Good News! I won my little trial today. Bad News. These days we have to worry about Donald Trump taking credit for it via his twitter.
Let's re-cap. We hate our government feeding the poor with our tax money. We hate paying for housing them in our jails. We don't like do-gooders feeding the hungry in the streets and making the feeding places dangerous. Just what is it should society do?
Stock market down today. No comment from President Tweet. In his mind he is only responsible on up-tick days.
Yet, I survived with no involvement from CPS.
Have A Haramy Christmas: Islamic Leader Warns Wishing Friends “Merry Christmas” Is Worse Than Murderby jonathanturley
Corley was charged with first-degree domestic violence and pointing a firearm at another person.
On Thursday, the Houston Police Department targeted a group of homeless advocates who were attempting to hand out hot food and gifts to the homeless.
Court Imposes $4,700 Fine on Lawyer For (e.g.) Calling Adversary a “Racist” During Employment Discrimination Deposition
Objections. An objection at the time of the examination—whether to evidence, to a party’s conduct, to the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition—must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).
In response to [defense counsel]’s request that Plaintiff produce a log  of Plaintiff’s activities following her employment with Defendant, which Plaintiff refused to produce, [plaintiff’s counsel] objected and, after calling [defense counsel]’s request “absurd,” [plaintiff’s counsel] went on to accuse [defense counsel] of attempting to “use the discovery [request] to harass and badger my client, presumably because you are a racist.” (Emphasis added.)
On its face, [plaintiff’s counsel]’s outburst, wholly unprovoked based on the court’s review of the record, by anything [defense counsel] had said up to this point, constitutes improper argument in connection with a simple objection, apparently one based on a perceived lack of relevance by [plaintiff’s counsel], in violation of Deposition Guideline No. 4 (“counsel’s statements when making objections should be succinct and verbally economical, stating the basis of the objection and nothing more”), and Deposition Guideline No. 10 (“counsel for a witness shall not engage in any argument with examining counsel as to the objectionability of any question. Rather, he may note his objection and permit the witness to answer the question, subject to the objection.”). Additionally, although not a basis for sanctions under the court’s Civility Principles, [plaintiff]’s impugning of [defense counsel] as a “racist” constitutes a clear and unmitigated violation of Civility Principle—Lawyers’ Duties to Other Counsel No. 2 (“We will abstain from disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward other counsel….”). Such aspersions have no place in the litigation process and cannot be tolerated. Merely questioning a plaintiff regarding the basis for alleging race discrimination does not mean examining counsel is a racist or harbors racial animus toward the witness. (Emphasis added.)