Angry lawyer goes off the deep end

thanks for telling me the questions I should ask you have will have your opportunity at the end just shut up when you're wrong with your questions okay Mr curry shut up or I'll adjourn this deposition and you can tell it to the judge or I'll get you I'll get you some tissues you can cry Mr curry right please don't tell me what to do you asked him if he ever spoke with farsh about anything he said no now you asked him to tell you what farsh told him it is a question it is absolutely speculative no foundation or anything else now he's entitled to a fair question you told him that so if you're going to sit there and ask unfair questions I'm going to correct them so I don't waste this guy's time having to come back or go to trial and undo the mess that you're trying to create got me are you finished are you finished are you one understand the question are you aware of the local rules with regard to what objections you are allowed to make and what do you understand the question mr. foster sir right now this is my witness I get to ask the questions you get to make objections only there are two types of bail you can make objective LF sir you understand the question being asked mr. stris hurry don't don't don't ever presume that you get to tell me what to do or when to do it counsel don't you ever presume my foster this night or a deposition do you understand the question why should you be entitled to then tell me what to do doesn't it go both ways because I'm being straight with the guy and you're being not straight with the guy that's why he has no dog in this fight are you finished giving your opinions now about he has no dog in this fight and you're trying to get him to say things that are simply untrue it's an old trick mr. Zohar you don't think you're trying to coach the witness right now I'm telling him what the question is so he can answer it do you know what speaking objections are don't lecture me idiot I'm telling you he's not gonna I'm not gonna let that happen okay you got me do we understand each other no are you standing while we connecting here as if we're not connecting here I will try again okay don't give me local rules don't give me procedures don't give me professionalism just put a fair question to the witness and if you're not going to do that that I am one stand each other if you believe that a question that I ask is not proper then you get to pose a valid objection you're not allowed to make speaking objections you're not allowed to keep don't lecture me puppy don't lecture me I was doing this when you were still chasing cheerleaders don't you even think about lecturing me about depositions Thank You foxing officers more than me so that's it so to be honest with you you understand the question Mr curry let's have the question it is my desire to follow the rules if it if you don't believe we should be following the rules then maybe you need to explain to me what procedure we are supposed to fall which now do you think there's anything wrong with adding tests master students who you met only by virtue of your employment at test masters to a prospective client file for your competing company to read the question back please objective the question is no foundation that calls for speculation seeks a legal conclusion that's argumentative and I'm struggling witness not to answer mr. Cady do you think that it would be improper for you to copy your employers course material while you are a test masters instructor and use it for a competing business same objections same instruction so as we say here today you don't know whether or not it's a true statement as of March 30th 2005 blue print had not yet finished the writing and production of itself cycle detection argumentative a also invades the attorney-client privilege and the word product doctrine is struck not to answer do you deny mr. Cady that as of January 12th of 2005 the Matt Reilly was a blooper important section same objections same instruction Mr curry this goes to the to the very heart of the case here and I'd ask you to reconsider your instruction and allow mr. Tay to answer this very simple fundamental question I've reconsidered the answer's no can you rule out the possibility that Matthew Reilly was a blueprint partner while he was still teaching for test masters same objections same instruction do you deny that Matthew Reilly was a blooper partner at the same time that he was teaching test masters classes same objection same instruction do you deny that Matt Reilly was working on the blueprint website while he was still teaching classes for test masters projection that's argumentative calls for speculation there's no fun and can you say with certainty that mr. McCarthy did not help in any way in helping blueprint create the course material section calls for speculation no foundation its argumentative struggling us not to answer do you deny the Courtney Martin was working for blueprint on its website while she was a test masters instructor section same objections same instruction were you trying to get Courtney Martin to do work for blueprint while she was a test masters employee Jackson vague and ambiguous can answer I don't believe that I was do you deny that you are section Ashton answered argumentative no foundation closed for speculation strike the real something now why around this time period did you want to damage Robin Singh objection calls for speculation no foundation its argumentative instructed not to answer it's phrased okay that's it well let me let me know we're done okay that's fine I'm not asking any more questions I want to make a record here if I may Mr curry I think that your instructions not to ask not to answer numerous questions are improper and unfortunate particularly in light of these new documents that were just discovered the judges repeatedly suggested that we should there's a likelihood of having follow-on discovery after you discovery I think that it's improper and I think that you're obstructing our ability to get to the bottom of these critical and highly damaging documents and I'd like to put you on notice that if you don't allow us to continue to ask questions now or at a subsequent time that we believe that you will be obstructing your the our ability to obtain evidence about improper discovery abuses by your client that you'll be aiding and abetting and those discovery abuses and I ask you to reconsider and permit us to ask mr. Tay to these questions take your threats and put away you little bitter I'm not making dead rats yes you are just tell it to this subsidy appears same step and like you're working free like your work like your work Mr curry

Channel: vebene22

Views: 1,610,303

Rating: 4.5863218 out of 5

Keywords: deposition, lawyer, attorney, joseph kouri, joe kouri, blueprint, lsat, blueprint lsat, trent teti, lawsuit

Id: pocKf4-pfhM

Length: 8min 0sec (480 seconds)

Published: Sat Jun 19 2010

Reddit Comments

[u/Lox72]

Angry Lawyer: "Do you understand? Are we connecting here?"

Counsel: "I wanna know, if you understand the rules?"

They're like two Siris going at it, I love it.

[u/GrizzWintoSupreme]

Who is that lawyer I want more

[u/mtf612]

Love that this is about Testmasters / Blueprint, which provide LSAT courses

[u/lawvas]

This lawyer would be sanctioned where I practice. Judges tend not to tolerate disregard of the procedural rules when paired with such blatant unprofessionalism.

[u/demasx]

Obligatory: Verbatim: What Is a Photocopier? | Op-Docs

[u/Wheream_I]

I mean...

In that second deposition the lawyer was VERY founded in objecting to the questions being asked. “Do you feel,” “Do you think” etc. those are questions begging conjecture.

The first deposition was a pure freak out, but the objections in the second were well founded.

Also, many of his questions WERE argumentative, as he was attempting to argue a definite point in the form of questions, which is essentially the definition of argumentative questioning.

[u/e5cdt5261]

Everyone saying "this is the lawyer I want," you guys are being scammed. This lawyer is posturing for his clients, to make himself look like a fierce advocate for them. In reality, he was absolutely wrong in the first segment, and taking a big risk in the second. These kind of tactics will turn the judge against you, which is the WORST thing your attorney can do for you. In reality, this tactic cost these clients a huge amount of money.

[u/nuby_4s]

MFW my parents argue in front of me

[u/Bozzz1]

"I've reconsidered, the answer is no". Lmao that line got me good.