Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Who Subpoenaed Blogger Seidel Sanctioned
Zathras26 writes "Slashdot has previously reported on a lawyer subpoenaing Kathleen Seidel for blogging about him in an unflattering light. Seidel successfully moved to quash the subpoena. In granting the motion to quash, the judge ordered the lawyer, Clifford Shoemaker, to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for his behavior. Whatever his response was, if any, it apparently wasn't good enough, because Shoemaker has been formally sanctioned for his actions."
It's nice to see a judge with a spine. I love reading stories about lawyers getting called out when they step over the line.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
HA HA
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
Is it me or are judges starting to "fight back" a bit? IANAL but I thought sactions were relatively rare and I've hear them used as threats or even imposed quite a bit as of late. Perhaps instead certain attorneys are getting more ballsy as they see their RIAA friends getting away with quite a bit?
In any event, it's a step in the right direction and pleased to read about it.
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
....a slap for this. I've got friends who have aspergers (one of them a really talented and succuesful IT professional), and a cousin with autism. Its a really hard thing to deal with for families and all concerned, he's "lucky" because he's got it light. To raise a child with autism takes guts and commitment, I take my hat off to her. Furthermore, to take a stand against crackpots while juggling your own domestic issues is admirable, and certainly doesn't deserve a legal slap in the face for trying to a) educate people through her blog and b)debunk crackpot theories that only seek to gain monetary gain through litigation and not practical solutions. I think this lawyer has watched to many movies and wants to get a sex change. Its a shame this woman had to go through this kind of shit in the first place. Makes me glad that frivolous litigation has reached such absurd levels in Australia yet.
War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.- Shelley
One law for them. Another for the rest of us. Don't forget it.
May the Maths Be with you!
There are enough filters between trials and news consumers that it's unlikely you're experiencing a representative sample of any legal system. Of all the cases adjudicated, only a very small portion involve circumstances or individuals warranting media attention. Of all those, a fraction deserve more than local interest. Of those, news outlets and packagers pick up yet a smaller fraction.
It may be that cases involving judges who also sanction lawyers are simply more exciting for some reason, and are therefore their proportion of visible stories is increasing, but that says more about the news media than it does about the judicial system.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
I didn't know Jack Thompson could transfer his soul into other bodies. Yikes!
. . . will just use it as an opportunity to learn new unethical tricks. I'm sure he'll be fastidiously taking notes, not doodling.
This lawyer's actions are deserving of sanctions. Ms. Seidel's motion to quash was extremely well written and I am very happy that a judge was able to see through this BS.
So, the court upholds the constitutional guarantee of free speech. But... only if the speech is against people.
This is not a joke: In 13 states, you do not have the right of free speech if you talk about food.
Read about food libel laws. Say anything you like about people, but don't libel food!
Don't read this, if you live in these states: Citizens of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, you may not read the next paragraph:
Large amounts of caffeine have an effect on the human central nervous system that many people consider to be unhealthy. In my opinion, it is better to avoid caffeine. That means avoiding soft drinks with caffeine, and avoiding coffee unless it is de-caffeinated.
Citizens of those states, resume reading. If you care for yourself, you will care for your government. Read the many, many books about government corruption in the United States. Take some action against abusiveness.
More stories about your loss of the right to free speech:
Talk Show Host Gets First Taste of Food Disparagement Laws
Food disparagement laws: A threat to us all.
Food Fights
Food Fight - food disparagement laws fought by Center for Science in the Public Interest's FoodSpeak Coalition project
"On what grounds, counselor?"
"It really hurts our case."
Good for the Judge. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you automatically have a remedy.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
More than a few people were wondering how those sleazy lawyers can get away with stuff like this. This is how.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Weird - Seems pretty silly to me, even a little disturbing.
But to be accurate, I followed the first link and read 4 of the 13 laws listed there. In each case, it was necessary for the statement made to be *FALSE* to trigger the law, so these are indeed actually "Food Libel" laws.
Bit of an over-reaction to Oprah, I think.
Anonymous Cowards get no respect.
It is remarkable to me how easily people accept abuse.
Wow! You missed the point. If arbitrary and unconstitutional laws can be made to benefit private interests, we could soon see the U.S. government invading another country so that oil and weapons investors can drive up the price of oil and make more money. Oh, wait... That's already happened.
Oprah paid more than 1 million dollars to defend herself from a court case that accused her of making false statements. I happened to have recorded that show, and I watched it, and I certainly didn't see anything false. Sure, Oprah "won" the case, but it cost more than $1,000,000.
See the link I provided, which partly says this:
Oprah and the Cannibal Cows
Just what did Oprah Winfrey and the Humane Society's Howard Lyman say about beef? Here's a portion of the April 16, 1996, show that landed them in a Texas court.
Oprah Winfrey: You said this disease could make AIDS look like the common cold?
Howard Lyman: Absolutely.
Winfrey: That's an extreme statement, you know.
Absolutely. And what we're looking at right now is we're following exactly the same path that they followed in England: 10 years of dealing with it as public relations rather than doing something substantial about it. One hundred thousand cows per year in the United States are fine at night, dead in the morning. The majority of those cows are rounded up, ground up, fed back to other cows. If only one of them has mad cow disease, [it] has the potential to infect thousands. Remember-today, the United States-14 per cent of all cows by volume are ground up, turned into feed, and fed back to other animals.
Winfrey: But cows are herbivores; they shouldn't be eating other cows.
That's exactly right. And what we should be doing is exactly what nature says: we should have them eating grass, not other cows. We've not only turned them into carnivores, we've turned them into cannibals.
Winfrey: Now see? Wait a minute. Let me just ask you this right now, Howard. How do you know for sure that the cows are ground up and fed back to the other cows?
Lyman: Oh, I've seen it. These are USDA statistics. They're not something that we're making up.
Winfrey: Now doesn't that concern you all a little bit right here, hearing that?
audience: Yeah!
Winfrey: It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger! I'm stopped!
audience: Yeah!
As a Texan I thought I'd actually read the law rather than take your word for it's interpretation
"(a) A person is liable as provided by Subsection (b) if:
(1) the person disseminates in any manner information relating to a perishable food product to the public;
(2) the person knows the information is false; and
(3) the information states or implies that the perishable food product is not safe for consumption by the public."
Note that all 3 must be true for you to be liable.
Note #2
I'd kindly appreciate it if you quit fear mongering.
As happened to Oprah Winfrey, at a cost to her of more than a million dollars, someone can be sued who did not say anything false.
The laws are apparently intended to strike fear into the hearts of those who talk about food. They have been VERY effective at doing that, at a time when so much of the nation's food supply is driven by profit rather than safety and health.
The intent is to take away free speech, in one particular area, apparently, and the laws do that.
If part of the right to freedom of speech can be taken away in one area, then it can all be taken away, with no public discussion. Those who want corruption have all the power, apparently.
Quote from the first link in the parent comment: As Bederman explains, in contrast to traditional libel law, the food disparagement laws "shift the burden of proof to the defendant. They allow speakers to be held liable even when they were just wrong."
Oops, the quote should have been:
As Bederman explains, in contrast to traditional libel law, the food disparagement laws "shift the burden of proof to the defendant. They allow speakers to be held liable even when they were just wrong. That's in contrast to the First Amendment..."
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.