Replies to post #122417 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[hookrider]

Ghors:"NOK was never allowed to use the documents in any other proceeding, including DE or the UK at that point in time."

I keep going back to this. Why/How did NOK know to file in "DE or the UK" IF they could not see these "documents" IMO that is were they got the clue that there was 3G in some of those doc's. Again IMO someone talked that should not have.

[olddog967]

OT: Ghors: Kastigar hearings probably refer to this Supreme Court decision.

The United States can compel testimony from an unwilling witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by conferring immunity, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 6002, from use of the compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom in subsequent criminal proceedings, as such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege and is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege. Transactional immunity would afford broader protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege, and is not constitutionally required. In a subsequent criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving affirmatively that evidence proposed to be used is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony. Pp. 443-462.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas82.htm

[whizzeresq]

Ghors--This may help from a post of mine Post 94693

ORDER denying 3 Motion for an Order {by Nokia} of discovery pursuant to 28USC1782, terminating 13 Motion for oral hearing. Parties are ordered to confer and attempt to agree on the terms of a protective order permitting the use in the U. K. litigation of the materials already in the possession of Nokia within 15 days of the date of this Order. If the parties are unable to agree, each party shall submit to the Court a separate proposed protective order within 20 days of the date of this Order. Parties are ordered to sumbit a proposed protective morder in accordance with the foregoing within 15 days of the signing of this Order. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 2/10/05. cc:attys on 2/10/05 (ttm, ) (Entered: 02/10/2005)

[olddog967]

Ghors: This old post of yours might help you in your search. I don't have the documents referred to.

Posted by: Ghors
In reply to: JimLur who wrote msg# 91483

Date:1/17/2005 10:55:05 PM
Post # 91491 of 91506

Jim: here's the rest of the documents. The Eleventh through 18th documents are from the lawsuit filed by Nok against Ericy in Dallas on 10/28/04.
#11. is a Certificate of Interested Persons
#12. Nok Motion To Enforce Arbitribunal Subpeona agaisnt ERICy
It appears Nok filed this action against ERICy in Judge Lynn's Court for the sole purpose of forcing ERICY to honor the subpeona.
#13. This is NOK brief in support of its Motion
#14. This is NOK Reply Brief. I assume it is a response to ERICY answer. However, ERICY answer is not in the documents you posted. Their response would be most interesting if we can get it.
#15. Nok request for an expedited hearing filed 12/2/04
#16. This is a copy of the court's minutes showing a hearing was held on the Motion on 12/15 and indicating that the judge deferred a ruling. No order was entered.
#17. This is an Amended Declaration of Interest by NOK and another certificate of interested person.
#18. Declaration of S. Gardner Culpepper, NOK's lawyer, filed on 12/20 telling the court that one of the arbitrators was willing to come to Dallas for the hearing and that the otrher two would appear by phone.
I think we now know the judge refused the subpeona.
Of these documents #12 and 13 are good reads for our members to understand the issues. The rest aren't worth reading.
IMO
Ghors

[Hardball]

Ghors:Re: Kastigar hearings

This is why Ollie North and John Poindexter's "Iran-Contra" convictions were reversed--they gave immunized testimony before the Congress and then the prosecutor did not show that the testimony used to obtain indictments and convict at trial came from independent sources.

When a previously immunized witness is prosecuted, a hearing must be held pursuant to Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), for the purpose of requiring the State to demonstrate by a preponderance that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate sources wholly independent of the immunized testimony.

Kastigar v. United
States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972), which provides that immunized
testimony may not be used to support an indictment. Under
Kastigar the Government must show that it has an independent
(i.e., non-immunized) source for all of the evidence that it
plans to present at trial; in that legal setting, the need for
a pre-trial hearing is quite compelling.
See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972).