in bird law.

  • Daggdag Post author

    Objection; I believe there is precedent allowing an attorney to use a third party to address particular witnesses when that witness requires special needs to communicate. For example, a lawyer can bring someone who is trained in sign language to address a deaf witness who isn't able to read lips. I believe that it could be argued that the "bird professor" could technically fall under this designation since he was being asked to address the bird, meaning that the witness was actually the bird, and not the man on the stand.

  • Howard Dixon Post author

    Enlightening. Very well done.

  • TheGhostrunner Post author

    I didn't think somebody could make this episode boring lmao

  • Sean Duffy Post author

    Trailer Park Boys please

  • Lawrence Walraven Post author

    I really appreciate the video. This is one of my favorite episodes. If it wasn’t for your wealth of knowledge and level headed opinions you could potentially be a writer on this show.

  • Joshua Banta Post author

    OMG this is going to be great. Getting popcorn… 5 stars on principle.

  • Mackenzie Sweitzer Post author

    Charlie first discusses bird law in season five, mortgage crisis episode. Should look into that one too lmao

  • V. F. D. Post author

    He's wearing giant hands because he's self-conscious about his tiny hands

  • Tickleshits Post author

    i absolutely agree, but you don't watch Always Sunny for the realism lol

  • Robert Thomas Post author

    Yes I agree …big fat F(unny…as shit😝😝

  • That Tall Guy Post author

    Who knew Screech's brother was a lawyer?

  • Zakary Pacheo Post author

    Objections I dont see proper bird law

  • Anas Rashid Post author

    I am so upset with this lawyer, those are NOT FAKE hands!

  • Teddy BAD B0Y Post author


  • Name Name Post author

    Objections: While you are, of course, correct about Dennis being unable to put his alimony on the docket, this does not happen. Dennis attempts this and is instantly denied. In addition, the "second witness" you claimed could not be cross-examined while the first is still on the stand was not a witness. He was an interpreter. Charlie intended to have the man translate for the bird.

  • Yora Post author

    I still don't understand what the case is about.

  • Mcodi Productions Post author

    Charlie always talks about knowing bird law

  • Shawn Bell Post author

    Oh my!! It's always sunny not factual??? Say it ain't so, you lost me on your very 1st comment you Jabroni, just enjoy the silliness.

  • Alexander Supertramp Post author

    For anyone wondering: I'm pretty sure the dude has NO IDEA what the legal precedent is for someone throwing a fake hand off their real hand in a court of law.

  • Joe S Post author

    Why don’t you play pheonix wright ace attorney?

  • yashoo 76 Post author

    Please do Die Hard. That'll be fun.

  • A Rod Post author

    Why does this lawyer keep saying Uncle Jack´s hands are fake? What is he talking about?

  • Blank Blank Post author

    I am mixed, becuase it did comment in the episode that it was all improper and just wasted everybodies time. So that kindof mitigates the F.
    But it was still improper regardless of wether or not the show lampshaded its innaccuracy.

  • vintageness Post author

    You should do the episode where they go to the World Series!

  • That Guy Magnum! Post author

    Objection: This man is a very good informative youtuber, but he is clearly not well-versed in bird law- nay, he knows nothing about bird law. His arguments can barely be valid – if at all legal.

Leave a Reply

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