Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

Blogger Successfully Quashes Subpoena 172

Posted by kdawson
from the oh-and-here's-your-head dept.
Ares writes "In a follow-up to Blogger Subpoenaed for Criticizing Trial Lawyers, Katherine Seidel's blog indicates that not only has she successfully quashed her subpoena, but the lawyer issuing said subpoena is now under orders to appear and explain why the courts shouldn't sanction him for it. This should be interesting, because in addition to Ms. Seidel's subpoena in New Hampshire, the lawyer issued a similar subpoena to a doctor and a Harvard professor under similar circumstances."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blogger Successfully Quashes Subpoena

Comments Filter:
  • by Ossifer (703813) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @04:54PM (#23163576)
    Good to hear she can return to addressing more important things in life... like autism...
    • by The Ancients (626689) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @04:57PM (#23163606) Homepage

      Good to hear she can return to addressing more important things in life... like autism...

      Are you saying lawyers aren't important?

      Way to get sued!

      • by wtansill (576643) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:36PM (#23164062)

        Are you saying lawyers aren't important? Way to get sued!
        Why certainly they are are important! I can't imagine what else I'd feed my pet alligators if the supply of lawyers ran out!
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by The Ancients (626689)

          Are you saying lawyers aren't important? Way to get sued!
          Why certainly they are are important! I can't imagine what else I'd feed my pet alligators if the supply of lawyers ran out!
          RIAA/MPAA staff?
        • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:52PM (#23164258) Homepage Journal

          Why certainly they are are important! I can't imagine what else I'd feed my pet alligators if the supply of lawyers ran out!

          I'm calling PETA and the *SPCA on you! If you hate your 'gators so much, why not just put them to sleep instead of torturing them?

          • Gators won't eat lawyers, because it gives them a bellyache and also professional courtesy like sharks have for lawyers to not attack or eat them.
        • by JohnnyGTO (102952)
          If it was only so easy...
        • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @06:58PM (#23165068) Homepage Journal

          I can't imagine what else I'd feed my pet alligators if the supply of lawyers ran out!
          I hope you never get arrested for a crime you didn't commit or your kid isn't poisoned by some product made by a careless corporation.

          I hope you never get prosecuted or sued by the RIAA because your neighbor's son hacked your wireless router and used it to play with torrentz.

          I hope your civil rights are never violated or that you never need the protection of bankruptcy court.

          I hope you never have a problem with your income taxes, or a dispute with your business partner or get rear-ended by a drunk driver.

          I hope you never have to set up a trust fund to care for a relative who is too ill to care for herself or have a dispute with your bank or have your identity stolen.

          I hope you never get married unwisely and have to divorce from a spouse who wants to hurt you as much as possible.

          I hope you never get overlooked for promotion because you are too old, or too black or too female.

          It can be argued that lawyers do as much to protect our freedoms as the men and women in our military. Maybe more.

          People who think our lives and our country would be better without lawyers are as stupid as stupid gets.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by compro01 (777531)
            yes, good lawyers are very useful people to have (good accountants also fall in the undervalued category), but there are way too many bad (where bad="complete lack of ethics") ones around, hence the big-brushing of the profession.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by drsmithy (35869)

              yes, good lawyers are very useful people to have (good accountants also fall in the undervalued category), but there are way too many bad (where bad="complete lack of ethics") ones around, hence the big-brushing of the profession.

              As a nitpick, the problem with "bad lawyers" is usually their morals, not their ethics.

              Indeed, such people (along with, say, the average large corporation's upper management) are usually an excellent example for demonstrating the difference between "ethical" and "moral".

            • by reddburn (1109121)
              An attorney is bound to represent his client to the best of his ability. The problem might be all the assholes with enough money to hire lawyers, no?
            • Of course, it isn't the lawyer's morals and ethics who are circumspect....it is that lawyer's clients.

              The lawyer isn't the person suing the drug company...the person with the dispute is the one who is suing.

              The lack of ethics and morality stands squarely on the shoulders of the person who is the client; the lawyer must always act within the bounds of the law and represent the client zealously, since that is his duty.

              An ordinary foot soldier is not to blame for an immoral war, so long as his individual actio
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Curunir_wolf (588405)
            Thank you for standing up for all the good lawyers in this country. It really troubles me that the bad ones give the other 2% a bad name.

            I can't imagine what else I'd feed my pet alligators if the supply of lawyers ran out!

            I hope you never get arrested for a crime you didn't commit or your kid isn't poisoned by some product made by a careless corporation.

            Corporations are careless because their lawyers make them so expensive to sue, and ensure that the corporate officers are never held personally liable for unconscionable acts.

            I hope you never get prosecuted or sued by the RIAA because your neighbor's son hacked your wireless router and used it to play with torrentz.

            The RIAA is pretty much just a bunch of lawyers (oh - and lobbyists). Oops - most lobbyists *are* lawyers.

            I hope your civil rights are never violated or that you never need the protection of bankruptcy court.

            Why would I need protection of a bankruptcy court? Oh, yea, because there is someon

            • You actually think we'd be better off without lawyers? If we don't have lawyers, then we have people acting like lawyers who do a worse job. You think our legal system is fucked? Wait until the laws is argued by incompetents. Corporations lose their legal power, but so does everyone. Eventually it'll be the people who have the best rhetorical skills who get justice, or at least something resembling it. Everyone else would have to eat shit.
          • There really ought to be a 'didn't get the joke' mod.
            • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

              There really ought to be a 'didn't get the joke' mod.
              See, I don't find jokes where a particular group or class or race or gender is "fed to alligators" particularly funny.

              And the old, old joke about lawyers is wrong-headed enough that I thought I ought to respond.

              Remember, Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. It's mainly lawyers who are preventing high-school biology classes across the US South from being replaced with Religion classes.
              • ...and it's the Thomas Moore Law Center, the self-described sword and shield of Christianity in the US, that's working so hard to force creationism--I mean, intelligent design--down the throats of of those high school kids. In fact, you'll note that the ID movement as a whole probably has more lawyers on its payroll than actual biologists.

                Which of course doesn't make lawyers in general evil, but maintain some perspective.
              • by Lijemo (740145)

                I was trying to figure out why laywers get a bad rap when clearly there are good apples and bad in every profession.

                I think that it's because in other professions, the bad apples have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, either by trumpeting their own lack of ethics or by making their profession as a whole look unethical. (Sure, there are always a few cases of someone in a position of power getting a personal buzz out of flaunting what they can get away with, but they don't gain anything professionall

          • ...and how many of those problems would be smaller if it were not for the lawyers for the opposite side? How many can afford the lawyers for the rest? We have national health services (outside the US) - if lawyers are so important how come there is no national legal service?

            Shouldn't courts be more interested in finding out the truth of what happened and not who can hire the best story teller? This is what I think is completely missing from the English-based legal system.
            • by jedidiah (1196)
              > How many can afford the lawyers for the rest?

              This is where "ambulance chasing comes in". All of that bottom feeding that you
              people like to moan about so much is where representation from the poor comes
              from. You would rather just like to regurgitate corporate rhetoric about how
              bad lawyers are.

              Do a little digging into who spearheads tort reform.

              It's usually some rich wanker that doesn't want to be held responsible
              for his absurd levels of penny pinching.

              As far as "national health care goes"...

              There are pe
              • run to the 'States where they can shirk their duties and responsibilities as human beings.

                Try being a citizen who is uninsured or underinsured or who works for some company like Wall*Mart which sues the people who get some compensation from a health related settlement.

                One in eight people is disabled to some extent or other (15% according to the WHO) but we have 50+ million "working poor" people in this country who are in the same position that they were in before "Tricky Dick" dodged the bullet of people dy
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Spykk (823586)

            I hope you never get arrested for a crime you didn't commit or your kid isn't poisoned by some product made by a careless corporation.

            Yeah, because your appointed lawyer is sure to beat said careless corporation's lawyer.

            I hope you never get prosecuted or sued by the RIAA because your neighbor's son hacked your wireless router and used it to play with torrentz.

            You may not be aware of this, but the RIAA has been using its highly paid lawyers to win the majority of those laughable cases.

            It can be argued that lawyers do as much to protect our freedoms as the men and women in our military. Maybe more.

            For every lawyer who defended someone's rights, there was another lawyer trying to usurp them for profit. Sadly, the amount of money you spend on your lawyer can be a much larger factor in the outcome of your case than being in the right is.

            • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

              For every lawyer who defended someone's rights, there was another lawyer trying to usurp them for profit.
              I call bullshit.

              Give up some references or go home.
          • by wtansill (576643)
            Next time I'll be sure to tag my submissions so that they will be recognized as tongue-in-cheek. I surely don't wish to see the humor-impaired strain their necks as the jokes whiz by overhead. I could be sued for that!
          • by WK2 (1072560)
            I hope that stuff never happens too. I mean, I don't know the guy, but that stuff is terrible. Why would anyone, except maybe en enemy, want any of that stuff to happen to poor wtansill?
        • You could try politicians & lobbyists, but I think the BS content is probably too high for a healthy diet.
  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary @ y a hoo.com> on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @04:58PM (#23163626) Journal
    I'm just wondering why, genetically speaking, it should feel so good to hear about justice being served? Justice, fairness, reciprocity, selflessness: these things naturally feel good to most people, while their opposites usually feel bad, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with us.

    If we were truly selfish creatures, wouldn't the opposite be true? We would have evidence that we could get away with our selfishness, and that would feel good. It seems our genetics code for cooperative behaviors over selfish ones. Is this simply the selfish best choice for individuals, to cooperate with each other, or can genes code for behaviors that are detrimental to the individual but good for the gene pool overall?
    • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:11PM (#23163750) Journal
      Injustices benefit a few, justice benefits us all. By the numbers, you're more likely to benefit from justice than injustice.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bill_kress (99356)
        Yes, but your benefit from injustice is likely to be much greater.

        A company distributing a significant amount of its profits to all its employees might double all their salaries and be fair, but the top few management people could no longer draw $10m salaries for screwing the company up....
        • by evanbd (210358)
          Generally such concentrations have a negative impact on the total amount of wealth created in the transaction. Look at the economics of monopolies for a good example -- they move some of the economic surplus from consumer surplus to producer surplus, but there is less total. Combine that with sublinear value of wealth (the first $1000 is worth more to me than the next $1000), and you find that injustice to concentrate wealth is not only most likely to hurt any one individual, but will do so on average as
          • by bill_kress (99356)
            Absolutely, but tell that to the guy who can either make an extra $5m by doing something questionable, or try to be fair...

            I've found very few people that wouldn't make the choice to screw over others in my life, and those aren't the kind that would end up in the position to make such decisions.

        • by Eivind (15695)
          Actually, no.

          Crime is not generally a zero-sum game, it's a -negative- sum game.

          A thief stealing your $1000 LCD-TV and selling it to finance his drug-consumption is likely to get a few hundred for it, tops, whereas you are out the full $1000.

          Which is why crime doesn't just -redistribute- wealth, it -destroys- wealth.
          • by ultranova (717540)

            Crime is not generally a zero-sum game, it's a -negative- sum game.

            A thief stealing your $1000 LCD-TV and selling it to finance his drug-consumption is likely to get a few hundred for it, tops, whereas you are out the full $1000.

            Which is why crime doesn't just -redistribute- wealth, it -destroys- wealth.

            At which point here did the TV get destroyed ? Because surely whoever bougth it is either going to use it himself, or sell it forward for more money.

            Thievery doesn't destroy wealth, as long as whatev

            • by Eivind (15695)
              First, frequently thievery -does- physically destroy stuff, like locks or windows.

              Second, thievery forces society to spend resources nonproductively. A burglar-alarm for example costs resources to make.

              Third, even though the physical TV may be the same, the *value* is not. Try selling a TV you bougth yesterday in the shop, you won't get back even -close- to the entire price, not even -with- a receipt and the original packaging.

              That is because people put a value on convenience (large selection in store versu
              • by ultranova (717540)

                Third, even though the physical TV may be the same, the *value* is not. Try selling a TV you bougth yesterday in the shop, you won't get back even -close- to the entire price, not even -with- a receipt and the original packaging.

                Which sucks for you but is good for whoever buys from you. To use an extreme example, if you spent $1000 on the TV and someone purchases it from you for $100, you've down $900 but that other guy has just saved $900 dollars. In other words, zero-sum. The amount of goods and the a

            • by bill_kress (99356)
              Actually the whole idea of "Wealth" kinda hurts my mind.

              The thief breaks a window, steps on a couch, drags mud all over the carpet, wrecks an end-table and steals a TV that cost the owner $500 and sells it for $35.

              The homeowner buys a new window for $250 and has the carpets and apolstery cleaned for $100.

              The window shop hires a new employee because of all the robberies in the area, the guy from the carpet cleaning company goes out and buys a round of beer for the guys because of the extra $ he's made this w
      • Is that a definition of justice or the consequences it? If it's merely the consequences of justice, then what's a definition for justice, especially outside of a litigious -type scope (i.e. there's more to justice than some guy getting prosecuted), and -- perhaps most importantly -- who gets to decide what's just and unjust? These are the types of questions that make me just want to stick to the lawyer jokes. Much easier.
    • The reason: Life isn't fair. When the square peg fits the round hole, we like the change.

      A similar phenomenon (yet the opposite direction) is us always hoping that Skeletor will kick He-man's ass if JUST ONCE
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spun (1352)
        Hehe, that is SO true. Who DIDN'T root for the coyote to catch the roadrunner? Life isn't fair, yet most of us are born with an innate desire for it to be so. This desire for fairness has been shown to be more powerful than the profit motive. Yet our economic system is based on the premise that individual profit is most rewarding to individuals. It is set up to reward selfishness, and in essence makes life less fair. When it seems there is no possibility that life can be fair, most people resort to selfish
    • by tgibbs (83782)

      . Is this simply the selfish best choice for individuals, to cooperate with each other, or can genes code for behaviors that are detrimental to the individual but good for the gene pool overall?

      They can, but it's hard to make it work. Basically, a mechanism is required such that the benefits of the behavior accrue more to those who have the gene than to those who don't. So if it is detrimental to you, but beneficial to a other of people who are more likely than the average person to share that gene, then it can be favored by natural selection. So one tends to look for direct benefits before looking for indirect ones

      Reciprocal altruism is one example--for example, if altruists are more likely to c

    • by PitaBred (632671)
      Look at chimpanzees vs. humans to see what the difference between naturally selfish and naturally sharing behavior is.

      Chimps will take whatever they think they can get away with, and never actively teach and often try to hide things from each other. Humans may have a lot of the same tendencies, but not nearly to the same degree.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by spun (1352)
        Chimps do teach each other things, and will not generally steal from friends. Younger males will often cooperate to distract a dominant male while a few slip in for a little hanky panky with his harem. They are quite secretive, though.

        But pygmy chimps (also known as bonobos) are very, very different animals behaviorally. Researchers speculate that the abundance of resources in the South American habitat of the bonobos, as compared to the African chimps, leads to more cooperative behavior. Bonobos are highly
        • by RobBebop (947356)

          If sex was used to diffuse social tension, I think you'd see people start arguments over nothing just to end up in bed after their night at the bar.

          Man: Hey lady! You are sitting in my seat!
          Woman: But I've been here all night.
          Man: Doesn't matter. That seat is my territory and you'd better move or I will get real angry.
          Woman: You know what? Fuck you, too. And you can can have your stupid chair because their is too much tension here.
          Man: By any chance, could I help you relieve your tension?
          Woman: I don't

          • by spun (1352)
            You mean this isn't how it's done now? Dammit, no wonder I never get any play...
          • by ultranova (717540)

            If sex was used to diffuse social tension, I think you'd see people start arguments over nothing just to end up in bed after their night at the bar.

            Isn't this almost a stereotype in many forms of fiction ? Two people meet, can't stand each other, but eventually end up becoming a couple. Belgarion & C'Nedra, Han & Leia, almost all anime that has couples period... Sure, these aren't real-world examples, but since this stereotype is so wide-spread and apparently cross-cultural, I can't help but thi

        • by PitaBred (632671)
          No, they don't teach each other things. Wild chimps only learn by watching other chimps... there is no active teaching going on, no slowing down of actions or "explaining" of steps to things. And yes, they do co-operate, but they are never altruistic through choice. If they get screwed out of a meal by a dominant chimp when cooperating, they'd rather just let the food go than cooperate to get it. Watch the National Geographic channel sometime ;)
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by argent (18001)
        Chimps will take whatever they think they can get away with, and never actively teach and often try to hide things from each other.

        Like the RIAA, you mean?
    • Who says it has genetic roots? I always just figured it was a learned behavior after being screwed more times than we care to remember.

      The reason I like to see these bastards get nailed to the wall is that they're usually attacking people who were minding their own damn business and not looking for a fight to begin with. The victim usually is completely unprepared for the fight and has significantly fewer resources than the attacker.

      If there's such a thing as a cooperative gene, then I'd say that it feels g
    • by perlchild (582235)
      We are built to be selfish, as long as it benefits the group. Natural selection decides what you express in the group, so you can't be un-groupishly selfish. You can't be ungroupishly selfless either.

      But what you do, if it doesn't benefit the group, isn't likely to outlast you, unless you become immortal, somehow. Selfish or selfless... are abstract, survival is very concrete. The genes don't code one behaviour over the other, it's just "not too much of an asshole" are less likely to be selected against
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dubl-u (51156) *

      can genes code for behaviors that are detrimental to the individual but good for the gene pool overall?

      Genes generally code for behavior that is good for genes. A gene for you to treat family well doesn't give a shit about you personally; your family members are likely to have the same gene, so it's just being good to other copies of itself.

      Those seriously wondering about this topic should read The Selfish Gene [amazon.com] (Richard Dawkins's first book, wherein he coined the term "meme"). Then follow that up with Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals [amazon.com]. They're two very readable books

    • by PRMan (959735)

      Be careful, you might end up proving the existence of God...

    • by Toonol (1057698)
      I'm just wondering why, genetically speaking, it should feel so good to hear about justice being served? Justice, fairness, reciprocity, selflessness: these things naturally feel good to most people, while their opposites usually feel bad, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with us.

      I think you have to go to another level of abstraction. Humans need a rational universe, or else we have no control. We've evolved to believe in cause and effect, and many universal laws of physics are practically
    • Justice, fairness, reciprocity, selflessness: these things naturally feel good to most people, while their opposites usually feel bad, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with us.

      Honestly, it is hard to say how much of that is heritable, and how much is learned, cultural in nature (this particular argument goes back centuries.) Look at much of the Oriental world, for instance. Doing what Westerners would call "bad" things is tolerated, so long as one is not caught. Only at that point is it consi
    • Ah, excellent question. One of the things Richard Dawkins has been living down for years is his popularization of the term 'selfish gene,' precisely because so many people misunderstand it to mean 'genes promoting selfishness.' The reality is more subtle: genes promoting organism-level behavior which produces more copies of the gene will tend (all else being equal) increase in frequency within a population.

      For social creatures, things like fairness and reciprocity are beneficial, because they encourage peop
  • Aaahh the sweet smell of justice done!
    Can't wait for sanctions against this scumbag. Hopefully other overzealus lawyers will take notice too.
    • Re:Sweet justice (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bobby Mahoney (1005759) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @07:16PM (#23165296)
      Scumbag doesn't begin to classify this guy: He's made a career out of extorting the VICP (Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund), which allows one to file a claim for vaccine injury, with no out of pocket legal expenses, because the court pays attorneys fees, regardless of the merit of the case.

      Paraphrased from Kathy's extremely... "in-depth" blog http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/149 [neurodiversity.com]:

      Since June of 2006, Mr. Shoemaker (scumbag) has been paid fees in 22 VICP cases, 15 of which were dismissed.

      Total fees paid to this DB for the DISMISSED CASES are up to $254,291.25.

      Total fees paid for cases which resulted in awards were $330.158.04.

      Oh, and it was 4 hours after this info was published on Kathy's Blog that she was served with the Subpoena.

  • by McDutchie (151611) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:00PM (#23163646) Homepage
    The blogger's name is Kathleen Seidel, not Katherine. The previous Slashdot story got this wrong as well.
  • by Dutch Gun (899105) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:07PM (#23163704)
    Well, how about that... If only this sort of story were not the exception rather than the rule.

    I have a friend who recently started a small business (he makes board games). On release of his first game, he was immediately sent a letter from a competitor's lawyer demanding either cease-and-desist, or a licensing agreement for the use of the term "Superheroes*". Are you kidding me?! My understanding is that this company routinely threatens any small business (they're fairly small too) that creates a game with "Superheroes" in the name, and threatens legal action or a licensing payment.

    Most of these companies run on a shoestring budget and caved, but my friend hired a lawyer to write an aggressive response, threatening countersuits, etc. My understanding is that he never heard from them again. In an ideal world, this sort of through-the-legal-system extortion and bullying would be severely reprimanded, but in the real world, a small business is generally considered lucky if they only have to shell out a few hundred (or thousand) in lawyer fees.

    * It wasn't really that, but a similarly generic term. I don't want to stir anything up for my friend. Lawyers may be listening!
    • I also had a nice 'cease and desist' letter sent to me. Other than trying to suggest that I would be brought up on unspecified criminal charges(yes, criminal), the letter also mentioned copyright and trademark violations that I was being accused of violating. Actually, in one sentence of the letter it accused me of making possibly libelous statements, and in almost the very next sentence, it accused me of knowingly making libelous statements. Granted, by this point I already knew the letter was just thrown

    • by 2short (466733)
      <quote>* It wasn't really that, but a similarly generic term. I don't want to stir anything up for my friend. Lawyers may be listening!</quote>

      Was it by any chance a generic term starting with Z refering to a type of undead creature? I have a friend who had a sufficiently negative experience of the sort you relate that I'm shy of making the word show up on a search engine. Well, that and it's fun to be paranoid.

      Note that I've no idea who your friend is, and the other facts presented don't m
  • the lawyer issued a similar subpoena to a doctor and a Harvard professor under similar circumstances.

    I thought everybody knew you don't mess with Harvard when it comes to legal matters. Even the RIAA has stayed far clear of Harvard Square with their John Doe suits and subpoenas for student information.

  • by fm6 (162816) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:13PM (#23163766) Homepage Journal
    ...is how much in the way of legal bills did Seidel run up getting the supoena quashed. If it was a lot, we should be outraged. And if we're outraged, we should express our outrage in a constructive manner: go to her web site, click on "donate" and drop a few bucks in her kitty.

    And don't say "She can get damages from that shyster for his misuse of the legal system". That's a lot harder to do than people seem to realize.
    • pro bono? (Score:5, Informative)

      by l2718 (514756) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:53PM (#23164270)
      I am not sure that there were any legal fees. According to her blog post [neurodiversity.com], Ms. Seidel was represented by the First Amendment team [citizen.org] at Public Citizen [citizen.org]. Perhaps Public Citizen should be the ones recovering some of the expenses? In any case they should be congratulated for the win!
      • by fm6 (162816)
        OK then, express your outrage with a donation to PC.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by joseph449008 (1121209)
        Public Citizen offered to help, but AFAIK, they didn't have to do anything. Her pro se motion to quash was top-notch. That said, Public Citizen could presumably take this further if Kathleen and they think it's warranted.
    • by bleckywelcky (518520) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @05:58PM (#23164346)
      I'll drop a few bucks in her kitty, if ya know what I mean. ;) meow.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by joseph449008 (1121209)
      She filed pro se. I understand Kathleen got some help from knowledgeable friends, but that's about it. The online free speech project at Public Citizen had offered to provide their legal help, but it would seem that Kathleen did such an excellent job with her pro se filing that Public Citizen didn't have to file anything.
      • by fm6 (162816)
        Well, I assume PC at least taught her how to use this quaint legal language:

        COMES NOW Kathleen Seidel and moves this court, pursuant to Rule 45(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to quash the subpoena issued by Clifford Shoemaker, Esq., on behalf of plaintiffs in the above-captioned case...
  • Eliot Spitzer was just the beginning. With all the massive economic damage lawyers have caused businesses and consumers, it will be interesting to see if similar numbers of lawyers can start receiving similar levels of fines and sentences, not to mention regulatory legislation. As it is, perhaps more lawyers graduate these days than MBAs, engineers, and MDs, and the amount of wealth being parasitically siphoned from productive society is approaching Roman Civilization Bureaucratic Collapse proportions.

    I don
    • Ah, so you'll be calling the shots, and the rest of us will be out there actually, you know, doing it. Doesn't sound like a good division of labor.
    • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @07:40PM (#23165554)
      I don't think there has ever been such an arrogant caste profession since the days of the Egyptian priesthood.

      Sure we have. They're called "doctors", "politicians" and "Chief Executive Officers", respectively. Granted, many politicians are also lawyers, so there's some crossover but they all they tend to think just as highly of themselves. I will agree that, unlike the other three groups, doctors do provide useful if overpriced services. If all physicians suddenly disappeared tomorrow many of us would be in trouble, but if attorneys, politicians and "Chief Executive Officers" vanished from the face of the Earth most of us wouldn't even notice.

      For sure there'd be a lot of nice homes and used luxury cars on the market.
  • Bravo (Score:2, Informative)

    by MarkvW (1037596)
    From looking at what looks like the email notice of order, it appears that the blogger may have represented herself. That is simply great. Reference to the order also implies that the lawyer seriously overstepped the rules by issuing a subpoena to a nonparty without court approval. I would expect sanctions in such a context. If the blogger gets serious, she can maximize sanctions if she can demonstrate a pattern or practice of similar such abuse. I wish her good luck.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jjohnson (62583)
      The first link includes her response to the subpoena that was so effective. It's a good read.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...