Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawyer Who Subpoenaed Blogger Seidel Sanctioned

Posted by timothy on from the nyuck-nyuck-nyuck-schmuck dept.

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."

6 of 35 comments (clear)

  1. Another positive sign for the justice system by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Another positive sign for the justice system by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, that's some tunnel vision. Stories like this happen all the time. You only hear about the ones that make people angry, because what sells news.

      Cynicism is never a substitute for insight.

    2. Re:Another positive sign for the justice system by ScepticOne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the contrary, it's depressingly often an excellent substitute for insight.

  2. Unlikely by Magic5Ball · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Objection! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Your Honor I strongly object to this exhibit."
    "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?
  4. Didn't you visit the links? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.