By Carlos Miller
The Phoenix Police Department said they didn’t “have enough particulars” to comment on the Jeff Pataky case after the Associated Press tried to interview them this week.
Yet it believed it had enough particulars to raid a man’s house last month.
“The department’s stance is we don’t have enough particulars to do an interview,” said Officer James Holmes, a department spokesman. “Because the only thing we’d be saying is, ‘I don’t know. We don’t have a comment.’”
Phoenix police said they have also sealed the affidavit which would hopefully provide more insight into the particulars of this case, if there is in fact any particulars other than the obvious; that this was an act of retaliation against a man expressing his First Amendment rights.
Particularly frightening, if you ask me.
The Associated Press is the first national mainstream media company to report on the incident that has already made international news on the blogosphere ten times over.
Meanwhile, the arizona republic has to yet to write an update on its March 19 story that fell beneath the national radar after it was buried inside the local section.
Also, the Citizen Media Law Project has posted the search warrant on its site Thursday. The search warrant confirms that police were looking for electronic communications between Pataky and Phoenix police officer David Barnes.
Any and all electronic records, consisting of pictures or other data regarding the computer tampering, taking identity of another, theft, and possession of stolen property and e-mail correspondence between Jeffrey Pataky and Dave Barnes;
Any and all personal communications in electronic form, including e-mail correspondence and/or correspondence exchanged in electronic form between Jeffrey Pataky and Dave Barnes;
For those not familiar with The Citizen Media Law Project, it is a highly resourceful site.
The Citizen Media Law Project (CMLP) is jointly affiliated with Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, a research center founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and help pioneer its development, and the Center for Citizen Media, an initiative to enhance and expand grassroots media.
The CMLP also reported on my case after my trial last year.
Popularity: 1% [?]
28 responses so far ↓
1 Ismael // Apr 10, 2009 at 7:01 PM
What I find unbelievable is that the Phoenix PD still insist in what are obviously trump up charges base on pure crap. Of course this is not only about shutting this guy down but to make a show of force “this will happen to all who mess with us”. They know these charges to be bologna; but is about eating away at his resources and finding who are his confidants.
2 trisha barnes // Apr 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM
A related article appears in the Times Publications on the mess with the Phx PD crime lab and how My husband, Det. David Barnes, was forced out of the homicide unit. Check it out at www. timespublications.com. It would be appreciated if you comment/post a link on your blog about this article.
3 Voice of Reason // Apr 10, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Note to “trisha barnes”: Actually, the David Barnes story was posted here yesterday. It’s located at the following address:
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/04/09/phoenix-cop-whose-house-was-raided-was-once-a-top-detective/
If the story doesn’t already mention the web site that you’ve linked to, you can add the site in the story’s comments section.
4 Ziggy // Apr 10, 2009 at 10:59 PM
You’re tilting at windmills here and trying to make something out of the fact that the Phoenix PD hasn’t issued a statement. That’s standard practice for all PDs and prosecutors, not to comment on a pending case like this. It’s a non-issue.
The warrant indicates Pataky is suspected of felony computer tampering and misdemeanor property theft. That’s the reason for the seizure. The first amendment doesn’t give you a free pass to commit felonies.
You call yourself a journalist? Where’s the objectivity here? You’re deliberately single-sourcing. You assume Pataky is right simply because he says so and because you assume the police are wrong. Your bias is painfully obvious.
5 Carlos Miller // Apr 11, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Ziggy,
So they raided his house on a misdemeanor petty theft charge? How often does that happen?
And the “computer tampering” felony charge?
Whose computer was he tampering with? His own?
Be honest, Ziggy. The only “computer tampering” was just basic blogging about the powers that be in the Phoenix Police Department, which is protected under the First Amendment.
Yes, I call myself a journalist. A very honest journalist. I don’t just write what people tell me to write, I write the truth. I cut through the bullshit.
Prove to me I’m wrong in this case.
6 Macro photography // Apr 11, 2009 at 2:22 AM
I hadn’t heard about this, thanks for posting it.
7 Andrew DeFilippis // Apr 11, 2009 at 3:47 AM
This raid is a very messy one and has very little if any basis behind it. Computer tampering of HIS OWN personal computer is completely illegitimate according to the PPD.
And if the PPD would hand over all of the documents that it should, Carlos would have a second half of the story.
8 Gary Baumgarten // Apr 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Not true Ziggy.
That’s why police departments have public information units. To release information to the public.
Never forget, the police are hired by we the people. They work for us. The public has the right to know, within reason, what they are doing.
While some elements of cases necessarily must be withheld to protect the chain of evidence, the basics of a raid such as this is a matter of public information. To argue that the department doesn’t have the “particulars” to comment indicates either that they lacked sufficient information to seek a search warrant (public information) or that there’s a cover up in the works here. Either answer is an ominous indictment of the department.
If the raid was really a legitimate police matter then the department should have no hesitation to answer basic questions asked by the news media. Failure to be forthcoming only erodes public confidence in the police. Their silence is a disservice, not only to the citizens of Phoenix, but to the department itself.
It’s time to come clean. Was there a crime that needed investigating here? Or is this a witch hunt designed to shut up officers who may have leaked information?
If the latter, then this is the kind of tactic one expects in Russia, Vietnam and China. Not in the United States of America.
If you have a problem with this viewpoint, then you obviously take issue with the Constitution of the United States. I urge you to review it. Especially the First Amendment.
Don’t worry. It’s shorter than this comment. And written in plain English. Simple enough for even the Phoenix police department to understand.
9 Duane Kerzic // Apr 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM
The thing I find interesting in most of these posts by LEO’s is that they behave as if they have the power to make up the rules. That they are the ones with the power because of their equipment.
Yet when they enter office they swear to uphold the Constitution of the US and the constitution of state in which they sworn into office. Maybe police academy’s need to spend more time teaching the meaning of the constitutions and basic civics. Spend less time on teaching how to fabricate police reports. Spend less time teaching agressive introgation tatics. Spend less time teaching unproven science.
10 Voice of Reason // Apr 12, 2009 at 2:48 AM
Note to Ziggy: You said, “The warrant indicates Pataky is suspected of felony computer tampering and misdemeanor property theft”.
On another thread, I’ve asked repeatedly, tampering with what computer? It’s not just that the case is weak. If nobody can answer this simple, straightforward question, it’s not just that the case is weak. It appears that people on the other side may have committed a prosecutable offense.
Jeff Pataky himself didn’t seem to understand the question. I mean no offense to Mr. Pataky, but he seemed to miss the point. He did respond to me twice, I appreciated that, and he was kind enough to post the law that he’d been charged under. I’ve read the law carefully. Most people, including you (Ziggy), seem to be focusing closely on part 5 of the relevant section. However, part 5 appears to be a subsection of part A, and I’ve been unable to find anybody, including Pataky, who can explain how part A applies to this case. In fact, I’ve seen nobody at all, including Pataky, who’s even attempted to articulate an answer. Pataky just said: The computer tampering charge is “harassment of an individual or entity”. That misses the point, which is that, under the law in question, you apparently can’t bring “harassment” charges at all unless you’re able to demonstrate “computer tampering”. At first, I thought that the word “tampering” might mean something unusual in this context, but it doesn’t. It’s defined quite clearly in the law, and it means exactly what you’d expect.
Carlos Miller and Andrew DeFilippis have raised this question on the latest thread (this thread), but they’ve done so in an offhanded way. I’ve submitted a more complete analysis in post 215 on the first thread, which is located here:
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/04/02/phoenix-police-raid-home-of-blogger-whose-writing-is-highly-critical-of-them/#comments
I’d be most appreciative if you’d read post 214 (the law in question) and post 215 (my response) on the original thread and respond either there or here. This isn’t sarcasm. It honestly appears to me that the case involves fraud that can be demonstrated immediately. Fraud can be demonstrated immediately through the simple step of asking, what computer was tampered with?
Pataky himself and/or his attorney might feel that I’m misinformed or naive. That may well be true. However, though I know that police officers would never be arrested for this kind of thing, I honestly don’t understand why requesting a search warrant based on circumstances that can’t even be articulated isn’t a prosecutable offense. I thought that you needed a specific, articulable reason just to question somebody on the reason. The Pataky warrant seems like an error that’s much, much worse.
11 Voice of Reason // Apr 12, 2009 at 2:51 AM
Sorry. Typo near the last of my last post. I don’t see the “Edit” button that Mr. Miller has mentioned previously, so I can’t fix it. Should have said “I thought that you needed a specific, articulable reason just to question somebody on the road”. Not a big deal, but I like to be precise.
12 Voice of Reason // Apr 12, 2009 at 3:33 AM
Note to Duane Kerzic: Regarding your post 9, would it be out of line for me to say, damn straight. That said, you and I are both guilty of making sweeping statements that LEOs and apologists aren’t going to be willing to debate.
It’ll be simpler in the future, if Mr. Miller’s site continues to grow. You’ll be able to replace your sweeping statements with links to hundreds of incidents of the associated types. The apologists will find it more difficult to deny that incidents even occur.
On a related note, Mr. Miller should consider adding a tags system at some point. Something that might let you link to things like “fabricated reports”, “interrogation-tactics”, or “planted-weapons”.
13 Voice of Reason // Apr 12, 2009 at 4:31 AM
Note to Ziggy: You said, “Your bias is painfully obvious”.
If you’re referring to the fact that there’s a “reason for the seizure” in the Pataky case, I’d be most interested in your response to my post 215 on the original thread.
If you’re simply saying that Mr. Miller is “biased” in general, that doesn’t strike me as relevant. Point out errors in the stories that he’s chosen.
Of course, you thought that you’d found an error (or at least a significant omission) here, but if you can’t answer the simple question, “What computer was tampered with?”, you’re mistaken and your reasoning seems careless.
No, “harassment” isn’t the answer. Jeff Pataky himself seems to believe this, but I feel that Mr. Pataky (and possibly his attorney) might be in error. It’s like asking “What color is an apple?” and getting the answer “Bicycle”.
“Harassment” is from part 5 of the law. “Tampering” is from part A, and part A doesn’t seem to apply. If part 5 is a subsection of part A, the case isn’t simply weak. It’s fraudulent, and I believe that the officers involved might have committed a prosecutable offense. If you’d care to address this issue, I’d be most interested in a rational answer to the specific points covered by post 215 in the original thread.
14 Voice of Reason // Apr 12, 2009 at 4:51 AM
Note to Carlos Miller:
I’ve noticed that two of my posts on this thread (10 and 13) are very similar. The second one is redundant. If that’s a problem, feel free to delete post 13. Tired, apologies. I’ve been thinking about the “part A vs. part 5″ issue, so I’ve probably posted too often about it. Since nobody is willing to discuss the issue (based on the fact that I’ve seen little interest in this topic on the original thread), I’ll drop it for the moment.
However, it really does seem like people are ignoring an elephant in the room. I don’t feel that Mr. Pataky’s responses to me in the original thread address the issue and, so far, nobody on the police side seems to be willing to touch it at all. They’re giving it a wide berth. If I’m correct about the facts, that’s not too surprising.
I noticed that you yourself have raised the question that I’m interested in, but I haven’t seen a response from anybody to the specific points that I’ve raised (how part A applies to this case, and the issue of actual fraud if it doesn’t, in particular).
15 Ziggy // Apr 12, 2009 at 6:46 AM
“So they raided his house on a misdemeanor petty theft charge?”
The warrant affidavit is sealed, as is common in an ongoing investigation, so you have no idea what the allegations are. Additionally, further charges may be filed based on subsequent investigation and evidence discovered by the search warrant.
“And the ‘computer tampering’ felony charge? Whose computer was he tampering with? His own?”
I suggest before making comments like that again you do some basic research to avoid appearing foolish. In layspeak, a felony computer tampering charge involves hacking someone else’s computer or system.
“The only ‘computer tampering’ was just basic blogging”
If you understood what felony computer tampering involved, you would realize how foolish this comment is.
“Prove to me I’m wrong in this case.”
There’s not enough evidence and facts at this stage to decide whether you’re right or wrong. An objective person would realize that and not leap to conclusions based on only information from one party.
“That’s why police departments have public information units.”
I’ll withhold comment on your patronizing tone and stick to the slim substance of your verbose declamations.
A public information department never releases sensitive information about an ongoing investigation or reveal details of a sealed affidavit, particularly before criminal charges have been filed. To suggest that is standard operating procedure or constitutionally mandated is ludicrous.
The personnel in a public information department have no access to evidence or case files in an ongoing investigation. Only the assigned case investigators and their chain of command will be privy to evidence or case files. Again, this is standard operating procedure. You’re attempting to conclude a grand conspiracy is afoot simply because a department publicist doesn’t have access to confidential information. That might fly with people who don’t know any better, but it’s just another version of “how long have you been beating your wife” dressed up in bombastic pontificating.
16 Dianne Hess // Apr 12, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Jeffrey Pataky is using the same obvious strategies as Rod Blagojevich–trying to make his case in the media before he’s indicted and arrested. Only an idiot would believe that a police department’s silence about an ongoing case means anything.
17 inquiring mind // Apr 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM
why is Jeff Pataky censoring reader comments on his blog that expose his lies and fabrications?
18 Duane Kerzic // Apr 12, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Seems some things need some clarification, I hope this helps:
When you read a law like A.R.S 13-2316 you’ll notice Part A. In this case paragraphs 1 through 5 make up Part A. Only one of the paragraphs needs to be satisfied to have committed the crime in this case paragraph 5. In this case what he did would read as follows.
13-2316. Computer tampering; venue; forfeiture; classification
A person who acts without authority or who exceeds authorization of use commits computer tampering by recklessly using a computer, computer system or network to engage in a scheme or course of conduct that is directed at another person and that seriously alarms, torments, threatens or terrorizes the person. The conduct must Cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and Serve no legitimate purpose.
I believe this is directed at his website, so it would be the use of the web hosting company’s computer. He clearly has authority to use that computer and network. Did he exceed his authorization? I don’t believe so but could see how that could be open to debate. I’d guess that before taking this action the police asked the web company to take the site down and they refused.
I think they are trying to say he used a computer recklessly, directed at the police department and Chief Jack “Ass” Harris to alarm, torment, threaten or terrorize them.
A person that has risen to the level of Chief of Police should know he’s a public figure. Actually all police officers of all departments should know that they are public figures.
They have taken affirmative steps to become so by seeking employment in the police service. Because of this their behaviour and actions are subject to a higher level of public scrutiny and comment. They should also expect a higher level of public ridicule because of being police officers.
If these are the facts I think V of R is correct there is no crime and Ziggy is the foolish one.
The fact that the affidavit is sealed also causes some concern to me. There is an “ongoing” investigation, there were previous investigations. On the face of it this is nothing more then an attempt by the police to prevent Mr. Pataky from blogging about them.
19 LAC // Apr 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Trying to decide the facts of this case by only looking at a search warrant and its statutory reference without looking at the sealed affidavit is like trying to determine what a letter says by only looking at the envelope.
The facts and allegations are contained only in the sealed affidavit.
Sealing a search warrant affidavit before arrest or indictment is nothing out of the ordinary and happens all the time.
I agree that there are way too few facts about this case so far to come to any conclusion one way or the other. There could be many more developments before this case goes to trial.
20 Ditat Deus // Apr 12, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Various criminal activity is prosecuted under 13-2316.A.5 like email bombing. If Pataky has been email bombing Phoenix PD officers or other people for example he’ll be prosecuted under 13-2316.A.5.
21 Carlos Miller // Apr 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Ziggy,
If you want “objectivity”, stick to mainstream media sources like Fox News.
I write the truth as I see it. And I leave the comments section open for people who disagree with me.
There is no secret that I am biased towards the First Amendment. That is what this blog is all about.
When I report on an incident that I perceive to be a violation of the First Amendment, I will side with the First Amendment; whether these people are democrats, republicans, civilians or police officers.
I’ll leave you with something I came across from a popular journalistic website:
Three old rules of journalism that should be changed
Online Journalism Review
Old rule: You can’t cover something in which you are personally involved.
New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that’s shaped your reporting.
Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
Old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial.
New rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference.
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=157124
22 Voice of Reason // Apr 12, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Note to LAC: You said, “Trying to decide the facts of this case by only looking at a search warrant and its statutory reference without looking at the sealed affidavit is like trying to determine what a letter says by only looking at the envelope”.
No (LAC), with all due respect, it’s possible that you’re mistaken. Yes, there’s a chance that the sealed affidavit might explain how part A applies to this case. However, if you review my post 215 on the original
thread,
you might agree that this is unlikely. It appears that officers may have committed a prosecutable offense in this case.
Note to Carlos Miller: Since people are finally starting to discuss the elephant in the room, I’ll retract my offer to drop the matter. In my opinion, it’s a crucial point that should have been discussed from day one.
Incidentally, this issue should be of greater interest to you personally, because if this case stands, it’ll be part A (the “computer tampering” section I’ve been pounding away at) that’ll let police officers go after weblogs in particular. Part 5 is basically about stalking, which can be charged in multiple contexts.
Note to “inquiring mind”: You said, “Why is Jeff Pataky censoring reader comments?” Actually, it’s possible that Mr. Pataky simply deleted posts that were excessively abusive. If that’s not what happened, let’s hear the facts.
Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “If these are the facts I think V of R is correct there is no crime and Ziggy is the foolish one”.
So the law looks the same way to you. Good. Wanted to be sure I wasn’t missing something obvious.
Your post reminds me of something else. The part where you said that they might be trying to position Pataky as trying to “alarm, torment, threaten or terrorize” the police force. Sounds like “stalking”. Weren’t you the poster who asked about the definition of “stalking” on another thread? If so, maybe you’ve got an opinion on this. Why didn’t they simply charge Pataky as a “stalker” ?
Note to Ziggy: You said: It’s just another version of “how long have you been beating your wife” dressed up in bombastic pontificating.
No. Your criticism parsed, up to this point, whether or not it was valid, but the closing line, which I’ve just quoted, is sloppy and makes you look amateurish. I’ve seen more than one person, mostly Republicans for some reason, say this when it doesn’t apply. The “beating” thing is a specific tactic that’s prima facie unfair. It’s not something that you can complain about simply because you believe that people are being unfair. If Mr. Miller had explicitly stated, “Why are you covering up this case?”, you’d be right. Maybe he did, and I missed it. However, if somebody says that there’s evidence of a cover-up, that’s not necessarily unfair. It’s something that can be debated.
Incidentally, Ziggy, I notice that you haven’t responded to my post 215 on the original thread or to any of my posts on this thread. Is that because facts make you uneasy, a bit uncomfortable? “jones” engaged me initially in a different context, and he demanded that I provide specifics. I did precisely that, quite a few of them, and this seemed to frighten “jones” away. Are you the same way?
Note to Dianne Hess: You said that Mr. Pataky is “trying to make his case in the media before he’s indicted and arrested”. Well, yes, of course he is. I don’t understand your point. It’s exactly what he should do. I strongly advise people to do this whenever possible.
If Mr. Miller doesn’t do something similar, there’s a distinct possibility (though the odds aren’t high) that he’ll be raided and that his life will be disrupted. There’s a system in place. Things work a certain way. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with how incidents of this type work out. The notion is absurd. If you’re observant and intelligent enough, you’re aware of this, though you won’t discuss it. If Mr. Pataky hadn’t done what you’ve accused him of (trying his case in the media), he might have been arrested by now. As it stands, because a flashlight has been directed at a major screw-up, heads are probably going to roll at the department. I’ll tell you exactly what’s going on there right now. They’re desperately looking for a way to arrest Mr. Pataky on trumped-up charges (which may or may not have anything to do with the original warrant). If they do arrest him on trumped-up charges, they’ll drop the charges as long as he agrees to go away quietly. I’ve seen this before. It isn’t a once in a lifetime thing. It’s standard operating procedure.
Sometimes the trumped-charges are insane. There was one case where a man was foolish enough to take filmed evidence of police misconduct to the police station. He complained about the misconduct. They threatened to send him to jail for 20 years for falsifying evidence based on the fact that he’d edited the film for time. He “tried his case in the media” and won. Good for him. Mr. Miller, you should add that case to your site. It’s a perfect fit.
Publicity, kicking over a log and looking at the things that scurry out, things that prefer the dark, is the only way to achieve justice in this world. It’s related to something that I’ve explained to Mr. Miller elsewhere.
In the past, it took a lot of work to bring abuses to light. The Internet seems to be changing that.
Note to Ditat Deus (God Enriches): You said, “Various criminal activity is prosecuted under 13-2316.A.5 like email bombing. If Pataky has been email bombing Phoenix PD officers or other people for example he’ll be prosecuted under 13-2316.A.5.”
You’re one of the first few people to address the specific issue that I’ve raised. Mr. Kervic might be the only other one. Thanks. Mr. Pataky himself responded twice, but didn’t address this issue.
Incidentally, based on his handle, Ditat Deus is apparently from Arizona, so he might be able to tell us more about the situation.
I don’t know if Ditat Deus is reading this or if he’ll reply, but here’s an important question about his point: Under the law in question, the “various criminal activity” that he’s referred to can’t be prosecuted unless “tampering” is involved. “Tampering” as defined in part A. True or false? It’s one way or the other. There’s no grey area here. If it’s true, Ditat Deus hasn’t contradicted the points I’ve made elsewhere at all. My assertion that officers may have committed a prosecutable offense stands. If it’s false, I’d like to understand why part A isn’t a requirement for part 5, since part 5 is apparently a subsection of part A.
23 Voice of Reason // Apr 12, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Note to Ziggy: You’ve responded to my post 215 on the original thread. Thanks. I’d like to address the points that you raised in the new thread, since discussion has apparently moved here.
You said, “You seem to be confusing a warrant with an indictment”.
No, I don’t think so. I assume that you’re referring to my use of the word “charges”. Presently I’m focused on the justification for the search (which has already happened), not an indictment that may or may not happen. If I used the word “charges” too casually in a search warrant context, what’s the correct way to refer to the possible violations of the law that are used as the basis for a search warrant?
You also pointed out that “the warrant affidavit is sealed”. Yes, that’s correct. Therefore, for the moment, we can’t press for official answers to specific questions about the relevance of part A of the law. If charges are never filed, and Mr. Pataky initiates litigation related to the raid itself, I assume that he’ll be able to get at the affidavit as part of the litigation, but that’s a separate matter.
However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t press forum posters (on both sides) to look at the law. The law is, after all, relevant to the discussion. People seem to be willing to comment on all sorts of things, but they’ve treated the “part A” issue as unimportant until today. Yes, some of Mr. Pataky’s supporters have referred to this issue repeatedly in general terms, but relatively few people on his side have commented on this issue in detail, and everybody on the other side (yourself included) seems to be giving it as wide a berth as humanly possible.
It’s an elephant in the room. Once again: With respect to part A of the law, what computer (or equipment) could they possibly use as a justification? “Harassment” isn’t an answer, because “harassment” isn’t a computer. It’s that simple. “Harassment” is part 5 of the law. I’m referring to part A. If the sealed affidavit doesn’t address part A, it appears that people may have committed a prosecutable offense, and I’m not referring to Mr. Pataky.
The computer (or equipment) might be Mr. Pataky’s own hardware, the Internet itself, web-hosting hardware, or hardware located at a police station. Presently, I can’t think of any other options. It appears to be impossible that any of these options could support the requirement that Mr. Pataky acted “without authority” or exceeded “authorization of use”, as part A of the law requires. If I’m correct, and it is impossible, then we can be reasonably that the police conducted a raid without a specific, articulable basis even for potential charges. As I understand it, depending on various factors, this might mean that they committed a prosecutable offense.
For a bit more about why a raid based on part A appears to be unsupportable in this context, see my post 215 on the old thread.
The last part of your posting says: “The ultimate charges against the suspect have yet to be filed or revealed. You might want to hold your questions until that time”.
That would be appropriate if I was pressing the department to justify an indictment right now. However, I don’t need to hold my questions, because presently I’m focused on the justification for the search, not the indictment. And, as I’ve noted, the fact that the affidavit is sealed is irrelevant because I’m simply looking at the law and asking forum posters (including you) to comment on what I’ve found.
Ziggy, you’ve read my post 215 on the old thread. You responded politely, but you dodged the facts described in the post. You apparently focused on a word (“charges”) that I used too casually and that seems to be irrelevant to my point. Would you care to comment about the part A issue?
What computer was “tampered” with?
If I’m correct, and it’s not even possible for a computer to have been “tampered” with in this particular case, doesn’t this mean that somebody on the other side committed a prosecutable offense?
24 Duane Kerzic // Apr 12, 2009 at 11:38 PM
V of R said Your post reminds me of something else. The part where you said that they might be trying to position Pataky as trying to “alarm, torment, threaten or terrorize” the police force. Sounds like “stalking”. Weren’t you the poster who asked about the definition of “stalking” on another thread? If so, maybe you’ve got an opinion on this. Why didn’t they simply charge Pataky as a “stalker” ?
Yes this is like the stalking definition. I was wondering the same thing. Maybe harassment isn’t a felony so they are trying to use a felony so as pointed out someplace they can investigate for 7 years.
Various criminal activity is prosecuted under 13-2316.A.5 like email bombing. If Pataky has been email bombing Phoenix PD officers or other people for example he’ll be prosecuted under 13-2316.A.5.
I can see how that could possible fit. But he still has to have made unauthorized access or access in excess of his authority.
Now the other day I saw a sign that said “No Unauthorized Persons Beyond This Point” I walked right past it because I was never “Unauthorized”.
25 Voice of Reason // Apr 13, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Note to Duane Kerzic: You said, “Maybe harassment isn’t a felony so they are trying to use a felony so as pointed out someplace they can investigate for 7 years”.
Harassment can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or as a felony, depending on the circumstances. However, in this case, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. They really did think about the plan specifically as taking out a hostile blogger. They picked the first law they found that seemed to fit a criminal definition of hostile blogging. The law had the word “computer” in it, and it mentioned harassment. Must have seemed like a slam dunk
However, they didn’t read the law very carefully. People might have laughed at a “stalking” charge, but it wouldn’t have blown up in their faces quite as badly.
26 Jeff Pataky // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Voice of Reason: My reply was not meant to blow you off or avoid your question. My attorney and I are well aware that there is/was no computer tampering and we agree that these “assclowns” found the first law that had “computer” and “harassment” in the descriptor and authorized the raid. They have nothing and have committed a crime which will all come out in a trial. We met with the ACLU last week and while they won’t be filing the case on my behalf, they are providing legal research, peer review and any other services we need to prepare our 1st and 4th Amendment violations. I assure you we are well informed, are well aware of my rights and do appreciate the comments posted by you (VoR) and many others. It is so blatantly egregious what the Phoenix PD did and no one can believe it. Unfortunately when “the law” breaks the law, the only remedy is a civil suit.
Here is what we know so far from our sources: Jack Harris authorized this raid, independent of the city of Phoenix. No one is talking because they are well aware of the major pile of poo they have stepped in. To say they are lost, bewildered and unsure of their next steps is an understatement! They have found nothing and are now in a pickle – they can’t return my equipment and say, “oops we made a mistake” and they can’t indict me because they have nothing as they already tried to submitted this to the prosecutor and they won’t touch this with a 39 ½ foot pole.
We hear they will keep this an “open investigation” and keep my stuff for 7-8 years. We have filed a motion to unseal the affidavit and we will give it to Carlos to post here. We expect it to have harassment claims on Jack Harris, Jack’s buddy and the biggest racist in the department Sergeant Mike Polombo and his wife Heather Polombo. There were another 12 search warrants to be served (one included an asst city official) and Jack Harris was ordered to not serve those warrants and discontinue the witchhunt. The real kicker that will knock your socks off is I don’t own the site or the Blog. Had they served a warrant on the owner, then it would be served outside the State of AZ. The only way they knew about me was from the pending litigation and are speculating I own the site. Does Ziggy have an explanation on this? Perhaps he will say it is quite common for police to serve search warrants on non-owners of sites?
For all of you conspiracy theorists out there – there were no email bombs sent, there’s no kiddie porn, I am not a skinhead (as I have seen on many blogs) and I don’t hate all cops. I just hate dirty corrupt cops like Jack Harris. This is all about a Blog and the contents of the Blog. Our sources with the City tell us we got “too close to the Mark Goudeau/Baseline Killer investigation.”
For those of you inquiring about why we sensor comments – well the answer is simple. It is against the law to post personal data on these dirty corrupt cops, including home addresses, phone numbers and other stuff. Also we get tons of spam and trolls who want their own story told that has nothing to do with the Blog.
27 Voice of Reason // Apr 29, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Note to Jeff Pataky: You said, My attorney and I are well aware that there is/was no computer tampering and we agree that these “assclowns” found the first law that had “computer” and “harassment” in the descriptor and authorized the raid. They have nothing and have committed a crime which will all come out in a trial.
So my assessment was correct, right down to the assertion that the other side may have committed a crime. I was never able to get a single LEO apologist to address that assertion. Not one. Mr. Pataky, thanks for your response. I was “well aware” that you and your attorney must have been “well aware” of the points in question. It simply troubled me to see a lot of discussion on this site with relatively little focus on a crucial issue — a law that was inapplicable almost by definition.
Mr. Kerzic looked at the law and backed up my interpretation, but most people seemed to focus on the harassment issue. If there’s no tampering, it’s not just that the harassment issue doesn’t apply, it’s that the harassment issue can’t apply!
You also said, Unfortunately when “the law” breaks the law, the only remedy is a civil suit.
Mr. Pataky, you’re mistaken. There’s an additional remedy. The additional remedy is publicity. Kick the log over. Continue to shine a light on the things that come scurrying out, looking for cover.
Additionally, you said, “The real kicker that will knock your socks off is I don’t own the site or the Blog… Does Ziggy have an explanation on this? Perhaps he will say it is quite common for police to serve search warrants on non-owners of sites?”
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but this point seems significant enough in and of itself to warrant another article by Mr. Miller.
28 Douglas Dunn // Jun 29, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Only in Arizona.
In what other state besides the one the produced John McCain as a Senator could this happen?
What’s wrong Arizona? Is this the best you can do?
Don’t you have any educated men in your state? Any men of character?
A wanna-be playboy president, the “Song Bird,” I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO I’m a WAR HERO John McCain is the best you can do?
Why I bet you got at least 20,000 African-American men and women in that state with more character in one of their finger nails than John McCain has evidenced his entire life.
Leave a Comment