But it’s nice to have the proof of the crap going on.

“RULE 4.4 Respect For Rights Of Third Persons

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or
use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.”

“Here are the rules if you would like to check it out (p. 74):

http://www.vsb.org/docs/rules-pc_2007-08pg.pdf

Actually since Mr. Shoemaker has requested “Any and all documents (including emails, notes, memos, letters, etc.) pertaining communications (written or verbal) which have occurred between Kathleen Seidel or any individual or organization working for or with http://www.neurodiversity.com/ and any members, employees, or consultants of other advocacy groups , non-governmental organizations, concerned individuals, political action groups, profit or non-profit companies/organizations, including but not limited to…” That covers a lot more than just blogs.

In my simplistic non-lawyerly understanding, an “individual working with” neurodiversity.com would be any individual had ever gone to Kathleen’s site and worked with what she had provided there, that is had read any of what she had posted. Presumably anyone who’s blog has been linked to neurodiversity.com (or who links there) is by virtue of that link “working with” Kathleen. As I understand it, each comment in a blog is a separate “communication” and should be sent separately.

I would think that even this blog could be considered covered by the subpoena. I don’t know whether giving Mr. Shoemaker what he asks for is required, but I have been tought that giving people what the ask for is always considered polite.

If Mr. Shoemaker is asking for “any and all documents pertaining to communications which have occurred between any individual who has ever gone to Kathleen’s site and any concerned individual”, that includes a lot of material. If 100 bloggers have 100 blogs each, that is 10,000 blogs. If each blog has 100 comments, that is 1,000,000 “communications”.

I hope Mr. Shoemaker has a large inbox.

A very large inbox.

This subpoena seems truly egregious, and I am sure Mr. Shoemaker’s local bar would like to hear about it.

How would she do that? Is there any chance that something would be done?

I’m keeping a running list of blog comments at I Speak of Dreams. I was one of the 100 plus bloggers named in item 5 of the subpoena. While I write on autism and anti-vaccination foolery, I think I’ve exchanged a handful of e-mails with Ms. Seidel.