The Streisand effect is strong and I suspect that it will make someone very unhappy in short order. It doesn't look good for the judge, but of course it's one newspaper reporting on another so it might be a little biased.
The judge that stands to lose biggest is the one no longer holding the gavel (Judge Roger Bradley). I wonder if somehow those audio transcripts of the racial slurs will suddenly get lost.
I see no reason the audio transcripts could not be released to address the original suit. Truth is the best antidote to defamation.
tl;dr - Court (judge, asst da, baliffs) are alleged using many racial slurs. Journalist asks attorney to open records (using open records act), and his attorney is sued. Suit dropped, but attorney is billed $16k for lawyers fees. To fight back against fees, the attorney subpoena's records of payment.
Looks like the charges are coverups for blatantly racist acts. I could be wrong, but "Weaver said the identify fraud allegations came out of her concern that Thomason would use the banking information on those checks for himself." seems to speak very very defensively and not factually based.
things like this typically fall into either attempt crimes or conspiracy crimes.. wiki has a good explanation of both concepts... links below.
in this particular case, there's an identity theft charge for submitting the invalid subpoena to the bank with the judge's information and an attempted identity theft charge for trying (and not succeeding) to access the judge's banking information.
How else are they going to prove they don't owe the $16k charged for lawyer fees?
Sounds like a $16k "don't poke around where you're not wanted" punitive charge. The $1.6M lawsuit was pretty offensive, also. None of this smells good.
That indictment is some serious bullshit. Did you actually read it?
The first count is for identity fraud from requesting a subpoena. No evidence that they intended to present themselves fraudulently, just the fact they filed a request.
The second is "making a false statement" that "some of these checks appear to have not been deposited but cashed illegally". The burden of proof on this would be insane, there's no way to show the defendant knew this to be untrue.
Finally, just FYI, the notification statute applies to banks, not individuals. The bank has to notify you of a subpoena, and it just has to do it before the information is released. It doesn't make just requesting one flat out illegal.
The indictment accuses them of intending to steal money from the bank accounts, and seems to refer to the allegation the journalist is investigating as a "statement which he knows to be false."
I hope this is the end of Judge Weaver's career and that the Grand Jurors are found culpable.
The indictment does in fact present evidence. Not to a jury, but to us, the readers. It makes claims that things are true. Ridiculous, outlandish claims, like that filing a subpoena was done to try to get checking account information.
You're right, I didn't notice the first count was identity fraud and the second was attempt to commit identity fraud. In a false statement, I'm pretty sure lots of laws, including the first amendment, protect your right to make a statement that might not be true. What you know is definitely relevant.
Finally, your excess of concern for this seemingly trivial case really confuses me. Who are you? Why do you care? What do you know that we don't? On the face of it, that indictment looks ridiculous but you claim there's more to there story. Can you back that up with anything?
I have to agree with you. The OP said they clearly violated the notification statute for banking record. Except that statute clearly states a subpoena issued by a valid agency (here a lawyer involved in a case) was a valid reason.
They presented just as poor of an argument against the article as they claim the article itself did.
14 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 45.0 ms ] threadI see no reason the audio transcripts could not be released to address the original suit. Truth is the best antidote to defamation.
tl;dr - Court (judge, asst da, baliffs) are alleged using many racial slurs. Journalist asks attorney to open records (using open records act), and his attorney is sued. Suit dropped, but attorney is billed $16k for lawyers fees. To fight back against fees, the attorney subpoena's records of payment.
Looks like the charges are coverups for blatantly racist acts. I could be wrong, but "Weaver said the identify fraud allegations came out of her concern that Thomason would use the banking information on those checks for himself." seems to speak very very defensively and not factually based.
I'm not a lawyer in any manner but how is that not prior restraint?
in this particular case, there's an identity theft charge for submitting the invalid subpoena to the bank with the judge's information and an attempted identity theft charge for trying (and not succeeding) to access the judge's banking information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
the full indictment is here: http://pickens.fetchyournews.com/2016/06/24/fannin-focus-pub...
these two were indicted for trying to obtain a judge's banking records and violating the notification statute in georgia.
that stuate is written in plain and simple language that most will understand; refer to (b): http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-7/chapter-1/e...
please please... please... do more research before blindly believing every david vs. goliath story...
The first count is for identity fraud from requesting a subpoena. No evidence that they intended to present themselves fraudulently, just the fact they filed a request.
The second is "making a false statement" that "some of these checks appear to have not been deposited but cashed illegally". The burden of proof on this would be insane, there's no way to show the defendant knew this to be untrue.
Finally, just FYI, the notification statute applies to banks, not individuals. The bank has to notify you of a subpoena, and it just has to do it before the information is released. It doesn't make just requesting one flat out illegal.
I hope this is the end of Judge Weaver's career and that the Grand Jurors are found culpable.
count 3 is the false statement charge, not 2. this isn't a civil defamation case. what the defendant knew is irrelevant.
your last statement is wrong.
You're right, I didn't notice the first count was identity fraud and the second was attempt to commit identity fraud. In a false statement, I'm pretty sure lots of laws, including the first amendment, protect your right to make a statement that might not be true. What you know is definitely relevant.
Finally, your excess of concern for this seemingly trivial case really confuses me. Who are you? Why do you care? What do you know that we don't? On the face of it, that indictment looks ridiculous but you claim there's more to there story. Can you back that up with anything?
They presented just as poor of an argument against the article as they claim the article itself did.