Comments

1
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what's going on. Is Maus obligated to turn over this info or isn't he? And what do he and you think of that request?
2
The best way to avoid this in the future is for judges and rogue prosecutors to respect the constitutional protections requiring a warrant for the seizure of such data from a publisher.

I suspect that Jones was mislead in that he appears to think the order was to be used to go after a suspect when in fact it is just being used to dig up a state witness. We'll have to see the affidavit when it is unsealed.

The actual "order" is nonsense and garbage. Even the grammar is garbage.

*It is written in the first person in the form of a request, yet signed as an order (presumably because it is cut and pasted from the district attorney's secret affidavit).

*It is in the form of a request to the court, but signed without even a line saying that the above motion is "so ordered."

*It lacks a caption so the recipient could determine which case this is relevant to and thus schedule a hearing to be heard on the matter.

*It seems to order the recipient to turn the material over to the DA rather than to a court.

*It does seem to restrict the recepient from obtaining legal advice about the matter.

*It doesn't indicate if opposing counsel was notified. (was this ‘ex parte’ contact?)

*It doesn't even have the full name of the judge who signed it on the document.

*Finally, and most importantly, it lacks any legal basis such as a citation to the statute, case or trial court rule that would allow such an order.


It is a shame that no lawyer in town can report this whole nonsense to the state bar or judicial fitness committee(because if they did they could lose their job and livelihood). Hopefully some thoughtful civilians will do so.

3
This article is nominee for the most impactful Mercury article of the year. Run a WA version at the Stranger. Seriously.
4
Jessica - the full article goes into more detail. Maus asked the commenter's permission to hand over the contact info, and the commenter gave the okay.
5
I see. Thank you.
6
It was good for the DA that the commenter I contacted ended up agreeing to talk with them.

It would have been interesting if the commenter never came forward and if the DA would have continued to press me for their identity.

The important thing here is the way they asked for the information. It was total bullying in my opinion and what irks me is the disrespect it shows to professional amateur journalists like myself (meaning I'm not trained in the tradition way but I make my living in the news business).

I guarantee DA Lufkin would NEVER send a court order like that to the Oregonian, the Tribune, etc.. because he knows their legal team would be all over it in a second.

I hope Lufkin and others in the DA's office have been sent a clear signal that this kind of conduct is inappropriate and that it will not stand in our community. They need to find a different way to investigate and find witnesses and I feel DA Lufkin should be censured for their conduct in this matter.
7
Jonathan:

Feel free to contact the Oregon State Bar if you feel anyone at the Mult Co DA's Office has acted inappropriately. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
8
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/8498/matt…

I'm always reminded of this email when Matt starts waxing righteous about subpoena-ing ip's. I hope your mental health has improved, Matt!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.