Real Lawyer Reacts to Liar Liar (Part 1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Jim Carrey (as attorney Fletcher Reede) is struck by a magic spell and can’t lie. But is he a good lawyer? Today we’re going to review one of the funniest legal movies of all time: Liar Liar. Stay until the end for my Legal Realism Grade!
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
(clicking the links really helps out the channel)
Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
▶ Why Indochino Suits? (50% off Premium Suits + free shipping) [legaleagle.link/indochino]: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.
▶ Why Ties from TheTieBar? (Free shipping on orders over $50) [fave.co/2ImLY9I]: Normal ties are too fat. Skinny ties are too skinny. So these days I only wear ties that are exactly 2.5” wide. They are fashionable without being hipster. You see them in all of my videos. TieBar ties are perfect, come in every color I want, and never cost more than $19.
▶ Why these Tie Clips? [amzn.to/2WIQ6EE]: It’s really hard to find affordable tie clips that are the right size (1.5”), look good, and are great quality. These tie bars are all three. Plus the 3-pack gives a variety of styles. They pair perfectly with 2.5” ties from TheTieBar (above).
▶ Why these Pocket Squares? [amzn.to/2UfsKtL]: I like my pocket squares perfectly, well, square. Like straight-out-of-Mad-Men square. The only way to do that is with a stiffer material that keeps its shape. I’ve exhaustively tried dozens of pocket squares, and these are by far the best. It’s how I get the perfectly flat pocket square you see in my videos.
--------------------------------------------------
The last time I watched Liar Liar, I wasn’t yet an attorney myself. I remember watching Liar Liar years and thinking how cool it would be to become a lawyer myself. That was obviously a long time ago. It was great to be able to watch the movie with fresh eyes and know which parts were realistic and which were not. I practiced in Los Angeles for a long time, so I recognized a lot of my old haunts including the office parks and courthouses. Surprisingly, I think the movie is funnier now having years of experience as an attorney.
Stay tuned until next week when I release my reaction to the second half of the movie. I'm going to go in-depth into whether the prenup is void and whether the wife's fraud invalidates the entire marriage.
Would you like me to react to another one? Let me know in the comments!
You can find more Real Lawyer Reacts Here (including my reaction to Suits, Better Call Saul, A Few Good Men and tons more): goo.gl/42fKce
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. Today I'm taking a break from teaching law students how to crush law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
Just saying, the thumbnail should say “liar liar gets lawyer lawyered”
That's smart🤔
Missed opportunity
Ha! That’s what I thought, too!
Ohh no…😆😂
Ahhh dang it
Objection: you and Jim Carey have the same haircut and outfit
Objection. Irrelevant
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 Objection denied.
@@vicenteabalosdominguez5257 I think you mean “objection overruled”
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 You are right, my bad... ... ...Objection overruled!!
Objection, all lawyers have the same outfit, just different colors
Keep in mind, he wasn’t just unable to lie, he was _compelled_ to tell the truth in response to questions. That’s the source of the humor.
Also he couldn't ask a question if he knew the answer was a lie
And couldn't even write a lie
Worst thing for a lawyer. Lmao. Love the movie. I don't think he could even think a lie
I think it was less that he was compelled to tell the truth and more that he's so used to talking his way out of situations that he had the hard time breaking the habit of trying to open his mouth and lie his way out of a situation.
@@raynmanshorts9275no, he’s compelled to tell the truth
@@fos1451 He's been shown being able to be silent in other situations.
@@fos1451 I agree, hence the magic, but I think the allegory is as ranmanshorts describes it. When we sensitize and desensitize in certain ways behaviours do become habitual and they can feel like a curse and changing them can feel like a curse as well. It's basically a fairly tale with more complicated real world analogues. Or at least that's my reading. But I agree in the story he has compulsively to answer the the question or even point out things unprompted. It's a classic redeption through role reversal story structure.
What you are missing in the cop scene is that he said: "let's take it from the top" and therefore to answer him, Fletcher explained everything in compliance with the curse to tell the truth lol
Fletcher Reed: "I'm a little upset about a bad sexual episode last night."
LegalEagle: "This is exactly what happens when a judge comes into a courtroom."
I object! This comment is pure hearsay but I withdraw my objection because it is funny as hell!!!
@@jessicachildress5080 then why object in the first place?!
@@saxonjedi5878 because it was pure hearsay
@@mjolnirsoul9214 sustained
it wasnt until he said that he hates that urban legend that i realized it was burglar not burger i was very confused
"Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to tell the truth" - lawyers
"You're going to find the many truths we cling to com from a certain point of view." - a dead Jedi.
No, idiot, that's a basic platitude or wisdom, unless you're too dumb to get it. Not everyone is "right" or having a true view or opinion etc... This is one of the most basic things there are.
@@bfkc111 You're the idiot. Perspective is everything.
In this case it does mean that. The curse Fletcher was hit with means he HAS to tell the Truth, "the pen is BLUE!!"
@@FerretJohn Actually, you're missing the point here. "Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to tell the truth" isn't said in this video as a loophole to be able to lie. It means that you don't have to say anything, and that's not lying.
An example from THE WEST WING - White House counsel asks the press secretary if she knows what time it is. She says 12:30 (or whatever). He then scolds her. Why? Even though that answer was truthful, she answered more than was need. A truthful answer to "Do you know what time it is?" would be "yes" or "no." End of statement.
In this movie's example, when the officer says "Do you know why I pulled you over?" he still could have answered, and answered truthfully: "Yes sir, I do." And if the officer then asks for more information, well, then it becomes a 5th Amendment issue. So, he can't lie, but he doesn't have to tell the truth, either.
Unless you're starting to dive into other aspects which may brush into the philosophical by saying remaining quiet is a "lie of omission," then you can still not tell the truth without lying.
Objection: You have no substantial proof that magic isn't real.
Overruled: magic is presumed innocent of existing until proven guilty.
*OBJECTION!* *you* have no proof it *does*
@@goosifyed9717 *OBJECTION* I DO!
@@EvelynGrace456 then why havent you presented it yet.
Objection: You can't prove a negative.
Objection: choosing not to speak when you have relevant information can be counted as a lie of omission. While legally this is perfectly within your rights, within the rules of the “no lying” curse this seems to be a form of lying and therefore one he can’t avoid. He has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Similarly, he could have said that he needed a continuance because he only recently got the case, but that’s not why he needs it. It would be a true reason for a continuance, but not the true reason he needs it. Despite the short time, he is prepared and ready to do the case now, however it is only his inability to lie that is withholding him from his legal duties, thereby the only truthful reason why he needs a continuance.
5th Amendment
And we have a right to remain silent
@@coppertopv365 But again, while he has a legal right to these things, the curse will not allow him to make these arguments. The curse need not follow the law.
You didn’t get anything they said did you.
OBJECTION! Within the world of the movie, the curse doesn't simply stop Jim Carrey's character from lying, it compels him to tell the truth when asked direct questions, therefore he was physically unable to remain silent when the cop pulled him over, and that shouldn't count against his skill as a lawyer because it's the basic premise of the movie.
correct, that is why he admits to being a bad parent
maidden, yeah it’s more of a “have to tell the truth” than a “can’t tell a lie” curse, isn’t it?
That can't be the rule of the curse. If that were the case, he could not answer "That is the perfect question for you to ask" when asked if he is ill. So the rules are more complex than you say.
@@Thalaranias The rules appear to be inconsistent to me. Then again, this is a movie that was designed with entertainment in mind and not an accurate portrayal of curses (real or fictional).
He confirms no after a small delay. As with the pen, while his answer may be slightly delayed he DOES answer truthfully. He is not compelled to immediately answer, but any time he tries to overtly delay or avoid stating the truth, the curse compells him. (Pen is blue)
Objection: A Lawyer cannot sustain or overrule an objection. We need a judge for that.
Sustained!
Overruled
@@Nuggetsupreme objection: you are not a judge, you cannot overrule either
objection: the lawyer in question is the grand poohbah of the Legal Eagle court
Objection: Well a judge is a lawyer first
As a legal secretary here in the UK, it made my heart very happy that you showed us some love!
For me, the thing that amazes me the most about lawyers is that they have to manipulate THE TRUTH in order to win a case. Lying would probably be the easiest way out and a lot of people have the idea that lawyers lie to win cases but in reality they just use true events and facts instead. Truly an incredible skill to have!
The phrase "it's not what's true, it's what you can prove in court." That phrase burns me. I hate that such is the way law works.
@@franciscocota6440 I'm probably not going to talk you out of this, but let me just offer a justification for it: In any civil dispute, the participants in that dispute know who's telling the truth: it's them, not the other side. Of course, both participants believe exactly the same thing, and they can't both be right (except, in rare cases, when they are). I would estimate that 90% of civil litigants do not intentionally lie about any aspect of their case. Don't get me wrong, some may be deeply fooling themselves or self-justifying, but intentionally lying is rarer than people think. (Obviously this is less likely to apply to criminal defendants, but that raises issues that I don't intend to really address here.)
So both participants *know* they're telling the truth. The law, on the other hand, has no idea which participant is telling the truth and has absolutely no scientific way to determine that. In the absence of certainty, we've come up with an alternative: Trials. Trials are intended to determine (1) what the facts actually are, and (2) how to apply the law to those facts. Usually, that is done by letting a jury, as the voice of society, hear the evidence and decide on the answers to those questions.
But how does the jury determine this? Do we just tell them anything anyone has ever said about the case, with no regard to what other motivations that person might have had, or whether they were under a duty not to lie? We quickly figured out that wouldn't really work - and if anything would reward wrongdoers that are more willing to create fake documents or make statements that are false. And as I said above, we can't just put the statements and documents into a truth-detecting machine and let it figure the answer out for us.
So the solution is that we created rules to determine how best to separate the evidentiary wheat from the chaff. Those rules aren't always perfect; because they have to apply to all proceedings, they sometimes exclude stuff they shouldn't or allow in stuff they shouldn't. But overall, they're designed to get as close as possible to "what's true" when the reality is there is simply no way to know for absolute certainty what's true. That's why the phrase "it's not what's true, it's what you can prove in court" is less accurate than "we'll never know what's true, but the closest we can come is to make someone prove it in court."
13:42
😊😊
❤y😊😢
He missed the joke where he scoffs at the judge being called honorable, then gestures to the stenographer not to write that down.
I spilled over water when that came out when I saw the movie hahahahahah I was not expecting that and still gets me
That’s a good name
I approve
2nd part I hope
That was my first thought. Cause if I saw that in the galley of a courtroom I'd be rolling on the floor.
@@rich0373
1ST Part I Hope
2ND Part I Hope
3RD Part I Hope
4TH Part I Hope
Liar Liar gets Lawyer Lawyered
I can't believe I missed that. I've corrected the thumbnail to rectify the omission.
LegalEagle - Oh man that’s so cool! Love your content, man!
Oh wow u beat me to this comment
One of the best parts of this movie is the way Fletcher's charisma digs his own grave. When we first meet Jennifer Tilly's character, she's extremely nervous about the concept of lying in court (as one should, given the situation). Fletcher is so good at convincing her she's the victim, she has a complete character transformation. He might have had a chance were it not for this monster of his own making.
Also, best legal advice ever, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSH*LE."
Dude...she was playing him. She manipulates men thats her ENTIRE character ffs. The entire reason they were in need of Fletcher was that the female lawyer and old man were not getting anywhere with her, so they brought in the young attractive man they had on a leash. She was never nervous, she was trying to get Fletcher to drool over her and the second he starts to fawn over her and feed her that shit story she lights up and wants the firm. Do you not remember the "its not true, is that a problem?" line she has BEFORE he "convinces" her with a story that she knows can get her everything she wants?
Be careful out there man, you are gonna get eaten alive.
16:06 Fletcher should have been able to argue his was having unexplained neurological difficulties that would render him unable to operate in court that date. Said difficulties could have definitely affected his ability to conceal his client's protected information. In a certain sense, this could almost be like he had a sudden case of Tourette's Syndrome or a similar disfunction. It would probably be good grounds for the case to be delayed as Reede could have had a stroke for all he knew.
Especially if he went to his doctor or the ER.
Kinda surprised we never saw your reaction to one of the best parts:
*"STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!"*
Pipe cat.
That would be effecting their job security.
That is the best line! We use that in our office even now.
Mine too
We did it boys. Crime is no more
I'm disappointed he didn't cover the scene where he screams at a client "Stop Breaking the Law!!"
I was waiting for that part!
Legal Eagle: Uh, yeah, that's good, sound, legal advice. If you don't want to go to face criminal charges, don't break the law. Yeah.
supermanlypunch
I know what scene that you're talking about, you're talking about the scene where Jim Carrey screams at his client over the phone "Stop Breaking the Law Asshole!!"
@@joshuasummers7440 I've quoted that scene so many times, it's amazing.
@@jimwormmaster interesting.
It seems to actually be pretty common for someone to assume that being unable to lie means that you must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at all times. As a gamer, I've noticed that it seems to come up quite often with the _zone of truth_ spell in _Dungeons & Dragons,_ even though the spell description explicitly states that an affected creature is not compelled to speak or answer any question, just that they cannot lie if they choose to speak.
Objection: to the point that he can just stay calm. I think the way it was played and applying some logic, I think he was so accustomed to tell lies that he just tries to lie even after the magic, and as he tries it almost out of habit or necessity by his behavioural nature, he ends up telling other true things! So, that's how Jim Carried that character, I propose...
My assumption was just that the curse takes a very broad definition of lying. Not only can he not lie directly, he also can't mislead, withhold information, ask a question if he knows the answer is going to be a lie, or, as it turns out, even deceive by remaining silent IE choosing not to speak when he has relevant information. Truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth.
@@billyweed835 I agree. Not volunteering information can be considered a form of lying by omission. So it would still be considered lying under the curse.
Defense "He's badgering the witness !"
Judge "It's his witness."
NTA his witness his rules
As Ron White says “I have the right to remain silent, I didn’t have the ability “.
I was drunk in a bar. They threw me into public. Also Ron White a.k.a. Tater Salad
“I don’t wanna be drunk out her I wanna be drunk in the bar, arrest them”
Shrek said something like that to Donkey too. "Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent, what you lack is the capacity."
I have to admit, I was more interested in you reacting to the movie's silliness than I was in learning about how accurate it was in a legal sense.
Objection: Lawyers RARELY get disbarred or penalized for lying.
Objection: It is established that Fletcher Reed cannot lie, even by omission. I would like to highlight, "even by omission". It is unfair to assert that he "should not talk to the police" because he, as is consistent with the rest of the film, needs to speak the truth when spoken to for any reason.
Agreed. Objection. Fletcher is not only incapable of lying, it's apparent he is compelled to tell the truth. It would be impossible for him to not talk to the police officer pulling him over.
we'll allow it
I agree. He is clearly forced to do some of the things he says against his will. "The pen is red" is prime example, because clearly if it was just to not lie, he would have been only been unable to say or write red and that would be the end of it. However every time he attempted to lie, he wasn't just stopped in his tracks, he was forced to reverse and speak the truth of the thing he was going to lie about. Hence every time he tried to say red, blue was what came out, instead of nothing at all. Not only is he forced to not omit the truth when asked, any lie attempt will result in him being forced to tell the true version of it instead.
I'll have to overrule it; Carrey's invoking artistic license, as such a curse would compel you to speak your MIND (as opposed to the truth - two different things).
@@lakodamon are you actually arguing that this curse exists in real life? if the curse is made up by the movie, then the movie can tell us how it works...
Objection. Curses in fiction are rarely fair, and _never_ kind enough to let the cursed individual choose how to _interpret_ that curse. The curse almost certainly applied to _all_ forms of lying, no matter how ambiguous, including _lies of omission._
As such, it is probable that he was not only unable to make false statements, but was compelled to _reveal_ any truth that crossed his mind, provided he _desired to conceal it._
He also couldn't ask questions if he knew it prompted a lie. Basically he can't engage in deception of any kind. Fletcher refers to this outside the courtroom when speaking with his adulteress client.
At one point it turns out he can't even ask a question if he knows the answer is going to be a lie. Silence wasn't an option, the curse forced him to tell the truth
Too long, didn't read. Thus overruled!
“Honey, these weren’t lies. They were just creative ways of talking about the facts as they exist”
Thanks, LegalEagle. 👌
🤣🤣🤣🤣 the sueing the kid for slander at the beginning killed me
This is one of my favourite channels right now, great episode!
Boyinaband how in the heck does a 2 million sub youtuber get buried with 4 upvotes?!
Also @boyinaband collab?
Probably cause 4 hours btw love your don't go to school song it's my fave
bro your stuff is dope! I almost grew my hair as long as yours until cutting it in December
Boyinaband, I never thought I'd run into you here! :) It's good to see you around~.
One of the very few reaction channels thats actually entertaining and educational. who woulda thunk
Did you hear about the Glasgow lawyer that got stopped by the police. The officer said 'you were doing 100 in a 40 zone', the lawyer says 'you'd do a hundred if you had 50 kilos of heroin under your backseat'. The officer is shocked and stammers, 'You can't put heroin under the backseat of your car' and the lawyer replies. 'that's exactly what my wife said, so I had to shoot her and throw the body in the boot, do you want to see the gun, it's in the glove compartment?'. The officer runs back to his car and radios for armed response, helicopters the whole works. An armed officer approaches the vehicle, "Sir, exit the car and place your hands on the vehicle''. The lawyer complies. The policeman opens the glove compartment and it's empty. He then orders the suspect to give him his car keys and opens the boot and that's empty as well. He checks under the back seat, nothing. Puzzled he says to the lawyer still standing with his hands pressed to the car, 'I'm sorry sir, our officer told us you were an armed drug dealer with a corpse in the boot." "Really?," says the lawyer, " and I bet the lying bastard says I was speeding as well."
I know it's an old joke. Good one though.
10/10 man, great joke.
I bet that'd work too... as long as the officer wasn't recording.
atthebridge that reminds me of another joke
A New York City lawyer type buys a new super fast car. He then starts speeding through a little town and slows at a stop sign, then speeds away! A cop sees him not stop at the sign and begins chasing him, pulling him over shortly the cop asks “sir you didn’t stop at the stop sign” lawyer smiles and replies “if you can show me the difference between slow down and stop? I’ll pay the ticket and pay you 1,000$” cop asks the lawyer to step out the car... cop starts hitting the lawyer with jumper cables then stops and asks the lawyer “would you like me to slow down or stop?”
In this day and age, the officer would just shoot the lawyer on the spot. lol
Edit: Least in America anyway. :D
@@wdf70 only if the lawyer was black
I REQUEST A CONTINUANCE! Your honor, I need to go to work and thus have a schedule conflict that prevents me from watching part 2!
What I don't understand (from a real life perspective) is why he couldn't ask for a continuance based on medical emergency. He had no idea what was happening, why he suddenly couldn't talk in certain situations, and a brain tumor isn't just a possibility but outright likely (sudden stutter and speech problems is a huge indicator). At the very least Fletcher should have been a lot more concerned about his own health here. Not much good making partner if you don't survive to enjoy it.
there's a couple of factors here. first, admitting this is a significant new condition for him, a crippling condition, is an admission that he lies all the time normally. Nominally being unable to lie shouldn't interfere with his duties. even if we all know that everybody lies, we are all supposed to be keeping up appearances. nobody is supposed to admit they are dishonest, that ironically honest admission is subversive. second, while i guess it could be a tumor, in practice it's going to come across as mental illness, which there's a stigma against. In fact, since it doesn't even sound like a real mental illness (because it isn't one, it's a curse) it's not going to have the social acceptance of a "real" mental illness and likely will come across as malingering. if he says in effect "your honor, i need a medical continuance because i've gone insane and cannot lie any more" that's not going to go well for him.
@@scottmatheson3346 While the issue of stigma is valid, what he's experiencing is a compulsion which is a symptom of many particular mental illnesses. What he SHOULD do is get a medical diagnosis from a doctor ASAP, and a competent doctor would 100% validate the condition because the level of compulsion he experiences is clearly problematic.
@@dreamcanvas5321I concur.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" = "care to incriminate yourself?"
Or given a chance to. Confess and get off with a warning or. Nothing
Wrong Answers to "Do you know why I pulled you over?":
You want to race me?
You're lonely?
You need directions?
To compliment me on my driving skills?
You have a quota?
@@disorganizedorg even if the last one is probably true 😂
"You owe me $20 and you stopped me to pay me back?"
"You want my autograph?"
@brian michaud I just said no the last two times, once time I did get a warning because I sneezed and a cop drove past.. I normally speed on that road however I told a white lie and said that I must have stepped on the gas pedal a little bit too much when I was sneezing.. the guy letme off with a warning cause while he was asking me what happened I had a sneezing fit. since I was driving home to get medicine he let me go
Best line in the movie: "I HOLD MYSELF IN CONTEMPT!" Always makes me laugh lol.
“I changed lanes without signaling while running a red light and SPEEEEDIIIING!!!”
“I’m kicking my ass DOO YA MINDEH?!”
Nope! The best lines are when he's beating himself up in the restroom and the guy walks in on him, "I'm beating the crap out of myself, DO YA MIND?"
Honestly I always read that line as sad, maybe that’s just me though
I don’t know… I think “because it’s devastating to my case!” In response to the judge questioning his objection is a good contender too ;)
I binged your channel's content and got myself a nebula subscription. Well done mate! Takk skal du ha!
Send me $10 a lawyer doesn't need it
@@wildlifewarrior2670 how have you entertained me?
@@alphaque9933 don't know
@@wildlifewarrior2670 till then, my ain't going your way
@@alphaque9933 are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!? Is this not why you are here? Is this not what you want?
Objection: in Australia trespassers are able to sue the landowner if they are injured on the property. There have been several cases where home invasions have happened and the home owners have defended themselves or the invader has simply injured themselves and the home owner has been fined or even jailed.
That's because my country sucks.
Yet another reason to avoid living in Australia
Or avoid getting caught lol
Nope! Not for home invaders or people who have illegally entered the property. There is no duty of care in Australia for these trespassers. It's more for trades people or friends/family/visitors who have injured themselves on the property.
While it depends on the jurisdiction, that is not the case in Western Australia following the occupiers liability act. If someone enters a property with an intention of committing a crime (which trespassing is) then the occupier owes them a duty of care to not intentionally set traps for them. They owe them no duty of care beyound that. So if a home invader trips on a staircase, the occupier didn’t owe them a duty of care. But if the occupier purposively set up a trap, like a hidden pit fall, then yeah the trespasser has grounds to sue them.
So for the example of a robber falling through a faulty skylight, the occupier of a house has no duty of care towards the robber to ensure the skylight is compliant with safety standards.
12:00 - The time when you realize Legal Eagle and Fletcher have THE EXACT SAME HAIRSTYLE
They were almost dressed exactly alike, too. I wonder...
@@feralcyborggaming1531 You wonder if Fletcher also uses Indochino?
Lol I was there at 1.30 when he was on the steps!
@@feralcyborggaming1531 not at all...
Its mandatory for Lawyers that aren't bald or wearing their hair in a ponytail hahaha
I love the legal secretary in this film. I used to work with an EA who was the lifeblood of our office. She did all her regular duties AND much more. I saw her gently remind executives of anniversaries, wife and children's birthdays and more. She was amazing.
Legal secretaries do that and more. Keeping court calendars, filing of court documents if the firm is litigation, ordering supplies, deposition setups, organizing exhibits as well as filing, xeroxing, notarizing, and typing of legal documents.
@@IMeMineWho Covering up children out of wedlock, arranging bribe payments...
@@ryanonvr2267hiding the occasional body…
Awwww, you changed the thumbnail from “Lawyered Lawyered” to just “Lawyered”! 😭😭😭 the pun was so perfect!!
Wow! Since I know this channel I never thought he would make a video about this movie, I'm happily surprised!
“I object your honor!!”
“To yourself?”
I HOLD MYSELF IN CONTEMPT!!!
lmfao
Oh, I object to myself all the time. It usually gets ignored though.
@@LadyOnikara sustained
@@missamieholly2313 why should you be any different
I'm not dirt poor... ...I'm Judgement Proof - you can't sue me, I'm below the law!
I got rear-ended at a red light, absolutely destroyed my car. The person in the other car said "Well, I thought you were gonna run the red light." They didn't have insurance either. Took it to small claims court, and they never showed up. The judge ruled in my favor and I got a settlement of $3000 to replace my car... which I never received because the other person refused to pay it and there was nothing that could be done about it. Couldn't even take it to a collections agency since it was "too low of an amount" for them to do anything about it, even thought that was several months worth of my salary at the time.
TL;DR: I spent a bunch of money in court fees to win a case and get nothing.
Hahaha!
I'm below the law!
@@TFVids I feel really bad for you, man
Is your profile image Bonanza star Lorne Greene?
@@darkartsdabbler2407 Yep, in his Battlestar days.
Even the first time I watched this, I was confused that he didn't say "I just got the case last night and have not had sufficient time to become familiar with it as a result" when asking for a continuance.
Pretty much any judge would have agreed.
Right! Even with how the curse causes compulsive truth telling, the fact that he fails to pull such a simple answer means that he was simply a bad lawyer who relied on lying.
He could not say that he needed a continuance because of the short time he had the case as that would be a lie. He knew he was ready for the case in that short amount of time. It was because he could not lie that he needed the continuance.
You mean all three quarters in his piggy bank, you monster!😂 1:24
Can you do a lawyer react to "To Kill a Mockingbird?" I'd love to see how accurate that movie is in terms of the law too.
I want this too!
I love that movie and book😍😍
But not 100% of that movie or book is going to be accurate through the eyes of this lawyer. I will look forward to seeing that.
Oooh hell yeah!!! Great suggestion!
Just thinking that!
Daredevil. The Netflix show obviously not the movie lmao
Oh my god yesss😄
the Ben Affleck Movie
HEEEELLLL NOOOOO!
well, just the "court room scenes" at lease, and his "Justice is blind" argument
Make sure to get some Affleck daredevil too
Objection: if you read the plot on websites, it usually says that Fletcher finds himself, “Forced to speak the truth.” So unless, at the last minute of being asked a question, he comes up with another question to ask as an answer, he will speak his truth.
14:57 - lmao this little scene is comedic gold.
OBJECTION: You speculating that Jim Carrey's character doesn't have a load of cocaine in the trunk of his car. He may well be trying to avoid a car search
Normally you would have a point. However, if he did have cocaine in his car, the curse would have forced him to volunteer that information.
You can't speculate that something didn't happen. Burden of proof lands on the accuser.
@@Thrifty032781 But the police officer asked him ¨Do you know why I pulled you over?¨ it does not make sense that he thought it was due to the cocaine in the trunk unless the officer was Superman with X-Ray vision.
As I recall, he gets arrested and his car gets impounded. Do you think that his car wasn't searched?
@@georgeberry1959 sure you can, there is this thing called probable cause.... think awhile and figure out what it is ...
I just realized you’re cosplaying as Jim Carrey’s character
The tie doesn't really match, tho... >:-]
Doesn’t he usually dress up like tho?
Xp Level Googolplex wooosh
Jish redditors when they wooosh a normie 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Almost all the lawyers in TV and movies have his same haircut
About the traffic stop, I believe the assumption is that he cannot lie by omission. So not only can he not tell an untruth, he's also incable of withholding truth.
It sort of happened where I live. A burglar of a bicycle shop had a flashlight in his mouth and fell head first and jammed the flashlight into his throat, killing himself. Of course, the burglars family didn't sue for wrongful death.
"So what I told you was true. From a certain point of view." ---- Obi-Wan Kenobi
Oh yea amen on this statement.
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
Subjection your honor
lance turley I will do what I must
"From a certain point of viewwwww" -also yoda
Q: What do you get when you cross a liar with an alligator?
A: A litigator.
*rimshot*
Then what are therapists?
@@hunnybadger442 overpaid
@@williampetersen9915 break it down..
@@hunnybadger442 That was broken down.
I think the reason he can’t shut up is because it doesn’t just compel him to tell the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I love that the eagles first reaction to workplace harassment is to put both hands up to show they're completely visible like "I didn't ask for this"
Have you ever thought of giving "To Kill A Mockingbird" a shot?
OMG YESSS!!!
Absolutely yes please.
Such a good movie
I did, and it worked. The birdy is dead now
Yes!!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Objection: The child made the wish and if the wish follows what that child believes... then what is taught in school is that omittance of said truth when the truth is known might be considered a lie, thus forcing Flecher to always tell the "whole truth".
I agree!
And nothing but
The argument could also be made that Fletcher's own interpretation of what constitutes a lie helped to mold his oversharing of the truth. Since he prides himself as being essentially a professional liar, that would mean he would also have to have an overly acute sense of what constitutes the whole truth versus a manipulative lie. His ability to contort the truth to suit his needs could've helped shape the truth as he presented it.
As an accomplished liar, details would be key for him in every lie. It would be similar to painting a life portrait of a forest scene, small details make the whole painting come alive. Well, in a person like Fletcher, translating those details over to telling the truth versus lying would mean you would be oversharing information based simply on established habits. It would be a compulsion at that point.
The whole truth, only the truth, nothing but the truth !
Objection: he's magically compelled to tell the truth.
Question: In this divorce case can the husband use the "Alienation of Affection" law to sue the lovers the wife had affairs with?
No just the wife
The way the magic truth spell seems to work is on the basis that omission counts as deception. Even though he knew to keep his mouth shut, he was seemingly compelled to speak.
This is why kids shouldn't do magic. They don't understand nuance.
Well, the movie isn't called "Deceiver Deceiver", now is it?
IT WASS MMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Lawyer: *breathes slightly wrong*
California State Bar: DISBARRED
Sustained
Sweet home Alabama
Minish Princess
CA lawyers will just let their client lie his ass off in court because hey, I’M not lying your honor!
@@sarahk2722 Would counsel please come to the stand?
19:24
"The Constitution says you do
And so do I"
OBJECTION: the "burglar falling through a skylight and suing the owner" thing *did* actually happen - but it wasn't at a house, it was at a school. Bodine v. Enterprise High School was the case name and the school's insurance settled out of court for $260,000.
This resulted in a change in California law in 1985 barring such lawsuits brought by someone who was injured during the commission of a felony while trespassing.
Silly American law . These kinds of law suits will be simply laughed off in India
Also, Katko v. Britney (Iowa 1971). The homeowners had set up a spring gun trap to injure anyone who broke into their house. They were found liable for battery for injuries caused to a trespasser. It seems that the argument is that traps are illegal so I have to assume the argument that would have been made in that situation is that the knife was placed in such a way that if someone were to break into the house they would somehow have to be injured making the knife a trap of some sort. So it seems that it would be possible (in Iowa) but very unlikely for the case to go that way.😊
@@jonstewart5525 The domicile was unoccupied at the time and the trap was lethal; the court ruled it was an unjustified, malicious, use of deadly force.
@@jonstewart5525 No, the reason traps like that are illegal is because they are (1) indiscriminate, say a fire got started in the house, and a firefighter triggered it despite having a legal reason to be there... and (2) disproportionate force...while you can use deadly force to defend your life or the life of others, you generally cannot to merely defend property. The reason WHY you could use deadly force if a burglar breaks into your home while you're home is because you'd have reasonable fear that they could kill you, though there can be exceptions even then.
Like, if they see you with a gun and immediately raise their hands to surrender / make no additional threat, then it'd be at least 2nd degree murder for you to go ahead and shoot them anyways, despite the fact that you could have legally shot them just a moment earlier.
This is because, Constitutionally, cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed...and taking someone's life for ONLY property theft/damage violates that.
Objection, regarding the “burglar falling through roof” case.
While the story in its modern iteration is absolutely fictitious, based on a misunderstanding of law in the State of California, and only used to push for tort reform, _Bodine v. Enterprise High School_ was an actual case in 1984.
The backstory is that in March 1982, 18-year-old Ricky Bodine and some friends tried to steal a floodlight from the roof of a nearby high school. Bodine climbed onto the roof, unbolted a light and lowered it down, then walked towards the other side of the roof, falling into a painted-over skylight and sustaining severe trauma, rendering him a spastic quadriplegic. While in a coma after the event, his parents sued the school and school district for negligence of duty of care.
In many common law jurisdictions, trespassers are not owed duty of care, meaning that property owners are not required to inform trespassers of dangers on their property and are not liable for injuries or deaths that are sustained by trespassers, while they are for invitees and, to a lesser extent, licensees.
However, in the State of California, the law as written in Civil Code §1714a (and reiterated by _Rowland v. Christian_ in 1968) states that:
“Everyone is responsible, not only for the results of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”;
where this “another” is not assumed to be a licensee, invitee, or trespasser, meaning that Californians have a general duty of care for all people who may be on their property, legally or otherwise.
Therefore, as Bodine did not wilfully injure himself, nor was he negligent in his conduct - as the skylights were painted the same colour as the roof and unmarked, he could not see them and in turn avoid them as weak spots; he could only reasonably assume that the building was up to code and that the roof was everywhere stable enough to support the weight of a person - the high school would have probably been found liable if the case hadn’t been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, having reached a settlement between the Bodine family and the school district’s insurance company a month later.
I should also note that things have changed somewhat since then, with the 1985 addition of §847 to the Civil Code, which states that property owners are not liable for injuries sustained when the injured had committed one of a number of felonies, including burglary, though not including trespass (which is usually a misdemeanour in California anyway).
Alex Trickier the fact that this didn’t get an actual reply is absurd
id like to add to this that one of my best friends grand parents had someone fall through a sky light breaking into their home, he sued them and won.
In addition, a later video on this channel "The Shotgun Booby Trap" reviews a similar situation where the trespasser/robber wins the suit against the homeowners as well.
@@jenniferhof9448 However in that case the home owners set a trap that would have hurt anyone including people in the house for lawful reasons. For example if the house had been on fire and first responders arrived to search the house, this is largely why "spring guns" or "booby traps" are illegal. Also almost universally in the United States you can only use lethal force to protect life and great danger to property. Think of it like if someone is pouring gasoline on your house in preparation to burn it down or if someone was attempting to steal or defame the Mona Lisa. Those would be instances of using lethal force to defend property would be lawful, however someone who is burglarizing an unoccupied house is neither endangering life or great danger to property. The case of the booby-trap is also different because the home owner willfully set a trap knowing that if triggered would cause great injury or death. The premise of the "Bodine v. Enterprise High School" is that through a level of negligence they caused the injury of someone.
Objection: Ricky was negligent enough to ignore the fact that climbing on the roof is a dangerous, bad idea if you're just some kid, not a construction-worker or something. Ergo, he brought that on himself.
The wish was more thorough than it was initially presented. Not only could Reed not tell a lie, he was also compelled to always tell the truth, thus preventing even "lies of omission". Otherwise he could have said nothing when leaving the elevator, simply answered "yes" and nothing else to the police officer that pulled him over, or even answered "no" because he couldn't have known _specifically_ why the officer pulled him over.
the wish was intended to ensure that he couldn't 'lawyer' his way out of things. lies of ommission etc are all part of the original complaint.
I believe the way the magic worked in this movie was that not only could he not lie, he also was unable to keep silent. He had to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He has to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter.
Objection! You won't read this after 2 years.
😅
OBJECTION: There was not enough usage of "The Claw"!
"Tell the truth" tends to = stream of consciousness in movies for the funnies.
I think, based on the evidence of the film, he's also required to truthfully answer questions directed towards him, which includes avoiding lies of omission. So yeh he basically has no filter as long as what he's thinking is objectively true.
Wat?
@@deefarmah2411 basically your "filter" is a social lie. For example: when the judge walked in Jim laughs. This is likely because he thinks of the judge as a joke, so presenting a calm and respected demeanor would effectively be a lie.
A poker face if you will
And so acting in any way so as to disguise your true thoughts or feelings would be a lie
It's not just he can't lie, he's compulsively truth telling.
I object: Exercising your right to remain silent can never be construed as "probable cause".
Objection, your Honor! "One of the funniest legal movies of all time" is a subjective statement and betrays the claim to review the piece as an impartial party for legal legitimacy.
I object to your objection!
Mr. Stone is not reviewing the movie's funniness, but its legal accuracy, which are completely separate categories and are able to be judged independently.
@@redforest9269 Sustained
OBJECTION!!! I JUST POOPED MYSELF
@@noahrose9647 I will hold you in contempt of court.
@@cheesecakelasagna Your honor. The defense shall state his opinion on this matter. I crapped again
“You’ve been here before haven’t you” Never noticed the humor in that line before this vid.
@Axel Smith He is implying that he has taken him to court before and those exact events happened as told.
18:40, Objection:I don’t think the wish allows for refusals to answer
Objection: You did not specify your argument in the form of an objection.
@@M4A1BestGirl Sustained. I will edit the comment to comply.
i like the towyard guy, you've been here before havent you. 🤣🤣 love this movie, fun seeing it disscussed by a real lawyer.
Objection, this movie would have sucked if he behaved like a true lawyer.
The movie did kind of suck
Damien Leigh 😧
@@ThatWasPrettyFunny If by gold you mean piss, then sure.
@@damienleigh9943
Heresy of the highest order sir. You should be ashamed of yourself for not loving this movie
@@damienleigh9943 that not how you make friend dude.
When he first tried to talk when he found out he couldn't lie, I expected everyone around to think he was having a stroke. Nobody said anything. Even as a kid I thought it was so weird. He looked like he was dying and they just kinda nod along while he can't speak.
It's over exaggerated for comedic purposes. Kinda Jim Carrey's thing.
That’s why I’m the bloopers, one of the actresses were dared to yell: “over actor” during the court scene which you can view at the end of the movie.
But seriously, the entire movie Carrey is acting erratically! Most people, upon seeing his behavior, would call the cops or an ambulance. Maybe both! It bugged me during the whole movie that nobody thought there was something wrong, especially in the courtroom.
Education on stroke symptoms in the general public was pretty poor then, honestly. The big PSA campaigns about it came years after this movie.
Even disregarding the stroke thing, I'd be skeptical about retaining an attorney that behaves so erratically, and I'd be sending them for a full medical workup including a tox screen.
Objection your lawyer, I believe the movie makers are looking at a lie of omission, this means you knew stuff but didn't say so that might be the situation here
How bout doing a show on the movie "Disclosure," Copyright 1994, groundbreaking at the time, with Michael Douglas, Demi Moore--talking about "these matters."
...including Donald Sutherland, Tom Skerritt, and Elliott Gould, with Sally Kellerman, Robert Duvall, Rene Auberjonois, Gary Bughoff, Roger Fowne, Michael Murphy...
So many characters, so many legal issues!
Objection: You should have a Begal next to you, and he should be the Legal Beagle.
SenatorCornelius Stern But Fair
Leagle eagle beagle
I withdraw my objection. He does indeed have a Legal Beagle. her name is Stella
What of the Reagle Beagle then?
SenatorCornelius Stern But Fair no. Fur lock bones
Legal beagle retrieval?
If I finish watching all your videos, does that legally make me a lawyer? I’m going to say yes.
Sorry. Objection:*
@@bdollhall100 LMAO
OBJECTION....
We need to hold a party for ous lawyers...
bdollhawley overruled
@@daltonnance2126
*HOLD IT*...
I wanted just to Scream that, carry on..
"is that even consensual?" well usually, if you have to ask.... LMAO
sadly these days there's more than a few lawyers out there being completely dishonest and dragging down their whole profession
Point of order (I hope I'm using that term correctly): Fletcher Reed is not only incapable of lying, he's incapable of lying according to a young child's definition of lying. I believe that, if we were to carefully study earlier scenes where Fletcher attempts to explain to his child why he "has to lie", we would see the child at least appearing uncomfortable with the idea of equivocating, creative truth-telling and lies of omission. Therefore, Fletcher not only can't lie, he is incapable of saying anything other than the (or an) objective truth when asked a direct question.
To reiterate for the lie through omission, Fletcher is not able keep his silence when asked a question and must answer to the best of his ability. I'm not sure how much they keep to that through-out the movie though, it has been a while since I've seen it.
I 100% agree with your point. However you in fact ARE using the wrong terminology. "Point of order" is used in parliamentary procedure (ie during a meeting of Congress), while an "objection" would be used in legal courtroom. Both mean the same thing, that a rule has been violated. But if you were to be in either situation and use the wrong phrase, you'd be seen as a complete rube.
He has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as per his profession's diction for the courtroom.
@@vaullus6074
Actually, as funny as it may be, during the beginning and middle he couldn't lie whatsoever and seemed compelled to the direct truth. Later on, he seems to find ways around not having to answer directly like when he kicks his own ass in the bathroom. Judge asked him "who" did this and proceeds to describe himself in a third person round about way as opposed to just yelling "I DID YOUR HONOR".
Now, if he did this throughout the movie, there'd be no movie and it wouldn't be funny but it's worth noting the inconsistency lol
All right, although I didn't feel all that strongly about it, I'll state it as an objection. Specifically, I would voice said objection at 16:46, 19:10 and 26:48.
Objection! Speculation.
The concept of lying in the movie includes lies by omission.
Is a Lie By Omission a legal term? Now I want to hear him talk about that.
Jascha Bull I think it must - when someone is sworn in and they say “the truth, the whole truth...” I’d reckon that’s the part where it comes into play.
I’d also like to hear him talk about that!
Yes, he couldn’t say he wants a continuance because he’s only been on the case for a couple of days because that’s not the true reason he wants a continuance. When asked to state his reason, he is compelled to give the truth - he wants to stop because he can’t lie.
Maybe the rules have to deal with intention to lie? So like he has to tell the truth (as the kids says) anytime he has the intention to lie?
His reaction to that girl kissing Fletcher on 11:05 is the Best😂
Don't know if it's already been mentioned, but my understanding is the skylight is a synthesis of a case where a kid trespassed on the roof of a school to get a ball, and fell through a skylight which had been covered with tar as to be effectively a potentially deadly trap or unsafe working condition. Not cut and dry at all.
Indeed a big part of trespassing is the motive if they knew they were trespassing, and if it was reasonable for them to understand the danger.
Objection: Near the end of the film, Jim Carrey's character says that not only does the curse prevent him from lying outright, but that he "can't do anything dishonest," period. This would presumably include lies of omission, hence why Fletcher is unable to stay quiet when the cop questions him. Furthermore, the director's commentary clarifies that Fletcher's curse is like a sort of word vomit, where he is forcibly compelled to tell the truth at all times. He is literally unable to stop himself from telling the truth when someone questions him on anything, hence why we see him trying to prevent himself from hearing his secretary's question once he realizes he doesn't want to answer it.
My only objection is. We’re objecting about his commentary on the movie. Not what happened with production. So your story about the director is irrelevant
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 Objection: It's not irrelevant, because the director is clarifying how the curse works. It isn't just a production story, it's in service of the plot of the movie.
@@GamingintheAM0801 sustained. My bad
I'm honestly surprised he missed that
I'm
"Hey what's your problem buddy?"
"IM AN INCONSIDERATE PRICK!"
Lmao that's the best part. Not sure when it is, but I'll never forget it.
It happened before he got pulled over by the motorcycle cop, he cut off the van driver.
I'm kicking my ass
"I'd have got him 10." Is my favorite.
at 25m00s or so . . . "you can agree or disagree with tort reform". What a refreshingly calm approach in an era of cacophony, insult, and ad-hominem argument. Well said.
Objection: in CA, the duty of care in re: premises liability is minimally different between invitees, licensees, and trespassers, unlike Virginia where those distinctions are more meaningful.
An issue with this film is that the claim is that "he can't lie", but the reality is that "he must spill the beans". It is proven that he will say anything that is true when asked; regardless if he wants to answer or not, or possibly if he even knows the truth. - As you said, giving a different truth is possible, and a very obvious general true answer is "I don't want to answer". The character in this film should be experienced in this, and this inability to lie should not hinder him that much.
I've been considering this, and I think it's mostly reasonable. He's extremely arrogant and used to talking through every obstacle. He's unaware of the curse, and it's just the first few days. He'd adapt eventually but not yet.
@@bjacobcampbell9578 Fair point then. Still feels like this is such a big thing that he would change his behaviour. He might blurt out one thing, but he should keep it quiet after that.
Unless his silence would fall under "lie of omission", compelling him to verbalize truth (exactly as he understands it) when asked.
Exactly it's not that he just can't lie he immediately says anything that comes to his mind in most cases as well
Wikipedia says this "he is unable to lie, mislead, or even withhold a true answer (lie by omission)". Which means that he can't just stay silent or avoid the question.
Today I learned that, contrary to popular belief, lawyers actually do have a code of ethics and cannot just willfully lie in court..
I mean, ofc..
Why would they be allowed to lie in court. I’m not an attorney (yet) but I think that’s grounds for a mistrial
Wouldn't some lawyers twist the truth and make a lie that most people could believe?
@@thestruggler7926 I actually think the lawyers use the facts of the case to provide the best defense possible. And they may fabricate a little
I thought it was like the rule that companies can't lie on packaging, like technically it's right but it's so full of loopholes that as long as they don't say something completely ridiculous like it cures cancer they can do what they like
Objection: When you explained "judgement proof", does that also pertain to traffic court, or is it for civil court only? Btw love the channel and your thorough explainations of all the legal media we see.
you every now and then start to like a YT channel and watch it on binge for hours - this one is my current one.
The concept for this channel is brilliant and the execution is perfect. Well done!
As Ron White says “I have the right to remain silent, I didn’t have the ability “.
There is definitely a sense in the movie that the 'curse' to tell the truth goes beyond 'he can't lie' but that he has a compulsion to reveal truth.
OBJECTION! If Fletcher has so many unpaid parking tickets there would probably be a warrant out for his arrest
Objection: forceing an individual to only speak in one way (objections) is a violation of human rights.