Spoliation cites

[georgemw at speakeasy.net]

On 5 Aug 2001, at 12:07, Aimee Farr wrote:

> George:
> > > Look, we are just trying to envision what opponents are likely 
> > to try. The
> > > outcome will depend on the facts.
> > > 
> > 
> > Are you sure it isn't more likely to depend on things that should be 
> > completely irrelevant,  say,  what you look like?  There was a hot
> > chick I used to work with who would tell me about all the times
> > she got pulled over and usually let off with a warning.  She really
> > was a menace to the road,  great body though.  As I said,
> > I'm on nobody's side,  I'm not recommending any particular course
> > of action,  but the idea that you can help keep out of trouble with a
> > reasonable retention policy requires you to anticipate what
> > policy a judge considers to be reasonable,  which in turn
> ....
> 
> Bingo. 
> 
> Remember what Uni said about "not amused" judges? 
> 
> We should have just left it at that.
> 

Maybe.  Just so I'll know for sure,  are you agreeing with me or
ridiculing me?  I'm well aware that my own style makes it difficult
to tell when (if ever) I'm serious.  I mean,  I'm not stupid enough
to actually tell a judge, "you're an insane, ignorant idiot,  facts are
wasted on you, so instead of getting a lawyer that actually
knows something about this area of law, I went looking for the 
hottest chick I can find who is legally qualified to practice law in
this district,  in hopes that you'll drool over her and find in my
favor".  I'm not stupid enough to SAY it,  but I just might
be stupid enough to TRY it,  if I felt that that was my best chance of
reaching a favorable verdict. 

As for unamused judges,  if I were to tell a judge that a judge is
just a law student who gets to grade his own papers, do you
think he'd say that's
1) not funny at all
2) maybe funny the first time,  but this is like the 200th
or
3) a real knee slapper?

Thanks,
	George
> ~Aimee