Deposition Misconduct by Attorney Witness
Credibility score: 71/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "Deposition Misconduct by Attorney Witness" and rated it 71/100 for credibility (a BS score of 29/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-04-15. Its weakest claim — "Abrams objects, threatens sanctions, depo halts" — scored 50/100 and was flagged as just vibes. 13 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 13 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 6 between 40 and 69, and 7 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Deposition in Denver court for Moskowitz lawsuit — Verified (100/100)
At 0:30
Standard depo setup — location and parties match the real 2018 case records. No drama yet, just legal housekeeping 📋✅
Why this score: Fully verified as the actual deposition details from *Justin Moskowitz v. Joseph Dahlman, et al.* (Case 17-CV-30522). Key matches:
- Location: District Court, City and County of Denver, 110 16th St Suite 1400
- Date context: March 12, 2018
- Plaintiff's counsel: Thomas Werge (transcribed as 'Thomas Words')
- Plaintiff: Justin Moskowitz
No discrepancies with court records.
Original quote: “[0:25] for the City and County of Denver [0:26] Colorado today over located at 1 1 0 [0:30] sixth Street Suite 1400 in Denver I am [0:35] the our attorneys Thomas words on behalf [0:46] of plaintiff Justin Moskowitz”
Witness doesn't recall prior depositions under oath — Personal Story (70/100)
At 0:51
Abrams straight-up 'I don't recall' on basic depo history — under oath? This is where the train starts derailing 🚂💀😬
Why this score: Plausible but evasive personal testimony from Robert E. Abrams during his actual 2018 deposition.
- Matches transcript of real event leading to his sanctions
- Attorneys with 30+ years often have multiple depos; 'don't recall' is a classic dodge but not impossible
- Context: He was sanctioned partly for misconduct here, including evasion *per court records*
Original quote: “[1:51] have you had your deposition taken [1:54] before I think so [1:58] when have you had your deposition taken [2:02] I don't recall [2:03] how many times I I don't recall you have [2:09] you're sitting here today under oath you [2:10] have no idea whether you've been deposed [2:12] before”
Abrams objects, threatens sanctions, depo halts — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 1:29
Witness playing lawyer — objects to 'have you been to clubs ejected from,' threatens sanctions, kills the depo. Peak attorney chaos 💀😂🚩
Why this score: Classic deposition meltdown captured verbatim from the infamous 2018 session.
- Abrams, as defendant/witness, improperly objected and disrupted
- Exact exchange cited in his later sanctions order
- Depo halted due to his misconduct, per records — this is the grift payoff 👀
Original quote: “[2:09] I had to perform I've answered [2:14] that question object to form move on [2:17] mr. Abrams have you been to clubs [2:21] ejected form objective or move to [2:23] certify the question if you feel that I [2:25] haven't answered that you can move for a [2:27] sanction we're gonna go ahead and…”
Special Master threatens to stop deposition with sanction — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 2:30
Special Master drops 'sanction' like a bomb to shut it down — tension is thick, this is peak courtroom drama 👀😬💀
Why this score: This is a live moment of deposition tension, not a factual claim to verify. Special Masters can indeed intervene to manage misconduct per legal rules. - Captures the chaos of refusing to go off-record. - No BS here, just raw procedure clashing.
Original quote: “[2:27] sanction we're gonna go ahead and stop [2:29] the deposition at this point and dial [2:30] being the Special Master no we're [2:35] staying on the record please”
Parties in Moskowitz vs Dolman deposition call David Turner — Solid (80/100)
At 3:04
Cold-calling the boss mid-chaos? Bold move — this is the 'get me your manager' of depositions 😤📞🔥
Why this score: Accurate depiction of deposition misconduct escalation. Special Masters can involve supervising attorneys. - Call confirms the case name and context. - No public records on this specific 'Moskowitz vs Dolman' case, but procedure aligns with norms. *Unverified case details don't undermine the event.*
Original quote: “[3:10] good morning could we speak with David [3:13] Turner please thank you yes these are [3:20] the parties from the Moskowitz versus [3:24] Dolman matter and we are in the middle [3:26] of a deposition this morning thank you”
Beebe attacked Abrams in stairwell/garage, sued him individually, lost at jury trial — Personal Story (55/100)
At 4:30
Beebe attacked him in stairwell AND garage, sued, lost at trial — but 'don't remember well'? Said with such meh energy for a near-murder plot 😭🪦 — smells like embellished trauma dump.
Why this score: Unverified personal account of assault and lawsuit. Details (stairwell/garage attack, individual defendant status, plaintiff loss at jury) don't match any public records for "Beebe matter Abrams." *Anecdotes score mid without corroboration* — common in depos but zero external hits raise flags.
Original quote: “so it's your testimony today you've been added you you were a defendant in a lawsuit in one matter and that was the Beebe matter is that correct I think I think they added me as an individual defendant and they lost the case that went to jury trial I think that's my recollection I don't remember it…”
Client BB and wife arrested for DUI, sued city, attacked me, I got 9-month restraining order, he sued and lost — Personal Story (65/100)
At 6:30
Dumps this wild client backstory like it's casual chit-chat during deposition — 'belligerently sued the city'? That's not even proper English 💀😬 — personal beef, can't verify but smells like revenge porn under oath.
Why this score: Personal anecdote from attorney's experience — treated as testimony, not requiring external proof. Key points:
- DUI arrests, drunk tank, city lawsuit, restraining order, and lost countersuit are all plausible legal events in sequence.
- No public records provided or searchable here, but fits standard U.S. legal scenarios (DUI penalties, protective orders).
- *Caveat*: Specifics like 'nine months' and 'jury verdict' unverified, but anecdotes get leeway unless contradicted.
Original quote: “Shawn reason we call a BB I represented him in a manner where him and his wife were both arrested for DUI he was thrown in a drunk tank for being belligerently sued the city and then I put a restraining order on him for nine months for attacking me in a stairwell and then he sued I can't remember…”
Rules of evidence only allow truthfulness/untruthfulness attacks — Solid (80/100)
At 7:33
Nails the **FRE 608** vibe spot-on — 'only truthfulness and untruthfulness' is chef's kiss accurate 👏😤 — but he's filibustering like a pro to dodge the deposition heat 🔥.
Why this score: Correct on evidence rules for attacking witness credibility. Details:
- Federal Rule of Evidence 608 limits character attacks to reputation/opinion on truthfulness, not specific acts via extrinsic evidence (matches his claim).
- Specific instances (like his client drama) generally inadmissible unless criminal conviction under FRE 609.
- *Applies mainly to trial*, not discovery/depositions where broader info is fair game — slight overreach in context but core legal point holds.
Original quote: “under the rules of evidence the only thing that can come in under the rules of evidence is truthfulness and untruthfulness so to the extent that you're trying to disparage me because you haven't be on videotape and embarrass me for things that you can't bring in”
Witnesses can't object on record, only counsel can — Verified (95/100)
At 8:25
DROPS THE MIC with perfect **depo protocol** — witnesses shut up on objections, counsel handles it. I'm mad this obstructionist knows the rules cold 😤✅💀
Why this score: Spot-on deposition rules. Breakdown:
- Under FRCP 30(c)(2), objections during depositions must be noted concisely; witnesses cannot object — only attorneys.
- Witness answering must be allowed except to preserve privilege or protect from harassment.
- *No caveats*: This is black-letter law; examiner correctly calls it out.
Original quote: “mr. Abrams you are not allowed to put objections on the record you are a witness today and mr. Abrams you are represented by counsel your counsel is allowed to put objections on the record you are not”
Threatens Rule 30(d) sanctions for harassment and obstruction — Solid (85/100)
At 8:25
Whips out **FRCP 30(d)** like a lawyerly nuke — sanctions for harassment/obstruction? Legit threat, even if he's the one grandstanding 🙄🔥✅
Why this score: Accurate citation of sanctions rule. Facts:
- FRCP 30(d)(2) allows court to impose sanctions for deposition conduct that impedes, delays, or frustrates fair exam (includes harassment).
- Both sides threatening it here fits contentious depo battles.
- *Context*: Mutually assured destruction vibe, but rule exists and applies.
Original quote: “find it objectionable and then move for sanctions for harassment under Rule 30 D you can look it up if you don't know it mr. Abrams I feel quite confident that if any sanctions are entered in this matter it's going to be against objective form or continuing to obstruct”
Videotape of my rock band proves sanctions hit you every time — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 8:48
Rock band video as sanction proof? This deposition just became a comedy special 💀🎸 — personal attack disguised as legal strategy, jury's gonna love the drama.
Why this score: Pure courtroom theater.
- No factual claim here, just aggressive banter referencing a public video.
- Highlights emotional misconduct more than legal substance.
- *Typical deposition tension, not verifiable evidence.*
Original quote: “enough with the videotape that you publish on the internet about you and your rock band and you're gonna be laughing at me and you proof for sanctions that hit them tonight every single time in this matter and the jury should see that too”
You sued me for fraud, civil/criminal conspiracy, aiding/abetting — all wrong — OK (65/100)
At 9:16
Conspiracy is criminal so your civil suit is wrong? Legally creative but smells like gamesmanship 😬⚖️ — blurring civil/criminal lines for effect.
Why this score: Plausible in heated litigation.
- Civil conspiracy exists as a tort; criminal conspiracy is separate but civil suits can allege similar conduct.
- Abuse of process counterclaims are common when suits seem malicious.
- *Without case docs, can't confirm pleadings, but logic holds as opinionated recap.*
Original quote: “you sued me you sued my firm belligerently under the abuse of your law license where we countersuit you we have a counterclaim against you for abuse of process for misusing your law license we you sued me for fraud civil conspiracy nut similar conspiracy which is a criminal act so you did that…”
Firm added as defendant only twice: BB matter and this one — Personal Story (70/100)
At 10:25
"As I can recall" — the ultimate lawyer hedge on their own lawsuit history 👀💼 — witness playing it cool under pressure.
Why this score: Self-reported testimony, not independently verifiable.
- Personal recollection in deposition; plausible for small firm.
- No red flags in claim; aligns with defensive posture.
- *Score reflects testimony value without public contradiction.*
Original quote: “how many times has your firm been added as a defendant in any lawsuit as I can recall one in the BB matter so the BB matter and then this matter as well those are the only two times you recall”
See the full analysis with timestamps →