legal depositions

Please overlook the nasty name calling and personal attacks. Unfortunately, they seem to be par for the course when one takes an indefensible position regarding incorrect legal premise, phrases, terms, or even precedent. It is amazing how people who would never consider giving medical advise freely dispense "legal advice" with no training, education, or degree that would give them any authority to do so. However, since this is an internet forum, obviously, everyone and anyone is, of course, invited to express their opinion, hopefully without name calling or personal attacks.

Your use of the incorrect term was not the problem. The problem was being told you could actually DEPOSE people by mail order questionairres and then somehow morph them into affidavits. I'm sure you understood the difference.

Anyway, in any civil case, the more people that can credibly testify, the better. So, any "legwork" you do now can surely be profitable later. Again, I assert my previous position---I would not offer people premade questionairres---it can be argued it is leading. A questionairre "locks" people into short cursory answers. Allowing them to present their thoughts as they wish has an air of credibility and authenticity that a simplistic "fill-in-the-blanks" questionairre does not.

I wish you well.

Far be it from me to pass up a 'teachable' moment--after all, isn't that why we are here?

I cannot remember a single court case with which I have been involved or any of the thousands I have had to read and study that did NOT include a significant amount of "somebody else's work". It is called PRECEDENT. No attorney darkens the door of a court room without knowing how the courts have ruled in the past regarding the issue he or she is about to address. A large majority of what happens in court rooms is not fictional, or made up in the head of the one representing or defending a client. Virtually every word from counsels mouth is related to the court, its rulings in the past ( i.e. someone else's work ). That is why law students spend hours upon end researching, studying, learning and understanding the RELEVANCE and IMPORTANCE of what has gone before.

If there is only one correct answer to a question such as "Is statutory rape a felony or misdemeanor?", how am I to answer it WITHOUT quoting "someone else's work" (i.e. the lawmakers who wrote and passed the law?) The goal of this forum is not to make up creative answers, or to expound on how I THINK the law should be, but to provide factual answers based, hopefully, on the law----"someone else's work". I don't presume anyone is here to read my opinion about what the law should be, or how I "think it should be" ( example: the trucker who should lose his kids because he is an OTR trucker, or how the Bill of Rights should be discarded when underpaid overworked social workers 'cross over to the dark side' while investigating allegations of child abuse). Not only is this unadulterated opinion, it is factually flawed---there actually are laws that protect citizens from either one of those scenarios happening and to perpetuate otherwise is irresponsible.

The cannon of law is, as it were, a building that is erected stone upon stone---and each stone has an integral historical and factual link one with the other. If the significance and contribution of one "stone" is missing, our current laws pertaining to any chosen subject may very well be markedly different.

Example: if Roe vs. Wade was "missing", consider how every law since that time that pertains to this issue would be different as well. If abortion had never been legalized, the laws would reflect things such as criminal charges for women who have abortions, etc. They ARE all related. Civil law, criminal law---stone by stone, inextricably linked.

I would not neither hire nor be an attorney who did not understand the importance and necessity of "someobody else's work".

Robster, You didn't use "depositions" in a wrong way. You understood that there are a limited number of people who actually know the most important information of our lives. By using an affidavit form you can cull those in the full list down to a reasonable five or so that can testify in deps or in trial to exactly what you have to prove. I doubt that you could go wrong in eliminating the recorder and attorney fees for the other twenty people who were merely peripheral to your case and didn't understand enough of what was going on to link the various statements to the truth of this situation you have found yourself in.

As far as Grace goes, as usual, she either misread my post, or simply chose to misquote me. She has mangled my words out of context too many times to count. Jealous, I guess. Can't imagine why she keeps on doing it.

Actually, if you read his posting literally word for word, he does refer to depositions as...... "signed statements from a long list of witnesses". That would not be a deposition, that would be an affidavit. So, clearly he did use the word incorrectly. A deposition is more than just a "signed statement", and he does not have the legal authority to conduct depositions, issue subpoenas, put people under oath, etc. But, it would appear he came to the right place for an explanation.

Interestingly enough, you are completely contradicting yourself. I will quote exactly, so as not to do any injustice to your thoughtful posting. In your latest posting, you state ( correctly too, I might add) : "By using an affidavit form you can cull those in the full list down to a reasonable five or so that can testify in deps or in trial to exactly what you have to prove".

After reading my clarification, you correctly stated that an AFFIDAVIT is used to narrow down the list of people to DEPOSE. Exactly.

However, in your previous posting ( again, quoting to preserve your precise wording--no speculation or misreading possible):

"we got most of them (depositions) turned into affidavits with no problem."

Obviously, there is no need to reduce sworn testimony given under oath (deposition) into merely signed statements given at random (affidavits) which are not nearly as credible.

And that, dear, is precisely how you disagree with INFORMATION presented without resorting to name calling or personal attacks. My posting has nothing to do with you personally---it has to do with the fact that from a legal standpoint, I simply disgree. And I have explained why.

It happens in court rooms daily and neither attorney leaves the courthouse shouting names or attacking the character of the other. Try to defend your position without doing the same.

No, dear, that is how you attempt to explain an error in YOUR logic and you do it by inserting your own words into a purported QUOTE from me. This is something you've done repeatedly and it smacks of a really low threshold for obfuscation on your part... any time you can, you do.

I gave a very simple description of a starter paragraph followed by questions. These are NOT an affidavit until you take the person who answers them to a place where they can swear in front of a notary that these statements are true. This has NOTHING to do with depositions, which are conducted in a formal setting with a court reporter and lawyers who each have to be paid. This method doesn't even cost you the NOTARY FEE unless you want it to be an affidavit.

Furthermore, the original poster, Robster, mentioned the need for depositions in his first entry... exactly as he stated, requesting a method to reduce the clear cost of going to court with good quality witnesses via depositions. He knew he could get signed statements from the potential witnesses and that led him to request a sample of what they should look like to be sure he could use them as a method to determine what level of confidence he should have in the witness.... before he spent his money on depositions. So you misconstrued his request as well as my response... so to what advantage would this sport be applied? You are wasting your time here, Grace... and ours.

So Grace, next time you should think twice before you misquote me by inserting your words into my posts (this time in parenthesis you added "Depositions" where I was only talking about signed statements). What for? Exactly. EVERY TIME you quote me you misconstrue what I've said into something with your own words attached or imbedded. Did you think I wouldn't remember what I said? NOT POSSIBLE. It tells us all a lot about your intentions as a member of the bar. I don't think I'd want a lawyer who misconstrues what is said, but some people want to do that to practice what they intend to do before a jury... to change the witness' testimony to what they WANT them to say. Now, I HOPE that is not what YOU are doing. Reminds me of two lawyers my son went into partnership with. I'm sure you remember what happened to them before the Illinois Supreme Court. I hope you change your ways before you continue using these tactics on the public AFTER you get your degree and your license to practice. Lawyers who try to fool a jury are fools and if they do it repeatedly they generally get a reputation for being less than ethical. Any true lawyer would be ashamed to lie for such small sport. It is not even good law to manipulate what people say so that it allows you to attack them based on what YOU added to it. So, that brings it down to what kind of lawyer you want to be.

You have explained no error in logic.

He did not "mention the need for depositions", he clearly stated his intention was to specifically get depositions, calling them "signed statements ....of witnesses". HE equated the two terms.

Read it again:
" I am looking to gather evidence in the form of legal depositions..... I want to get signed statements from a long list of witnesses to attest to facts related to the dispute."

My clarification was that he shouldn't and couldn't attempt to "gather evidence in the form of legal depositions" because that wasn't what a "signed statement from a witness" was called ( not to mention he had no legal authority to depose anyone).

And, I am not bashing you--I am disagreeing with the information you posted. And I manage to do so without referencing you personally, your education, your ethics or your morals. Try to do the same.

And, for the record, since you insist upon mentioning it repeatedly for some strange reason, I DID obtain a degree in Criminal Law prior to attending law school--which is why I repeatedly tell people my specialization is in criminal law not primarily civil law. About that, I am extremely candid.

Oh, and I'm afraid I don't know the first thing about your son or the Illinois Supreme Court--was I supposed to? *head tilt* I go to great lengths NOT to reference or include peoples personal lives or families in my postings. So, no, I haven't a clue to what you are referring, but I do understand your words that are, in every posting, dripping with vehemence against attorneys and disrespect and distain for the law. Sadly, it bleeds through every posting you write.

In any regard, learn the difference between attacking personal lives and disagreeing with legal advice. It is appreciable.

You Could have been making an error in logic when you ASSUMED I was talking about depositions as opposed to what I described and what he asked for... signed statements. I personally don't think you misunderstood. I think you were just looking for a way to insert DEPOSITIONS into what I clearly described as signed statements.

So you made a purposeful ? error in logic and then attacked the word you added to a purported quote from my posting. This is long over done and repeated so many times by you (more than a dozen by now) that I'm just getting to the point that I won't let you get by with it any more. Learn from it. Become a better, more logical debater. Don't bother to insert crap into my posts as purported quotes. It just makes you look illogical and not so bright as you think you appear.

I had to laugh--here is a quote from your posting with absolutely NOTHING added or taken away from it.

" But what we did was find the right people to testify.

And Grace, we got most of them turned into affidavits with no problem."

Read it--that IS what you said, right?

Sorry I missed that feat!

From a strictly grammatical point of view ( sorry, I was a school teacher)--the "THEM" in your sentence is a reflexive, as well as an indefinite reference. To what? To the subject immediately preceding it, which would be "the right people". Read it aloud----.....right people to testify.........and we got most of them turned into affidavits with no problem."

Forget turning water into wine--you turned the "people into affidavits"--and not just ANY people, the RIGHT PEOPLE. LOL LOL LOL LOL

Go you!!

P.S. I am "bright" enough to know that the Bill of Rights is not vacated, nor is the Fourth Amendment suspended in child abuse investigations. Ya might wanna brush up on Calabretta v. Floyd, and bright enough to know that the law doesn't have any right to take away the children of men just because they are truck drivers, and that there ARE penalties for perjury in civil trials ( just a few of the dozens of examples of legal blarney posted on this forum)-- juz sayin. That's "bright" enuff fer me!!

The simple fact is that you are totally tiresome, Grace. If one misdirection won't work, you go after another. The point was that I was able to cull the witnesses down to those I needed.

Get lost. You are boring me with your lame attempts to rewrite my posts into your words and logic just totally out of context.

TOTALLY tiresome? Please say thats something like "Totally AWESOME!?" Please, please???

* sniff sniff*

roflmao