Novel use of Facebook, Service of process

catsmate1 · 20th October 2010, 01:33 PM

Police in the Australian state of Victoria have used, for the first time, Facebook to serve notice of a court order upon a defendant.
Finding the man, who is accused of harassing his ex-wife, proved too difficult so the police decided to use the woman's Facebook account to officially serve the intervention order. An office of the Victoria Police read the order aloud in a video that was uploaded to YouTube and, along with typed messages, delivered to the jilted troll.
He has apparently since agreed to delete his Facebook account.
Victoria Police state that is procedure is legal and compliant with local laws regarding Service of Process.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...020-16suk.html

Comments? Anyone planning to initiate divorce via Twitter?

drkitten · 20th October 2010, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Police in the Australian state of Victoria have used, for the first time, Facebook to serve notice of a court order upon a defendant.
Finding the man, who is accused of harassing his ex-wife, proved too difficult so the police decided to use the woman's Facebook account to officially serve the intervention order. An office of the Victoria Police read the order aloud in a video that was uploaded to YouTube and, along with typed messages, delivered to the jilted troll.
He has apparently since agreed to delete his Facebook account.
Victoria Police state that is procedure is legal and compliant with local laws regarding Service of Process.

Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll?

I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail.

If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password.

catsmate1 · 20th October 2010, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll?

I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail.

If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password.

Exactly, though in this case he appears to have acknowledged receipt so it won't be tested. Realistically to prove service they'd need Facebook server records, a trail to the ISP and probably direct evidence from the computer he was using that he, and only he, could have accessed Facebook at that time. That would be expensive and time consuming to prove.
Though I vaguely remember a case in Australia, last year perhaps, when logging onto a password protected account, registered to a person was sufficient to verify identity. That side isn't my field so I'll ask around tomorrow.

NoZed Avenger · 20th October 2010, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll?

I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail.

If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password.

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Exactly, though in this case he appears to have acknowledged receipt so it won't be tested. Realistically to prove service they'd need Facebook server records, a trail to the ISP and probably direct evidence from the computer he was using that he, and only he, could have accessed Facebook at that time. That would be expensive and time consuming to prove.
Though I vaguely remember a case in Australia, last year perhaps, when logging onto a password protected account, registered to a person was sufficient to verify identity. That side isn't my field so I'll ask around tomorrow.

If attempted service has been unsuccessful (at least in Texas), the Court h the authority to autorize service in any manner reasonaby likely to reach the named defendant. Service by publication in a paper of general circulation in the area where the Defendant was last known to reside may be sufficient - even withut any proof the Defendant ever actually read the notice.

YMMV

Island Skeptic · 20th October 2010, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll?

I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail.

If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password.

WOW.... Pretty strict out there. Good work!
Here on my island, proof of service is legitimate even if it's tacked on the recipient's door. No signature receipt is required whatsoever.

I'm not sure how i feel about it, but if the documents i hand into the courts are acceptable via the means i have delivered them (providing no proof of service aside from my own signature & description of where i left the documents -or where they have landed after being tossed at me), then i can't imagine how it could be any different than doing it via Facebook.

lionking · 20th October 2010, 10:50 PM

There's been a fair bit of talk about this here (naturally) and the concensus is that it would not hold up to a court challange due to the uncertainty outlined by drkitten.

Lolly · 21st October 2010, 01:38 AM

What NoZedAvenger said. You don't have to prove service if you have an order for alternative service.

20th October 2010, 01:33 PM	#1
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,128	Novel use of Facebook, Service of process Police in the Australian state of Victoria have used, for the first time, Facebook to serve notice of a court order upon a defendant. Finding the man, who is accused of harassing his ex-wife, proved too difficult so the police decided to use the woman's Facebook account to officially serve the intervention order. An office of the Victoria Police read the order aloud in a video that was uploaded to YouTube and, along with typed messages, delivered to the jilted troll. He has apparently since agreed to delete his Facebook account. Victoria Police state that is procedure is legal and compliant with local laws regarding Service of Process. http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...020-16suk.html Comments? Anyone planning to initiate divorce via Twitter?

20th October 2010, 02:46 PM	#4
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by drkitten Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll? I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail. If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password. Originally Posted by catsmate1 Exactly, though in this case he appears to have acknowledged receipt so it won't be tested. Realistically to prove service they'd need Facebook server records, a trail to the ISP and probably direct evidence from the computer he was using that he, and only he, could have accessed Facebook at that time. That would be expensive and time consuming to prove. Though I vaguely remember a case in Australia, last year perhaps, when logging onto a password protected account, registered to a person was sufficient to verify identity. That side isn't my field so I'll ask around tomorrow. If attempted service has been unsuccessful (at least in Texas), the Court h the authority to autorize service in any manner reasonaby likely to reach the named defendant. Service by publication in a paper of general circulation in the area where the Defendant was last known to reside may be sufficient - even withut any proof the Defendant ever actually read the notice. YMMV
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

20th October 2010, 10:17 PM	#5
Island Skeptic The Devil's Advocate Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Hawaii Posts: 529	Originally Posted by drkitten Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll? I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail. If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password. WOW.... Pretty strict out there. Good work! Here on my island, proof of service is legitimate even if it's tacked on the recipient's door. No signature receipt is required whatsoever. I'm not sure how i feel about it, but if the documents i hand into the courts are acceptable via the means i have delivered them (providing no proof of service aside from my own signature & description of where i left the documents -or where they have landed after being tossed at me), then i can't imagine how it could be any different than doing it via Facebook.
	__________________ omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina (everything sounds more impressive when said in Latin) stercus accidit

21st October 2010, 01:38 AM	#7
Lolly discombobulated Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Western Australia Posts: 4,575	What NoZedAvenger said. You don't have to prove service if you have an order for alternative service.
	__________________ Pet Lover http://forums.randi.org/group.php?groupid=45 "When particles of evil and iniquity swarm together, they make a Lolly.": Legend

20th October 2010, 01:42 PM	#2
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by catsmate1 Police in the Australian state of Victoria have used, for the first time, Facebook to serve notice of a court order upon a defendant. Finding the man, who is accused of harassing his ex-wife, proved too difficult so the police decided to use the woman's Facebook account to officially serve the intervention order. An office of the Victoria Police read the order aloud in a video that was uploaded to YouTube and, along with typed messages, delivered to the jilted troll. He has apparently since agreed to delete his Facebook account. Victoria Police state that is procedure is legal and compliant with local laws regarding Service of Process. Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll? I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail. If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password.

20th October 2010, 01:53 PM	#3
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,128	Originally Posted by drkitten Interesting. I wonder how they can prove that the messages actually reached said troll? I mean, at least in the US, the standards for proof of service are quite high; if I claim that an action is invalid because I never received a document, the courts will typically demand an affidavit from a person that he handed the document to me personally or a signature from an agent who received the document on my behalf. Merely mailing it to me, even registered mail, is not sufficient unless they can show a signature receipt that I, personally, picked up the mail. If they're claiming that "oh, well, the user named 'jiltedtroll' read this message on or about 11:30 am on the 31st of June,...." well, that will almost certainly not cut the mustard anywhere unless they can prove the nearly impossible -- that no one else could have logged in using that user's password. Exactly, though in this case he appears to have acknowledged receipt so it won't be tested. Realistically to prove service they'd need Facebook server records, a trail to the ISP and probably direct evidence from the computer he was using that he, and only he, could have accessed Facebook at that time. That would be expensive and time consuming to prove. Though I vaguely remember a case in Australia, last year perhaps, when logging onto a password protected account, registered to a person was sufficient to verify identity. That side isn't my field so I'll ask around tomorrow.

20th October 2010, 10:50 PM	#6
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,667	There's been a fair bit of talk about this here (naturally) and the concensus is that it would not hold up to a court challange due to the uncertainty outlined by drkitten.