Comments on: I know what you’ve been convicted of

By: terry wagar

terry wagar — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:59:50 +0000

In portland oregon, Joan Wagar and Eric Carlson are in A Murder conspiracy together.
And Clackamas Walmart are acttively helping them by hideing Eric’s employment there from me and my family.
For over A year now Eric Carlson has been going by the name gashel, last name unknown by me, he dyed his hair black, and Walmart agreed to hide his Identity from my daughter, who also worked at that store.
Joan and Eric have friends in Authority protecting Joan and Eric from prosecution.
I have reported this repeatedly to the Authority’s and they are ignoring Joan and Eric’s CONSPIRACY.
I would be more than happy to Testify to this but the Authority’s are covering this up so my testimony would simply dissapear.
My name is Terry Wagar and Im backing up these charges.
Nomatter how many people Joan and Eric poisoned the Authority’s here in portland Oregon refuse to arrest them.
Im making these charges public because of the blatent coverup of these charges.
why is Walmart hideing A BodyDouble?

By: the imbroglio » Blog Archive » 62 Tabs!?

the imbroglio » Blog Archive » 62 Tabs!? — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:24:36 +0000

[...] I know what you’ve been convicted of from the blog, “a public defender,” on the merits of putting all criminal records online in searchable format for anyone to browse on a whim. Generally not at all what I think was intended by the idea of making criminal records “public.” [...]

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:39:37 +0000

Because “privacy” means different things in different cases–California, for example, would recognize a tort in disclosing to the general public an old conviction–see Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285 (1931). Moreover, “privacy” encompasses a movie star’s entitlement to his or her face.

As for social security numbers, isn’t your statement that it’s not deemed to be “public” kind of a tautology? Is it private because the government says so?

In any event, “privacy” is sort of a catchall phrase for all sorts of interests, one of which is keeping embarassing information out of the hands of the general public or at least making it hard for the general public to get said information. Part of me gets the feeling you are being deliberately obtuse . . . . it’s quite clear why people wouldn’t want this information readily accessible, and your contribution to the conversation is “Well, it’s public already, so there’s no privacy concern.” That doesn’t really advance the ball, now does it?

By: esc

esc — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:15:08 +0000

SPO-

Conviction information is already public, so why is this a privacy concern anyways?

My social security number is not classified by the government as “public information.” Conviction information, however, already is.

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:45:03 +0000

esc, your analysis is far too simplistic. Your social security number is “public information” in that it is maintained by a public entity. So is someone’s FBI file. So is the name of a rape victim and on and on.

Privacy is an amorphous concept and depends on the context (e.g., criminal law, tort law, state con law, e.g., California). The reason for this is that we know that things like stale convictions for scoring a dime bag or something like that can hurt real people. And we have to ask ourselves why we make that information easily accessible. Your post adds little to the conversation.

By: esc

esc — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:34:37 +0000

I am a liberal who believes in strong civil liberties, however I don’t see how this is a violation of privacy.

I am also a person who believes strongly in open government.

This is public information, it’s not private information.

You should not have to pay for public information. You should not have to run through hoops to get public information.

Making public information public isn’t an invasion of privacy rights.

By: Pages tagged "nosy"

Pages tagged "nosy" — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:54:34 +0000

[...] bookmarks tagged nosy I know what you’ve been convicted of saved by 9 others helgaust bookmarked on 02/04/08 | [...]

By: Mark from Jersey

Mark from Jersey — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:21:06 +0000

I predict a lawsuit. For example, EVERYONE on the list has an “Arrest Date”. Meaning, the State is committing the tort of libel:

Communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual

… By publishing the names of people who have only issued a parking ticket, as having a history of arrest:

Docket No: A22M-MI01-3745115-S

Original Arresting Agency: MILFORD POLICE
Original Arrest Date: 1/2/2001

Statute—Description——————Type———— Verdict
14-251—Improper Parking— Infraction— Guilty

So it appears you’re arrested for a parking ticket…

So when your job application asks “Have you ever been arrested”, do you say “Yes”?

By: ambimb

ambimb — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:28:23 +0000

One positive: You never again have to be caught knowing nothing about your client’s criminal history at initial appearance/arraignment bond arguments. It’s so frustrating when the gov’t has an NCIC on your client and you’ve got nothing.

But I agree w/SPO and Lisa Kennedy — there’s no good reason for this kind of info to be so easily accessible. Public, yes, but by request in writing or in person, not by just clicking on a website and hitting a search button. People in this country are paranoid about crime (thank you, Republican party, for the decades of fearmongering!); this will only encourage needless discrimination against people who have (for the most part) already paid the debt our democratic process of lawmaking has deemed fair for whatever it is they did in the past.

By: SPO

SPO — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:53:46 +0000

Privacy means many things. That something is “public” does not mean that someone doesn’t have a privacy interest in it not being disseminated, and I cannot resist this, the addresses of complaining witnesses.

All kidding aside, stuff like this can be really counterproductive. In general, we want people to be as productive as they can be–it creates a better society. Public dissemination of information about stale and minor convictions hurts real people and their families. So why do it? Yeah, if some guy is a rapist, well, maybe we get to find out about it, but copping a dime bag? This just seems cruel to me.