Legal News & Opinions

Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over-Biller”

September 3rd, 2017 by

    Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over Biller” or How to Stop Getting Ripped Off by Lazy Lawyers Yeah, I said…

“Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor….”

February 3rd, 2017 by

Hail the Statute of Liberty: Who We Were, Can We Ever Be Again? Unless you are an immigrant (like me), or the child(ren)…

The Texas Voter ID Law; Wait, aren’t we supposed to be encouraging voters?

January 25th, 2017 by

The Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Texas Voter ID Case A still-hobbled SCOTUS Acts Before the Coming Hard Right Turn Harlem voters circa 1954…

Too Good To Be True

January 13th, 2014 by

Too Good To Be True If It Seems Too Good to be True, It Probably Is! Lurking in the deep, dark shadows of…

Well, You Asked It

January 12th, 2014 by

Well, You Asked It A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter…

Courtroom Follies – All New, All Bad

June 29th, 2013 by

Courtroom Follies – All New, All Bad A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you…

Brand New Courtroom Follies: Throw Me a Bone Here, Nathan

May 11th, 2013 by

Brand New Courtroom Follies: Throw Me a Bone Here, Nathan A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I…

Product Warnings: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You!

May 11th, 2013 by

Product Warnings: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You! WARNING: DON’T READ THE PRODUCT WARNINGS As a lawyer, it’s not easy for me to…

Grimace and Bear It

December 17th, 2012 by

Grimace and Bear It The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of…

What President Obama Has Done During His First Term

September 29th, 2012 by

What President Obama Has Done During His First Term Below I am quoting directly and completely from the PCTC Blog, and @MiltShook. The…

Legal History

On How We Rule

May 11th, 2013 by

On How We Rule When arguing politics disguised as “Constitutional interpretation,” many on either side of the divide fall into this same trap:…

Grimace and Bear It

December 17th, 2012 by

Grimace and Bear It The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of…

Abe Said It Best

September 29th, 2012 by

Abe Said It Best When trying to weigh all of the present-day acrimony between Democrat and Republican, labor v. capital, I looked to…

What President Obama Has Done During His First Term

September 29th, 2012 by

What President Obama Has Done During His First Term Below I am quoting directly and completely from the PCTC Blog, and @MiltShook. The…

The Fighting 14th!

March 31st, 2012 by

The Fighting 14th! It is a simple fact of American public life that both sides of the political aisle seek to use the…

Doctors Win Again

Doctors Win Again

A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result.  Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy.  Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.

 Doctors 1, Lawyers 0

Lawyer: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”

Witness: “No.”

Lawyer: “Did you check for blood pressure?”

Witness: “No.”

Lawyer: “Did you check for breathing?”

Witness: “No.”

Lawyer: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”

Witness: “No.”

Lawyer: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”

Witness: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”

Lawyer: “But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?”

Witness: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.”

Who’s Counting

Lawyer: “How old is your son, the one living with you?”

Witness: “Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.”

Lawyer: “How long has he lived with you?”

Witness: “Forty-five years.”

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*


Grimace and Bear It

Grimace and Bear It

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

With the horror of the massacre in Sandy Hook Elementary School still searing raw in the collective consciousness, there may actually be developing some consensus to do something about the carnage routinely occurring in the streets, schools and homes of America.  Maybe.  Between the extremes — both self-evidently untenable — there must be available some action (or actions) that we can take to reduce the shocking flow of gun-related homicides.  Indelicately stated, if there was something that we could have done that might have saved the life of even one of those precious children in Newtown, would we not have deemed it sufficient cause to act?

The gun lobbyists and “right to bear arms” absolutists love to argue that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry’s right to defend themselves against their own government.  Take a deep breath: They are absolutely correct.  Better still, the Second Amendment was also enacted to secure the ancient right of a free person to arm and protect themselves, their families and property.  These are not “negotiating points.”

But here’s the kicker, folks: Even the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), no friend to the “gun control” faction, has recognized that the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not “unlimited.”  Do I need to say that again?  Surely not.  Indeed,  from the pen of no less a personage than Justice Anton Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008), comes the following passage (worth repeating in its entirety despite its length) regarding the boundaries of the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.  From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [citations omitted]  For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [citations omitted].  Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.  Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [citations omitted].  It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service —M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.  But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of theSecond Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.  It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.  Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.  But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Id., at pp. 54-56.
Little mentioned, but there it is: According to the SCOTUS, there is a limitation of great significance besides those relating to “felons and the mentally ill,” and in addition to (the currently eroding) prohibition against the “carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. . ..”  The additional limitation?  The Second Amendment does not contemplate the right of the American people to drag around “dangerous and unusual weapons.”  Indeed, Scalia recognized that the right of citizens to rise up today and grab a musket in the fight against “Federal tyranny” would do little good in any confrontation involving the power of the State and its modern military muscle.  And to this inequity, remarkably enough, what of Scalia’s response?  Essentially, too damn bad.
Writes Scalia:
“But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right [to bear arms].”
Stop the presses, folks, the SCOTUS has spoken.  Thus, the “right to bear arms” may not be abridged, even though the exercise of that “right” may no longer be up to the historic task of overthrowing those heathen Feds.  And, unless I am missing something, isn’t that effectively the exact same thing that the “gun control” lobby is arguing?  Justice Scalia seems to have clearly recognized that the Second Amendment cannot be read as permitting an “arm’s race” between individual Americans and the Federal Government.  As Scalia points out, “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks,” not to mention the White House’s access to subs, WMD and nuclear weapons.  So, unlikely as it may seem, the battle has been joined, and framed by a very conservative Supreme Court: We cannot ban all personal weapons but, by golly, we should try to ban a great many of those currently available.
That’s where the conversation begins, then, I think.  We cannot rid ourselves of all guns, so we must find a line and draw it firmly.  We can start by allowing those weapons powerful enough to take down Bambi, and then prohibit anything that would be of no real use against a tank. And no “slippery slope” arguments, please, they were already considered dumb before the end of first year law school.  You know the drill, “if they take away your 40 round drum ‘sweetsweeper,’ next thing you know they’ll be taking away your slingshots.”  If you hear someone make such a “slippery slope” argument, ignore them.  If you find yourself making one, stop, and call me for help.  They are the refuge of the intellectually impaired.  We CAN draw a line.  We MUST draw a line.  And if the life-blood of fewer babies spills onto the linoleum as a consequence, those were lines well worth drawing.  Let get our pencils out, and start, straight away.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*


Law in the News

How do I Resist? What do I do?

February 10th, 2017 by

  WE ARE NOT POWERLESS, AND WE ARE NOT ALONE Like many others, I suspect, I am awash with energy, frustrations and ideas…

The Texas Voter ID Law; Wait, aren’t we supposed to be encouraging voters?

January 25th, 2017 by

The Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Texas Voter ID Case A still-hobbled SCOTUS Acts Before the Coming Hard Right Turn Harlem voters circa 1954…

Too Good To Be True

January 13th, 2014 by

Too Good To Be True If It Seems Too Good to be True, It Probably Is! Lurking in the deep, dark shadows of…

Debt Ceiling Explained

January 7th, 2013 by

Debt Ceiling Explained According to economist Paul Krugman (who can do this far better than I), the ongoing “crisis” in Washington stems from…

Better Not Be Too Pretty in Iowa

December 22nd, 2012 by

Better Not Be Too Pretty in Iowa MELISSA NELSON, Appellant, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 11–1857 Filed December 21, 2012…

Grimace and Bear It

December 17th, 2012 by

Grimace and Bear It The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of…

To The Rescue

November 3rd, 2012 by

To The Rescue I just received this email from a dear friend who lives in New York, and walked the walk last night…

What President Obama Has Done During His First Term

September 29th, 2012 by

What President Obama Has Done During His First Term Below I am quoting directly and completely from the PCTC Blog, and @MiltShook. The…

Don’t Touch That Dial

June 14th, 2012 by

Don’t Touch That Dial While use, mis-use and abuse of electronic means of storage and communication are now inexorable features of daily living,…

Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak

April 22nd, 2012 by

Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), the Supreme Court…

We Work For Them

We Work For Them

Here’s a Helpful Hint for the Solo Practitioner, which came as a reminder from a friend:  As a solo, and trying to bring value to a client, do not ever forget that we work for the client, and not the other way around. Forgetting who’s paying whom is a sure fire way to stop getting paid. Integrity pays.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*



Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo

Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo



Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo

Civil Law Time Limits

A Cheat Sheet for California Lawyers, by California Lawyers

Hello Counsellor: Here is a handy guide for quickly reminding yourself about those pesky deadlines that are forever haunting the solo practitioner.  BUT, please be advised that this is NOT a substitute for homework, AND YOU MAY NOT RELY on these dates as the “last word” on civil procedure deadlines. Dates change, or may vary from local rule to local rule, so please make sure to make sure.

 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

  • Serve Defendant after Complaint filed – 60 days after filing. [Source:  CRC 3.110]
  • Serve Defendant Added via Amended Complaint – 30 days after adding.  [Source:  CRC 3.110(b)]
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint (proving to Court that you served Defendant) – 60 days after serving complaint.  [Source:  CCP § 538.210]
  • • Defendant Time Limit to File Answer or Demurrer – 30 days from date complaint was served.  [Source:  CCP § 412.20]

 

DISCOVERY

  • Plaintiff may serve discovery questions – 10 days after service of complaint.   [CCP §2030.020]
  • Subpoena for Personal (medical) records – Must be served on consumer at least 15 days (in actuality 20) days before date of production.  [CCP § 1985.3(d) incorporating CCP 2020.220(a)].  The subpoena may not be served on records custodian until at least five days after service on consumer.  [CCP § 1985.6(b)(2) & (3).] Must be served on records custodian 15 days before date of production.
  • Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum – must be served on defense counsel at least five days before date for production of documents.  [CCP § 1985.3(g).  1985.6(f)(2)]  Note:  Court may still grant a motion to quash after this time.  [Slage v. Sup.Ct. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1313]
  • Motion to Compel Additional Answers – 45 days.  [CCP §2030.300]
  • Respond to Written Discovery – 30 days (+5 days if questions were mailed).
  • Discovery Closes Before Arbitration – 15 days before arbitration.

[CRC 3.822]

  • Discovery Closes Before Trial:  30 days before trial – or 15 days before arbitration.  [CCP § 2024.020]
  • Last Day to Hear Discovery Motions – 15 days before trial.

[CCP § 2024.020]

  • Practical Last Day to Serve Discovery (and be able to make a motion on it) – 90 – 100 days before trial.
  • Deposition Notice – Defendant may serve any time.  Plaintiff must wait 20 days after service of summons and complaint to serve.  [CCP § 2025.210]
  • Depositions – Must be set at least 10 days in the future (+5 days if the notice is mailed – CCP § 1013), at least 20 (+5 days if notice is mailed – CCP § 1013) if deposition notice includes a request for documents.  [CCP § 2025.270]

 

EXPERT DISCOVERY

 

  • Experts Must Be Demanded  – 70 days before trial (or within 10 days of setting trial date, whichever is closer to trial date) [CCP § 2034.220]
  • Experts Must Be Disclosed – 50 days before trial (or 20 days after service of demand, whichever is closer to trial date).  [CCP § 2034.230]
  • Supplemental Expert Disclosure – Must be disclosed within 20 days of the Exchange of Expert Witnesses.  May only disclose witness to cover a subject covered by opponent’s witnesses.  [CCP § 2034.280]
  • Expert Depositions – May be set “on receipt of an expert witness list from a party.”  [CCP § 2034.
  • 410]
  • Expert Discovery Cut Off – 15 days before original trial date.  [CCP § 2024.030]
  • Last Day for Motions Regarding Experts – 10 days before original trial date.

[CCP § 2024.030]

 

TRIAL

  • Discovery Closes (with the exclusion of expert lists, and expert depositions) – 30 days before trial, or after non-binding arbitration.  [CCP § 2034.210;

CCP § 1141.24]

  • Experts Must Be Demanded – 70 days before trial (or within 10 days of setting trial date, whichever is closer to trial date).  [CCP § 2034.220]
  • Experts Must Be Disclosed – 50 days before trial (or 20 days after service of demand, whichever is closer to trial date).  [CCP § 2034.230]
  • 998 Offers to Compromise – Can be made up until 10 days prior to trial. [CCP § 998]
  • Notice to Appear at Trial (to party) [With Documents] – 20 days before trial, send notice with time and place to attorney.  [CCP § 19871987(c)]
  • Notice to Appear at Trial With Documents – 5 days “or any other time period as the court may allow.”  [CCP § 1987(c)]

 

 

MOTIONS

  • Noticed motion – must be served and filed 16 court days before the hearing date (+5 more if served by mail) (+2 more if served by fax, express mail, or overnight delivery).  [CCP § 1005]
  • Opposition to Noticed Motion – must be filed and served 9 court days before hearing.  [CCP § 1005]
  • Reply to Noticed Motion – 5 court days before hearing.  [CCP § 1005]
  • Ex Parte Motion – Opposing party must be notified by 10:00 a.m. the day before the hearing, absent “exceptional circumstances.”  [CRC 3.1203].  Note:  This is a minimum.  Check local rules for more strict notice periods.

Manner of Service:  “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, all papers opposing a motion and all reply papers shall be served by personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means consistent with Sections 1010, 1011, 1012, and 1013, and reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers or reply papers, as applicable, are filed.”  CCP § 1005(c)]

CCP § 1013:  “… The service is complete at the time of the deposit, but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail, if the place of address and the place of mailing is within the State of California, 10 calendar days if either the place of mailing or place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 calendar days if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the United States.”

  • Motions for Summary Judgment – Notice is 75 days before hearing (+10 if outside of California, +20 if outside the United States)  [CCP § 427c(a)]  Opposition is 14 days before hearing [CCP § 437c(b)(2)]  Reply is 5 days before hearing.  [CCP § 437c(b)(3)]

STATUTES OF LIMITATION

Breach of Contract (Written)  – 4 years [CCP § 337]

Breach of Contract (Oral)  –2 years [CCP § 339]

Fraud –3 years [CCP § 338(d)]

The statute does not “accrue,” or start running, until “the discovery, by the                     aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud.” When “discovery” occurs is generally question of fact. When “the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing,” the statute starts to accrue. Parsons v. Tickner, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1513 (1995).

Personal Injury – 2 years [CCP § 335.11]

  • Medical Malpractice – 3 years from the date of injury, or 1 year after the plaintiff discovers the injury, whichever occurs first.  [CCP § 340.5]  Note:  You must give 90 days notice of intent to sue.  [CCP § 364]  Note:  Statute may be tolled by (1) upon proof of fraud, (2) intentional concealment, or (3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of the injured person.  [CCP § 340.5]
  • Lawsuits Against Public Entities (like cities or counties) – Must file a claim within 6 months.  Then you have 6 months from the date of the rejection letter to file a lawsuit.

Once again, please be advised that this page is not legal advice, nor is it intended as such, and there is no guarantee that this information is up to date.  If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer.

Please follow and like us:
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook

Google+

Twitter


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Helpful Hints for the Solo Practioner

Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo

May 11th, 2013 by

Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo Civil Law Time Limits A Cheat Sheet for California Lawyers, by California Lawyers Hello Counsellor: Here is a…

We Work For Them

June 26th, 2012 by

We Work For Them Here’s a Helpful Hint for the Solo Practitioner, which came as a reminder from a friend:  As a solo,…

Nickels Are The Size of Manhole Covers

June 24th, 2012 by

Nickels Are The Size of Manhole Covers In these days of enormous economic stress, it is all too easy for the solo practitioner…

Don’t Touch That Dial

June 14th, 2012 by

Don’t Touch That Dial While use, mis-use and abuse of electronic means of storage and communication are now inexorable features of daily living,…

Hold Fast

June 4th, 2012 by

Hold Fast Potential new hourly clients, especially these days, will do everything possible to talk you out of lowering, or eliminating altogether, your…

Waking Up Is Hard To Do

Waking Up Is Hard To Do

COURTROOM FOLLIES

 A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result.  Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy.  Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.

WAKING UP IS HARD TO DO

 Lawyer: “And what did he do then?”

Witness: “He came home, and next morning he was dead.”

Lawyer: “So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?”

AN OFFER’S STILL AN OFFER

Lawyer: “Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?”

Witness: “He didn’t offer me nothing. He just said I could have the furniture.”

THERE SIMPLY ARE NO WORDS

Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?”

Witness: “I didn’t see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital.”

Lawyer: “It was covered?”

Witness: “Yes, bandaged.”

Lawyer: “Then, later on…what did you see?”

Witness: “I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head.”

AT LEAST IT WASN’T THE GUY FROM THE PREVIOUS POST

Lawyer: “Could you see him from where you were standing?”

Witness: “I could see his head.”

Lawyer: “And where was his head?”

Witness: “Just above his shoulders.”

ITS MY DUTY TO DRINK

Lawyer: “Do you drink when you’re on duty?”

Witness: “I don’t drink when I’m on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.”

NOW THAT YOU ASKED

Lawyer: “Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?”

Witness: “The victim lived.”

LET’S AT LEAST BE ACCURATE

Lawyer: “The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn’t it? You too were shot in the fracas.”

Witness: “No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.”

WHAT HE SAID

Lawyer: “Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?”

Witness: “Because he was argumentary, and he couldn’t pronunciate his words.”

ONLY THE WITNESS KNOWS

◦   Lawyer: “Was that the same nose you broke as a child?”

◦   Witness: “I only have one, you know.”

ASK ME THAT ONE MORE TIME, AND I’LL . . .

◦   Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”

◦   Witness: “By death.”

◦   Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”

 

(stay tuned for future installments!)








courtroom follies

“Could you Perhaps Rephrase that Last Response?”

September 4th, 2017 by

  “COULD YOU PERHAPS REPHRASE THAT LAST RESPONSE? INTRODUCTION A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can…

MORE COURTROOM FOLLIES: Waking up the Dead

January 25th, 2017 by

MORE COURTROOM FOLLIES: Waking up the Dead A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that…

Waking Up Is Hard To Do

August 12th, 2014 by

Waking Up Is Hard To Do COURTROOM FOLLIES A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell…

Sophie and Ernie

August 13th, 2013 by

Sophie and Ernie Sophie Tucker and her boyfriend Ernie were sitting around one lazy day when Ernie, hoping to inspire a little jealousy,…

Courtroom Follies Presents All New, Product Warnings

June 29th, 2013 by

Courtroom Follies Presents All New, Product Warnings WARNING: DON’T READ THE PRODUCT WARNINGS As a lawyer, it’s not easy for me to admit…

Signs & Notices: Read ‘em And Weep

May 11th, 2013 by

Signs & Notices: Read ‘em And Weep Face it; lawyers are everywhere. And, besides Congress <gag> one place you are sure to find…

b e r k e s l a w Well, You Asked It

Well, You Asked It

A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result.  Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy.  Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.

Lawyer: “Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?”

Witness: “No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.”

 

Lawyer: “What is your marital status?”

Witness: “Fair.”

 

Lawyer: “Are you married?”

Witness: “No, I’m divorced.”

Lawyer: “And what did your husband do before you divorced him?”

Witness: “A lot of things I didn’t know about.”

 

Lawyer: “And who is this person you are speaking of?”

Witness: “My ex-widow said it.

 

Lawyer: “How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney?”

Witness: “Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney and said he was really good.”

 

Lawyer: “Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?”

Witness: “All my autopsies have been performed on dead people.”

 

Lawyer: “Were you acquainted with the deceased?”

Witness: “Yes sir.”

Lawyer: “Before or after he died?”

 

Lawyer: “Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?”

Witness: “No. This is how I dress when I go to work.”

 

The Court: “Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any.”

 

Lawyer: “Did he pick the dog up by the ears?”

Witness: “No.”

Lawyer: “What was he doing with the dog’s ears?”

Witness: “Picking them up in the air.”

Lawyer: “Where was the dog at this time?”

Witness: “Attached to the ears.”

 

Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”

Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”

 

Lawyer: “And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?”

Witness: “Oral.”

Lawyer: “How old are you?”

Witness: “Oral.”

 

Lawyer: “What is your relationship with the plaintiff?”

Witness: “She is my daughter.”

Lawyer: “Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?”

 

Lawyer: “Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim?”

 

Lawyer: “Now, doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn’t know anything about it until the next morning?”

b e r k e s l a w We Work For Them

We Work For Them

Here’s a Helpful Hint for the Solo Practitioner, which came as a reminder from a friend:  As a solo, and trying to bring value to a client, do not ever forget that we work for the client, and not the other way around. Forgetting who’s paying whom is a sure fire way to stop getting paid. Integrity pays.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*



b e r k e s l a w Waking Up Is Hard To Do

Waking Up Is Hard To Do

COURTROOM FOLLIES

 A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result.  Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy.  Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.

WAKING UP IS HARD TO DO

 Lawyer: “And what did he do then?”

Witness: “He came home, and next morning he was dead.”

Lawyer: “So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?”

AN OFFER’S STILL AN OFFER

Lawyer: “Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?”

Witness: “He didn’t offer me nothing. He just said I could have the furniture.”

THERE SIMPLY ARE NO WORDS

Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?”

Witness: “I didn’t see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital.”

Lawyer: “It was covered?”

Witness: “Yes, bandaged.”

Lawyer: “Then, later on…what did you see?”

Witness: “I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head.”

AT LEAST IT WASN’T THE GUY FROM THE PREVIOUS POST

Lawyer: “Could you see him from where you were standing?”

Witness: “I could see his head.”

Lawyer: “And where was his head?”

Witness: “Just above his shoulders.”

ITS MY DUTY TO DRINK

Lawyer: “Do you drink when you’re on duty?”

Witness: “I don’t drink when I’m on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.”

NOW THAT YOU ASKED

Lawyer: “Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?”

Witness: “The victim lived.”

LET’S AT LEAST BE ACCURATE

Lawyer: “The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn’t it? You too were shot in the fracas.”

Witness: “No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.”

WHAT HE SAID

Lawyer: “Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?”

Witness: “Because he was argumentary, and he couldn’t pronunciate his words.”

ONLY THE WITNESS KNOWS

◦   Lawyer: “Was that the same nose you broke as a child?”

◦   Witness: “I only have one, you know.”

ASK ME THAT ONE MORE TIME, AND I’LL . . .

◦   Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”

◦   Witness: “By death.”

◦   Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”

 

(stay tuned for future installments!)

b e r k e s l a w To The Rescue

To The Rescue

I just received this email from a dear friend who lives in New York, and walked the walk last night in Staten Island.  I want to share this story with people in every way I know how.  I will keep my friend’s [and other] names out of this, but not for lack of pride.  Please read this:

Many of you know about my growing frustration about the lack of response to help those in need on Staten Island.
After an evening spent getting circuit/busy signal trying to call [   ]‘s friends who run a fabulous non-profit on the West Side to see if they had any way to get food and water I could purchase over to Staten Island….

And my Car Service being of absolutely no help as no cars had any gas. 
I even asked the Amex Platinum Concierge to help finding me a Car Service.  No dice there.  
Avis, Enterprise and Hertz had cars available.  Tomorrow.  With no GPS.  
For a zillion dollars a day.  With zero gas, of course.
What, exactly, was standing between me.  And Staten Island.  And helping out tonight? 
A car.  
So.  I decided to do what New Yorkers do – Hail a cab.  
4 cabs (when I could find one, after over an hour of waiting on First Avenue) left me in the dust when they heard what I wanted to do.
I finally found Sam, who was very willing to help.  And he had a hybrid!
Sadly, by the time I found Sam, our local grocery store, [    ] on 86th street was closed.
I pounded on the window, and pleaded with the Manager while Sam was GPS-ing a spot to deliver the food and water.  
OK, I wasn’t pleading so much as I was doing a whole lot of emotional blackmail.  
However, once I explained my plan, the doors swung open and everyone in the store helped me shop.
And, a coupla hundred bucks and a full SUV later Sam and I headed out — and into/onto Staten Island.
I gotta believe, I was not charged for most of what was in the back of that SUV.
We were directed to 15S exit — don’t ask me where in the heck that was.
Most of lower Manhattan was still dark.
As was most of New Jersey and a good part of Brooklyn.
It was anxiety provoking, to say the least.
I seriously hoped the pixie dust of ‘doing good’ would protect us.
There were a few moments when I thought I had ridiculously gotten us into harm’s way.  Right about the time all we saw were flares I felt really foolish.
As soon as we exited the bridge we were up to our wheels in an absurd amount sand.  
There were a few cops who were totally astonished at the sight of a yellow cab arriving just before midnight heading where we were heading.
Where were we heading?  The place that was taking donations had been moved.  
Eventually, we were told to follow an NYPD convoy.
With a boat.  A boat!
Now, that was comforting.  
We were questioned and the contents of the cab examined.  
I offered up my California Driver’s License.  
I was told by New York’s Finest that I was no longer an LA Girl, I was now a New Yorker.
And we were directed to turn to the right.
It was insane.  I mean, seriously: Imagine Laguna or Corona Del Mar.
Just imagine it as a darkened, deserted set on the backlot of Universal Studios without a moon.  
There were a few klieg lights.  A few.  
And nary a sign of life, though there were people sleeping in cars.  
It was an odd kind of empty-fullness.  No lights, everybody home.
We proceeded down a very dark, and totally frightening stretch of street, called Father Capodanno Boulevard.
Every single house or housing development was pitch black.   Our tires were skidding in the sand.
After what seemed like a ridiculously long amount of time: A crazy time where two total strangers chatted about whatever two strangers chat about when driving into a war zone…we finally stumbled upon a “Command Center”.
I jumped out of Sam’s cab and decided to get charming.
Again.  Remember: I am a passenger in a Yellow Cab.  I have a trunk full of supplies.  I have silver hair.  And a cab driver with a meter off.  
And there is no one…and I mean nary a soul out on that road in Staten Island, at just past midnight.  
Save the cops in that particular command center.  
Our presence was more than a bit startling for them.  
I knocked on the trailer door.  Yelled: Hello!  Good Evening!  Anybody home?  
OK.  I pounded.  
Kinda like I owned the joint: We’re here from the Upper East Side and we brought supplies!  I chirped.  Like Perle Mesta.  
Suffice to say, they were totally surprised.  
Actually, I forgot they were armed.  
Hindsight, 20/20.
They certainly didn’t know what to do with me.  Or Sam.  Or a cab laden with food, water and shampoo.
We can discuss my shopping choices at a later date.
I was in a hurry.  
I was in a closed Gristedes and not sure what flooded people really needed at that red-hot moment so I bought a whole lot of everything
Grooming supplies seemed very important to the Cashier, so I added them to the water and sports drinks and power bars and cereal. 
So, once New York’s Finest got over the shock of our arrival, they helped Sam and I unload “the goods”.
At first, they weren’t really sure where to put them/store them and I assured them, “somewhere close to the Verizon Truck might be a good idea”.  
I am so bossy.
I offered, perhaps, they could take what they needed if they were hungry.  
I was, of course, mocked for bringing the donuts.
We were both surprised at the total lack of organization.  
Surely we couldn’t be the only people who had done this?  
There were a whole lot of hugs, and quite a few tears, and a whole lot of astonishment about the fact that Sam turned the meter off.  
Honestly, they were beyond taken aback that we drove out of Manhattan to do this.  
The only thing I asked the Command Center was that when the people of Staten Island asked if ‘New Yorkers forgot about them’, to tell them that we did not forget about them.
The ride home was a whole lot to deal with after everything we had seen: The City seemed darker.  The Empire State Building glowed brighter.  Half a bridge illuminated?  
Home?  How do you manage home after what we had seen?  
Sam was quite embarrassed when I handed him 200 dollars for the evening of our little NGO of Two.  
I assured him that my payment was small compensation – he had a tank full of gas and he was more than willing to forego making money for the night to help a whole bunch strangers.    
Including me.  
It was a perfectly imperfect evening: We discussed his kids, and growing up in Ghana, and how the storm affected his family.  
We talked about his experience of New Yorkers before and after Hurricane Sandy.
He asked me why?  Why was I so insistent on doing this: No cabs. A closed store. Driving into hell and back.
I told him: Because I could. And because I should.  
That tonight was about remembering something I learned a long time ago: When there are really big things going wrong, one person cannot fix everything.
But one person can do one thing.
This was my thing.
And I needed his assistance to help me pull it off.  I simply could not do this alone.
Perhaps this is the greatest lesson of the last decade: Learning how to ask for help.
Honestly, I got a whole lotta help tonight — The entire staff of Gristedes on 86th who really wanted to go home after a long day, chief among them.
I asked Sam why.  Why was he was so willing to do it?  Why did he turn off his meter?  
Sam said that it was the right thing to do: He was one of the few who had gas.  He had time.  And there were people out on Staten Island who needed our help.  
Together, we could offer our help.
So, there you have it.  
Get me frustrated enough.  Angry enough…I will surely find a way through it.  
I guess the magic key was asking the right person to help me.  
And whatever money was spent giving comfort.  It totally pales in comparison to the great gift of having done it.  Together.  I like the thought of waking up tomorrow knowing that someone out on Staten Island has Cheerios.
And nice shampoo.  
Embarrassing indeed, that Eric and I spent far less money last Friday night at the “Fete Du Bordeaux” at The Four Seasons restaurant.  
I look at those photos of the 11 wine glasses.  Shit.  
Hard to believe.
One week ago tonight I was swanning around in Louboutains.
Totally reckless excess.  
Sitting next to that bubbling pool with our short ribs and cotton candy and cheese courses and feeling as if we deserved it. 
Earned it.  
Certainly we savored every drop of that glorious wine.
And we were endlessly grateful for our good health, and fine company, and sublime surroundings — delighted to devour a meal for the ages laughing together about the folly of it all.
There is no balance.  
No reckoning of accounts.
No “Fair Book” as my old friend Jerry used to say.  
It is not “fair” that I have power.  Water.  Walls.  Cable.  Phone.  Food.  Or Heat.  
I am, however, incredibly grateful for Sam.  
It is a night I will remember for the rest of my life.

 

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*