शैडोइंग अभ्यास: John Oliver is a Lawsuit Gremlin (And I Love It!) - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें
अभ्यास मोड चुनें
हर मोड पूरी स्क्रीन का अभ्यास कक्ष खोलता है।
492 वाक्य
यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।
1
We love John Oliver because John Oliver doesn't give a hoot about legal advice.
2
Of course, we only love him because we're not acting as his lawyer.
3
His lawyers probably hate him because John loves legal stunts, and we love that for him.
4
And as we recently covered in July, John Oliver put a knockoff
5
Beaver on a t -shirt and publicly dared one of the largest convenience store chains in America to sue him over it.
6
And you might recall that Buc -ee's sued a mini -mart in Beaver Creek, Ohio instead,
7
and now the internet is waiting to find out whether Buc -ee's will actually pick on someone on his own sides.
8
But this is not the first time that John Oliver has hilariously pointed out illegal absurdity,
9
or the first time he's invited someone to sue him over trademark or copyright law.
10
You might remember John has been baiting
11
Disney to sue him for copyright infringement for years.
12
In an April 2023 segment, John discussed the upcoming expiration of the Steamboat Willie copyright,
13
and then introduced a Mickey Mouse -like character as the show's new mascot, daring Disney lawyers to take action.
14
I thought I was in public domain until next year.
15
That's actually true, buddy we are pushing the limit a bit here.
16
The point is, we are staking our claim to Mickey Mouse right now.
17
And I know
18
Disney's lawyers might take the trademark angle and argue that this Mickey is closely associated with their brand,
19
although they should know that he's pretty closely associated with our brand now, too.
20
And in February of 2024, when John later appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert to promote season 11 of Last Week Tonight,
21
he brought a friend along.
22
I see you brought a plus one.
23
Yeah, yeah.
24
Uh, is this, uh, is this Mickey from Steamboat Willie?
25
It is.
26
It's Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse, which is now available for public use.
27
It's not Mickey Mouse.
28
I can't stress that enough.
29
Luckily, there's no resemblance, so there shouldn't be confusion.
30
And John openly taunted
31
Disney, even presenting a promotional poster that featured Steamboat Mickey, and asked, what are they going to do?
32
Sue?
33
Yeah, so our poster this year features Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse here, and so we're very lucky to have him.
34
Do you have the poster here?
35
Yeah, I do.
36
I do have the poster.
37
We have, so this is our poster for this year.
38
The tagline is, what are they going to do, sue?
39
And Colbert openly wondered if this made him an accomplice.
40
That's my question, is that I know you enjoy being sued, okay?
41
Yes, yes.
42
Or else you wouldn't be trying to get someone else to sue you.
43
I have been sued many times.
44
Yes.
45
Am I an accomplice by having him on?
46
And later, John brought Steamboat Mickey back onto a show for several related segments.
47
How would you say happy birthday to the kids, Mickey?
48
You're not special.
49
Nothing about you is special.
50
And instead of singing happy birthday to your kids when he brings out the pizza, he'll say this.
51
As a citizen of the United States, you are part of the most violent, genocidal, imperialistic empire the world has ever owned.
52
Your silence is complicity.
53
Oh, Lord, Mickey.
54
Now, smartly, Disney has yet to take John up on his offer to sue, but if they did, would he win?
55
Now, we already covered the basics of copyright in our Bucky's video.
56
The short answer is that copyright gives creators a temporary monopoly over original expression.
57
The Constitution itself says those exclusive rights must last only for limited times.
58
And when the term expires, the work enters the public domain.
59
And Steamboat Willie finally did.
60
After Congress repeatedly extended the copyright terms, the 1928 version of Mickey Mouse's debut entered the public domain on January 1st, 2024.
61
And that creates an interesting wrinkle for John because he didn't wait.
62
He introduced his Steamboat Willie character in 2023 while the copyright was still alive.
63
Of course, his lawyers could and would argue that the use was parody
64
and therefore protected fair use under 17 USC section 107 of the Copyright Act.
65
As we've talked about many times on this channel, the statute specifically recognizes criticism and commentary as purposes that can support fair use,
66
and John had a pretty compelling argument that he was using Mickey to criticize
67
Disney's aggressive approach to intellectual property.
68
But the timing would still give his lawyers something to worry about.
69
If Disney had sued over the 2023 broadcast, the case would have turned on whether John's use was fair,
70
not simply on the fact that Steamboat Willie was about to enter the public domain.
71
Which brings us to Colbert.
72
If John had actually infringed
73
Disney's copyright, could Colbert have been liable for encouraging him and, you know, publicizing the TV show?
74
I kind of doubt it.
75
Copyright law does recognize secondary liability for people who materially contribute to someone else's infringement.
76
The Supreme Court established one version of that rule in MGM Studios versus Grokster,
77
holding that someone who intentionally induces copyright infringement can be liable for the resulting infringement.
78
And the court recently revisited contributory liability in Cox Communications versus
79
Sony Music Entertainment, where it ruled
80
that contributory liability requires more than simply providing a platform or service that happens to be used for infringement.
81
So if Colbert had actually encouraged John to infringe a still protected copyright, Disney would at least have an argument for contributory liability.
82
But Disney had another big problem.
83
When Colbert aired his segment in February, 2024, Steamboat Willie had already been in the public domain for a few weeks.
84
So Colbert could therefore breathe a sigh of relief, at least as far as that particular 1928 version of Mickey was concerned.
85
But copyright isn't the only legal issue here, though.
86
And this is something that lots of commentators got wrong
87
or didn't understand when they were talking about Mickey entering into the public domain.
88
Also at play here is a healthy serving of delicious, rich, and always satisfying trademark law.
89
And speaking of delicious, I had an incredible chicken chow mein for lunch, and I'm still thinking about it.
90
It was crafted by chef
91
Hong Tai Mi, and I can't wait to order it again from CookUnity, the sponsor of this part of the video.
92
Cook Unity is a chef -to -you meal delivery program that connects you with hundreds of fresh, fully prepared meals from award -winning chefs.
93
And with Cook Unity, you can choose from over 400 meals nationwide each week, including over 45 global cuisines and diets.
94
All meals are handcrafted in small batches and kitchens local to you.
95
There are over 130 chefs on the platform, including Food Network stars, James Beard award winners, and Michelin starred masters.
96
Meals are delivered fully cooked.
97
All you have to do is heat them up, and in two minutes or less, you're ready to eat.
98
Now, I love to cook, but my days are crazy busy.
99
So it's great that I get to reclaim that time
100
and I don't have to spend at least half an hour preparing a subpar meal
101
and then a bunch of time cleaning up.
102
And that's what I love most about CookUnity.
103
It's like having hundreds of the best gourmet restaurants in the comfort of your own home
104
or office all ready to go instantly.
105
So for my next weekly order, I'm gonna check out more meals crafted by Chef Hong Tai Mi, like her creamy lobster green curry,
106
and pick up my usual favorites like the flank steak burrito from Chef Tony Perez.
107
And you should seriously try CookUnity.
108
It's an incredible quality of life upgrade, and they're offering
109
Legal Eaglets 50 % off your first order when you use the code LegalEagle50.
110
So click or scan now to get chef -made meals delivered fresh to your door, or I'll see you in court.
111
Now, before you celebrate the expiration of the Steamboat Willie copyright by starting an internet business producing Mickey Mouse merch,
112
it's important to understand the limitations of the public domain.
113
Only the original 1928 version of Steamboat Willie is in the public domain.
114
So remember, guys, you can use the mouse, but not his gloves, pupils, or his current personality.
115
But it doesn't necessarily mean that every subsequent version of Mickey Mouse is free of copyright protection.
116
It also doesn't mean that Mickey Mouse and Disney are free of trademark protection.
117
There's an important limit on how far trademark law can go, though.
118
In a case called Dastar Corp versus 20th
119
Century Fox Film Corp, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to use trademark law as
120
a substitute for copyright protection over a work whose copyright had expired.
121
Trademark law protects consumers from confusion about the source of the goods,
122
but it doesn't give copyright owners a perpetual monopoly over work simply because their copyright has expired.
123
But that also doesn't mean that a public domain character can never function as a trademark.
124
In a case called Frederick Warren versus
125
Book Sales, a federal court held that a public domain
126
Peter Rabbit illustration could still function as a trademark.
127
So there is a genuine tension here.
128
Disney can argue that consumers associate certain versions or images of Mickey with Disney, while a seller can argue
129
that trademark law can't be used to take a public domain character back out of the public domain.
130
Where that line falls depends heavily on how the character is being used
131
and whether consumers are likely to be confused about the source or sponsorship of the goods.
132
And in our previous video, we discussed how trademark law creates several distinct causes of action, including trademark confusion.
133
Basically, you can't use a trademark in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of your product.
134
And John's assertion that his Steamboat Mickey character is unlikely to be confused with Disney's newer, still copyright -protected versions of Mickey Mouse is significant.
135
The expiration of the copyright in the original Steamboat Willie version does not eliminate
136
Disney's trademark rights.
137
Disney could still have a claim
138
if John used the character in a way likely to cause consumers to believe his product was affiliated with, sponsored by, or approved by Disney.
139
And Disney could also argue trademark dilution.
140
That's a different theory.
141
It protects famous trademarks from uses that are likely to blur their distinctiveness or tarnish their reputation,
142
even when consumers aren't necessarily confused about who made the product.
143
But John could defend himself by arguing that his use of Steamboat Willie was parody, once again.
144
And parody can matter in trademark cases, but it isn't an automatic get out of trademark jail free card.
145
Because as we talked about in 2023, the Supreme Court addressed exactly that problem in Jack Daniels Properties versus VIP Products,
146
involving a dog toy that parodied the Jack Daniels whiskey bottle and used similar branding.
147
The court held that when the defendant uses another company's trademark as a source identifier for its own products, the usual trademark rules still apply.
148
The fact that the product is a joke does not automatically end the analysis.
149
Ultimately, it would be up to a judge
150
or jury to decide whether John's particular use of Steamboat Mickey crossed the line into trademark infringement or dilution.
151
And as we noted in our Buc -ee's video, juries can be unreliable.
152
And like Buc -ee's, Disney seems unwilling to launch a legal battle against John, HBO, and parent company
153
Warner Brothers Discovery.
154
Now that doesn't mean that
155
Disney is letting Steamboat Willie quietly slip into the public domain without a fight though.
156
Instead, Disney ended up in a legal dispute with personal injury law firm
157
Morgan & Morgan, which intended to run an ad featuring Steamboat Willie.
158
I'm sorry.
159
The law firm took the notable step of including a disclaimer at the beginning of the ad, probably to eliminate those pesky trademark confusion claims.
160
This Morgan video was not approved, authorized, or endorsed by Disney.
161
And when Disney indicated it still held trademark rights over Steamboat Willie and refused to give permission to run the advertisement, Morgan & Morgan took
162
Disney to court, seeking an order to clarify whether the company could still enforce its trademark.
163
But the law firm later dropped the lawsuit before the court could rule.
164
Though it did run the ad, and so far
165
Disney has not sued.
166
But who knows, maybe if John keeps needling
167
Disney, he can create some clarity in U .S copyright and trademark law.
168
But copyright and trademark are not the only areas where John regularly pushes boundaries.
169
John also loves to test the boundaries of defamation law.
170
And his most famous legal skirmish was referenced in the Buc -ee segment.
171
In 2017, Last Week Tonight aired an episode about the coal industry that took aim at Bob Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy.
172
John accused Murray of fighting mine safety regulations, misrepresenting the cause of the Crandall Canyon mine disaster,
173
and being less than sincere about his concern for his miners.
174
He also compared Murray to a geriatric Dr. Evil.
175
So I have to proceed with caution.
176
I'm not going to say, for instance, that
177
Bob Murray looks like a geriatric Dr. Evil, even though, even though he clearly does.
178
John also included two humorous anecdotes.
179
The first involved a bonus program rewarding miners for how much coal they'd mined.
180
John noted that this bonus program had been rejected by the workers because of safety concerns.
181
The company launched it anyway and told the workers that if they didn't like it, they could just write void on their checks.
182
But the results probably weren't what Bob expected.
183
And John's second anecdote involved a company rumor.
184
on his back porch contemplating his future when he was approached by a squirrel, who hopped up next to him, looked him in the eye,
185
and said, Bob Murray, you should be operating your very own minds.
186
And these two anecdotes form the basis for one of John's most famous gags.
187
Hey there, Mr. Nutterbutter, I understand that you have a message for Bob Murray.
188
I do.
189
Okay.
190
Hey, Bob, just wanted to say, if you're planning on suing, I do not have a billion dollars.
191
But I do have a check for three acorns and 18 cents.
192
Well that's very nice of you Mr. Nutterbutter.
193
It is.
194
Yeah.
195
It's me now too.
196
Eat it Bob.
197
Remember that?
198
Kiss my ass.
199
Murray's lawyers threatened to sue before the episode even aired.
200
But John Oliver responded by doing what John Oliver does.
201
Airing the segment anyway.
202
With a personal message to Murray.
203
I didn't really plan for so much of this piece to be about you.
204
But you kind of forced my hand on that one.
205
And I know that you are probably going to sue me but you know what?
206
I stand by everything I said.
207
Murray, unlike Disney though, followed through.
208
So as we have been explicitly told to cease and desist, let us do neither of those things and let's talk about Bob Murray.
209
He sued.
210
Murray argued that John's statements were false and that John knew or recklessly disregarded that.
211
Murray said that he and his employees were being harassed
212
because of John Oliver and he dubbed this negative publicity and backlash as the John Oliver effect.
213
He claimed that Murray Energy's website was overrun with messages of eat shit,
214
Bob, and Murray asked the court for a preliminary injunction preventing HBO from rebroadcasting the episode.
215
That was a problem for Murray.
216
A court order preventing future publication is what we call a prior restraint, which the First Amendment treats presumptively as unconstitutional.
217
And Judge Jeffrey Kramer rejected Murray's request and dismissed the case, saying he adopted with, quote, little exception, HBO's arguments.
218
The ACLU, which filed an amicus brief, was particularly enthusiastic about Murray's theory.
219
And his table of contents, including headings like, anyone can legally say eat shit
220
Bob, and plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is ridiculous.
221
Murray appealed though and kept the lawsuit alive for years.
222
Eventually, after Murray Energy filed for bankruptcy, the case was dropped.
223
And to everyone's delight, in 2020, Murray died.
224
And his cause of death, and I'm not making this up, was black lung.
225
And of course, John Oliver did a very elaborate victory dance.
226
and on and on and on and on and on
227
that we will stop this song and don't be fair by your brains and we'll eat shit!
228
Bye!
229
John has since disclosed that the lawsuit cost HBO more than $200 ,000 in legal fees
230
and tripled the show's libel insurance rates.
231
So to recap, HBO spent $200 ,000 to establish that you are legally permitted to call a man a geriatric Dr. Evil.
232
I'd call that money well spent.
233
And John took this as an opportunity to educate the public about slap lawsuits, that is, strategic lawsuits against public participation.
234
And as John pointed out, Murray's goal was never to win the case.
235
It was to shut down legitimate criticism of Murray and his company.
236
What was the point of him putting us through all of this in the first place?
237
Well, I would argue it's because winning the case was never really his goal.
238
Now, a wealthy company with hosts of attorneys on staff or retainer can impose huge legal costs on a newspaper,
239
journalist, or media outlet, as Murray had before with Ohio's small local newspaper, the Chagrin Valley Times.
240
But this doesn't just silence that media outlet, it effectively silences all media outlets because no one wants to pay $200 ,000 in legal fees.
241
That would effectively bankrupt most individuals in small media outlets.
242
And slap suits often come in the form of defamation lawsuits, but sometimes can involve claims of trademark infringement,
243
which probably sounds familiar, or deceptive trade practices.
244
Donald Trump, for example, has made this an art, which is why we think that anti -slap laws are so important.
245
These are laws designed to prevent this kind of harassment or litigation, or at least make them much shorter and less expensive.
246
Now, these vary from state to state, but strong anti -slap laws usually allow defendants to seek dismissal early in the lawsuit,
247
before legal fees really pile up.
248
And even better, they often allow successful defendants to recover their legal fees from the plaintiffs,
249
which can be a pretty strong deterrent against frivolous, chilling lawsuits.
250
But as of the recording of this video, there is no federal anti -SLAPP statute.
251
So the obvious workaround is to file an estate that has no anti -SLAPP law or to file in most federal courts.
252
And that's why Murray filed in West Virginia.
253
Though in 2025, John got sued again for defamation, this time by Dr. Brian Morley.
254
But this time it was an estate with an anti -SLAPP law.
255
Dr. Morley was briefly discussed in a 2024 segment about how
256
Medicaid privatization was resulting in cuts to patient care programs.
257
And during the segment, John told the story of Louis Facenda, an Iowa man with cerebral palsy whose nursing services had been reduced.
258
Those services included assistance with bathing and changing divers.
259
Louis Facenda, who has cerebral palsy and was living with his mother, he needs a lot of care,
260
which, prior to the switchover, was provided by Medicaid.
261
But once an MCO got involved, he lost a lot of what he'd been getting, starting with his medications.
262
And after showing the clips about Louis, John played testimony by Dr. Morley.
263
For six weeks, Louis went without the in -home bathing and diaper changing he had had for years.
264
And he introduced it with the following explanation.
265
Look, that's obviously maddening, and it doesn't get any better when you hear a doctor at AmeriHealth, the MCO that took over in Iowa,
266
explaining in a hearing about a similar patient, just what the corporate thinking was about the necessity of keeping people clean.
267
Then John played actual audio featuring Dr. Morley.
268
People have bowel movements every day where they don't completely clean themselves, and we don't fuss over too much.
269
People are allowed to be dirty.
270
You know, I would allow him to be a little dirty for a couple of days.
271
John was understandably disgusted.
272
I'll be honest, when I first heard that, I thought that has to be taken out of context.
273
There is no way a doctor,
274
a licensed physician, would testify in a hearing that he thinks it's okay if people have shit on them for days.
275
So we got the full hearing.
276
I'm not gonna play it for you.
277
I'm just gonna tell you, he said it.
278
He meant it.
279
And it made me want to punch a hole in the wall.
280
But Dr. Morley quickly sued for defamation in the Southern District of New York.
281
Now, you might be wondering how Dr. Morley could possibly accuse
282
John of defamation since truth is generally a defense to defamation claims.
283
And John played the actual audio of Dr. Morley's testimony.
284
Dr. Morley, though, claimed that while the audio was accurate, John had defamed him by leaving out crucial context and by misrepresenting his statements.
285
Specifically by summarizing Dr. Morley's statement as, quote, he thinks it's okay if people have shit on them for days.
286
Essentially, Dr. Morley claimed that the issue was in the editing,
287
that the excerpt of the quote without context and the insertion of other contexts around it, including the discussion of an unrelated patient,
288
the high denial care rates, and the potential illegality of those denials.
289
John countered that his assertions were either accurate facts or protected opinions, and that he was protected by New York's fair report privilege.
290
The fair report privilege protects journalists when they accurately report what happened in an official proceeding.
291
Dr. Morley's statements had been pulled from an official hearing, and John had also relied on an Iowa State Auditor's report when discussing improper Medicaid denials.
292
And under the fair report privilege, a journalist doesn't have to quote an official proceeding word for word when reporting it.
293
They can summarize and characterize it, provided the account is substantially accurate.
294
And Judge Ronnie Abrams found that all of John's statements were either not actually about Dr. Morley himself,
295
were opinions, or were accurate statements protected by the fair report privilege.
296
And the court specifically addressed John's most inflammatory claim, saying, Oliver's statement that Morley testified it was okay
297
if people have shit on them for days is thus both a fair report of Morley's testimony and substantially true.
298
Judge Abrams granted Oliver's motion to dismiss in June of 2026.
299
But there's an important wrinkle here.
300
Because Morley sued in federal court, specifically in courts covered by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
301
Oliver did not get to use the special anti -slap motion to dismiss.
302
Most federal courts have held that anti -slap laws are procedural,
303
and procedure that conflicts with the federal rules of civil procedure do not apply in federal court.
304
What Oliver did get was the substantive protection
305
New York added to its anti -slap law in 2020.
306
Under New York civil rights law section 76A, the plaintiff in an action involving public petition and participation must satisfy the actual malice standard.
307
And New York's anti -slap law has another provision designed to make successful defendants whole.
308
Section 70A allows the defendant to recover attorney's fees.
309
But there's a catch.
310
In federal court, Oliver's lawyers needed to assert
311
that fee claim as a counterclaim or bring a separate action rather than simply asking
312
Judge Abrams to award the fees after dismissing Morley's lawsuit.
313
They didn't do that, so Oliver won the case, but lost out on the attorney's fees the anti -slap statute was designed to provide.
314
And maybe this is why HBO opted not to fund another high -budget victory dance.
315
But given John's many legal dares, though, I'm sure he'll have another opportunity soon.
316
Of course, when you're responding to a lawsuit, it can take forever just typing out all the legal briefs.
317
But then you're probably making the number one productivity mistake with written communication.
318
You're typing instead of speaking.
319
But you can change that and turbo boost your daily productivity by using Whisperflow, the sponsor of this portion of the video.
320
Oh, sorry, just got a message I need to respond to.
321
I don't know.
322
How about just me using Whisperflow like I always do?
323
Actually, you know what?
324
Let's do a really meta thing where me using the product is the sponsorship itself.
325
So yeah, I love Whisperflow and have been using it for a while.
326
You speak naturally and Whisperflow turns that into clean formatted text that's ready to send.
327
And you don't have to set it up for every app you use.
328
It just works wherever you type it.
329
So Slack, Gmail, Teams, cursor, Notion, Notes, iMessage, it works everywhere.
330
But Whisperflow is a smart voice to text tool and not just built -in voice dictation.
331
Built -in voice dictation like Siri captures all your mistakes and produces messy, often incomprehensible outputs.
332
So most people just assume that dictation is bad.
333
But Whisperflow fixes your mistakes in real time, adapts as you change your mind, and formats your text automatically.
334
Dictation software has been around for 30 years, but it's now finally good enough
335
that I feel confident using it in my law practice and know that it's actually faster than typing.
336
The text is clean, clear, formatted, and ready to go.
337
This can save hours every day just by using Whisperflow.
338
So click or scan to start using Whisperflow for free
339
and use code LEGALEAGLE at checkout to get one month of Whisperflow Pro with unlimited words.
340
So make the switch from typing to dictation or I'll see you in court.
341
Now, one of my favorite stunts in 2015, John started his own tax -exempt church.
342
In the August 16th, 2015 episode, Televangelists,
343
Oliver focused on prosperity gospel preachers who tell viewers that giving money to the church will bring them financial or physical rewards.
344
After skewering numerous televangelists, including Robert Tilton, John suddenly found a new calling.
345
I had a word of knowledge for someone that's really been seeking God,
346
you have, for a particular purpose or decision in your life.
347
And that is when I realized the message Robert Tilton was sending me was
348
that I should set up my own church to test the legal
349
and financial limits of what religious entities are able to do.
350
We filed paperwork last week establishing a church called Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption.
351
He appointed himself mega reverend, and along with his fictitious wife, told viewers to sow a seed by sending him money.
352
A seed!
353
An almighty seed!
354
Preferably in the form of cash, although we do take checks.
355
It can be $5, it can be $10, it can be $77.
356
We need you to sow your biggest seed.
357
That's money.
358
And fans responded generously.
359
And like God in the story of Noah, you took one look at what we wrought, and you done made it rain!
360
Indeed, behold the bounty that you have sown upon us.
361
You sent in, and this is true, tens of thousands of dollars, mostly in single -dollar bills.
362
Mega Reverend John generously donated all proceeds to Doctors Without Borders.
363
Sadly, the church was forced to shut down just a month later.
364
John explained that this was definitely, definitely not because they were legally obligated to close the church.
365
However, I am sorry to report to you that tonight we are closing down the church.
366
Not, no, no, no, no, not because we have to.
367
We have still not broken any laws by promising you untold riches in return for sending us money.
368
The reason that
369
Our Lady of the Perpetual Exemption was forced to close is
370
that some viewers took John's instruction to send us your seat a little too literally.
371
But John was probably right about not being legally obligated to close the church
372
because the IRS guidelines are every bit as vague as John reported.
373
26 USC section 501c3 provides federal tax exemption for organizations operated for qualifying purposes, including religious purposes.
374
But there's an important distinction between an ordinary religious nonprofit and something legally treated as a church.
375
A qualifying church is automatically considered tax exempt.
376
The IRS specifies that it doesn't have to file an application with the IRS
377
and obtain a determination letter first
378
and qualifying donations can still be deductible by donors even if the church never sought formal IRS recognition.
379
Churches also generally don't have to file the annual
380
Form 990 information return required of many other tax -exempt organizations.
381
And as John noted, federal tax law doesn't have a nice simple definition of what a church is.
382
Now, while the IRS does not have a definition of a church, they do have a 14 -point test as a guideline for churches.
383
But not only do you not have to meet all 14 points, we'd already met some of them by accident.
384
The IRS historically considers a collection of characteristics, things like a recognized creed and form of worship, an established congregation, regular religious services,
385
ordained ministers, places of worship, ecclesiastical government, and so forth.
386
But the vagueness of the IRS guidelines, though, is a feature, not a bug.
387
There is an obvious constitutional problem with government officials deciding whether someone's religious beliefs are sufficiently legitimate.
388
The IRS can't simply say, your religion sounds ridiculous, therefore it's not a religion.
389
That would create serious
390
First Amendment establishment and free exercise concerns.
391
And that's why Scientology is still considered a tax -exempt religious organization.
392
The Church of Scientology spent literal decades fighting over tax exemptions with the IRS.
393
And the IRS claimed that the Church of Scientology wasn't a church at all.
394
It was a for -profit entity that enriched its leaders.
395
But the Church of Scientology did not take this well.
396
It launched a war against the IRS, filing suits against the agency, feeding negative stories about the agency to news organizations, and supporting IRS whistleblowers.
397
At 1 .11 high -ranking
398
Church of Scientology officials, including L.
399
Ron Hubbard's wife, were charged with an alleged widespread conspiracy to plant spies in government agencies, steal official documents, and bug government meetings.
400
The church even had a codename for its decades -long campaign against the U .S government,
401
Operation in Snow White, because everything goes back to Disney, apparently.
402
And one of the primary legal fights was over the fees the church charged for so -called audits.
403
The Scientologists claimed that these were a religious donation.
404
The IRS disagreed, claiming that this wasn't a religious donation, it was a payment for a service and was thus taxable.
405
But the Church of Scientology took this case all the way to the Supreme Court in Hernandez v.
406
Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 1989, and the court sided with the IRS,
407
finding that there was a distinction between between a purchase of services from a religious organization and a donation to that one.
408
Then something unexpected happened.
409
In 1993, the IRS reached a super confidential settlement with the Church of Scientology.
410
For several years, the settlement was the subject of intense secrecy and scrutiny.
411
Then finally, in 1997, the terms were leaked.
412
In the final agreement between the Church of Scientology and the IRS,
413
the Scientologists promised to pay back $12 .5 million for decades of potential tax evasion
414
and to call off its war on the United States tax collectors.
415
And the IRS promised to accept the Church of Scientology as a tax -exempt entity.
416
Though a lot of people thought this sudden reversal was kind of weird, especially since news outlets like the New York Times revealed
417
that the IRS bypassed its own committee experts and usual procedures to hand Scientology a total victory.
418
This created a real legal quandary for the IRS, though.
419
If the Church of Scientology could maintain its tax -exempt status while charging for its audits,
420
what was the line between a taxable fee for a service and a tax -exempt donation?
421
Well, in 2002, two parents who were paying tuition to their children's religious school decided to test the boundaries of this rule.
422
In Sklar v.
423
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Sklaras argue
424
that the IRS was allowing members of the Church of Scientology to deduct payments for religious auditing and training.
425
And if the IRS could treat those payments as charitable contributions, they argued denying
426
Orthodox Jewish parents a comparable deduction amounted to unequal and potentially unconstitutional treatment.
427
The Ninth Circuit, though, rejected the Sklaras' attempt to deduct their children's tuition.
428
Under 26th U .S .C.
429
Section 170 and Supreme Court precedent, a charitable contribution generally requires a payment without receiving something of value in return.
430
And the scholars were paying tuition and receiving something in return, their children's education.
431
The fact that the education was partly religious did not transform the tuition payment into a charitable contribution.
432
But that case exposed yet another awkward problem for the IRS.
433
The court noted that the agency had apparently allowed Scientologists to deduct payments for auditing and training under a closing agreement.
434
And the judge wrote that, quote, an IRS closing agreement cannot overrule
435
Congress and the Supreme Court.
436
And the court's answer was not to extend the questionable treatment to other religious groups.
437
If the Scientology arrangement was inconsistent with the tax code or the Constitution, the answer was to stop treating Scientology differently.
438
That did not happen, though, which is probably why the IRS didn't do anything about Our Lady of the Perpetual Exemption
439
and why it has been very reluctant to investigate churches generally.
440
We actually asked the IRS how many churches they've audited in recent years, and they did one in 2014 and just two in 2013.
441
Now, it's tempting to look at the IRS's history with churches and conclude that the agency simply didn't want to investigate them,
442
but the reality is more complicated.
443
Congress has actually built a substantial procedural barrier into the tax code.
444
Under Section 7611, the IRS generally cannot even begin a church tax inquiry unless, quote, appropriate high -level
445
Treasury officials reasonably believe, based on facts recorded in writing beforehand,
446
that the organization may not qualify for tax -exempt status or may be engaged in taxable activities.
447
And in the United States versus
448
Living World Christian Center, a federal court held
449
that the IRS official the agency had designated to make that determination wasn't sufficiently high ranking.
450
The decision effectively complicated the IRS's ability to conduct.. church examinations for years, while the agency struggled to finalize regulations addressing who could authorize them.
451
So John once again proved his point via clever satire and legal dare.
452
And so far, most of his potential legal rivals have chosen to avoid actual litigation, except for Bob Murray, and it might've killed him.
453
But if there ever is another lawsuit, we'll be here to cover it.
454
For now though, props to John for calling out the ridiculousness of the US legal system, wherever he finds it.
455
Now all this highlights why it's so important to get a great lawyer when you're dealing with your own case.
456
Now after I started this channel every week, I'd get hundreds of comments and emails from viewers who are dealing with legal problems.
457
And they'd ask, can you help me find a lawyer?
458
How do I know if this attorney is any good?
459
And there's a massive gap in our justice system.
460
It's that people don't know how to find the right lawyer for their specific situation.
461
They're scared, they're overwhelmed, and they end up doing nothing or hiring the first attorney who calls them back.
462
And that really bothered me.
463
So I started to wonder, what if there was a different way?
464
What if we could build a law firm that actually lived up to the values that I talk about on this channel?
465
Transparency, accessibility, and putting clients first instead of chasing billable hours.
466
A firm where you don't need to pay anything up front, and your lawyers only get paid if you do, to maximize your opportunity for justice.
467
So a few years ago, I decided to fix that problem.
468
I decided to start my own personal injury law firm.
469
And honestly, it wasn't an easy choice.
470
But I realized I was in this unique position.
471
I had this platform, this community, and the experience.
472
Not to get rich, trust me, there are easier ways to make money than starting a law practice.
473
But we did it because access to justice shouldn't be a luxury.
474
Because finding the right legal representation shouldn't feel like playing Russian roulette with your future.
475
And when you work with my firm, you're not just getting a lawyer.
476
You're getting a team that understands that behind every case is a real person with real stakes.
477
If we can't represent you or you're in a state where we don't practice,
478
we'll take the time to try to match you with an attorney in my personal network of lawyers,
479
a national network of some of the best lawyers in the country who actually specialize in what you're going through, located right where you are,
480
not just whoever happens to be available.
481
So if you're dealing with a personal injury, a car crash, a data breach, sexual harassment, a social security or workers' comp issue,
482
give us a call at the number on screen or click on the link below.
483
Now, I can't represent everyone that watches this channel.
484
I wish I could, but what I can do is make sure that when you need legal help,
485
you have somewhere to turn to that you can trust.
486
So whether it's me handling your case or the incredible attorneys we partnered with,
487
you'll get the same principles of honesty and education that we bring to every video.
488
And if you're dealing with a legal issue and you're not sure where to start, check out the link in the description.
489
Let's have a conversation about how we can help you find not just a lawyer, but the right lawyer for your situation.
490
Because at the end of the day, that's what this is all about, making sure that when life gets complicated,
491
you don't have to face it alone.
492
Which is why, when you need a lawyer, you don't just need a legal team, you need the Eagle team.
ऐप डाउनलोड करें
धाराप्रवाह बोलने के लिए ज़रूरी सब कुछ
AI उच्चारण स्कोरहर वाक्य का स्कोर
IPA अभ्यासहर ध्वनि में महारत
शब्दावलीअपना शब्द भंडार बनाएँ
शब्द गेमखेलते हुए सीखें
उसी चैनल से
FOR YOU
अनुशंसित वीडियो
C12
99 वाक्य
Legal English Listening Practice | Can I Sue My Neighbours?!?
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
B22
309 वाक्य
Barack Obama Being Hilarious for 18 Minutes Straight!
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
864 वाक्य
Copyright, Cancel Culture and Celebrity: Inside Entertainment Law | Priyanka Khimani | Faye D'Souza
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
154 वाक्य
Conan Refuses To Change The Name Of The Podcast | Conan O'Brien Needs A Friend
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B2263 वाक्य
Crimes YouTubers Got Away With
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
133 वाक्य
The Funniest Argument In History | The Other Guys (Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg)
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B2150 वाक्य
No Celebrity Could Stay Serious Around Rowan Atkinson...
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
176 वाक्य
Is Amazon Too Big?
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
B22
97 वाक्य
John Dillermand: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (Web Exclusive)
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B22
53 वाक्य
Harvey Takes Trevor to the Stand | Trevor Betrays Mike | Suits
American AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B23
1096 वाक्य
We Have a Debate About Literally Everything - SmoshCast #70
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
522 वाक्य
S13 E26: Kimberly Guilfoyle & Generic Drugs: 10/11/26: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव
यह स्पीकिंग पाठ वीडियो “John Oliver is a Lawsuit Gremlin” पर आधारित है। सबसे ज़्यादा दोहराए गए शब्द ये हैं: church, trademark, Irs। इस वीडियो में शैडोइंग के लिए 492 वाक्य और 6408 शब्द हैं। बोला गया हिस्सा 32:25 लंबा है। वक्ता तेज़ बोलता है, लगभग 198 शब्द प्रति मिनट, इसलिए जुड़ी हुई और कमज़ोर ध्वनियाँ ज़्यादा मिलेंगी। केवल 76% शब्द अंग्रेज़ी के 3,000 सबसे आम शब्दों में से हैं, इसलिए शब्दावली कठिन है।
इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली
वीडियो के 15 सीखने लायक शब्द, उच्चारण और अर्थ के साथ:
| शब्द | उच्चारण | अर्थ |
|---|---|---|
| trademark संज्ञा | /ˈtɹeɪdmɑːk/ | व्यापारचिन्ह, ट्रेडमार्क |
| copyright संज्ञा | /ˈkɑpiˌɹaɪt/ | कॉपीराइट, स्वत्वाधिकार |
| lawsuit संज्ञा | /ˈlɔˌs(j)ut/ | दावा |
| mouse संज्ञा | /maʊs/ | चूहा |
| slap संज्ञा | /slæp/ | चांटा, चाँटा |
| meal संज्ञा | /ˈmiːl/ | भोजन, जेमन |
| chef संज्ञा | /ʃɛf/ | बावरची |
| poster संज्ञा | /ˈpoʊstɚ/ | पोस्टर, इश्तहार |
| defendant संज्ञा | /dɪˈfɛnd.ənt/ | प्रतिवादी |
| confusion संज्ञा | /kənˈfjuːʒən/ | गड़बड़ |
| liability संज्ञा | /laɪəˈbɪlɪti/ | उत्तरदायित्व, दायित्व |
| donation संज्ञा | /doʊˈneɪʃən/ | दान |
| viewer संज्ञा | /ˈvju.ɚ/ | दर्शक, ईक्षक |
| perpetual विशेषण | /pɚˈpɛt͡ʃuəl/ | शाश्वत, निरंतर |
| complicated विशेषण | /ˈkɑm.plɪˌkeɪ.tɪd/ | जटिल, पेचीदा |
वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब
| शब्द | अर्थ |
|---|---|
| pick up क्रिया | उठाना |
दोहराने लायक वाक्य
वीडियो के छोटे, पूरे वाक्य जिन्हें आप रोज़ की बातचीत में इस्तेमाल कर सकते हैं:
- I can't stress that enough.
- Do you have the poster here?
- Am I an accomplice by having him on?
- I'd call that money well spent.
- I'm not gonna play it for you.
इस वीडियो का व्याकरण
वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:
| संरचना | वीडियो में |
|---|---|
| Present perfect continuous have/has been + -ing — पहले शुरू हुआ काम जो अब भी जारी है | has been baiting · have been using · that's really been seeking |
| शर्त वाले वाक्य if + उपवाक्य, will/would + क्रिया — शर्त और उसका नतीजा | if they did, would he · if there ever is another lawsuit, we'll be |
| Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है | has hilariously pointed · have been sued · has ever owned |
| Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है | is closely associated · being sued · have been sued |
ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण
वक्ता 97 बार संक्षिप्त रूपों का प्रयोग करता है, जैसे you're, don't, doesn't। इन्हें वैसे ही छोटा बोलें जैसा आप सुनते हैं।
- “th” की ध्वनियाँ: bath /bɑːθ/, threaten /ˈθɹɛt.n̩/
- “sh” और “zh” की ध्वनियाँ: chef /ʃɛf/, confusion /kənˈfjuːʒən/, donation /doʊˈneɪʃən/, tuition /tjuːˈɪʃən/, exemption /ɪɡˈzɛm(p).ʃən/
- लंबे शब्द — बलाघात सही रखें: liability /laɪəˈbɪlɪti/, complicated /ˈkɑm.plɪˌkeɪ.tɪd/, contribution /ˌkɑntɹɪˈbjuʃən/, testimony /ˈtɛstɪmoʊni/, charitable /ˈt͡ʃæɹɪtəbəl/
हिंदी भाषियों के लिए मुश्किल ध्वनियाँ:
- /v/ और /w/ का फ़र्क़ — /v/ में ऊपर के दाँत निचले होंठ को छूते हैं, /w/ में होंठ गोल होते हैं: versus /ˈvɝsəs/, privilege /ˈpɹɪv.(ɪ.)lɪd͡ʒ/, viewer /ˈvju.ɚ/, qualify /ˈkwɑ.lɪ.faɪ/, investigate /ɪnˈvɛs.tə.ɡeɪt/
- /z/ — इसे “ज” (/dʒ/) न बनाएँ: exempt /ɪɡˈzɛmpt/, exemption /ɪɡˈzɛm(p).ʃən/, confused /kənˈfjuːzd/, citizen /ˈsɪtɪzən/, disaster /dɪˈzɑːs.təː/
- शब्द की शुरुआत में s + व्यंजन — पहले “इ” न जोड़ें: slap /slæp/, statute /ˈstæt͡ʃuːt/, scan /skæn/, sponsor /ˈspɒn.səː/, stunt /stʌnt/
इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें
- पहले बिना बोले पूरा वीडियो एक बार सुनें और जो शब्द नहीं आते उन्हें लिख लें।
- 0.75× गति से शुरू करें, एक-एक वाक्य की शैडोइंग करें, और सहज लगने पर सामान्य गति पर लौटें।
- अपनी आवाज़ रिकॉर्ड करें और मूल से तुलना करें, ख़ासकर trademark, copyright, lawsuit जैसे शब्दों पर ध्यान दें।
शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?
शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।