Re: Fwd: Fw: Is this Yiddish legal?

[Lori Cahan-Simon <lsimon...>]

Just a joke, luv, just a joke.

At 08:25 PM 7/31/99 PDT, you wrote:
>I'm not a lawyer!!! (But an editor/writer--You have a problem with that?) 
>(Oh, also a New Yorker--as if you couldn't tell)
>
>
>>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 20:52:02 -0400
>>
>>As I said, "Lawyers, whaddya want?"
>>Lori
>>
>>At 05:35 PM 7/29/99 PDT, you wrote:
>> >_I_ think this is priceless!  But it's "depreciate," not
>> >"deprecate"--illiterates!! (in English!)
>> >
>> >
>> >>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
>
>
>
>
Lori Cahan-Simon

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