First time to see "vastare"

Thanks to Cal Skinner's blog at http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/ today I now know the anonymous screen name "vastare". I read Cal's article about how the County's legal fees of Defendants are being paid to the law firm of James Sotos. Those fees, over $400,000 (so far), in Zane Seipler's civil rights against several command deputies, the sheriff individually and as Sheriff, the sheriff's department and the County, are covered under an excess-liability insurance policy with a $100,000 deductible.

There is a link in Cal's article to a February 15th article he wrote, and it is there that there are several comments by someone writing as "vastare". Until today I had never, to my recollection, seen that name. Why do I write this? Because I told an attorney at Sotos' law firm last week that I had never seen the name "vastare". And, on that date, that was true. Now I've seen it. Now being today, Sunday, March 20, 2011, at 8:25AM.

I know they read my blog, because several articles are appended to their Response to my Motion to Quash their subpoena. In that subpoena they demanded documents for a 27-month period that include communications from "any former and/or current employee of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department". How many people could that be? Aren't there over 400 employees (deputies, corrections officers, office employees)? How many "former" employees are there?

By "former employees" do they mean those, if any, who were no longer employees by November 1, 2008, but who contacted me during the 27-month period? Or do they mean those who became "former employees" during the 27-month period and then contacted me, if any.

When subpoenas aren't clear, it is certainly impossible to respond to them.

As I told the attorney at Sotos's office, I haven't even begun to look. I had only three days from receipt of the subpoena to the production date, and I filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena two days later. So the issue is dead until the judge decides on my Motion.

Now that I've read "vastare's" comments, I wish that person had sent comments to my blog but, so far as I know, that person never did. They seem right on the money to me. If you'd like to read them, go to Cal's article titled "Township Governments Get Risk Management Dividend" and then click on the link there in the third paragraph.

Now I can see why Sotos' firm has gone fishing to try to learn that writer's identity. Don't they know that, when a writer sends an anonymous comment using a fictitious screen name, we don't know who the author is?