Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Social Networks The Internet The Courts

In Court? Be Careful What You Post On Facebook 147

Posted by timothy
from the post-only-pics-of-your-favorite-caskets dept.
mbone writes "Going to court? Seeking damages for injuries? Be careful what you post on Facebook (and, presumably, elsewhere). In the first case of its kind (analyzed in the Courtroom Strategy blog), a Suffolk County, NY Judge allowed a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit to obtain access to the Facebook profile of the plaintiff suing them, saying 'Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.' You have been warned. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I would expect this to become common." Readers might be reminded of the Canadian case reported last year of a woman whose cheerful Facebook pictures led an insurance company to yank coverage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Court? Be Careful What You Post On Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • by sakura the mc (795726) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @09:22AM (#33696568)

    then stop posting shit on the internet.

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @09:59AM (#33696746) Journal
      But Facebook has all sorts of privacy controls so that only my friends can see stuff!
      • Trouble is, Facebook doesn't have much (apart from a dodgy honour system) in the way of identification of individuals. I have often wondered (hypothetically) how things would pan out if I were a defendant in court where evidence from Facebook posts were presented against me.

        I do not have a Facebook account, and for a variety of reasons never will, but I often wonder how I would convince a court of that, given that I can find half a dozen individuals there who share the same name as myself.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I'd imagine it'd be up to the plaintiff to prove to a reasonable extent that the posts are yours - perhaps including a subpoena or two sent to facebook, and forensic analysis of the computers you use.

          Facebook really should close allow an option for people to validate themselves. Right now there's a kind of crude web of trust model, but this doesn't really work unless the people inviting you are already connected and known to people you already know and trust. I think some other companies have validated iden

        • I would imagine it is pretty easy to positively identify the facebook photos that you posted of yourself having a blast doing the things you claim you cannot do.

          They are not looking for posts that say "Omg I am suing the insurance company for moneyz!" but rather photos that dispute your story (like a "disabled" worker spending their workmans comp frolicking in the waves on the beach).

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Yeah, that kind of reminds me of that thing Midge on that 70s show said. This is one of those obvious moments like when she said "Bob! If you tell them, they’ll know!".
  • bullshit (Score:4, Funny)

    by moxley (895517) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @09:25AM (#33696586)

    Of course he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Unless the person was on his friend's list and permitted to see particular posts, the ONLY thing the court should be able to see are things that are viewable by everyone - everything else is SPECIFICALLY set up to be private by way of the passwords and permissions system inherent in having a Facebook account.

    • I was thinking the same thing. If the page is completely public and viewable by anyone then that's one thing. But if it's not, and material is restricted then there most certainly is an expectation of privacy.
      • Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cynyr (703126) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @10:01AM (#33696764)

        If i ask the court to look as i feel the plaintiff feels contrary to the suit IRL. So I ask the court to look on facebook to see if he/she has been posting contrary to their position on court. The court looks at my reasons for wanting that information, and in this case decided to let me "discover" what is there. Seems fine to me. Don't be claiming you are injured in court and then brag that you are sueing some guy in court over your paper cut on FB.

    • Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2010 @09:39AM (#33696642)

      This is a personal injury case. The plaintiff has put their health at issue. By going to the courthouse and claiming that your health was injured you've put your health at issue and the opposing side is given more power to find out about your health.

      These slashdot stories about the screwed up law are often the real bullshit here. If we had a story about someone on facebook sending messages suggesting that she wasn't really injured, and then the court didn't allow that evidence into a personal injury hearing, then you'd all be screaming about how stupid the court is.

      • by arivanov (12034)

        I do not think the defendant should have been allowed this for completely different reasons.

        By refusing to pay they are essentially implying that the claimant has committed insurance fraud and filed a fraudulent claim. That is a felony in nearly any jurisdiction. So they should put their money where their mouth is on this one and sue her accordingly or at least countersue her immediately after she filed a lawsuit.

        Then they can subpoena access to her facebook account and a whole lot of other stuff. That is t

    • Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by boxwood (1742976) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @09:44AM (#33696674)

      Uh no.

      If I tell all my friends that I'm faking my injury, and the person or company I'm suing hears of it, they can put my friend on the stand and my friend has to tell the court what I said, or risk being charged for perjury.

      The company can even hire a PI and can submit photos of you doing activities that you wouldn't be able to do if you were uninjured, as long os the PI doesn't break any laws in getting them.

      The courts have always been able to do this, and they've always been able to subpoena things like phone records and emails. Why should it be any different for facebook?

      Bottom line, don't sue someone for personal injury if you're not really injured.

      • Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by causality (777677) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @09:55AM (#33696730)

        Uh no.

        If I tell all my friends that I'm faking my injury, and the person or company I'm suing hears of it, they can put my friend on the stand and my friend has to tell the court what I said, or risk being charged for perjury.

        The company can even hire a PI and can submit photos of you doing activities that you wouldn't be able to do if you were uninjured, as long os the PI doesn't break any laws in getting them.

        The courts have always been able to do this, and they've always been able to subpoena things like phone records and emails. Why should it be any different for facebook?

        Bottom line, don't sue someone for personal injury if you're not really injured.

        I always find it amusing whenever there's a story that sums to "social networking sites are like everything else you have ever experienced in your life -- irresponsible/thoughtless use can bite you in the ass" and the people involved seem shocked to discover this.

        • by kesuki (321456)

          "I always find it amusing whenever there's a story that sums to "social networking sites are like everything else you have ever experienced in your life -- irresponsible/thoughtless use can bite you in the ass" and the people involved seem shocked to discover this."

          that reminds me of something i read lately. Stephen king/peter straub novel 'black house' ISBN 0-375-50439-7 something about 'the fisherman' and bitten asses..

      • Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rickb928 (945187) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @11:44AM (#33697350) Homepage Journal

        In the 80s, a good friend of mine retired from police work and went into PI work for insurance companies. He related one of his early close calls to me...

        He went out into the woods a bit to videotape a man who was collecting worker's comp for a back injury for a few years. He taped him for a half hour chopping wood in his backyard. After a moment's break looking around (it was deer hunting season), the subject put down the axe, walkd over and picked up his rifle, and looked to be sighting a deer.

        My friend is still taping, and he zooms in for a moment, sighting right down the scope. He can see the subject's eye in the scope.

        The first round hit 2 feet to his right. He moved out.

        The subject spent the next two weeks looking for my friend. At the next administrative hearing, he got to see the tape. My friend is a patient and kind man. He offered to refuse to testify at a trial for attempted murder if the subject gave up his claim and went back to work. Sadly, the subject balked, and went to jail for aggravated assault. And this cost him his job. Apparently, at the nearing, he railed on about how the PI was trespassing. He was filmed from a public logging road.

        BJ went on a long career catching people doing all kinds of bad things. His PI work turned his opinion of people sour much more than his police work did. He was even more disappointed at the things people would do for just money, and not very much at that.

        Discovery sucks, but being guilty sucks more.

      • If I tell all my friends that I'm faking my injury, and the person or company I'm suing hears of it, they can put my friend on the stand and my friend has to tell the court what I said, or risk being charged for perjury.

        The key distinction being that your friend did indeed have access to your profile. The general public did not.

    • by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @09:47AM (#33696692)

      You can get access to a huge amount of non-public data about the other party. It's called "discovery," and in civil cases you are supposed to turn over even things that will clearly make the other side win. (Nothing like the fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination applies).

      That being said, the discovery requests theoretically are supposed to have something to do with the case. Depending on the case, FB information may or may not be relevant. But keep in mind that Judge's also don't *Want* to get involved in fights over discovery, as a rule, so if the lawyers can't work it out he might just rule against the party that is being the most stubborn.

      Incidentally, discovery is a huge part of the reason our justice system is as bad as it is. It has advantages--makes it easier to go after a corporation that has done something evil, for example--but it makes going to court *a LOT* more expensive, which makes the courts less accessible to small and medium-sized businesses and to individuals.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Discovery makes a justice system bad? Discovery is nothing more than how we deal with the fact that people are people. If people were completely honest, and fair, then yeah, discovery wouldn't be necessary, but then neither would be a court of law.

        Even if somebody isn't lying deliberately, people are more than capable of distorting the truth just because they are biased in favor of their own interests.

        I don't know what problem you think Discovery causes, but the lack of it would be far far worse.

        • > I don't know what problem you think Discovery causes, but the lack of it would be far far worse.

          The lack of it in *every* case might be bad, but in most cases, a very very limited discovery would be sufficient. Notably, in most business disputes, everyone has good records and all of the paperwork. In most other disputes, everyone already *knows* what happened, otherwise they wouldn't be in court. Adding discovery just makes the trial longer and more expensive, which increases the transaction costs o

          • by rickb928 (945187)

            "Notably, in most business disputes, everyone has good records and all of the paperwork."

            Mod parent FUNNY. Please.

            In suits against corporations, records and evidence are always the first thing to be destroyed. Just as you would perhaps delete and burn the photos of your drunken partying if faced with a DWI, corporations might not hesitate to destroy or'lose' documentation. If that's too hard, they will bury you in mountains of unrelated records, make you ask specifically for things you are not sure even

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by saihung (19097)

          Endless discovery is what allows huge corporations to bury people who have done nothing wrong. It is what allowed Montsanto to bankrupt unknown numbers of farmers, seed cleaners, and other people who likely did nothing wrong, because it's discover that allowed Montsanto to keep dragging these people to pointless depositions, one after the other. And because the judges in the USA don't usually interest themselves in this process unless someone objects, and since you need a lawyer to do that, it means that

        • by kesuki (321456)

          "Discovery is nothing more than how we deal with the fact that people are people. If people were completely honest, and fair, then yeah, discovery wouldn't be necessary, but then neither would be a court of law."

          once i thought the same was true. then i realized stuff i dont want to post to the internet.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      No, the plaintiff really doesn't. During discovery the judge can, and often does, order things like emails to be handed over when they're relevant to the case. And emails are far more reasonable to expect to be private than facebook posts are.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      You have to be kidding. From Facebook's TOS:

      You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subje

      • by causality (777677)

        You have to be kidding. From Facebook's TOS:

        You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

        Does that look like Facebook gives a damn about your rights or your privacy?

        A site specifically designed to appeal to petty exhibitionists who need attention, by its very nature, is not going to attract people who have their own best interests at heart and are willing to act accordingly with regard to privacy. This is true for all of the same reasons that there are a lot of alcoholics at AA meetings. If Facebook doesn't give a damn about privacy it's because they have discovered something: you can be a big-name site and attract millions of users without giving a damn about privac

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by koick (770435)
        IANAL so don't know full ramifications of the "subject only to your privacy settings", but seems to me that means if I set something as private then it's private between myself and the person(s) I shared it with.
    • Ok, so assuming the plaintiff didn't have a reasonable expectation to privacy, how did the defendent actually access the plaintiff's private Facebook information? Merely the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy in what is publicly posted should not entitle someone to otherwise unauthorized access to your account. If they want the full array of information collected on Facebook, that's what a discovery or subpoena is for.
    • Re:bullshit (Score:4, Informative)

      by demonlapin (527802) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @10:35AM (#33696952) Homepage Journal
      "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term of art that bears very little relation to what a reasonable person might reasonably expect to be private. For starters, and in general (IANAL) if you've told anyone your secret, you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. So even if you post it as visible only to your friends, you've already felt comfortable sharing it with Facebook and with all those friends. It's no longer a secret. Getting the info from Facebook is just faster than subpoenaing your Facebook friends and compelling them to testify about what they saw there.
    • And have them testify as to what the plaintiff had said. You get the same information, but it takes longer, costs more and inconveniences more people (as well as honking off your "friends").

      The information will come out, it's just how much extra effort people have to go to, to get it. This seems to me like an efficient way of finding out what the truth (yes, yes I know: what's truth got to do with the law?) is.

      p.s. I'm constantly surprised that anyone thinks anything they post anywhere on the internet ha

    • Unless the person was on his friend's list and permitted to see particular posts, the ONLY thing the court should be able to see are things that are viewable by everyone - everything else is SPECIFICALLY set up to be private by way of the passwords and permissions system inherent in having a Facebook account.

      That's exactly right. People make their profiles private so only their friends can see them. It's one thing when a court of law orders my friend testify, but the notion there's generally no reasonable e

  • It seems to me that this completely nullifies any privacy policy in force on any website. If you have no "legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy" with a privacy policy in force, than how can an employee of the website in question, or the management themselves, get in trouble for violating said policy? Judges really need to be careful what garbage they spew out, lest they set the wrong precedent.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by causality (777677)

      It seems to me that this completely nullifies any privacy policy in force on any website. If you have no "legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy" with a privacy policy in force, than how can an employee of the website in question, or the management themselves, get in trouble for violating said policy? Judges really need to be careful what garbage they spew out, lest they set the wrong precedent.

      Had you read the article, you'd have seen where the court actually referenced the privacy policy. From that thing you didn't read:

      Supreme Court Judge Allen Spinner reasoned -I think completely correctly – that social networking sites are not private lockboxes where you store your most intimate secrets; in fact their privacy policies tell you that they are public spaces. Therefore he said:

      “Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.”

      • by hedwards (940851)
        I'm not sure I agree, but ultimately the decision was correct. Most if not all ToS include a line about turning over records when presented with a subpoena relevant to the records. I would've thought that would be the line that did it, however if the ToS state that it is to be considered a public place, that would be a a reasonable ruling as well on the motion.
      • by JohnG (93975)
        I did read the article. The courts can get a search warrant to come into my home and take whatever they want, but I doubt that any judge would ever say about my home that I have "no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.” If you have a profile, and you set it to private, than there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any privacy against the actions of the courts. Maybe I'm arguing semantics, I just think it was poorly phrased on the part of the jud
        • Re:Privacy Policy? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by causality (777677) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @10:20AM (#33696868)

          I did read the article. The courts can get a search warrant to come into my home and take whatever they want, but I doubt that any judge would ever say about my home that I have "no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.” If you have a profile, and you set it to private, than there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any privacy against the actions of the courts. Maybe I'm arguing semantics, I just think it was poorly phrased on the part of the judge.

          Another user did a good job of summing up [slashdot.org] why the court made this decision. That agreement makes it clear that you lose control over any data you submit to Facebook. Even if they provide privacy controls, they apparently have no obligation to make sure they work as the user intended since the data submitted now belongs to Facebook. Personally, I find the arrangement unappealing in the extreme; that's why I don't use Facebook.

          The idea that anything you post to a social networking site is going to remain confidential and private is a false one, of which it seems many need to be disabused. The common sense rule still applies: don't ever post anything that you wouldn't want to be fully public. I never understood what was so difficult about this that motivates people to keep trying to find ways around it.

          • Another user did a good job of summing up why the court made this decision. That agreement makes it clear that you lose control over any data you submit to Facebook. Even if they provide privacy controls, they apparently have no obligation to make sure they work as the user intended since the data submitted now belongs to Facebook. Personally, I find the arrangement unappealing in the extreme; that's why I don't use Facebook.

            That's a technicality. A person's expectation of privacy depends more on the natur

            • by causality (777677)

              Another user did a good job of summing up why the court made this decision. That agreement makes it clear that you lose control over any data you submit to Facebook. Even if they provide privacy controls, they apparently have no obligation to make sure they work as the user intended since the data submitted now belongs to Facebook. Personally, I find the arrangement unappealing in the extreme; that's why I don't use Facebook.

              That's a technicality. A person's expectation of privacy depends more on the nature of the service (such as the fact that it has privacy controls) than on the contents of a document most people never read. While I don't think there's any problem in allowing access to private data when it's legally warranted, the notion that my Facebook profile is public even when I've made it private is not at all reasonable.

              The legal agreement under which you use the site is more than a "technicality", as this judge has reiterated. You can downplay that fact because you don't like it, but that won't change the reality. Personally, I don't like it either, but it makes no sense to me at all to use the site under that agreement and then complain about the agreement. That'd be ridiculous, sort of like ordering salmon at a restaurant and then, when the waiter comes back with it, complaining that I don't like salmon. If I don't

        • Re:Privacy Policy? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Americano (920576) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @10:40AM (#33696978)

          Yes, you are just arguing semantics.

          An "expectation of privacy" has a context, and in this case, the context for that "expectation of privacy" is posts made on Facebook. Given FB's privacy policy, it is not reasonable to assume that your data on FB is private, because FB makes it quite clear that your data isn't really "private," though they "make efforts to keep it private," but specifically call out that it may be disclosed accidentally, or by friends, FB applications, or to properly-constructed and applicable legal requests (subpoenas, etc.)

          If your bank offered "social features" that allowed you to link your accounts with a bunch of your friends' accounts, and said "We can't promise other people won't find out how much money you have"... would you bank there? I sure wouldn't, because I want my financial information to be private and secure - and so I wouldn't put my money into a bank that shared my financial info with others.

          (And even with a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from a bank... that information is still subject to subpoena and other discovery methods.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by boxwood (1742976)

      The Privacy Policy is between you and Facebook. There is no privacy policy between you and everyone in the world.

      If an employee of Facebook violates the privacy policy between you and Facebook then they can be sued. If Facebook gets a subpoena requesting information from their servers then they have to comply or the judge can throw them in jail. You cannot sue Facebook for complying with a subpoena. Because not complying with a subpoena would be against the law. Contracts cannot compel someone to break the

  • Shit like this will be the end of facebook. Insurance companies will be lining up to scour the site for people to dump.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Americano (920576)

      Pro tip: If you're trying to hide your diabetes from your insurance company, don't tag pictures of yourself on Facebook titled, "HERE I AM IN DIABETIC SHOCK - DON'T TELL BLUE CROSS LOL!"

    • by causality (777677)

      Shit like this will be the end of facebook.

      And nothing of value was lost.

      Insurance companies will be lining up to scour the site for people [who are defrauding them] to dump.

      Fixed that for you.

      So, Facebook provides opportunities for stupid people to shoot themselves in the foot. Unlike say, driving, said stupid people are unlikely to harm someone other than themselves while proceeding to apply a metaphorical firearm to their foot. This is bad? Why?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        stupid people are unlikely to harm someone other than themselves while proceeding to apply a metaphorical firearm to their foot. This is bad? Why?

        Because it's only a metaphorical firearm?

  • If there's a single insurance company lawyer who doesn't have several fake profiles up on Facebook so they can track plaintiffs to whatever extent they can get away with, I'd be very surprised.

  • by Schemat1c (464768) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @10:35AM (#33696946) Homepage

    What if I decide to commit a crime and I 'arrange' a nice alibi with pictures and well timed postings on my FB page?
    Could I use that to defend myself in court?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by causality (777677)

      What if I decide to commit a crime and I 'arrange' a nice alibi with pictures and well timed postings on my FB page? Could I use that to defend myself in court?

      It'd be up to the prosecution to prove that your alibi is not valid. The fact that the pictures were posted to Facebook doesn't change anything.

      Sort of like the way fraud is not some strange new crime requiring new laws merely because a computer was involved (think phishing scam) instead of a telephone or a face-to-face con man.

    • by westlake (615356)

      What if I decide to commit a crime and I 'arrange' a nice alibi with pictures and well timed postings on my FB page?
      Could I use that to defend myself in court?

      You could try.

      But, on the record, I would argue the geek doesn't have it in him to lie in a way that will persuade a jury.

      He over-complicates things. His notions of plausibility are nuts.

  • This is called a stupidity tax. There are many different kinds of stupidity taxes. This is just one of them.

  • Consider this: The defendant is trying to prove that the plaintiff said that they were more healthy on FB than they claimed in court, hence they were lying to the court.
    But...
    Suppose the plaintiff claimed even worse injury in FB. Would that count in their favor in the court, or would they now simply be accused of lying on FB?
    Seems to me that the defense wanted the most favorable picture that they could get and whatever was posted on FB (not under oath) weighed more heavily than court testimony (that was und
  • Nope, don't need that anymore, that is so 1990's.

  • Heh, twitter is ready-made for bolstering my future fraudulent claim for ass-whiplash. 'OMG my ass hurts', 'Cripes a blimey, i cannot sleep for ass pain', 'Golly gosh, those rotters at whatever inc were so negligent. I hope the lovely court system can help me. Ow! Ow!'

    (Better post this as AC)

  • "Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy"
    Why?
    I assume that it means that Facebook is not really private, but if that was true then you would not need a court order to get access to it.

    • by bws111 (1216812)

      It really doesn't have much to do with Facebook, or how difficult the information is to get. It has more to do with the legal definition of expectation of privacy. In everyday usage, people think of something as being public (if everyone has access to it) or private (if only a few people know it). The legal definition is much stricter. For something to be considered legally private only one person must have the information - you (there are a few notable exceptions to this). If something is legally priv

      • That is a horrible definition of privacy.
        and if their are exceptions, why not others.
        Why would you not be able to tell your mother or other trusted confidants.

        Also you should be able to expect the lvl of privacy that you use.
        if you tell X people, and the opposition finds out what you told them then, sure they can use that information.
        but if you tell trustworthy people and you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the opposition cannot find out what you said then that proved the point that you have a

        • by bws111 (1216812)

          The exceptions are there because our society thinks they are worth it. In order for a lawyer to represent his client the best he can, he needs all the information - even that which is detrimental to his client. If a lawyer could be compelled to testify against his own client the client would be deprived of good representation. In order to have a healthy (mentally and physically) population, people must not be afraid to go to the doctor. In order to have a healthy marriage it is important that the spouse

          • And can an argument not be made that you need to tell parents everything to have a healthy relationship or the same for a close confidant/friend.

            and if it is so important that the opposition has information why not just make it so that even if he has told no one that he is still legally required to tell the court.

            • by bws111 (1216812)

              An argument COULD be made for parent/child privilege (and it seems some people in Massachusetts are trying to do that, but it is not currently the law, so it has no effect on this case. As for confidant or friend, no that makes no sense at all. There is no legal relationship called 'friend' or 'confidant'. What would the test be?

              The Fifth Amendment (a person can not be compelled to testify against himself) is the reason he can not be legally required to tell the court even if he told no-one else.

              Bottom

  • by Nyder (754090)

    I really hope they people are smart enough to challenge these rulings.

    While I can understand giving up proof of stuff at court orders, this totally sounds like they are fishing.

    We don't know what you posted, but it probably has something to do with the case, so we are going to allow the defendant to have access to your personal info to see if there's a problem.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...