LawTube - Lawyers sperging at each other on YouTube

[Anticipointment]

Don't be dramatic. Does this really look like the face of a killer?


View attachment 6431424

What in the literal fuck is this? Like what I am looking at right now? Why did he film this?

Silence of the Lambs, “It puts the lotion on its skin…” tutorial video.

US District Court for the Eastern District of Virgin

Where?

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Thanks for your thoughts! I'm surprised Kurt hasn't spoken about this lawsuit. From what you say, there doesn't seem to be anything to be embarrassed about and it would be an interesting story for him.

I can't help but view everything you say with a projected layer of dishonesty interspersed with the occasional bite of a Dorito. You just read like a duplicitous faggot.

"This would TOTALLY be in HIS interest! I'm surprised he never talked about this pro-se case where he TOTALLY stuck it to the man, but unfortunately lost on summary judgement. It's just so INTERESTING! And FUNNY and WEIRD!!!!"

The judge apparently didn't think much of them. While it's unusual for a national park to be a place for concerts, and Wolf Trap is I believe the only one (as the government argued), it's still a national park. Much like federal courthouses and other federal property, it's entirely within the domain of the feds to prohibit concealed carry, even under current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It seems like a quixotic tilting at windmills thing to me.

I'm not going to say outright that it was stupid even to file the lawsuit, since I assume he had some ideological reason for it more than that he was in some kind of incel rage at not being able to bring a gun to a concert. But who knows?

Does a history of a law being repeatedly challenged despite it being repeatedly enforced ever factor in on these sorts of laws getting looked at again in the future?

 

[Captain Manning]

It would never have occurred to me to even compare the two; there is simply no contest between them for biggest, most embarrassing and shameful fuckup. Nick has that crown locked in perpetuity.

I was merely pointing out that the manner of this revelation seems very much like the kind of thing the embittered former streamer Nick Rekieta would get up to.

Not only that, but I'm scratching my head here over how this is some massive embarrassment for Kurt.

- He filed a civil action against his former employer.
- It wasn't very good.
- He moved to dismiss it.

Okay. What am I missing here?

Also, you're 100% right. Nick has climbed so deep in pit of scumfuckery that I almost think his critics in Lawtube are gonna have to straight up rape and/or kill somebody in order to seem worse by comparison.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Okay. What am I missing here?

It’s FUNNY and WEIRD how nobody is treating Kurt like a chew toy as was intended. I hope we make a million dollars.

 

[HarveyMCR]

Leonard french went to 42 luxemburg and had a less than ideal experience

Archive for when he inevitably realizes how bad this makes him look:

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

It’s FUNNY and WEIRD how nobody is treating Kurt like a chew toy as was intended. I hope we make a million dollars.

We routinely mock Kurt for being a creepy, depressed, incel-rage weirdo who can't competently cook eggs. WHAT MORE DO WE NEED TO DO.

 

[56 others]

Leonard french went to 42 luxemburg and had a less than ideal experience

anybody archive the clip of leonard accidentally exposing his porn history during one of his livestreams? He was using his streaming PC to look at porn in the same browser and it came up as a recent url when he was typing int he search bar

 

[John Andrews Stan]

WHAT MORE DO WE NEED TO DO.

Nick has not yet accepted that he will never be eclipsed by anyone else in LawTube when it comes to self-owns, retardation, degeneracy and humiliation. Which is pretty fucking funny. I plan to continue enjoying the show.

 

[not william stenchever]

then he can't look like he'd play a Nosferatu character in Vampire: The Masquerade.

Don't do the Nosferatu dirty like that. They are hard working creatures of the night and probably make up a significant minority of the userbase here.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

It does smell like a Rekieta move, and it is funny that UL is arguably even less of a lawyer than he is. Then again, he doesn't drown his kids and coke and ruin their lives with his degenerate desperation to compensate for having a floppy dick.

At least UL's firearm carry challenge was to (seemingly) rollback restrictions on the 2nd compared to Nick's cases. I can't access PACER right now so we'll have to wait for @Useful_Mistake to grab the complaint.

Does a history of a law being repeatedly challenged despite it being repeatedly enforced ever factor in on these sorts of laws getting looked at again in the future?

The bigger indicator is a circuit split. It doesn't matter how many times someone sues trying to strike down federal child pornography statues, but if two circuits disagree, say two diametrically opposed circuits; the 9th (CA) rules that child pornography laws infringe the 1st amendment, and the 5th (TX) rules that the death penalty is constitutional to apply possession of child pornography and isn't protected by the 1st amendment, then SCOTUS will be forced to resolve the current split.

I'm not going to say outright that it was stupid even to file the lawsuit, since I assume he had some ideological reason for it more than that he was in some kind of incel rage at not being able to bring a gun to a concert. But who knows?

It may have been an attempt to build a challenge to the feds on basis of the 2A for the ban on National Parks (and/or buildings). It is odd, however that he chose to go pro se. Maybe the big gun lobbies said he had no chance and he didn't take it well.

There are two court case about this currently:
1)Firearms Policy Coalition Inc v. Garland (4:24-cv-00565) in the 5th Circuit (Northern District of Texas) challenging the ban on federal buildings for regular folks, filed in June of this year.

2) US. v. Ayala, Case No: 8:22-cr-369-KKM-AAS in the 11th district (Middle District of Florida), a criminal case striking down the ban for postal workers.

The carry rule was relaxed in 2014 as 54 U.S.C. 104906. Note that using a firearm is still illegal under 36 CFR 13.30(c) and 36 CFR 2.4(b). This was the 2nd session of the 113th (2013-2015) congress. See the appropriate legislative bill history here (PDF is attached below).

So today, you can bring a firearm to a national park (say Big Bend or Yellowstone) depending on state laws (except federal structures like buildings), but if you get charged by a meth tweaker with a knife it's a violation of federal law to shoot him.

Spoiler: Laws

36 CFR 2.4(b)

Except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited:

(i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net

(ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net

(iii) Using a weapon, trap or net

36 CFR 13.30(c)

(c) Except as provided in this section and § 2.4 of this chapter, the following are prohibited—

(1) Possessing a weapon, trap, or net;

(2) Carrying a weapon, trap, or net;

(3) Using a weapon, trap, or net.

54 U.S.C. 104906

(b)Protection of Right of Individuals To Bear Arms in System Units.—The Secretary shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional firearm, in any System unit if—
(1)
the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2)
the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the System unit is located.

Don't do the Nosferatu dirty like that. They are hard working creatures of the night and probably make up a significant minority of the userbase here.

Pretty sure most lolcows are Malkavian.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

An autist suing for not being promoted when they're completed the training is completely in line with autistic brain

 

[Captain Manning]

It’s FUNNY and WEIRD how nobody is treating Kurt like a chew toy as was intended. I hope we make a million dollars.

You might not appreciate me saying this, but I honestly don't think it's Nick himself. For one thing, Nick would know how to use PACER, instead of having to wait for @Useful_Mistake to do it. For another, the post was actually coherent and not oozing with venom.

I'd be willing to believe it's a Balldoguard though. Maybe working at Nick's direction. Still a few of those kicking around. It's not like the Balldoguards can uplift Nick at this point. Instead, they gotta try to drag Nick's critics down to his level (good luck with that).

Either way, if Kurt sues Taylor Swift for refusing to date him, let me know. Otherwise, this is a yawn. Welcome to America. People file moderately stupid lawsuits all the time. Only the dumbest and funniest are worth talking about. This ain't one of them, IMO.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I honestly don't think it's Nick himself

I don’t either. Nick is way too lazy to do this shit himself when he still has loyal Balldoguards.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

I'd be willing to believe it's a Balldoguard though.

Careful now, Cynthia's gonna say you're a sock!

 

[AnOminous]

Does a history of a law being repeatedly challenged despite it being repeatedly enforced ever factor in on these sorts of laws getting looked at again in the future?

Yes, or at least it happens. A lot of people challenged the constitutionality of arbitrary, unreasonable gun laws that were subsequently found to be actually unconstitutional in cases like Heller and McDonald. A number of legal scholars, like Eugene Volokh (whose own academic writing on the issue was ultimately cited by and adopted by SCOTUS in these cases, had criticized the Court's prior Second Amendment jurisprudence extensively.

It's more common, though, for a surprising verdict to come seemingly out of nowhere, like Monroe v. Pape, the first actually influential case involving applying § 1983 to suits against the government for violations of constitutional rights. Before this case, the statute (enacted as part of the Reconstruction legislation and "Anti-Klan" Acts) had effectively been a dead letter, largely rejected as an avenue for relief from government abuses in cases like Cruikshank (involving a section of the statute which criminalized conspiracy against rights), which incidentally involved the Second Amendment, alarmingly rejecting the very concept that the Constitution even guaranteed the right to bear arms, poisoning Second Amendment jurisprudence for over a century.

This case involved a massacre of black citizens in Colfax for daring to exercise their right to vote under the Reconstruction laws. To get around a conviction, SCOTUS completely made up law out of nowhere, made the amazing statement that the Second Amendment was essentially null and void and could be violated at will, and in effect, the 13th through 15th Amendments had no power whatsoever.

Until it was effectively overruled in Heller, this nonsensical concept haunted Second Amendment jurisprudence, despite being based on an openly racist premise and despite essentially unwriting the Constitution and the laws meant to enforce it.

Clarence Thomas, often derided as an "Uncle Tom," took great pleasure in pointing out that these gun cases essentially overruled Cruikshank after a century of garbage law.

Anyway, I have no hard opinion on this case by Kurt or how well he did, but bad law doesn't just go away and it rarely just goes away because of one case. It often takes a lot of chipping away at "established law" that is wrong before it comes down. I'm just not sure this specific law about national parks is actually wrong or, more importantly, unconstitutional. It might be a bad idea in some cases, since there are "national parks" that are extremely isolated and have dangerous wildlife and, worse, people, like national parks on the border with Mexico that suffer from illegal immigrant and even cartel activity.

I'd be willing to believe it's a Balldoguard though. Maybe working at Nick's direction. Still a few of those kicking around. It's not like the Balldoguards can uplift Nick at this point. Instead, they gotta try to drag Nick's critics down to his level (good luck with that).

I'm not really sure of the point of simping for Kurt. I don't dislike the guy but he has numerous cow traits, even if he is nowhere near as much of a cow as Nick. I think goofy pro se lolsuits are weird and funny in general.

So today, you can bring a firearm to a national park (say Big Bend or Yellowstone) depending on state laws (except federal structures like buildings), but if you get charged by a meth tweaker with a knife it's a violation of federal law to shoot him.

I'm pretty sure that whatever it says, the doctrines of necessity and self-defense would still be affirmative defenses just as they are in a murder case where you illegally possessed a gun, but clearly acted in self-defense.

I don't see how in practice they enforce that without simply ignoring centuries of case law on the subject.

I'm also pretty sure they could still pass laws regulating firearms on national property, although they would have to be able to pass constitutional scrutiny. It wouldn't just be a "rational basis" thing. For instance, the prohibition against bearing arms in courthouses is not merely reasonable but almost necessary to prevent daily shootings of judges, parties, lawyers, etc. (I'm not going to get into fedposting about whether that's a good or bad thing.)

Anyway considering the law has indeed changed since that suit, and in the direction Kurt was pushing, he may indeed have been on to something.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I can't access PACER right now so we'll have to wait for @Useful_Mistake to grab the complaint.

For one thing, Nick would know how to use PACER, instead of having to wait for @Useful_Mistake to do it

Yes, yes, fine. I attached it to this post (and Courtlistener)

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I'm not really sure of the point of simping for Kurt.

I haven’t seen anyone on this site simping for Kurt. Quite the contrary. Everyone seems to understand that two things can be simultaneously true: Kurt is an effeminate autist with anger issues and Nick is a piece of shit who thinks he’s slick and can manipulate anyone he wants. Calling out the latter isn’t “simping for Kurt.”

 

[Confetti Meringue]

Careful now, Cynthia's gonna say you're a sock!

This IncelLaw person reminds me of Cynthia. I am willing to bet that it is a woman with a similar pattern as Cynthia, that being to gain a fixation on a cow and throw the fruits of a few searches at a thread without learning site culture, but is most certainly not Cynthia herself.

That said, there's no reason to shoot the messenger. IncelLaw hasn't done anything wrong besides write like an overly excited woman. Easy to mistake as Nick, but not a sin in of itself. Personally, I'd enjoy to hear more about the minor legal misadventures of Kurt and Friends.

 

[I'm a Silly]

It came out on stream this week that Sean (Potentially Criminal) is probably a foamer. Sean knew enough to pull this video up when the topic of train enthusiasts came up:

It was suggested he change his channel name to Foamer Law. (Which would cause all kinds of confusion if Balldoman actually changes his channel name to Former Law.)

Potentially Criminal had an Engagement Party stream last night.

Maybe it was obvious with his fiancée Dina being called Future Mrs. Martin 2.0, but Sean made a quick passing reference to being married previously, which I don't think I've ever heard him mention before.

Sean and his new fiancée have been together 4 years. They met on Match.com. She's 46 and Sean is 38.

Edit: Dina outed Sean as sitting down to pee just like Rekieta. "We have a bidet with a heated seat, so he sits down at all times."

I'm hateful towards interested in this particular lawtuber; if anyone knows more bizarre details, please reply.

 

[Captain Manning]

I'm not really sure of the point of simping for Kurt.

I don't think anybody here is simping for Kurt. Several people, self included, have acknowledged that Kurt is a minor lolcow.

That said, I suspect his stock has gone up considerably since he's broken away from Nick. It always does my heart good to see somebody breaking the conditioning. Whatever issues Kurt needs to work though, he's not gonna find solutions with Nick. Trust me.

He did also BTFO Joe on Nate's stream.

Plus, in general, Kurt simply can't hold a candle to the level of lolcow Nick is now.

Yes, yes, fine. I attached it to this post (and Courtlistener)

You misunderstand. I am saying if that was Nick, or any lawyer, they would have likely done it in their first post instead of having to wait for somebody that knows how to use PACER.

Thank you for springing for the docs though.