Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Lawsuit service by Tweet

  1. #1
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    565

    Lawsuit service by Tweet

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/10/...-by-tweet.html

    In the Socialist Republic of California it is currently legal to serve someone by "tweeting." Get ready for a total deluge of "summary judgments" of people or companies that don't actually pay attention to Twitter.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,560

    Twitter: A Choice, Not a Publication

    Twitter is up for sale and the dickering is interesting and controversial.

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.c...a-publication/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-08-2016 at 07:21 AM.
    I was not unserious with my suspicion of Gastaut-Geschwind Syndrome. No more quote mining, contextomy!. I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,349
    In her Sept. 30 ruling, US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler wrote she agreed to the unorthodox method because "service via Twitter is reasonably calculated to give notice and is not prohibited by international agreement." The Technology and Marketing Law blog says email has long fallen under this type of acceptable delivery method for foreign defendants, though it believes this may be one of the first times social media is used for this purpose.
    This is a Magistrate's recommendation, not a judges order. What's next, Service by osmosis?

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    33,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Twitter is up for sale and the dickering is interesting and controversial.

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.c...a-publication/
    Are people that use Twitter know as Twits? Not trying to be insulting, jus' askin'.

    I am not a fan of social media.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,717
    Courts may allow said service as long has other traditional methods are also used I.E. United States postal service via Certified mail return receipt and regular mail along with 2-3 posting in the local paper of said jurisdiction.

    My .02

    Regards
    CCJ
    Ask yourself, Do You Own Yourself?

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,761
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Courts may allow said service as long has other traditional methods are also used I.E. United States postal service via Certified mail return receipt and regular mail along with 2-3 posting in the local paper of said jurisdiction.

    My .02

    Regards
    CCJ
    Dang it. Now you've done it. Now you got me wondering.

    (For all readers) Did you ever notice that in the US that if a defendant does not enter a plea, the judge enters a plea of "not guilty" for him?

    Did you know that in 1500's England some people were pressed to death with heavy weights. No, it wasn't torture. It was to force them to plead to an indictment. Now, how on earth could it be so important the accused actually plead that it was necessary (in the mind of government) to press them with increasingly heavier and heavier weights, up to and including the accused dying? What on earth was going on? Why didn't the government just try them? Who cares if they plead guilty or not guilty? Why not just get on with the trial, prove their guilt and then execute them or whatever? My, oh, my, why did government consider the plea so massively important that government also considered massive duress worth it and necessary?

    I have a theory.

    You see, it involves a fella named Henry II. This was the late 1100's. He was the father of Richard the Lionheart and King John of Magna Carta fame. He was also the king whose actions began our modern jury system. Henry II wanted to expand his royal influence and power further into the countryside. In those days, the criminally accused was tried at the home of the Lord of the Manor. And, the trial was by ordeal or battle. So, Henry, wanting more power, sent his royal judges into the countryside to take jurisdiction over criminal trials. But, there was an angle. If you were accused, you had to voluntarily request to be tried by the royal judge. Now, trial by ordeal took the form, for example, of being bound up and thrown into consecrated water or carrying a red-hot chunk of iron in your hand for a certain distance. The rationale was that holy water would reject the sinner (he would float), or in the case of the red-hot item, if he was innocent his hand would be healing normally after three days. And, then there was trial by battle. Ouch! So, those were your choices for trial: ordeal or battle. Or, a royal judge. Heh, heh, heh. Oh, Henry was slick on this point. This is how he made you subject to the judgement of his royal judge--you requested it! You agreed in advance to abide by the judge's decision.

    Even today, if you don't appear for trial, for example as a fugitive, the judge can refuse to try your case because you have not "sought the protection of the court." You can't sit in Fugitiveland and request the court try you in absentia because, say, you know your lawyer has an air-tight case in your defense. No, no. The judge can say you are in effect refusing his protection because if you are not giving him complete latitude to decide as he sees fit, then you are trying to tie his hands. His "protection" comes with a price. He (the jury) gets to decide both guilt or innocence. If you ask him to conduct the trial without being present, you are saying you will abide only with a finding of innocence, but not guilt. Nope. The judge will reject your request for a trial. Even today, you gotta prove your voluntariness by being present for the trial. (Or, so they say. I'm not saying this is literally true. I'm just saying this is part of the rationale.)

    So, I am guessing there was a powerful legal connection between an 1100's voluntary request to be tried by a royal judge, and the 1500's pressing to extract a plea. The person pressed was certainly not voluntarily making a plea. Now, what I would like to know is how so powerful was the idea that government could not try a person without a plea, that government went to the lengths of pressing and even killing a person rather than try them without a plea? Man, there must have been some very powerful fear or reluctance on the part of government to just try them. What caused that fear or reluctance? Was it that government knew its conviction would be viewed by the people as an invalid tyranny of a kangaroo court if the person did not partially consent to trial by making a plea? I wish I knew.

    So, back to CCJ's quoted comment. To which I have a question? Why bother? Why require publication in a newspaper or tweets for a civil suit? Fair play? C'mon. No, really. C'mawwwwwn. Since when? However, I will go along with government wanting to give the appearance of fair play. It is too easy. If a court really truly demanded fair play, there wouldn't be any rationalization about "well, he should have read the newpapers." Or, "well, he should have a Twitter account." Courts would just say, "Show me how many times in which ways you really tried to tell him you were suing him. And, show me how many times in which ways he tried to pretend he didn't receive your sincere attempt at fair play."

    So, now I'm really curious. Is there a connection between Henry II requiring a request to be tried by a royal judge and a judge today allowing a tweet to count as service? And, if there is what is the connection? Most particularly, does it represent a long, slow deterioration in the appearance of fair play?
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-08-2016 at 08:43 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    12,560
    Every time we here on OCDO chat about trespass we dance around the issue of notice, effective and constructive.

    Is the Leviathan brandishing its power to act unilaterally?
    I was not unserious with my suspicion of Gastaut-Geschwind Syndrome. No more quote mining, contextomy!. I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,721

    IDK

    What is a Twitter?

    I don't believe that I even have an account with Twitter.... If I do, I don't think that I have ever used it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Dang it. Now you've done it. Now you got me wondering.

    (For all readers) Did you ever notice that in the US that if a defendant does not enter a plea, the judge enters a plea of "not guilty" for him?

    Did you know that in 1500's England some people were pressed to death with heavy weights. No, it wasn't torture. It was to force them to plead to an indictment. Now, how on earth could it be so important the accused actually plead that it was necessary (in the mind of government) to press them with increasingly heavier and heavier weights, up to and including the accused dying? What on earth was going on? Why didn't the government just try them? Who cares if they plead guilty or not guilty? Why not just get on with the trial, prove their guilt and then execute them or whatever? My, oh, my, why did government consider the plea so massively important that government also considered massive duress worth it and necessary?

    I have a theory.

    You see, it involves a fella named Henry II. This was the late 1100's. He was the father of Richard the Lionheart and King John of Magna Carta fame. He was also the king whose actions began our modern jury system. Henry II wanted to expand his royal influence and power further into the countryside. In those days, the criminally accused was tried at the home of the Lord of the Manor. And, the trial was by ordeal or battle. So, Henry, wanting more power, sent his royal judges into the countryside to take jurisdiction over criminal trials. But, there was an angle. If you were accused, you had to voluntarily request to be tried by the royal judge. Now, trial by ordeal took the form, for example, of being bound up and thrown into consecrated water or carrying a red-hot chunk of iron in your hand for a certain distance. The rationale was that holy water would reject the sinner (he would float), or in the case of the red-hot item, if he was innocent his hand would be healing normally after three days. And, then there was trial by battle. Ouch! So, those were your choices for trial: ordeal or battle. Or, a royal judge. Heh, heh, heh. Oh, Henry was slick on this point. This is how he made you subject to the judgement of his royal judge--you requested it! You agreed in advance to abide by the judge's decision.

    Even today, if you don't appear for trial, for example as a fugitive, the judge can refuse to try your case because you have not "sought the protection of the court." You can't sit in Fugitiveland and request the court try you in absentia because, say, you know your lawyer has an air-tight case in your defense. No, no. The judge can say you are in effect refusing his protection because if you are not giving him complete latitude to decide as he sees fit, then you are trying to tie his hands. His "protection" comes with a price. He (the jury) gets to decide both guilt or innocence. If you ask him to conduct the trial without being present, you are saying you will abide only with a finding of innocence, but not guilt. Nope. The judge will reject your request for a trial. Even today, you gotta prove your voluntariness by being present for the trial. (Or, so they say. I'm not saying this is literally true. I'm just saying this is part of the rationale.)

    So, I am guessing there was a powerful legal connection between an 1100's voluntary request to be tried by a royal judge, and the 1500's pressing to extract a plea. The person pressed was certainly not voluntarily making a plea. Now, what I would like to know is how so powerful was the idea that government could not try a person without a plea, that government went to the lengths of pressing and even killing a person rather than try them without a plea? Man, there must have been some very powerful fear or reluctance on the part of government to just try them. What caused that fear or reluctance? Was it that government knew its conviction would be viewed by the people as an invalid tyranny of a kangaroo court if the person did not partially consent to trial by making a plea? I wish I knew.

    So, back to CCJ's quoted comment. To which I have a question? Why bother? Why require publication in a newspaper or tweets for a civil suit? Fair play? C'mon. No, really. C'mawwwwwn. Since when? However, I will go along with government wanting to give the appearance of fair play. It is too easy. If a court really truly demanded fair play, there wouldn't be any rationalization about "well, he should have read the newpapers." Or, "well, he should have a Twitter account." Courts would just say, "Show me how many times in which ways you really tried to tell him you were suing him. And, show me how many times in which ways he tried to pretend he didn't receive your sincere attempt at fair play."

    So, now I'm really curious. Is there a connection between Henry II requiring a request to be tried by a royal judge and a judge today allowing a tweet to count as service? And, if there is what is the connection? Most particularly, does it represent a long, slow deterioration in the appearance of fair play?
    Criminal procedure in the US, regarding trial in "Absentia" has been ruled unconstitutional by the court. See Crosby v United States (1993)
    Also it is a clear violation of the second principle of "natural justice" to wit, " hear the other side".

    Civil matters are another issue, if the plaintiff can prove proof of proper service, the courts will render a "default judgment" against the defendant.

    My .02

    Regards
    Ask yourself, Do You Own Yourself?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •