And don't really care to know either TYVM~~I know this type already and I prefer the Polar bears (besides I married into a GOP family & I have to listen to their nonsense every time I go around dh family) I'm called names by these people because my family isn't as good as his is (my dad was a union carpenter, his dad was building engineer) the only time I've ever heard that I've been good enough was when MY UNION medical insurance save my dh's life a this year. And by the way I am a school bus driver and I am member of the teacher's union.
I'm a lawyer, so I'd be happy to share my experience.
>>>"The LAST thing we need is another administration who already feels they are above the law! My understanding is they are ignoring subpeonas - is that something everyone could get away with!!!???"
As far as ignoring subpoenas, it happens all the time. If you don't show up, usually a judge will hear your reason, and most of the time will give you a second chance.
However, if I'm not mistaken, the subpoenaed witnesses in the Palin ethics investigation have filed motions to quash the subpoenas, which is not the same as ignoring them. It's also not at all an indication that someone feels they are "above the law"--it's a right every subpoenaed person has: to request that a judge take a look to determine whether the subpoena is lawful. Lawyers issue them, and even though there is a court clerk signature on them, it's not as if the clerk even ever saw it. We have hundreds of subpoena forms with photocopied signatures. That's just how it's done--the judge doesn't approve it first. And any lawyer (or anyone representing themselves) can serve one--whether it's lawful, legitimate, or totally bogus. So your right to file a motion to quash is like having a right to an appeal: once you get a subpoena, you have a right to respond in one of two ways: show up, or file a motion to quash/motion for protective order. It's a legitimate and legal request that the court allow them to ignore the subpoena--basically, voiding the subpoena. Where there is marital privilege (and attorney-client privilege and doctor- or psychiatrist-patient privilege, where it exists), the subpoena will be quashed. It is often quashed where a large number of employees from the same company, all with the same information, are called to testify to the same thing. The court will usually require the seniormost employee to testify, and quash the other subpoenas. Often, where a husband and wife are called, and it's not a criminal matter, they will both have to testify; however, often the judge will quash the subpoena of one so that the proceeding will not take as long, provided, for example, if the husband testifies, he will not be permitted to respond to any question with, "I have no idea, only my wife knows that."
It is sometimes used as a stall tactic (I've seen that plenty), but just as often I've seen lawyers drop them like confetti in a tickertape parade, asking for all kinds of irrelevant and privileged documents, knowing they'll be quashed, but trying to run the other side out of money (the drafting of the motion to quash and the motions hearings take time, and time is money). But filing a motion to quash isn't in any way proof that soemone is acting like they are above the law--they are totally within the bounds of the law to do so, and an good attorney who saw even the slightest impropriety in the subpoena must file a motion to quash--legal ethics require an attorney to represent a client to the best of his or her ability, and if they think they can get the subpoena quashed, they must try."
Pages
<>
If you work for the courts then you should certainly be more aware of the law.
And don't really care to know either TYVM~~I know this type already and I prefer the Polar bears (besides I married into a GOP family & I have to listen to their nonsense every time I go around dh family) I'm called names by these people because my family isn't as good as his is (my dad was a union carpenter, his dad was building engineer) the only time I've ever heard that I've been good enough was when MY UNION medical insurance save my dh's life a this year. And by the way I am a school bus driver and I am member of the teacher's union.
~Sam
I'm a lawyer, so I'd be happy to share my experience.
>>>"The LAST thing we need is another administration who already feels they are above the law! My understanding is they are ignoring subpeonas - is that something everyone could get away with!!!???"
As far as ignoring subpoenas, it happens all the time. If you don't show up, usually a judge will hear your reason, and most of the time will give you a second chance.
However, if I'm not mistaken, the subpoenaed witnesses in the Palin ethics investigation have filed motions to quash the subpoenas, which is not the same as ignoring them. It's also not at all an indication that someone feels they are "above the law"--it's a right every subpoenaed person has: to request that a judge take a look to determine whether the subpoena is lawful. Lawyers issue them, and even though there is a court clerk signature on them, it's not as if the clerk even ever saw it. We have hundreds of subpoena forms with photocopied signatures. That's just how it's done--the judge doesn't approve it first. And any lawyer (or anyone representing themselves) can serve one--whether it's lawful, legitimate, or totally bogus. So your right to file a motion to quash is like having a right to an appeal: once you get a subpoena, you have a right to respond in one of two ways: show up, or file a motion to quash/motion for protective order. It's a legitimate and legal request that the court allow them to ignore the subpoena--basically, voiding the subpoena. Where there is marital privilege (and attorney-client privilege and doctor- or psychiatrist-patient privilege, where it exists), the subpoena will be quashed. It is often quashed where a large number of employees from the same company, all with the same information, are called to testify to the same thing. The court will usually require the seniormost employee to testify, and quash the other subpoenas. Often, where a husband and wife are called, and it's not a criminal matter, they will both have to testify; however, often the judge will quash the subpoena of one so that the proceeding will not take as long, provided, for example, if the husband testifies, he will not be permitted to respond to any question with, "I have no idea, only my wife knows that."
It is sometimes used as a stall tactic (I've seen that plenty), but just as often I've seen lawyers drop them like confetti in a tickertape parade, asking for all kinds of irrelevant and privileged documents, knowing they'll be quashed, but trying to run the other side out of money (the drafting of the motion to quash and the motions hearings take time, and time is money). But filing a motion to quash isn't in any way proof that soemone is acting like they are above the law--they are totally within the bounds of the law to do so, and an good attorney who saw even the slightest impropriety in the subpoena must file a motion to quash--legal ethics require an attorney to represent a client to the best of his or her ability, and if they think they can get the subpoena quashed, they must try."
Pages