跟讀練習: John Oliver is a Lawsuit Gremlin (And I Love It!) - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

每種模式都會開啟全屏練習室。

492 句

如果句子過短或過長，請點選 Edit 進行調整。

We love John Oliver because John Oliver doesn't give a hoot about legal advice.

Of course, we only love him because we're not acting as his lawyer.

His lawyers probably hate him because John loves legal stunts, and we love that for him.

And as we recently covered in July, John Oliver put a knockoff

Beaver on a t -shirt and publicly dared one of the largest convenience store chains in America to sue him over it.

And you might recall that Buc -ee's sued a mini -mart in Beaver Creek, Ohio instead,

and now the internet is waiting to find out whether Buc -ee's will actually pick on someone on his own sides.

But this is not the first time that John Oliver has hilariously pointed out illegal absurdity,

or the first time he's invited someone to sue him over trademark or copyright law.

You might remember John has been baiting

Disney to sue him for copyright infringement for years.

In an April 2023 segment, John discussed the upcoming expiration of the Steamboat Willie copyright,

and then introduced a Mickey Mouse -like character as the show's new mascot, daring Disney lawyers to take action.

I thought I was in public domain until next year.

That's actually true, buddy we are pushing the limit a bit here.

The point is, we are staking our claim to Mickey Mouse right now.

And I know

Disney's lawyers might take the trademark angle and argue that this Mickey is closely associated with their brand,

although they should know that he's pretty closely associated with our brand now, too.

And in February of 2024, when John later appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert to promote season 11 of Last Week Tonight,

he brought a friend along.

I see you brought a plus one.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh, is this, uh, is this Mickey from Steamboat Willie?

It is.

It's Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse, which is now available for public use.

It's not Mickey Mouse.

I can't stress that enough.

Luckily, there's no resemblance, so there shouldn't be confusion.

And John openly taunted

Disney, even presenting a promotional poster that featured Steamboat Mickey, and asked, what are they going to do?

Sue?

Yeah, so our poster this year features Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse here, and so we're very lucky to have him.

Do you have the poster here?

Yeah, I do.

I do have the poster.

We have, so this is our poster for this year.

The tagline is, what are they going to do, sue?

And Colbert openly wondered if this made him an accomplice.

That's my question, is that I know you enjoy being sued, okay?

Yes, yes.

Or else you wouldn't be trying to get someone else to sue you.

I have been sued many times.

Yes.

Am I an accomplice by having him on?

And later, John brought Steamboat Mickey back onto a show for several related segments.

How would you say happy birthday to the kids, Mickey?

You're not special.

Nothing about you is special.

And instead of singing happy birthday to your kids when he brings out the pizza, he'll say this.

As a citizen of the United States, you are part of the most violent, genocidal, imperialistic empire the world has ever owned.

Your silence is complicity.

Oh, Lord, Mickey.

Now, smartly, Disney has yet to take John up on his offer to sue, but if they did, would he win?

Now, we already covered the basics of copyright in our Bucky's video.

The short answer is that copyright gives creators a temporary monopoly over original expression.

The Constitution itself says those exclusive rights must last only for limited times.

And when the term expires, the work enters the public domain.

And Steamboat Willie finally did.

After Congress repeatedly extended the copyright terms, the 1928 version of Mickey Mouse's debut entered the public domain on January 1st, 2024.

And that creates an interesting wrinkle for John because he didn't wait.

He introduced his Steamboat Willie character in 2023 while the copyright was still alive.

Of course, his lawyers could and would argue that the use was parody

and therefore protected fair use under 17 USC section 107 of the Copyright Act.

As we've talked about many times on this channel, the statute specifically recognizes criticism and commentary as purposes that can support fair use,

and John had a pretty compelling argument that he was using Mickey to criticize

Disney's aggressive approach to intellectual property.

But the timing would still give his lawyers something to worry about.

If Disney had sued over the 2023 broadcast, the case would have turned on whether John's use was fair,

not simply on the fact that Steamboat Willie was about to enter the public domain.

Which brings us to Colbert.

If John had actually infringed

Disney's copyright, could Colbert have been liable for encouraging him and, you know, publicizing the TV show?

I kind of doubt it.

The Supreme Court established one version of that rule in MGM Studios versus Grokster,

holding that someone who intentionally induces copyright infringement can be liable for the resulting infringement.

And the court recently revisited contributory liability in Cox Communications versus

Sony Music Entertainment, where it ruled

that contributory liability requires more than simply providing a platform or service that happens to be used for infringement.

So if Colbert had actually encouraged John to infringe a still protected copyright, Disney would at least have an argument for contributory liability.

But Disney had another big problem.

When Colbert aired his segment in February, 2024, Steamboat Willie had already been in the public domain for a few weeks.

So Colbert could therefore breathe a sigh of relief, at least as far as that particular 1928 version of Mickey was concerned.

But copyright isn't the only legal issue here, though.

And this is something that lots of commentators got wrong

or didn't understand when they were talking about Mickey entering into the public domain.

Also at play here is a healthy serving of delicious, rich, and always satisfying trademark law.

And speaking of delicious, I had an incredible chicken chow mein for lunch, and I'm still thinking about it.

It was crafted by chef

Hong Tai Mi, and I can't wait to order it again from CookUnity, the sponsor of this part of the video.

Cook Unity is a chef -to -you meal delivery program that connects you with hundreds of fresh, fully prepared meals from award -winning chefs.

And with Cook Unity, you can choose from over 400 meals nationwide each week, including over 45 global cuisines and diets.

All meals are handcrafted in small batches and kitchens local to you.

There are over 130 chefs on the platform, including Food Network stars, James Beard award winners, and Michelin starred masters.

Meals are delivered fully cooked.

All you have to do is heat them up, and in two minutes or less, you're ready to eat.

Now, I love to cook, but my days are crazy busy.

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.

下載應用

流利口語所需的一切

AI 發音評分逐句打分

音標練習掌握每個音

詞彙學習建立你的詞庫

詞彙遊戲邊玩邊學

掃碼

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同頻道

FOR YOU

本課的詞彙與口語要點

這節口語課以影片“John Oliver is a Lawsuit Gremlin”為素材。影片中反覆出現的詞有：church, trademark, Irs。這段影片共有 492 個句子、6408 個單詞可供跟讀。講話部分時長為 32:25。說話人語速較快，每分鐘約 198 個詞，會出現較多連讀和弱讀。只有 76% 的單詞屬於英語最常用的 3,000 詞，詞彙難度較高。

影片中的重點詞彙

影片中 15 個值得學習的單詞，附發音和釋義：

單詞	發音	釋義
trademark 名詞	/ˈtɹeɪdmɑːk/	商標 /商標, 牌子
copyright 名詞	/ˈkɑpiˌɹaɪt/	版權 /版權
domain 名詞	/ˌdəʊˈmeɪ̯n/	領域 /領域
lawsuit 名詞	/ˈlɔˌs(j)ut/	訴訟 /訴訟, 官司
mouse 名詞	/maʊs/	лочў, 鳥鼠 /鳥鼠
argue 動詞	/ˈɑɹ.ɡju/	辯論 /辯論, 爭辯 /爭辯
sue 動詞	/sjuː/	起訴 /起訴
slap 名詞	/slæp/	拍擊 /拍擊, 耳光
meal 名詞	/ˈmiːl/	餐, 飯 /飯
chef 名詞	/ʃɛf/	廚師 /廚師
versus	/ˈvɝsəs/	對 /對
segment 名詞	/ˈsɛɡmɛnt/	片斷 /片斷, 段
poster 名詞	/ˈpoʊstɚ/	招貼 /招貼
outlet 名詞	/ˈaʊtlɛt/	出口
defendant 名詞	/dɪˈfɛnd.ənt/	被告

影片中出現的短語動詞

單詞	發音	釋義
check out 動詞		退房
point out 動詞		指, 指出
close down 動詞	/kləʊzˈdaʊn/	結業 /結業
end up 動詞		到達
find out 動詞		找出, 查明
go through 動詞		通過 /通過
pay back 動詞	/peɪ bæk/	賠 /賠, 報償 /報償
pick up 動詞		拾取, 撿 /撿

值得反覆跟讀的句子

影片中簡短而完整的句子，可以直接用在日常對話裡：

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.

影片中的語法

說話人最常用的結構，並附上影片中的原話：

結構	影片中的用法
現在完成進行時 have/has been + -ing — 以前開始、現在仍在繼續的動作	has been baiting · have been using · that's really been seeking
條件句 if + 從句，will/would + 動詞 — 條件及其結果	if they did, would he · if there ever is another lawsuit, we'll be
現在完成時 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去發生但與現在仍有關聯的事	has hilariously pointed · have been sued · has ever owned
被動語態 be + 過去分詞 — 強調發生了什麼，而不是誰做的	is closely associated · being sued · have been sued

需要注意的發音

說話人用了 97 次縮略和弱讀形式，例如 you're, don't, doesn't。請按聽到的簡短形式來說。

“th” 音: bath /bɑːθ/, threaten /ˈθɹɛt.n̩/
“sh” 和 “zh” 音: chef /ʃɛf/, confusion /kənˈfjuːʒən/, donation /doʊˈneɪʃən/, tuition /tjuːˈɪʃən/, exemption /ɪɡˈzɛm(p).ʃən/
長單詞——注意重音位置: liability /laɪəˈbɪlɪti/, complicated /ˈkɑm.plɪˌkeɪ.tɪd/, contribution /ˌkɑntɹɪˈbjuʃən/, testimony /ˈtɛstɪmoʊni/, charitable /ˈt͡ʃæɹɪtəbəl/

中文母語者容易讀錯的音：

/v/ — 不要讀成 /w/，上齒輕觸下唇: versus /ˈvɝsəs/, privilege /ˈpɹɪv.(ɪ.)lɪd͡ʒ/, viewer /ˈvju.ɚ/, investigate /ɪnˈvɛs.tə.ɡeɪt/, recover /ɹɪˈkʌvɚ/
詞尾子音 — 要讀清楚，後面不要加母音: trademark /ˈtɹeɪdmɑːk/, copyright /ˈkɑpiˌɹaɪt/, lawsuit /ˈlɔˌs(j)ut/, mouse /maʊs/, slap /slæp/
/r/ 和 /l/ 的區別: privilege /ˈpɹɪv.(ɪ.)lɪd͡ʒ/, charitable /ˈt͡ʃæɹɪtəbəl/, necessarily /ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/, ridiculous /ɹɪˈdɪk.jə.ləs/, cerebral /səˈɹi.bɹəl/

如何用這段影片練習

先完整聽一遍影片，不要開口，記下不認識的單詞。
先用 0.75 倍速逐句跟讀，熟練之後再回到正常速度。
錄下自己的聲音並與原聲對比，特別注意 trademark, copyright, domain 這類單詞。

什麼是跟讀法？

跟讀法 (Shadowing) 是一種有科學依據的語言學習技巧，最初開發用於專業口譯員的培訓，並由多語言者Alexander Arguelles博士普及。這個方法簡單而強大：您在聽英語母語原聲的同時立即大聲重複——就像是一個延遲1-2秒緊跟說話者的影子。與被動聽力或語法練習不同，跟讀法強迫您的大腦和口腔肌肉同時處理並模模擬實的講話模式。研究表明它能顯著提高發音準確性，語調，節奏，連讀，聽力理解和口語流利度——使其成為雅思口語備考和真實英語交流最有效的方法之一。

影子跟讀法: 閱讀完整分步指南 →

跟讀練習: John Oliver is a Lawsuit Gremlin (And I Love It!) - 通過影片學習英語口語

選擇練習模式

下載應用

同頻道

Reddit's Tree Lawyers Are Losing Their Minds

Trump's Lawyer Keeps Breaking The Law

Real Lawyer Reacts to Suits (Episode 2 - Cell Phone Patent Problems!)

推薦影片

Legal English Listening Practice | Can I Sue My Neighbours?!?

Barack Obama Being Hilarious for 18 Minutes Straight!

Copyright, Cancel Culture and Celebrity: Inside Entertainment Law | Priyanka Khimani | Faye D'Souza

Conan Refuses To Change The Name Of The Podcast | Conan O'Brien Needs A Friend

Crimes YouTubers Got Away With

The Funniest Argument In History | The Other Guys (Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg)

No Celebrity Could Stay Serious Around Rowan Atkinson...

Is Amazon Too Big?

John Dillermand: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (Web Exclusive)

Harvey Takes Trevor to the Stand | Trevor Betrays Mike | Suits

We Have a Debate About Literally Everything - SmoshCast #70

S13 E26: Kimberly Guilfoyle & Generic Drugs: 10/11/26: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver