The fact that the fucking Prosecutor made it clear they were not fucking around and threatening Nick with candor yet he is continuing to double down is incredible to me
"The prosecution failed to address how guns being near a big ass pile of cocaine is justification for the guns being taken away"
Is that a rhetorical question?
I think we can say definitively now that Nick isn't ghostwriting these submissions - he made it VERY clear that it was NOT a motion to suppress.
Ok so they're no longer relying on "video taken off Nick's social media" as being a material lie, but instead that Pomplun done did a heckin misrepresentation by not saying he grabbed a copy of the video from another channel? That still seems pretty retarded to me but at least it's not the Nick style aggressive and intentional misinterpretation of language that the original claim was based on.
Oh nevermind they're back to the compression alteration argument.
Insulting the police officer on made up bullshit probably isn't going to fly. In fact, it very well could make the prosecutor dig in. Its a small area so the prosecutor probably knows every single police officer in the area by name. They absolutely know a detective by name. If Nick pulled his head out of his ass, or maybe its his lawyer not realizing how much "small town' mentality kicks in here, this isn't like insulting a cop in a big city. These people know eachother, they have been to eachothers cook outs, they are as close to friends as you can get and still maintain a professional distance. If they even bother to do that.
The reupload itself doesn't even have a watermark, YouTube lets creators overlay a channel's logo over their uploads automatically, but it's also something the viewer can turn off on their end. The video file itself technically doesn't have a watermark, and if that's the only qualification of it being changed, then it hasn't been and (shocker) Nick lied.
I can’t see Nick’s brief addressing any of those three points. He spent a lot of words arguing that the video might not be the original, but there’s hardly any argument about how it couldn’t be an accurate representation of the original for this "lie" to be material. The only argument I see that touches on point (2) is:
But again, is it really reckless disregard for the truth if the cop genuinely thought it was an accurate representation of the original stream?
I think they’re desperate to get the whole thing tossed out on a procedural technicality before it comes to that, because of course comparing the clips will show them to be identical.
Follow up:
