
North Georgia newspaper publisher jailed over open records request - petethomas
http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local/newspaper-publisher-indicted-jailed-over-public-re/nrqgq/
======
r00fus
This is the tip of a scandal.

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.

~~~
richman777
It's concerning to me that they can be charged out of concern for identity
fraud and not actual identity fraud.

I'm not a lawyer in any manner but how is that not prior restraint?

~~~
ledude
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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_\(criminal\))

~~~
r00fus
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.

------
ledude
title is completely misleading. on top of that, the article is poorly written
and disconnected from reality.

the full indictment is here:
[http://pickens.fetchyournews.com/2016/06/24/fannin-focus-
pub...](http://pickens.fetchyournews.com/2016/06/24/fannin-focus-publisher-
mark-thomason-indicted-along-with-attorney-russell-stookey-1-count-making-
false-statement-2-counts-identity-fraud/)

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...](http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-7/chapter-1/e/part-6/7-1-360)

please please... please... do more research before blindly believing every
david vs. goliath story...

~~~
etherealmachine
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.

~~~
ledude
an indictment won't present evidence. you want to skip the judicial process
and have everything in step one. that's now how our judicial system works.

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.

~~~
etherealmachine
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?

~~~
richman777
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.

------
rasengan
If these facts are accurate, this is bad.

~~~
msandford
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.

~~~
r00fus
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.

