Slashdot Mirror
SCO Lawyers Ambush IBM Witness
Mr. E. writes "In a sneaky legal maneuver, SCO's lawyers managed to ambush an IBM witness into having to give a no-holds-barred deposition in front of an unrelated court in another state. After SCO was limited in what they could depose Mr. Otis Wilson about by the Utah court, the company blindsided IBM with last-second subpoenas before a North Carolina court. IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want. They've asked him about whether he has a criminal record, about ex-wives, etc. and they have four hours in which to do so. According to PJ of Groklaw, 'I'd say [Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells] has thrown poor Mr. Wilson to the wolves in North Carolina and told him it's his own fault.' SCO, of course, is fishing for something — anything — they can use to stave off IBM's Motion for Summary Judgement which is fast approaching, and if they can somehow trip up Mr. Wilson, they might be able to do just that. However, there was at least one line of cold comfort in Magistrate Well's order '[T]he court wishes to note that its decision should not be viewed as any type of invitation to reopen the discovery process.'"
Seriously, SCO must be salivating at the prosect of this, its like a one last gasp hope.
One minor point though, how come IBM only have 1 lawyer, didn't they have a breeding program in the 60s and 70s?
liqbase
The poor guy's search history might've been released by AOL.
Sure he COULD get into trouble, in reality he wont.
And since when does IBM have one lawyer ?
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
With a little luck some of the highers up @ the Pentagon will realize this, and the Lawyer scourge can be eliminated forever.
And neither is the writer on Groklaw who wrote the article: " IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background"
/. readers who actually are lawyers think.
I would love to read what other
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
The whole point, while I understand, is that he went to a North Carolina judge versus Judge Wells and the North Carolina judge didn't understand the case and opened the witness up to whatever SCO wanted for 4 hours. While this plays well for SCO, it really is the poor guys fault for finding a lawyer and a judge who shouldn't have stuck their nose in the business.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
He'd... better... talk... reeeaaaallll... sssllllloooooowwwwww....
Lawyers being sneaky? I don't believe it. Someone wake me when there is a conclusion to this sad, sordid affair...long about the 5th of Never, I should think. Nothing to see here; move along.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
SCO pulled a fast one and got away with it - this time. Doesn't mean that they'll win, but it sounds like they just might be able to drag it out a bit longer, unfortunately.
Urm, isn't that contempt of court if the judge orders you to answer a question and you don't?
They were the good ol' days when we had something to laugh about on a daily basis -- whether Darl issued another encyclical, DiDio and the Yank-and-Grope guys threw more FUD, or when they outed Linux as the secret love child of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Good times. Even watching SCO stock tank was fun. Did their earnings go down yet? Did their strange math make it seem like they're getting new money coming in? Has the SEC looked into their supposed pump/dump scheme yet? Hella good times.
Now we're down to some lawyers having their way with a guy for 4 hours. That doesn't even make reality TV, guys. Really. So la-dee-da...just let me know to whom I write this check for $699 for my copy of Ubuntu, mmmkay?
That isn't what the victim did in this case, but look at the nature of the maneuvering: "The problem, according to Judge Wells, is that Mr. Wilson submitted himself to the North Carolina court by submitting a motion to quash there." In other words, you can get yourself in trouble by saying "go away" in the same place that someone said "come here!".
If you ever get the idea that law is a logic system and you can handle a court case without an experienced and street-smart lawyer, remember that you might be up against dirty tricks from veterans who are on their home turf. Never fight a wizard in his keep. Always remember how bad it can be just to have your lawyer on vacation.
SCO Attorney: "Let the record show that Mr. Wilson likes chocolate ice cream, baseball and buys his underwear at J.C. Penney. Which I think speaks for itself in regards to the nefarious activities of IBM!!!"
Judge: "I'd say it speaks volumes what a loonie lot you are. I find for IBM"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think the real point is the quality of the US courts, which is IMO very poor if you actually have situations where people resort to these kind of tactics in order to stand a chance. The really disturbing part is that they can get away with all this in some cases, as proven many times in the past.
So... Because the husbands nephew wife's maid brother-in-law kitchenworkers bankrupt boss has said something bad with regards to paying alimony its becoming obvious that this husband has come into contact with negative influences regarding the alimony he needs to pay. And so, the poor crying blond woman (sob, sob ) simply has the RIGHT that he'd be put into custody right to the moment where has paid up in full extend PLUS the costs of procecution. Btw; did we ever mention the fact that the husband once visited Saudi Arabia? Well, if that isn't convinving evidence, I don't know what is.
If it convinces the jury its good.. I'm glad that in civilized countries people are tried by the law. Its one of the reasons this soap opera never got a stage overseas since it was laughed out of courtroom, accompanied with the threat of a major fine for slander if they tried something like this again without some solid facts to back it up.
...just keep repeating "I don't remember" to any question he doesn't want to answer for 4 hours? I mean, ok, so he gives his address, the names of his kids, the type of car he drives... the obvious stuff. The stuff he can't get wrong. But, for things where he could get tripped up on, can't he simply say "I can't remember"?
There is no such thing as bad weather - only inappropriate clothing.
I mean really, all SCO can do is be an ass to an IBM guy. I mean, they wouldn't need to pull something like this to ask remotely relevant questions, and since IBM isn't gonna settle to save this guy some embarassment, all SCO gets to do is what they always do: be petty, retarded dumbasses.
"Lawyers Ambush Witness", "sneaky legal maneuver", "blindsided IBM", "has thrown poor Mr. Wilson to the wolves", "is fishing for something", "trip up Mr. Wilson", "one line of cold comfort" etc....
I love it when a boring legal procedure takes such epic proportions. The narrator really knows his job!..
Why does everyone assume he was stupid? Maybe he was bought off and "threw the game" so to speak for SCO?
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
If they have only 4 hours to depose you, talk v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Your name is Otis so no one can hold that against you -- plus you are in North Carolina so no one will notice...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
fighting a wizard in his keep. I just have my rouge hide in the shadows for a critical hit in round 3, my warrior hacks away with his axe, the Ranger with his bow, one wizard heals, one protects and one casts Gotterdamurung every turn. I find the same strategy works aganst lawyers, only they've got more HP.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They haven't asked him anything yet, have they? The article seems to say they COULD ask him about anything. I would hope that ex-wives (if any) would be off the table - trying to personally attack someone for things not related to the issue at hand would strike me as a very poor use of the time SCO has been given. How would that help their case?
Let's wait for the outcome of this. I rather doubt we need to make too much of the "they can ask ANYTHING" part of this - if we do let's wait for the actual event. Certainly SCO has done enough to anger the geek community without us needing to throw any more fuel on the fire. Only pursue them for the poor behavior they have actually demonstrated - I can't imagine why we would need anything else.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
What if this guy doesn't even know anything?
Mr. Wiiilssson
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
I bet they already arranged his flight to North Caroilina, too!
Don't expect a real lawyer to give you a real opinion without getting hit in the pocket.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Badger Badger Badger has a Tune?
Badgers? We don't need no stinkin Badgers!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.
Clinton was being deposed on Paula Jones (who later said she was used and dumped by the Arkansas Project actors) and the lawyers got a free pass to depose him on whatever they chose by fibbing to the judge about the relevance to Jones. Lewinsky was only pertinent to destroying Clinton, not the case at hand. They had a party. (And Clinton still managed to dodge the bastards by having the judge rule "sex" as intercourse. Technically, he did not lie. And I'd still like those two bastard lawyers to be brought up on charges for lying as officers of the court. But Clinton got fined instead. A lot of white-hooded types in Arkansas government didn't like Clinton, and got their vengeance that day.)
There are certain types of lawyers that would be considered dangerous sociopaths in any other venue but their day jobs.
Because there are lots of easier ways to "throw the game" than submitting yourself to hours of interrogation about your arrest history, prior relationships, etc. He could, for example, have done it just be being a little too rabidly pro-IBM in the deposition as originally outlined (responding with things like "While I wouldn't claim that IBM invented electricity, they were certainly the first to make good use of it!").
Besides, no one is saying that he's stupid (by all accounts, he's not), just that he was perhaps a little too trusting. It is, after all, a little difficult to get your mind around just how underhanded SCO really is. He can be forgiven for assuming that they really aren't as underhanded as laywers in the movies, when (as it turns out) they're worse.
--MarkusQ
Save that kind of lawless immoral rhetoric for people like Jack Thompson.
"is fishing for something" isn't so epic.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
This is a civil case, not criminal. The way depositions work is that you answer all the questions asked and note objections at the time -- the judge will review objections after the fact and decide which portions of the deposition are admissible. But you can't refuse to answer questions wihtout risking contempt of court. Because of this, depositions are a favorite method of attorneys to harrass innocent people.
It seems like a sucky way to do things, but the alternative would be to perform all depositions with a judge there, which would probably require a hundred thousand new judges and every case would take even longer, or depositions would each take years to finish because every objection would have to stop the interview and then you'd wait for a ruling and then schedule another deposition to continue.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
SCO seem to be irritating the judge in Utah. IBM could try playing this card and get the North Carolina court (and judge) found in contempt of the Utah court for trying to alter the proceedings of the original case with this new nonsense of a case
You can do that, right?
Alternatively, he could just alternate between "I can't hear you", "I don't understand you", "I don't understand the question", "do you mean this or that?", answering something other than 'yes' or 'no' to a yes/no question, "sorry, pardon? I was distracted by that fly/laybird/pigeon", "I don't remember" and having his own lawyer shout 'objection' a lot.
Mix that up with a good dose of verbal acrobatics, a unscheduled power cut, dozens of toilet breaks, a quick dose of flu/chicken pox/bubonic plague, myriad bomb/fire alarms, the whole case getting lost due to a mysterious computer error, the electrical frequency in the building being increasing - making the clocks go 50% faster, a convenient paper cut and the SCO lawyers going down with food poisoning. The four hours will fly by!
IANAL, can you tell?
FGD 135
Unlikely - I'm sure the rules of evidence still apply to a deposition, so these questions would still be impermissible on grounds of lack of relevance. The Groklaw article does not say they have asked these things, but that they could - on the latter it seems to me Groklaw is likely wrong.
Groklaw also makes some allegations of abuse of process that don't appear to be matched by the record. If there has been such flagrant abuse of process this may be subject to disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers involved.
Doesn't a person maintain the right to Not say anything, even when they have done nothing wrong?
If he has to save information for the next court trial,
couldn't he 'take the 5th' for this deposition to Every single question,
or is that just Hollywood's take on civil rights?
> "IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want."
... underhanded, sneaky, last-minute, etc., sure, but the Court accepted it, so I can only presume that it was "proper" for those purposes, however distateful I find it to be).
That was an edit by Zonk unless I had a serious brain fart while writing. I don't remember writing that quite the same way. Basically, the same firm is representing Otis as well as IBM at one point, but Otis has his own lawyer now. There were some things said in NC that Otis' lawyer didn't have the first-hand knowledge to rebut and the only fellow who could've was an IBM lawyer on vacation that this guy couldn't get ahold of. It was SCO that gave a last-second notice to IBM (and I'm not sure it can be termed "improper"
If I had to reword it, I'd say something like: "The only IBM lawyer who could rebut SCO's allegations was on vacation at the time because SCO only gave last-minute notice to IBM, and now SCO has won the right to ask the witness anything they want, in spite of Magistrate Judge Wells' ruling to the contrary.
- Mr. E.
Interesting. I was basing my statement on Shaughnessy's declaration:
And Wells's order:
Which, of course, isn't conclusive. Out of curiosity, where'd you see that SCO took it to the state court first?
--MarkusQ
I think what he was getting at is that if Otis Wilson answers a question differently, then there COULD be a problem. However if SCO asks all the same questions again and Wilson answers the same way, then there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that there has been significant time between his first deposition and this one. Can you remember EXACTLY what you said 2 years ago about an event that happened a decade or two ago? SCO will try to jump on any discrepancy where Wilson either omits something during this deposition but answered before or that he remembers now but didn't 2 years ago.
At best, his testimony is more or less exactly the same and SCO doesn't get anything, so no problems occur. At worst, SCO finds some evidence that they try to abuse, prevents a summary judgment, and drags this on for several more years. My guess is that it will be somewhere in between where there is a tidbit or two, SCO tries to jump all over it, but the Nevada judge(s) rule that it's not significant enough and SCO used the new deposition as a fishing expedition after discovery has closed.
(LAMENESS FILTER FILLER: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQURSTUVWXYZ)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...worked for Bill Gates.
his error was in not requesting a stay [he attempted to quash instead] from the nc judge while they took the issue back to wells in utah.
sum.zero
Just remember, anyone on the internet claiming to be a doctor, lawyer, government agent, Apple employee, heir to a Nigerian prince, movie/TV star or woman is probably lying...
0 1 - just my two bits
Can he get up on the witness stand and complain to the judge how his sore throat he woke up with that morning is killing him, and he'd be happy to testify -
But... *scribble* *scribble*
would have to *erase* *erase*
write *line out* *re-write last two sentences*
his testimony *writes to the bailiff - Can I get another eraser, please?*
out?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
I don't see how they can get away with this. One federal judge made a ruling, no more depositions, so they went to another court and asked for something they shouldn't have asked for. Because the Courts can't/won't communicate about cases, the judge allowed the deposition "to be fair". This is just like being a little kid running to daddy when mommy says no to a cookie.. I can't believe that a federal judge would allow this.
and the lawyers will be asking every question "backwards" because they already know the answer so that you initially say the wrong thing. Trying to trick you with your own words. Then they can pick apart the testimony and point to every difference as "lies".
And SCO breathes easier knowing that they can rip this poor man apart in questioning regardless of relevance. This just shows a terrible problem with the legal system that a lawyer can put in for, and win, permission to be able to ask anything, regardless of whether it has any impact on the actual charge(s) in question. That is a smear tactic pure and simple, it is a form of propaganda - and should have no place in a "court of law."
-- "You must be the change you desire to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi --
IANAL, but I know of a person (an actual friend of an actual relative, someone I know) who knew that while the questions can be wide ranging in scope, so can the answers. They can't limit you to yes or no answers only. You can be as verbose and detailed and wide ranging as you want in your answers, like explaining in great detail how that day in 5th grade math led you, in a very round about way including your college years, to the decision you made on what line of code to write in that program. The person I know "answered" just a handful of questions for over two months before the lawyers finally just gave up.
This was some time ago, and I can't remember if it was a deposition or an actual trial.
That make him real sleepy (or at least tell them he did). Then talk real slow and fall asleep a lot. If he says he was so worried about his legal problems that he couldn't sleep until the deposition started, what could they do?
They can't attack the position, so they attack the lawyer!?
You can refuse to answer questions that seem to be way out of line. For example, if at a deposition in an intellectual property case like this you are asked if you every had any affairs and with whom and when and all the details of what you did, you could refuse and insist that it go before the judge before you answer.
Personally, I'm a pain in the ass and would just refuse certain questions and if I had to go to jail on contempt charges, so be it, but you can be most assured it would not be in vain for there would be significant press coverage. Perhaps stupid in some people's view, but that is about the only chance I would have to create public awareness of a major problem in the legal system.
For a perfect example of how to not take a deposition, you MUST watch this clip of an actual deposition on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e12sqYYLJxA
Okay, SCO is full of bullshit. We get it. Shut up about SCO already!!
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
>> IANAL, can you tell?
yeah, you only caught 26% of the possible delaying tactics available
While SCO asked for this, the order comes from a judge and he had discretion in what to do. Looks to me like the judge had an ax to grind and has been taking out his personal issues on the witness.
The four hours will fly by!
t=0
SCO lawyer: Did IBM steal any code?
t=+10 seconds
Wilson: Hmmm, let me thing about that...
t=+3hrs 45 seconds
Wilson: Well i think you will find...
t=+4hrs
IBM lawyer: Thats time for today, see you next time shall we?
The US has a legal system fit to start a new community in the wild, wild west, with nothing but a few decent people who don't know the law a bit. It's absolutely outdated and the source of a lot of ridicule from foreigners if compared to more modern legal systems.
In any decent, modern western country in the world except for the US, this would be long over.
Seems like he could hem and haw for four hours if need be: "Geez, I KNOW the answer to this, hold on a sec, it's coming to me... Geez, RIGHT on the tip of my tonge. MAN, I can PICTURE it, but I just can't remember how to say it.... Lemme see here..."
Read the guy's previous deposition. He was cool, calm and collected throughout; these are all features absent from SCOX's team. Hopefully, this time they'll come across even less competent-looking, thus digging themselves a legal crypt with his answers.
Hmm, let me see.
The Utah judge said "No".
The SCO group said "Yes we will anyway".
How is this not "Contempt" of the Utah court?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
1. Take tonnes of laxatives that you will shit your pants, and everyone in the court room will vomit.
2. Take more.
3. Get real drunk before hand.
4. Turn up to court, and shit fart vomit, pass out.
5. Four hrs are gone while you are slobbering on the floor.
Judge cannot do anything, neither can SCO
Hey lets all apply for SCO jobs and give em fake good CVs, then turn up to the interview
and say, "yeah i love linux, SCo is real crap, wont even run Doom"
NOTE: Hellow mr stupid slashdot programmers, you lameness filter is set to 1% of message, your code is very lame Mr.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
What does a lawyer give to his dieing mother for a bday present?
A) A 10% discount on his services for doing the Will.
Dont even ask what prosecuting DA lawyers give. I just feel sorry for their wifes, oh the pain for them in bed.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Just dont answer anything in court, and screw the court and get a contempt charge if IBM
will pay 1million in gold coins (ie NO tax trail, Oh did I just break the patriot act? wow who cares, im not in usa, and ill never visit either)
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I think the SCO lawyers could get Saddam Hussein of any charges and win back iraq from usa easily.
Failing that, someone would make sure they 'retire' early.
Now who is going to get the SCO vs real humans movie rights deal.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The judicial bias in this case is glaring. Especially on the part of magistrate judge Wells.
1) Otis was not given adequate notice, at least 20 days is required. The courts chose to ignore that technicallity.
2) Wells had previously ordered no new discovery. In allowing this new discovery, she also stated that it can not be used for discovery - which makes absolutely no sense.
3) This is a very obvious end-run around the order of the court. BS&F has said "F**K YOU!" to the court, in no uncertain terms.
Wells could ignore the deposition, or sanction BS&F. But she won't. As I said, there is enormous judicial bias in this case.
I understand that we live by our laws and that they are important to maintaining societies wellbeing.
However in the case of this particular dispute I would strongly advocate that these game playing lawyers are wasting the planets food resources and would fit more appropriately into the grand scheme of things, if there was some way that their physical beings could be incorporated into the land. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that they would make admirable fertilizer if ground up into very small pieces and diluted with plenty of water. And that this procedure is long overdue.
Even better than freeing up some food, they would contribute no further carbon dioxide burden to our apparantly overloaded biosphere, therebye constituting a positive force for good some would say, rather than being overtly evil and soul suckingly depressing in their influence.
Maybe I'm a little short of sleep at the momment and I'm overeacting a bit, but this dispute does seem to illustrate - just where an arbitary dictator with common sense or a propensity for being bribed would make the world positively shine with joy in comparison to the farce that we suffer as compensation culture; steadily proves that up is down and that if there ever was an omnipitent God it were high time that they were executed for allowing people to exceed the automobile speed limit or allowing them to become obese and thereby burden the hospitals.
bah humbug.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Hey! Don't include me in your "we". I sure as hell don't believe the adversarial system we has is worth a shit!
Nor do I believe an adversarial system is even a good way to uncover the truth, and without truth there can be no justice.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
"If you had any doubts about whether oddly personal questions were asked by SCO's attorney, which IBM complained to Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells about, read from page 117" - Groklaw
- quote -
Q. Are you married, sir?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Is this your first marrage?
A. It's not.
Q. How long have you been married to your current wife?
A. Eleven years.
Q. And what's her name, please?
A. Linda
Q. What's her last name? Is it the same last name as you?
A. It is now. Yeah. Her - do you want her maiden name?
Q. I just want to know if she goes by something else?
A. No. No hypenated name. No. She - Linda R. Wilson.
Q. And how many times were you previously married?
A. Twice
Q. Could you tell me the names of your ex-wives and when you married and divorced each of them, please?
Q. Were you ever subject to any form of reprimand of discipline while in the Air Force?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Have you ever been declared bankruptcy?
A. I have not.
Q. HAve you ever been a defendant in a civil lawsuit?
A. No
Q. You mentioned earlier thet you were once arrested; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And is it correct that that was the only time you were ever arrested?
A. Yes
Q. Okay. And were you charged?
A. I don't recall that I was charged. I was released the next morning.
Q. Have you ever had a lien or a judgment entered against you?
A. I'm not sure. I'm really not sure about that.
from Otis Wilson's 2004 Deposition Transcript
was: Re:I sense some exaggeration
davecb5620@gmail.com
This movie will make $15 its opening weekend too.
Interesting, but weak metaphor. I think you were looking for "Do not meddle in the affairs of lawyers, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Any particular reason why he couldn't just answer the questions honestly?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
to protect / equalize everyone's rights, ensure that truth can be determined, protect the poor against the rich / ruling class, etc.
Does it shock anyone that such a ruling can not only happen but be considered business as usual, even if "sneaky?"
The legal system has long been inaccessible to normal people who don't stand to collect enough to interest an investor (lawyer) in their case; it's widely used to go after people who can't afford to defend themselves (the exact opposite of its original intent.) Now this baroque comedy!
The O.J. murder trial made the criminal court system look like a Monty Python skit; SCO stands to remove any credibility and/or respect remaining with the civil court system. Wake me when the warlords take over and I don't have to bother voting any more.
Why should he have to answer totally unrelated questions?
What does his relationship with his wife have to do with the proceedings?
If I were ever on the stand or in a deposition and some asshole lawyer started in on me with totally irrelevant questions simply to embarrass me or in retribution for testifying I would tell him where to go. The citation would be well worth it.
No one stands up to these asshole sharks.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
"We have a word for almost-late; it's called on time."
Likewise a word for almot-unethical is "ethical". Except not. Becuase "ethical" has the connotation "honorable". Almost-unethical really means barely-permissible, and the person who constantly engages in the barely-permissible is far from honorable
What does "good" mean? We hear about how good these lawyers are for engaging in the barely-permissible, but the right word for that type of goodness is probably "skilled". "Skilled at what?"
Why, at exploiting legal loopholes in order to obtain an advantage for their clients! Which is to say at acting in their own self interest with no regard for other people or for principles of right and wrong. Which is completely ordinary behavior. It is the behavior of animals -- snakes, for example.
If a person's reasoning ability is very advanced, and they are "better at exploiting" than others, it is a mere accident of nature. They have "more brains" and this is not praiseworthy, any more than a lottery winner's possession of $10 million is praiseworthy. It is what she chooses to do with this gift that makes her "good".
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Have the person talk long and talk slow.