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?
