This lawyer deponent puts TSINAH to shame, absolute perfection (vid)
| racy brunch | 07/04/25 | | racy brunch | 07/04/25 | | odious free-loading church building dysfunction | 07/04/25 | | impressive quadroon hall | 07/04/25 | | racy brunch | 07/04/25 | | cobalt stirring death wish doctorate | 07/04/25 | | racy brunch | 07/04/25 | | cobalt stirring death wish doctorate | 07/04/25 | | odious free-loading church building dysfunction | 07/05/25 | | soul-stirring transparent therapy senate | 07/05/25 | | sick theatre becky | 07/06/25 | | cobalt stirring death wish doctorate | 07/06/25 | | racy brunch | 07/06/25 | | Long TERF War for PeterBoi Poon | 07/30/25 | | racy brunch | 07/04/25 | | judgmental mind-boggling black woman | 07/06/25 | | Learning disabled gold knife | 07/06/25 | | racy brunch | 07/06/25 | | Learning disabled gold knife | 07/06/25 | | racy brunch | 07/06/25 | | Razzle saffron station goyim | 07/06/25 | | racy brunch | 07/06/25 | | racy brunch | 07/06/25 | | buttfaggot | 07/30/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: July 4th, 2025 5:41 PM Author: racy brunch
there is no way he is violating the rules as much as the deponent. are you serious?
yes he's ineffective, the better strategy would have been to keep asking the questions and let the other guy make fake objections and refuse to answer, then go to the judge. no need for him to explain why the guy needs to answer.
regardless, the lawyer being deposed had his license suspended for the conduct according to the YouTube description below the video.
looks like that might not be the only time he's been suspended too, unless there are multiple lawyers in Colorado with similar names...
https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/court-opinion-colorados-pdj-suspends-attorney-after-he-called-a-former-client-a-crybaby-yelled-profanity-at-the-client-in-a-denver-restaurant/
https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2262194/colo-atty-suspended-over-online-comments-about-ex-client
https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Abrams,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2021PDJ044,%2007-16-21.pdf
https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Abrams,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2020PDJ004,%2004-30-20.pdf
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746099&forum_id=2/#49072452) |
 |
Date: July 6th, 2025 2:14 PM Author: sick theatre becky
this is the kind of extreme autism on here which is why people who are otherwise smart will never thrive in society. yes, he technically asked the same question, which was technically answered, multiple times. Like "have you ever had your deposition taken before?" However, in your hyper technical focus ur ignoring the fact that he was obviously lying and the person asking knew it. If you had ur depo taken before you'd remember it. the questioner probably also knew exactly how many times his depo was taken. The questioner was assessing whether this was going to be a serious depo or if the guy being deposed was just going to be a complete obstructionist even over basic questions.
this is why the person getting deposed got sanctioned and the lawyer taking it did not.
"he easily could have taken an effective deposition and gotten most of what he needed"
no obviously not. the guy wasn't answering basic questions, was objecting left and right. it wasn't even clear if he was actually pro se at certain points. the guy being deposed was obviously a lunatic who showed no interest in having his depo taken that day. the questioner rightly called him out and ended the shitshow early so he could come back and have the magistrate sit in on the deposition and also collect fees later.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746099&forum_id=2/#49076353)
|
Date: July 4th, 2025 5:43 PM Author: racy brunch
LJL at this nugget:
"During lunch break on the second day of trial, Abrams went to opposing counsel’s office
building with no legitimate reason for being in the building at that time. He rode the elevator
with opposing counsel and his client (the plaintiff in the case), over objections from
opposing counsel and a security guard. Abrams was disruptive to and confrontational with
people in opposing counsel’s office. Based on this conduct, the trial court entered a
restraining order against Abrams, listing opposing counsel as the protected party."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5746099&forum_id=2/#49072461) |
|
|