I guess they let their motions…
(•_•)
get the best of them
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
YEEAAAHH!
Legendary!
deleted by creator
The date says 2022 but the web design says 2002.
It’s a government website so 2002 would be new under those standards.
Just be thankful you don’t have to save a WordPerfect document to a 3.5" floppy and mail it to the court
No, you just had to pray that the fax machine you sent it to wasn’t low on ink or paper or all of your documents would just disappear.
I hope they never “upgrade” to web 2.0/3.0.
I recommend “Law Talk With Mike” on YouTube for a lot of quite similar court silliness.
The channel is fun but he occasionally leaks how much of a douchebag he is and I had to stop supporting someone like that
Ooo, thank you. I love this stuff. Law is fun when you just get to dip your toe into the good stuff.
Above this, I recommend this state of Georgia vs Denver Fenton that is a word for word and sound for sound actual court stenographer transcript reading. Hilarious and insane that this went down in a real court setting. I believe the judge got a bit of a reprimand for it, but was allowed to continue being a judge.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
this state of Georgia vs Denver Fenton
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That sounds great! Thanks for the suggestion.
OldSquishyGardener is my goto
@rebmasel on TikTok is amazing. Her readings of “iconic court transcripts” are gold
Why did you take a picture of the screen instead of screenshot?
And why is there a booger on your screen?
I need answers.
Oh thank goodness, I thought the booger was on my screen.
Twist: his booger just happened to be under yours.
I’m not the OP for this pic, sorry, I don’t have the answers to that, it was originally on a you laugh you loose thread, at least that’s where I found it.
people would hate the courts less if they’d just talk like human beings rather than cloak everything in this bullshit cold legalese which makes everyone sound as stark and removed as possible. if someone’s life is at stake, fucking talk like it!
My first instinct is to agree with you.
My second instinct is to think that most of what I tend to think of as bullshit cold legalese is actually exceedingly precise, which I have to admit is a good quality to have when it comes to matters of law.
On the flipside, if the language is too casual you’d end up with people winning cases by being popular and snarky.
Part of the reason why Trump’s cases have such a high turnover of lawyers. His antics just don’t amuse a judge used to professionalism.
Not saying you don’t have a point. After stuff like bees being classified as fish in California to protect them. It’s clear to see legalese has gone to far.
Lmao, you weren’t joking. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/06/us/california-bees-fish-court-ruling-scn-trnd/index.html
As absurd as it is, this is probably just because it’s easier than changing that law.
in a lucky loophole for insects, mollusks, and other spineless creatures falling under the umbrella term “invertebrate,” the act itself defines a “fish” as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.”
According to the law’s specific definition of “fish”, spiders and earthworms are also ‘fish’.
your honor my client was simply standing on business
