The AutoAdmit case has taken an interesting twist. Mr. Ciolli has filed a pro se motion to quash a subpoena in the Western District of Virginia.
There has been no reply to it yet, although the plaintiffs have gotten a little extension of time in which to file their response.
It is a good read… especially for anyone who wants Ciolli’s side of the story on the whole AutoAdmit fiasco.
By Email
By RSS Feed
Sexual IntelligenceUnderdog BlogMeeting the Sin LawsTTABlogSeattle Trademark LawyerTrademark BlogMedia LawMass. Law BlogLaw of the LandDillsnap CogitationsAbove the LawAdams Drafting Spam NotesLas Vegas Trademark AttorneyWindyPunditNobody's BusinessSimple JusticeBuild a Solo PracticeNew York Personal Injury Law BlogPope HatTatiana Von TauberQuizLawCitizen Media ProjectTech & Marketing BlogAndrew SullivanWhat About Clients?A Public DefenderDefending People
marcorandazza
Tara Warrington
blevinsj
AGhostInTheSnow
Christopher Harbin
jesschristensen
Tatiana
Bob
jfischer1975
smoconnor
mattcsanchez
tarakirstenk
May 2, 2008 at 9:01 am |
Hi Marc,
This is indeed an interesting read. I’m trying to puzzle out why the plaintiffs would issue this subpoena in the first place. The only thing I can think of is they believe that they might turn up another pseudonym for Ciolli that would link him to one of the AutoAdmit postings. Or is there something else I’m missing? Any sage insights would be super helpful.
May 5, 2008 at 10:17 am |
I think his argument that plaintiffs have to survive summary judgment on all the claims as to all defendants is incorrect. It seems to set a ridiculously high standard.
May 5, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
Free speech cannot exist without the right to anonymity. The Federalist Papers, after all, bore pen names.
May 5, 2008 at 9:08 pm |
Even more influencial were The Letters from the Federalist Farmer…penned prior to the Federalist Papers. The author(s) still anonymous –
http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar01.htm