At one point in the recent proceedings, attorney Jeff “Sugarland” Chiow was tossing around the use of the word defamation, suggesting that I had defamed him by stating that his Pennsylvania subpoena was invalid on its face. As with his use of inflammatory language and his “alternative facts,” (including his reference to a fictional church shooting in the equally fictional city of “Sugarland Texas”), this claim is seriously sketch.
As Jeff fully knows, under the UIDDA, which is the statute that provides for enforcement of out of state subpoenas in states that have implemented the UIDDA, the deponent’s state is the one that, not surprisingly, controls access to the deponent (the person whose testimony is sought. See, for instance:
That’s a problem for Jeff, as Pennsylvania requires leave of court for discovery in protection from abuse cases. See:
Having failed to motion the court for leave, his “subpoena” of my mother was invalid from day one. In other words, it was a piece of paper with the word subpoena on it, nothing more. And having argued to the court that he had a valid subpoena indicates that Jeff either was clueless, or deliberately deceptive. My guess is the latter, as he even saw this issue referenced in the motion filed by Mom’s attorney.
In cases where this is such a motion, the courts will typically ask if there is a less burdensome way to obtain this information. In a case such as this, the answer is yes—you just subpoena the company that hosts the blog and find out who’s been posting what, when.
But Jeff’s ineptitude went further. Local rules require, inter alia, that counsel attach a proposed final order to all motions. Having not attached any such thing to either his motion for reconsideration or his motion to hold his prior motion in abeyance, the clerk is unlikely to have even “noticed” the motions, meaning to do anything with them.
My advice, worth exactly what you paid for it: Jeff should stick to contracts work. He made a complete and total ass out of himself in this case, even managing to make Grace Church look bad. Moreover, his ethics are, at best, questionable, with his use of inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric serving only to illustrate just how toxic Grace Church and Bob Malm really are.
Or, as Mike said last time we attended services at Grace, referring to the parish: “See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya.”