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.

7 thoughts on “

  1. @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.

Comments are closed.