"Amicus Curiae" means "friend of the court" in Latin, but the amicus briefs that have been offered in Depp v. Heard in support of Amber Heard function more as "friends of Amber" briefs. Normally, amici curiae (plural) are individuals or groups with an interest in the legal question the court is considering on appeal because they will be affected by the ruling. As an example, in cases where the court is considering the lawfulness of a search, police organizations will often appear as amici curiae because the ruling can affect how they do their jobs. The purpose is to educate the court on how their interests are affected because the parties often don't have the time, knowledge, or inclination to advocate for interests beyond their clients'. What an amicus brief is NOT, however, is a backdoor for a party to exceed the page limits of their briefs by enlisting outside groups to represent interests that are unique to the party. Johnny has opposed the briefs and it is entirely up to the court whether it will accept or reject them ... and although it's not common for amicus briefs to be rejected, these ones are so unhelpful to the court and so patently serve as vehicles for presenting Amber's personal arguments, that I think there's a real chance the court could reject them. So, let's look at why. This video focuses on the Sanctuary for Families, et al. brief to which Michele Dauber, Charlotte Proudman, and other noisy "feminists" are signatories. There's so much trash to sort here that I'll be addressing the second brief in a second video. The terms "amici curiae" and "amicus brief" are often used interchangeably. 00:00 Intro 00:41 What this video is going to cover 01:36 What are amici curiae and why are they filing briefs? 03:34 Looking at Virginia's rule for amicus briefs 04:52 What first impressions will the Court get from the table of contents? 07:07 Amicus briefing isn't a way for a party to avoid page limits on their own briefs 08:15 Sufficiency of the evidence is not a common interest, it's Amber's interest 11:11 Choose your appellate issues carefully, because the court might address them 12:42 "Allowing the verdict to stand" isn't what the court is there to decide 14:28 Let's dig into the substance 15:21 Sane people know that calling the jury ignorant is unwaise 16:53 Announce you're not serious by setting aside what the appeal is actually about 18:44 Try not to ground your entire argument on something inadmissible and maybe even sanctionable 22:43 It's best if you call the jury legally ignorant right after demonstrating you are 23:18 Also trashing up page 3 is an argument for error that hasn't been assigned by anyone 25:42 Let's outline what the amici's argument structure is 26:32 The jury defines "abuse" by what they think Amber meant, not the dictionary 27:38 Judge White's letter ruling spelled out the jury's task 32:49 The court probably won't even read their cherry-picked facts 34:06 17 pages in we get some law, and what they served up is weird AF 37:25 They finally acknowledged the experts, who undermine the claim that the jury was ignorant 38:00 Bottom line: The actual malice argument is trash 38:30 You need a legal argument before the court cares about policy arguments 40:44 You should also establish why this case will have the effect you claim 42:34 What numbskull lawyer would sign their name to this flaming trashpile? This guy! 45:46 Up next: The second brief, if we still have any brain cells