Lawyer Responds: John Oliver SLAPPs Back? (Real Law Review)

Share
Embed
  • Published on Nov 16, 2019
  • John Oliver was sued by Bob Murrary for defamation. Was it really a meritless suit or is there more to the story? If you’re in the market for a great suit, I can’t recommend Indochino highly enough and Legal Eagles get a discount! bit.ly/2IeeB8W
    Summary from Vulture:
    Remember back in 2017 when John Oliver did a Last Week Tonight segment about coal company CEO and “geriatric Dr. Evil” Bob Murray, then - as predicted - was sued by Bob Murray the following week? Oliver couldn’t discuss the lawsuit while it was ongoing, but we did get an update when the case was dismissed in February 2018, when Oliver, referencing the original segment, told Murray to “eat shit.” What you might not know, however, is that Murray appealed the case after it was dismissed, so Oliver was yet again forced into silence until the case was recently dropped. Which brings us to last night’s Last Week Tonight, when Oliver was finally free to recap the entire saga … and, in doing so, to start a whole new saga too.
    (Thanks to Indochino for sponsoring this video)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
    And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
    Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
    ★More series on LegalEagle★
    Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
    Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
    Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
    Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
    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 conta ct 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 legaleagleDJ
    ★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ legaleaglereacts
    ★ Stella’s Insta: stellathelegalbeagle
    ★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv

Comments • 4 538

  • LegalEagle
    LegalEagle  29 days ago +608

    🤔Do you agree?
    👔If you’re looking for a great suit Indochino will make you a fully custom slim fit suit for only $359 bit.ly/2IeeB8W

    • O B
      O B 4 days ago

      Quick note on costs for the "british system", costs are very rarely the actual costs you incur, they're instead a fixed amount, based on a table of the amount claimed. For example, if you sued for a million dollars and lost, the judge would look up the table, look up a claim for a million dollars and then award you the corresponding amount in costs.
      The thing is, however, that those costs are never even CLOSE to the amount you'll actually incur, in my experience, they're usually less than 10% of your actual costs (though in some cases where the damage amounts claimed are ridiculously high and the difficulty of dismissing the lawsuit is extremely low, you can actually come out ahead, but that's only the vast minority of cases).
      Costs that are equal to your ACTUAL costs are called "costs on a solicitor-client basis" where essentially you have your lawyer submit their bill to the other side. These are *very* rare, and only permitted in cases where the lawsuit has been made in deliberate bad faith, as a punitive measure for abuse of the court system, which is a very high bar to cross.
      So SLAPP lawsuits are still very much a thing in the commonwealth legal systems, unfortunately. Though SLAPP suits do have a higher likelihood of being in bad faith and potentially resulting in solicitor-client costs, so it's at least a *little* more effective than the american one at discouraging them.

    • Echoeversky Ü
      Echoeversky Ü 10 days ago

      NotALawyer: given the constitutional nature of free speech, national anti-slapp laws are warranted.

    • Dewayne Thomas
      Dewayne Thomas 13 days ago

      @LilleTotte It has been since it's birth I believe.

    • Dewayne Thomas
      Dewayne Thomas 14 days ago

      @LilleTotte OJ Simpson walked, plenty of em do.

    • LilleTotte
      LilleTotte 14 days ago

      So the American judicial system is Pay-to-Win?

  • derrill yager
    derrill yager 2 hours ago

    Thanks for the education on how much the legal " deck" is stacked against the average person.
    Eyes Open America.

  • Mike Goldsberry
    Mike Goldsberry 3 hours ago

    Bob Murray? He personally killed Epstein, on the orders of the Illuminati

  • Paul TheSkeptic
    Paul TheSkeptic 13 hours ago

    Hm. I'd like to put out a few scenarios just to see how you'd react. These scenarios aren't related to this, it just reminded me of it.

    Once upon a time, H&J from a RU-clip channel that's something like Holy Book Re Armed, got one of those false DMCA takedown notices. Their attorney told them something like. "Well this is the most egregiously false DMCA I've ever seen. This is outrageous, egregious, it's preposterous! Plus you know, this is uncharted territory and it would help establish some precedent which could aid other creators know what they can and cannot say." A few months later "Well, you channel is in good standing, he dropped the DMCA and I've already been paid... er I mean, HEY! look at this over here. I thought I saw something. Nevermind. I mean, did you really want to file a lawsuit that might last years? What would the best outcome be in that case?"

    Similarly, a divorce lawyer after being told of their plans for an amicable and swift divorce, might say "Oh no. You're entitled to this. You helped build all this up and now you're just ;etting it all go?"

    I think you see where I'm aiming. Far be it from me to impugn the nature of your profession but you must have heard about this sort of thing. And other professionals have this temptation also. It's not just lawyers. It's obvious that lawyers are a necessary part of society but when and if they do do this, there's very little anyone can do about it. Is this a common practice? Thanks.

  • Patrick Lloyd
    Patrick Lloyd 20 hours ago +1

    America: Eventually enacts the English rule and anti-SLAPP laws

    Nintendo of America and Disney: "I've yeed my last haw..."

  • Pelly Thirteen
    Pelly Thirteen Day ago

    Why the promo with the suits in the end ? Such a cheap end to a good video.

    • bafrali5561
      bafrali5561 Day ago

      Deal with it boomer. You dont have to watch it.

  • 564blablk
    564blablk Day ago

    Now that was a smooth transition from law expert to clothes salesman!

  • TheKnives777
    TheKnives777 Day ago

    Ah, Murry in order to be defamed you must first be famous. He's just a frog neck pile of shit that no one cares about and if he had no money would be another garbage collector living in a hole somewhere in the midwest. @

  • Mr. Pulsar
    Mr. Pulsar Day ago

    I'm starting my pre-law studies in Spring 2020 and I enjoy watching your videos even if I have slightly different views. I think it's important to understand others so I appreciate you taking the time to make these videos.

  • gspendlove
    gspendlove 2 days ago

    Bob Murray? Isn't he the guy who walked up to Mister Rogers and punched him in the face?

  • The Brexiteer
    The Brexiteer 2 days ago

    Ask Oliver where the donation he promised for Donald Trumps campaign is!

  • Anon CO
    Anon CO 2 days ago

    I support slap suits, not slap laws, also despite that if a law exists in your favor, always make use of it. I would've also sued John Oliver

  • broscosmoline
    broscosmoline 3 days ago

    As a resident of the frozen north (canadia), i appreciate the information here re "American Rule" vs English rules w respect to recovery of attorney fees. I've encountered the term "unreformed" in connexion to the US legal system, and i understand this to be a technical term, as other legal systems are said to be reformed. Is the "American Rule" characteristic of an unreformed legal system? Better yet, can you describe what it means for law to unreformed or reformed?

  • Bevan Bennett
    Bevan Bennett 3 days ago

    My only concern here is that the anti-SLAPP penalty can also be unbalanced based on the caliber of Counsel retained.
    If you can retain high-quality lawyers they not only are more likely to prevail but also impose a higher penalty on your opponent... and "corporate lawyers" tend to the higher end of the pay scale, which means that corporations still have leverage.

  • John P
    John P 3 days ago

    West Virginia is chock full of all kinds of stupid, isn't it? It's in America, so I slouldn't be surprised.

  • Mohammed Shabbeer
    Mohammed Shabbeer 3 days ago

    IM DONE WITH THIS

  • Mohammed Shabbeer
    Mohammed Shabbeer 3 days ago

    NO MORE

  • Mohammed Shabbeer
    Mohammed Shabbeer 3 days ago

    PLEASE STOP

  • Mohammed Shabbeer
    Mohammed Shabbeer 3 days ago

    NO

  • woodwrecker
    woodwrecker 3 days ago

    way to many commercials makes you not worth watching

  • Henrik Lindell
    Henrik Lindell 3 days ago

    Bob Murray? That's the guy that shot Swedish prime minister Olof Palme in '86

  • Jean-Luc Coelho
    Jean-Luc Coelho 4 days ago

    Anti slapp laws in a lot of cases help big corporations by allowing them to dismiss lawsuits against them and punish whoever sued them

  • EGstill85
    EGstill85 4 days ago

    Not to mention the much larger problem of criminal cases where the state has unlimited funds to prosecute a civilian defendant who very often doesn’t have enough money to pay rent. This leads to defendants who are oftentimes innocent of the crime they are accused of committing feeling obligated to take a guilty plea in hopes of a reduced sentence rather than right for the true, which money could buy with a qualified attorney as opposed to a overworked, sometimes under qualified public defense attorney. The system is designed to function smoothly under this crooked set of money incentivized rules for cases being prosecuted. If everyone suddenly decided they would not attempt to work out a deal with the state, the entire legal system would come to a grinding crash. I’d say this is the more worrying issue over rich people suing other rich people trying to defend reputations already known to be corrupt in the public eye.

  • Kian Blackey
    Kian Blackey 4 days ago

    Why didn’t you mention the affect of these kinds of SLAPP suits on non-public figures like JO does during his episode. I would like to know you’re take on how these sort of suits actually affect the people that they do the most damage on, such as those who don’t have the means to defend against it in the first place.

  • Ben Thomason
    Ben Thomason 4 days ago

    Maybe you guys wouldn't be so expensive if you didn't spend hundreds of dollars minimum on clothes.

  • StrangeCalibur
    StrangeCalibur 5 days ago

    The way you transition to the ad nearly makes it feel like the entire video was made as a setup just for it...... it's so fluid....

  • T Nicholas
    T Nicholas 5 days ago

    Bob Murray? That's the man who shot JFK!

  • aki akiii
    aki akiii 5 days ago +1

    In conclusion, John Oliver is awesome

  • nekodesigner
    nekodesigner 5 days ago

    Nice segway to the sponsors

  • Hagrid the Table
    Hagrid the Table 5 days ago

    EPICO

  • Quinntus79
    Quinntus79 5 days ago +15

    Isn’t Bob Murray the guy who impales his miners and then dips his bread in their blood?

  • Roman Kotas
    Roman Kotas 6 days ago

    Bob Murray vivisected all of my cats

  • Cathal Duggan
    Cathal Duggan 6 days ago

    Bob Murray created AIDS

  • reginaldino enchillada

    Yes, my friend, u r explaining why the system is biased in favor of rich ppl vs the poor.

  • JustusLM
    JustusLM 6 days ago

    This is the first time I have seen a reaction to an episode of John Oliver that basically just says "yeah, he pretty much got everyting right".

  • Marvin England
    Marvin England 6 days ago

    Me: I hate ads
    *Enjoys the video greatly*
    Sees Indochino ad at the end of the video
    Also Me: "You son of a bitch. I'm in."

  • Scott Valentine
    Scott Valentine 6 days ago

    Objection - where is the grade?

  • James Bobreski
    James Bobreski 6 days ago

    We need any and all protection of freedom of speech so yes anti slapp laws

  • marco polo
    marco polo 6 days ago

    In Canada, and I assume the same to be true in the UK, recovery of legal costs by the successful litigant is not a dollar for dollar indemnity.

  • Mike D
    Mike D 6 days ago

    Where's Davie504? All this SLAPP and ZERO bass. ILLEGAL! Call the police!

  • dsharkyo
    dsharkyo 6 days ago +2

    Is this a Davie504 reference?

    I challenge YOU to a SLAPP battle with DAVIE504

  • Jargon Madjin
    Jargon Madjin 6 days ago +1

    "What did the hand say to the face? SLAPP!"

  • Shinbu1128
    Shinbu1128 6 days ago

    Bob Murray? You mean Jack the Ripper?

  • JUST ME
    JUST ME 6 days ago +1

    #EatShitBob

  • furhunter11
    furhunter11 6 days ago

    I truly enjoyed the information you gave in this video. WOW! And you explained it so the average layman could understand it. Thank you very much.........Thornton

  • jamie melvill4
    jamie melvill4 6 days ago

    Why all the editing blips... would you hire this grease ball? Schietzer writtin all over his slimey little face.

  • Deri
    Deri 6 days ago

    You effectively say effectively way too often.

  • Brent Polk
    Brent Polk 7 days ago

    The Pop Zooming is distracting...

  • intuitiv.me
    intuitiv.me 7 days ago +1

    So the system favorites the rich over the poor. Sounds familiar? Money rules, not justice.

    • UltimaPowers
      UltimaPowers 2 days ago

      "The Land of the Free"
      Except when it comes to healthcare or justice.

  • Adrian
    Adrian 7 days ago +16

    "Arguably" "allegedly" "probably"
    The holy trifecta of US Juridical system :D

  • jcllings
    jcllings 7 days ago

    The un-funny Communist John Oliver should be sued till he's broke and represents the Democratic ideal. A losing loser who loses even at losing.

  • Kenneth James Peromingan

    Please do a Lawyer review on Molly's Game

  • Zachary Scott
    Zachary Scott 7 days ago

    For the record, John Oliver is a twat.

  • MrMigraine
    MrMigraine 7 days ago

    This might be outside your scope, but can you please do a video that explains Common law (used in UK, US, Commonwealth states) in general, and compares to other systems of law like Napoleonic (Civil), Germanic (Civil), Nordic (Civil), etc...

  • ZhangtheGreat
    ZhangtheGreat 7 days ago +40

    Bob Murray killed Mufasa, wished himself into a genie to conquer Agrabah, and set off an eternal winter in Arendelle #EatShitBob

  • SomeoneCommenting
    SomeoneCommenting 7 days ago

    The American justice system was made by the rich for the rich. The laws will always give advantage to the rich over the poor, and this is a good example of that. Just go through all legislators and try to find how many are *not* rich, or friends of the rich who pay for their campaigns. It is a very very small group. The rest are all rich guys. These days you can't even think about running for president unless you are rich or have billionaires backing you up in campaign. You have seen in the news how primary candidates get out of the run simply because they cannot make the numbers, no matter if the guy had the best ideas and was the most decent candidate. This country runs on money, and the legal system is no exception.

  • Pedro Hernandez
    Pedro Hernandez 7 days ago

    Bob Murray? isn't that the fat guy that convinced the Russians to rig the US election in 2016?

  • Grinning Goat
    Grinning Goat 8 days ago

    Doesn't it feel weird that the show uses both a factual tone to report the news side by side with comedy? I know I'm being a bit of devil's advocate here, but switch from joke to news to joke to news, it seems like an invitation to cross the line. It present a statement and add ridicule for it, conditioning a response as you watch it. My point is that having a comedy routine side by side with a journalistic report seems like a way to get away that journalistic approach might not be able too.

  • P Schmied
    P Schmied 8 days ago

    Indo-Chino = Indochina = Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam

  • P Schmied
    P Schmied 8 days ago

    The judicial system is NOT " effectively a branch of the government" 6:42 It IS a branch of the government. It's a bad lawyer who doesn't "say what you mean, mean what you say". ru-clip.com/video/B3yxIc7e980/video.html