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.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (13355)	4/10/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>"I have found the ACLU to be strangely selective in what causes it chooses to take on or spotlight."<< Most of their clients are mentally ill and have no idea who they are suing or why. Jim

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (13355)	4/11/1998 9:55:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Holly, with respect, that is your OPINION. How do you know those subpoenas lead to nothing "material" until the questions are asked? The prosecutor knows where the investigation is going and would seem better able to make that call. If you disagree, you move to quash the subpoena. That is how it works. Further, as I understand it material gathered in the discovery phase of any proceeding (criminal or civil) does not need to result in any admissible evidence. As I said, turning over rocks and exposing the underside to the light tends to have interesting effects. You have not yet specified how these shotgun subpoenas have violated anyone's constitutional rights. Plain FACT is you can't because they don't. This is the investigative/prosecutorial norm. Some may be more thorough and aggressive than others. That's not unconstitutional. JLA