"How to Read a Case" with UVA Law Professor Anne Coughlin

THE TRUTH TO THIS PSEUDO COURT OF LEGAL EASE IS ALL MARITOME LAW OF THE SEA, COMMERCIAL CONTRACT LAW. THAT IS MANUFACTURED BY THE UNLAWFUL STATE CORPORATION TO DECEIVE ALL FREE MEN AND WOMEN INTO THEIR CONTRACT LAW OF CONSENT. IN WHICH NONE OF THIS ARTIFICIAL ENTITY HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER ANY FREEE MAN OR WOMAN. ALL ESQUIRES ARE FOREIGN AGENTS PRACTICING CONTRACT LAW ? NOT USING COMMON NATURAL LAW TO BE FREE FROM THE DECEPTION AS ALL OF THE MARITIME LAW CORPORATION IS THEREBY A TRAITOR TO ALL FREE PEOPLE ACROSS THE LAND. YOU DONT TEACH THE TRUTH THOUGH DO YOU. ALL CRIMINAL AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE. SOON YOUR CONTRACT LAW WILL DO MUCH LESS THAN FALL APART. TRUE JUSTICE IS COMING FROM FREE MEN AND WOMEN. ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE TRAITORS TO WE THE PEOPLE. THAT IS A HARD FACT IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMON SENSE. WANT TO DEBATE THE TRUTH ? OR ARE YOU ALL COWARDS. THEORIES ARE LIKE BUTTHOLES SOME ARE JUST BIGGER THAN OTHERS. THE ROPES AWAIT TRUE JUSTICE.

PS- OBVIOUSLY, check with social services about that lady.

This was FABULOUS! Thanks for sharing. Can I read the judgement somewhere? Thanks.

watched in 2024, enjoyed her style of teaching and all the passion that is flowing through the words she’s communicating

You are going to need to explain how the voluntary nature of everything legal, being fiction, is being made mandatory by attorneys. Explain why the governing law governing governing law is 100% clear that your "color of law" is 100% voluntary... yet the whole lot of you treat "color of law" as mandatory. why?

In all these law classes, they aren't covering the most basic concepts, like what is a "legal person" called a "defendant" or "plaintiff." I like the idea of a "legal avatar" that represents the human being. So, Attorneys do not and NEVER represent the actual human being... Attorneys represent the legal avatar that legally represents the human being. The whole point of "attorney"ing is to conflate the legal avatar with the human being... and that is actually illegal and still needs to be explained in a way that isn't 100% illegal of attorneys to be doing.

Let me give you a hint, just one aspect of the whole: You can't "read legal cases" without a proper "legal paradigm"... and you have to leap over the HUGE chasm to actually understand LEGALESE and "properly read court cases." Reading court cases with english and a human paradigm will only lead to misunderstanding.

As a 30 years lawyers working in China, even there are different law styles between China and US, but the way of reading cases is same and equally useful.Thank you very much for sentting the HOW wonderful lectures openly ! every student of law school from anywhere will thank you!

the correct way is - this is the law , this is how it applies , these are evikdences amd probable scenarios : anything else is nonjust.

Current List of Favorite Studies in College to take:

1. Botany
2 Mathematics
3 Chemistry
4. Economics
5. Biology
6. Computer Science
7. Astronomy
8. Political Science

I ordered some Door Dash and sat through this video lmao

She's so nervous when she speaks that she's actually making me nervous listening to her

What I love about Law
Is solving it's resolution
getting all the evidence and facts
and putting it together on that particular case, that is important for the courtroom.

I.R.A.C.C . Method . Most cases chosen are chosen to show you the advancement or regression of historical precedent. Secondarily , a new or innovative type of analysis or rule. Most cases are appellate cases because what appeals courts do is refine decisional logic. Facts are also reduced at the appellate stage like a broth steamed.

The audio seems be to be quite off and her mic got cut her off for a split sec during the entire lecture. It got on my nerves so much that I couldn’t follow it :(

How to interpret between "Business Law" and "The Law of Business " were written and issued textbooks?

Is it not about making a case?

so excited for classes!

She's witty 😂 love it and these students, jeez, it goes right over their heads 🤣

Lots of repetitions mam, however nice lecture...

Is this harder than Tort law?

😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

This was 7 years ago. These students would all be lawyers by now. I I wonder how many of them passed the bar?

I would argue that a judge instructing the Jury how to rule is not how that's supposed to work. It literally creates this idea that if the Jury rules in a manner the judge (government) does not like it can be overturned. Which is not how that is supposed to work.

I like this professor's teaching style.

The Case is THE PEOPLE VS BOWEN and WILLIAM T ROUSE

With respect to the case... would it be advisable for both sides to break down the actions of the suspects and analyze the actions as to whether the actions, in and of themselves, we're an illegal act and, if not or if so, find evidence on either way? Also, wouldn't the satisfaction of evidence, be it REAL or intended or none at all, be proven to a reasonable person of the jury?

I didn't know Dana Carvey was so much into legalese.

thank you lessons

Imagine we had Ted Talks- LEGAL. Perhaps fewer people might have been killed over plant medicine competitive destruction.

I'm not a law student so I have no idea about these things but I find them interesting enough to listen to the classes. She mentioned the judge never gave general instructions on the overt act to the jury at all. Why would this be? A judge has decades of experience. Why would a judge with ample experience do something so drastic as to not provide the instructions on the overt act element to the jury?