Do you know what a photocopy machine is?

See this great video of a deposition where the defendant doesn't seem to know.

Weird.

I think it was just another case of a person in a responsible position being reluctant to directly answer a lawyer in fear of saying something that might damage their case. Must be watching too much Law and Order.

An example recently of responsibility without common sense involved the school that called a mother to come to the school since her son (who had a disability) was either ill or acting strangely. When she arrived, she was admitted to the room where she calmed the boy. Afterward, the principal told her she didn't sign in. The mother agreed and offered to do so.
But you didn't sign in. Yes, and I'll do so now.
No, it's too late. I called the police.

Yes, the principal called police, who shut down the school, and arrested the mother. The principal claimed she barged past her, although the janitor said he let her in. No word on the outcome.

I had trouble getting that to play on my crappy computer but it was worth the effort. I really hope that is, as claimed, a verbatim recreation of an actual deposition. The punchline is priceless. Funnier than most comedy sketches.

It seems the whole case somewhat centered around the definition of "photocopying" from what I can tell. Here is a link to the
actual case results

It seems that Ohio law says that public records are to be made available "at cost" but also that the clerk-and-recorder collects $2.00 per sheet for photocopies, ($1 of which was tax). The clerk can provide an entire data base on a CD of which might have many, many electronic copies of sheets. The statutes use the term photocopy, but a simple "xerox" of the sheet straight to paper is a major difference than if they copied 1000 pages onto one CD (at cost).

Funny how a lawyer can have his or her own agenda and someone being deposed must be very careful.

I learned a new word on reading the case. I would have thought "relator" was simply a misspelling of "realtor" until I looked it up.

Well, of course, charging $2.00 a page is not in the spirit of the freedom of information act. It is amazing how local governments try so hard, as in this case, to avoid freedom of information laws.

By the way, this came from the NY Times, and they had given some of the case in the link I provided. However, thanks for the whole case, Tom. Right now my computer won't bring it up for some reason. Maybe I'll be able to access it later when my computer isn't so mad at me.

Proof, your case was amazing, too. Do you have a link to it? I'd love to follow it. It reminds me of those zero tolerance cases where a child will bring an aspirin to school and will be arrested for having drugs.