Ivanka (last name withheld for privacy) argued in court appealing her
subpoena that she no longer lived in NYS so she shoudln't be subpoenaed
in a case to which she was not a party. Is there any situation where
that would be true even slightly?

She also said she had school age children and couldn't leave them during
the school week**. If that would work, loads of people would be immune
from testifying in court. Couldn't she ask her husband to take off work
(does he work?) and watch the kids (who will be in school most of the
day anyhow)? Perhaps they could hire a baby-sitter. I believe with all
the recent legal and maybe illegal immigrants in Florida they shoudl be
able to find one fairly cheaply.

Again, can you imagine any situation where having school age children
would be a bar to testifying out of state, even slightly?

Shouldn't she be embarrassed to make these arguments?

Shouldnt' she be sanctioned and fined?

Am I right that one can argue all kinds of nonsense but if there is a
smidgeon of possibility in even one of them, they won't find your claim frivolous, despite how frivolous 5 of the 6 claims are? (Not that I
know of anything in her appeal that had a smidgeon, based on news
reports.)

**Does that mean she could leave them during the weekend, or she could
bring them with her to NY on the weekend?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Ivanka (last name withheld for privacy) argued in court appealing her >subpoena that she no longer lived in NYS so she shoudln't be subpoenaed
in a case to which she was not a party. Is there any situation where
that would be true even slightly?

She also said she had school age children and couldn't leave them during
the school week**. If that would work, loads of people would be immune
from testifying in court. Couldn't she ask her husband to take off work >(does he work?) and watch the kids (who will be in school most of the
day anyhow)? Perhaps they could hire a baby-sitter. I believe with all
the recent legal and maybe illegal immigrants in Florida they shoudl be
able to find one fairly cheaply.

Again, can you imagine any situation where having school age children
would be a bar to testifying out of state, even slightly?

Shouldn't she be embarrassed to make these arguments?

Shouldnt' she be sanctioned and fined?

Am I right that one can argue all kinds of nonsense but if there is a >smidgeon of possibility in even one of them, they won't find your claim >frivolous, despite how frivolous 5 of the 6 claims are? (Not that I
know of anything in her appeal that had a smidgeon, based on news
reports.)

**Does that mean she could leave them during the weekend, or she could
bring them with her to NY on the weekend?

I agree that with her personal wealth of several hundred million dollars
that she can probably afford a qualified babysitter or even a team of babysitters.

But the other side of the argument is...given that she's not on trial, not a resident of the state, and arguably probably not even the most important or critical witness, what would be the harm in her testifying remotely via
camera? Aside from giving the sketch artist an opportunity to make a really bad drawing of her, what was the true judicial necessity of having her there
in person?

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:

"micky" wrote

Ivanka (last name withheld for privacy) argued in court appealing
her subpoena that she no longer lived in NYS so she shoudln't be
subpoenaed in a case to which she was not a party. Is there any
situation where that would be true even slightly?

She also said she had school age children and couldn't leave them
during the school week**. If that would work, loads of people
would be immune from testifying in court. Couldn't she ask her
husband to take off work (does he work?) and watch the kids (who
will be in school most of the day anyhow)? Perhaps they could
hire a baby-sitter. I believe with all the recent legal and maybe
illegal immigrants in Florida they shoudl be able to find one
fairly cheaply.

Again, can you imagine any situation where having school age
children would be a bar to testifying out of state, even slightly?

Shouldn't she be embarrassed to make these arguments?

Shouldnt' she be sanctioned and fined?

Am I right that one can argue all kinds of nonsense but if there
is a smidgeon of possibility in even one of them, they won't find
your claim frivolous, despite how frivolous 5 of the 6 claims are?
(Not that I know of anything in her appeal that had a smidgeon,
based on news reports.)

**Does that mean she could leave them during the weekend, or she
could bring them with her to NY on the weekend?

I agree that with her personal wealth of several hundred million
dollars that she can probably afford a qualified babysitter or
even a team of babysitters.

But the other side of the argument is...given that she's not on
trial, not a resident of the state, and arguably probably not even
the most important or critical witness, what would be the harm in
her testifying remotely via camera? Aside from giving the sketch
artist an opportunity to make a really bad drawing of her, what
was the true judicial necessity of having her there in person?

I don't know the rules in that particular court, but in California
you normally can't force someone to travel more than 75 miles from
their home by a subpoena. On the other hand if the defendants are
going to want to have Ivanka testify, there is no justification for
the prosecution not to be able to have her testify as well.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

YMMV. When I was in AZ, my friend received jury duty in the Federal
Court in Phoenix. We lived in Prescott and it was 100 miles to the
courthouse. I think the instructions told him to bring enough clothes
for the week. This was not for a sequestered trial



On 11/9/2023 12:43 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

I don't know the rules in that particular court, but in California
you normally can't force someone to travel more than 75 miles from
their home by a subpoena. On the other hand if the defendants are
going to want to have Ivanka testify, there is no justification for
the prosecution not to be able to have her testify as well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/9/2023 12:43 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

"...

On the other hand if the defendants are

going to want to have Ivanka testify, there is no justification for
the prosecution not to be able to have her testify as well.

Just to clarify, she was a witness for the prosecution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)