rzaruba
join:2000-08-04
|  reply to wolfox
Re: Will this idiocy cease?
"No judge has to sign off on the order - it only requires the stamp of a clerk of the court. Nor does a copyright holder have to prove that copyright infringement has occurred. The holder only has to allege infringement."
Thank you for trumpeting your ignorance.
A subpoena is a command for something. It requires no probable cause.
It is normally stamped with the clerk's name and then sealed.
IN only one case in 27 years did we get a USDJ to sign a subpoena, and that was because we knew in advance that the recipient would balk and we were prepared to have her brought into the court by Deputy Marshals.
So what else is new? |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| Well, now I know.  And if this forum is not a place of learning, then what is it for? I was lead to believe not only by other posters here, but articles in the past, that a Judge's signature was to be obtained for a subpoena to be legitimate. Also, the DMCA/RIAA's procedures seemed to be cast in a light that it got ruling passed into legislature that suspended that requirement for a signature.
Thank you for at least illuminating that fallacy.
--
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL! |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to rzaruba
wolfox don't so easily give in to claims here.
There are lawyerly games being played.
A subpoena may not require probable cause.
The fact remains that it is generally agreed that the dmca eased and expedited subpoena procedures in order to make it easier for copyright holders. In this wolfox is correct, though I'm sure rzaruba will play jesuitical games with his words for effect. |
|
