Ames Moot Court Competition 2016

The case United States v. Papaya Cellular was argued on November 1, 2016, at the Ames Moot Court competition. The presiding judges were Hon. John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice (Ret.), U.S. Supreme Court; Hon. David J. Barron ’94, U.S. Court of Appeals for The First Circuit; Hon. Alison J. Nathan, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
The Daniel J. Meltzer Memorial Team
Luke Beasley
Benjamin Burkett
William Ferraro
Amanda Mundell, Oralist
Trenton Van Oss
Connor Winn, Oralist
The Lucy Stone Memorial Team
Michelle Adler
Victoria Hartmann
Helen Rave
Caroline Trusty, Oralist
Stefanie Tubbs
Mengjie Zou, Oralist
The Ames Competition, held in the historic Ames Courtroom of Harvard Law School, is one of the most prestigious competitions for appellate brief writing and advocacy in the country. The students participating in the Final Round started the competition in fall of their 2L year. Two teams progressed to the Final Round through their strong research abilities and excellent written and oral advocacy.
To view the history of the Ames Moot Court Competition, including decades of videos and info on past competitions, go to : hls.harvard.edu/ames-moot-court/

[@rachelliz284]

Imagine these ppl writing an essay...they have this continuous stream of thought with perfect grammar and sentence construction...wow!

[@benethemmanuel542]

Wow... Their eloquence is top notch

[@postmodernist7651]

Amanda is the GOAT. She was a natural. We have others fainting and stuttering, which is totally understandable. These are some of the most nerve-wracking situations in life.

[@isaacasdreams]

The girl that fainted is a hero. She got back up, said I'm good we don't need a recess and showed everyone she will do the job even if she passes out. We need more people like her in this world. Shout out to Amanda I love her as well.

[@claragimenezsoler8079]

As a second year law student from a small spanish university, this definitely intimidates me! I hope to achieve this speaking level one day! Congratulations!

[@ssekyejwedaniel671]

ye good am also doing the same i like it mng

[@DullardGuy]

Take a speech class. Lifes easier after that.

[@supercitizen2021]

You are not alone dear...we face the same difficulty. Keep trying!

[@amylieu6084]

Will you specialize in the taco defense? You know " I lost my papers on the way over in my taco" "please feed me and give me free medical care and a job! "

[@AA-hs4rk]

amy lieu are you well?

[@SfocusN]

Amanda did not flench! Go girl! This was an extremely hard bench!

[@harshitsrivastav3712]

Ma'am, I would be much obliged if you can provide your or any of known students watsapp contact number from whom I can take help for such competition.

[@MarrowEternal]

Amanda was fantastic! I could listen to her for hours

[@erhhsdhh2099]

Totally agree- she is an excellent speaker

[@erhhsdhh2099]

Her colleague Connor Winn sounded like he was going to cry any second

[@harshitsrivastav3712]

Can anyone have your Watsapp contact number provided here. I am a law student and need some exposure of such mooting.

[@olivejake3053]

@@harshitsrivastav3712 try whirlpool forum? or toplawschool forum?

[@stephenwatchesyoutube]

amanda’s response about compliance to justice nathan’s argument about resources blew me away. very clever and quick on her feet

[@erhhsdhh2099]

I wouldn't say 'quick on her feet', because that's a phrase referring to spontaneous thinking whereas she clearly prepared for that question in advance and must have practiced her response. But agreed, still amazing.

[@Kaity11]

@@erhhsdhh2099 shut up

[@erhhsdhh2099]

@@Kaity11 Someone is triggered lol

[@Benjamin-fu5ij]

The first oralist, Amanda, was incredibly impressive to say the least. Actually superior to a lot of SCOTUS appellate lawyers in oral argumentation. So impressive!

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

I mean they all had a lot more preparations then actual appellate advocates usually do.

[@Benjamin-fu5ij]

@@dragonflarefrog1424 Still impressive to be at or better than the level of a pro who does it for a living.

[@anythinggoes5574]

She's pretty hot.

[@rachelliz284]

They seem to never look down at their notes...incredibly impressive!

[@silviamartinez979]

Wow I am amazed by Amanda.. I wish to one day be able to speak and present my arguments like her.

[@michaelchan4811]

I understand the words but don't understand the sentences.

[@futurekillerful]

Michael Chan same here

[@kechbowkech9138]

Legal language..... From legal methodology

[@OiVinn-eq1ml]

It's alright, it's legal language

[@rosehans9328]

Michael - you are hilarious...hahahah

[@amylieu6084]

you're just stupid

[@mramosgoldengirl]

Amanda is out of this world!

[@johnosandra]

You shouldn't be intimidated by anyone. You should be concerned with good law.

[@rosehans9328]

lol - what you said about "good law" makes NO sense. The fluidity that is part and parcel of the law makes EVERY law good law and bad law all at once...

[@olivejake3053]

@@amylieu6084 oh why are u leaving weird replies on every comment?

[@cintiaverdades3542]

I'm a British student, aspiring to attend Harvard university or an American university to study law and these females' confidence, formality, posture and flow truly do intimidate me. The way that they answer in so much detail and speak so precisely seriously just makes me want to give up law school. Especially having a completely different vocabulary and accent. I seriously didn't understand a lot of it because of the language used

[@futurekillerful]

Cintia Verdades don't give up based on these people... this is Harvard... not your typical law school also don't worry any schooling is tough just gotta push and believe in yourself you got this!

[@nateo200]

A Class on Latin terms will help a lot. Also, watch some oral arguments, be they real or moot and pause to look up definitions. Or heck, type in a famous US Court of Appeals or US Supreme Court case and find the PDF of the decision and take little bites of it. I'm American and I have a few friends studying at Cambridge and other prestigious schools, if you are a Brit you CAN go to a US school and our common law system is based off of the England which might help a bit vs civil law countries. You have to be willing to sacrifice a lot of time to study to get the grades. Even if you don't get into Harvard, doing decent at any law school is still great and if you decide you don't want to practice law your have a Doctorate degree.

[@ndehmoma7470]

That's absolutely the say I felt before I study law school in United states. I'm Also from British colonial country with no American assent. Don't allow the way american speak intimidate you...you can do it..

[@rogerthornhill477]

a confident speaker , a future a star in the making .

[@brentturno861]

Amanda sets the bar high. Excellent representation!!!

[@MegaVictorias]

I feel so bad about my 2nd year moot a year ago, I was nowhere near that perfection! but thanks cause I am up for it again this year in my masters, but its just Advocacy. I am heavily challenged and inspired! Thank you and well done!.

[@Dani-cu7ip]

She is amazing! Could listen to her for hours!

[@morganm2350]

which one?

[@rachitsomani4690]

Amanda maam did excellently well. Very nervous as I myself will appear in 1st moot of my life after 3 days.

[@anuka3321]

Rachit Somani good luck!!!!

[@dione6388]

well, how did it go?

[@vilmaortiz708]

I’ve come to the conclusion that the more videos I watch from Ames Moot Ct the more advanced I’ll become in my English 😌

[@josel.gonzalez9701]

I’d love to see where the speakers are now ! Truly amazing articulation of words.

[@SfocusN]

They cut the second counsel off in favor of Defendant (Cell Company) so much. They actually made her start stuttering. What a hot bench, but almost unruly. Let the counsel complete a sentence GEEZEEEEE!

[@dmb555]

6:24 haha, even the girls behind were like "that's right, go get'em, girl"

[@82spiders]

I am so pleased Amanda used the word minimal. Knew a lawyer who had to use "diminimus'. In addition to being Latin it's pretentious' as was she.

[@mdifranco7]

"De minimus" is a term of art that has a legal meaning, so using "minimal" when the rule is de minimus is sloppy lawyering (it's changing the law)

[@tammylovesmakeup]

At the beginning did Judge David Barron get bothered when the presenter kind of screamed: O yay O yay

[@ArcherALT]

I can see him mouthing "oh shit"

[@gustavgurke3389]

its oyez

[@tumpesoletipis1310]

Well articulated

[@thepiperreport8198]

I liked Scalia's in 2014.. All the judges talked in that one too.. This one is like one judge...

[@Shepherd1234]

Ya same for me. But everything with computer science is always hard to defend for lawyers. The black woman was right at the end of her speech, you can de-anonymize data even with imprecise or incomplete data. I am not a lawyer but this was an important point to the case. Like when Uber released anonymized data but with machine learning tools you were able to de-anonymize people and know who is who, going where to do what.

[@CollDott]

Moot court helps me strengthen my already sharp reasoning capabilities!!

[@anehaflex]

In favor of the petitioner - I think the case is not just regarding government interest and how much it weighs but also of public interest as well, because in the end it it affect the mass. And if the terrorist attack happens who is to be blamed ?

[@armyofhamsters11]

Inserting friendly rebuttal. You can hold the opinion that the petitioner is correct due to possible attacks that may occur in practicality sense, but as far as being adhering to the words of the law, you are fleeing from the text. If they were to rule in favour of the petitioner based solely on Government and public interest, that would be a horrific case of unconstitutional judicial activism. By text and virtue of the Constitution, you cannot use judicial interpretation as a means of offence against a legislative action. The judiciary upholds the law passed by Congress. There was a fatal comment by the Chief Justice that Congress could have easily added a provision that stated the "undue burden" is to be considered within the context of how pressing the needed information is related to public safety. They said no such thing. I'm not saying you are wrong for siding with the petitioner, only for what lead you to side with them. Also, to respond to the question of who is to be blamed if an attack is to occur? The perpetrators.

[@vilmaortiz708]

RIP JOHN PAUL STEVENS

[@LisaL.]

This is fascinating to watch and listen. It gives such insight into this profession. There are 3/4 generations at work, and watching an evolution in such a short space of time is just amazing. Language was really invented to aid communication, and help understanding. Every word has its specific meaning, and use. But some smart people decided to turn it into something called profession, some hide behind latin; some use vague words, but give it a specific meaning, so the "uneducated" person is unable to fully comprehend. There is the student armed with this new language that they spent years acquiring, now using it to debate at the next level. There is the younger professional that is eager to impress, and gives a piece of their mind, though the lingo with a further few years of polishing, becomes more understandable. However, as a spectator, is sometimes difficult to recognise who really is the true performer, and who is the actual judge. This all seem blurred into one. Then comes the retired professional, through years of experience, understood that language is also about listening, and understanding. Lastly the debate, using a complex language to discuss a simple problem, but failing to list all underlying issues, while giving insufficient time to explore each one of them. If this reflects reality, how things are at present, aren't that idiotic after all.

[@davyroger3773]

"The conspiracy against the laity"

[@kelvinnguyen6048]

Looks so fun 🤩☺️

[@paigegoins8526]

AMANDA ROCKED MY WORLD

[@christopherarreola9066]

Man, they got to put an age limit for how long you can be a justice. I don't think he could follow along with what the students were saying so he asked random questions just to play his part, it has to be detrimental in governing the rule of law. There's a few on the supreme court justices above 80 I think, just do us a favor and hang it up man. If the glove don't fit you must acquit.

[@stephenwatchesyoutube]

The perfect girl doesn't exi-

[@luvomambila5532]

This should be a civil case

[@devilsinmanagement]

"No taking the cat back out of the bag?" Does he mean he has an intention to put the cat into the bag and remove it twice, but he is so limited that he may only be able to do it once? I think he misspoke. I think he meant no putting the cat back into the bag. I see the three attorneys to the far right laughing when the impulse of his statement is created on them. See 29:06 - 29:15

[@JayPinho]

Just a note that the title card says 2015, not 2016.

[@jess_bounce]

I have a competition on Wednesday. Just watching this makes me sweat.

[@jess_bounce]

sebatian I won best brief! In the end, I actually enjoyed it and I also learned a lot. I did a few more competitions after that for moot court so eventually I became more comfortable with making my argument to the judges in front of an audience. But wow I was so nervous before that first competition haha

[@jess_bounce]

sebatian thanks I appreciate it!

[@user-ev9ud5pe5q]

Wow 3years Ago. I'm sure you are far from now

[@junardvillahermosa]

can i have her ability? i envy her 😭

[@mickeyme-bm3pe]

Very interesting

[@johnsmiles715]

If john doe just use Signal on a Ipod with a handheld wifi (the little one) Activating the ipod with a prepaid phone (verifying) there would be no case.

[@lilsmurf1048]

How to be able to talking smoothly like they did? Whenever i need to talking, especially in debate setting, my lips and voice will always shaking and i'm gonna sweating uncontrollably.

[@netis9691]

Amanda is quite something ahahahha superb!

[@bencheveryday]

Can someone explain the case and their arguments please?

[@firefly83]

Matt Skelton to put in in short, there was a murder in a university or some shit and the terrorist had an apple or "papaya" phone and apple refused to unlock the phone even though the prosecution believed there was evidence on the phone. But defense argued that was self incrimination and a violation of his 4th admanenment.. (sry for such little detail im just a sophomore in hs)

[@watscrackalacking]

FireFly sorry 2 years later (literally) but I would NOT make it as a lawyer cause I thought this was about something completely different lol. Thanks for the explanation 👍🏽

[@rachelliz284]

@@firefly83 omg thank you for this, suddenly a lot of what they are saying makes sense 😅

[@petefernandes795]

Amanda did not ask for rebuttal !!!

[@MburuNahashon]

Well explained.....I got it

[@naheemessop3570]

Impressive.

[@JorgeRamos-xw6dy]

Are the teams strictly composed of Harvard students? or are other schools and students invited to debate?

[@rachelliz284]

Only Harvard students

[@erhhsdhh2099]

Harvard moot court is Harvard only, but from my understanding law schools will go up against each other in competitions

[@an0n71]

She swept his breath away

[@OiVinn-eq1ml]

Mengjie did an amazing job

[@SuperYouthful]

Public Interest FOR a lawyer doesn't pay well. That's different from HUMAN NATURE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE a difference IN OUR SOCIETY. I can do patents too busy WITH OUR OWN PEOPLE IN this SOCIETY. This is gonna be BFFS FOREVER GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY.

[@dtwelleh4126]

The only way to win these arguments is to consistently back each of your statement with an interpretation of the statutes relevant to the nature of the case.

[@zachalderton2057]

WHO WAS CROWNED

[@thefilmcine]

Hard to believe that Justice Stevens is 96 years old here....He died 3 years after this appearance. R.I.P

[@odjflone8330]

I wonder if you fail to properly address the questioning of a judge, is there dire consequences in the job market?

[@kabelomaragelo2745]

You can be a great speaker and articulate and still not say anything. See the difference between the lawyers and Amanda.

[@johnjobe-ck8pm]

Excessive ruling ,and law of nations is the issue, and this is a conflict, between private law and public law ,and the criticism is about a political executive government overruling with reasons in need of clarification, review and examination for evidence and proof of intent.

[@mariahbay]

Why can’t the government provide provisions for the compliance request let’s say on taxes or other means that would balance the scales for it’s extra request outside the mandate.

[@mariahbay]

Plus I think it’s a little intrusive to say the least that the government would be asking for private information about clients or customers at will w/o a mandate or warrant …..seems to be going against the constitution.

[@x0captainblack0x]

This is not about the individual right to the 4th amendment this falls under UCC this was a business contract witch does not make the 4th amendment applicable when the contract singing happened it was between two corporate factions ...... Using a social security number in the contract and a signature as the authorized. Agent and acknowledgement of the tax code ....... This makes it a business agreement .... Furthermore this agreement is enforced by UCC regulations between Corporation and corporate faction (with authorized agents signature) when it comes to the contract it sounds like there trying to play both sides of the fiddle.

[@x0captainblack0x]

This opens the cellular company up to a class action suit for any one who has paid there contract cancellation fee if there claiming the way there blocking the U.S government

[@themisvespucci9894]

Id really like to see former Pres Obamas ames

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

He did law review not mock trial. You can find footage from his as a law review editor

[@supahotfan]

Someone please explain to me what is happening ive always been a science person and law never made sense to me what are they competing? What is going on what are the students talking about is it all the same thing?

[@harlequill9495]

It's basically a case about a bombing with terrorist undertones. One of the people connected to all three attacks has a cellphone and the FBI wants to match the location and time of dates to the crime scenes with this guy's cell phone but his cell phone company won't allow it because they feel it's an undue burden under *_18 U.S. Code § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records._*

[@kechbowkech9138]

You will understand properly, when one day you will be accused especially for the criminal charges..... You need full defence from the advocates against prosticutors, your prayers will be to the side of your Advocate to win the case, and that is your answer " in short the training for the case proceeding to argue for or against....

[@nateo200]

Funny, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to a case that questions whether 18 USC 2703 applies to a corporation that stores information overseas but none the less has control over it. United States v. Microsoft, Docket 17-2. Arguments set for end of February!

[@markbeaudry2469]

supahotfan the question is does the government have the right to force a cell-phone provider to write a program that will detect possible conversations dealing with terrorism without violating the right of privacy or search and seizure. As far as I'm concerned since the government is going to do it anyway, the law is irrelevant.

[@emehdi3636]

We live Pro Bono and Die Pro Se

[@jess_bounce]

Anybody watching this in preparation for the UNLV Gaming Law competition???

[@nishatslife9467]

Please next video upload with English subtitles,,, cause, we don't understand your pronounce

[@thisisgsc]

😂 Majority of the people think this is how courts work. LOL

[@futurekillerful]

The 2nd guy was very articulate but he didn't come across as being a very good speaker though... maybe just comparing him to the others I guess though. He still speaks well just didn't stand out like the last speaker for example

[@Mac-dt3iz]

I can tell you're not a very great speaker either.

[@edwinfcapidos]

Is this the same case that Apple has when the government asked to decrypt a password in one of the terrorist's phone?

[@khairulanwar1568]

Aku Tak faham lah

[@Blissbb]

Her voice 😳

[@floridakitchen8945]

At the beginning did the judge David Barron get bothered when the presented kind of screamed: O yay O yay

[@silviamartinez979]

FloridaKitchen hahah I did. So I bet he did too. He was so extra lol

[@linaleen94]

hahahahahah

[@gvi341984]

-UCC -Apple/Google You can not Force 4th amendment rights on the omnipresence.

[@write4ever875]

Damn, I get a headache from watching this!

[@IndianClassical97]

How does this happen, A Supreme Court Justice is sitting on the bench, but a junior judge (in comparision to the Justice) is the Chief Justice?

[@user-mi3xe2ob4w]

IndianClددد ssical97

[@bowenike]

Stevens is retired, and the other two judges are both active. I think Stevens was placed on this because of stance on the Fourth Amendment, and like you can see he asked the toughest question during the presentations.

[@IndianClassical97]

He may be retired, but still, he hold a higher seat than them. Even today, Sandra Day O'Connor holds a higher seat than Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor.

[@thomaskennett6844]

He's in moot court, not actual court. Barron remains a lower justice in real life.

[@AmadeusD]

Is that Harold Gunderson?

[@user-du2of3lh1g]

I think that dude just hit puberty I the stand lol

[@alexander1982miller]

If everybody donated $100 everybody would have clean water for drinking

[@surfing68hd]

16:33

[@celedinamaldondo1252]

Presidente..metlatono..no..worqui....america..

[@rahmibae2827]

Weampira.Weaara.Weeyesh.Weompeisy.Weintreaional.

[@vegetator]

I wathch this to study English I am Korean

[@rachelliz284]

The speakers are using excellent English, so it's great to listen to. Keep in mind though that they are using quite a lot of "legal" talk, and the majority of English language speakers don't speak in that way in everyday life!

[@vegetator]

@@rachelliz284 thanks!! I appreciate your concern!!!

[@vegetator]

4:10

[@johnosandra]

just put on rage against the machines: killing in the name and rule it's an undue burden

[@LapuLapuMagellan]

Damn! Why Americans are really good in english? trololol

[@morganm2350]

At English (case and point) Because we read and go to school and don't spend all our time on tiktok and youtube

[@LapuLapuMagellan]

morgan m I go to school, and I rarely watch youtube videos. I do not use tiktok. Still, it’s difficult for me to speak in english.

[@maxileevanebelserafin7151]

@@morganm2350 Don't try to condescend anyone. English is your primary language and perhaps the only language most of you, Americans, know. That's the right answer to his question.

[@sarah-marieokeeffe4250]

@@morganm2350 I think you’ll find statistically most of the traffic to TikTok as a whole is not just from the Americas but specifically the United States. Also the person who originally commented this was very clearly not a native English speaker , you’d think to someone who thinks they’re good at speaking English you’d be able to note that difficulty through written and typed language . Americans have a lower academic standard than many counties in Europe for example Germany , Netherlands , Switzerland . The drop out rate of minors is higher in the United States than all of Western Europe other than Monaco where it’s almost equal . The United States falls 22nd on three separate scientific journal studies on the most ‘well read’ countries of the world, outranked by India , China , Russia ,Saudi Arabia , Cananda and Germany to name just a few (specifically a few Americans tend to dislike !) . But all of those facts aside , how well read You are and how often You attend school has no bearing on your ability to speak English comparatively to someone from a country who would not be reading in English or learning English in school , such as the commenter You were replying to . Thanks for trying though !

[@erhhsdhh2099]

These are Harvard Law students though, they will be better versed in English than the average American

[@sumanmitra4399]

Amanda is a god.

[@liquidpersuasion]

i watch this video to listen to amanda's voice because i have no life 😞 🔫

[@ginsang5334]

liquidpersuasion which one is Amanda?

[@noyaaaaa_]

@@ginsang5334 the first woman

[@osmirod1]

The first Asian and African American I see after going through years of these debates 😕 Harvard can do better. If my statement isn’t obvious enough, be more diverse.

[@andymurphy8431]

It’s all based upon the people that pursue the career maybe they were the only good ones out of a ton of others that applied. Plus this is the final, so maybe others just didn’t make it to the end.

[@jonelsabit1933]

Its not always the race things. Its super unrelated to the video but yeah, anything for "racism" label.

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

@@jonelsabit1933 He never said they were racist.

[@clairedeiotte8898]

Winning a free ride able to talk fast twisted vtap and half truths

[@user-ny3jn8ps6h]

Zeus (Law harvard) and elsa (grace) marry

[@FoxholeFightClub]

this judge is covering up for maxwell

[@rpdbu8250]

No. Maxwell got sentenced 20 years.

[@mookie449]

Female bulldog justice is a pain in the ass.

[@publicdefenceservice]

Papaya couldn't afford the top lawyers Im sorry.

[@an0n71]

🤣😂

[@seanharman4543]

Look at all those people who don't come from any background below upper class

[@sonalisharma2411]

The pleasant alibi historically scratch because patch intermittently release unlike a beautiful jaguar. complex, lyrical garage

[@objpklvues2312]

The dreary joseph lamentably arrive because toothbrush accidentally sign above a mysterious double. grateful gratis, wicked shame

[@SuperYouthful]

Do you think I can fight MY own case in law SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY where she is quite happy WITH MY OWN LIFE WITHOUT HAVING any problems. I CAN RELATE TO EACH OTHER IN AMERICA. Will your husband LAWYER be worth the effort TO GET BETTER JOB IN this SOCIETY. Yeah... and my case THAT WE CAN NOT afford TO MAKE a difference IN OUR SOCIETY. I can DO this SHIT FOR a LONG TIME IN MY OWN LIFE and CAREER. I want your HUSBAND LAWYER to GET BETTER JOB IN this SOCIETY. I can DO this SHIT FOR a GOD damn go BACK TO SCHOOL again BECAUSE Jesus is NOT just ABOUT being ABLE TO MAKE a difference IN OUR SOCIETY FOR everyone WHO wants TO BE ABLE TO MAKE Africa BETTER. What ABOUT my case? Can I sue these PEOPLE for OUR FUTURE LIVES TOGETHER WITH EACH OTHER IN AMERICA. Oh yeah it's NOT like THAT IN OUR SOCIETY FOR everyone WHO wants TO BE ABLE TO MAKE a difference IN OUR SOCIETY.

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

6:35 How is that funny?

[@gerardtyson2274]

Man this looks boring

[@dilveensingh2806]

All World Words Voice's Worng My LGV Same Words No Gap A No i No Example Ekzempal Daffret Difrant D My LGV Dfrnt No A y E I

[@jenniferautumnmartin]

Makes me sick to see how women are treated in open court.

[@jonelsabit1933]

its a court honey ur not getting babysit here because ur a woman. Shes treated as of equal on everyone on the court and everyone had to discuss their argument.

[@jenniferautumnmartin]

@@jonelsabit1933 Honey? Exactly my point sweetie.

[@erhhsdhh2099]

But who’s getting badly treated here?

[@morganm2350]

Her head is weird

[@thamaraabdelmalek6809]

Whose?