LawTube - Lawyers sperging at each other on YouTube

[Balldo's Gate]

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

I assume it's the same as the one referenced in the defendants' exhibit list filed by Joe in February 2023.



The first 3 documents in the list are attached in this post. The fourth (deposition transcript) was already attached in an earlier post.

The first document is the judgment (attached)

The second and third documents are the assignment of the judgment to the LLC.




The index number for the case is listed as "056136/2010" and the court it was issued in was apparently Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York.

EDIT: To be clear, I was unable to find this case online, which doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

It may be because it was housing court, I'm not sure.

 

[Lian Xing]

I always knew Joe was a shyster faggot, but holy moley, I had no idea it could be that bad. The hubris of the jew is unbounded.

 

[Captain Manning]

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.

Obviously, that's the much dumber thing, but continuing to cozy up to the sinking ship that is Rekieta right now is just gonna draw more negative attention to him. I somewhat doubt this would have been noticed if he didn't have Nick on to engage in a cringe staring competition with Sean. The tip-off was a comment on an Elissa Clip, no?

Nice going, Joe. You dumb fuck.

Everybody that is still sticking it out with Nick in 2024 is scum. No exceptions. Not any I have found yet, anyways.

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.

When he gets his thread I want "thinks six year olds can bathe themselves" in the subtitle. I am putting that on the record now.

It's not quite the funniest deposition I've heard of, but it's up there for sure.

I still prefer this one. The brevity makes it extra funny.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

THERE'S A JOE DEPOSITION TOO!!!!!!!

Docket entry 89 (Declaration in Support of Motion) contains in Exhibit B a transcript of the deposition of Joseph Nierman, Esq. on September 29, 2020 where plaintiff's lawyer pressed him about the fake subpoena, among other issues.

Joe DENIED that the fake "subpoena duces tecum" was a subpoena. He insisted it was a "letter", though he subsequently conceded it was "a letter that looks like a subpoena". (Page 144 of PDF, page 130 of transcript)



Split between that page and the next page, Joe responds to the question "What do you think it is?" by saying "I think it's an attempt to get him to answer questions."

I will just attach a few pages of arguing about the fake subpoena.



At the end of the deposition the court reporter refers to Joe as "The Nierman".

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

The index number for the case is listed as "056136/2010" and the court it was issued in was apparently Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York.

I went through all civil courts and the county clerk search and there is no such case, which is why I am asking the question how Joe can present the document if the current judgement against him still does not even acknowledge that the case/judgement this entire fiasco was based on is real.

Local Civil Court search for New York

Using the Index Number 056136/2010 leaving the casetype-prefix (CV/LT etc.) and court-suffix (AU/BX etc.) blank I get several results.
But NOT a hit on this case. For all accounts and purposes it does not exist.
There might just be another hidden secret website somewhere, but I believe this site should show the case if it was real.

I believe the full Index no. should be with prefix LT (For Landlord Tenant case type) and NY suffix (New York County) for the complete being
LT-056136-2010/NY

And that case does not exist in the system.

[EDIT] It was pointed out to me that Landlord & Tenant cases are removed from the online system 14 days after the last appearance. So no point looking online.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

I believe the full Index no. should be with prefix LT (For Landlord Tenant case type) and NY suffix (New York County) for the complete being
LT-056136-2010/NY

And that case does not exist in the system.

Yes I know. If you're correct about that (I don't know, but I think that's probably correct because it was housing court) then you wouldn't be able to find it through the online system even if it does in fact exist.

The site explicitly states that historical LT cases ARE NOT available online (from the WebCivil FAQ)



That is why I said the below

EDIT: To be clear, I was unable to find this case online, which doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

It may be because it was housing court, I'm not sure.

To be honest, the funny is in the two depositions anyway.

 

[TheRaptorJesus]

I always knew Joe was a shyster faggot, but holy moley, I had no idea it could be that bad. The hubris of the jew is unbounded.

They are stereotypes for a reason.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Yes I know. If you're correct about that (I don't know, but I think that's probably correct because it was housing court) then you wouldn't be able to find it through the online system even if it does in fact exist.

The site explicitly states that historical LT cases ARE NOT available online (from the WebCivil FAQ)


That is why I said the below


To be honest, the funny is in the two depositions anyway.

Fuck, I did not read the FAQ. lol, I was just happy I had found a working website, the other country clerk office search pages are completely broken. Thanks for pointing that out. So another request for NYPublicRecords

Joe's deposition is hilarious. He is just straight up lying and gaslighting.
It says "SUBPOENA" in fat letters and he tries to pretend its not a SUBPOENA.

 

[RudyRayMoore]

THERE'S A JOE DEPOSITION TOO!!!!!!!

Docket entry 89 (Declaration in Support of Motion) contains in Exhibit B a transcript of the deposition of Joseph Nierman, Esq. on September 29, 2020 where plaintiff's lawyer pressed him about the fake subpoena, among other issues.

Joe DENIED that the fake "subpoena duces tecum" was a subpoena. He insisted it was a "letter", though he subsequently conceded it was "a letter that looks like a subpoena". (Page 144 of PDF, page 130 of transcript)

View attachment 6484633

Split between that page and the next page, Joe responds to the question "What do you think it is?" by saying "I think it's an attempt to get him to answer questions."

I will just attach a few pages of arguing about the fake subpoena.

View attachment 6484628View attachment 6484627View attachment 6484626View attachment 6484625View attachment 6484624View attachment 6484623View attachment 6484622View attachment 6484621View attachment 6484620View attachment 6484619View attachment 6484617View attachment 6484616View attachment 6484615

At the end of the deposition the court reporter refers to Joe as "The Nierman".

View attachment 6484642

Outstanding effort finding these docs and breaking out some incredible derogatory information on Joe JewBaldo Nierman. As more information comes out in the public eye, this turd keeps sinking lower and lower in the bottom scum sucking food chain.

 

[Clayton cadidlehopper]

Someone in Nick's thread said 2 lawtubers covered Joe today...I know Meme Copium did a stream...anyone know who else has covered it?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Someone in Nick's thread said 2 lawtubers covered Joe today...I know Meme Copium did a stream...anyone know who else has covered it?

Legal Mindset talked about it, but on a faggoty Pataya locals stream.

 

[AnOminous]

Joe DENIED that the fake "subpoena duces tecum" was a subpoena. He insisted it was a "letter", though he subsequently conceded it was "a letter that looks like a subpoena". (Page 144 of PDF, page 130 of transcript)

That's all but admitting it's simulated legal process, one of the things explicitly prohibited under the FDCPA.

Joe's deposition is hilarious. He is just straight up lying and gaslighting.
It says "SUBPOENA" in fat letters and he tries to pretend its not a SUBPOENA.

It barely matters. It's either a "real" subpoena that was not legally justified, or it's a "fake" subpoena that goes out of its way to create the impression it is a "real" subpoena.

In either case he's improperly making demands for things unjustified by law based on threats the FDCPA prohibits.

 

[RudyRayMoore]

Someone in Nick's thread said 2 lawtubers covered Joe today...I know Meme Copium did a stream...anyone know who else has covered it?

Andrew Legalmindset did a Locals members only stream yesterday on the issue. I have not seen any clips from this to get his take on the situation. Interesting he did this behind the protected paywall of his Local's account and not an open YT stream.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

That's all but admitting it's simulated legal process, one of the things explicitly prohibited under the FDCPA.

It barely matters. It's either a "real" subpoena that was not legally justified, or it's a "fake" subpoena that goes out of its way to create the impression it is a "real" subpoena.

In either case he's improperly making demands for things unjustified by law based on threats the FDCPA prohibits.

Both the Levy deposition and Joe's could be used as an example for how not to behave as a lawyer.
He is so blatantly bad faith during the whole proceedings, trying to gaslight and trick the opposing side and elicit false admissions.

The lawyer does a good job preventing Joe's bullshit.
Joe is a weak bully.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

According to the deposition, at some point around 2015 Joe acquired complete ownership in the company.



Joe took issue with the phrase "buyout" because he was made 100% owner of the company in exchange for "no consideration".



Joe says that the reason he could not recall why this happened is that it was not a memorable event because they "continued operating exactly the same way."

The full exchange:

It barely matters. It's either a "real" subpoena that was not legally justified, or it's a "fake" subpoena that goes out of its way to create the impression it is a "real" subpoena.

In either case he's improperly making demands for things unjustified by law based on threats the FDCPA prohibits.

Both the Levy deposition and Joe's could be used as an example for how not to behave as a lawyer.
He is so blatantly bad faith during the whole proceedings, trying to gaslight and trick the opposing side and elicit false admissions.

Maybe it doesn't matter with respect to the FDCPA claim, but certainly from an optics perspective it looks much, much worse to be sending out a deceptive "letter that looks like a subpoena" which you later claim under oath is not a subpoena than it does to simply send out a defective subpoena.

The argument he was advancing in the deposition only made him look worse..

 

[Captain Manning]

I will just attach a few pages of arguing about the fake subpoena.

We don't, by any chance, actually have Exhibits 2 and 3, do we?

Because that would be kino.

It sure sounds, based upon what was memorized in the deposition transcript, that Joe tried to trick somebody with a fake/invalid subpoena.

What a faggot.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

We don't, by any chance, actually have Exhibits 2 and 3, do we?

Because that would be kino.

It sure sounds, based upon what was memorized in the deposition transcript, that Joe tried to trick somebody with a fake/invalid subpoena.

What a faggot.

Attached are Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 (Which they refer to in Joe's deposition I believe)
There are two other Exhibits 2 and 3, but those are from Joe deposing Levy.

-fixed attachment

 

[McAfee]

How do you guys know so much about law? I'm so confused by all of this stuff. Are there any good resources I could read to learn law?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

We don't, by any chance, actually have Exhibits 2 and 3, do we?

Because that would be kino.

It sure sounds, based upon what was memorized in the deposition transcript, that Joe tried to trick somebody with a fake/invalid subpoena.

I believe those documents are on Courtlistener as Exhibits A and B of the initial complaint (docket entry 1).
I assumed they were already posted, but I'm attaching both.

The letter is only one page so I'll screenshot it.

Attached are Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 (Which they refer to in Joe's deposition I believe)

Just FYI you attached the letter twice. The "subpoena" (or the other "letter") is the 2.6MB pdf attached to this post, Exhibit A in the complaint

 

[Lian Xing]

Joe needs his own thread.