- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hillary Clinton refuses to be served Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:18 am to kmdawg17
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:18 am to kmdawg17
quote:There MAY be some backwards state somewhere that allows service by tacking a note on the door without first attempting in-person service, but I rather doubt it. It certainly is not allowed under the FRCP.
Maybe things have changed or it's different in a federal lawsuit, but I've been to court and through the process at the civil level and the individual refused to acknowledged the lawsuit until i had them served, which was a sheriff attaching the paperwork to their door...
EDIT
Sloppy language, as pointed-out below.
“Tacking on the door” is not SPECIFICALLY allowed under the FRCP. It COULD be allowed through incorporation of the rules of the state in which service is being attempted, which is what I was referencing in the first part of the sentence. My language certainly could havee been tighter.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 9:27 am
2
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:18 am to theronswanson
quote:
Why is this news?
Oh I dunno, I guess it's pretty normal to have a former First Lady, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate to refuse a federal summons.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:24 am to Wtodd
quote:Short answer is that the law does not require you to help people serve you with process. It does not require you to let people onto your property. It does not require you to answer the door.quote:Why not (serious question)? They're interfering with the legal process and the server isn't posing a threat.quote:no
Can't the SS be cited for this?
Most people DO cooperate. Hell, the law even let’s you deliver a document agreeing to waive Citation altogether, and most litigants are willing to sign it and file their Answer voluntarily..
But there is a reason that the law of every jurisdiction makes provision for substituted service. A certain percentage of litigants are either just difficult to serve OR (as here) CHOOSE to MAKE themselves difficult to serve.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 8:27 am
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:31 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The judge is not going to be annoyed. Upon request by Tulsi, he will sign a standard order for substituted service, probably for service upon any person over the age of 18 found at her residential address.
You can already do this. No need for order for substituted service.
FRCP 4(e)(2):
quote:
(e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or
(C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 8:36 am
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There MAY be some backwards state somewhere that allows service by tacking a note on the door without first attempting in-person service, but I rather doubt it. It certainly is not allowed under the FRCP.
You come in here bitching about people talking from their arse and then proceed to..........talk from your arse.
FRCP 4(e)(1):
quote:
(e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or
So, if state law allows it then you can absolutely serve process that way.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:41 am to UpToPar
quote:Technically yes, but practically no. I have never seen a judge willing to sign a default when that was done. Judges want some assurance that the Defendant actually received the Complaint before they will sign a default. If you are not in a situation to support a default, why do it?quote:You can already do this. No need for order for substituted service.
The judge is not going to be annoyed. Upon request by Tulsi, he will sign a standard order for substituted service, probably for service upon any person over the age of 18 found at her residential address.
So, Tulsi’s process server COULD have just handed the Citation t the Secret Service agent and filed an affidavit saying that he did so. It MIGHT have been effective, but perhaps not. Much cleaner to attempt in-person service and then get an Order for Substituted Service.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:46 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Technically yes, but practically no. I have never seen a judge willing to sign a default when that was done. Judges want some assurance that the Defendant actually received the Complaint before they will sign a default. If you are not in a situation to support a default, why do it?
You think Hillary and her attorneys are just going to sit on it? Tulsi isn't out for a default judgment here.
quote:
So, Tulsi’s process server COULD have just handed the Citation t the Secret Service agent and filed an affidavit saying that he did so. It MIGHT have been effective, but perhaps not. Much cleaner to attempt in-person service and then get an Order for Substituted Service.
No, you missed a key part of the rule.
quote:
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or
Unless the SS agent lives at her house, then they can't leave it with a SS agent. But, they can leave it with anyone else who lives there as long as they're "of suitable age and discretion."
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:46 am to MsHoghunter
quote:
Why does she have secret service protection? She and Bill are rarely ever together in the same place.
all former Presidents and First Ladies have SS protection for the rest of their lives
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:47 am to captainFid
Didn't know a person could legally refuse to accept served papers
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:47 am to UpToPar
You will note that I addressed the problem with FRCP4(e)(2) before you edited to cite it.
But that Rule does not address whether HRC or Secret Service did anything wrong (which is the point we were discussing). It addresses something that Tulsi’s process server COULD have done (even if it was a bad idea), but chose NOT to do ... precisely because they know that t is a bad idea, even if technically allowable.
But that Rule does not address whether HRC or Secret Service did anything wrong (which is the point we were discussing). It addresses something that Tulsi’s process server COULD have done (even if it was a bad idea), but chose NOT to do ... precisely because they know that t is a bad idea, even if technically allowable.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:48 am to UpToPar
To bad the only other people in her house are their underage Haitian sex slaves.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:49 am to captainFid
So obstruction 
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There MAY be some backwards state somewhere that allows service by tacking a note on the door without first attempting in-person service, but I rather doubt it. It certainly is not allowed under the FRCP.
Well, I lived in New Mexico and had someone served in Florida
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 8:55 am
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Short answer is that the law does not require you to help people serve you with process. It does not require you to let people onto your property. It does not require you to answer the door.
OK I'm following but this was the SS interfering, not Hillary just ignoring the server.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:51 am to UpToPar
quote:Far enough. I was focused upon how the plaintiff might cause the Secret Service agents to accept service, which is the issue we were discussing.
Unless the SS agent lives at her house, then they can't leave it with a SS agent. But, they can leave it with anyone else who lives there as long as they're "of suitable age and discretion."
It has been years since I looked at the specifics of that provision, and I was not thinking about handing the Citation to Billy Jeff.
So, again, Secret Service did not act improperly.
As an aside, FRCP 4(d)(1) does contain a provision saying that a defendant is obligated to NOT unnecessarily increase the cost of getting her served. So, if a defendant repeatedly dodged service (climbing out bathroom windows and such I suppose), a judge could theoretically sanction her, but I have never seen it happen.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 9:30 am
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:53 am to Bow08tie
quote:Not exactly. If the process server hands it to you, you are stuck. Think about Kate Mara serving Tony Stark in the second Iron Man movie (her character was a US Marshal).
Didn't know a person could legally refuse to accept served papers
But you need not help Kate get into a position in which she CAN hand it to you.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 9:22 am
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:54 am to Choctaw
quote:
all former Presidents and First Ladies have SS protection for the rest of their lives
Exactly. Didn’t he watch “Guarding Tess”?
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
So, again, Secret Service did not act improperly.
Well, they certainly don't have to accept service, nor should they.
I don't know their standard practices on allowing process servers to knock on the door to attempt service though. It seems they would not even let the process server approach the house.
Tulsi's attorneys will likely request a special process server and clear it with the SS before trying again.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 9:01 am to udtiger
quote:
When the judge is made aware if her ducking service, it won't turn out well for her.
Yeah, it's not like Hilldawg has ever skirted the law before.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 9:01 am to UpToPar
quote:That was my point. I doubt they even allow a Marshal onto the property, unless he is pre-cleared.
I don't know their standard practices on allowing process servers to knock on the door to attempt service though. It seems they would not even let the process server approach the house.
quote:Exactly.
Tulsi's attorneys will likely request a special process server and clear it with the SS before trying again.
Honestly, if I represented HRC, I would just advise her to file her Answer without service having been completed. When the Complaint was published in the newspapers, I would have gone to the Clerk, gotten a copy, then prepared and filed an Answer.
I do it all the time. Better than having some process server accost the client when she is out for dinner at Taco Bell.
This post was edited on 1/30/20 at 9:08 am
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News