As a lawyer, let me explain how subpoenas work
1 2019-02-15 by lawyerherelistenup
I want this sub to be legally educated, so you can intelligently attack boneheads like Joe Cumia.
For a civil subpoena, there has to be a court case. You cannot just send out subpoenas. For there to be a case, he'd have to sue someone, and have a named defendant. Therefore he cannot issue subpoenas to ascertain the identity of a potential defendant. He'd have to know who they are first, and then could possibly issue a subpoena to prove this person was in fact behind such and such online profile or activity.
​
Also, in my experience, Facebook, other social media companies, and ISP's, strongly object to civil subpoenas and go through great lengths to not turn over any information.
​
Criminal subpoenas are different. Law enforcement can issue subpoenas to investigate crimes and ascertain identities. It goes without saying why there's a difference between what law enforcement can do and what you can do in a civil lawsuit.
​
As to actual claims: Anthony and Joe would qualify as public figures. Anthony for sure, but likely Joe to as he has "thrust" himself into the limelight on countless occasions and considers himself part of O and A. That would work against him. There are libel standards for normal people and different standards for public figures. For public figures, Joe would have to show the poster's intent was actual malice in posting the [false] info about him. So, 1) has to be false; and 2) even if false, the disseminator must know it is false and have actual malice in disseminating anyways.
​
Sharing Joe's genuine old tweets is obviously not false. Most people know that true statements are not subject to libel/slander. But even things a poster reasonably believes to be true are protected. If, based on the information available, someone reasonably concludes and believes Joe Cumia is a pedophile, and is not knowingly falsely disseminating that info, they are likely protected.
91 comments
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
Joe would also need to drag this into Federal Court since most of the people he's after are out of state/country, which is even more expensive to retain a lawyer to handle. Not to mention he'd be laughed out of there before it started.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
He could technically file it in State court, so long as he was not pursuing a federal claim. Defamation type claims are not federal claims. How it could go federal is how you are alluding to, diversity of the parties. Meaning P and D are not in same state and this also requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000 (last I checked it was 75k, might be more now). So, Joe could file in State court in New York, and assert personal jurisdiction over the poster by saying they knowingly availed themselves to jurisdiction because they reasonably knew their posts would be viewed in NY (he could also sue them in State court where they live). This gets dicey.
And then the D could ask for the case to be removed to Federal court base don diversity of the parties. This is based on the logic that D could be at a home-field disadvantage being forced to litigate in a state court of the other party. The federal court would be in New York too, and apply New York State law.
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
Dumbass Joe would also need to find a lawyer willing to defend him in another state, if they don't practice there already, and if he insists on a lawyer who doesn't practice in the different state, he'll need pro hac vitae approved. All of this is $$$$$$$$$$ Bro Joe doesn't have to spend, and if he suddenly comes up with it, that's money he's been hiding from the courts with which he should be paying child support.
1 HollandJimmy 2019-02-15
Yes, you can conduct pre-complaint discovery. OP is a faggot
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
In the U.S., parties can engage in voluntary Discovery if they so choose. However, in order for Discovery to be compelled, the court has to be involved, and it's not involved until a complaint is filed.
1 HollandJimmy 2019-02-15
Nope. F.R.C.P. 27 ... before complaint is filed
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
Number one. Federal court sucks and has stupid rules. Number two. Even though Fed rule 27 allows for depositions to be ordered by the court prior to the filing of a complaint, a petition still must be filed and the court must still have a hearing, so the court still has to compel the parties. The semantic differences between complaint and petition don't really impress me.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
yeah, he's way off the mark on this one. There's 20 reasons why you're wrong. Any time you're filing a petition, or have to get a court order, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CASE!. A case requires Plaintiff and Defendant. And that rule is only about depositions and requires you to name the adverse party which is my entire point. Depositions and subpoenas are not the same thing.
1 JimandFred 2019-02-15
Counselor, does Joe owe royalties to any of the bands he cosplays?
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
Yes. Joe should be paying the royalty fees through the agencies who handle this for artists. ASCAP and BMI are the two main ones. This is who radio stations pay as well as music venues. I am 95% positive Joe has to pay dues too. He likely does not, but it is possible he is as many venues I think require proof as they can be held liable if they allow artists to perform without paying royalties. Most of his gigs are pretty small-time so he can likely skirt it.
1 Air_Rangoon 2019-02-15
It depends in what capacity his band's contracted, but the royalties he owes (as the "owner" of the band) are probably covered by venue licenses.
It's bars, not bands, that ASCAP/etc. send out spies to bust.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
I think you are mostly right. Bars have to pay but I am pretty sure bands do too, but are much harder to track/spy on.
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
What if Joe is selling merchandise in and/or around that venue, including recordings of him covering these artists/songs? I've been wondering about that one.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
I was actually just kicking around a false light claim in my head. False light is a claim if you represent someone in a way publicly that is different than they are. Similar to defamation but usually shows up with let's say using an image of a squeaky clean character and portraying them in a sleazy way.
An interesting take on this claim, perhaps even new law, could be U2 suing Joe because he is a known racist and pedophile and he's walking around dressed up like them. Joe is so negatively renowned that him dressing up as anyone who's not a serial killer or rapist is a per se false light claim for that person.
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
Always preparing in advance and just in case. Nice work, counsel. Must be a trial lawyer?
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
I am a trial lawyer, despite others on here saying I'm an idiot. Everything I've posted on this thread has been off the top of my head. Lawyers don't really memorize the law. You just know how to know when you have to. Also, non lawyers don't read like lawyers. Like when guy posts that Facebook will give your subscriber info in response to a subpoena. And I asked what's that really mean? Just your profile? And he corrected me as to what it would mean and lists all this other shit. Sorry, that's not how legal people think. They do the opposite. Give you as little as possible. Everything is interpreted in the narrowest sense. And I know because I do this and face this all the time--including subpoenaing social media companies, banks, etc. I subpoena entire HR files and all I get are paystubs and time cards. I fucking know there's more in the file than that.
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
Also, if even if you're a shitty defense attorney, the first advice you give your client is some version of, "Shut the fuck up and no comment, unless otherwise instructed by your attorney/me."
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
There is zero to be gained, ever, by talking to the police.
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
"Respectfully, sir/ma'am, under advice of my attorney, I cannot answer any questions without them present. Please and thank you." ALWAYS lawyer up.
1 BullsLawDan 2019-02-15
Nonsense. I bet you could get some amazing shit out of Keith or Kenny if you talked to them enough.
1 deep_legal_shit 2019-02-15
Do you feel like they're the bad guy in this, or oyu?
1 billdipshitbellamy 2019-02-15
I don't know anything about the law, but the totally lawyer way you wrote this message pretty much proves it.
1 Jungies 2019-02-15
Again, I'd like to draw your attention to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram, pending.
1 JerkStoreJ 2019-02-15
Usually it’s just the venue who pays. Bands only pay if they sell recordings
1 alkiefuck 2019-02-15
i forget what the name is but i think there's a "license" bars/clubs/radio pay to air music in a public setting, i don't think cover bands have to worry unless they literally just play the original music
1 GimmeSomeBrain 2019-02-15
The venues would be held accountable. They usually have an umbrella license that also allows them to have cover bands play there.
​
1 David_Quiddich 2019-02-15
Doctors, Lawyers, Panera Bread employees. This place has the cream of the crop.
1 NguyenLevin71 2019-02-15
I’m a cruise ship captain.
1 Whiplash91 2019-02-15
I'm a founding member of a u2 tribute band
​
1 NguyenLevin71 2019-02-15
Walk the plank!
1 deumae 2019-02-15
Just in case it's true, could one get a ride-along?
1 badmotherfucker1969 2019-02-15
I wanna see the boat movie
1 faggotnickmullen 2019-02-15
Francesco Schettino?
1 deathbirdstories 2019-02-15
I'm a Department Manager at Walmart.
1 deep_legal_shit 2019-02-15
also a vietnamese jew
1 white518 2019-02-15
What a lawyer even take a case suing a bunch of basement dwellers who eat hot pockets in their mother's basement?
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
Not without payment. If paid, some lawyer would take the case, provided he had actual Defendants to sue. Then there's the often overlooked part: what do you get? Even if Joe were to win, he'd have to prove damages to get an award. The lost jobs would be damages, and also loss of reputation. But honestly, most of the damage done to Joe has been from the racism allegations which are 100% based on his own words. But even if he won and got a money judgment, then he has to collect on that judgment which is not easy. Especially if the Defendant is a basement dwelling unemployed loser as Joe often maintains.
1 crookedmile 2019-02-15
Hey man, can I call the fat retard a pedophile or what?
1 OutlawMemer 2019-02-15
We can reasonably suspect that Anthony is a child-grooming pederast and that Compound parties were basically a buffet for child predators, and Joe went to an awful lot of those parties.
So according to this fine gentleman, yes, Joe Cumia is a pedophile.
1 PresidentJonStewart 2019-02-15
What's a pederast, Walter?
1 ChocomelTM 2019-02-15
I think slander and libel are civil cases so if you don't post your name you're fine.
1 aRTie02150 2019-02-15
You're M, aren't you?
1 NguyenLevin71 2019-02-15
According to the other lawyer/law student who posted, isn’t Joe “Libel Proof” and doesn’t this speech fall under the “parody/satire” category?
Learning about “libel proof”—that someone can be such a piece of shit that they can’t be further defamed—and other sensible standards like that actually give me faith in our legal system.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
I did not see that post. I think he's referring to something I remember that I think it was Penthouse did to Jerry Falwell in the 80's. They printed a satirical article basically saying he was gay and a child molester. Something like that. I am pretty sure the court concluded that Mr. Falwell was a public figure, and the things printed about him were so outlandish that no one could possibly believe them to be true, thus protected as satire. This is from memory, but more or less this is it. +
​
As to the Cumias, most of the things levied at them are true or arguably true. The stuff that is not, likely falls into the above category (pays neighbor kids to drink their spit).
1 NguyenLevin71 2019-02-15
Yes, it was Flynt/Falwell for the satire part and Bugliosi/some mobster on the libel proof part. I was acquainted with the former, but intrigued by the latter.
1 ShoreResident 2019-02-15
My recollection with the Bugliosi case was that it is a California Supreme Court decision, but there was another mobster movie case surrounding Donnie Brasco where the "libel proof" doctrine was applied in a federal court. Too lazy to find the cite.
1 rahtin 2019-02-15
Would you say some of the accusations sound a little far-fetched? In your professional opinion, of course.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
I cannot fathom online terrorists would target someone just because they're their brothers brother.
1 Jungies 2019-02-15
Weren't you the one who was horribly wrong about Ant's last domestic violence case, and then got schooled on here by an actual lawyer?
Anyhow, here's what The Association of Corporate Councils has to say on the matter.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
You can name does and roes. Yes. But you still are not getting ISPs to turn over user data with a civil subpoena. Facebook either. And to get subpoena power you can't just file any law suit naming John doe and start subpoenaing. Do you realize what that would allow? You can file a lawsuit naming John doe defenadmt and just start subpoenaing random places for info and they have to give it? Sorry, no. That will never fly.
1 Jungies 2019-02-15
Here's what Facebook themselves say on the matter of civil subpeonas:
Lastly, I'd like to draw your attention to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram, pending.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
Ok basic subscriber info. What is that? Isn't that like just your profile? Name, relationship status etc? And not within a party's possession. You have access to your profile. In this scenario, you get nothing.
1 Jungies 2019-02-15
IP address, dumbass. That gets you ISP - possibly more than one, giving you multiple shots on goal.
Can I ask what area of law you practice in?
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
What do you do for a living character?
1 crookedmile 2019-02-15
Ladies please, take this queer legal shit to The Courthouse (lawyer-themed gay bar)
1 Jungies 2019-02-15
It's Ma'am!
1 GimmeSomeBrain 2019-02-15
You are right. The IP address is part of the login data which is part of the basic subscriber info. There is a PDF issued by FB available that confirms it.
The guy practices bird law.
1 ShoreResident 2019-02-15
I'd venture to guess that Facebook define "basic subscriber information" in the narrowest of ways – most likely, the name provided and e-mail address used to verify the account – which both can be made up. At this point, you STILL would not have an IP address. So there is a secondary fight that comes with an even greater cost due to the complexity of the controversy – ie. fighting over what the definition of "basic subscriber information" is in the first place. Now, assuming (and it's a massive assumption) that the plaintiff obtained the IP, the fight begins ALL OVER AGAIN with the ISP in order to link the IP to an actual subscriber. You're then going to have to deal with jurisdictional issues, assuming the defendant does not reside in New York. Assuming Joe would not want the case removed to federal court (note: plaintiffs almost never want this) he would have to limit the amount in controversy to $75,000, which by any stretch of the imagination would already be exceeded by his legal bills.
Oh, and if there's a VPN... anyone know anything about Romanian civil procedure?
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
Thank you.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
I'm gonna go one further, I promise you that if you file a lawsuit with John Doe as the defendant and you send an ISP a subpoena, you are getting a big fat fuck you from their corporate counsel. You're most likely still getting a fuck you if there's a named defendant.
Just because you get to send subpoena doesn't mean you actually get anything. Half the job of being a lawyer is finding legal ways to get out of turning things over to the other party.
1 gronky444 2019-02-15
I worked at a PI firm in LA for two years and it was fun to see defense counsel skirt around the issue of providing surveillance tape in some slip and falls. It was usually the high value, clearly their fault ones. We always got it when it was an obese retard client wearing flip flops slipping on crackers they brought from home to a wal mart.
Also fun when I handled medical records and basically had to just follow DC’s subpoenas because we hadn’t talked to the client in 18 months and they just kept treating and no one kept track of it. Literally found a 200k discrepancy between what our bills were vs actual bills. Like we just didn’t put in the system that he had a major back surgery, this was a 500k+ commercial policy case.
That whole experience made me simultaneously want to go to law school and never want to get near the legal world again. I’m assuming the rest of the profession is slightly less of a retard clown college situation, but I could be very wrong.
1 SamRobertsPhiltrum 2019-02-15
He probably failed the bar. I knew he's an idiot when he said you can't issue subpoenas to discover identities.
1 dalgriff 2019-02-15
Interesting lawyer, quick question about "public figures".
If we were to make a movie someday about Joe, could we do it without getting sued? They recently made "Vice" about Dick Cheney without even contacting the family. David Duke was in Black Klansman and as far as I know they didn't ask him for permission either and Spike even made up half of the things going on in the movie (main characters girlfriend, phone call at the end, bomb threat (never happened). As far as I know the rights to someones life are completely open. But if they're a public figure, you can't say something slanderous or libelous I believe, and it gets tricky if the person is famous and dies. If Joe is NOT considered a public figure, we can pretty much write whatever the heck we want, right?
What are you thoughts on this one?
Thank you for your service Brothaman!
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
You can make a movie about anyone and the same principles apply, you better make sure you're accurate. Same with books and that's why books have legal departments and often require sources to prove things so they don't get sued.
So, how would that work with a movie with certain far-reaching allegations about pedophilia and child spit sipping? You're best bet would likely to make it so outlandish it would fall under that libel proof theory discussed in this thread. Make it so know reasonable person would believe it to be true and have this is satire disclaimers.
For this to work Joe needs to be a public figure and I believe he would. There's a case I recall where a guy tried to claim he wasn't a public figure and the court held that he became one because he was some busy body always "thrusting" himself into the limelight. I can't think of anyone who has tried to thrust himself into other's limelight more than Joe.
1 dalgriff 2019-02-15
Valid points and thanks lawyer.
1 SamRobertsPhiltrum 2019-02-15
😂😂😂😂😂 you're not a lawyer or you're committing malpractice on a daily basis. you clearly have no clue why someone names doe defendants in a lawsuit.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
You can in the Iqubal sense. But not in the I'm on a wild goose chase hjnt and want to basically send out subpoenas to do people.
1 SamRobertsPhiltrum 2019-02-15
I've never heard of that acronym in my life. Neither has google. You're not a lawyer 😂.
It's not a wild goose chase when you can identify the service provider and a username. Holy shit you're dumb.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
It's not an acronym, idiot. It's a case. Iqbal. Another one is Twombley.
1 SamRobertsPhiltrum 2019-02-15
Iqbal has no bearing on Joe's potential matter, (I'm sure) he has screenshots of the defamation and which user made the statement. Or screenshots of bragging of calling a place to get his gig canceled. And the gig gets canceled.
It couldn't be a clearer complaint, stupid.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
And if you think you can just file a lawsuit against John doe and then start demanding these entities hand you documents, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and are not a lawyer.
They are going to Stonewall you. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. File a suit against John doe and subpoena my info.
1 SamRobertsPhiltrum 2019-02-15
Now that's legal talk if I've heard it.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
Yeah. It's the difference between googling something and actually doing it.
1 CASCAI 2019-02-15
Who needs lawyer school when you can just google this shit? Just defend yourself in court too.
1 3sharpies2many 2019-02-15
The Opster taught us all the legality we ever need to know. As long as you say allegedly, all is good. Allegedly.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
Or I think or in my opinion.
1 Doc_McCoyXYZ 2019-02-15
What do you do for a living, character?
1 Belchides 2019-02-15
Thanks M.
1 WillyCosby 2019-02-15
Thanks for your service
1 BullsLawDan 2019-02-15
It's funny, because essentially everything we do here meets the NY Times v. Sullivan standard of "actual malice"... But it's also all true.
1 deep_legal_shit 2019-02-15
I love accusing popular figures of complete falsehoods in a public place knowing I'm fully within my legal rights doing so.
1 TARE_ME 2019-02-15
As someone who's a YMCA law school law school graduate, I support this post.
1 Skip4play 2019-02-15
So what you are saying is, Carry on?
1 DeadWithoutMyDavid 2019-02-15
Thank you Mr Jew sir
1 DeadWithoutMyDavid 2019-02-15
I wasn't actually concerned that Joe writing "subpoena" under my Facebook comments would get me in legal hot water but thanks just the same Mr Jew, sir.
1 Skip4play 2019-02-15
Kind of off topic but what were your thoughts of Joes Peoples Court appearance?
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
One of the best days of my life.
1 SalesCunt129 2019-02-15
Now we know what Ron Sage has been up to all these years !
1 Ants_Oily_Hair 2019-02-15
We have such a collection of fine gentlemen, I am beside myself.
Thank you, may justice prevail
1 DryTeeth 2019-02-15
Wait wait wait. Holdonholdonholdonholdon.....
If I just scream Subpoena at people....they don't have to show up to court????
What the fuck has happened to this country - and our legal system? Are u really a lawyer? We need Malcolm.
1 lawyerherelistenup 2019-02-15
No. You got it all wrong. You don't scream subpoena. You leave it as a comment on Facebook to preserve your right.
1 ILoveYouJohnnyCakes 2019-02-15
Dumbass Joe would also need to find a lawyer willing to defend him in another state, if they don't practice there already, and if he insists on a lawyer who doesn't practice in the different state, he'll need pro hac vitae approved. All of this is $$$$$$$$$$ Bro Joe doesn't have to spend, and if he suddenly comes up with it, that's money he's been hiding from the courts with which he should be paying child support.
1 PresidentJonStewart 2019-02-15
What's a pederast, Walter?