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'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...
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.
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.
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!
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?
... 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.
1. Are you legally obliged to make it easy for someone to subpoena you? eg. by replying to an email asking for that information.
IANAL (I do have most of a Paralegal degree, sans only Ethics.)
I am not aware of any statute that requires you to actively seek out a subpoena. However, if you do successfully avoid a subpoena, you'll just wind up with a court summons, or a warrant. Generally, if someone's subpoenaing you it's in your best interest to read that subpoena ASAP, get yourself a lawyer, and talk to the judge. Don't avoid judges; they don't like that, and you don't want to be in the court of a judge who has reason to dislike you.
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.
No... they are trying to get the judge to read Groklaw so that they can file for mistrial on the grounds that the judge has been tainted with "biased misinformation" about the case.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
So by SCO's logic, don't IBM and/or Novell have a perfectly good reason to subpoena Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer?
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.
'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.
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.
Certainly you have the domain "owner" that ought to have a legal address somewhere.
Yup.
>Registrant:
>Domains by Proxy, Inc.
>DomainsByProxy.com
>15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
>Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
>United States
So you need to deal with their lawyers first. That assumes that they know. The webmaster and the nameservers are in the Netherlands. But (if you do find him) I'm sure he'll be impressed by a subpoena from Utah.
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.
Small correction: PJ is not a Mormon (unless she's met with some missionaries and gotten baptized in the past 3 years). When she was supposedly "outed" (I don't recall her ever confirming any of O'Gara's claims), it was claimed that she is a Jehovah's Witness.
Many of the other people involved in the case (including Judge Kimball, Darl McBride, Brent Hatch, and so forth) are Mormons, but most Mormons (including me) who know about the case are quite frankly embarrassed by Darl's behavior. It certainly isn't in keeping with the teachings of the LDS Church.
Just junk food for thought...
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.