Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
E. Gary Gygax Sr. May Have Had Another, More Recent Will?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8996936" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>And here we go, folks! After three years of feinting and preparations, the trial of Gygax v. Gygax has begun! Let's break things down as best we're able now that day one of the three-day trial proceeding has concluded.</p><p></p><p>After a brief <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/commercial-business/practice/2016/trial-prep-3-tips-starting-with-end-in-mind/" target="_blank">order of proof</a> ("essentially a checklist of elements of facts needed to be proven to establish claims and defenses") submitted on Luke's behalf on April 6th, there's been no other developments prior to the trial's having begun, so there's no further background to catch up on. As for the trial itself, here's what the docket says:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm going to try to break this down into bullet points as best I can. As always, if any attorneys here want to chime in with their insights and/or corrections, please do so! Also, bear in mind that a lot of this seems to hinge on documents and exhibits which aren't described in the docket (though quite a few of them are), so if there seems to be a lack of information in that regard, it's not that you've missed something.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Luke's attorney, Jennifer Gorn, calls Gail Gygax to the stand. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At this point, attorney Gorn introduces <strong>exhibit #15: Gary's 1990 will</strong>, <strong>document #18</strong> (not described), and <strong>exhibit #3: a premarital agreement</strong> (i.e. a pre-nup), into evidence.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When attorney Gorn enters <strong>exhibit #5: agreement email submitted by Gail Gygax</strong> into evidence, Steven Koch (the attorney acting as the executor of Gary's estate) makes an objection, noting that the authenticity of the email has not been verified. The court receives the exhibit but makes no determination as to the email's authenticity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Gorn then enters <strong>exhibit #4: agreement with Trigee & the decedent</strong> into evidence. For clarification, "the decedent" is Gary Gygax; "Trigee" is the name of Trigee Enterprises, a corporation that Gary formed with Gail, so named for it being three G's: <u>G</u>ary and <u>G</u>ail <u>G</u>ygax.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Gorn then enters <strong>exhibit #2: agreement of transfer of property</strong> into evidence. At this point, Gail's attorney, Theodore Johnson, offers an unspecified "clarification," which Gail herself responds to. Steven Koch then enters an objection, with the docket noting only that it was recorded.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Gorn then asks the court to take notice of the date that "Tri-G" (I think the alternative spelling is a typo, here, but I'm not 100% sure) was dissolved as a business entity. After a response by attorney Johnson, the court accepts that Tri-G was no longer a business in California as of 2/2/1998.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">After a brief recess, attorney Gorn introduces <strong>exhibit #16: email from Gail Gygax to Tom DeSanto</strong> into evidence, with no objections being raised. However, when attorney Gorn introduces <strong>exhibit #17: email from Gail Gygax to Tom DeSanto (7/19/2016)</strong>, attorney Johnson objects, not to the evidence itself, but "does object to the line of questioning." After a brief argument by attorneys Gorn and Johnson (with Koch not participating), the court receives exhibit #16, but no further mention is made of exhibit #17.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Johnson raises another objection at this point (it's unclear as to whether this was with regard to the court receiving exhibit #16, or something attorney Gorn asked of Gail), specifically objecting to something as being speculation. The court allows the witness (i.e. Gail) to answer to the best of her ability.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Gorn introduces <strong>exhibit #1</strong> (not defined). At this point, attorney Johnson notes that there are different versions of exhibit #1, one version being in color while another is in black-and-white. With no other objections made, the court receives exhibit #1 into evidence.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Koch briefly cross-examines Gail. Attorney Johnson objects to an unspecified question, which Koch rephrases.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At this point, attorney Johnson cross-examines Gail, and attorney Koch objects to something (it's unclear what), specifically making a <a href="https://answers.justia.com/question/2023/03/28/what-is-the-difference-between-calls-for-954348" target="_blank">"call for legal conclusion"</a> objection ("asking the witness to draw a conclusion or make an inference based on the evidence presented"). This will come up several times later on.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">After attorney Gorn doesn't bother with a re-direct, attorney Koch cross-examines Gail again. This time, attorney Johnson makes two "calls for legal conclusion" objections.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At this point, the witness is excused, and the court breaks for lunch.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Once lunch is over, there's another round of cross-examining a witness, but the docket doesn't specify who has been called. I'm not sure if this is an error in the docket itself, or if we're supposed to understand that the same witness as before (i.e. Gail) is back on the stand now (perhaps she was only excused so the court could break for lunch?).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Johnson raises an objection as to relevance, and after a back-and-forth between him and attorney Gorn, Johnson's objection is overruled.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Johnson raises another objection "to witness using any documentation that all parties do not also have access to."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Further cross-examination by attorney Gorn sees attorney Johnson making objections, "as to emails the witness is referring to," "as to speculation & relevance," (this one is allowed, which I believe means overruled) and "relevance" again.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The witness is then cross-examined by attorney Koch, and then by attorney Johnson. On the re-direct by attorney Gorn, Johnson raises another "legal conclusion" objection, with the court allowing the witness to answer.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There's another re-cross by attorney Johnson, followed by <em>another</em> re-direct from attorney Gorn, at which point Johnson objects to something as hearsay, but is overruled.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At this point, this unidentified witness is excused.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Gorn calls Paul Stormberg to the stand.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Gorn then introduces <strong>exhibits #12 and #13: records of items sold at auction</strong> into evidence, without objection.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">After another brief recess (and with a new court clerk taking over for unspecified reasons), attorneys Gorn, Koch, and Johnson take some time to cross-examine the witness (i.e. Stormberg), with no objections being noted, although Gorn does have a re-direct with the witness.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The witness is then excused.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Attorney Gorn notes that her next witnesses won't be ready until tomorrow, and the court addresses scheduling in that regard.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The first day of the trial is then adjourned.</li> </ul><p>Phew! So with all of that said, and a lot of pertinent details being left out, it's too early to draw any conclusions. One can only wonder how this will all shake out after things conclude on Friday!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 8996936, member: 8461"] And here we go, folks! After three years of feinting and preparations, the trial of Gygax v. Gygax has begun! Let's break things down as best we're able now that day one of the three-day trial proceeding has concluded. After a brief [URL='https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/commercial-business/practice/2016/trial-prep-3-tips-starting-with-end-in-mind/']order of proof[/URL] ("essentially a checklist of elements of facts needed to be proven to establish claims and defenses") submitted on Luke's behalf on April 6th, there's been no other developments prior to the trial's having begun, so there's no further background to catch up on. As for the trial itself, here's what the docket says: I'm going to try to break this down into bullet points as best I can. As always, if any attorneys here want to chime in with their insights and/or corrections, please do so! Also, bear in mind that a lot of this seems to hinge on documents and exhibits which aren't described in the docket (though quite a few of them are), so if there seems to be a lack of information in that regard, it's not that you've missed something. [LIST] [*]Luke's attorney, Jennifer Gorn, calls Gail Gygax to the stand. [*]At this point, attorney Gorn introduces [B]exhibit #15: Gary's 1990 will[/B], [B]document #18[/B] (not described), and [B]exhibit #3: a premarital agreement[/B] (i.e. a pre-nup), into evidence. [*]When attorney Gorn enters [B]exhibit #5: agreement email submitted by Gail Gygax[/B] into evidence, Steven Koch (the attorney acting as the executor of Gary's estate) makes an objection, noting that the authenticity of the email has not been verified. The court receives the exhibit but makes no determination as to the email's authenticity. [*]Attorney Gorn then enters [B]exhibit #4: agreement with Trigee & the decedent[/B] into evidence. For clarification, "the decedent" is Gary Gygax; "Trigee" is the name of Trigee Enterprises, a corporation that Gary formed with Gail, so named for it being three G's: [U]G[/U]ary and [U]G[/U]ail [U]G[/U]ygax. [*]Attorney Gorn then enters [B]exhibit #2: agreement of transfer of property[/B] into evidence. At this point, Gail's attorney, Theodore Johnson, offers an unspecified "clarification," which Gail herself responds to. Steven Koch then enters an objection, with the docket noting only that it was recorded. [*]Attorney Gorn then asks the court to take notice of the date that "Tri-G" (I think the alternative spelling is a typo, here, but I'm not 100% sure) was dissolved as a business entity. After a response by attorney Johnson, the court accepts that Tri-G was no longer a business in California as of 2/2/1998. [*]After a brief recess, attorney Gorn introduces [B]exhibit #16: email from Gail Gygax to Tom DeSanto[/B] into evidence, with no objections being raised. However, when attorney Gorn introduces [B]exhibit #17: email from Gail Gygax to Tom DeSanto (7/19/2016)[/B], attorney Johnson objects, not to the evidence itself, but "does object to the line of questioning." After a brief argument by attorneys Gorn and Johnson (with Koch not participating), the court receives exhibit #16, but no further mention is made of exhibit #17. [*]Attorney Johnson raises another objection at this point (it's unclear as to whether this was with regard to the court receiving exhibit #16, or something attorney Gorn asked of Gail), specifically objecting to something as being speculation. The court allows the witness (i.e. Gail) to answer to the best of her ability. [*]Attorney Gorn introduces [B]exhibit #1[/B] (not defined). At this point, attorney Johnson notes that there are different versions of exhibit #1, one version being in color while another is in black-and-white. With no other objections made, the court receives exhibit #1 into evidence. [*]Attorney Koch briefly cross-examines Gail. Attorney Johnson objects to an unspecified question, which Koch rephrases. [*]At this point, attorney Johnson cross-examines Gail, and attorney Koch objects to something (it's unclear what), specifically making a [URL='https://answers.justia.com/question/2023/03/28/what-is-the-difference-between-calls-for-954348']"call for legal conclusion"[/URL] objection ("asking the witness to draw a conclusion or make an inference based on the evidence presented"). This will come up several times later on. [*]After attorney Gorn doesn't bother with a re-direct, attorney Koch cross-examines Gail again. This time, attorney Johnson makes two "calls for legal conclusion" objections. [*]At this point, the witness is excused, and the court breaks for lunch. [*]Once lunch is over, there's another round of cross-examining a witness, but the docket doesn't specify who has been called. I'm not sure if this is an error in the docket itself, or if we're supposed to understand that the same witness as before (i.e. Gail) is back on the stand now (perhaps she was only excused so the court could break for lunch?). [*]Attorney Johnson raises an objection as to relevance, and after a back-and-forth between him and attorney Gorn, Johnson's objection is overruled. [*]Attorney Johnson raises another objection "to witness using any documentation that all parties do not also have access to." [*]Further cross-examination by attorney Gorn sees attorney Johnson making objections, "as to emails the witness is referring to," "as to speculation & relevance," (this one is allowed, which I believe means overruled) and "relevance" again. [*]The witness is then cross-examined by attorney Koch, and then by attorney Johnson. On the re-direct by attorney Gorn, Johnson raises another "legal conclusion" objection, with the court allowing the witness to answer. [*]There's another re-cross by attorney Johnson, followed by [I]another[/I] re-direct from attorney Gorn, at which point Johnson objects to something as hearsay, but is overruled. [*]At this point, this unidentified witness is excused. [*]Attorney Gorn calls Paul Stormberg to the stand. [*]Attorney Gorn then introduces [B]exhibits #12 and #13: records of items sold at auction[/B] into evidence, without objection. [*]After another brief recess (and with a new court clerk taking over for unspecified reasons), attorneys Gorn, Koch, and Johnson take some time to cross-examine the witness (i.e. Stormberg), with no objections being noted, although Gorn does have a re-direct with the witness. [*]The witness is then excused. [*]Attorney Gorn notes that her next witnesses won't be ready until tomorrow, and the court addresses scheduling in that regard. [*]The first day of the trial is then adjourned. [/LIST] Phew! So with all of that said, and a lot of pertinent details being left out, it's too early to draw any conclusions. One can only wonder how this will all shake out after things conclude on Friday! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
E. Gary Gygax Sr. May Have Had Another, More Recent Will?
Top