Re: CS First Boston lawsuit
At 3:29 AM 8/19/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:
I suspect they are trying to get a judgement against "John Doe", in the hopes of tracking him down later.
Actually, if I had a sizeable judgement against such a John Doe, I could probably find a private detective who would find the dude for a contingent fee. Wow, a whole new class of factoring (commerce definition) opens up. Get me a lawyer....
Lawyers out there can and should correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe either the criminal or civil justice system has the concept of a "John Doe" trial! The ability to have the advice of an attorney, to confront one's accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and mount a defense, and all that constitutional stuff. Rather hard to do if the trial is in the past tense. Can you cite an example of such a "John Doe" trial in the U.S.? (There may be trials "in absentia," more so in other countries than in the U.S., but not when no persons have been identified at all!) --Tim May, who hopes he is never identified as the "John Doe" indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in 1979 in Washington County, Oregon, for the crime of unlawful foddering in a public place. Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 3:29 AM 8/19/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:
I suspect they are trying to get a judgement against "John Doe", in the hopes of tracking him down later.
Actually, if I had a sizeable judgement against such a John Doe, I could probably find a private detective who would find the dude for a contingent fee. Wow, a whole new class of factoring (commerce definition) opens up. Get me a lawyer....
Lawyers out there can and should correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe either the criminal or civil justice system has the concept of a "John Doe" trial! The ability to have the advice of an attorney, to confront one's accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and mount a defense, and all that constitutional stuff. Rather hard to do if the trial is in the past tense.
Can you cite an example of such a "John Doe" trial in the U.S.?
Not exactly, but judgements against John Doe's or even "$956,334.34" are common. Typically they are default judgements where a property seizure is involved. "The United States of America v. $534,444.00" and "The United States of AMerica v. One Red Porsche" is a common theme.
(There may be trials "in absentia," more so in other countries than in the U.S., but not when no persons have been identified at all!)
--Tim May, who hopes he is never identified as the "John Doe" indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in 1979 in Washington County, Oregon, for the crime of unlawful foddering in a public place.
Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Can you cite an example of such a "John Doe" trial in the U.S.?
Not exactly, but judgements against John Doe's or even "$956,334.34" are common. Typically they are default judgements where a property seizure is involved.
"The United States of America v. $534,444.00" and "The United States of AMerica v. One Red Porsche" is a common theme.
And of course since the defendant is not a person, it does not have to be presumed innocent :-( Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06
Look at the bulletin board of your county courthouse. John Doe parties are not unusual at all. Everyone is deemed to have constructive notice of notices on that board; furthermore, every jurisdiction I've ever seen, also provides for the _publication_ of process. Ya know, that stuff in teensie-weensie print in the back of newspapers. Most peoplke don't read that stuff. Some people do. It opens up a flavor of arbitraging.
At 3:29 AM 8/19/96, Alan Horowitz wrote:
I suspect they are trying to get a judgement against "John Doe", in the hopes of tracking him down later.
Actually, if I had a sizeable judgement against such a John Doe, I could probably find a private detective who would find the dude for a contingent fee. Wow, a whole new class of factoring (commerce definition) opens up. Get me a lawyer....
Since the messages were sent from an AoL account, I would assume that a simple court order would be all that would be needed to force/require AoL to release the billing-address records for the account. That would allow CS First Boston to name the defendant. Refusal by AoL would just force CS First Boston to add AoL as a co-defendant (until they supply the name/info).
participants (5)
-
Alan Horowitz -
Black Unicorn -
Gary Howland -
Robert A. Rosenberg -
tcmay＠got.net