I find it interesting that he is telling off a judge after the verdict for this woman. It's not really in defense of his client since the case was over, and it likely would have been to the detriment of his client had it not been. He told off a judge because she was too mean to someone who intentionally and maliciously destroyed lives for her own greed. This isn't some victimless traffic offense that the judge went overboard on. Everyone deserves a defense but even if you are, as you should be, vigorously defending your client you should know in the back of your mind she deserved everything the judge did to her.
Dunno if this is Nick's case or not, but if it is why would he take this on pro-bono? I understand as a defense attorney sometimes you have to defend people you find reprehensible, but I cannot understand taking on a pro-bono case where the client was a horrible person.
I'm not going to speculate, instead I'm going to leave this here and let other people speculate.
My memory is that He knew the woman beforehand and done the case as a favor knowing ahead of time She was going to plead guilty.
Maybe this was the church he was attending?
Well. If it is his case......
If memory serves, Nick said he waited until the court had cleared and informed her after that he was pro-bono, he I think even said he wasn't rude about it but it was still sure to infuriate her. Furthermore, in Nick's defense, he had the client for 2+ years I think he said, talking to her often and becoming friendly with her, so that may have been why he was inclined to say something to the judge.
His counterargument would be that "Montegraph has always been into sucking little boys' cocks" is an opinion statement, and was not intended to convey any factual clam that Montegraph has ever actually done that, only that Nick thinks that Montegraph is turned on by little boys and by the thought of sucking their cocks.
Throwing the guy that owes you buttloads of money into prison always seemed short sighted to me.
"Hehehe, uhh soo Randazza, question from the chat. Balls or no balls? No context, just answer the question. No balls huh, well ok I guess. Have you ever heard of the balldo? Look I've got it right here, you just stretch it out like this...."
I tried listening to a couple of coomalot streams as background noise about a year ago. His kinship with Cuckeita probably stems from the fact that he's also a whiny bitch who'll sit there crying about haters and the youtube algorithm for like 2 hours.
No... that would be if I said Rekieta Law frequently engages in hyperbole and comedy and that is why none of his viewers would reasonably interpret his statement as an allegation of fact. Which, in Nick's case, would also be a valid argument (and the plaintiff's own filings have teed it up for him to make).
It's Nick being dick-swinging nigger-rich. Same thinking that had him buy a Mustang GT and try to drive it off the lot in a Minnesota winter.
Probably, because he is just that full of himself.
See that makes FAR more sense which makes me wonder if the farms is getting its wires crossed or Nick is being obtuse on purpose making "factual" statements, but the context leads you to think something different. Fucking lawyers.
Interesting that he refers to him by his last name there instead of Null or Josh. I can't recall ever seeing or hearing him do that before. Kinda like he's a little pissed.
