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.'"

3 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. break it down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    >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'.

  2. Re:why would she work for IBM... she works for me by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.
  3. Re:why would she work for IBM... she works for me by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Troll

    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.