In our previous episode, the response to a motion pertaining to a question of Turkish law and procedure had all the information about Turkish law and procedure removed as “irrelevant.”  Now it’s just bare bones facts: married/divorce/no judgment in Turkey, as requested.

Moe: Wait.  This paragraph is too short.
Me:  It says everything you wanted.
Moe: Also, respond to the 11 paragraphs of facts that really don’t mean anything.
Me: I already said the first 8 are fine, 9-11 is stupid and irrelevant.

Moe: No, you need to do a numbered list.
Me: You mean like it’s a pleading?  But it’s a motion.
Moe: Yes.
Me: Which is not a pleading, because we have seven rules about pleadings and one about motions, and this is a motion, which, as defined in the rules, is not a pleading.
Moe: Exactly. Continue reading →

An occasional series of rants.

When a partner gives you a motion and tells you to raise x, y and z defenses in the response, spend all your time forcing those defenses to fit the facts.  Even if they don’t.

Don’t waste your time trying to understand the arguments on the other side or analyzing whether they are applicable or meritorious.  They’re not, because, as above, they come form the other side.

Also do not bother to understand the issues underlying the case, like what is the significance of recording a document in Istanbul.***  Everybody knows only American law matters, even when deciding what something done in a faraway land  has to do with the case.

Moe:  Fuck that.  Turkey is a sandwich.  Cut out all that explanation shit and give me what I asked for.

Moe:  Also, it’s your fault if it doesn’t win, especially if it’s because you took out all that explanation and analysis bullshit.

[Yeah, I know.  "Cry about it, you baby."]

***How this works is you either supply the information so you can be told you’re stupid if it’s deemed not relevant.  Or you can omit the research, omit the findings, and be peppered with “where is the answer? Why did you not think this was important?”  questions. I’m Dilbert.