Evidently, the maximum amount of time for deposing a plaintiff is seven hours, and they did use up all of those hours in my case. Whew!
And guess what! These dang district lawyers seem to spend all of their time reading Dissent the Blog! Most of the questions were about blog posts.
"Did you write this blog post?"
"Yep."
"Do you see paragraph 2, where you say such-and-such?"
"Yep."
"What did you mean by that?"That's pretty much how the thing went. But who knew it would be all about this blog?
SOMETIMES, the depo was downright thrilling, like a Perry Mason episode. The lawyers would menace each other, spitting forth such remarks as, “I don’t care what you think, counselor!” and “if you do this I will bring you up for sanctions!”
Golly! During a break, I asked my attorney whether this kind of banter is unusual. “Nope,” he said. "Not with this case."
During one exchange of these pleasantries, I couldn’t help but break into a huge smile, watchin' 'em go at it. I looked over at the court reporter, who, I assumed, was also marveling at the fine display of venomous spewage, but she seemed utterly oblivious to it. Later, I asked her if she liked her job. “Yes,” she chirped. Then I asked, “Does part of your brain actually listen to this stuff as you write it down?”
“No!” she said.
Ha!
Man, these big, fancy law firms that the district hires are sittin’ in clover. The depo was done in a gorgeous office space on the eighth (and, I think, seventh) floor of a magnificent office tower very near the Mother’s Market in Irvine (near Jamboree and the 405).The view was spectacular. I kept gawking at it, which seemed to annoy the opposing attorney, who seemed beyond appreciating such things and who wore jeans and had the bearing and civility of, say, a Mafioso.
Well, that’s how I spent my Wednesday. Pretty cool, eh?
15 comments:
We're so proud of you! AND the blog!
ah, the power of the press!!!!!
Roy, you sacrifice too much. It's Spring Break! Still, sounds like fun, sort of.
Everyone knows that evrryone reads thr blog - even when they say they don't. Even on spring break, they read the blog.
9:25, it wasn't voluntary. As a plaintiff, I had no choice but to make myself available for the depo. But I must admit that I largely enjoyed it. Plus the view!
Our tax dollars at work - as directed by so-called fiscal conservatives Wagner, Fuentes and Lang.
No, 7:42, you've got it backward. Roy and Karla and the rest of the plaintiffs brought the case. They'll probably lose it, too. They're the ones forcing the spending of tax dollars, unless you believe Wagner, Fuentes and Lang should have just given in to the threats of litigation, even though the law is on the board's side.
I believe the plaintiffs asked the board to follow the law - only to be rebuffed over and over again.
Lang, Fuentes, Wagner and Williams only want to use this issue to further their own careers - and are happy to spend taxpayer dollars to do so.
Just take a look at Wagner's campaign website to see how he's running on this issue and using this case front and center - this way he doesn't have to PAY for advertising his name - but we do!
Sweet, ain't it?
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As elected officials, trustees are "the government." They show up at district and college functions--e.g., commencement exercises--offering prayers. At the August Chancellor's opening session, they played a video containing the message that Jesus Christ "offered" to save our souls.
When, a week or two later, the board met, faculty vociferously objected to the August prayer and video. A few minutes later, when the subject of the opening subject came up (during board and chancellor reports), no mention was made of any error. On the contrary, praise was heaped upon the opening session.
When the board was asked to back off of its religion-imposing ways, it did the opposite. Hence, the lawsuit.
The board is following the law. It's pretty clear that the invocations are allowed under state and federal law. In fact, the plaintiffs have already abandoned the state claims they stupidly brought and are left with one federal claim. They aren't even challenging invocations at the start of board meetings. It's a half-assed lawsuit. The plaintiffs are the ones forcing the spending of the money, and if you don't like what Wagner, Fuentes and Lang do with it, then don't bring half-assed lawsuits.
oooh, someone isn't having a nice time on spring break!
Dang - get yourself a stiff tropical drink with a paper umbrella in it and CHILL, babe.
The law evolves - why don't you?
Too bad all the press can't be counted as some kind of in-kind contribution to Don's campaign - 'cause he certainly IS running with it, on it.
But that's how they do ya, don't they?
Oh, come on Wendy. Get a life.
How someone can argue that unconstitutional proselytizing is akin to a garden variety "invocation" is beyond me, unless the claim is being made by someone in bed with (figuratively speaking) one of the chief preachers. As noted, said preacher is using this to feed more red meat to his base.
Don Wagner wants this case to proceed more than the plaintiffs do!!!!
Wagner is riding this all the way to Sacramento.
Post a Comment