Slashdot Mirror
NY Magistrate: Legal Papers Can Be Served Via Facebook
New submitter Wylde Stile writes with an interesting case that shows just how pervasive social networking connections have become, including in the eyes of the law. A Staten Island, NY family court support magistrate allowed a Noel Biscoch to serve his ex-wife legal papers via Facebook. Biscoch tried to serve his ex-wife Anna Maria Antigua the old-fashioned way — in person and via postal mail — but his ex-wife had moved with no forwarding address. Antigua maintains an active Facebook account, though, and had even liked some photos on the Biscoch's present wife's Facebook page days before the ruling. The magistrate concluded that the ex-wife could be served through Facebook. If this catches on, I bet a lot of people will end up with legally binding notices caught by spam filters or in their Facebook accounts' "Other" folders.
P.S.
Timothy and other Slashdot Editors,
I am afraid that I must post an addendum to my previous call for assistance. The difficulty of the interface appears to be more considerable than I had initially realised.
Unfortunately, the interface does not load all comments on the page. In fact, only one comment is loaded on any given page, and the "load more comments" area / button provided, when pressed, does not in fact load anything. As such I am unable to determine whether my previous comment has been replied to, or indeed whether it has been posted at all. In short I can no longer see or read comments.
In the hope that this message will be seen, I will periodically attempt to post messages of aid in a scattering of stories. Whether these "post in a bottle" will reach you, or float at all, is something I can only hope for at this point.
In the meantime I shall see if the pieces of flat design driftwood can be lash togther into a makeshift civilisation of sorts. However this island appears quite desolate. The floating header follows whereever I go. Perhaps I will try to converse with it.
In any case I remain your hopeful servant,
A poster trapped in Beta
May the Maths Be with you!
slashdot.org/?nobeta=1
Papers are often served via the US Mail. FCC has no jurisdiction. Papers are often served at "last and usual," jargon for the place where the person is believed to have resided most recently. FCC has no jurisdiction over the front door. Contrary to film noir movies, papers are only occasionally served "in hand" where the process server physically hands the documents to the person of interest. Of course, the FCC has no jurisdiction there either.
In short, the FCC has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Source: I am a process server.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Exactly right. In the UK, you only have to prove that you sent an item, for it to count as valid service. There is a specific law, the Interpretation Act 1987, which explains what counts as service and what does not, and on what date the service occurred if sent by post.
More interestingly, is the fact that proof of posting outweighs proof of receipt. A friend of mine had a car insurance policy cancelled by the insurer (insurer's mistake) and the insurer served notice on my friend. This was sent by registered post, but as my friend was away at an international conference, the letter was returned to the sender. On return home, she found a "letter held" notification and contacted the post office who could not advise who the sender was.
A couple of months later, her car was spotted by a police camera with number plate recognition and connection to the insurance database. She was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for driving without a valid insurance policy. The judge sentencing said that no mitigation was possible as a result of not receiving the notice, as the notice had been properly served.
The judge may have said it can be used in this one case, but unless struck down by another court, it sets up a precedent for other judges to do the same.
In the same circumstances. If a person disappears without leaving a forwarding address, but is actively using their facebook account.
You're correct. And the most important part, which everyone seems to be forgetting, is that this was an on-going case -- the woman already had been made a party to it; she knew she was supposed to keep updated contact information with the court clerk. It takes a trivial amount of effort, just a phone call in most jurisdictions, so the courts at that level can allow procedural changes like this when it's clear the party is intentionally or at least willfully failing to notify the clerk. It's not very smart, but some people do it thinking it'll prevent the case from proceeding.