SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes
Gary Dobry Subpoenas 41 SI Aliases
An SI Board Since January 2002
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
1136 63 0
Emcee:  Janice Shell Type:  Moderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
211OK...you have submitted to the discipline of the thread...carry on postingscion-1/21/2002
210Dammit, you did toss me. Tried posting and it won't take. BGSalemsHex-1/21/2002
209TOS!!! SPAMSKI!!scion-1/21/2002
208Most of us here don't have much legal "training" so to speak. All SalemsHex-1/21/2002
207This United States case from 1949 certainly sounds good and is oft-quoted in othLevel Head-1/21/2002
2062.Recent Cases Anonymous Internet Speech Support the Conclusion that Close Judiscion-1/21/2002
205This site is kinda nice... It deals with Discovery Abuse: eff.org Diz-DizzyG-1/21/2002
204The second one, Scion... I'll just list the URL as this is a long pleading:DizzyG-1/21/2002
203Several More to add to your list, Scion... <i>Electronic Frontier FoundatDizzyG-1/21/2002
202Some interesting comments here: <i>Judge quashes reporter’s subpoena and DizzyG-1/21/2002
201Thanks Dizzy, that case is very well documented. It's interesting that Yahooscion-1/21/2002
200Don't know if this has been posted: <i>(May 14, 2000) An anonymous chDizzyG-1/21/2002
199ABA Model Rules Model Rules of Professional Conduct 2001 Edition ADVOCATE RULEscion-1/21/2002
198Although these cases deal with reporters... A couple of them might be helpful. DizzyG-1/21/2002
197Judge Directs Kenneth Starr to Justify Lewinsky Book Subpoena In a two-part Aprscion-1/21/2002
196Thanks TG...highly relevant to the matter at hand. <i>I noticed this litscion-1/21/2002
195I am sorry I have little time of late to participate in this discussion. I find TideGlider-1/21/2002
194Exactly! <i>If they decide on any definite cause of action I'm sure tSalemsHex-1/21/2002
193Let's hope things resolve to all injured, thread participants satisfaction. Cage Rattler-1/21/2002
192Ted, loss of time and money is damages. There has most certainly been a loss of Jeffrey S. Mitchell-1/21/2002
191Agreed -- I am disturbed by the whole scenario. That was the reason that I suggCage Rattler-1/21/2002
190Ted, quashing a subpoena takes time and money. Do you think you'd have a casJeffrey S. Mitchell-1/21/2002
189Was that a confession?scion-1/21/2002
188From my layman's point of view, I'd say malicious prosecution by subpoenscion-1/21/2002
187How might the injuries sustained be defined in this case? TedCage Rattler-1/21/2002
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News