And I'm sure that the NYT will be getting a letter from the good people at Xerox explaining the difference between "xerox" and "photocopy."




To be fair, when the witness pretends he doesn't understand what "photocopy machine" means, he was clearly screwing around with the deposition.  

"Gas powered photocopy machines"?

Clearly, the defending attorney had prepped the witness not to say "photocopy," presumably because of some arcane BS argument that the legislature intended only "photos" and not other kinds of technologies, which is a distinction that no user ever makes.

I would have had the same reaction of incredulous sarcasm, but I would have established in great detail that he makes and how he does it, and I would have dragged him through the glass so he wouldn't do it again.

The witness was obviously lying or an idiot or being deliberately obtuse because he'd been (a)  coached into not saying "photocopy" and (b) coached into the idea that he could testify to something only if he had at that moment a specific recollection, i.e., he was coached into lying.

And I doubt that the deposing attorney was standing up and yelling. The dep would have been suspended long before that.

Also, $2 per page is outrageous and an obvious attempt by the government to make a way of recouping reasonable expenses into a profit center.  I got gigged for $4,000 in one case recently because the court had - for the first time in cash strapped California - decided that the 50 cents a page charge meant that they could charge 50 cents for the side that had text on it and 50 cents for the side that was blank.

I think that is something that deserves a class action suit, because it is clearly contrary to reason and just a way of gouging for money and we wouldn't tolerate it if had happened in private business and the government has a monopoly on certain services, etc., etc.

Tree Law.

Trees and nothing but trees.

How does gay marriage affect your marriage?

Well, for one, it could get you or your spouse banned from public if you dare to express opposition to it.

Spot the rich, creamy, ironic hypocrisy here:

The “tolerant” same-sex marriage left has struck again – this time, at the popular hangout The Grove, in Los Angeles. The owner of The Grove, Rick Caruso, tweeted that iconic boxing great and Philippines Congressman Manny Pacquiao would not be allowed “on the premises” thanks to Pacquiao’s outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage. “Boxer Manny Pacquiao is not welcome @TheGroveLA,” he tweeted. “@TheGroveLA is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance.” Pacquiao was supposed to do an interview today with “Extra” at The Grove.

Although I think that property owners have a right to control the property they own, that option has been foreclosed by wiser heads that mine. California Civil Code Section 51et. seq. - the Unruh Act - prohibits discrimination by business establishments based on "personal characteristics," including personal beliefs. Semler v. General Electric Capital Corp., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1380, 1394 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011)("In Koebke, the court commented that the personal characteristics enumerated in the Act “represent traits, conditions, decisions, or choices fundamental to a person's identity, beliefs and self-definition.” (Koebke, at pp. 842–843, italics added.)

It seems that Pacquiao may have a claim for discrimination against the Grove.

This explains quite a bit.

Court approves police policy barring individuals with high IQs from becoming police officers (because they might get bored):

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

Another possible explanation is that those running the police department are afraid that they might be challenged by smarter subordinates.

I don't think that high IQ would qualify as a "disability" under California law insofar - it doesn't seem to be a physiological condition under the "physical disability" definition, and it is unlikely that it is recognized as a psychological condition for the "mental definition."

It's really stupid social policy, however.

Common Sense and the Law.

Expert testimony was not needed to determine the value of the few proper services Mr. Posey performed. All the facts were before the jury, and it generously allowed him to keep over $ 1,000. (See fn. 4, ante.) "The correct rule on the necessity of expert testimony has been summarized by Bob Dylan: 'You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.' n6 The California courts, although in harmony, express the rule somewhat less colorfully and hold expert testimony is not required where a question is 'resolvable by common knowledge'. [Citations omitted.]" (Jorgensen v. Beach ' N' Bay Realty, Inc. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 155, 163 [177 Cal.Rptr. 882].)


FOOTNOTES

n6 In a footnote at this point, the court cites: "Bob Dylan, 'Subterranean Homesick Blues' from Bringing it All Back Home."

Ball v. Posey, 176 Cal. App. 3d 1209, 1215 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1986)

Huh? Really?

I didn't realize that under California law a restaurant or store has no obligation to reasonably cooperate with an armed gunman in order to save a customer's life.

Here is the relevant headnote from Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 4th 814 (Cal. 1997):

In an action brought by a customer against a restaurant for the restaurant's negligence during the course of an armed robbery on the premises, in which the robber held a gun to plaintiff's back and ordered the cashier to give him all of the money in the cash register, the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a shopkeeper owes a duty to a patron to comply with an armed robber's demand for money in order to avoid increasing the risk of harm to patrons. There is no duty to comply with a robber's unlawful demand for the surrender of property, and the simple refusal to obey such a demand does not breach any duty to third persons present on the premises. In this case, even though the cashier delayed complying with the robber's unlawful demand by telling him that she needed to get the keys to the register, and the robber became agitated and told the cashier that he would kill plaintiff if the cashier did not immediately open the register, the cashier did not engage in active resistance to the robbery. Recognizing a duty to comply with an unlawful demand to surrender property would be inconsistent with the public policy reflected in Cal. Const., art. I, § 1, and Civ. Code, § 50, which recognize a person's right to defend property with reasonable force. Further, recognition of such a duty would be contrary to public policy as it would encourage similar unlawful conduct.

Under circumstances where a gunman is using me as a hostage in a hold-up, I'm thinking that my best option would be to jump over the counter and beat the cr*p out of the clerk until he coughs up the f*cking money, which is f*cking insured and won't f*cking bleed.

Then, we'll talk about Civil Code Section 50 and Cal. Const., art. I, Section 1.

That strikes me as a stupid decision; on which point, the Supreme Court had to reverse the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the denial of summary judgment against the customer's case; so it seems that there were a fair number of lawyers who agree with me.