Anyone following what is happening with GameStop stock? Absolutely insane
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
JDB this will always be the greatest lawyer fight. Joe Jamail The King of Torts. His quotes alone are worth googling.
Texas Style Deposition
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
WTF kind of wimpy shit is that???
No sweat Noodle. Right back at ya. I blame law lol. I graduated from IU-Bloomington on a Saturday and started work on Monday. No time off for bar study or any of that. Just work super hard right out of the gates. My boss was loaded. His next door neighbor was Malcom Glazer. He was a great big, old FSU football player and meaner than shit. He never talked to adjusters. Typically wouldn't shake hands or say hi to opposing counsel at depos. He would just fight and argue and bitch and bully and then show up at trial. That was my intro to law. Every firm I've been with has been half insane and from 5 am to 6 pm everyday for fifteen years I fought with adjusters, clients, opposing counsel, partners over money, partners over caseloads, partners over hiring and banging paralegals. Just fifteen years of nonstop conflict. It's taken a toll on my marriage, friendships, everything. Four years removed from law but I'm still ready to just argue and fight and be completely petty. Always on edge. And I really do blame it on law, but damn this board can bring it out. I'm going to continue to work on remaining calm and not flying off the handle and being petty.
So anyway, I trust you can relate, and do apologize.
I just want to know which one of you shysters couldn't figure out how to turn off their cat filter.
Excuses, excuses. A real man would just admit he's an asshole and own it.
You think that's still in the cards?
I'm playing it cool. Waiting for @Bloom. to make the first move.
Smart. I trust bulkvanderprivilege, Coh, marv and Hoosboot are in your pocket as bargaining chips
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
try more indica, less caffeine and booze.
you'll be a much much happier person, as will those around you..
I cannot stop laughing at this. That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen, at least with respect to something related to my profession. And the reaction of the other attorney is great.
I just read that it was the Judge, Roy B. Ferguson, who released the video - tweeting it out immediately after the hearing. At first I was surprised, if not shocked, that he would do so. However, his explanation makes sense. (His explanation is in subsequent tweets after the one below - click on the tweet below to see his follow-up posts. He seems like a really good guy.)
Judge Ferguson also recently made other news:
Judge Renews Vow to Uphold Law After Capitol Hill Riots, Asks Lawyers to Do the Same | Texas Lawyer
Because of the Capitol Hill riot, 394th District Judge Roy Ferguson lead Texas attorneys to renew their vows to protect the constitution and the rule of law---and he hopes to spark a trend.
www.law.com
And any judge whose Twitter photo is this (it's really him) is someone I would not mind practicing before:
Last edited:
It was a new one on me as well. I must say it did make me chuckle.
And, TIL, 3.2 beer was 3.2% alcohol by weight. On a by volume basis that's 4.0% - which is only slightly less than Amstel Light (4.1%), and Miller Lite, Coors Light, and Bud Light (4.2%).
Lmao that judge does seem like a good dude and quite a character. That pic of himself lol! Fantastic.I just read that it was the Judge, Roy B. Ferguson, who released the video - tweeting it out immediately after the hearing. At first I was surprised, if not shocked, that he would do so. However, his explanation makes sense. (His explanation is in subsequent tweets after the one below - click on the tweet below to see his follow-up posts. He seems like a really good guy.)
Judge Ferguson also recently made other news:
Judge Renews Vow to Uphold Law After Capitol Hill Riots, Asks Lawyers to Do the Same | Texas Lawyer
Because of the Capitol Hill riot, 394th District Judge Roy Ferguson lead Texas attorneys to renew their vows to protect the constitution and the rule of law---and he hopes to spark a trend.
And any judge whose Twitter photo is this (it's really him) is someone I would not mind practicing before:
Last edited:
Never knew that about 3.2 beer. Crazy. The firm I worked at in Fla the head of it referred to the transactional guys as 3.2 lawyers. They were all from Greenberg Traurig's local office and came over. New Yorkers were 212s and transactional lawyers were 3.2s. He didn't care for either of them much lol. He was quite a dude. Played on the same polo team as Tommy Lee Jones and raced Porsches. His partner on the racing team was The Renegade lmao. I F'd up big time leaving that firm.
Last edited:
FWIW, Judge Ferguson has an engineering degree from UT Arlington. Just sayin...
I took college algebra 8 times. I'm must jealous of engineers....FWIW, Judge Ferguson has an engineering degree from UT Arlington. Just sayin...
Damn, as someone who has testified before 6 judges in my "side gig" as a scientific expert witness, that would be a dream.FWIW, Judge Ferguson has an engineering degree from UT Arlington. Just sayin...
One time in the District of Florida, one generic pharma company was suing another one, claiming that the competitor's product was less pure than it was claimed to be.
How can you tell how pure something is? Analytical chemistry, including chromatography, where you get traces like this and each "bump" stands for a pure compound. No extra "bumps" means high purity. Pretty simple.
I was up to explain this to the judge and the lawyers sought to qualify me as a witness.
She said "OK, as long as he doesn't talk about any of those graph thingies. That is a waste of my time".
I guess another expert had tried to explain chromatography earlier in the trial and really confused her. I had to ditch all of the figures we were going to show and just explain, in words, that I had looked at the data and I can definitely estimate product purity as such-and-such.
She didn't want to know why, or how. That was too tough for her.
I have seen some similarly science-phobic judges, but she takes the cake.
Last edited:
Trust me it's far worse for juries.Damn, as someone who has testified before 6 judges in my "side gig" as a scientific expert witness, that would be a dream.
One time in the District of Florida, one generic pharma company was suing another one, claiming that the competitor's product was less pure than it was claimed to be.
How can you tell how pure something is? Analytical chemistry, including chromatography, where you get traces like this and each "bump" stands for a pure compound. No extra "bumps" means high purity. Pretty simple.
I was up to explain this to the judge and the lawyers sought to qualify me as a witness.
She said "OK, as long as he doesn't talk about any of those graph thingies. That is a waste of my time". I guess another expert had tried to explain it earlier in the trial and really confused her. I had to ditch all of the figures we were going to show and just explain in words that I had look at the data and I can definitely estimate product purity as such-and-such. She didn't want to know why, or how. That was too tough for her.
I have seen some similarly science-phobic judges, but she takes the cake.
Thankfully, few drug trials are juried.
I had one jury trial in a nutritional supplement case and yes, every science concept, however simple, had to be boiled down to an analogy.
"Chemistry is like cooking. When you bake a cake and leave it in the oven 10 minutes too long, it doesn't come out right. That was the problem here, they made a mistake, and it didn't come out right."
Miserable. Med mal cases are always by jury and it's a crapshoot if the jury will understand anything going on.
Be careful what you wish for. While science-phobic judges are not what you would normally want in a science-heavy case, too far the other way can sometimes be problematic.Damn, as someone who has testified before 6 judges in my "side gig" as a scientific expert witness, that would be a dream.
One time in the District of Florida, one generic pharma company was suing another one, claiming that the competitor's product was less pure than it was claimed to be.
How can you tell how pure something is? Analytical chemistry, including chromatography, where you get traces like this and each "bump" stands for a pure compound. No extra "bumps" means high purity. Pretty simple.
I was up to explain this to the judge and the lawyers sought to qualify me as a witness.
She said "OK, as long as he doesn't talk about any of those graph thingies. That is a waste of my time".
I guess another expert had tried to explain chromatography earlier in the trial and really confused her. I had to ditch all of the figures we were going to show and just explain, in words, that I had looked at the data and I can definitely estimate product purity as such-and-such.
She didn't want to know why, or how. That was too tough for her.
I have seen some similarly science-phobic judges, but she takes the cake.
Of course these are generalities, as sometimes, at least from an attorney standpoint, you might want one of these extremes in light of your case.
Similarly, I’ve read quite a lot of bad patents in my day. The worst are ones written by an attorney who had no clue what the technology was about. A close second are those involving highly technical or complicated subject matter, and were written by an attorney who had too much expertise in the technology. Great, you have a PhD, specializing in pharmacodynamics. Unfortunately, if that patent you wrote is ever litigated the only people that will ultimately decide it’s fate will have had no chemistry beyond high school - 40+ years ago.
But yeah, science-phobic judges are a nightmare to deal with. And as you said, a good analogy is often what ultimately wins the day.
I hope you did this for your sake
Robinhood is tanking.
Robinhood loses active users in the fourth quarter, forecasts weak revenue
The newly public brokerage anticipates first-quarter revenue of less than $340 million, down 35% compared to 2021.
Damn, as someone who has testified before 6 judges in my "side gig" as a scientific expert witness, that would be a dream.
One time in the District of Florida, one generic pharma company was suing another one, claiming that the competitor's product was less pure than it was claimed to be.
How can you tell how pure something is? Analytical chemistry, including chromatography, where you get traces like this and each "bump" stands for a pure compound. No extra "bumps" means high purity. Pretty simple.
I was up to explain this to the judge and the lawyers sought to qualify me as a witness.
She said "OK, as long as he doesn't talk about any of those graph thingies. That is a waste of my time".
I guess another expert had tried to explain chromatography earlier in the trial and really confused her. I had to ditch all of the figures we were going to show and just explain, in words, that I had looked at the data and I can definitely estimate product purity as such-and-such.
She didn't want to know why, or how. That was too tough for her.
I have seen some similarly science-phobic judges, but she takes the cake.
the ability for the expert witness to explain everything to the jury in layman's terms, with understandable and relevant analogies, is key.
Roaring Kitty is back on Twitter. GME up 68% today. To the moon!
