LegalEagle

Wow, I haven't watched the video yet, but if that's what actually happened on the stand, it's brilliant.

Although... it feels a bit like a Chewbacca Defense in the sense that if the claim of cheating is untrue, then it is possible for it to be defamatory. The officer knowing it's untrue is foundational to the case. Sounds like their attorneys weren't on the ball.

A tells people that my wife cheats on me. If I know that to be true, then I have no defamation case. If I know that to be untrue, and A also knows it to be untrue, then I do have a potential defamation case, assuming the other requirements are met. That's the literal definition of the tort.

"You can't know for sure that your wife wasn't cheating on you," is a hell of a way to blow up a case... that's all I'm saying.

The point that everybody knew it was a joke, even if mean-spirited, is of course reasonable. And if that's what Afroman's attorney was trying to prove, it clearly worked.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 21st 2026 at 11:22:00 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

For it to be defamatory, especially against a public figure like a sheriff's deputy, they had to prove that Afroman was making the claims with actual malice, prove that it was being said as a factual statement, and somehow prove actual reputational damage; whether or not the statements hurt their feefees is completely immaterial. Unfortunately for them, Afroman and his lawyer hammered in the fact that rap, as a genre, heavily relies on satire, parody, and exaggeration, which is all protected as free speech under the First Amendment. When one of the deputies' ex-wife was on the witness stand, Afroman's lawyer used Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion's "WAP" and Lil Wayne's "Pussy Monster" as examples alongside Afroman's own "Lemon Pound Cake," where she testified that her own students played those songs and knew that none of those songs were meant to be taken as fact, meaning that kids knew that Lemon Pound Cake wasn't actually a statement of fact, but was indeed just parody.

As far as the "We all know [[your wife cheating on you]] isn't true, correct?" question goes, that line of questioning certainly wasn't going to be a gotcha moment where if Walters answered "Yes" to the question the entire case completely falls apart in dramatic fashion like in the movies, but it certainly helped sway the jury in Afroman's favor. In a way, Walters was trapped by that question: if Afroman was being truthful and that he really did have sex with Walters' wife, then they have no defamation case, because it's true. But if they know it to be false, then they still have no defamation case, because no reasonable person would believe the Because I Got High guy wearing a ridiculous American flag suit and shades and humping the air actually did have sex with his wife. You don't believe everything you see on the Internet, that's just a reasonable person's approach to real life which, incidentally, is also something Afroman's lawyer got Officer Pound Cake to admit. Person A telling people that your wife is cheating on you, a private citizen, is a completely different standard from the funny weed guy saying it in a comedy music video about a public figure.

But yes, the entire trial was like that. They even made the deputies themselves watch the music videos in full during testimonies.

Edited by ITNW1989 on Mar 21st 2026 at 8:55:51 AM

Hitokiri in the streets, daishouri in the sheets.

Yes, I’ve watched the video now. Mockery for the purpose of entertainment is explicitly protected under the Constitution, and that’s really the core of this case.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Honestly, the clips shown by Legal Eagle doesn't really convey the hilarious Curb-Stomp Battle that was Osborne's, Afroman's lawyer, cross examinations of the deputies. Probably the first time I've actually watched multiple testimonies in full.

Another gaffe that didn't get shown since it wasn't particularly pertinent to the case itself was the plaintiff's lawyer fucking up the number one rule of cross examining a witness: NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer to. His literal first question to the ex-wife was "You never sought a protective order against your ex-husband, did you?" to which she immediately answered "Yes I did, when we got divorced. I got a restraining order." followed by an awkward silence punctuated by shuffled papers.

Yep, that was the entire argument both Osborne and Afroman made sure to hammer home the entire trial. Afroman's own testimony on the stand was pure masterclass. Ran circles around the plaintiffs' lawyer trying to gotcha him, too.

Hitokiri in the streets, daishouri in the sheets.

This will likely be great fodder for comedians pushing an anti profiling message.

"If you ever considered someone suspicious just because of his melanin content, you might just be a bigot, and an idiot on par with the two cops that sued Afroman at that"

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Mar 22nd 2026 at 11:22:55 AM

Reacting to The Pitt. We can also talk around the stuff involving ICE as that's US Politics.

Burning love!

I havent watched The Pitt (dont have the streaming site), but there is one Youtube shorts that I found very memorable.

Basically, a very serious patient refuses treatment because she is afraid that missing work (even for a completely reasonable and valid reason) will get fired.

So when the awful boss actually call and threaten to fire her, the doctor takes the phone and basically says:

"...I'm the chief of emergency medicine of PTMC, If you fire her, she will sue you and I will testify on her behalf."

Oh, and apparently Legal Eagle already did a video on The Pitt a while ago.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.

That vid was on the legal battle between the creators of The Pitt and the estate of Michael Crichton (ER).

Burning love!

Devin discusses the Michael Jackson biopic.

Edited by terumokou on May 14th 2026 at 12:43:38 PM

Burning love!

The video itself is interesting, but I have to admit seeing the sponsor is an AI training course felt jarring.

I feel like Devin's awful pivots to sponsors is pretty much a meme at this point, but him going "man, the Michael Jackson lawyers didn't look at their contracts well enough. They really should've used AI to review their contracts!" was such an insane pivot that I didn't really understand what the ad even was really for.

... the comments really do take him to task for coming across as an AI shill. I don't even think the product is that bad, but it was fascinating.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

To be fair, Devin has made his stance on AI as a tool clear in the past - That he does think there could be applications as a help tool, as long as its not treated as the final word.

That said, the ad really doesn't communicate that either. And if he's assuming that is how people who try it will use it... Seems a bit overly hopeful.

I've never really caught that, but I've been watching him on Nebula so don't get the sponsor inserts.

Devin is a guest in the newest episode of Droupout.tv's Gamechangers

Devin covers the whole Bricks & Minifigs Lego dispute and the whole shitshow with Reckless Ben.

Short version: BM has a consign agreement to a BM franchise in Oregon, franchise changed hands and corporate refused to hand back the Lego collection. Ben got involved with videos which BM corporate didn't like and sicc'd the police on them. Ben has a court date but has currently fled to Mexico. Also did not let a lawyer help deal with this.

Corpo tried asking Patreon to shut down his account. Jack Conte, CEO of Patreon, let his review team look at it and told BM to shove it. And if they don't like it, sue us then.

Also the tl;dr to all of this: always consult the freaking lawyers from the very beginning.

Edited by terumokou on Jun 4th 2026 at 1:52:01 AM

Burning love!

I haven't watched Devin's video yet but another I did see (Lawful Masses by Leonard French) does point out the CEO of Patreon probably did speak to his lawyers before his response and is well within his rights to say what he said. As Patreon (and Youtube for some other videos presumably) are not parties to the suit the court order has no power to compel them to do anything.

Devin doesn't cover the patreon bit (And it's first of a 2 parter, there's a second video coming about Ben's part in all this)

He does mention Leonard's videos and recommends them, though he disagrees on some conclusions with him.

Mostly Devin's point is everyone involved would've been so much better off if they'd spoken to a lawyer way earlier than they did.

didn't have the chance to watch it like I planned, did he discuss the body cam footage that came out showing how corrupt the police were and also showing the guy in question knew he was served and dodging it with police help, with them actively telling him not to look at the papers when he asked to see them?

He briefly talks about it, and mentions some footage of the store

But like I said, the Ben stuff is for another video.

This one's more an overview of the situation and how everything could've been avoided had anyone involved talked to a lawyer at any point earlier.

Edited by Ghilz on Jun 5th 2026 at 9:52:05 AM

Apparently the family did try to consult a lawyer, but were just advised that fighting BM wasn't worth it. Can't confirm that though.

The police conduct is... frankly wild, at this point. Kind of feels like that should be the most important thing here, although I understand in the case of the video that context is required to actually understand this whole situation.

Devin brings that up, and he points out that this was already much too late and The Lawyer is probably correct, because at this point the costs would outweight the value of the legos.

But he points out that if they'd hired a Lawyer during the consignments, they'd have known to file specific forms who would have protected their consignments. He also point outs that going earlier, a lawyer would've recommended offloading the issue of the theft to the insurance company, and leave the insurance company to figure out who should be paying them back. A lawyer overseeing the consignment would've been able to make sure they couldn't end up in this situation. Leonard French also made a similar point.

Similarly if the BM had hired lawyers, or the new owners, they'd have been told they can't just take over the legos as inventory, even with the missing paperwork.

Basically everyone thought about lawyers way too late in the process.

Edited by Ghilz on Jun 5th 2026 at 11:14:01 AM

Since Devin has recommended Leonard French's videos on the issue, here's Leonard's latest video covering BM's press release from yesterday, in which the company throws everyone under the bus, its past franchisees, its current ones and announces it's closing the Oregon store.

Devin saying "Brian should have gotten a lawyer" felt a lot like Blaming the Victim to me, and French's video puts the words on why i felt that (paraphrased):
As far as Brian knew, he did everything right: he had a written, signed and printed contract that said he had actual ownership of the Lego, he had photos of the boxes sitting on shelves, he had an agreement with the previous owner that "marked with a yellow sticker" means those boxes were his, the contract signed by the consigner explicitly notes that ownership of the Lego remains with Brian even if the store changes hands...

At this point, saying "Brian still should have done more" feels overly mean-spirited.

That's kind of the point no? Like, had he consulted an expert, he'd have known he didn't.

It's kinda like if I decided to build my own home without talking to an architect or a general contractor and it collapses. "As far as I knew, I did everything right." only goes so far when you, ya know, didn't try to know.

And pointing out to people "Yo if you're gonna get into agreements with businesses, even good faith agreements, for stuff worth large sums of money, you should talk to a legal expert to cover all your bases" is kind of an important message.

Yeah, Brian is the victim here, and of all the people who did shit, he's not the one to blame. But at the same time, going "It's victim blaming to point out the numerous ways Brian could've protected himself" is kind of a weird take. Pointing out those mechanism all do exist is relevant.

Edited by Ghilz on Jun 7th 2026 at 8:20:18 AM

Second part of the Lego story, covering Reckless Ben, his actions, and the actions of the cops.