Watch Me Argue the Constitution with Federal Appellate Judges on Zoom – Everything Law and Order Blog

Watch an excerpt of my oral arguments before the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals from yesterday in the Walker v. Donahoe case, a.k.a., the AR-15 Open Carry C&$ksucker case. Taken by my legal assistant/ live audience. At issue is whether we have any Fourth Amendment rights left in America, and also whether the AR-15 is a scary black rifle, the mere possession of which turns one into a mass murdering psychopath.

For those who don’t know, here’s the basic way this works. Each side has 20 minutes. Whoever is the Appellant (i.e., the party appealing) gets to go first and last. I apportioned that to 15 minutes first, saving 5 minutes for rebuttal. So I talk for 15 minutes, then the bad guy talks for 20 minutes, and then I get to talk for another 5 minutes. I think both of mine got extended a few minutes due to questions by the judges. I believe the opposing lawyer finished short with time still left on his clock. As for me, I needed about another 2 hours to shoot down all the ridiculous things that were brought up in this case….. This is a “panel” of 3 judges. The other type of oral argument is where all of them sit at the same time and hear the arguments, which is called “en banc.” The way oral arguments work at the appellate level is, they could just let you talk the entire time, in which case you need to be prepared to make a presentation for 15 to 20 minutes (not difficult for me if you’ve watched me rant for 2 hours straight). Or, they could pepper you with questions before you finish your introduction, and engage in a Q&A the entire time. I definitely prefer jury trials……

BTW, this has always been done in the actual Fourth Circuit courthouse in Richmond, Virginia. These are now conducted over zoom for obvious reasons. This was my first zoom argument at the Fourth Circuit.

If you missed it live, you can listen to the recording of the arguments from this afternoon on the court’s youtube channel here: https://youtu.be/M-jhuERWWqg?t=9320​

Here’s the original video at issue: https://youtu.be/FidBe0w0dCU

Read more at the website: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/03/10/heres-what-happened-in-oral-arguments-today-in-the-ar-15-open-carry-case-walker-v-donahoe/

source

25 thoughts on “Watch Me Argue the Constitution with Federal Appellate Judges on Zoom”
  1. Wow, is the judge working for the defense? Every time you came to a valid point wherein the officer would have been in the wrong, the judge is interjecting with facts outside the evidence. "How far away was your client from a school?" And "Did the Deputy know if it was an automatic or semi-automatic rifle?"

    We are not talking about attempted school schootings and if the subject had a Tax Stamp for their rifle, we are talking about a breech of the 4th Amendmemt and the "Stop and Identify" practices of an officer who is employed in a non stop and ID State. Let's not overlook the assumption of the officer categorizing the subject as a sovereign citizen and the defamatory language that was used by the officer. If the officer is getting that all the time from everyone he makes contact with, he needs to A. Reevaluate what he is stopping people for and better understand the law and B. Perhaps consider a different form of employment, as law enforcement us clearly not for him.

    Future and present officers, remember this: "Your Ego does not have a caliber affixed to it, yet it does have a jail sentence and a price tag."

  2. O. M. G.! I had no idea how stupid these judges could be these days! Here's my point: they were saying things like, his rifle could have an automatic. Yeah, and he could have had a stick of dynamite in his underwear also. He was walking towards a school also. What if the road he was on headed towards a judges house? Just plain stupid, ignorant judges! Oh, and don't forget paranoid! Mr. Bryan did an outstanding job trying to educate these fools.

  3. Ignorant judge. Has been a lawyer and a sitting judge for how many years? And doesn’t know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. He must determine that any decision a police officer makes will fall in some “gray area” that he can then allow qualified immunity for not knowing the law. Ignorance of the law for a citizen is no excuse, but for cops, we allow them immunity.

  4. That must be so hard having to basically tell the judge that they are wrong and what they said doesn't make sense while being respectful. I would ask why is it that we give deference to an officer to the extent of making up reasons he may have had probable suspicion while at the same time requiring your average citizen to explicitly state that they are invoking their fifth amendment right otherwise their silence could be taken as something other than an invocation of their right? shouldn't we hold officers of the law to a higher standard rather than a lower one?

  5. This is the problem People.
    None of these fools know the law.
    Case law is not law.
    The Declaration of Independence and Constitution is law.
    We the People don't have Civil Rights
    We have Natural Rights & no Municilipalty can take them away

  6. Even if it was a machine gun, the young man could’ve applied and received the federal tax stamp, allowing to have even if it was a machine gun, the young man could’ve applied and received the federal tax stamp, allowing him to have it a full automatic machine gun. If a gun like a A.R. 15 is full automatic it is no longer classified as an A.R. 15.

  7. Is it any wonder that the law enforcement is corrupt and trying to harm the citizens. The judge who is trying to make the arguments of the law should also be able to make the arguments against his own questions, therefore the judge as part of law enforcement is also trying to harm the citizens.

Leave a Reply