undefined | Better HN

0 pointsryanl0l9y ago0 comments

There's no need to prove that the subpoena was delivered unless the recipient claims otherwise. Email is regularly used to deliver subpoenas (in fact, it's probably the most common way to deliver them).

Quick google found several public examples of such subpoenas, like https://cock.li/transparency/2015-12-15-subpoena/00-2015-12-...

And in any case, if the recipient fraudulently claimed that they had not received the subpoena they'd be committing crime.

Edit: Am I wrong? Is the subpoena I linked a fake?

0 comments

pfg9y ago

Interestingly, there's also this bit on their homepage[1]:

> In order for your subpoena / order to be processed, it must be sent to my lawyer. Do not send subpoenas to vc@cock.li or abuse@cock.li. Instead, E-mail or call me to request my lawyer's contact information.

It makes sense to have an established point of contact (which might be an email address) for LEAs if you're something like an ISP which regularly receives subpoenas. I'm more curious about subpoenas sent to individuals via email without any prior LEA contact.

It's also worth noting that the burden of proof for something like this is, at least in my country, on the sender's end, which is why all court communication is sent by registered post.

[1]: https://cock.li/abuse

ryanl0lOP9y ago

The method of delivery doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of the subpoena, however with some methods it may be easier for the recipient to fraudulently claim that they didn't receive it.

I'm sure they'll use alternate methods if the emails are ignored.

sk5t9y ago

Service of process is regulated at the state, and sometimes local, level. For you to assert that email is a generally valid method requires some evidence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse