Sounds like a press conference with Jay Carney.

Sphincter: A mechanism designed to prevent shit from getting out, i.e., Jay Carney.

I'll gladly tell the details some time, but here's the quick summary.

This is how we see the hippies at the school:
http://youtu.be/msEfgBfXAW0

This is how the hippies probably see us:
http://youtu.be/cTupYg5gws4

There could easily be a Portlandia episode about this case. It comes down to they took our $10k, didn't do what they said they'd do, and then counter-sued us for $2k more. Our kids went there for two weeks. I can't believe how it metastasized into a all-out hippie fight.I feel awful about it because we wanted them to be in a laid-back progressive school environment It didn't work out as we planned. They're in a wonderful school now.

it's fuched up

I recently gave a deposition. The setup was just like this. I didn't fail to answer any questions. I did require a definition of withdraw. My attorney did object some. The court reporter reminded me of this person. It's an awkward experience.

good for you Herb. Anything you say can and will be used against you

now you have to tell! what was your issue? school and kids? what?

My wife's send this to me almost the same time khaling posted it. In my depo, if the opposing attorney had insisted on using the word "withdraw" I would have stonewalled too. He agreed to use the phrase "when the kids stopped attending the school".

We finally settled that dispute and are signing papers today. If we both weren't busy at work, we would have had another day of depositions. Real depos are expensive entertainment. When my wife and I were dating we used to quiz each other on Amendments of the Constitution in her little apartment. Nine years later we enjoy thousands of dollars worth of depositions as entertainment. For our twenty year anniversary, maybe we'll get in some huge dispute. J/k. I really hope not. I'm glad we're signing the papers today.

Hello priemert1,
Yes! Exactly so.
Regards,
O.A.

Went through depositions and refused to answer any questions. I was threatened with dire consequences which never developed. The questions concerned how much money my company received during a certain period of time. My answer was "Not any of your business." It was interesting to hear the seemingly endless ways the lawyer had of asking the same question.

Mr. Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

It didn't matter. The object in question could have been a Wurlitzer juke box.

it's funny, because in patent law cases turn on the definition of a single word. You'll notice in the transcript at one point there is an objections "this isn't a patent law case!"
one wonders what was so damned important about the photo copier?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWGiOuzp...

Even worse!
Our issue was manufacturers giving deals to discount retailers who bought in quantities that smaller stores could never hope to buy in. As a group, our organization could out-buy the big guys, so the manufacturers still wanted to appease us, but all they did was to go underground with their better deals hoping that we wouldn't find out. When we confronted their dishonesty, they turned into Fred Astaire rather than simply admitting the truth. The end result, over a fairly short period of time, was the end of the small personal-service retailer.

This is based on a real transcript of a Deposition.

I started out laughing, then I got irritated, then I got angry. Having been in business and the president of a trade association for a one year term, I encountered such situations in real life. Not quite as bad, but more truth to it than you might imagine.

lol. you were supposed to laugh at the absurdness.

I am usually in control of my emotions, but I really wanted to pummel this guy. I think I'll go beat up a pillow.

excellent points evl

When you have as many arcane laws as we do coupled with a capricious civil courts system, it is not surprising that an individual like this is reluctant to say anything if he can possibly avoid it. If you remember from Atlas shrugged when Hank Reardon was summoned to the state science institute and asked to supply Reardon metal to them and he pointed out that he would break about 10 of their laws by doing so, the official...I cant remember his name, replied...."That is not a problem for our friends, That is why we have all those laws."

"Sexual relations" ?!?!

hi ski-this is a parody-they have other videos I think

Observing the body language and eye contact between the deponent and his attorney, I'm reasonably certain that the attorney coached his client to answer as he did.

On the other hand, at the start of the video, I immediately thought, "Xerox."

The attorney may have sought to prevent the deponent from bringing a such a trademark name into the record.

Just guessing, of course....

...and to think: Washington, DC is full of lawyers who can't use common language.

I'm kinda reminded of the definition of "is"

Like pulling teeth.. or trying to get a straight answer from Jay Carney...