« Buddies | Main | Monday Reader Mail: 6 »
August 1, 2004
The Subpoena from Thomas A. Kuiper
By QBlog in
Upon my return from a family vacation last week I discovered a letter addressed to "Quixtar Blog" in my stack of mail.
"What could this be?" I wondered to myself. The return address was "Wheeler Upham: A Professional Corporation" from Grand Rapids, MI.
I was immediately relieved that the letter was from a "professional corporation" because mail from unprofessional corporations is such a bother. So, I tore into the envelope, eager to learn what this "professional corporation" had to say to little ole "Quixtar Blog."
What I found was a subpoena from a lawyer named Thomas A. Kuiper. He's apparently representing Orrin Woodward's Quixtar group, Team of Destiny, in a lawsuit against Scott Larsen. The subpoena was a demand for information about Larsen and a blog post about his visit to a Team of Destiny meeting.
The information Kuiper wanted was stuff that I simply do not have and am not really sure some of it even exists. What follows are the four requests from the subpoena with my commentary in bold (actual scan of the information requested in the subpoena).
Please produce all of the following:1. Any documents regarding or identifying any name, fake name, blog name and/or pseudonym used by Scott A. Larsen on, with, or in connection with QuixtarBlog.
Well, there's only one that I can think of but it looks like everyone else knows about it too (see second request).
2. Every posting by and to Scott A. Larsen or any name used by him (e.g., "whoz") on QuixtarBlog from January 1, 2002 through the date of your response to this request.Well, let's see. Every post made since this blog began (in November 2002 not January) was made by me unless otherwise noted. I thought that was pretty clear. Anyone else confused?
3. Produce any and all information showing the number of hits, links to, or people who visited Scott A. Larsen's website (sic) based on the January 15, 2004 QuixtarBlog entry entitled, "Scott Larsen Visits Team of Destiny."Actually, it was entitled "Scott Larsen Visits TOD" but who's keeping score?
First of all, anyone who knows anything about stats knows that they are generally incomplete. Most Web sites (like this one) have what I refer to as "poor man's stats tools" where robust and detailed traffic information is simply nonexistent. Sure, I can track referrers (on a limited basis) and bandwidth usage and even some search terms but I have nothing close to what Kuiper is requesting. If someone does have a free stats tool that closely tracks individual pages and exiting traffic then let me know and I'll get hooked up.
I guess it's Kuiper's duty to at least ask if I have such info. I don't (wish I did) and so we move on.
4. Please produce any and all documents that show or identify who posted the January 15, 2004 entry, "Scott Larsen Visits Team of Destiny," and/or who provided the information to QuixtarBlog concerning Scott Larsen visiting/attending a Team of Destiny open meeting.Yeah, uh... I posted the Jan. 15 entry. What would lead anyone to believe that I was not the author of that post? This is where I'm just really confused. Again, I guess Kuiper has to at least ask but I mean, was there ever any question in anyone's mind? Help me out here.
And as to who provided the information... well I don't know, maybe Larsen when he published it for the entire world to read on his public Web site? I mean it's not like it was some hidden page or something. Anyone following the Quixtar Saga checks his site regularly (or should).
I really don't remember where I first learned of his visit to TOD. I certainly didn't get a secret email or phone call from Larsen saying, "Psssst... hey, check out this Web page I just put up and if you don't link it on your site, I'll break your legs."
I called Kuiper last Tuesday and basically told him most of what I've commented here. We had what I'd characterize as a friendly chat (mp3) and I hung up wanting to learn as much as possible about the Team of Destiny lawsuit.
And of course, I recorded the conversation (mp3) and I invite you to listen to the unedited (except for dead-air) eleven and a half minute phone call.
By the way, aren't subpoena's supposed to be served? This was the first one I've ever heard of that was delivered via First Class mail. Weird.
Comments
After listening to the call, something occured to me. I wonder if this particular attorney has any affiliation with TOD, aside from merely representing them legally. Should one question whether or not, this was merely a fact-finding mission by someone who might be a part of TOD? You handled yourself well. I don't know I'd have been as forthcoming. My experience with lawyers in the past is that you only speak when spoken to, and only answer questions in the manner in which they're asked, and *only* when they're asked.
Well, according to my wife, there is some laywer in Orrin's downline...an emerald or platinum who is still practicing law....and is probably the person handling all of his legal stuff.
Very good site. Thanks.
Good site. Thanks.
Good site. Thank you.
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Good site. Thanks!
Very good site. Thanks!
Cool site. Thank you!
Nice site. Thank you.
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Good site. Thank you.
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Nice site. Thanks.
Nice site. Thanks.
Good site. Thanks:-)
Very good site. Thank you.
Very good site. Thank you!
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Nice site. Thank you!!!
I'd have to check the relevant statutes to make sure, but I think that in order to cite you for contempt for blowing off the subpoena it'd have to be served personally, though the court rules or statutes in whatever jurisdiction the lawsuit is pending in might allow for service of a subpoena via registered mail, return receipt requested. Otherwise, there's really nothing (other than your personal compunctions about committing perjury) to prevent you from appearing at a show cause hearing and testifying "Subpoena? What subpoena?" in your defense.
HOWEVER, most legal laypersons don't know that, and they're cowed into submission easily. Also, there are some potential witnesses (custodians of business documents, for example) that really have no problem with waiving the personal service issue, but who want a copy of a subpoena in their files for their own purposes.
Posted by: Len Cleavelin | August 2, 2004 8:58 AM