Greeenlit: A Playing on the Internet Update Part Deux

The operative term here is prescient folks. πŸ˜‰ Back in January 2012, when the the Department of Justice had it’s OIG Investigators crawling all over this area it seemed to me there was one of two things the media outlets they visited could do. This is what I did:

Slabbed New Media has not had a problem with comment gate since.

NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune ordered to turn over online commenter information in Stacey Jackson case ~ Ginny LaRoe

NOLA.com could appeal but it would be a waste of money IMHO. Click the pic below the jump to nab Judge Lemmon’s 9 page order and reasons.

USA v Jackson Doc 71 USA v Jackson Doc 71

Bonus Link to Mark Moseley over at the Lens. Mark has been all over this topic along with Slabbed and Jason Berry:

Online comment scandal likely to widen as more defendants invoke it in court

19 thoughts on “Greeenlit: A Playing on the Internet Update Part Deux”

  1. The DOJ sockpuppetry/agitprop is simply a repackaged application for the internet which was once used in the print,radio/television mediums, simply State-sponsored “Goldsteining” to coin a phrase, as if prosecutors in the USSofA with the overwhelming advantages they enjoy need to rig the process even more.

    1. The repackaged application is interesting, because Judge E’s Danziger Order describes the hijinks as a 21st Century online ‘Carnival Atmosphere’. The last part is a quote in reference to the Sam Sheppard case that inspired the “Fugitive” series/movie.

      The “why” question is one of many unanswered in this mess, but it’s perhaps the most revealing. Was this a case of control freaks who hated the risky human factor of a jury? Or was it “fight fire with fire,” to contest defense lawyers posting comments?

      1. Mark: I wish I had the time to read Judge Englehart’s 125 page novel rich in analogies, metaphor and other figures of speech/ writing which I’m sure has been printed in DOJ booklet form and No.1 on the best sellers list of all U.S. attorney prosecutors. I think of those 125 pages as literary overkill of the DOJ tied back to bad blood the Canal St. Brothel judicial abortion.

        Is it a crime to lie to an Article III judge? Absolutely, so prosecute them for that but don’t leave open the Federal prison backdoor gates posting a sign thereon, this way to ” prosecutorial misconduct” freedom.

        I think you are spot on as to one of the frustrations of of Sal, Jan and others with the thought that the indicted and their attorney/politico crony supporters have unlimited rights of free speech on the courthouse steps and internet posts while federal prosecutors were/are instructed to tape their mouths shut.

        Relative to this thought of frustration consider that NOLA and Slabbed became the artistic pallet of 800+ comments by commenter OnASteed who rode his medieval armored steed over such media turf in classic ” medieval allegorical” fashion slaughtering the DOJ for 6-8 months then rode off never to be heard of again.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

        So who was “aircheck”, “urantia” and “jammer58” begs the fair but opposing question of who was “OnASteed” and what was his purpose and intended effect on potential grandjury members.

        Finally, how about a Lens story on the exact comments “aircheck”/”jammer58” made regarding Jackson and get readers to comment on their possible prejudicial effects on a grandjury 5 years later.( NOTE: I can hardly remember seeing a movie five years ago, if only given the movie title, much less remembering a few post by an internet commenter).

  2. Holy NOLA legal arguments Batman,

    For once I agree with TP legal counsel who argued how would NOLA comments 5 years before Jackson’s indictment affect her due process rights before a grandjury? Not only that but commenter “aircheck” only said Jackson would ‘ squeal on everyone ,everybody and everything ‘. Additionally,”aircheck” didn’t even say she was guilty of any of the federal charges ( as per quoted comments cited by the March 21st story by The Lens).

    So good luck to jackson’s counsel Eddie Castaing proving prejudiced effects of “aircheck’s” comments. As far as “jammer 1954” goes, even if Letten was born in 1954 in addition to knowing he did some band jamming whose to say someone else didn’t post under a false name on a gov’t generic computer to cast faux leads pointing to Letten.

    I’ll say this, if this BS works legally again for Jackson, BrouStar or Ray Ray there will be nation-wide criminal practice CE seminars on how to work the local internet blogs to set the guilty loose despite them being convicted or pleading guilty.

    1. Lock, given the glacial pace of investigation, having someone sound the tocsin even years in advance is part and parcel of such a campaign. I would concede the “size” of the target would argue against implementing an agitprop plan so far in advance, but to rebutt your argument, that fact alone does not pre-empt the execution of such a plan. Indeed, given the low-order of the particular offenses by Jackson in the overall scheme of Lesser New Orleans Kleptocrat crime, one could argue that this was a testing of the use of internet to poison the well. Indeed, Locke, with all the nefarious activities by the usual suspects going on, one is intrigued as to the outing of Jackson. This is equivalent to the “noise” you get when listening to the mainstream propagandists giving us the “In-the-Beltway” ruminations which is of little interest to the people in the rest of the country – the fact that low-order/low-lying fruit is getting discussed is a tip-off in its own right.

      1. Well said. This very well could go no further than the Magistrate but if it is Sal or Jan or the other person everyone else is mentioning then all hell is gonna break loose. Simply for muckraking purposes alone this is the scenario I’d like to see unfold.

    2. Lockemuptight writes: “Not only that but commenter ‘aircheck’ only said Jackson would β€˜ squeal on everyone ,everybody and everything β€˜. ”

      Hmm. Well, court docs claim that aircheck wrote 11 comments specifically targeting Stacey Jackson, but they also say aircheck only wrote approximately 500 comments total. My question, then, is why the internet archive snapshot for aircheck (linked in my column) show over 1600 posts? Also, may I invite you to compare “aircheck” to “urantia” — another commenter who wrote over 1000 comments, many of which sound a lot like “aircheck”?

      I think Letten was born in ’53. The jammer user profile shows a zip code in NC, which may be erroneous but I tend to think it is or was accurate, at one point in time.

    1. I thought it was one of Engelhardt’s better efforts. No one likes being told bald face whoppers, especially Article III Judges. If the clandestine PR campaign was as widespread as many believe, there is no way the secrets are not gonna bubble up.

      The FBI showing up in USA v Howard case was what truly disappointed me.

      1. Doug,

        Lying about something does not automatically translate to a new trial. Does it warrant disciplinary sanctions or contempt sanctions, yes, but there should be a nexus between the lying and the jury’s verdict. Quite frankly I have seen nothing to even remotely indicate that the on-line commenting somehow influenced the first jury. To grant a new trial without an evidentiary hearing was in my opinion absurd.

        1. You’re right but as a practical matter telling whoppers to Article III judges is very ill advised. Put another way it sure doesn’t hurt the defendants’ chances in these cases.

    2. NRB: Since Englehardt was Vitter’s boy during Canal St. Brothel investigation could there still be bad blood between Englehardt and the DOJ/FBI ?

      Since Englehardt opened the DOJ/FBI Pandora Box how about him being more absurd,opening the Lil Black Book Box and opining 125 pages of reasons for its non-opening/opening.

      Empire Parish: I refuse to believe that any member of the DOJ/FBI commented on NOLA to set in motion any nefarious internet comment plan to help them in prosecution especially with all the discovery powers they have in their quiver. I honesty believe they commented out of judicial frustration.

      1. Frustration with what? Name me a case before this broke that Team Letten lost. If there are any there aren’t many that I guarantee.

        Prosecutors have enormous power as it is. One comment on a case they were working is one wayyyy far over the line.

  3. Holy simple $64,0000 batquestion Batman,

    How’s about the aforementioned Canal St. Brothel case for starters which was prematurely shut down after much FBI/DOJ leg work. And if Sal, who came to NOLA to clean up criminal and judicial corruption, is out there he could name many others I’m sure he worked his ass off on but went nowhere or the federal judicial system failed to inflict the proper sentence congruent to felony convictions.

    Help me out here Sal with more specifics and we’ll split da’ $64,000 plus I’ll treat you to dinner at Impastato’s

    1. It was Letten’s decision to only prosecute the Madam, a few others and to seek a seal for the customer information Lockie.

    2. Two different issues there, Locke.

      1) Sal’s job to clean up and then having firsthand the experience with the local feds as graveyard for political untouchables is quite likely – but Sal is not much of a wit if he didn’t know that going in. I can recall back to the days of Gallinghouse when there were “touchables” and those “untouchable.” So do you screw up what successful albeit low lying fruit prosecutions there are by behaviour that is contrary to principle, more like that agitprop transmission belt “Goldsteining” found among the progressive minded prosecutors along the calling of a Maksim Gorky?
      2) I can recall when newspapers were routinely used as agitprop transmission belts to further the “party line” on a prosecution, certainly before the local press corp had any vague idea of Saul Alinksy or knew little of an Alexander Gumberg. Poisoning the well with the internet shouldn’t prove more demanding.

  4. Batman , Your last sentence (“it was Letten’s decision”), if true, is reason enough to be frustrated as a prosecutor.

    One would only have to research and study Sal’s comments over the internet at NOLA over the years to give insight and reveal his frustrations ( i.e. seems I remember reading some that reflected frustration).

    Come on Sal pick up and help claim your $32,000 so I can call in dat reservation.

  5. Lockemuptight: “One would only have to research and study Sal’s comments over the internet at NOLA over the years to give insight and reveal his frustrations…” I’m at your service, but the list of Sal’s expressed frustrations is longer than a Tolstoy novel. Suffice it to say, though, I’d take your bet.

    As for the contents of Maier’s black book — which are no doubt a partial accounting– it’s a wonder they never wormed their way into public daylight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *