?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
13 April 2017 @ 02:33 pm
Subpoena games  
Several weeks ago one guy called me and asked me for information about one already closed premium account on PostJobFree.com

Somehow it was important for him, but I still could not understand how.
I thought that he would disappear, but it looks like he managed to hire a lawyer who sent a subpoena for that information to PostJobFree Inc.

Here it is:
Subpoena for the case of "State of Mariland vs Levi Williams"


Subpoena Duces Tecum


Certificate of Service



Unfortunately, unlike Subpoena from FBI, this one did not contain email address.

So I called to the Circuit court for Baltimore City.
A nice, but unenthusiastic country clerk answered the phone.
She was NOT eager to verify that the subpoena is, actually, for their county court and recommended to contact the lawyer who actually sent the subpoena to me.
She refused to give me any advice about what would happen if I simply ignore the subpoena: "I am just a county clerk and cannot give you a legal advice".
So I called the legal office of Ryan L. Burke.
This time I was welcomed by Desiree - a secretary of Ryan Burke.
Desiree was more enthusiastic, quickly understood who I am and asked me to send them information that I have.
I asked for her email address, sent her test email, got reply and then emailed some records I found related to Infinity Recruiting Group, LLC.

I also asked Desiree how that information can be useful for them, but she said that I should ask Ryan L. Burke that.
There is a good change I would never find an answer to that question ...

Originally posted at: http://dennisgorelik.dreamwidth.org/129738.html
 
 
 
Yaturkenzhensirhiv - a handheld spyyatur on April 14th, 2017 03:15 am (UTC)
> She was NOT eager to verify that the subpoena is, actually, for their county court and recommended to contact the lawyer who actually sent the subpoena to me.

Оригинальное решение. Т.е., суд отказался подтвердить подлинность запроса и адвокат вполне мог напечатать запрос сам, не удосужившись получить санкцию суда?

> The phone answered nice, but unenthusiastic county clerk.

[зануда_mode]
Ну нельзя же так... Я реально споткнулся. В виду отсутствия падежей, в английским языке разница между "Вася ответил Пете" или "Петя ответил Васе" определяется исключительно порядком слов - подлежащее-сказуемое-объект. Получаеются, что в данном случае подлежащее - телефон. Говорящие телефоны, конечно, нынче встречаются, но тогда при чем тут клерк? Правильный порядок слов:

"A nice, but unenthusiastic country clerk answered the phone." or
"The phone was answered by a nice, but unenthusiastic county clerk."
[/зануда_mode]
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on April 14th, 2017 03:36 pm (UTC)
> суд отказался подтвердить подлинность запроса и адвокат вполне мог напечатать запрос сам, не удосужившись получить санкцию суда?

Именно так.
Впрочем, я понимаю, почему суд не беспокоится о подобном.
Если кто-то подделает подпись суда и попадётся на этом - у него будут очень серьёзные проблемы (типа отсидки несколько лет в тюрьме).

> A nice, but unenthusiastic country clerk answered the phone.

Thanks - fixed.
I see that I also missed "a" in my version.

However, the sequence of words is the same in both your and my version.
Let's consider this as my fixed version:
---
The phone answered a nice, but unenthusiastic county clerk.
---
In my version: "a nice, but unenthusiastic county clerk".
In your version "A nice, but unenthusiastic country clerk".
The same sequence, right?

So the real problem was just a missing article ("a"), right?
Yaturkenzhensirhiv - a handheld spyyatur on April 15th, 2017 02:11 am (UTC)
> So the real problem was just a missing article ("a"), right?

Nope :) "A nice, but unenthusiastic county clerk" is something called "a noun phrase". Let's denote the whole thing as "N". Now, suppose you have three sentences:

(1) The phone answered N.
(2) N answered the phone.
(3) The phone was answered by N.

General word order in English is SVO: subject-verb-object. Subject is the main actor that did something to the object.

The first sentence means that the phone is the subject, which was answering/responding to N. This is weird and rarely happens in reality: phones do not talk to people.

The second sentence means that N is the subject, who was answering/responding to the object (phone) or rather to the phone's ringing. This is a normal situation.

The third sentence uses passive voice. So, even though the phone is the subject, it was actually acted upon (answered to), by the object (N), so the general meaning is the same as sentence #2.

Bottom line - the first sentence does not make much sense. The second and the third do make sense.

In Russian normal word order is also SVO, but you can relatively freely swap the words, thanks to the noun cases. Russian subject is always in the nominative case, and Russian object is in one of the oblique cases (genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental or prepositional). This way the sentence retains the original meaning even if the words are swapped: "Вася (nom) ответил Пете (dat)" is basically the same as "Пете (dat) ответил Вася (nom)".

However, even in Russian word swapping becomes ambiguous or impossible if nominative and oblique forms are the same. In sentences like "утро разбудило море" and "море разбудило утро" we must rely solely on the word order to figure out who woke up whom, since case markings are not helpful.
Dennis Gorelikdennisgorelik on April 15th, 2017 02:35 am (UTC)
Thanks - you are right.
Similarity of my version with "passive voice" version made me intuitively think that it would be right.
But my version is not in passive voice (which I am actually trying to avoid), and there are no other hints (like in Russian language) to hint the swap between the subject and the object. So my version is grammatically incorrect.