3/14/2008

12 Responses to “Quote of the Day [Language Warning]”

1. That’s even more amazing than the Joe Jamail deposition.

   DRJ (a431ca) — 3/14/2008 @ 9:57 pm

   
   

2. 1 – Now that he’s out $29k, does he feel like someone’s bitch?

   2 – That’s just another good reason to do taped depositions.

   Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/14/2008 @ 10:26 pm

   
   

3. Patterico;

   I know this ‘civility’ thing is a pet peeve, kinda’ like latimes, but there are worse things.

   But a scofflaw Presidunce seems to be just fine for you.

   Next up; “OMG. Dogs and cats are living together”

   Semanticleo (f828ed) — 3/15/2008 @ 5:36 am

   
   

4. It is to laugh, this single-minded devotion to dragging President Bush’s name into every post. It is as if the religious fervor of the charismatic movement/Inquisition has a wholly secular doppleganger.

   MunDane (d3328f) — 3/15/2008 @ 6:51 am

   
   

5. Okay, now that semanticleo has given us our daily dose of irrelevant Bush–if you didn’t follow the link in the Volokh comments to the UK case, do so. The amusement is well worth your time. (The judge must have had a hard time keeping himself from laughing out loud.)

   kishnevi (88ed49) — 3/15/2008 @ 6:54 am

   
   

6. So why should someone be forced to sit in front of a lawyer and recite something that is on paper already? Depositions are cash cows for lawyers on both sides, and a waste of time when the bulk of the information collected is common knowledge at that time. “What do you do for a living” was undoubtedly known by everyone at the table when the question was asked. But every lawyer at the table made money by the time wasted asking and answering it.

   martin (86a2e8) — 3/15/2008 @ 7:38 am

   
   

7. i wonder what a deposition of tommy lasorda would be like.

   my sympathies rest with the witness. deposing counsel was asking him to do something inappropriate. the witness can be forced to testify to his personal knowledge. the witness can be forced to authenticate (if he can) documents proffered to him. i’m not sure that the witness can be forced to read aloud into the record from any old document in the file, particularly if the structure of the question suggests that the witness is vouching under oath for the accuracy of someone else’s assertions contained in the document:

   this is your loan file, what do mr. and mrs. fitzgerald do for a living?

   the witness didn’t know, as of his own personal knowledge. i trust that patterico readers are up to speed with the concept that the contents of a loan application aren’t necessarily true. i would have used the cool diplomatic approach the first two times:

   i don’t know what they do for a living. you have in your possession a copy of the loan app which contains their representation as to their sources of income as of month/day/year. if you’re up to it, why don’t you have the reporter mark it for identification, then show it to me and ask me if i remember it, and if it’s a true and correct copy of the loan app that was submitted to my company on month/day/year, and i’ll answer your questions honestly as best i can.

   the third time would probably retire the cool diplomat in favor of one of my other gears of interpersonal interaction. people who have seen those gears often subsequently make a positive effort to keep things at the cool diplomatic level, because i am nobody’s fucking bitch.

   one more thing: on a law-oriented blog like this, i expect to see the same censorious condemnations of the witness that appeared at volokh, but there’s a great big wide america out there, over 90% of the inhabitants of which have never been to law school, and many of them hate lawyers with a holy fervor, and these people would buy the witness a drink for what he told that lawyer in the transcript.

   assistant devil's advocate (5c52cc) — 3/15/2008 @ 8:23 am

   
   

8. Assistant Devil’s Advocate: You might be right about the percentages of America who would approve, but I don’t think so. In any event, I can tell you from substantial personal experience that you’re unequivocally wrong if you’re predicting how jurors will react to witnesses who use profanity, regardless of provocation. In every single one of over a half-dozen instances I’ve encountered in which a witness has used profanity, every juror has been offended. And in two cases I tried, the jurors were so offended that they refused to believe any of that witness’s testimony.

   Beldar (433d17) — 3/15/2008 @ 10:57 am

   
   

9. “Profanity trap, ada? Fine and costs sounds mild to me. This kind of intransingence calls for preclusion of evidence and even issues.

   nk (8a8387) — 3/15/2008 @ 11:25 am

   
   

10. Newsday published an article on HTFC and Mr. Widner in mid-November 2007. Widner responded here. Here’s the final paragraph from his response:

    “Wider further disputes certain statements made in the Newsday article: Wider has never been married, fraud was never mentioned in any lawsuit he has been involved in and he has never loaned money to dead people.”

    DRJ (a431ca) — 3/15/2008 @ 11:27 am

    
    

11. Assistant Devil’s Advocate: You might be right about the percentages of America who would approve, but I don’t think so. In any event, I can tell you from substantial personal experience that you’re unequivocally wrong if you’re predicting how jurors will react to witnesses who use profanity, regardless of provocation. In every single one of over a half-dozen instances I’ve encountered in which a witness has used profanity, every juror has been offended. And in two cases I tried, the jurors were so offended that they refused to believe any of that witness’s testimony.

    Interesting, because profanity is an integral part of many criminal trials. I have said “Fuck” in arguments because I am quoting what the defendant said during the crime “Give me the fucking money!” and I believe you can’t shy away from that.

    What Beldar is talking about is different, of course — he’s talking about someone using it casually.

    I employ the same approach on this blog, by the way. I have probably almost never said “fuck” in a post as an unnecessary expletive, but (as you can see above) I generally don’t shy away from using the word if I’m quoting someone.

    Patterico (4bda0b) — 3/15/2008 @ 11:54 am

    
    

12. Comment by Patterico — 3/15/2008 @ 11:54 am

    But in those cases it’s clear you’re quoting it, not using it, so you may even get sympathy points for “having” to quote someone else’s vulgarity.

    True case in point: a guy in a car once pulled out right in front of me on a highway and then a second later, slammed on his brakes (stupidity, not malice). I hit him, of course, but the insurance company immediately sided with me and w/o any delays declared the accident his fault.

    I’m convinced this is partly because I, a young woman, when calling my insurance company was “forced” to accurately quote his first words to me as he came up to my car (I was too angry to move from my car or speak a word to him): “The fucker stopped in front of me.”

    no one you know (1ebbb1) — 3/15/2008 @ 2:03 pm