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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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?

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.

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

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