What happened to the CdA Press? They’ve been suddenly quiet, keeping dramatic accusations off their front page during the last few days. I wonder why?
Any other thoughts, questions or comments on this sunny Monday?
May 7, 2012
Open Session, Monday
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My guess is that it has to do with the More-or-Less Press desperate need to conceal the identity of the person who owns the cellular telephone used to record a Recall CdA petition signature gatherer. Now that the Kootenai County Sheriff’s Department has apparently opened an investigation into that matter, the chain of custody on the electronic evidence becomes very important and must be established. The owner of the phone and the person who made the recording on it should both be required to give sworn statements in the investigation (unless, of course, such statements would amount to self-incrimination), and the telephone with the original recording must be seized as evidence if there is to be a prosecution. I’m guessing that Press Publisher Jim Thompson and Editor Mike Patrick desperately do not want either of those things to happen.
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2012 @ 8:57 am
So we have the SR fighting to keep the ID of one group of bloggers identities private, now the CDA Press trying to protect the identity of the secret taper. Interesting times. Lawyers making money.
Just my Monday morning thoughts. Just
Comment by justinian — May 7, 2012 @ 10:14 am
Justinian,
I’m going to follow both as closely as I can, in part because it may result in the courts in Idaho determining if there really is a distinction between bloggers who are and are not employed by newspapers. As I understand it, Idaho is one of the states which does not have shield laws. One of the main reasons given for dead-tree journalism limping into extinction is that more and more people get their news via the Internet, and not just the traditional news media there either.
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2012 @ 10:53 am
Bill,
I used to think one of the divisions between the old media and the new was “reliability”. There use to be a rule that required multiple sources, for example. The recording controversy suggests that rule is no longer followed. Then there is the “chemtrail” stories that are now part of the CDA Press mainstream. What next, Martians?
Just saying. Just
Comment by justinian — May 7, 2012 @ 11:12 am
I’m confused Bill. Does the Idaho law state that only one person needs to be aware of a converstion recording? If so, this was legal and what would be the basis of a prosecution? If the “recorder” truly believed that what he was doing was right, why the huge effort to keep his identity secret. Mike Patrick is behaving as this secret identity is of national importance. Perhaps this is CDA’s answer to Deep Throat. There is more to this persons identity than meets the eye. Putting aside the importance of the recall, this “top secret recording which probably will now bring about world peace and a cure for cancer”, reeks of the keystone cops.
Does the petitioner know to whom he was speaking?
Comment by rochereau — May 7, 2012 @ 11:57 am
rochereau,
In most one-party consent states like Idaho, the person doing the recording (or other interception) must be a party to the conversation. Merely being able to overhear a conversation does not automatically make one a party to it.
Suppose A, B, and C are talking and A is secretly recording. B takes C aside and apart from A and clearly does not want A to hear. The fact that A’s recorder may still be sensitive enough to pick up the conversation does not make A’s recording of it legal, because A was no longer a party to it.
If A, B, and C are sitting at a table talking, and if A gets up to leave but leaves his cellphone (set to function as a recorder) on the table, it likely becomes an unlawful nonconsensual interception as soon as A leaves the table and is no longer a party to the conversation.
The issue the More-or-Less Press is raising has less to do with the legality of making the recording and more to do with the Press hoping readers will believe the content of the recording was evidence of illegal conduct by the signature gatherer.
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2012 @ 12:17 pm
Thank you Bill, that (law) is interesting. Do we know for a fact that the signature gatherer was legitemate? Could he have been a “plant” intending to give out false information for just this purpose. Admittedly one does get a bit paranoid, not to say more than a bit cynical, living here.
Comment by rochereau — May 7, 2012 @ 12:36 pm
rochereau,
I don’t have any more verified information.
Comment by Bill — May 7, 2012 @ 1:59 pm
According to the Press, Frank Orzell has admitted that the person in the recording was (past tense) a signature gatherer.
Now there is clearly probable cause to believe a crime was committed and an investigation opened. I wonder, has the Press been asked to give up the name of the person reporting? Who is that person? Could it be one of the anti-recall folks? Maybe somebody who has called, in public, for crimes to be committed? Inquiring minds want to know!
Comment by Pariah — May 7, 2012 @ 5:57 pm
Well if they really want to go after the recall side then they better go after the other side as well for saying/blogging that they were going to fake signatures dont you think?
Comment by concerned citizen — May 7, 2012 @ 8:50 pm
Bill went into depth with his post on April 9th “Hey! Let’s be careful out there.”. County Clerk Cliff Hayes cautioned citizens to be aware of the law on April 24th press release outlining potentially unlawful practices. Bill commented further also on April 24th including Criminal Solicitation. Plenty of caution would seem to have been applied, but it only takes one bad apple on either side. From what I saw the improper comments flowed here for some time to put the hurt to the Recall effort that should not go uninvestigated, then soon to follow a petitioner may have crossed the line, and I say may have simply because he is afforded the right of being innocent until proven guilty, applicable to both sides, and there may be much more to this that we don’t yet know.
No matter how you slice it this is a highly charged issue involving millions of tax dollars that the taxpayer has no control over additionally absent a succinct plan for spending it. URD has become big business and hopefully infiltration wasn’t part of this and a fair investigation will ensue taking into consideration motive and intent for all who choose to live outside the law. Does everyone whose hands are not clean get completely away with it except for only the petitioner?
Why the Sheriff? Tubbs hill is in the Cities jurisdiction as is the Cda press, City Hall, and the Recall headquarters. Did the City police maybe decline to take the case? Perhaps a conflict exists because the Recall involves the current Mayor and City council members in addition to the LCDC board involving a current City council member and a former Mayor/council member. That is not the Clerk’s decision and should have been publicly decided and addressed if based on a potential conflict.
Comment by Appalled — May 7, 2012 @ 9:35 pm
In a way I am glad that this alleged petitioner malfeasance event occurred. Why? Because it is so tangible that it has to be investigated. And, to me, it appears flimsy on its surface. For the anti recall group to anchor most of their -illegal presentation- argument on this single event is pretty shallow. And for the Press to parade it out under the cover of anonymity was reckless (desperate) in the broadest and most forgiving definition. Hopefully the authorities will ferret out all of the pertinent details.
Patrick and the Press has always tried to dignify themselves as a cut-above DFO and the Spokesman-Review. I wonder if Patrick understands how much they appear to be 2 sheep of the same flock dyed different colors instead of seriously professional adversaries?
Comment by Wallypog — May 8, 2012 @ 6:43 am
I agree Wallypog. This helps clear the air on a number of levels. The key issue for those pursuing the recall is getting to the number of signatures required. This gives them a great training example, it should lead to tighter controls on signature gathering and a better outcome. It also should serve as a warning to the anti folks that their conduct is also able to be scrutinized, recorded and exposed.
Just my Tuesday morning musing. Just
Comment by justinian — May 8, 2012 @ 8:14 am