Re: Fwd: Fw: Is this Yiddish legal?/point well taken

[Trudi Goodman <goobietheg...>]

Dear Lori;
point well taken I was just in a crappy, mishkeyt mood.
TCG
P.S. I love rosten
>From: Lori Cahan-Simon <lsimon (at) SoftHome(dot)net>
>Reply-To: jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org
>To: World music from a Jewish slant <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Fw: Is this Yiddish legal?
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:10:35 -0400
>
>Lawyers, whaddya want?  Actually, I think they got the spelling from Leo
>Rosten's _The Joys of Yiddish_, wherein he spells things for goyim, in all
>likelihood.  He could've gone YIVO, but obviously didn't.  He was really my
>first entree into Yiddish as a young person.  Great jokes!
>
>Lori
>
>
>At 02:47 PM 7/29/99 PDT, you wrote:
> >
> >Close enough for Jazz..but the spelling is atrocious!
> >TCG
> >
> >>From: Lori Cahan-Simon <lsimon (at) SoftHome(dot)net>
> >>Reply-To: jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org
> >>To: World music from a Jewish slant <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
> >>Subject: Re: Fwd: Fw: Is this Yiddish legal?
> >>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:55:26 -0400
> >>
> >>I know this isn't the subject of our discussion, but I thought it was 
>cute.
> >>  If this kind of thing should not be posted please let me know.
> >>
> >> >> Subject: Is this Yiddish legal?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > > From an article reprinted from the Rainbow
> >> >> Reporter, December 1991:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >   "In the heat of litigation, tempers often
> >> >> flare and lawyers sometimes
> >> >> > > have difficulty expressing their frustrations.
> >> >> When English fails,
> >> >> > Yiddish
> >> >> > > may come to the rescue.  So it happened that
> >> >> defense attorneys arguing
> >> >> in
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > recent summary judgment motion in federal court
> >> >> in Boston wrote, in a
> >> >> > > responsive pleading, 'It is unfortunate that
> >> >> this Court must wade
> >> >> through
> >> >> > > the dreck of plaintiff's original and
> >> >> supplemental statement of
> >> >> undisputed
> >> >> > > facts.'  The plaintiffs' attorneys, not to be
> >> >> outdone, responded with a
> >> >> > > motion that could double as a primer on
> >> >> practical Yiddish for
> >> >> lawyers....
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> >> >> > >   DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
> >> >> > >
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > >   MONICA SANTIAGO, Plaintiff,
> >> >> > >                                           v.
> >> >> > >   SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, et al.
> >> >> > >                                   Defendants.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > >   Civ. No. 87-2799-T
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >   PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPERTINENT AND
> >> >> SCANDALOUS MATTER
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >      Plaintiff, by her attorneys, hereby moves
> >> >> this Court pursuant to
> >> >> Rule
> >> >> > > 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
> >> >> strike as impertinent
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > scandalous the characterization of her factual
> >> >> submission as "dreck" on
> >> >> > > page 11 of Defendant's Rule 56.1 Supplemental
> >> >> Statement of Disputed
> >> >> Facts
> >> >> > > (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
> >> >> A).  As grounds
> >> >> therefore,
> >> >> > > plaintiff states:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1.  For almost four years now, plaintiff and her
> >> >> attorneys have been
> >> >> > > subjected to the constant kvetching by
> >> >> defendants' counsel, who have
> >> >> made
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > big tsimmes about the quantity and quality of
> >> >> plaintiff's responses to
> >> >> > > discovery requests.  This has been the source of
> >> >> much tsouris among
> >> >> > > plaintiff's counsel and a big megillah for the
> >> >> Court.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 2.  Now that plaintiff's counsel has, after much
> >> >> time and effort,
> >> >> > provided
> >> >> > > defendants with a specific and comprehensive
> >> >> statement of  plaintiff's
> >> >> > > claims and the factual basis thereof,
> >> >> defendants' counsel have  the
> >> >> > > chutzpah to call it "dreck" and to urge the
> >> >> Court to ignore it.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 3.  Plaintiff moves that this language be
> >> >> stricken for several reasons.
> >> >> > > First, we think it is impertinent to refer to
> >> >> the work of a fellow
> >> >> member
> >> >> > > of the bar of this Court with the Yiddish term
> >> >> "dreck" as it would be to
> >> >> > > use "the sibilant four-letter English word for
> >> >> excrement."
> >> >> (Rosten,
> >> >> > > The Joys of Yiddish (Simon & Schuster, New York,
> >> >> NY (1968) p. 103.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Second, defendants are in no position to
> >> >> deprecate plaintiff's counsel
> >> >> in
> >> >> > > view  of  the  chozzerai which they have filed
> >> >> over the course of this
> >> >> > > litigation.  Finally, since not all of
> >> >> plaintiff's lawyers are yeshiva
> >> >> > > bochurs,  defendants should  not have assumed
> >> >> that they would all be
> >> >> > > conversant in Yiddish.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the Court put an
> >> >> end to the mishegoss
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > strike "dreck."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >_____________________________________________________________
> >> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >> >Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>Lori Cahan-Simon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________
> >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>Lori Cahan-Simon
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+