>So you see the fact I illegally altered legal documents, broke in to my brothers home, destroyed his personal property which was also a confession of me admitting to a crime is actually not that bad because my brother hates me
>>214219045Chuck admitted he couldn't prove that Jimmy swapped the numbers on the address shortly before his whole tirade about how worthless his brother was (which only made him sound paranoid and spiteful, making it harder to believe his accusation).
>>214219045>>214219091I think Jimmy's fraud or whatever you'd call it wasn't actually part of the hearing, since there was no evidence. It was just about Jimmy breaking in and damaging some stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KekChFdIe00
>>214219045>>214219091>>214219597wasn't even a real trial but a bar exam
Jimmy literally calls it a crime himself in the finale
>>214219045How would the phone battery affect Chuck if it doesn’t have a current?
>>214220140Because his condition is not real.
>>214220140because his condition is psychological, not physical.
Jimmy's defense is that Chuck's antagonism stemmed from his mental illness and caused him to falsely confess to make Chuck feel better before snapping once he realized he had been recorded and Chuck was going to try to get him arrested, disbarred, whateverThis probably would have worked on its own in the hearing in preventing disbarment if this situation were to have happened irl, but it wouldn't have been dramatic enough, so they did the battery-swapping thing, which would have actually gotten Jimmy disbarred.
>>214220896>so they did the battery-swapping thing, which would have actually gotten Jimmy disbarredi don't know, so much of what happened up to that point (even turning off the lights in the hearing room) was done to appease Chuck's "condition", definitively proving that it was a mental condition and not physical goes a long way in both undermining Chuck's testimony but also his motives. getting him to rant and rave like that just showed that his issues with Jimmy were personal, the entire hearing was set up to hurt Jimmy.
>>214220171>>214220653Mr McGill's mental health issue is a non-issue!
>>214220958I don't think you're allowed to commit battery (ironic name but probably describes that action) against a person merely because you think it will provoke them into revealing information in a hearing.
>>214221046what battery? are we saying that every time you bump into someone in a crowded setting that's assault?
>>214221071Doing it intentionally could be, but bumping into him is really insignificant compared to planting the battery on him. Despite Chuck's condition being psychosomatic, it has hospitalized him at least twice by that point.
>>214221161He hospitalized himself. It was his choice to go to the hospital.
>>214221221That's not true because in both instances he was unconscious/unresponsive.
>>214221071Jimmy paid a guy to bump into him (intentionality makes it battery, possibly assault) and plant "evidence". That's not as much of a crime as the B&E and property destruction, but the bar would consider it to be more egregious since the intent was to harass a "witness" for the purpose of influencing an ongoing proceeding.
>>214219045Jimmy plead no contest to those charges in exchanged for a deferred adjudication. The bar hearing wasn't a trial, it was the bar association of new mexico convening to figure out what they were going do do about his license. Chuck was trying to get Jimmy disbarred. He didn't want to see him go to jail, he just didn't want to see him practicing the law. It was likely he was going to be disbarred for life, but then chicanery happened and Chuck's crazy ass made him look like a crazy asshole, and the bar realized there were extenuating circumstances, and opted to slap jimmy on the wrist.
>>214221383>(intentionality makes it battery, possibly assault)That's debatable, especially when Chuck opened up the legitimacy of his illness. Chuck could absolutely sue or press charges, but the damage was done when he proved in front of the court his condition was mental. Bar hearings don't operate under the same rules as a court room and aren't held to the same standards of procedure and evidence. What jimmy did wasn't legal, but it probably wasn't illegal either.
>>214221558Mental illnesses aren't illegitimate as illnesses, especially when as in Chuck's case they manifest physical symptoms.
>>214221616How does that relate to Jimmy's argument that Chuck's poor mental health manifested as emotional abuse of his brother, which caused Jimmy to have a breakdown?
>commits battery with a batterySaul is a genius.
>>214221686That's double jeopardy, very clever.
>>214221661I'm not sure. All that is irrelevant to my point that Jimmy committed battery against Chuck with his stunt with the battery.
>>214221798Ah, but you did not pick up on the subtle metaphors of the show, that in the end it was all good, man. Very allegorical.
>>214221798>All that is irrelevant to my pointIt really isn't. Chuck is free to press charges or sue if he feels like he was assaulted. It is still a perry mason moment where Chuck demonstrates the exact same kind of insanity jimmy was speaking to. It also proves its a mental issue and not a physical condition, which is something he refuses to accept or get help with (or at least admit that he's getting help). Again, this didn't happen during a trial, it happened during a bar hearing. They have different burdens of proof, and if his entire argument is that he's been henpecked by an insane older brother who had repeatedly sabotaged his career because he had a secret grudge, and that coming to a head is why they're all here. Jimmy's point is he did those things as a brother under extreme duress, and it wasn't him acting in his capacity as a lawyer, which is really what the bar is there to figure out.
>>214222584>it wasn't him acting in his capacity as a lawyerI always found that a little bit silly, the idea that his capacity to be a lawyer was impacted by breaking down a door. Like he was busting down the door screaming "I am Saul Goodman and I believe everyone has rights, a right to get that fucking tape!" I imagine there's some truth to this in real life, where a lawyer who drunk drives gets disbarred, but surely not after their first offence? I was under the impression disbarment happens if you use your license in a grossly (unsanctioned) unethical way, or act in such a manner that it becomes undermining the principle of the law that you continue to practise its discernment and execution (repeat violations, heinous illegal acts, etc).>By the power invested in me by the New Mexico Bar Association, I will end you, Chuck!
>>214222801No, what I mean is, when a lawyer is sworn in at the bar they take an oath where they're expected to be moral paragons, and if you're guilty of something any more severe than a speeding ticket the bar can get together to say you're not a lawyer anymore. If jimmy was breaking in there to destroy evidence, that would be grounds for disbarment. If he went in there as a concerned brother at the end of his rope then that is different motive and intent, even if the end results were the same (a broken tape, broken door, and desk drawer). I think the real tragedy of everything is that chuck probably should have had a conversation about his concerns when jimmy first passed the bar. Instead he ends up making howard the bad guy.
>>214222584You can sue anyone for anything, but battery/assault is a criminal charge.I'm not saying that Jimmy did something that Chuck could probably win a lawsuit against him for, I'm saying that he committed a crime.
>>214222997Oh, I didn't know they swore and oath. So yeah, the evidence destruction part would be the cincher. Why'd they initially refuse reinstatement though? If it was a misdemeanour breaking down of a door, then a year's a year. For drama, I guess?At the end of the show there's the time travel bit, where it's then showed that Chuck tried to talk it out in between reading The Time Machine. But, also, he was an evil prick so it probably wouldn't have done much. The real solution, as I see it, is that Chuck shouldn't have resented his brother and taken his frustrations out on him, and been supportive, because Jimmy did turn his life around for the most part, and the constant attacks by Chuck was the catalyst for driving him to the Slippin' side of the force. Sure, Jimmy probably would have done some evil along the way, because he was also an evil prick, but if Chuck had taken a mentor role he could probably have headed off 90% of that at the pass.The real real solution was that they should have both died in a house fire, the sick fucks.(I only watched the show about a month ago, having not seen Breaking Bad, and I thought Better Call Saul was really really good :)
>>214223338Yeah, you can get your J.D. (juris doctor, your law degree), but you're not a lawyer until you can pass the bar. its an attempt by lawyers to try and police themselves, a legal guild.
>>214219045How the fuck does someone get the charges dropped for fucking shitting through the sunroof of a car, directly above a stranger's KIDS, HOW?? they just gloss it over oh yeah chuck has connects he's a senior in the lawyer sphere, I'm not buying it, not even Bill gates would get off easily if he did that shit
>>214221383>Jimmy paid a guy to bump into him (intentionality makes it battery, possibly assault)The Western Legal code is the most cucked institution in the history of the world.
