Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Very Crafty defense attorney pulls a slick technicality that impressed the judge. The defense is arguing that a traffic stop outside an officer’s jurisdiction is inherently unlawful under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 14.03(d). The logic? If the officer doesn't have the authority, the stop shouldn't exist. All the... other charges hinge on it the original stop was legal or not. Judge Fleischer calls it "crafty," but he’s not sold yet—he’s testing the defense by posing hypothetical scenarios to see if their argument holds up against serious public safety concerns. This is what legal nuance looks like in real-time. Do you think the jurisdiction argument stands, or does the judge have a point about the limits of that logic? It's an interesting conversation point in my opinion.show more

Giggling Ganon

263,505 subscribers

111,287 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

For accuracy: Aidan’s affidavit was not impounded when it was first covered on online. This issue was expressly addressed during the hearing. The judge asked whether the affidavit was impounded, and defense counsel (Attorney Bradl) confirmed that it was not. The judge then stated that it was therefore a “public record.” The only remaining concern raised was whether the plaintiff’s address should have been removed. A temporary impoundment order was issued later in the hearing for the exhibits, at which point Bradl informed the court that some of the materials was already publicly available online. A public record is a public record. In Massachusetts, once a court record (like an affidavit) has already been lawfully made public—including be posted or shared on social media—impoundment of the official court record does not “unpublish” it or retroactively make the public version secret or inaccessible. The judge’s temporary impoundment order applies to the parties of record in the case. It is not surprising that Kate is so wrong on this point. She is doing exactly what the judge ordered must stop, and the judge certainly will not consider her meddling in his decision.

For accuracy: Aidan’s affidavit was not impounded when it was first covered on online. This issue was expressly addressed during the hearing. The judge asked whether the affidavit was impounded, and defense counsel (Attorney Bradl) confirmed that it was not. The judge then stated that it was therefore a “public record.” The only remaining concern raised was whether the plaintiff’s address should have been removed. A temporary impoundment order was issued later in the hearing for the exhibits, at which point Bradl informed the court that some of the materials was already publicly available online. A public record is a public record. In Massachusetts, once a court record (like an affidavit) has already been lawfully made public—including be posted or shared on social media—impoundment of the official court record does not “unpublish” it or retroactively make the public version secret or inaccessible. The judge’s temporary impoundment order applies to the parties of record in the case. It is not surprising that Kate is so wrong on this point. She is doing exactly what the judge ordered must stop, and the judge certainly will not consider her meddling in his decision.

KY Maverick

13,089 views • 5 months ago

🚨 BREAKING: Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney is MELTING DOWN in court and DIRECTLY SPARRING with the judge, calling the judge "SOFT" DEFENSE: Stop being soft with jury instructions! JUDGE: What do you want me to do?! Get a BRASS BAND?! I read the instruction as written by the Massachusetts Supreme Court?! The fact I perhaps did not give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that, I'm not an actor! I'm giving INSTRUCTION!

🚨 BREAKING: Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney is MELTING DOWN in court and DIRECTLY SPARRING with the judge, calling the judge "SOFT" DEFENSE: Stop being soft with jury instructions! JUDGE: What do you want me to do?! Get a BRASS BAND?! I read the instruction as written by the Massachusetts Supreme Court?! The fact I perhaps did not give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that, I'm not an actor! I'm giving INSTRUCTION!

Nick Sortor

1,588,348 views • 24 days ago

🚨 WOW!! The judge is CLAPPING BACK at the Lindsay Clancy defense attorney who just criticized him in OPEN COURT DEFENSE: You should reinstruct them forcefully on reasonable doubt JUDGE: I did that yesterday DEFENSE: You did it soft! JUDGE: What do you WANT ME TO DO?! Get a BRASS BAND? I read the INSTRUCTION as written. The fact I didn't give it a full inflection? Sorry, I'M NOT AN ACTOR! DEFENSE: You're glossing over the issue JUDGE: The characterization I'm GLOSSING over it? Trust me, that's NOT the situation. They're flailing, because a MISTRIAL could be coming

🚨 WOW!! The judge is CLAPPING BACK at the Lindsay Clancy defense attorney who just criticized him in OPEN COURT DEFENSE: You should reinstruct them forcefully on reasonable doubt JUDGE: I did that yesterday DEFENSE: You did it soft! JUDGE: What do you WANT ME TO DO?! Get a BRASS BAND? I read the INSTRUCTION as written. The fact I didn't give it a full inflection? Sorry, I'M NOT AN ACTOR! DEFENSE: You're glossing over the issue JUDGE: The characterization I'm GLOSSING over it? Trust me, that's NOT the situation. They're flailing, because a MISTRIAL could be coming

Eric Daugherty

963,480 views • 24 days ago

MacFarlane: The president doesn't have surrogates in congress defending this media ban. If they are, they're awfully quiet about it. And that tells the tale… One thing that jumped out at me, though, Katie, when the WH issued a press release, a political statement in support of this ban, they argued with that type of Trumpian random capitalization that the radical left is infiltrating the media, or that the media is doing the bidding of the radical left, and that there's a 95% bias rate in media reporting on Trump—Dubious numbers to be sure, that's not what they put in their legal argument. They can't bring that into court. They can't say that it's a media bias because they have to make a national security argument. So again, the political rhetoric does not align with the legal argument. And what's more, in some overnight court filings, the attorneys for MSNOW and those other media groups have shown clips of the president's quotes about media complaints and media bias. They're going to bring the judge an argument in 20 minutes that this is not about national security. And the president's own words show that.

MacFarlane: The president doesn't have surrogates in congress defending this media ban. If they are, they're awfully quiet about it. And that tells the tale… One thing that jumped out at me, though, Katie, when the WH issued a press release, a political statement in support of this ban, they argued with that type of Trumpian random capitalization that the radical left is infiltrating the media, or that the media is doing the bidding of the radical left, and that there's a 95% bias rate in media reporting on Trump—Dubious numbers to be sure, that's not what they put in their legal argument. They can't bring that into court. They can't say that it's a media bias because they have to make a national security argument. So again, the political rhetoric does not align with the legal argument. And what's more, in some overnight court filings, the attorneys for MSNOW and those other media groups have shown clips of the president's quotes about media complaints and media bias. They're going to bring the judge an argument in 20 minutes that this is not about national security. And the president's own words show that.

Acyn

55,750 views • 5 days ago

Lawyer blows up on judge for not following the law and trying to rule outside of her jurisdiction. This guy quickly put this judge in her place as she tried to rule on something that she does not have authority over. This is how to respectfully assert authority in a court room like an absolute pro. 💪

Lawyer blows up on judge for not following the law and trying to rule outside of her jurisdiction. This guy quickly put this judge in her place as she tried to rule on something that she does not have authority over. This is how to respectfully assert authority in a court room like an absolute pro. 💪

Giggling Ganon

344,359 views • 5 months ago

🔸Day 3 — The “Zuleika Lopez’ Trauma” Shield Has a Massive Hole in It Talk about an absolute self-inflicted wound by the defense panel. For hours, defense counsel CJ Narvasa used Zuleika Lopez’s emotional distress to build a "provocation shield", and argued that the Vice President's terrifying hitman remarks were a completely human and emotional response to the "systemic oppression" of watching her chief of staff get detained by the House of Representatives. But the second Senator-Judge risa hontiveros took their own logic to its natural legal conclusion, the defense choked. Hontiveros asked the ultimate trap question: “Is it the position of the defense that a high-ranking official is legally or morally greenlit to make explicit death threats as long as they claim they have a "legitimate reason" to do so?” Suddenly, the "context" didn't matter anymore. Narvasa panicked, immediately backpedaled, and muttered, “Your Honor, that is not the point." The hypocrisy is loud. You can't weaponize Zuelika Lopez’ legal frustrations to fish for public sympathy, and then refuse to own the terrifying legal precedent it sets the moment you're cornered. If the context justified the meltdown, why were they so terrified to say it out loud under the glare of the Senate? 🤫

🔸Day 3 — The “Zuleika Lopez’ Trauma” Shield Has a Massive Hole in It Talk about an absolute self-inflicted wound by the defense panel. For hours, defense counsel CJ Narvasa used Zuleika Lopez’s emotional distress to build a "provocation shield", and argued that the Vice President's terrifying hitman remarks were a completely human and emotional response to the "systemic oppression" of watching her chief of staff get detained by the House of Representatives. But the second Senator-Judge risa hontiveros took their own logic to its natural legal conclusion, the defense choked. Hontiveros asked the ultimate trap question: “Is it the position of the defense that a high-ranking official is legally or morally greenlit to make explicit death threats as long as they claim they have a "legitimate reason" to do so?” Suddenly, the "context" didn't matter anymore. Narvasa panicked, immediately backpedaled, and muttered, “Your Honor, that is not the point." The hypocrisy is loud. You can't weaponize Zuelika Lopez’ legal frustrations to fish for public sympathy, and then refuse to own the terrifying legal precedent it sets the moment you're cornered. If the context justified the meltdown, why were they so terrified to say it out loud under the glare of the Senate? 🤫

Thea Tan

35,277 views • 2 months ago

The Judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is on the verge of declaring a mistrial. The defense just delayed it with a last minute Hail Mary attempt to stop it. It will fail. God bless that one juror for standing up to the mob.

The Judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is on the verge of declaring a mistrial. The defense just delayed it with a last minute Hail Mary attempt to stop it. It will fail. God bless that one juror for standing up to the mob.

Benny Johnson

126,145 views • 24 days ago

Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "The Americans, Israelis and Britain are saying the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction. How do they have jurisdiction when Israel isn't a signatory and Palestine isn't a state?" Toby Cadman, "The report declare that Palestine is a state for the purpose of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.. The attacks in Gaza is part of an international armed conflict" KGM, "Does this mean that if an arrest warrant is granted, any country that is a signatory to the ICC would have an obligation arrest Netanyahu if he sets foot in their country?" Toby Cadman, "Yes"

Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "The Americans, Israelis and Britain are saying the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction. How do they have jurisdiction when Israel isn't a signatory and Palestine isn't a state?" Toby Cadman, "The report declare that Palestine is a state for the purpose of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.. The attacks in Gaza is part of an international armed conflict" KGM, "Does this mean that if an arrest warrant is granted, any country that is a signatory to the ICC would have an obligation arrest Netanyahu if he sets foot in their country?" Toby Cadman, "Yes"

Farrukh

602,090 views • 2 years ago

Judge Juan Merchan has ordered Donald Trump to be sentenced for 34 counts on January 10th ahead of inauguration Judge Merchan was never supposed to oversee Donald Trump’s case, he was specifically assigned the case to weaponize our legal system against Trump, here’s the proof “Understand there's absolutely no reason that Judge Merchan should have even had a chance to be assigned to this case? Now, I'm sure the left is just gonna call this a conspiracy theory. ‌ So I'll issue a challenge to them, and maybe they can tell me how he managed to be the judge. Because for these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. ‌ That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. So even though they're trying to claim that they didn't pick the judge, that it was randomly assigned, that's not possible because judge Merchan isn't in the pool to be randomly assigned. So the only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. ‌ And the wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. ‌ So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats. ‌ But, yeah, I'm sure this was just a coincidence. It was a coincidence that one of the most high profile cases ever, we didn't assign a judge, we assigned an acting judge. ‌ And that that judge somehow got selected even though he wasn't in the pool of judges available to be selected, and that that same judge that was selected also caught 2 other Trump related cases in the same year, and then that judge's daughter makes tens of millions of dollars a year promoting Democrats. Yeah. I'm sure that's all a coincidence.”

Wall Street Apes

514,459 views • 1 year ago

Look, I don't like polygamy any more than the rest of you. But we need to stop pretending that the Bible teaches against it. The typical talking point (e.g., Ben Shapiro) is that "polygamy doesn't turn out well in the Bible." Interpretative oversimplifications aside, if God wanted to ban polygamy, couldn't he have just said, "Thou shalt not practice polygamy"? The fact that this is the main talking point shows how weak an argument from the Bible is on this topic.

Look, I don't like polygamy any more than the rest of you. But we need to stop pretending that the Bible teaches against it. The typical talking point (e.g., Ben Shapiro) is that "polygamy doesn't turn out well in the Bible." Interpretative oversimplifications aside, if God wanted to ban polygamy, couldn't he have just said, "Thou shalt not practice polygamy"? The fact that this is the main talking point shows how weak an argument from the Bible is on this topic.

Luke Hanson

12,603 views • 1 month ago

🚨 JUST NOW: Legal expert Jonathan Turley says the Lindsay Clancy defense attorney needs to be PUT IN HIS PLACE, declare a mistrial and STOP LETTING HIM PLAY GAMES The defense attorney is now trying to BLOCK the mistrial declaration! "This is perfectly BONKERS! The idea, if I was the judge, I'd say, let me get this straight: you objected to my not swapping out the alternate and you're waiting NOT to file something like this! You're LATE on that pal, I'm gonna declare a mistrial! YOU'RE the one who didn't even tell me you were thinking of this."

🚨 JUST NOW: Legal expert Jonathan Turley says the Lindsay Clancy defense attorney needs to be PUT IN HIS PLACE, declare a mistrial and STOP LETTING HIM PLAY GAMES The defense attorney is now trying to BLOCK the mistrial declaration! "This is perfectly BONKERS! The idea, if I was the judge, I'd say, let me get this straight: you objected to my not swapping out the alternate and you're waiting NOT to file something like this! You're LATE on that pal, I'm gonna declare a mistrial! YOU'RE the one who didn't even tell me you were thinking of this."

Eric Daugherty

430,020 views • 24 days ago

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has not only blocked President Trump’s deportation of foreign gang members, he’s ordered that the ones already on a plane out of the country be returned. This is treason. This Obama-appointed activist judge needs to be impeach, prosecuted, and jailed. Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is legal and appropriate. The judge blocking it is a criminal just like the illegals he’s protecting.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has not only blocked President Trump’s deportation of foreign gang members, he’s ordered that the ones already on a plane out of the country be returned. This is treason. This Obama-appointed activist judge needs to be impeach, prosecuted, and jailed. Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is legal and appropriate. The judge blocking it is a criminal just like the illegals he’s protecting.

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

161,659 views • 1 year ago

If a victim comes out and says he or she has been r@ped, let us stop analyzing it on social media, let us stop saying this person is wrong, this person is lying, it is not for you the onlooker to judge, allow the authorities to do their jobs. You’re not the authorities, you do not have any right to carry out an investigation or say the person is lying or saying the truth. If the authorities do not do their job then we call them out” — Lady says as she drops her opinion on the ongoing Mirabel case

If a victim comes out and says he or she has been r@ped, let us stop analyzing it on social media, let us stop saying this person is wrong, this person is lying, it is not for you the onlooker to judge, allow the authorities to do their jobs. You’re not the authorities, you do not have any right to carry out an investigation or say the person is lying or saying the truth. If the authorities do not do their job then we call them out” — Lady says as she drops her opinion on the ongoing Mirabel case

TENIOLA

255,984 views • 7 months ago

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a UNANIMOUS verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

Kyle Becker

5,835,348 views • 2 years ago

A man open carrying a handgun in public was arrested by this officer, whose logic is that it was legal for him to open carry, up until the point that someone else called the police on him for it, at which point the person carrying caused a false police report.

A man open carrying a handgun in public was arrested by this officer, whose logic is that it was legal for him to open carry, up until the point that someone else called the police on him for it, at which point the person carrying caused a false police report.

Dissident Media

353,137 views • 1 month ago