This entry was published at least two years ago (originally posted on February 9, 2021). Since that time the information may have become outdated or my beliefs may have changed (in general, assume a more open and liberal current viewpoint). A fuller disclaimer is available.
Look, it’s simple. That lawyer was legally required to inform the judge that, contrary to appearance, he was not actually a cat. Otherwise, he could have been charged with purrjury.
@djwudi, thanks for the smile you put on my face this morning!
@djwudi What puzzles me is who recorded this session, when video recording is clearly forbidden? Obviously not the lawyer with the filter, as it makes him look like an incompetent idiot. And, if he’s ruled out, surely it can’t be the opposing lawyer, since he’d be too easy to identify. Who does that leave? The judge. But the law against recording video of proceedings applies equally to him. It’s a mystery.
@artkavanagh According to the judge: “It was recorded during a virtual hearing in the 394th DC of TX, and released for educational purposes.” The original release also came from the 394th District court of Texas’s YouTube channel. Looks to me like it was all above board.
@V_ You’re welcome! :)
@djwudi and I only now realized that this was not just some creative writing on your side :-D
@V_ Even better, then! You get an extra unexpected grin. :)
@djwudi Ah, thank you for that. Coincidentally, the BBC was fined recently for including footage from an online High Court hearing in a tv programme.