JCD cranky? Ha! Not after you learn about this guy. You have to read the article to get the full insanity of the back and forth on this. You’d swear this was a Monty Python skit.
What is a photocopier?
That seems like such a simple question. But last year, a lawyer in a public-records case being heard by the Ohio Supreme Court had a hard time getting a $64,000-a-year Cuyahoga County worker to say whether the county recorder’s office had a photocopier.
The effort consumes nearly 10 pages of a court transcript.
The overall case is about whether deeds and other records at the county recorder’s office — records that were collected and are maintained with your taxes — should be readily available at reasonable cost. The lawyers involved in the case say the question about the photocopier is technical, getting at an arcane point of law.
You be the judge.
Clearly the lawyer set this up. No link as to what the case is. Could it be Xerox defending their trademark?
Before people repeat the misinformed comments already present following the original article, I hereby repeat a particularly astute comment from the last comment page therein:
–charley hardman March 18, 2011 at 6:20PM:
“i at least skimmed all of the 55 comments to date, and didn’t see one person who got it right. plenty were so busy criticizing the deponent that they don’t recognize what a great job he did, and, in context, the soundness of the reason for his strategy.
astoundingly obvious from the context that the case hinges in large part upon the definition of “photocopy”. the witness’s lawyer prepped him very well, and properly. opposing lawyer was hoping to get some sloppy irrelevant nuggets into the record, and he got shut down. he was not shut down because the witness doesn’t know what’s referred to as a “photocopying machine” in casual terms, but because the deposing lawyer wanted to get weasel material on paper for something that has nothing to do with the witness’s recognition of a term, but rather the underlying statute and later technology. state criminality aside, biggest bozo in the room? the one deposing the witness.
those expounding on how the judge should’ve stepped in, judges aren’t normally present at depositions, which explains why no objections were ruled upon in the transcript, and why the lawyers spoke directly to one another (generally forbidden in court).”
As a Cleveland resident, I’m very familiar with this case and the proceedings of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. I have been getting enjoyment for years from the televised sessions and can say this is nothing new. I find this court to be balanced and learned in its decisions and joyfully, nay, deliciously pedantic in its questioning.
I recall a recent case which bravely decided what the term “stamped” absolutely means with regard to filings with the Clerks of Court. Apparently, there was great dispute.
MikeN: “Clearly the lawyer set this up. No link as to what the case is. Could it be Xerox defending their trademark?”
uh, right in the post Mr. Dvorak had already iterated quite lucidly what the case was about:
“The overall case is about whether deeds and other records at the county recorder’s office — records that were collected and are maintained with your taxes — should be readily available at reasonable cost. The lawyers involved in the case say the question about the photocopier is technical, getting at an arcane point of law.”
Did you skim over that part? 🙂
[John didn’t post this article, Uncle Dave did. KD]
Time to bring in your own scanner since Cuyahoga County, Ohio is so archaic. In Phoenix, Maricopa County, you can view unofficial records online as pdfs or tiff image files. No gas to burn, no time to waste, no asshole staff to deal with…
# 5 GF said, on March 23rd, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Time to bring in your own scanner since Cuyahoga County, Ohio is so archaic.
Guess they spent all their money putting out the fire on the river.
#6 KD Martin, I see what you did there.
I just hope that office worker gets a lifelong medical plan paid by the taxpayers, and a full pension at age 52.
Jerk.
I have a fax machine in my office. I can also use it to make copies. We do not have a machine that is dedicated to making copies. So would I answer “yes” or “no” to the lawyer’s question?
Would a 3-in-1 fax/scanner/printer machine be considered a photocopier?
Would a scanner, attached to a computer, and a separate printer, attached to the same computer, be considered a photocopier?
No, yes & could be.
A witness that won’t address a simple question with yes or no begins to make himself look ridiculous, paints himself into a corner, etc. His counsel was being useless & unhelpful.
Seems to me a simple question should be asked and answered as simply as possible and let the lawyers argue what it means later.
If ever “relevant” I would think the witness had been coached by the attorney to the point of saying whatever the lawyer wanted and his credibility would be close to zero, as would the attorney, as would be the real client.
The technical point of law should be argued at some other time.
But thats just “me” and I think the whole system is corrupt/ed from start to finish.
This is of course happening in the state of Ohio, where the law seems to be as weird as in Florida.
There has to be one or more reasons that the lawyers are dancing around whether there’s a copier in the office. Chances are some lawyer or citizen is trying to get a copy of an important legal document, and the county clerk (or whoever) is trying to not distribute that copy. Hence, the “Who’s on First” tap dance.
Who’s on first?
“Lawyered!”
Now there’s a courtroom that one could put a Thompson sub-machine gun to good use in.
While they were arguing about whether it was a machine gun or not and therefore, prohibited, or not, you could blow all the bastards away.
I’m laughing at this. For all who didn’t catch what was going on. This has to do with legaleaze. I’m guessing the somewhere something has to with “Photocopy(ing)” something. Do you really say or call anything a “Photocopier”. No, most just say “Copy(ing)” of “Xerox. The guy being deposed with not say “Photocopy” = “Copy” or as he called it “Xerox”. Someone somewhere screwed up and did not define/liken Photocopy to Copy or Xerox on a legal document.
The questions could also have been posed thusly:
Q. Are you aware of the term “xerographic copy”?
A. No.
Q. In your office, would anybody ever say, “Run me off five photocopies of this?”
A. No.
The witness knew perfectly well what “photocopy” meant but was too obsessed with the exact wording of the question & ended up looking like an ass.
It’s the judges fault this happened. He let the lawyers run his court. He could and should have given direction.
Dicken‘s was right when he wrote “Oliver Twist, and said: “The law is an ass“.
And, it seems, so are all those who attempt it.
Once I had to go to court, I watched a lawyer try to argue that water flowed uphill due to gravity.
This witness did look like a jack ass. Imagine how that would play to a jury.
That being said – yes, it was totally a strategy by counsel. The witness was completely coached. Of course, he ends up looking coached, but that’s just ’cause he’s not a professional witness.
Police officers on the other hand, got that shit down *pat*, yo.
This was a good read. Real Abbott & Costello material. But, back in real life, I’ve been deposed three times and I’ll tell you this – it ain’t no fun. Because there is no judge to rule on relevance, the lawyers can ask you almost anything and demand an answer on the record.
Words count. Specially in court.
This is my all time favorite: “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.”
Who remembers where this came from??
#25 Ah_yea : I believe that was uttered by the same man who claimed a blow job was not sex…