Membership First Operative Threatens Subpoena of SAGWatch
This is the message we received:
This office is seeking the idenity of the poster of a message on sagwatch.net.
The message was posted Sunday, September 14, 2008 with the post title of: Terrence Beasor.
Please submit this information to the above email address. Should it not be received, this office shall issue a subpoena duces tecum at the appropriate time to find out the owner of the sagwatch.net site and the poster.
Thank you.
-Jim Talbott
Well, we did have a message discussing a post on another BBS system by Terrence Beasor, a former Membership First director. But we don’t have a post titled “Terrence Beasor,” at least not that we can find. So…we’re puzzled. But.. sometimes that happens.
A subpoena cannot normally be issued unless there is a pending lawsuit to which the subpoena relates, and the requested information must satisfy tests of being within the proper scope of discovery.
In all events, I would never respond to an e-mail like this, given how easy it is to spoof e-mail addresses.
VG
And just what is it that they want you to bring to court? Based on the snippet you’ve posted,simply to reveal the name of a poster, sounds fishy. I think you may be dealing with a case of someone pulling a fraudulent scheme.
Jim Talbott, if the message is real, works with entertainment attorney Mark Litwak, and Talbott is, interestingly, a specialist in new media law and technology. A phone call to Litwaks office should clear it up quick.
Oh, pitty. Let them spend their money. Doubt they have any. Hit the ignore button and let them bother someone else.
Poor Matt, he just can’t give it up.
I believe that was the posting-string that caused an action to have Mr. Beasor removed from the then Negotiations Committee for violating the confidentiality of NC meetings, by publising how Sam Freed voted.
David Joliffe, the committe chair, in response and acting accordingly, asked Mr. Beasor to leave that committee.
–
Admin. Comment – Correct. Which makes the subpoena threat even more strange.
Aw, MF, are ya scared? Bwahahahaha.
GORM,
Talbott left Litwak some time ago and opened his own shop, Talbott & Talbott, which has a website http://www.legalinterface.com
Mulhern used to claim some professional relationship with Talbott, so it’s pretty easy to figure out which direction this is coming from. I can’t figure out what the legal claim underlying the subpoena or the need for inquiry would be, since Beasor is clearly the author of the substantive information in the post.
Of course, the subpoena he’s threatening can only issue if there is litigation pending (“at the appropriate time,” don’t you know), so Talbott may be putting the cart before the horse here in the hope that SAGWatch tells him who “Editor” is just so Mattie can sleep at night.
I wonder what the old Iron Horse has to say about this.
–
Ed. Note – Well, at the moment I can’t even figure out what post he’s asking about, which makes it a lot harder to respond to him at all.
The problem with this thread is you just publicly acknowledged you did receive the demand. Good luck proving that under normal circumstances with email. Ah well.
I think he’s referring to the post within the post on Sep 14, which indeed seems to be titled “Terrence Beazor” as given in your posting here (tho I suspect that wasn’t intended to be a title but a representation of how the post looked on the other forum).
So they are after copyright infringement or charges of fraud for “editing” his post (if he’s claiming the part you are saying was removed later was either never there, or that you had no right to display it after he deleted it)?
Looks like an email threat of subpoena to me.
Q. Why would anyone ask for information without a subpoena?
A. They are fishing because the don’t have one.
Pretty weak try Mulhern.
Fishier and fishier…so fishy, in fact, it’s starting to smell like a rat.
And thanks for the update, Fred. Mr. Litwak helped with some work I was doing in 2002 or so. How time flies.
This is a very strange request. First of all, as someone already mentioned a subpeona can only be issued in conjunction with on-going litigation. Second, and more importantly your email says that his office would issue a subpeona. Well, that would be as meaningless as the email you just received considering that only courts have the authority to issue subpeonas.
I would not respond by email, but I would call the phone provided in his title info below his signature (if there is none I would ignore this email altogether as it is phony) and simply advise Mr.Talbot that at the appropriate time once he has obtained a subpeona you will be happy to provide him with the information he seeks until then you are under no obligation to provide anything and have no further comment.
I am also puzzled to the vailed threat that they would issue a subpeona to find out who the owner of SAGWATCH.NET is. I am pretty certain that they would have to know who owns SGAWATCH before they could request a subpeona in the first place.
This seems like another attempt at identifying who is running the site, that is why I wouldn’t reply to the address that sent you the email incase they are trying to track it. Use the phone, and tell them go ahead and get their subpeona. I can’t imagine a real lawyer not obtaining a subpeona in the first place, right now you are under no obligation to protect the integrity of the evidence they are seeking. You can legally destroy all records of the post in question, obtaining a subpeona beforehand would prevent that.
tell him to sit on it and spin
I wouldn’t necessarily assume it is coming from Beasor. It could be coming from somenone who relied on the posting here to deny Beasor something and now Beasor is taking action against them. . . so whoever Beasor is after needs to validate the original.
—
Admin. Comment – Interesting point. It wouldn’t surprise anyone were there to be additional fallout from the incident, up to and including union disciplinary charges against some of the players involved. But on the other hand, the original post wasn’t here…it was on Actor’s Access.
It’s obviously phony crap. I say ignore it. I would only respond if this were an official court document and then my response would come straight from my attorney.
I with Kathy’s advice on this one!
FormAnon,
There’s a way to obtain a subpoena when you don’t know the identity of the individual you wish to sue. You file your lawsuit against “John Doe,” and then go to the court to ask them to issue a subpoena against someone who you have reason to believe may know the identity of the person you wish to sue. If and when the intermediary gives up the name, you amend the complaint to name the real person in place of “John Doe.” (In some jurisdictions, technically you have to sue that intermediary first, then, after they give up the name under subpoena, you sue the person you really want.)
The protection of privacy in this procedure is that you not only have to convince the court that you have right to know the name, but also that you have a reasonable expectation of success in the actual litigation against the real target. That serves to defeat simple fishing expeditions intended to satisfy someone’s obessive curiosity about someone else’s identity.
This whole song and dance is the way the RIAA has identified those people it chooses to accuse of making music files available for uploading on their computer. They don’t know the name attached to the I.P. address of the computer with the music files in a public folder, so they have to ask the Internet Service Provider to give them the name. The ISP is not beholden to provide the information without subpoens, and this is how they satisfy that requirement.
Of course, Mattie could have always have avoided this by asking Alan Rosenberg to use his super powers (granted to him as the first named officer in the SAG constitution) to ID the people behind SAGWatch. I guess Alan was busy.
Admin–
Well, maybe I misunderstand. If what is at issue now between Beasor and some other party (like a discipinary action of some sort) is the content of that post *before* it was edited by Beasor, then it (pre-edit version) isn’t at Actor’s Access anymore, and they may not have the technical ability to produce a “pre-edit” version. It’s possible the only publicly known version of the pre-edit version is here. . . so your cooperation would be required to validate it.
And I’m referring to the attached .pdf in your post here, not Ligon’s post pulling Beasor’s pants off. Ligon’s post really proves nothing other than Ligon caught him. That .pdf and the testimony of whoever made it is the real proof so far as some legal value.
Cut-rate Dr Evil strikes again! Probably offered the attorney forty bucks and a monologue at his son’s bar mitzvah.
of course you can’t respond to this at all IMO because you will be then letting them know who you are.
If you write them they will find out. If you call them they will find out. If you e-mail them they will find out.
So, until a court of law requires you to answer their request you can’t respond.
I’m not a lawyer but I have played one on TV.
oh, boy… I actually auditioned with Mr. Beasor today. Seemingly nice guy and very present. Which just goes to prove that the vitriol(I’m getting very tired of using that word) emanating from the no/MF camp has no place in this union’s politics. We all have to maybe work with one another at some point in our careers….
The little rag that Matt and co have latched onto to find out the owners of SAGwatch is almost a comedy. Dog with rag in mouth. Who the f*#k cares, and what is the point?
The only reason I am slightly curious to know who runs SAGWATCH, is because I’d like to thank him/her and ask him/her to run for president of the union.
Why anyone else cares is beyond me.
–
Ed. Comment – Thank you…but there are many others far more qualified than I.
I am more interested in the names of who cuts the checks to Nikki so she can post those pro-MF blogs and comments. Well, actually who drops off the envelope filled with cash….