Any Emily D. Baker law nerds here?

[Jack Spears]

I'm just wondering if there are any current/past fans/watchers of Emily Baker on youtube? I really loved her cover of the Free Britney movement and post movement. However, months & months ago she expressed a lot of frustration with the current pace of the 12th accounting and stuff. But she hasn't covered it in ages now and she won't be covering it for the rest of 2023. 

Why could this be besides general frustration? Is there any significant going on right now in the courts related to Britney/12th accounting, any upcoming trials? I hope if something really significant happens she covers it because she actually worked in LA and specifically the Morsely Court house where Britneys case was tried. 

 

Thank yew <3 

[Fita]

Um, what is that Britney's 12th accounting?

[Dark Willow]

There's nothing to talk about now. 

[sharkboy11]

5 hours ago, Fita said:

Um, what is that Britney's 12th accounting?

12th accounting = accounting for the 12th year of the conservatorship. They're still fighting out the legal fees. Sadly the 13th accounting is yet to begin

[Fita]

6 minutes ago, sharkboy11 said:

12th accounting = accounting for the 12th year of the conservatorship. They're still fighting out the legal fees. Sadly the 13th accounting is yet to begin

thanks.

[Notorious I.G.G.Y.]

She sucks, like most lawtubers, but she really showed her whole *** during the Depp/Heard trial. trash.

 

[sharkboy11]

36 minutes ago, Notorious I.G.G.Y. said:

She sucks, like most lawtubers, but she really showed her whole *** during the Depp/Heard trial. trash.

 

I disagree. Emily is very impartial when she covers any trial. She was very fair to both Depp and Heard during that time. 

[Psammead]

I don't think there's enough going on. It's also probably a hindrance to the way she covers things that there aren't any cameras in the courtroom, so she can only cover documents. The documents that have come out only usually have a few new things. I haven't found her that helpful with Britney's court case, really. I think she said she planned to go to one court hearing, maybe the one coming up?

I wonder what happened to the Britney Law Army, and Christopher Melcher. Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, I haven't been able to read any of them, and maybe they're off it, anyway. I just can't bring myself to participate in anything Elon Musk does.

 

[Notorious I.G.G.Y.]

7 hours ago, sharkboy11 said:

I disagree. Emily is very impartial when she covers any trial. She was very fair to both Depp and Heard during that time. 

She was (and is almost always from what I've seen) biased in her coverage she was literally spreading blatantly false misinformation during that trial lol, if you can't tell then you're biased yourself. She's a lawtube grifter, she has no actual qualifications for most things she talks about despite what she says. She also blamed Breonna Taylor for her own mur***, again she's trash.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Notorious I.G.G.Y.

[SamanthaJadeFanGroup]

I'm still watch her videos (still subscribe). I think until there's a big court hearing, she won't be commenting about her case. She's probably waiting for the june 2024 court hearing which gonna talk / resolve a few issues in the case, to finally make a video about Britney.

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

9 hours ago, Notorious I.G.G.Y. said:

She sucks, like most lawtubers, but she really showed her whole *** during the Depp/Heard trial. trash.

 

Gonna jump in here and defend her. She didn't ''show her ***'' during the Depp Trial, she followed it live as it was happening, and made it clear that her reactions (and in turn, the reactions of the viewers) can be compared to how the Jury may feel. She reacted to the lawyering, the testimonies, the goods and the bad, and explained the process, as well as highlighted any contradicting statements, and a lot of the time what she was saying, then happened because she knows her stuff.


Ultimately, she watched the trial, and the outcome was in Depp's favour, and she made it clear why.

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

I follow Emily, and I enjoy a lot of her content. She hasn't been posting a lot of content about Britney, because there hadn't been many new developments that merited it, due to the back and forth nature of the proceedings. She made it very clear on her episodes that she found it frustrating to watch, and really took a step back when conspiracy theories about her instagram went into overdrive last year, just like a lot of prominent figures did. 

her coverage was always interesting and enjoyable because it really simplified everything, while explaining the purposes of what people were saying and doing.

That's really all there is to it.

[Grace Kelly]

8 hours ago, Notorious I.G.G.Y. said:

She was (and is almost always from what I've seen) biased in her coverage she was literally spreading blatantly false misinformation during that trial lol, if you can't tell then you're biased yourself. She's a lawtube grifter, she has no actual qualifications for most things she talks about despite what she says. She also blamed Breonna Taylor for her own mur***, again she's trash.

 

She is a former LA deputy district attorney and prosecutor, so to say she has "no actual qualifications for the things she talks about" is disingenuous and spreading false information. She has the qualifications and actual lived exprience of practicing law which gives her an advantage of other, unexperienced lawtubers such as BJ.  She is far more "qualified" to comment on civil and criminal law case than the majority of people. I am sorry that you don't like her take on things which is your right (I personally find her to be professional and balanced) but to say she is unqualified is simply not true. Bias can work both ways and if you are going in with your opinion already made up but the "facts don't care about your feelings" regarding the legal documents and testimony she goes through then probably best just to not watch her videos. I am sure an echo chamber exists for you elsewhere on youtube if that is what you want. She did good work on the Britney stuff at the end of the conservatorship.           

[Grace Kelly]

21 hours ago, Dark Willow said:

There's nothing to talk about now. 

Yes and no. She is out of the conservatorship, but the conservatorship is still being wrapped up as the 12th accounting is (unbelievably) still outstanding and the 13th has still not been submitted by Jamie Spears despite his legal obligation to do so. Jamie Spears also wants Britney to continue paying all his legal fees, which she also has to fight. It all matters because if Rosengart does not fight the conservatorship court then Britney will end up having to pay a whole raft of fees that were unjustly accumulated during the period of the 12th accounting. Thousends upon thousends for the useless Ingram (her so called court appointed lawyer who in my opinion did not advocate for her) for instance and a cool $500,000 that was paid to Tristar for "media matters" amongst other items. Essentially if Britney does not fight this then she will have to pay out even more money to those who she alleges abused her during the conservatorship. I would be very unwilling to do that if I was her. There have only been legal filings and a few small hearings, so in that respect there has not been much to cover, but I would appreciate a round up of recent things from Emily D Baker or maybe Christopher Melchair if they were so inclined. The conservatorship court is so useless and slow it needs keeping an eye on in relation to this. After all it took a whole movement to help free Britney and left to it's own devices it will (in my opinion) continue to shaft her financially.             

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

22 hours ago, Notorious I.G.G.Y. said:

She was (and is almost always from what I've seen) biased in her coverage she was literally spreading blatantly false misinformation during that trial lol, if you can't tell then you're biased yourself. She's a lawtube grifter, she has no actual qualifications for most things she talks about despite what she says. She also blamed Breonna Taylor for her own mur***, again she's trash.

 

Okay let's start with the basics. If you end up siding it someone during an event, it doesn't mean bias, it means their argument was convincing.

Misinformation? Can you share examples please, because every video of hers ive watch doesn't do that.

She is incredibly qualified to take on her chosen subject.

[Notorious I.G.G.Y.]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:59 AM, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

Gonna jump in here and defend her. She didn't ''show her ***'' during the Depp Trial, she followed it live as it was happening, and made it clear that her reactions (and in turn, the reactions of the viewers) can be compared to how the Jury may feel. She reacted to the lawyering, the testimonies, the goods and the bad, and explained the process, as well as highlighted any contradicting statements, and a lot of the time what she was saying, then happened because she knows her stuff.


Ultimately, she watched the trial, and the outcome was in Depp's favour, and she made it clear why.

She literally lied and made **** up all the time and reacted to fit the narrative of her pro-Depp chat, which is how she makes money.

She literally profited off of the global humiliaton of Amber, even made ugly *** merch about the trial.

On 12/15/2023 at 6:21 PM, Grace Kelly said:

She is a former LA deputy district attorney and prosecutor, so to say she has "no actual qualifications for the things she talks about" is disingenuous and spreading false information. She has the qualifications and actual lived exprience of practicing law which gives her an advantage of other, unexperienced lawtubers such as BJ.  She is far more "qualified" to comment on civil and criminal law case than the majority of people. I am sorry that you don't like her take on things which is your right (I personally find her to be professional and balanced) but to say she is unqualified is simply not true. Bias can work both ways and if you are going in with your opinion already made up but the "facts don't care about your feelings" regarding the legal documents and testimony she goes through then probably best just to not watch her videos. I am sure an echo chamber exists for you elsewhere on youtube if that is what you want. She did good work on the Britney stuff at the end of the conservatorship.           

She was also 100% sure that both Depp and Amber winning defamation claims was impossible. She's a **** lawyer and an awful person:

She's also just incredibly ******* annoying to watch. Lawtubers in general are awful and Britney would probably hate them too if she knew what they do, just like she hated the documentaries.

 

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

5 minutes ago, Notorious I.G.G.Y. said:

She literally lied and made **** up all the time and reacted to fit the narrative of her pro-Depp chat, which is how she makes money.

She literally profited off of the global humiliaton of Amber, even made ugly *** merch about the trial.

She was also 100% sure that both Depp and Amber winning defamation claims was impossible. She's a **** lawyer and an awful person:

She's also just incredibly ******* annoying to watch. Lawtubers in general are awful and Britney would probably hate them too if she knew what they do, just like she hated the documentaries.

 

You shared two Amber heard fan accounts though. If we're talking about Bias, you're justifying Bias with Bias.

 

Also, thats false. She made it very clear that Depp had a harder case to prove from the get go, and was surprised when the verdict came through.

It seems the only Bias here is in you, and your counter claims are clouded by confirmation bias. I mean ultimately, all her videos are online, you can watch them.

[Grace Kelly]

6 hours ago, Notorious I.G.G.Y. said:

She literally lied and made **** up all the time and reacted to fit the narrative of her pro-Depp chat, which is how she makes money.

She literally profited off of the global humiliaton of Amber, even made ugly *** merch about the trial.

She was also 100% sure that both Depp and Amber winning defamation claims was impossible. She's a **** lawyer and an awful person:

She's also just incredibly ******* annoying to watch. Lawtubers in general are awful and Britney would probably hate them too if she knew what they do, just like she hated the documentaries.

 

You have not actually countered any of my points, just dredged up some random Amber Heard cheerleader who made a video. Call me particular, but when it comes to analysis of a legal case I have found the words of an actual lawyer somewhat more compelling. If you find Emily D Baker annoying don't watch her or legal commentray in general. Find yourself a little pro Amber Heard you tube channel, with no actual intelligent, legal analysis, I am sure you will be much happier. I don't have an issue with you not liking her, but I do have an issue with you spreading missinformation about her such as her not been qualified (which is patently absurd) or that she goes into reviewing cases with automatic bias. She said at the inception of the trial that Depp would probably not win as defammation is hard to prove; however, if you actually bothered to watch the trail, you would have been that the majority of the evidence was in his favour and his lawyers made effective arguments. I am sorry that was not in line with you pre-conceived narrative and led to a result you did not want, but such is life. I also went into the trial with no strong opinions on either side about either of them, but I found at least some of the evidence against Heard compelling. That is what legal commentary is supposed to be. I think the issue here is your bias and not Emily D Baker.       

[kevin.]

i enjoyed her at the beginning but she started to say weird stuff about Britney that really turned me off from watching her, i forget what it was tho. she also gets little details wrong kinda often and never seem to correct those mistakes.

she also thought Britney had little chance to get out of the cship

[Bigno]

I am not a cpnstant consumer of her cpntent but she is likeable and down to Earth. My only issue with her is how mich she has vanilized her content to be welcomed by mass media. There are great controversial criminal cases that she barely touches upon, such as Idaho 4.