LawTube - Lawyers sperging at each other on YouTube

First of all, Joe needs Jesus.

But not in that way. I know Joe is a Jew, this is America, and I respect his freedom of religion.

No, he needs Jesus in the same way the money lenders hanging around the temple "needed" Jesus.

14740.jpg

Secondly, I can't tell if Joe is just a retard, or this is an example of all the scum collecting near the drain as the tub is emptied.

Because if Joe needs money (and apparently he very much does), sucking off Rekieta in 2024 is like the DUMBEST fucking way to go about getting it.

John Andrews Stan said:
Joe will be totally offline from this Wednesday night until Saturday night. It’s two days of Rosh Hashana followed by Shabbat. If nobody pushes him to comment on this by Wednesday morning, I think he’ll just try to ignore it forever after.
Click to expand...
Sam Losco said:
He's the kind of guy that can easily be goaded into a sperg out about it by his chat though.
Click to expand...
Yep. I think it was Pepsiman that got him to sperg over MANdy. Which got us him telling us we need to "be better."

Fuck you Joe. YOU need to be better.

Potatoherder said:
This lines up with the nonsense he was pushing when he got beat down by Nate and Kurt. Spouted out tons of shit and then claimed ignorance when he got called out and proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but after that happened, he fired up a members-only Locals stream and apparently talked even more nonsense about Nick's case.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Himedall All-seeing Waifu, Third World Aristocrat, Anticipointment and 8 others
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Surfherder, I'm a Silly, New Lady Crackets and 3 others
♂CANAM productions♂ said:
"Lawtube", in other word includes aside from Joe.
  • A lolbertarian trying to deflect from his kid testing positive for coke and 26g+ of drugs (Balldoman)
  • A person on the run from debt collectors in SE Asia running MGTOW streams with thai strippers and e-girls, and also, dox me farms you can't 100% challenge (Legal Dicksucker)
  • A butterface who broke down after getting angry she wasn't the boss bitch and her military husban going full gravy seal pasta (Legalbytes)
  • A shitstirrer darkie (Natalie that lawyer chick)
  • A bootlicker cop on "self defense" and MGTOW X poster (Divoiced and "gave it all away") while on some stimulant who grifted BMW x3 off her 328i (Andrew Branca/Law of Self Defense)
  • Incel, failed patent clerk, copyright cuck and Jack Scafani tier cook (Uncivil Law)
  • A former Russia Today anchor turned youtuber who got laughed off the internet (Farhan Balanced)
  • "Go to a bookstore to meet women" Journalist (Megan Fox)
  • A clout chasing conspiracy theorist who keeps losing his case (Robert Barnes)
  • What did you say about me bitch (Spectre)
  • Winemome gayops (Cynthia Behave)
  • A black lawlyer who sued a retard nigger on X, lost. (Nate the Lawyer)
  • Anime Sucks, Cope and Sneed. Anime Sucks, Cope and Sneed. Anime Sucks, Cope and Sneed. Anime Sucks, Cope and Sneed. Anime Sucks, Cope and Sneed. Anime Sucks, Cope and Sneed.
  • Born again "Catholic" with no self awarness and degenerate novelist who releases porn novel in his own name and gets fired before even properly starting new job... (Steve Gosney)
Click to expand...
Andrea Burkhart is also part of it, but she seems like a relatively normal person, but I have not watched all her videos. Maybe someone has fun clips.
And Melanie Little who fails at using the right tool to redact pdf documents and doxes all involved parties in the Canton PD quack case video. Turtle Boy case video.

[EDIT] Named the wrong video, fixed.

Typical boomer mistake using the wrong tool in her boomer document editing software.
Entire video has boomer "redactions".
1727946268299.png
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: RandomBattles, Coo Coo Bird and Thé au lait
Useful_Mistake said:
Link? I can't find it
Click to expand...
My apologies, I thought I had linked the search site.

It is the NY state unified court system.

Searching for:
Firstname: Joseph
Middlename: -
Lastname: Nierman

If you add the middlename it returns no hits, so it could be him, or it could be someone else of the same name.
Clerical error or simply not going by his full name in other cases is just as likely so we won't know until someone actually looks.

With those cases sealed they also do not show up in PACER or any of the court document aggregation website.

1727953098815.png

PS. Trivia! Nierman is a Yiddish name of German origin.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: often puzzled, Gog & Magog, Coo Coo Bird and 1 other person
Gobermental Supervisor said:
Joe tried to argue that "he did not review the documents sent or the file and thereby cannot be held liable for the content". (He signed them ...)
lmao

He also tried to argue "it was a simple mistake, I cannot be held liable for that".
Click to expand...
Yeah. . .no. That's not how any of this works. FDCPA covers negligence as well as malice. Malice (as the court essentially found here) justifies a higher fee award. He was clearly playing cheeky games, improperly served the subpoena, and deliberately did it in a way that made it oppressive and burdensome, while demanding things (an immediate return to New York from Florida by the defendant on the day after a federal holiday) he had no legal right to and, moreover, after ghosting the defendant's attempts to contact him for weeks or months.

Joe also outright lied about it being contempt of court not to comply with his (utterly invalid and improperly served) subpoena. It's not contempt until after a motion to compel is granted and an order issued. Even then it's up to the judge how to treat noncompliance, not the attorney on the other side.

Frankly the defendant (in the underlying case who is plaintiff in the FDCPA case) seems kind of skeevy himself, but Joe gave him all the rope he needed to hang him.
Captain Manning said:
Because if Joe needs money (and apparently he very much does), sucking off Rekieta in 2024 is like the DUMBEST fucking way to go about getting it.
Click to expand...
So is losing six figures in a case failing to collect a debt in the low thousands. That kind of shit wipes out your shekels from a dozen or more successful cases.
Potatoherder said:
This lines up with the nonsense he was pushing when he got beat down by Nate and Kurt. Spouted out tons of shit and then claimed ignorance when he got called out and proven wrong. I bet he gets away with it a lot in debt collection as most people have no money to challenge it.
Click to expand...
He's created a nice precedent for treating attorney fees (in a state court) as a cognizable harm in and of themselves for the purposes of a federal FDCPA suit. I don't think this is unique to New York or the Second Circuit but it was apparently covered as a significant case.
https://www.mcglinchey.com/insights...-are-sufficient-for-standing-in-fdcpa-claims/ (archive)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Third World Aristocrat, Hraf, often puzzled and 7 others
Alice Evans dropped her new filings in the marriage dissolution case, and she directly involves one of the Lawtube lawyers, Andrea Burkhart.

Facts of the case: Alice Evans is a crazy bint who alienated the shared children and runs social media sock accounts to harass and intimidate her soon to be ex-husband, Ioan Gruffudd. She also goes absolutely mental when people mock her on social media and attributes everything bad said about her to Ioan.

Andrea Burkhart attended a recent hearing in person during a road trip and live tweeted from the court room, until Alice went psycho and tried to take photos of her in court because "Andrea is a toxic troll".

The Daily Mail picked up on the story and Andrea made a summary video with her phone.

In the latest court filings Alice goes completely mental and accuses Andrea of being a pawn Ioan uses to defame her online.
Ms. Burkart has said awful things about me in the press. For example, Ms. Burkart refers to me as “Malice” instead of “Alice” in her Twitter posts.

Also, in a post dated August 27, 2024, Ms. Burkart accuses me of lying about my financial situation.
Click to expand...

Alice Evans might as well be worth her own lolcow thread, that woman is a neverending source of hilarity, but dragging Andrea Burkhart into her sphere of madness means just 2 days after appearing on stream where nick is being discussed, another lawyer is struck by the curse of Sonichu.

Attached below is the entire court document. I really wish we had more lawtube lawyers covering Malice the Lolcow.

[EDIT] Fixed an untruth, Andrea did not appear on the stream with Nick, she was on a stream where Nick was discussed and looked very uncomfortable during it.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Lunacy
  • Feels
Reactions: Thoughtcrime84, often puzzled, SargonF00t and 7 others
There appear to be a large number of additional documents now available through Courtlistener, though not all of them.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6672372/levy-v-law-offices-of-j-henry-nierman/

I don't know which ones have been posted and not been posted before so I'll post what's almost certainly the highlight.
The deposition of the plaintiff which was taken by Joe acting pro se. What a fucking clown.

joe_depo.png

It gets aggressive basically right away.

joe_depo2.png

Joe asking his would-be victim to explain what a subpoena was.
Maybe he should have been the one to figure that out before he sent out a fake, invalid one?

joe_depo3.png
joe_depo4.png

Holy shit.
I'm only a third of the way through this document and Joe Nierman has already rocketed to the top of the "lolcow loltube lolyer" standings.

joe_depo5.png

:story:

NOOOOOO they actually had to call the judge because Joe insisted on trying on getting his would-be victim to divulge attorney-client protected communication. :story:

It begins with Joe asking when the plaintiff hired a lawyer. Plaintiff's lawyer objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.

Joe insists "There's nothing about his strategy, there's nothing about his conversation with his lawyer".

joe_depo10.png

Plaintiff's counsel then warns: "be careful how you push him on the next question."

joe_depo11.png

What's Joe's next question?
:thinking:

Joe then asks... whether plaintiff hired a lawyer to defend himself against the purported subpoena or to sue Joe, which clearly goes to strategy. :story:

joe_depo6.png
joe_depo7.png

I haven't had time to read the full document (99 pages) but the point Joe appears to be probing is whether his would-be victim actually believed that the bogus subpoena which was signed under Joe's letterhead and with his signature (which he purports to have nothing to do with) was valid or whether he immediately recognized Joe was a moron breaking the law and saw $$$, and thus had no emotional damages.

Next thing you know, 2-3 pages later....

"The court has called".

joe_depo12.png

The judge had to call in to hold Joe's hand and explain to him a way to ask his question without breaching privilege.

YES, JOE IS THAT DUMB!

joe_depo8.png
joe_depo9.png

Full document is attached as a PDF.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: ExsanguinateHorizon, Useful_Mistake, Steamy Hot Poo Poo and 48 others
Balldo's Gate said:
Holy shit.
I'm only a third of the way through this document and Joe Nierman has already rocketed to the top of the "lolcow loltube lolyer" standings.
Click to expand...
You can say that again. What the fuck is wrong with the guy???

His behavior is absolutely ATROCIOUS.
We finally see what his plan was here. He was still trying to intimidate the actual victim and insinuate that his lawsuit is using false information and make them drop it.

Joe is such a colossal piece of shit. wow!

1727990559359.png


Did Joe show up with a fake transcript of a judgement? Because I can't find any judgement in the online system for a Mr. Morrison against a Mr. Levy.
I checked.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Rafael Epstein, Mexican Molotov Marauder, not william stenchever and 14 others
This is amazing.
Every page has another gem.

"THE COURT: There's nothing you can do about that."

F-f-FELTED.

:story:

joe_depo13.png

Another gem.
Plaintiff's lawyer: "Control yourself or I'm going to cut this off."
Joe: "You control yourself and you control your client. Get him to at least answer a question the same way twice."

:story:

joe_depo14.png

This is how the deposition ended.
Plaintiff's lawyer tried to get on the record that the plaintiff (who spoke English as a second language) did not understand all of the questions, at which Joe snapped at him.

Note that when the judge called in, Joe himself said to the judge: "It's become evident by this deposition that English is his second language and I'm not saying that in any type of negative way other than it makes asking questions that much more difficult especially when I need to break it down."

Now, when the other side brings that up by asking about that, Joe melts down to end the deposition.

JOE FELTED BY OPPOSING COUNSEL:
"You didn't do your job here today. I'm going to ask him the questions."

:story:

joe_depo15.png
joe_depo16.png

Note that earlier in Joe's questioning he even himself elicited that the plaintiff was ESL, born outside the US, and was still learning English, and that therefore he did not understand English language legalese such as "the underlying action does not exist".

joe_depo17.png

Potentially Criminal said:
Ooooooof.

Joe......damn
Click to expand...
Every page is pure gold. It gets aggressive almost immediately and then goes totally off the rails when Joe doesn't get the answers he wants.

I don't know what I was expecting, but it was nowhere near this.
It's not quite the funniest deposition I've heard of, but it's up there for sure.

I recommend anyone interested to read the whole thing. I was just skimming and scrolling for flashpoints.
The transcript portion of the document is about 80 pages.

I literally went to a random page and there's an exchange on there that's pure gold (this is page 33/99 of the PDF, so 1/3 through.)

joe_depo018.png
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Useful_Mistake, Rafael Epstein, Mexican Molotov Marauder and 30 others
Balldo's Gate said:
Note that earlier in Joe's questioning he even himself elicited that the plaintiff was ESL, born outside the US, and was still learning English, and that therefore he did not understand English language legalese such as "the underlying action does not exist".
Click to expand...

That part about the "underlying action does not exist" is making me REALLY curious.

Because the order says this:
1727992818746.png

[...]
1727992795746.png


If the actual order mentions AS FACT that Joe did not "send the underlying court file" and that the New York Civil and Supreme Court Clerk's office "could not identify the underlying action", I would assume that the case this was based was not presented by Joe for the entirety of the court case?!

Then what the fuck did Joe present during that deposition as a printed "judgement against Shaul Levy" to the plaintiff and his lawyer?

1727993255908.png

1727993351144.png
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Useful_Mistake, Mexican Molotov Marauder, Third World Aristocrat and 9 others
Balldo's Gate said:
I don't know what I was expecting, but it was nowhere near this.
It's not quite the funniest deposition I've heard of, but it's up there for sure.
Click to expand...
This is a few minutes of one of my favorites that almost degenerated into a fistfight, involving legendary Texas lawyer Joe Jamail.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Useful_Mistake, Himedall All-seeing Waifu, often puzzled and 8 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back