Bogus Subpoena Seeking Twitter Records

Megan Gray, a lawyer whom I know very well and trust a great deal, passes along this purported Delaware Attorney General's Office subpoena that Twitter received (with suitable redactions). It turns out that the subpoena was both unsigned and, apparently, bogus; the AG's office didn't authorize its issuance (though, even without the signature, the subpoena purports to be coming from the Delaware AG's office and refers to a supposed AG's investigation).

Not surprising to see that, especially given the nearly 100 forgeries of court orders that I've seen, but still worth noting. Remember, just because something says that it's a court order or a subpoena (or a contract or anything else) doesn't mean that it is one.

Comments

[Sidney r finkel]

While not related to this post, I was wondering if Prof. Volokh could comment on this story which seems like a very important issue if the reporting is correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/15/nyt-project-veritas-ruling-prior-restraint/

"On Nov. 11, 2021, the Times ran a story that detailed and published excerpts from a series of memos reportedly prepared by Project Veritas’s lawyer. Project Veritas claims these memos are “attorney-client privileged” — that is, they represent confidential legal advice.

According to Times reporters Adam Goldman and Mark Mazzetti, the documents contain guidance on how aggressive the group’s tactics could be while still avoiding running afoul of the law. Project Veritas’s practices had generated extensive news interest following reports in early November that the FBI had searched the homes of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and two associates in an investigation into the reported theft of a diary from Ashley Biden, President Biden’s daughter. (O’Keefe has denied any wrongdoing, saying, “We never break the law.”)

It’s important to emphasize that these memos are, according to the Times report, several years old. As such, they do not pertain to the defamation case against the Times, nor were they obtained as part of that litigation, and they do not relate to the FBI search.

Nonetheless, Project Veritas’s attorneys in the defamation proceeding asked for, and Justice Charles D. Wood of the state Supreme Court in Westchester County granted, an order restraining the Times from further reporting on the memos. In addition, the court instructed the Times to “cease further efforts to solicit or acquire” such materials.

Consider the implications if such a ruling became the norm. Any company, organization or private individual could sue a newspaper for defamation and then block the newspaper from reporting information that journalists have acquired independently on the grounds that it reveals something confidential the plaintiff would prefer to keep secret. Not only would that transform the civil court system into a general-purpose media censor, but it would also invite frivolous lawsuits brought expressly to shut down reporting in the public interest."

[Toranth]

First, that's not a "story", that's an opinion piece. It involved no research or presentation of new facts.

Also, notice the Times does not deny that they acquired the memos by way of an illegal leak from the FBI, nor do they deny that the memos are privileged.

EV may disagree, but I'm not sure I see a huge free speech impact from preventing people from publishing private and privileged documents that they acquired through criminal means until the courts have had a chance to review said documents.

[Sidney r finkel]

1. The question of whether or not anything criminal has taken place has not been decided. The concept of prior restraint, which is not permitted in our system except for extraordinary circumstances, over-rules.

2. If you will go back and see my post you will see where it has the qualifier " if the reporting is correct".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If the Volokh Conspiracy figured this episode could be used disparage the liberal-libertarian mainstream, or to advance the conservative cause, it would have mentioned this issue by now.

[John F. Carr]

While I'm not likely to receive such a document, I would first call the office using a number I found to confirm it was legit.

I once got a call from the "IRS" asking for my social security number to confirm identity. I said I would call them rather than providing my information to an unverified caller, did call then, and what do you know it really was the IRS trying to get in touch with me. They should do it in a way that didn't sound like a scam.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"and what do you know it really was the IRS trying to get in touch with me. They should do it in a way that didn't sound like a scam."

The IRS isn't a scam?

[John F. Carr]

I pay taxes. My taxes fund the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court prompts endless words from Josh Blackman. I get something for my taxes. Perhaps too much.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" the AG's office didn't authorize its issuance "

Does evidence support this unqualified declaration?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps not.