My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

"SCO told you something that isn't true. No one tried to serve me that I
knew about. No one informed me of any deposition date. That is true."

You must have stopped reading Groklaw during your illness, PJ, because the rest
of us were discussing SCO's efforts on a daily basis -- while suggesting and
offering potential hiding places where you might evade service.

Of course, I never believed it for a moment. Your oft-vaunted belief and
commitment to the US court system would never allow you to do such a thing. But
some of your readers were rather less charitable.

And can I suggest that those are one set of unhelpful comments you might wish to
avoid deleting?

Good luck with the depo.

02:05 AM EDT

Umm... is there any substance to the OSDL claim?

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

Note: if true, and even if it's true, that doesn't mean that PJ was influenced in any way, and even if she was, that would be an issue for OSDL and IBM, not for PJ.

But even so... I'd like to know if there's substance in that specific allegation.

03:54 AM EDT

Communications with IBM

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

I would like to know whether also Groklaw received litigation related documents
from IBM employees or counsel.
It doesn't look to me like SCOX wants to incriminate Groklaw activities but
rather wants to expose IBM's organized campaign to actively feed selected media
to destabilize SCOX in public perception.

04:40 AM EDT

So what were they doing for almost 2 weeks?

By Barrowwright

April 04 2007

The dates here don't make sense:
Subpoena issued 30th Jan (Tuesday).
PJ takes a vacation 10th Feb (Sunday).

So what was happening in the meantime? SCO had at least 8 working days, not
counting weekends to serve the document and obviously failed completely.

Maybe they put the subpoena in the famous briefcase with the other important
documents?

Did they actually try to serve anyone? Or was this motion the intended
outcome?

Still, it will be interesting to watch SCO playing with the footgun again :-)

---
Barrowwright

04:47 AM EDT

The "how can we help PJ?" thread

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

As Groklaw has already demonstrated, one of the greatest powers of the community
is (also) this: many eyeballs make all *accusations* shallow.

So, to start with, I (for one) have 3 small comments/suggestions:

- It seems that she already contacted a lawyer. This is a "Good Thing To
Do" (TM);

- Shouldn't we bring the focus on blogger's "freedom of speech"?

- Is there any possibility that her deposition could be done by e-mail (as many
of Groklaw's interviews and "pick your brains", in the past) instead
of personally?

[I am *obviously* not a lawyer. Besides, English is not my first language. And
I'm anonymous, too. Isn't it wonderful that even someone like me can (try to)
help?]

04:47 AM EDT

And?

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

Hypothetically, if Groklaw were completely sponsored by IBM, is that even
relevant to the cases? I suppose if IBM leaked unauthorized material to the
public via Groklaw, that would be relevant. Is that what they're claiming? I
just don't understand otherwise...

Can someone explain why it would matter legally?

snt

04:55 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By haegarth

April 04 2007

Just great. I'm quite convinced PJ is a real person, who simply speaks her mind
blog style. But, of course, I have no proof whatsoever.

So let's just consider the possibilty SCO was correct with all their
assumptions, meaning that PJ is, in fact, just an invention of some people at
IBM - a bunch of ghostwriters acting in favour of IBM's goals. Let's also assume
SCO had evidence to prove that fact (which I consider highly unlikely).

What would they gain?

Until now, they have managed to officially direct Judge Kimball's and Judge
Wells' attention to groklaw. IMHO everything they will find here is somebody's
opinion based on reproduceable facts, nothing more, nothing less. No foul
language, nothing to base a lawsuit on (not counting SCO, who are quite capable
of constructing a lawsuit on anything whatsoever, that is). Whether there's a
real person running this site or a conglomerate of IBM employees doesn't change
anything about groklaw.

Will it do them any good? Well, since some good arises from anything, here are
SCO's benefits:
- they bought more time since both Judges should now have to study a
considerable percentage of groklaw's content in depth - if they're really
willing to start taking blogs so serious that they can be deemed valid sources
for discovery, an implication that has already been discussed in some other post
on groklaw...

- a few more articles in SCO's favour (from those who have always taken SCO's
view as mere truth)

- ... no, I guess that's it already.

I doubt that they will gain anything else out of their stupidest move since the
SCOsuit began, but I'm afraid there's little risk in it for them at this point
either. Their own creditability has long been shattered by themselves, no decent
company would still want to make business with them, their financial situation
is getting worse each day.... they have their backs against the wall, from this
point there's not much more to lose, so why not point the gun in an arbitrary
direction and pull the trigger? That's exactly what's happening here, isn't it?

The fact that PJ may or may not be a real person might be considered to have
some implication on groklaw's credibility, at least by some SCO lawyer. Whether
the court will follow them there has to be seen, but chances are slim.

In the end there's just more delay and more propaganda (even Goebbels would have
been proud).

So, PJ, if you're a person: keep up the good work. If you're a team of
ghostwriters: same goes for you. In any case there's nothing wrong with groklaw!

---
MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....

05:56 AM EDT

The best revenge -not

By MindShaper

April 04 2007

---
There's a difference between being free and being unnoticed.

07:01 AM EDT

Communications with IBM

By Stumbles

April 04 2007

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

07:14 AM EDT

Communications with IBM

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

Sometimes however "it is an OCR (optical character recognition) conversion
from the original copy of IBM's multi-page TIF distributed to the press by IBM's
PR people and the FAX cover sheet has been removed and page-header references to
the sender's phone number have been removed for privacy". Sometimes there
even comes a letter with it highlighting the key points.

07:27 AM EDT

And tit for tat

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

In a recent hearing IBM mentioned that TSCOG had binder(s) full of clippings in
their waiting room dissing IBM in public media. This could really hurt them in
IBM's counter claims.

Raising a credible possibility that Groklaw is IBM's sock puppet would be a
defense, especially since IBM has been notably restrained in issuing any public
statements about the case.

I am not a lawyer; I am the Groklaw addict dtangomike on someone else's
computer.

07:36 AM EDT

And tit for tat

By PJ

April 04 2007

They may also feel this will protect them from
me suing them for libel.

08:25 AM EDT

Communications with IBM

By PJ

April 04 2007

What are you saying? That if IBM distributed a
legal document to journalists that I am not
allowed to ask for a copy too?

PS: I don't have a fax machine.

08:27 AM EDT

Communications with IBM

By PJ

April 04 2007

They certainly didn't much, but in the early days,
I recall them doing so a couple of times.

But so what? SCO was distributing its legal
documents to the press like Tshirts at a
tech conference.

And just exactly how did Dan Lyons find out that
SCO was going to try to file a 3rd Amended Complaint
about Project Monterey? He didn't get it from IBM,
so it seems SCO fed him that info. And how did MOG
know that SCO had hired David Boies and was thinking
about suing? She had that exclusively, as you recall
in January of 2003. How did she write about what
was shown to the court (which she was not in) when
the whiteboard had been deliberately angled so the
public couldn't see it, even if she had been there?
I don't think IBM called her up.

So you see, SCO is full of it. Journalists do
get info and documents from the parties, because
that is how you cover a story. And even one of
the SCO exhibits shows me writing that I read about
a new IBM filing on News.com and that I'd try to
get a copy of it. I did. I don't remember how,
whether from another journalist or by asking IBM
for it, or from the court, but someone had it
before I did, anyway.

They are trying to imply something by this. But
it's of no significance at all. Unless SCO would
like to posit that all the other journalists
who got documents and scoops are on their payroll,
and IBM and Novell get to depose Enderle and Lyons
and MOG and DiDio and use what they learn about
contacts with SCO to prove SCO is responsible
for what they wrote.

Shall we dance?

08:35 AM EDT

So what were they doing for almost 2 weeks?

By PJ

April 04 2007

I stopped writing, but I didn't go anywhere. That
is the truly amazing part about their story.

08:39 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By dan_stephans

April 04 2007

*rolls eyes*

You would be the only one then out of all the groklaw readers that wasn't aware of this. Sorry, the well timed illness and ignorance claim is not passing my sniff test.

09:23 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By PJ

April 04 2007

Then let me hit you with a clue bat. Serving someone
means going to their home or office and handing them
some papers. You don't serve people by media. Even
if I had known about the media reports, that isn't
service.

09:47 AM EDT

Timeline and proof

By mlwmohawk

April 04 2007

A "well timed" illness, as a statement, is pretty leading. The alleged
"well timed" illness is more appropriate.

Sorry, for all the gamesmanship going on in this case, the smear by press
release, the reporters tied to Yarro's companies, it is hard to believe anything
that one reads in the news. We are, therefore, forced to try to find the truth
ourselves.

Was it a well timed illness? Let's say it is, so what? People duck subpoenas all
the time for any number of reasons. If SCO wished to issue a subpoena, and I got
wind of it, I'd be pretty hard to find myself until I was able to devise a
proper legal strategy for dealing with the subpoena. It is always better to know
the answers before you are asked the questions no matter how innocent you are.

Now, lets assume that they are using bad faith here, they say they are trying to
serve a subpoena, claim she is hard to find, but, in fact, have done nothing
merely trying to smear PJ even more and prejudice the court.

In short, given the nature and history of SCO's actions, I neither believe them,
not do I care if they are telling the truth. Anyone who comes in legal contact
with them is going to have to deal with a crap-storm of legal nonsense, and any
rational person would be best served by avoiding any such contact.

10:10 AM EDT

Timeline and proof

By dan_stephans

April 04 2007

Well, I for one believe that SCO very much wants to talk to PJ, especially if
the allegations (mostly redacted for the good parts) in their motion are even
close to true.

I am a skeptic and as I've said before, the materials here at groklaw have been
invaluable to me over the years but on this particular issue I've been having
trouble reconciling things. It will all sort itself out in time.

10:21 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By Alex

April 04 2007

In factual terms, it doesn't matter whether PJ is a real person or not. The
article I wrote about Tigran Aivazian, a SCO employee who worked on the Linux
kernel on his own time with the approval of SCO management is, for example,
still based on real research, and the sources of my research are still available
on the Internet. Anyone who wants to know whether I, or my research, are real
can still go back to the primary sources, read the same things I read, and come
to their own conclusions.

I haven't posted here much in the last two years, but as a participant in the
early stages of Groklaw, and a careful reader of all the evidence, I can tell
you that the conclusions are real regardless of PJ's identity - or lack
thereof.

Alex

---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"

10:25 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By shiptar

April 04 2007

As far as openness and clarity on Groklaw, this issue is perhaps the one that is
most unclear and most ambiguous. There are no public documents proving what you
say. There is no evidence. That is probably the first time that has happened
on Groklaw.

If we're talking about doubt here, I think there reasonably is some.

Again, that isn't to say that this isn't absolutely ridiculous and I think
they've gone to far and have no right to do something like this.

The shadow of doubt does exist, and I don't think it ever has on Groklaw before.
While everyone here believes you, we don't have something to look at and say,
hey, she's totally telling the truth. It's based on faith, and we all know how
good faith works. (See SCO v IBM)

Again, I'm saying that I think this is wrong, and yet another abuse of this
Justice system that is so loved here.

However, this isn't the same as PJ saying something and backing it up with
evidence, like every other time on Groklaw. I think that was the point of the
OP, no matter how rude he was. He was perhaps more skeptical, but I think PJ
does deserve the benefit of the doubt, considering her record. And that is
straight from a Trolls mouth. =)

Finally, I am reiterating that I think PJ being served is ridiculous, they have
no right, and there is no basis for it whatsoever. I am completely supportive
of that position.

10:45 AM EDT

Timeline and proof

By PJ

April 04 2007

Yes. You will find out all the details in due time.
Be patient and don't worry.

01:46 PM EDT

let's review the allegation

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

The allegation SCO makes goes like this:

1. OSDL gave money to groklaw
2. IBM is a funder of OSDL
3. The OSDL chairman was an IBM guy.
4. Therefore, IBM knew about it and implicitly approved it, if not actually
directing it to happen.
5. Therefore, PJ is influenced by payments from IBM laundered through OSDL.

Are these allegations true?

1. The quoted evidence is Dan Lyons' personal blog, where he quotes an anonymous
source. I mean, really. I don't know that the allegation is false, but the
evidence that it's true could hardly be flimsier.
2. I assume everyone agrees this is true.
3. This too.
4. No evidence for this, they just want to call it obvious, but the lame
evidence for item 1 undercuts this conclusion. Lyons quotes two board members
(one anonymously) both of whom say they didn't know about it. So why is it so
obvious that the chairman would know?
5. SCO presents no evidence that bears on this item. I guess it's just supposed
to be obvious by now that if PJ took money from OSDL, and the IBM guy knew about
it, then PJ is a pawn of IBM. Not of any of the other companies that contribute
to and serve on the board of OSDL -- just IBM.

I think that's a fair summary. My personal feeling is 1) SCO has given us no
reason to suppose OSDL gave money to groklaw, and 2) even if they did, how is
that any less lame a connection than the ibiblio thing?

01:47 PM EDT

let's review the allegation

By PJ

April 04 2007

Have you ever known Lyons to get all his facts
right?

As I say, in due time, I'll tell you the whole
story, but I have to get lawyered up first and all that
jazz.

What is more interesting to me is this: how is it
that Lyons always seems to write an article that
foreshadows SCO's next move? He wrote about the
proposed 3rd Amended Complain before SCO filed it.
He wrote about me allegedly living near IBM and about
ibiblio, and then SCO started on that meme. He
wrote about Sys.con being DDOSed by Groklaw, which
it wasn't and which the head of Sys.com at the time
said it wasn't.

Yet here that surfaces again in the Register piece or
one of the exhibits.

And Lyons writes that I am allegedly hiding from a
subpoena and then SCO files papers making the same
allegation and relying on his writings.

They relied on him once before, as you will recall,
and his handiwork showed up as an exhibit in a
memo from IBM later, IIRC. But my point is, he
seems to have a lot of foreknowledge about what SCO
is thinking of doing.

I've never once written anything like that. Not
once. That is because I have no insider information
to write about, not because I wouldn't write about
it if I did.

So, we see Lyons asking on his blog for information
about my whereabouts. Then shortly thereafter,
SCO claims they tried to subpoena me but I wouldn't
accept service, and then he writes that. So, is Lyons working with SCO to try to
find me? The evidence
indicates to me that he may well be. Why?

What is that connection? Say, isn't SCO saying that
IBM shouldn't talk to the press? What about SCO?
Are they supposed to talk to the press? If not,
why did Lyons interview Brent Hatch about the
spoliation motion, which he wrote about ... say,
was that before it was filed? I can't remember, but
in any case, Forbes published the article, so someone
at SCO -- one of their lawyers to boot -- was talking
to the press, and for sure no one would accuse Lyons
of not having a point of view on this litigation.

Well, there you are. Idiots on parade.

01:58 PM EDT

Jan 25 - article, Jan 30 - subpoena

By grouch

April 04 2007

I suspect the purpose of all this is to make PJ a part of the lawsuit and get the judge to gag her.

There is some foundation for your suspicion (at least more foundation than the SCOGs bother with).

On January 25, 2007, PJ posted the article Juries: Can They Blog? What Can They Read? - Jury Instructions in Comes v. MS [ http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070125065017119 ]. In the article, among other things, PJ joked, "All in all, I'd say SCO's best plan of action is to get me on the jury. Kidding. I don't live in Utah, so I'm beyond their reach for that." The SCOGs are apparently trying to smear PJ and hoping that a side effect of deposing her would be that she doesn't 'blog' about it.

According to the PDF (IBM-1018), the SCOGs issued their subpoena on January 30, 5 days after the article referenced above was posted.

One notably slimey remark in the PDF is, "Obviously aware of SCO's designs to depose her, Ms. Jones has neither accepted service of the subpoena, nor agreed to appear for deposition, but rather appears to have fled and evaded service of the subpoena." Obviously, SCOGs designs and machinations appear to be contrived to blame everyone in the world with conspiracies against SCOG, since obviously SCOG appears to be conspiring against everyone in the world.

---
-- grouch

http://edge-op.org/links1.html

02:20 PM EDT

Jan 25 - article, Jan 30 - subpoena

By Anonymous

April 04 2007

Can the witness at a deposition record it? When a journalist is questioned it
is "off the record". I think SCO would think twice about talking to
PJ if everything they said was going to appear on the net rather than as a
sealed document.

03:26 PM EDT

Jan 25 - article, Jan 30 - subpoena

By PJ

April 04 2007

Unless they want my face known all around the world, and
that along with my address, so some "lone gunman" netkook
can find me, and woops. Sorry, PJ, that you got killed.
We at SCO had nothing to do with it. Har har.

03:45 PM EDT

Jan 25 - article, Jan 30 - subpoena

By Clocks

April 04 2007

While that may sound like paranoia in court, I would present that there is ample
evidence for that sort of threat being present based on full identities posted
on the internet.

---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

05:12 PM EDT

The "how can we help PJ?" thread

By moosie

April 05 2007

PJ I will help with legal expenses. Please tell me where I can help. See my bio
for email. BTW, I don't entirely trust paypal. Even though I am buying a house,
I can contribute as is my wont (yes everyone, look it up).

-moosie.

P.S. PJ, thanks for this. You are an inspiration to everyone whether you want
that distinction or not. I for one thank you.

---
"Look here brother, who you jivin' with that cosmic debris" - Frank Zappa

02:30 AM EDT

The "how can we help PJ?" thread

By PJ

April 05 2007

If you don't trust paypal (I must say I've never had
a problem, though), then when I find a lawyer and
retain him or her, I'll post the name, and anyone
who wishes can send contributions directly to the
lawyer.

05:40 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By PJ

April 05 2007

I did stop. That was the whole point. To get
away and rest. By away, I mean to bed, not
to the Bahamas.

But even if I had read it all, that isn't
service. SCO is claiming I refused service,
which is a legal phrase, meaning someone tried
to serve me and I refused to accept it, but
that never, ever happened.

06:44 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By PJ

April 05 2007

Hi Alex,

But don't you see that the purpose of the Big Lie is
precisely that it lingers. The fact that you are
discussing whether I am a real person stems directly
from their Big Lie.

That is why they do it. It isn't because they ever
thought I wasn't a real person, I don't think. It's just
to get some mud, some question about Groklaw and PJ to
linger in the air.

The IBM stuff is the same. They know there is no
such connection. They know it and the wispiness of
this memo proves that they know it, to me. They just
want to say it, because they know that some will think
that where there's smoke, there must be fire, so SCO
sends up the smoke.

It's base and deceitful, particularly since they were
telling the media I might not be a real person while
simultaneously, they claim, trying to serve me.

Hello?

07:39 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By PJ

April 05 2007

I was never involved as a witness before, so I
can't say too much yet. But in time, I've no
doubt you'll get to know the whole story.

But now that the possibility of a deposition
is in the air, I naturally have to behave
differently than if I were not personally
involved. If that makes any of you
suspicious, I can't help you out at this time,
but my record ought to help you figure out
which of us is more likely to be right, me
or SCO.

08:04 AM EDT

PJ Connection to Novell and IBM?

By pscottdv

April 05 2007

PJ,

SCO claims to have obtained evidence of "allegience and financial
connection to Novell and IBM." You don't explicitly refute this in the
article, although you have done so in the past with respect to IBM, anyway.

09:21 AM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By Anonymous

April 05 2007

Pj, your story is exactly like mine and the claims by the plaintiffs are
virtually identical.
Welcome to the wild wild world of frivolous litigation. I have some recent
experience in that area myself. In 2001, I owned a domain name [Ray-Gordon.com]
and agreed to point it to a website [which I didn't control and did't author the
content of]. Apparently the business owner the site criticised took issue with
the content and came after me.
In the last 4 years, the business owner has filed four suits in federal district
court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and now the last one [denied] is
on appeal to the Third Circuit. The plaintiff is suing for $2 billion. That's
right, billion with a capital B.
The owner has alleged I am part of a worldwide conspiracy, a mafia, and is
basing his suits on civil RICO statutes, the Landham act, Sarbanes-Oxley, libel,
defamation and tortious interference.
Unlike Groklaw, I didn't author the content on the site or control it, my only
part in the whole thing was owning the domain name.
If you have PACER access, the cases in this instance are NOS. NO. 05-2752 in
PAED and NOS. 06-2246 & 06-4166 (Consolidated) in CA3. There is a sister
complaint in the Delaware district court by the same plaintiff [C.A. No. 06-229
SLR]. This is the same plaintiff who once sued Google for $10 billion.
I have represented myself as pro se in all the cases where I am a named
defendant. It looks like you might be headed into the same type of situation
I've been in. Perhaps something in the cases in my situation might help you
along the way in your own efforts. It looks like the errors and faults with both
plaintiffs' pleadings and motions are similar in our cases.

Just thought you might find the similarities interesting, and you might be able
to use some argument or something from my cases as an idea in some way.

Good luck

OldDogAdmin

11:55 AM EDT

PJ Connection to Novell and IBM?

By PJ

April 05 2007

Novell? Are you kidding? The only connection is
that they hate my guts.

12:20 PM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By PJ

April 05 2007

Thank you. If by any chance you have those documents and could email them to me,
I'd like to take a look.

12:25 PM EDT

My Very Own Motion, Tra La

By Alex

April 08 2007

PJ, I know you're real. I'm addressing those who might be skeptical that this is
the case.

Arguing about whether you're real, however, seems counterproductive to me - I
don't know what kind of propaganda a new reader might have been exposed to. But
explaining that the research is good regardless, and explaining
<i>why</i> the research is good, and how it will be effective in
court regardless of your reality is a much better strategy. The aggregate of
Groklaw is much bigger than you, and much more powerful than you, and it will go
on destroying SCO's ridiculous arguments no matter what happens to you.

Alex

---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"

11:18 PM EDT

Copyright 2007 http://www.groklaw.net/