The second amicus curiae brief is basically the same tired attempt at relitigation as the first amicus curiae brief, only more rambling and whiny. It barely even addresses the law and when it does, it fantasizes legal rules that do not exist in the cases from which they are drawn. As with the first amicus brief, these authors have very much confused the private interests of Amber Heard with the legal interests of the public at large. This brief will not move the needle, if it even gets considered. Ben Chew has opposed the amicus briefs, so we'll be looking at his opposition in the next video! 00:00 Intro 00:18 First impression: Who are you and why are you here? 02:43 The Table of Contents does not sell this brief at all 04:10 These headers are the worst we've seen so far! 07:34 The argument is the same thing we already read but rambles more 09:23 Some things that caught my interest: An error shared with the first brief 11:26 Hypocritical First Amendment geniuses are the funniest! 14:09 They rely on law the undercuts their position 16:08 They try to use a "see" cite to make a case say something it doesn't 20:23 Bottom line: The parade of horribles won't get the win 21:57 Coming up next: Ben Chew's opposition to the amicus briefs Review of the (trash) first Amicus brief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heSTGM4cbLg