Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I guess this brings up and interesting issue -- once someone knows the ins and outs of a system, sometimes there are very few barriers internally to check that an order/paperwork is legit.

I used to work as a criminal defense attorney, and the job regularly required that I obtain subpoenas from the court in order to mandate a witness's appearance at court. My state courts have a template that subpoenas must follow, wherein you would include the case number, attorney name, witness name, and other basic details.

Once the template is completed, you take the original along with a certain number of copies to the court clerk for filing. All the clerks would do is make sure that the case number on the subpoena corresponds to a case that actually exists in the system, and that the names of the plaintiff(s)/defendant(s) are accurate.

The clerks never asked me any questions about my role in the case (e.g., whether I was a party to the case, an attorney, or a staff member of the law firm representing a party), nor did they ever ask me to provide any sort of identification. I just give the clerk the papers, they look at the papers, they stamp the original and copies, and then they return the copies to me (which are to be served on the witness and/or opposing counsel).

I don't think there's a ton of value someone could get out of obtaining a fake subpoena (other than perhaps issuing your own self a subpoena as an excuse to get out of work, or maybe just to screw with someone), but it was always pretty astonishing to me that anyone off the street can just dump some papers in front of a court clerk and receive a legal order mandating someone's appearance in court--no questions asked.



> I don't think there's a ton of value someone could get out of obtaining a fake subpoena

A subpoena can also order the production of documents (in many cases including business records about other people, such as log files). That could be pretty consequential if the private information turned over was very sensitive.

When I was working at EFF I filed some comments on an international law enforcement cooperation plan where one thing that bothered me a lot was that, if you formalize the idea that jurisdiction A has to directly enforce orders/process/formal law enforcement requests from jurisdiction B, people in jurisdiction A will have even less idea how to authenticate them, and there will be even less likelihood of a remedy in case of a deliberately fraudulent request. The domestic status quo (as you point out) is typically pretty low authentication, but at least there's a likelihood of some significant punishment for people who commit fraud on a court (judges really dislike that). Now imagine if you could do this without even being in the country where you're committing the fraud! :-(


That's a good point.

I think, generally, a subpoena issued as a request for production of documents would likely be vetted by an attorney; however, I could see how a small business owner (for example) may be likely to accept an official-looking subpoena at face value and seek to comply out of fear without first consulting a lawyer.


> I don't think there's a ton of value someone could get out of obtaining a fake subpoena (other than perhaps issuing your own self a subpoena as an excuse to get out of work, or maybe just to screw with someone)

That would make a great plot for George on Seinfeld.


I'm so sorry Mistah Steinbrenner I can't come in tomorrow, you see I've actually been subpoenaed to testify at a trial.

What trial? Uh, well, it's over a case with, um, an Architect, Art Vandelay, who, um, was was contracted to, uh, redesign the Lincoln Tunnel with a system of magnets so the cars would all go through at the same speed, but, uh his idea, you see, was stolen by a Mr. Pennypacker, a wealthy industrialist.

It's really a case of the century. Um. So, I actually have to go now.

(Proceeds to go home and eat a block of cheese the size of a car battery.)


A similar process exists in Australia. It is a bit strange that the burden is on the recipient to object to an unlawful subpoena. I understand that it’s pretty common for vexatious litigants to issue subpoenas requiring politicians, governors and other public figures to attend court for cross-examination about a perceived injustice, and there is a bit of work involved in arranging for these to be set aside so that nobody ends up formally in contempt of court.


Subpoena power is a hell of a lot of leverage, and probably the biggest reason why all these terms-of-service agreements including binding arbitration. Like, if you can convince a small-claims court judge that it is relevant, it's definitely possible to subpoena high-level executives of multibillion dollar companies over a $100 dispute.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: