Slashdot Mirror
SCO Legally Assaults PJ of Groklaw
Litigious Bastards writes "SCO has just filed court papers saying that they were unable to subpoena PJ of Groklaw. While they apparently sent their crack team of process servers out looking for random people named Pamela Jones, it would appear that they were unable to locate the bright yellow envelope labeled 'Email PJ' on the Groklaw website to ask for directions to serve her in person. They're once again accusing her of working for IBM or Novell, and Groklaw is now hosting over 20 documents PJ claims were planted in the media in an effort to discredit her. As she says, 'And so the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world just got stupider. And a whole lot meaner.'"
I wasn't aware of the fact that assault was legal in the US.
SCNR
... that they're also looking for an elusive character to subpoena, his name is "Honest Truth".
FLR
I'd have thought SCO would be bust by now, given the amount of money they must be spending on lawyers, and on how fast their customers must be running from them. Does anyone how they are still able to make money?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Nah, I'll just call my Cousin Vinnie.
Baseball bat and umm...
You named SCO? I heard you're giving a friend of mine, PJ, some problems. Let's talk.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
They may have killed themselves, we really don't know. But, in a country where people are killed over parking spaces, I would be careful about seperating delusional paranoria from legitimate concern for one's safty.
At least I've paid her a couple of times and I suspect others have done the same. There are some very convenient donation links on Groklaw and for every donation I have sent so far I have received a friendly "thankyou" email. But even if she *did* work for IBM, that wouldn't change the facts of the case and I would still enjoy reading the legal analysis, which is pretty sound once you take out the sometimes over the top OSS "fangirlism" that I occasionally find a bit annyoing.
Agreed. Surely she could get in touch with them, right? Presumably she has nothing to hide, and could easily let SCO know "here I am, stop this nonsense". Groklaw shouldn't be about its creator.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
1. Are you legally obliged to make it easy for someone to subpoena you? eg. by replying to an email asking for that information.
2. Is it a particularly good idea to email an address on a website which may or may not go to the correct person asking "Hey, where do you live, we want to serve legal documents on you"?
Now PJ can file a civil claim and try to get what little is left of SCO. Better yet use discovery to find the individuals who have done this and file against them personally. Slander is possible. They have made a concerted effort to discredit her in the press and since their claims are all false it will be easy to prove. Don't sue a worthless shell, get the jerks and lighten their wallets, that will end this farce the quickest.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Hmm.. Big companies give money to OSDL, who then uses it for a variety of purposes, including paying Linus' salary, and, according to SCO, funding Groklaw.
Being a non-profit, who OSDL gives money to is public information.. so I don't really doubt SCO's claims that OSDL gave money to Groklaw. There's also some claims that the web server that Groklaw runs on is supplied by another non-profit, ibiblio.
IBM donates to both of them.
So yeah, sucks to be dragged into it, but when IBM says they don't give you money either directly or through a third party and they clearly do, well, hell, way to drop the ball guys.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Besides, if Pamela Jones is just just an internet pseudonym for someone else, then what good would tracking down people named Pamela Jones in public records, if you already believe that.
Clearly Groklaw is the biggest of the many sites that go over the minutae of the various SCO lawsuits, so they are probably quite correct in their assertion that it's materially impacting their business - and proves that you do indeed reap what you sow. So, SCO drags PJ into the lawsuit, probably knowing full well that it's almost certainly not going to get them anywhere legally, but that it will buy them yet more delays, something they really seem to like. IANAL, but from what I understand of US law free speech does not extend to those involved in a legal case being able to comment on that case, and that surely has to be the real goal here. By getting PJ involved in the case and getting really, *really* lucky, they might be able to effectively gag Groklaw, or at least limit what they can and cannot post.
Personally, I think getting someone with a detailed knowledge of the case, a legal background, additional protections through being a journalist and despises you and your company onto the witness stand is not a smart move, but then I think SCO & BSF have already proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are not smart. Desperate maybe, but not smart.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Her server is withstanding the Slashdotting pretty well.
This proves "she" must really be IBM. (Joke.)
Seriously, I hope someday, somebody can write a short (one page) clear and simple
document explaining who owns the various *nix names and code.
I'd like this short document to be sued and win so make it "proven".
Micro$oft has both purchased a very large license for undisclosed Unix IP (can't they get anything that they need from BSD?) and has been implicated at least a little bit in under-the-table assurances to places like Baystar that their "investment" in SCO will be covered when it is lost.
It has probably been worth a great deal to spread IP FUD about Linux until Vista gets up and going. Do you think that they have gotten their money's worth in funding TSCOG's long slow suicide?
Who writes these headlines? Why not have at least a modicum of neutrality? It's like when I listen to "Media Matters"...they start out with a bit called Media Minutes that reports things that I'm interested in and concerned about, but they use such loaded language that it's impossible to listen to objectively.
It's funded by Microsoft. Your Windows dollars at work.
... then SCO should be tagged "funny." If you take a look at their stock (SCOX) since 2000, you will notice that they have gone from $94 to a mere $0.89.
I may have been the last serious Linux/GCC/Python user that has not visited Groklaw, but what the hey; it is 0625, I am still at work, and needed to "escape" to something unique on-line.
The lady noted "Forsooth, methinks SCO folk need to get better aligned with truth, justice, and the American way, as the saying goes. But that's the judges' job, so I'll end my comments about this here."
Was this hyperbole, or does she really have significant faith in the American justice system ? And this is not a rhetorical question. Others that read her often may want to answer.
As for me, I have not been certain about the meaning of the "American way" for several years. As a former U.S. marine and Libertarian, I had a tendency to believe that the U.S. Constitution represented the most realistic opportunity for "justice".
It now seems that the implementation does not meet the requirements of the abstraction.
According to everything I've read, SCO wants to depose PJ for the Novell case not the IBM case. But they also want to include the deposition in the IBM once it is done. All depositions in the IBM case should have been done by now. They are trying to do an end-around the rules.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I think this was supposed to be humor... calm down.
Maybe if SCO had spent has much time developing their product as they do/did filing baseless lawsuits and trying to serve groundless subpoenas, they might have been able to create a product that was relevant. Instead, they have a product that has never been anything more than a footnote in the world of Unix.
I take that back...SCO is serving a useful purpose. This will be used as a lesson in all business and law schools. "How to fuck your business, destroy your company, and piss off your stock holders 101".
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Those who can, innovate. Those who can't, litigate. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
>SCO has just filed court papers saying that they were unable to subpoena PJ of Groklaw.
The papers were filed on 4/3, two days ago.
>While they apparently sent their crack team of process servers out looking for random people named Pamela Jones, it would appear that they were unable to locate the bright yellow envelope labeled 'Email PJ' on the Groklaw website to ask for directions to serve her in person.
PJ's whereabouts were unknown for some time as stated in the filing. It is also, settled by case law that you cannot serve someone by email unless you have exhausted all possibly efforts to serve them in person in order to affect a certainty of awareness of the subpoena.
>They're once again accusing her of working for IBM or Novell, and Groklaw is now hosting over 20 documents PJ claims were planted in the media in an effort to discredit her. As she says, 'And so the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world just got stupider. And a whole lot meaner.'"
Its a subpoena for a deposition. Not an assault. PJ does this as a full time job. She has enough backing and friends to muster together a motion to quash the subpoena. Lets get it on so that the realities that each side is claiming can be settled by the facts instead of by amatuer pundits such as myself.
That way all can find out just how baseless and 'mean' SCO is and how independant Groklaw really is.
As for Groklaw being a legal website based upon the truth, one should be reminded of the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: 'Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants'.
Agreed. Surely she could get in touch with them, right? Presumably she has nothing to hide, and could easily let SCO know "here I am, stop this nonsense".
True, but until they actually reach her with a subpoena, she's not under any legal requirement to do so. Hearing about a subpoena in the news (or via a motion she's retrieved from the internet) isn't nearly the same thing as actually being served. And if she's not actively dodging it (for example, if she's honestly taking a long-planned vacation somewhere and prefers to keep the destination private), then that's just SCO's tough luck.
I mean, really, why make it easy for SCO?
On a slightly different point, was it just me, or did this motion sound really whiny, even considering the history of this case?
SCO has been making accusations against PJ for a long time. They have previously tried to find her and on one occasion they 'outed' her, identifying her as a sixty year old Mormon with a son in New York city. If they can find her and serve her then she will have to pay big lawyer bills with no hope of recovering them because SCO is going bankrupt anyway.
These people have demonstrated time and time again how nasty they are. They have zero respect for the truth and there is an excellent chance that some of them are going to jail when this is over.
PJ has nothing to do with the case other than hosting the website that destroyed the FUD value of SCO's criminally frivolous lawsuits. Any evidence she gives will have no bearing on the outcome of the cases. They are just after her to harass her. She's not being shrill and paranoid, she's being realistic.
Given the fact that Maureen O'Gara, a reporter(and I use that loosely)tried to find out where PJ lived, and then published photos of her alleged house, brother and mother without ever verifing if it really was the right Pamela Jones I too would be a bit paranoid. If I published photo's of Darl Mcbride's house you can believe he wold have the police after me even if it was the wrong house.
Given the facts in this case, and what Darl has said ad done, I too would be scared of what Darl would try to do.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Groklaw shouldn't be about its creator.
Everybody knows by now that a message is meaningless and is to be ignored, or even disparaged if you can't identify the messenger. Just look at how ACs are treated here.
What?
Just to correct the article, the 20 documents refered to as listed on Groklaw were submitted
by SCO as evidence that PJ/Groklaw have interferred with their Busines and to justify
deposing her.
Most of them seem to be net gossip/comment.
Perhaps you don't live it the real world where very bad things can happen to very good people. There is lots of money involved here and maybe even some jail time for some corporate bigshots. So who knows what someone might do, or be paid to do, to shut up a never-ending source of bother for their get-rich plans.
That's the point. SCO didn't even bother clicking on the link to contact her. Further they made posts public making it seem like they had been actively trying to contact her. "Obviously aware of SCO's designs to depose her, Ms. Jones has neither accepted service of the subpeona nor agreed for deposition, but rather appears to have fled and evaded service of the subpeona. " I'd be annoyed as well.
Email SCO with your message " I AM P.J!"
For authenticity you should be wearing your Spartacus gladiator arm shield or Roman slave tunic while typing.
P226
SCO's CEO has made a point of telling the press that he carries a gun. So he's got lawyers and guns, but he's running out of money.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Many of the commercial Unices have some AT&T code in their kernels and utilities. Most of the original AT&T code has been bug-fixed out and there is serious dispute whether copyright applies on the remaining fragments. Other Unix variants are based on BSD code and lack any code where (AT&T/Novell/SCO) may claim copyright upon. Sun is a special case, as they contributed to SystemV and have more rights than mere SystemV licensees.
Are you still with me or did you lose the plot somewhere?
Sorry, you can not sue a document. There has to be a lawsuit regarding a real conflict between two legal entities.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
I don't think that the court will issue a warrant in a civil case. Also with a court summons, SCO would still have to provide the information to find her. Given what I have checked previously on how low the bar is, I don't think that SCO is looking very hard for her - in fact if they had tried to serve her earlier, they would have had a notice from the server on the steps they had taken to make service. No such notice has been presented to the court, so it's a fairly clear indicator that after 2 months they haven't tried serving her yet.
Because it has been a business plot from the beginning:
They want to get cash from a hollywood movie with Julia Roberts
...they know their real case is going straight to hell, so another distraction about how they've been wronged. If they actually had assets left, you'd probably want to file a anti-SLAPP countersuit but since they'll be bankrupt ten times over when IBM, NOvell and everyone else have gotten their money it wouldn't do much at all.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
They probably are trying to get a good lock on PJ's identity so they can sue her. They sued IBM for interfering with business relations and Novell for slander of title. Plus there are the rinky dink lawsuits they filed against Autozone and Daimler Chrysler. Sueing PJ for slander or damaging their business relations would be a way for them to shut her down. She likely can't afford the sort of litigation costs SCO dishes out.
And me too...
-R
Funny? Who are the half wits "scoring" comments?
I mean, really, why make it easy for SCO?
She's not under an affirmative duty to seek being served, but as you say she's neither allowed to avoid it intentionally. I would argue that as an officer of the court, and one who (I hope) believes in the system, she should in this case seek service. It's not going to make anything easier for SCO, as she has nothing to hide. She can be clever in her deposition and publish it on the site for our amusement.
That's just my opinion, of course, but it seems reasonable and logical to me. There's no reason to lower oneself to the tactics of the other side.
They have had 2 odd deaths, both ruled suicide, associated with them. One had turned against SCO and the other was convincing her father that SCO was a mess (who then disassociated himself from SCO and the parent). And you think that she is sounding shrill?
Me, If I was SCO's number one enemy, I would not want to be known to them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"I would argue that as an officer of the court, and one who (I hope) believes in the system, she should in this case seek service."
She's not a lawyer, right? What makes her an "officer of the court"?
Hyperbole, yes. But she's making an important point.
Lawyers and cops play special roles in our society. Those roles require they have powers which, if abused, could make our lives living hells. And bad as a rogue cop can be, short of killing you there's nothing he can do to you that's worse than what a rogue lawyer can do. Maybe they don't put a bullet in your head, but they can take the roof from over your head, the food off of your table, and medicine out of your medicine cabinet. For some people, people who have a responsibility to provide for others, a bullet in the head would be preferable.
So we rightly expect that cops and lawyers display a high degree of responsibility when it comes to the integrity of the system. To be a decent cop, I suppose you just need common sense, but a lawyer's ethics are much trickier because he's supposed to be a vigorous advocate for his client. The problem with abusive SLAPP lawsuits and even the use of empty legal threats is that they divide society into two classes: people with the resources to defend themselves and people who do not.
Does anybody have a duty to respect and cooperate with a system which unjustly oppresses them? Should we give power to people who will use it to wrong us for their clients' benefits? If we do, we'll end up with a two track system of justice in which one class of people can use the legal system to compel any behavior they wish from the other.
SLAPP suits and baseless legal extortion undermine the legitimacy of the system. The system should come down hard on lawyers who practice this kind of law. Not only should they be disbarred, they should be sent to jail to do hard time. We'd strip a cop of his badge and send him to jail if he was shaking down shopkeepers. I'd rather pay protection money to a cop than let a bad lawyer get his hooks into me.
Let me be clear that I don't hate lawyers. I admire the profession, and technical skills of it practitioners. But they have a higher duty of public ethics than a day laborer or cab driver, and when they breech that duty the damage they cause is unthinkable.
This by the way is why we should be concerned about the dismissal of David Iglesias. It is true that Mr. Iglesias served at the pleasure of the President; but the President has no more right to single out his political enemies for prosecution than he has to single out his friends to receive federal contracts. Mr. Iglesias, and indeed the President, have a duty to support and defend the Constitution, and the integrity of the legal system. As bad as the potential for abuse is for an ordinary lawyer, a prosecutor has the power to drop an unbearable burden of suspicion on anybody he choses. That power should only be exercised in the public interest.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Under-cover hero's, evil corporations, running from the law, big money, corruption, here and there talk of guns and plots of murder... they should make this into a movie!
Well better than a movie, I hope Pamela Jones one day writes a book about this. I have always enjoy her perspective of the world, and while she may not be unbiased, in this case, she's pretty much right on the mark for how it actually is.
So I am glad PJ is back on the site more, after an absence. Unless she's on a witness protection program, I am inclined to believe her if she says she was sick, (rather than 'running' from the warrant officers).
-R
Given what Maureen O'Gara did, I think PJ has reason to want her location kept private.
To the best of my knowledge PJ was a paralegal, has never been a lawyer, and therefore is not an officer of the court. Furthermore, whatever she was before 2003, she is now unambiguously a blogger. Neither more nor less.
Why don't we just send Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner after him?
(and to the mod trolls, no it's not off-topic, reread the parent).
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Correct, she's not, she is simply assumed to be by many. She is a paralegal, and is not admitted to the bar in any jurisdiction. I suppose that's just a pet peeve of mine...
what is with those inept fools? darl must be channelling pure black evil.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Thanks slashdot; you crashed groklaw.
This motion is filed under SCO v IBM in order to get the deposition of PJ in SCO v Novell(when & if it happens) admitted to the SCO v IBM evidence.
SCO has already stated an intent to depose PJ for the Novell case, they just want to be able to add it to the IBM case. The general consensus is that it won't happen. Final discloures & depositions were supposed to be done over a year ago - adding this deposition will effectively re-open discovery after a year of waiting & the PSJ's have been argued.
Worse for SCO, all of the things they are arguing should allow this deposition into SCO v IBM all happened while discovery was open. In other words, it's not new it's between 2 & 3 years old and they had the oportunity to do the deposition within the proper scope of discovery & didn't. NYCountryLawyer may have better input, but from my understanding, weather the deposition goes forward or not, this motion is unlikely to be granted.
You are absolutely correct -- that was a bit of a jab on my part. I'm not a huge fan of Groklaw, or the way it is run. PJ's opinions are taken as fact or as prevailing legal opinion in their entirity by many, and that is annoying to me. She advocates a position, which is of course a lawyerly thing to do, while leaving out other arguments (see, e.g., the groklaw wikipedia page).
She may or may not work for IBM -- it doesn't really matter to me, and I honestly don't think it matters legally. At the same time, if she really values the law instead of a pulpit for her personal ideology, she should seek being served. She can blog about her personal experiences -- about a blogger becoming involved in her topic.
Quit your whining. Nowhere on Groklaw does is say anything that would even come close to misleading someone to think she's a lawyer.
"If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love"
But you have to be able to find her to deliver the supoena so you can "pay court" to her in the first place!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
On the internet, no one knows you are a dog, so I make no assumptions about any presence unless I have first hand confirmation. So, does Pamela Jones exist, and if she does is she largely funded by IBM, and if she isn't does IBM have a presence in her life? I don't see any evidence to draw any conclusions. However, if it is true that PJ is some form IBM proxy, does that make any difference. Is Groklaw some sort of corporate entity governed by rules of disclosure? I am sure that SCO lawyers and accountants will support the right of an organization to not disclose any information that is not required or otherwise beneficial to the organization. If Groklaw is the IBM arm of the cold ware, so what? It makes as much difference as if SCO is the MS arm, which is none.
Of course, it could just be that we are all afraid of SCO, and do our best to hide from them.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
SCO is STILL being backed by MS. And I would not be surprised to find that McNealy is still backing this as well, by either using Sun money or his own.
Since when does giving a deposition have anything with appearing in a court room? They ask the questions and you answer them. Thats it. They get to decide what topic is important and how to phrase that question and you simply get to say yes or no in most cases. They can ask you about your personal life, finances, and just about whatever they want to ask. Hopefully you'll bring a lawyer to draw the line in the sand if you are smart. If they don't ask a question where you can show them how stupid SCO is being then you miss the chance to have your say on the subject. Its not a fun experience I can assure you. If I could appear before the judge in this case I happily volunteer because that environment is a lot more conducive to showing a fair outlook on the facts of the case and with a little luck you might get to expand on the subject enough to nail them to the wall in the eyes of the court.
Not yet, but I've got a little Xmas money left. I'll be donating tonight...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
There is one easy answer to your argument..........BULLSHIT
Let me put the first reason this way. There is no law that says it is your responsibility to seek such service
The second reason is the Constitutional right to privacy
Your reasoning fails because it does not matter if a person does or does not have anything to hide...... it is not that persons responsibility until the papers are in her hand.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
SCO has a long and (well documented by PJ) history of abusive, ridiculous, legal theories and a long trend of gross attacks and dissemination in the press and in legal filings.
So why should she help them at all in their quest to slime her?
Test your net with Netalyzr
It was probably a side effect of the new moderation system. You used to click a "moderate to this" dropdown box and then click "submit" to moderate. With the new comment system it's javascript based so as soon as you select a moderation it is applied. I'm sure I'm not the only person to accidentally moderate a post to the wrong thing.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those that need closure
SCO's stock price has been hovering around the 85-90 mark for the last few weeks. I think they only have a week or so left of it being under $1 before they get a delisting warning from NASDAQ.
So ya, they're still hanging in like a set of nasty klingons that resist toilet paper - but while I don't expect the big flush to come tomorrow, I really don't think they have any more than three months left.
Eloquently put.
Let me put the first reason this way. There is no law that says it is your responsibility to seek such service
I agree, and I stated as much in my post.
The second reason is the Constitutional right to privacy
The US Supreme Court has recognized something of a "right to privacy" in several cases, but of course the Constitution doesn't grant a general "right to privacy" in as explicit terms as I would like. That "right" protects you from unreasonable search and seizure in their "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" (4th Amendment). It originally applied only to the federal government. By the 14th amendment it's been interpreted to extend to the state governments as well. In the instant case, no government is seeking PJ. At present, it's a private (i.e. non-governmental) entity, and no [federal] Constitutional right exists to privacy from a private entity.
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!--Edward Abbey"
That saying needs a "and everyone on the bottom gets burned".
Well there is a body of law around the concept of "constructive service", if you know about the case, know about the attempt to serve you, then you may be deemed to have been served. Similar is some ways to service by public notice, which is allowed in some cases.
No one here gets out alive
Nope.... no cigar for you. You are completely wrong about actively seeking to be served. That's just utter non-sense and one that just shows it is you who does not value the law. The law says it is the person serving the papers responsibility. I fail to see how that is so hard to understand.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
If PJ really wants to remain as anonymous as possible, I hope that is not her user ID and client login at the bottom of the Pacer docs (Pdf's).
Repant. Thy end is sheer.
Sun, who also have a vested interest in hurting Linux, also bought some "unspecified intellectual property" from SCO for millions of dollars just before they launched their lawsuit.
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html
How does that qualify as "reticent", exactly?
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
The SCO case includes some behind the scenes activities that might cause an otherwise sane person some paranoid thoughts. http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48789.htm?D E=1 The suicide of Noorda's granddaughter and heir to the fortune he built up at Novell and Canopy (the holding company that is SCO); the legal and family proceedings revolving around his Alzheimer's disease http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=193200278&subSection=Breaking+News; the suicide of Robert Penrose, a key canopy partner shortly after his firing from the Canopy http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000250.htm and other details too lurid for even slashdot.
Canopy (and Noorda's family and associates,) apparently are not people who have both oars in the water.
Does anyone want to speculate as to whether PJ has a right to fear these deaths were other than self-inflicted? Under the circumstances, would YOU feel threatened by these people?
In fact, this might be why SCO stock still exists. Some people might be speculating on a shareholder lawsuit against Microsoft in the event SCO goes TU. IANAL, but if SCO turns out to be Microsoft's sock puppet, liability might extend beyond the normal corporate limits.
Have gnu, will travel.
Nice dodge. Why did you call her an officer of the court, now?
If I published photo's of Darl Mcbride's house you can believe he wold have the police after me even if it was the wrong house.
Since when it is illegal to publish photos legally taken?
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
> While they apparently sent their crack team of process servers out looking for random people named Pamela Jones ...
"Sarah Connor?"
"... Yes?"
Wish I could give the moderator who modded you up points for the great humor.
Agreed. Surely she could get in touch with them, right? Presumably she has nothing to hide, and could easily let SCO know "here I am, stop this nonsense". Groklaw shouldn't be about its creator.
Aww, that's cute! Completely naive, but darling.
Seriously, have you ever been sued? Even when you are 100% sure that you are in the right, you still have to pay $250 an hour to your lawyer to fend off all the bullshit they care to throw. With SCO, that may be a near-infinite supply. And if you miss something in preparation or they find something that they can distort into an apparent problem? Then you could be well and truly fucked. Even if it all turns out perfectly, it's months or years of stress, just because there's so much on the line and so much out of your control.
Make no mistake: if somebody suggests you have "nothing to hide", that's the time to clam up completely.
I wouldn't worry about PJ in a courtroom; our girl can take care of herself.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
'PJ's whereabouts were unknown for some time as stated in the filing'
/Daimler Chrysler etc.
But why did they process serve in Connecticut, while PJ is supposed to be in Hartsdale, New York? And why is it the entire SCO legal team can't seem to find her when Moggie O' Gara found it so easy? Maybe they should hire her on to find PJ.
'It is also, settled by case law that you cannot serve someone by email unless you have exhausted all possibly efforts to serve them in person in order to affect a certainty of awareness of the subpoena'
What efforts did they expend in locating Ms. Jones? What case law are you citing that refers to serving a subpoena by email? Please give references. According to IBM-1018.pdf SCO can just leave it lying round at the witnesses' office to be duely served.
'she has enough backing and friends to muster together a motion to quash the subpoena'
I wouldn't even respond if I was her. All is happening here is SCO trying to distract from their own lack of facts and drag out the discovery phase some more. Instead of 'SCO show us the code' it'll be when did PJ know something and how did she come by this fact. Something totally irrelevant in SCO v. IBM/Novell/AutoZone
'Lets get it on so that the realities that each side is claiming can be settled by the facts instead of by amatuer pundits such as myself'
What factual cited court records and other fully attributed documents on Groklaw materially impinge on the SCO case? Like all they have to do is point. A bit like pointing out the 'stolen' code in Linux.
'As for Groklaw being a legal website based upon the truth, one should be reminded of the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: 'Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants''
How can Groklaw not be in the Sunlight - it's a website? What bits on Groklaw aren't truthfull. It's being going for years. Surely you - sorry I mean the SCO legal team would have spotted something by now.
was break it down (Score:5, Interesting)
davecb5620@gmail.com
In the english legal system, from which the systems of the USA and others forked, barristers act not in their clients' interest, but primarily in the interests of justice. E.g. from the Irish Bar's Code of Conduct, (which forked only 80 odd years ago from the English one), in the section on practicing barristers: Barristers have an overriding duty to the Court to ensure in the public interest that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and they must assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or knowingly mislead the court.
Barristers must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means their client's best interests and do so without regard to their own interest or to any consequences for themselves or to any other person including fellow members of the legal profession. And note from the beginning of the code that all members of the Bar, practicing barristers or not, have a duty to uphold the ethics and ethiquette of their profession.
I'd be curious what kinds of professional obligations US Bar and Law societies impose on their members, particularly as to how far they allow such members to advocate their clients cases beyond the interests of justice. The "rogue" lawyers you say exist in the USA possibly would liable to censure by the professional body regulating them.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
It is not illegal.
However, refer to Barbara Streisand (sorry for the spelling) suing a guy for taking a picture of her house from a helicopter off the coast of California. The guy was photographing the entire coastline and putting the pictures up on a web site. The photo that was taken showed a house that could have been anyones (that had a big house on the CA coast), it was later identified as Streisands.
So Microsoft is funding the Baystar investment in SCO that's behind all of this. Microsoft drops chump change and casts a 5-year cloud over IP FUD over Linux at the same time that Microsoft is ramping up their licensing fees, releasing a new DRM-crippled version of Windows called 'vista', and generally consolidating their worldwide windows franchise. In a normal marketplace, doing all of those customer-unfriendly things at once would cost you your customers. But with the SCO cloud hanging over Linux, it's value as a serious alternative to Windows for corporate and government customers has been severely compromised. Imagine for a moment that there had never been a SCO lawsuit. Maybe then HP, Dell, and Lenovo would be successfully hawking Linux desktops and laptops to rapidly growing corporate, government, and personal markets and Linux would be on magazine covers everywhere instead of...vista. So...you can call the SCO lawsuit a lot of things but you what you can NOT call it is a stupid move on Microsoft's part.
SCO have announced they are hiring the services of The Subpoenator, who is rumoured to have been recruited to travel back in time, search for the real Pamela Jones. The Subpoenator favourite weapon is believed to be the Gatling laser printer, capable firing well over 3000 summons per second. Anyone in the vicinity of The Subpoenator is advised to seek cover indoors, close all windows and door, disconnect all web-enabled equipment, and seal their letterbox with industrial strength duct tape.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Has he ever thought of going into advertising?
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Maybe you could find a suit based on a stupider premise,
If I wanted to try, I might start here.
you had me at #!
I think the real message of these motions has nothing to do with SCO being full of lies and crap (which they indeed are) but instead shows just how much they care about PJ's message and Groklaw. You know, if her site was not the 758th most visited on the web (Netcraft) or if she was more supportive of IBM, maybe they wouldn't go after her, but because she reveals the truth and thereby exposes all of SCO's FUD and other crap while maintaining a relatively neutral point of view, she is a thorn - a really sharp, heavy thorn - in SCO's and BSF's side.
"All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." -- Mark Twain
With SCO it has always been about tricks and delay.
Dang! Now I see!
Darl McBride is *actually* Kim Jong Ill!
SCO is the USA shell corporation for NoKo!
It all makes sense now...
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
...like desperadoes under the eaves?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Ah, nevermind. I continued reading and "get it" now. You can make that whooshing sound if you'd like ;)
It's much the same; a lawyer can't lie to the court, can't say "I know my client is innocent," or the like; can't make the law into an ass.
It's very difficult for a committee of lawyers to agree on anything, let alone disbarment of one of their own, so punishment, sanctions or disbarment is rare except in eggregious cases.
I suspect English barristers, on the whole, behave similarly to their American brethren.
The accusation is that she's been paid by OSDL, under an IBM chairman, using funds provides by IBM, so technically she hasn't been paid directly by IBM. Read her recent replies about the OSDL money; she won't comment on that until she gets (quote) "lawyered up". Maybe there's no fire, but if it's not true, then why not make an equally clean denial?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The ironic thing is that if Novell wins their suit against SCO, then SCO will have to fork over that licensing $ from Microsoft to Novell.
7 0114051543227
For example: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200
Since when do you have to be tried and convicted before being hassled by the police, especially when a big, rich Pillar of the Community tells the cops that some scruffy homocidal loser was stalking him? The cops would be good and pissed when they figured out how they'd been used, but he could probably do it in such a way that there would be no recourse against him.
SCO's filing makes it quite clear that PJ works for IBM, and has been dodging their subpoena like so many Bill Clintons during the Nam war.
Beginning on page 3 of
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1018.pdf
You will see *numerous links to all sorts of blogs that reinforce SCO's theory about her. This, obviously, is damning evidence. Also, for about eleven minutes on August 6, 2006, the Wikipedia article on PJ clearly stated that she was an undercover IBM agent and a "$£77¥ h0!!!!"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Just junk food for thought...
Seriously, how is PJ considered a journalist?
Groklaw is a blog, hosted by ibiblio. It isn't a print publication, and I don't know what the definition of a "web publication" would be. Given that, PJ is a blogger with a strong interest in the SCO case. The last time I checked, bloggers are not journalists. In the end, I doubt it even matters since PJ cites most of her sources, etc, but there is no journalist shield to deal with here.
As an American, I have been taught (through civics classes and television) that lawyers, with the exception of public prosecutors, are not supposed to concern themselves with justice. Lawyers are supposed to be single-minded sociopaths who are guided only by the interests of their client and the restraints of the legal system. The system is supposed to be set up so that justice emerges from this Battle Royal of lawyers and clients. If the system contains potential for abuse, it is the responsibility of lawyers to exploit it and the responsibility of society as a whole to fix it so that further abuse is prevented.
BSF (SCO's legal team) would just brag about losing a SLAPP in their marketing literature.
If you had your email filter enabled to automatically blacklist or delete messages from these firms you wouldn't have received the notice or request for subpoena either..
I can't imagine that before this time either party has sent her anything nice, so why would she bother accepting any email from them at all ?
far...out
So much for taking the high road.
What are the SCOjones doing?
They are trying to depose Groklaw's PJ in SCO vs.
Novell because she apparently knew too much about
Novell's Unix copyrights claim three years ago.
They cannot find her, but Novell has graciously
agreed to an extension so SCO have time until end
of May to smoke PJ out. If they succeed, PJ will
certainly object to the summons and with good
reasons. Note that they have been trying to track
her down from the very beginning (Summer 2003).
And failed.
They are also trying to include the hoped for
deposition in the SCO vs. IBM case. Why?
- The motion with explicit reference to the
summons may do as an alternative way of
serving the summons, which would dispense with
continuing investigative efforts to find the
lady.
- They want to smear IBM, depicting it as the
hidden force and money source beyond Groklaw.
The hard-core beyond the extortionist assault
on IBM has not given up on their illusions
that IBM will settle under pressure.
- They want to accumulate more confusing
material for the jury, should the case ever go
to trial. The show would run in Salt Lake City.
Imagine a small Mormon controlled local
company against an alien behemoth. And a
mountain of tough technical and contractual
issues to flatten out any jury.
- They want to re-open discovery to hinder as
much as possible progress towards Partial
Summary Judgements (PSJ). Judge Kimball
decided early 2005 that motions for PSJ would
only be accepted after end of discovery. If
discovery is re-opened now after those motions
have already been heard, he would look funny.
- They want to hamstrung PJ as Groklaw
commentator. If she becomes part of the case,
she will not be in the position to do much on
Groklaw. Groklaw without PJ would be shrinking
to insignificance in no time.
Sun wanted to free Solaris, a SysVR4 derived OS, which obviously required clearing the licenses first. Hurting Linux may or may not have been a side benefit, but for a company like Sun releasing their "crown jewels" will have been the main issue.
'' Well there is a body of law around the concept of "constructive service", if you know about the case, know about the attempt to serve you, then you may be deemed to have been served. Similar is some ways to service by public notice, which is allowed in some cases. ''
However, in this case we are talking about SCO. They have a long, documented history of not telling the truth. So claims by SCO of having attempted to serve her, even letters to the court claiming that they attempted to serve her, don't mean a thing.
Most likely SCO is not trying to serve her at all.
Second most likely, if they are trying to serve her, they are doing it with their usual incompetence and won't manage to find her.
Third most likely, if they actually manage to find her and serve some papers on her, they will have messed up the papers.
In that case, PJ will probably find herself a lawyer, go through the papers very carefully, find where SCO has messed up, and send them a letter at the last possible time telling them with which legal requirements their paper does not conform. That is, unless the subpoena is so messed up that an answer is not necessary.
It's pathetic so many private citizens are allowed to carry a concealed loaded firearm for complete BULLSHIT reasons other than that they are highly paranoid(and therefore trigger happy). When is the last time you heard about someone(armed civilian) successfully preventing ANY crime with a concealed handgun in public? Now when is the last time you heard about someone getting slayed, robbed, killed, raped, beat, road raged, threatened, intimidated or just generally abused in some way due to someone with a handgun? About 100,000 times this week and counting. The ease of obtaining a handgun(legally or illegally - for good???? or bad) far outweighs any good that can come of it. I'm not against guns at home of course. Just against any retard being allowed to carry a loaded gun right next to me in public without any knowledge to me or the people around them who would otherwise move as far away as fucking possible from the creep before he starts yelling it's coming right for us.
Microsoft needed a quick and easy way to scare businesses away from Linux. But, oh no, their normal smear campaigns haven't been working. What to do?
Step 1: Find an old UNIX company that isn't adapting well to computing where big-iron and *NIX workstations aren't the hot technology on the block.
Step 2: Get an investment company to pour cash into the company at your bidding.
Step 3: Create a lawsuit guaranteed to last for at least four or five good years. Sue everyone who touches Linux, including high-publicity companies that use it, companies that contribute code, and so forth. Drag it out as long as physically possible.
When all is said and done, SCO's offices will have a For Rent sign on the door, the board of directors will be either rich or indicted. And Microsoft? Microsoft walks away with clean hands, without directly paying SCO.
Really, it is a beautiful strategy -- best case, enough uncertainty is created that companies buy Windows licenses for their servers. Worst case, Microsoft gives Baystar a wink and a nod, as well as an investment that will more than offset the SCO fiasco. Everyone wins but SCO.
He who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer.
So by "taking care of herself" I'm going to assume you're referring to her hiring a lawyer.
> People who need govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message.
Possibly, but, People who need to purge that message from public places must be scared of it.
If you listen to the bloggers, they are journalists. If you listen to "traditional" media, bloggers are not journalists.
THAT argument will be interesting to watch if and when it works its way through the court system. Unlike the SCO vs everyone-else arguments which are extremely boring, there will be good arguments from BOTH sides on the issue of whether blogging is journalism.
I don't think PJ was using any poetical language when she passingly refered to the use of weaponry
0 .html
u icide&btnG=Google+Search
in her post.
I would be concerned if Darl Gun Nut McBride was out to get me.
Bloomberg News:
"Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595047068,0
Too many suicides related to SCO and Canopy
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=canopy+sco+s
Then connect the dots.
Even if she only caught a cold, Darl should be very concerned if something happens to PJ.
I mean, really, why make it easy for SCO?
She's not under an affirmative duty to seek being served, but as you say she's neither allowed to avoid it intentionally. My lawyer differs in opinion. I would argue that as an officer of the court, and one who (I hope) believes in the system, she should in this case seek service. It's not going to make anything easier for SCO, as she has nothing to hide. She can be clever in her deposition and publish it on the site for our amusement.
That's just my opinion, of course, but it seems reasonable and logical to me. There's no reason to lower oneself to the tactics of the other side. If the personality she demonstrates online is genuine, then you don't seem to "understand" PJ.
She appears to be very paranoid, in case you haven't figured it out; and while it's not without good reason, it is at times truly excessive. The point is that to her, if any agent of any side opposed to her so much as sees her, she's a dead woman. The pseudonymity of the Internet may be the only thing that permits her to continue what she is doing, and if that barrier is shattered, it is impossible to say how she would handle it. Therefore, in this context, being served with a subpoena is a total defeat.
I could be completely wrong, and this could be the greatest dupe job in a long time, but this is how I perceive PJ. Logic has nothing to do with this.
Reposted from elsewhere. The Kevin discussed here is Kevin McBride, Darl's brother on the "crack" legal team.
Msg: 26178 of 26422 4/4/2007 11:45:53 AM Recs: 60 Sentiment: Not Disclosed
By: El Corton
The voice is Darl's voice, but the hands are the hands of Kevin
The exhibits to 1018 are pretty uninteresting, once you realize that they don't support the motion -- except for #6. This is a letter from Todd Shaughnessy, addressed to Hatch and Heise and dated February 12, 2004. That was right after Darl's speech at Harvard Law School, and also right after the hearing before Wells and conference in chambers, when observers had the impression that SCO's lawyers looked uncomfortable. At about that time, Darl's public championing of SCO's case ended, and, as far as I recall, since then he has spoken in public only during earnings calls. The letter casts some light on those events.
---
Dear Brent and Mark:
This responds to Kevin McBride's letter to me dated February 11, 2004.
As I have advised Kevin, IBM is generally agreeable to an order limiting the parties' public statements regarding the litigation, as suggested by Judge Wells. Based upon SCO's statements in chambers on February 6, 2004, and Kevin's statements to me, however, it appears that SCO is not agreeable to the entry of such an order. If that is in fact SCO's position, then we would appreciate your just saying so without invoking misplaced concerns of conspiracy between IBM and third parties. Contrary to Kevin's suggestion, which is entirely unsupported, IBM is not causing any third party (including those listed in Kevin's letter), through "funding" or otherwise, to make statements on its behalf about the litigation.
We understand that SCO is concerned about the public's criticism of its case. But there is nothing we can do about that, especially since, as you know, we believe SCO's allegations are meritless and public criticism deserved. Unless SCO is prepared to withdraw its claims, the best way, in our judgment, for SCO to avoid public criticism is to cease making public statements about its case. The criticism SCO seeks to avoid directly derives, after all, from its own public relations efforts. So long as the limitation is reciprocal, IBM is prepared to limit its own statements about the case. Like Judge Wells, we see no reason for this case to be tried in the press.
As you know, the parties are not entitled to know the identity of one another's non-testifying consultants. Thus, insofar as Kevin's letter requests that IBM unilaterally disclose the identity of its non-testifying experts, it seeks improperly to invade the privilege. If, instead, SCO is proposing that the parties jointly waive the privilege and exchange the names of all of their non-testifying consultants, please let me know and we will consider the proposal. What we can tell you without waiving the privilege is that, as suggested above, IBM has neither retained nor authorized any non-testifying consultant to speak on its behalf about this litigation (again, including the persons listed in Kevin's letter).
We believe the parties should report back to Judge Wells promptly on this issue, and we would appreciate hearing back from you by noon tomorrow.
Very truly yours,
Todd M. Shaughnessy
---
This letter confirms that Wells criticized SCO's public behavior in chambers. It also supports the view that Kevin is the mastermind behind SCO's most gonzo legal stratagems: the Letter to Congress, the unconstitutionality of the GPL, and the PJ subpoena, among others.
--------------
Msg: 26294 of 26422 4/4/2007 5:59:35 PM Recs: 57 Sentiment: Strong Sell
By: AllParadox
Posted as a reply to msg 26178 by El Corton
Re: The voice is Darl's voice, but the hands are the hands of Kevin
re: document 1018, Exhibit #6
Once again, I am impressed by the legal team for "The SCO Group".
Just when I thought that there was nothing dumber, or more lame, that they cou
I'd be more afraid that he'd kill her, rape her, and THEN take her home - he seems like an excitable boy.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
If you listen to the court, bloggers are journalists, or at least entitled to the same protections.
You had me all the way until you brought politics into the discussion. You were talking about the behavior of lawyers and how they should be held up to certain ethical standards. Then you go off on some opinion about dismissing politically appointed attorneys which has nothing to do with the previous discussion. And the mention of federal contracts has no logical bearing on the discussion either, as federal contracts can not legally be awarded or appointed by executive privilege and instead are supposed to be awarded based on an entirely different basis (whether they are or not is a separate discussion).
If you drop the last paragraph of your post, then I totally agree with it. If you want to discuss the dismissal of politically appointed federal employees then change the subject and leave out all of the prior paragraphs, because the two have nothing to do with each other.
And of course, the fact that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Which effectively says that the feds don't have the power to rescind the right to privacy. The states have that power, if the people give it to them.
Besides, only 2.5 of the ten commandments forbid things that are actually illegal to do (#9 is only illegal if under oath or in special cases like fraud), and the right to break the first four are enshrined in the constitution. Posting them in a courthouse is more than a bit ironic.
I might be missing something, but wasn't SCO already slapped for trying to introduce evidence after the discovery process was ended and publically bitchslapped by the judge in the IBM case once for trying something like this? Also, if you are going to depose someone for one case, unless you subpeona them for both cases, you cannot introduce their deposition for one unrelated case into another without a huge old objection being shouted by IBM. An objection the judge likely will sustain, seeing that adding witness testimony to introduce new evidence after discovery is often met with more than a little ire from the bench. Oh well. Who wants to begin the "De-listing of SCOX" pool?
The only person who gets to pick who's allowed to practice journalism in the US is the person involved.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
Sooner, rather than later, the lies will catch up with whoever has been running this criminal campaign, and hopefully certain greedy white american board members will be performing a more useful function as someone's 'bitch' in a federal facility. I hope the prisons are particularly overcrowded and unpleasant in Utah.
Assualt is the threat, battery is the act of hitting. :-)
PJ and Groklaw are small potatoes when it comes to that which has been assaulted by SCO. Our very legal system has been assaulted by SCO and they continue to get away with it. If our legal system worked the way a legal system is supposed to work, SCO would have slapped into oblivion by now just for all the lies they've told to the court. This has got to be one of the sadest and most emotionally painful demonstrations we've ever had to endure.
Heard any good sigs lately?
First they sued the companies their code came from. Then they sued their paying users. Now they're suing those who are discussing their suits. Next they will sue the world. Mwahahahahaha!
It's entirely probable that if (when) SCO loses this, there'll be nothing left but a financial smoking-crater. At this point I'd bet all the office space, furniture and equipment is leased and that, if there's any money left at all, the lawyers will get paid first. Leaving IBM/Novell (and anyone else left standing in the smoke) with whatever the Chapter 11 courts let them have... I'm guessing it'll be comprised mostly of some (useless) IP, along with some old chairs and a filing cabinet from the 80's that someone forgot about in the closet...
Yes, apparently others believe the same
http://umageller.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/8/
1) Sue everyone
2) ???
3) Profit!
The Barbara Streisand BS was due to a California state law (protecting celebrities from paparazzi or whatever). It's irrelevant in New York, Utah, or anywhere else in the world.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
anybody got pix of her? If she's not old or fat or ugly, I'll donate a 3-roper.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Ahhh.....
The death throes of a dying company. I think SCO is at the end of their rope with all of the lawsuits that they are throwing at people. Their case with IBM backfired, horribly, and now the whole company is at risk of going under as a result of trying to pick a (bad) legal fight with IBM. Now, I think SCO realizes that they need money, fast, and so they are left to do the only thing that people who need money but don't have the means to earn it: Sue.
SCO was too greedy in trying to sue IBM, and then realized that they were the one who screwed up but only after it was too late when IBM slapped them senseless with a very strong hefty countersuit.
SCO screwed up. Bad. And now they are trying to keep their company alive by suing anyone wh oso much as gives them a dirty look.
It's too late, SCO. Just throw in the towel. You pinheads messed up, and thanks to your overwhelming greed, your slimy tactics backfired and your company is going under.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
You're trying to use fact-selection and guilt by association and it won't work. True: Ross Mauri, chair of OSDL, is from IBM. Other board members are from (for example) Intel, HP, novell, Fujitsu, and on and on. Most or all of these companies also contribute money to OSDL.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Darl is a Mormon the way Mafiosi are Roman Catholic
"I'm a Laver, not a Phyto[plankton]"
I understand your objection. I hesitated to connect the PJ thing to the US Attorneys issue, but I decided I should because they seem to me to be of a piece, and I think I can justify this.
I base this opinion on a belief I have that while the duty of loyalty to party is important, it is never above duty to country. If you don't agree with this, nothing else I have to say will sound reasonable.
I believe that the US attorneys fulfill that higher duty by placing the integrity of the law above politics. This doesn't mean they can't get involved in political issues, or be sacked for not pursuing administration policy priorities. But while they can be tools of political policy, they cannot allow themselves to be tools of political strategy. They are appointed by the President and "serve at his pleasure", but they don't serve him. They serve us. Their duty to us is higher, and if a President or his administration suborns faithlessness to that duty he has stepped over the line.
I hope every American an agree with me thus far in principle.
Now to the controversy, and relating it to the topic at hand.
To be scrupulously impartial, we don't have any hard evidence that the administration has been politicizing the US attorneys. My first reaction was that Presidents can decide to shake up their administration if they want to. I thought the Democrats were making a mistake by turning this into a political side show. It was something that should be looked into, but not to get too excited over.
I'm not a hasty person. I don't want to see somebody strung up by a lynch mob just because I don't like his politics. But there is no denying the administration has been caught lying about this. That's a very bad sign. They could have said, "we thought it was time for some new blood," and left it at that. Instead, they have been caught fabricating false stories that conflict with a trail of evidence they left behind. Aside from being almost inconceivably politically inept, it leads a reasonably prudent person has to conclude they are hiding something ugly.
Then Mr. Iglesias said that Senator Domenici made phone calls before the November election in which he attempted to obtain information about possible upcoming prosecutions of his political enemies (which if it was true was improper), and which a suspicious person would consider as pressure. Under normal circumstances I'd have written this off as the Senator overzealous committing an impropriety he'd have thought better of in a cooler moment. That may turn out to be the case. But AG Gonzales has got me in a suspicious mood. Then you look at at Carol Lam, and remember that her higest profile success was throwing Duke Cunningham in the slammer (which I hope even Republicans agree was a good thing). The obvious way to connct the dots here paints an ugly, and possibly illegal picture.
What we have so far is a long way from proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but what it looks like is the Administration trying to get prosecutors who will use their considerable powers to hurt their political enemies and help their political friends. If that is what they were doing (which hasn't been proved yet), only the lunatic fringe would believe that was proper. If they were doing this to interfere with investigations of crimes, then I think we should all agree that is not just improper, but a crime.
You will note that I said we should be "concerned" about the circumstances of Iglesias and the other prosecutors. I am keeping an open mind. I didn't claim (I think) more than we have good reason to believe now. I have not convicted the administration in my mind yet, I just want to see a full and detailed investigation.
The reason I think this is a piece with the PJ case is that on the face of the facts we have at hand, it looks like we have people who have a duty to the integrity of the legal system abusing their privileges in order to exercise power which should not be theirs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Note here the term "overriding duty". I read the quote here as saying that the barrister's duty is first to justice, next to their client, and last to themselves.
Implicitly, there are conflicts here. Since a lawyer who ignores his duty to the law does better by his client, it follows that a good lawyer goes right up to the line, but not over. Finding the line between proper and improper is one of the things we pay lawyers to do, which is a much better investment than paying them to argue over the position of the line after the fact.
I don't feel any animosity to lawyers who do specific things which are in a morally gray area. Justice requires lawyers play their role as advocates. The lawyer who defends a client he believes is guilty can still serve the system faithfully, because it doesn't serve justice in the long term if defendants put up weak defenses. Justice is not credible of won on a tilted playing field.
I do feel animosity towards lawyers who tilt the playing field.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In the US, the law is required to allow you to express your personal ideology, up to limits where doing so causes others harm. The Bill of Rights is one part of the law that she really should value as a citizen.
> We'd strip a cop of his badge and send him to jail if he was shaking down shopkeepers.
Would we?
I get the feeling that bad cops get away with all but the most heinous crimes.
The system protects itself.
I'm PJ!
According to PJ's next story, her vacation took place in her bedroom down the hall from the computer she normally uses to write Groklaw.
1 23029796
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070405
In her defense, she makes it clear when something is fact (ie. provides a citation) and when something is her opinion. Furthermore, her opinion seems to come up right 99% of the time, right from the very beginning of Groklaw. Can you point out a single time where she was blatantly wrong about something to do with this case? I can certainly point out hundreds of times SCO's officers and other journalists have been dead wrong or outright lying when discussing this case.
Besides, Groklaw is HER Blog, she can say whatever she wants on it, and you can choose not to read it as well. Most blogs that I know of have someone in charge.
The Judge wouldn't issue a gag order on the whole case. At most, he would issue a gag order on her specific testimony. Furthermore, the Judges are already are quite disgusted with SCO's abuse of others through the media (and have said so on numerous occasions), so I very highly doubt they would actively attempt to shut Groklaw down, when Groklaw actively works to keep SCO inline. Not to say what you suggest is impossible....I just don't see it happening, especially not with Judges Kimball and Wells in charge.
Remember, it was lawyers that fucked up the legal profession, not paralegals.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
She'd avoid Slashdot like the plague due to all the talk of Beowulf clusters... :)
could SCO suggest that they might find complaints against them which would invalidate their ability to remain neutral?
Their they're doing there hair.
One thing to remember is that PJ is a JOURNALIST and has certain legal protections that any deposition would run into. Especially so as they want to depose her on a topic that is the center of her journalistic activities. For those who would claim that her blogging doesn't qualify for the journalist title she also writes articles that are published in various Linux magazines at time and mostly on this topic.
Unfortunately, in the USA, the right of lawyers to help (mostly stupid and greedy) people sue anyone for any reason (and for no small fee) far outweighs any pseudo-right to privacy in the USA. The precedent for boundless legal stupidity had been set long before SCO hit the stage.
Furthermore, anybody can übergoogle with LexisNexis (for a fee) to get the goods on anybody. So file all the slashdot "privacy" comments under "fiction".
+++
...This Google add that appeared right below it;
We sell SCO UnixWare
SysIntegrators sells & supports all SCO & Caldera Operating Systems.
www.sysintegrators.com
SCO is trying that. Y'all might want to knock the fuck of shooting the messenger, by the way.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
.... that, once this case is over, McBride, Gates, Ballmer and the rest of the FUDsters spend 10 years in jail for corruption. I just hope the judges in this case won't just do a "MS-DOJ" and meekly back off. It's time that these people are exposed for who they are.
I met her a couple years ago. There's not enough booze in Ted Kennedy's wet bar to make me tap that ass.