Saturday, June 16, 2012

How to Succeed in the 21st Century (Without Even Trying!)

Hey there, watch your mouth! Here is a short summary of the things one should do (or not do) to be truly successful in the 21st century. Ready? Here it goes: It's all about taking control and manning up, lawyering up, and stepping up to the plate in order to keep from getting thrown under the bus. In addition, you should also parse through the current narrative on your plate to avoid some serious major wardrobe malfunction. Try not to kick the can down the road while you're at it, and OMG if you Laugh Out Loud at the World Trade Federation which everyone seems to be talking about these days. Also, to get face time, you should be fierce, crazy sexy smart and cool, not to mention intentional, fully relational, fully engaged, and totally willing to come along side and show the love. Of course, you should also feel the love and double down on making it happen. But it will help if you also try to make a difference. Transition, position, and use grow as an active verb. If you eat your peas and take the lead, you'll rock like the rockstar you are! That would be major, big-time smoking hot. That will also be the best. thing. ever. It will also be a complete game changer. Of course, if there's a smackdown and you get dissed with your pants on the ground, then don't crash and burn even if it's gone viral, because there's an app for that, and also because it's all good. It's like that, it's all that, and if you've made 'wrong choices' and engaged in 'inappropriate behavior', then just chill and be. Because at the end of the day, you know what? IT IS WHAT IT IS. If this has inspired you, then please feel free to post this to as many people as you like. (or to as many people as you don't like)

Friday, June 1, 2012

Who's On First Principles of Effective Cross Examination?

Sometimes propositional communication is too much of a good thing and even the best trial lawyer can get derailed by a stout Irish bull: (Taken from the transcripts of courtroom testimony in the infamous defamation action brought by the Wolfman v. Abbott & Costello, 256 F.2d 58 (1962) What follows is the notorious cross examination of Lou Costello by Jack Lettman, the attorney for the Wolfman:) Q: Are you prepared to tell the truth in these matters today, Mr. Costello? A: I've not done any preparation for this. Q: Have you lived here all of your life? A: Not yet. Q: You seem to have a bit of a speech impediment; what is the nature of that? A: I'ts really hard to say. Q: Could you explain further? A: I'ts also hard to tell. Q: Are you confident in your prior testimony? A: I'm not sure. Q: Why did you retract parts of your earlier testimony? A: I was nonplussed. Q: Should I say your earlier testimony was self-serving? A: Help yourself! Q: No, I mean your testimony was....look, can I ask you a simple question? A: Sure, ask a harder one now. Q: Do you mind if I ask you a rhetorical question? A: Well, if I give a false response, would it be considered perjury? Q: Only if it's not responded to under oath. A: Alright. In that case, go ahead and ask another one. Q: Mr. Costello, have you now or have you ever been a Communist? A: What's Joe McCarthy got to do with this? Q: Well, do you support the overthrow of the US government by force or violence? A: Ahhh.....violence! Q: You answered differently in your prior testimony. A: You're asking was I lying then or am I lying now? Q: Don't confuse the issue. Just answer the question. A: Please ask me a different one! Q: Now you're begging the question. That won't work here. A: I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may increment myself. Q: Just answer all at once, please. A: I've forgotten what I wasn't going to say. Q: Do you need the Court to refresh your recollection? A: No, I'm not tired at all. Q: Your honor, I'd like a recess at this point! A: Aren't you a little too old for that? --And so on, and so on, and so on....The case was ultimately thrown out of Court for containing too much hearsay and innuendo. Interesting sidenote: the great Kim Novak (pictured) was all set to be a character witness for the plaintiff, although her testimony turned out to not be needed after all.