A seven-year-old boy was at the center of a Lexington, Ky. courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him.
The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with child custody law and regulations requiring that family unity be maintained to the Highest degree possible.
The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her.
When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried out that they also beat him.
After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.
After two recesses to check legal references and confer with child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the Kentucky Wildcat Basketball team, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.
Showing posts with label Legal Humor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal Humor. Show all posts
5.01.2007
4.30.2007
Fw: Louisiana Lawyer to Love
Only in Louisiana
A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client who lost his house in Hurricane Katrina and wanted to rebuild.. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to the parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the Lawyer three months to track down. After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply:
(Actual letter):
"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."
Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows:
(Actual Letter):
"Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased, by the U.S., from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into the possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the Spanish monarch, Isabella. The good queen, Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to finance Columbus' expedition.
Now the Pope, as I'm sure you may know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that God also made that part of the world called Louisiana. God, therefore, would be the owner of origin and His origins date back to before the beginning of time, the world as we know it AND the FHA. I hope you find God's original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our damn loan?"
He got the loan.
A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client who lost his house in Hurricane Katrina and wanted to rebuild.. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to the parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the Lawyer three months to track down. After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply:
(Actual letter):
"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."
Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows:
(Actual Letter):
"Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased, by the U.S., from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into the possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the Spanish monarch, Isabella. The good queen, Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to finance Columbus' expedition.
Now the Pope, as I'm sure you may know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that God also made that part of the world called Louisiana. God, therefore, would be the owner of origin and His origins date back to before the beginning of time, the world as we know it AND the FHA. I hope you find God's original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our damn loan?"
He got the loan.
2.08.2007
Disorder in the American Courts
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place... (click photo of book to review or purchase via Amazon.com)
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
________________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? ____________________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty year old, how old is he?WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty .
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?______________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?______________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here 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.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?
_________________________________
And the best for last...
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
*I know this is similar to a previous post on 10.06.2006, but this one gives credit where credit is due! Enjoy! xo, L*
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
________________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? ____________________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty year old, how old is he?WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty .
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?______________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?______________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here 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.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?
_________________________________
And the best for last...
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
*I know this is similar to a previous post on 10.06.2006, but this one gives credit where credit is due! Enjoy! xo, L*
12.21.2006
Twas' the Lawyer's Night Before Christmas
**WHEREAS**, on or about the night immediately preceding Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to, a mouse.
A variety of foot apparel, e.g., stockings, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said house, in a diligent and workmanlike manner, in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a/ St.Nicholas d/b/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive forthwith.
The minor residents, i.e., children, of the aforementioned House were situated on or about their individual beds and were engaged in hallucinations, i.e., dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts, and/or sugarplums, did dance, cavort, frolic, and otherwise appear in said dreams.
Whereupon I (hereinafter "the party of the first part"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with Mamma (hereinafter "the party of the second part"), and the party of the second part had retired for a sustained period of sleep and/or rest. At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of sleepwear and head gear, e.g., kerchief and/or cap.
Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain aural disruption of unknown origin, nature, cause or circumstance, that did interfere with the parties' quiet enjoyment of said property, so much so that the party of the first part did precipitously proceed to a near window of said House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.
At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of confusion, wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter"the Vehicle") being pulled, propelled and/or drawn by approximately eight (8) diminutive reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be, and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.
Said Claus did then provide specific direction, instruction and/or guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and, thus, expressly identified the antlered co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, and Blitzen ("hereinafter "the Deer"). Upon information and belief, it is further averred that an additional co-conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.
The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle, and the Deer did intentionally, willfully, and with reckless disregard for the safety of the occupants therein, trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with merchandise, packages, toys, and other items of unknown origin or nature.
Suddenly, and without invitation, permission or license, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus did break and enter said House via the chimney. Said Claus was clad in a red, fur-trimmed suit, which was partially covered with charred residue from the interior of the chimney, and he carried a large sack with which he conveyed, transported or, otherwise, asported or carried a portion of the aforementioned merchandise, packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant, open and notorious violation of local ordinances and public health regulations.
Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the aforementioned pre-hung stockings of the minor children with toys, and other small objects, however, said items do not constitute "gifts" as that term is defined in the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code. Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer conspired and waited and/or served as "lookouts" to further aid and abet the alleged nefarious enterprise.
Claus then immediately fled and/or departed for an unknown destination. However,prior to said departure of the Vehicle, Deer, and Claus from the House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:
**"Merry Christmas to All, and to All a Good Night!"**, or words to that effect.
*Thanks Tom B., Frankfort, KY for the forward!
A variety of foot apparel, e.g., stockings, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said house, in a diligent and workmanlike manner, in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a/ St.Nicholas d/b/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive forthwith.
The minor residents, i.e., children, of the aforementioned House were situated on or about their individual beds and were engaged in hallucinations, i.e., dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts, and/or sugarplums, did dance, cavort, frolic, and otherwise appear in said dreams.
Whereupon I (hereinafter "the party of the first part"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with Mamma (hereinafter "the party of the second part"), and the party of the second part had retired for a sustained period of sleep and/or rest. At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of sleepwear and head gear, e.g., kerchief and/or cap.
Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain aural disruption of unknown origin, nature, cause or circumstance, that did interfere with the parties' quiet enjoyment of said property, so much so that the party of the first part did precipitously proceed to a near window of said House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.
At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of confusion, wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter"the Vehicle") being pulled, propelled and/or drawn by approximately eight (8) diminutive reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be, and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.
Said Claus did then provide specific direction, instruction and/or guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and, thus, expressly identified the antlered co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, and Blitzen ("hereinafter "the Deer"). Upon information and belief, it is further averred that an additional co-conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.
The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle, and the Deer did intentionally, willfully, and with reckless disregard for the safety of the occupants therein, trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with merchandise, packages, toys, and other items of unknown origin or nature.
Suddenly, and without invitation, permission or license, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus did break and enter said House via the chimney. Said Claus was clad in a red, fur-trimmed suit, which was partially covered with charred residue from the interior of the chimney, and he carried a large sack with which he conveyed, transported or, otherwise, asported or carried a portion of the aforementioned merchandise, packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant, open and notorious violation of local ordinances and public health regulations.
Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the aforementioned pre-hung stockings of the minor children with toys, and other small objects, however, said items do not constitute "gifts" as that term is defined in the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code. Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer conspired and waited and/or served as "lookouts" to further aid and abet the alleged nefarious enterprise.
Claus then immediately fled and/or departed for an unknown destination. However,prior to said departure of the Vehicle, Deer, and Claus from the House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:
**"Merry Christmas to All, and to All a Good Night!"**, or words to that effect.
*Thanks Tom B., Frankfort, KY for the forward!
11.02.2006
Marriage Made in Heaven
On their way to get married, a young Catholic couple are involved in a fatal car accident. The couple find themselves sitting outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process them into Heaven. While waiting, they begin to wonder: Could they possibly get married in Heaven? When St. Peter showed up, they asked him.
St. Peter says, "I don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go find out", and he leaves. The couple sat and waited, and waited. Two months passed and the couple are still waiting. As they waited, they discussed that IF they were allowed to get married in Heaven, what was the eternal aspect of it all.
"What if it doesn't work?" they wondered, "Are we stuck together FOREVER?"
After yet another month, St. Peter finally returns, looking somewhat bedraggled. "Yes," he informs the couple, "you CAN get married in Heaven."
"Great!" said the couple, "But we were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we also get a divorce in Heaven?"
St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slams his clipboard onto the ground.
"What's wrong?" asked the frightened couple.
"OH, COME ON!" St. Peter shouts, "It took me three months to find a priest up here! Do you have ANY idea how long it'll take me to find a LAWYER?"
St. Peter says, "I don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go find out", and he leaves. The couple sat and waited, and waited. Two months passed and the couple are still waiting. As they waited, they discussed that IF they were allowed to get married in Heaven, what was the eternal aspect of it all.
"What if it doesn't work?" they wondered, "Are we stuck together FOREVER?"
After yet another month, St. Peter finally returns, looking somewhat bedraggled. "Yes," he informs the couple, "you CAN get married in Heaven."
"Great!" said the couple, "But we were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we also get a divorce in Heaven?"
St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slams his clipboard onto the ground.
"What's wrong?" asked the frightened couple.
"OH, COME ON!" St. Peter shouts, "It took me three months to find a priest up here! Do you have ANY idea how long it'll take me to find a LAWYER?"
10.29.2006
Hearsay CLE by the Lego Land Gang
CLEs can be educational and fun.
Cut and paste the web site into your browser.
http://media.putfile.com/hearsay
Cut and paste the web site into your browser.
http://media.putfile.com/hearsay
10.12.2006
10.06.2006
Courtroom Quotes
OLD QUOTES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR BEFORE, BUT STILL FUNNY. QUOTES FROM ACTUAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS...
---
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
---
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
---
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
---
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or 35, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
---
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
---
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
---
ATTORNEY: Now, doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the Bar exam?
---
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 21-year old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's 21.
---
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
---
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh......
---
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
---
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
---
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
---
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here 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.
---
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
---
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, okay? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
---
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8.30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on a table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
---
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?
---
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then, it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
---
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
---
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
---
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
---
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or 35, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
---
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
---
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
---
ATTORNEY: Now, doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the Bar exam?
---
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 21-year old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's 21.
---
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
---
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh......
---
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
---
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
---
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
---
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here 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.
---
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
---
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, okay? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
---
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8.30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on a table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
---
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?
---
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then, it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
10.01.2006
9.18.2006
How to Win an Argument
How to Win Arguments As it Were I argue very well.
Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
* Drink Liquor.
Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expoundingon the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
* Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures. If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
* Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not." Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement.
* Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means. Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873... Your opponents says Lincoln died in 1865.
You say You're begging the question. OR
You say Liberians, like most Asians... Your opponents says Liberia is in Africa.
You say You're being defensive.
* Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who carry weapons.
Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
* Drink Liquor.
Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expoundingon the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
* Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures. If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
* Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not." Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement.
* Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means. Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873... Your opponents says Lincoln died in 1865.
You say You're begging the question. OR
You say Liberians, like most Asians... Your opponents says Liberia is in Africa.
You say You're being defensive.
* Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who carry weapons.
9.16.2006
Case of the Pregnant Lady
ACTUAL AUSTRALIAN COURT DOCKET 12659---CASE OF THE PREGNANT LADY
A lady about 8 months pregnant got on a bus. She noticed the man opposite her was smiling at her. She immediately moved to another seat. This time the smile turned into a grin, so she moved again. The man seemed more amused. When on the fourth move, the man burst out laughing, she complained to the driver and he had the man arrested.
The case came up in court. The judge asked the man (about 20 years old) what he had to say for himself.
The man replied, "Well your Honor, it was like this: When the lady got on the bus, I couldn't help but notice her condition. She sat down under a sign that said, 'The Double Mint Twins are Comin' and I grinned.
Then she moved and sat under a sign that said, 'Logan's Liniment will reduce the swelling', and I had to smile.
Then she placed herself under a deodorant sign that said, 'William's Big Stick Did the Trick', and I could hardly contain myself.
BUT, your Honor, when She moved the fourth time and sat under a signthat said, 'Goodyear Rubber could have prevented this Accident'... I just lost it."
A lady about 8 months pregnant got on a bus. She noticed the man opposite her was smiling at her. She immediately moved to another seat. This time the smile turned into a grin, so she moved again. The man seemed more amused. When on the fourth move, the man burst out laughing, she complained to the driver and he had the man arrested.
The case came up in court. The judge asked the man (about 20 years old) what he had to say for himself.
The man replied, "Well your Honor, it was like this: When the lady got on the bus, I couldn't help but notice her condition. She sat down under a sign that said, 'The Double Mint Twins are Comin' and I grinned.
Then she moved and sat under a sign that said, 'Logan's Liniment will reduce the swelling', and I had to smile.
Then she placed herself under a deodorant sign that said, 'William's Big Stick Did the Trick', and I could hardly contain myself.
BUT, your Honor, when She moved the fourth time and sat under a signthat said, 'Goodyear Rubber could have prevented this Accident'... I just lost it."
9.15.2006
The Judge Knows Best
Lawyers should nev er ask a Southern grandma a question if they aren't prepared for the answer.
In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"
She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died.
The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you to the electric chair."
In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"
She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died.
The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you to the electric chair."
8.21.2006
Lawyer vs. Sheriff's Deputy
I've found that I'm spending a lot of my time on my personal blog posting jokes and forwards that I appear to be inundated with daily...so I thought I'd share the love.
Now, when you are absolutely mind-numbingly bored at work, or just want to piss off your friends, you have a source for those pesky little forwards everyone loves...
Enjoy!
xo, Leigh
Subject: Lawyer vs. Sheriff's Deputy
A Lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriffs Deputy.
The lawyer decides to have some fun at the deputy's expense...
Deputy says, "License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What for?"
Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign."
Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming. "
Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"
Deputy says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"
Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket; if not you let me go and no ticket."
Deputy says, "Exit your vehicle, sir."
At this point, the Deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the ever-loving crap out of the Lawyer and says:
"DO YOU WANT ME TO STOP OR JUST SLOW DOWN?"
Now, when you are absolutely mind-numbingly bored at work, or just want to piss off your friends, you have a source for those pesky little forwards everyone loves...
Enjoy!
xo, Leigh
Subject: Lawyer vs. Sheriff's Deputy
A Lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriffs Deputy.
The lawyer decides to have some fun at the deputy's expense...
Deputy says, "License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What for?"
Deputy says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign."
Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming. "
Deputy says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."
Lawyer says, "What's the difference?"
Deputy says, "The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!"
Lawyer says, "If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket; if not you let me go and no ticket."
Deputy says, "Exit your vehicle, sir."
At this point, the Deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the ever-loving crap out of the Lawyer and says:
"DO YOU WANT ME TO STOP OR JUST SLOW DOWN?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
