Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (3775)	5/3/2005 5:13:13 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5425

That's my take, too. If a party files to have a subpoena quashed and the court agrees, it effectively means that the attorney issuing the subpoena overstepped his authority as an officer of the court by issuing the subpoena in the first place. I can't even count how many lawyers tried to subpoena records of my customers purchases (referring to my business before joining and unrelated to SI) for unrelated litigation discovery, only to be met with a flat "no" unless it was signed by a judge of proper jurisdiction. We never tried to quash it ourselves and we never complied with a subpoena in twenty years despite the various attorney's insistence that we had no choice. As far as I was concerned it was an abuse of the subpoena powers and they knew that a judge would agree.

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (3775)	5/3/2005 6:08:24 PM
From: ravenseye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Would you think differently if sexual abuse of your first born was committed by a member of the clergy? Why the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Was Right to Reject A First Amendment Defense To a Subpoena in a Clergy Abuse Case By MARCI HAMILTON Thursday, May. 20, 2004 On May 13, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued an important ruling in a clergy abuse case. It held that the First Amendment did not permit the Society of Jesus of New England ("the Society") to quash -- that is, resist the enforcement of -- a subpoena duces tecum. (A subpoena "duces tecum" directs the witness to appear and to bring documents along.) Surprisingly, the Court split 4-3. The majority read the law correctly. In contrast, the dissents were perversely intent on protecting the Society for a kind of "religious liberty" neither the federal nor state constitution ever contemplated. The framing generation believed in the liberty of conscience, and the right to worship -- they sought, that is, to protect known religious worship practices from an overbearing government. But there is precious little evidence they believed in protecting religious conduct of any kind. And they certainly did not intend to protect clergy members in criminal activity. Yet criminal activity is exactly what is alleged in cases like the one the SJC heard... writ.news.findlaw.com