Well, if you were to google the phrase motion to quash subpoena (without quotations or any other connectors), you could click on the first link and. . .oh wait. It seems Waldo has been here before.

Seriously, I should hope that one of real attorneys (read: practicing) that read this would be able to provide some guidance/help. If that doesn’t happen, email me.

Posted by Kaveh on 25 January 02009 @ 9pm

Well, if you were to google the phrase motion to quash subpoena (without quotations or any other connectors), you could click on the first link and. . .oh wait. It seems Waldo has been here before.

That is awesome. I had no idea. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 25 January 02009 @ 9pm

Hah, join the club buddy! If you need to file any motions I have a template that you can plug and play into…

Posted by Chris Gorski on 25 January 02009 @ 9pm

Well, it’s kinda reassuring it’s not something more serious… But still, quite a nuisance. Hopefully the years spent dealing with loonies at Chaps and around downtown will serve you well in this…

Posted by Patrick A. Reed on 25 January 02009 @ 9pm

Rock ‘em, Waldo.

Posted by MB on 25 January 02009 @ 10pm

Aren’t you going to have to provide this post as a part of the subpeona?

Posted by Kevin on 26 January 02009 @ 7am

In the hopes that Tommy Garrett will subpoena this blog entry and its attached comments: Mr. Garrett, you are a douchebag.

Posted by Hawkins Dale on 26 January 02009 @ 7am

hahahahaha, I have nothing to say other than that Kaveh’s comment was brilliant.

Posted by Joe on 26 January 02009 @ 9am

Tommy Garrett, you pathetic coward. Did it not occur to you that Waldo will now be obliged by this subpoena to demonstrate that it was in fact you who was posting comment on here and pretending to be a 3rd party defending yourself?

Since you are asking that all names and IP addresses be looked into, that is exactly what is going to happen. And you will look like a complete idiot. Again.

Posted by Jackson Landers on 26 January 02009 @ 9am

On the off chance you do have to turn over this post an all comments contained therein, I’m going to start coming up with some incredibly non-sequitir and uncomfortable comments for Tommy’s lawyers to wade through.

First topic on the docket (slight pun intended): “On Technical Virginity and the Importance of Premarital Anal Sex in Preserving the Judeo-Christian Nuclear Family.”

Hope you enjoy paying your attorneys’ billable hours for this one, Tommy.

Posted by Sam on 26 January 02009 @ 10am

Heh, heh… Sam said “subpoena.” Heh, heh.

Posted by Hawkins Dale on 26 January 02009 @ 10am

…no I didn’t. :P

Posted by Sam on 26 January 02009 @ 10am

Well, since this blog is now For The Record, here’s a couple of measures of “Tater Patch,” clawhammer-style. (Tune to G or A.)

— 0 0
— | |
— | | 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
— | | | | 3 | | | | |
— | | 0 | | | | | | | | 0
| |__| (–) | | (–) | |__|
PO H

Posted by Jeff Uphoff on 26 January 02009 @ 11am

Oh, dear. That didn’t come out AT ALL as I had intended.

(Heh. Good metaphor for banjo-playing in general, I s’pose!)

Posted by Jeff Uphoff on 26 January 02009 @ 12pm

Yes, I do believe that any comments posted here will become a part of the record under the terms of the subpoena.

Do with that what you will.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 January 02009 @ 12pm

When I want to impress a guest, I like to demonstrate my flair for the creative through cooking. This can be an especially important social interaction with elligible young women if, like me, you are an elligible young bachelor. Much like it’s important for the plaintiff in a libel case to demonstrate that he was identified, that information published about him was defamatory, that the information published was false, and that publication was the responsibility of the defendant, it is also important for a young man to show that he has a quiet domestic side independent of his professional life. And while Tommy Garrett is pretty much screwed viz. his ability to meet that burden of proof, nothing says “this man is good husband material” better than my braised pork tenderloin in a cherry burgundy sauce.

Taking one length of pork tenderloin, cut across it to make several round pork medallions roughly one inch thick. Salt and pepper the raw meat before pan searing it over high heat for about a minute on each side in vegetable oil and butter. The goal is to quickly sear the top and the bottom of the meat while leaving the inside raw. Remove the meat and keep it under a warming tent of tinfoil.

To the oil and butter add sliced mushrooms and chopped shallots. Simmer on low heat, stirring occassionally until the shallots are transluscent and the mushrooms browned. To mushrooms and shallots add 1 cup burgundy wine (subs. pinot noir if desired) and 1/3rd cup dried tart cherries. Continue to warm on low heat–the wine should reduce to about half its original volume, but it shouldn’t be allowed to boil. Allow cherries to infuse the wine.

Reintroduce the pork medallions and continue to simmer on low heat while the pork finishes cooking through. While this can take as little as ten minutes or so, err on the side of giving the pork as much time as possible so that the wine can break down the proteins in the tenderloin. This will further soften the meat and allow the flavor to permeate. Before serving, add whole cream to thicken the remaining wine sauce. Plate. Serve with a grain like couscous or wild rice and a green vegetable like steamed green beans or asparagus.

While Tommy Garrett my require a painfully amateurish website to promote himself as…whatever he’s trying to promote himself as, demonstrating cullinary excellence is as easy as braising a little pork and letting red cherries and wine do the work for you!

(Hopefully that took someone 15 minutes to read about $250/hour)

Posted by Sam on 26 January 02009 @ 12pm

With all the friends you have and the folks you know, They should be standing in line to help you. What ever happened to all of us having free speech

Posted by ilovepolitics on 26 January 02009 @ 1pm

Excellent, Sam. May I suggest posting in foreign languages. Preferably, languages that might require the services of a somewhat expensive translator. Omidvaram keh dooleh Tommy Garrett nayofteh.

Ok guys, your turns.

Come on, Waldo. Can’t you install some more language scripts?

Posted by Kaveh on 26 January 02009 @ 1pm

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ciolli-memo-in-support-of-motion-to-quash.pdf

Posted by nowrongdoer on 26 January 02009 @ 3pm

tommy không phải là giá trị các điểm ảnh này sẽ hiển thị. Waldo là một người tốt hơn và Tommy biết nó

Posted by Domini on 26 January 02009 @ 5pm

湯米是不值得的像素這需要顯示。
瓦爾多是一個更好的人知道它和Tommy

Posted by Domini on 26 January 02009 @ 5pm

Gbzzl Tneergg naq uvf ynjlref ner vaqrrq jnfgvat
gurve gvzr vs gurl ner gelvat gb svther bhg jung
gurfr ovgf bs sbervta ynathntrf naq jrnxyl
rapbqrq ebg13 pvcuref ner fnlvat nobhg gurz.
Qvq V zragvba gung guvf pvcure jnf cebqhprq ol
fbsgjner gung jnf bevtvanyyl perngrq ol n cevingr
ynobengbel jubfr cebqhpgf jrer hfrq sbe checbfrf
bs vagryyvtrapr tngurevat? Naq gung qrpvcurevat vg
znl, whfg znl, ivbyngrq nyy fbegf bs angvbany
frphevgl cebivfvbaf? Cyhf znxr unve tebj ba lbhe
cnyzf? Bbcf–gbb yngr gb ghea onpx abj, ybfref!

Posted by David Sewell on 26 January 02009 @ 7pm

Sam, I admire your tenacity in frustrating Mr. Garrett’s attorney. However, it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff in this suit will pay anything more than the filing fees. His attorney almost certainly took the case on a contingency basis. And the attorney who took this case is either desperate for work, or hoping for a nice settlement. There’s no way he wants to take this in front of a jury.

Good luck, Waldo. It will be a PITA in large part, but I’m guessing you’ll have a lot of fun, and at the very least have some great blogging material.

Posted by I.Publius on 26 January 02009 @ 7pm

Eh, worst case scenario, everyone’s a slightly more-worldly cook than they were before. :-)

Posted by Sam on 26 January 02009 @ 7pm

Waldo- Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996).

Have fun.

Posted by Genevieve on 26 January 02009 @ 9pm

Thanks for the references, folks—these are wicked useful. Some aspects of Washington v. Alaimo look particularly useful. ;)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 January 02009 @ 10pm

Colorado, but pretty on point: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/News/2008-06-10_GazettesReply-inSupport-ofMotion-toQuash.pdf

I miss Westlaw

Posted by Kaveh on 26 January 02009 @ 10pm

Ipsy dipsy dibbety dee, a dee a dee a domini. Ah chee pah chee, goomah lahchey.

Ahm pahm dutch.

Posted by Janis Jaquith on 27 January 02009 @ 10am

Damn lawyers!

Posted by James Young on 27 January 02009 @ 11pm

You do realize, Waldo, that if successful, the subpoena would require you to send them all comments you’ve received on these posts, including spam. And it would be best to send it ordered by timestamp, with no distinction between displayed comments and those marked as spam. (Who knows, maybe there are some false positives, and you wouldn’t want to be accused of hiding anything.)

That would be amusing to watch them sort through.

Posted by Tim McCormack on 3 February 02009 @ 9am