« New rules to post comments in my blog | truthseeker77's Blog | AP Slams Obama's "Spin" on Budget Deficit »
Of Interest to All Civil Liberties Defenders: Joe the Plumber's Child Support and Driving Records Illegally Accessed
Democrats have led admirable opposition to George W. Bush's intrusion into the phone records of many Americans. Party loyalists in TPM and other progressive websites were equally outraged last March, and with good reason, over the news that Barack Obama's passport information was inexplicably accessed by someone in the State Department.
That's what makes it disheartening to learn via the Columbus Dispatch and the New York Times that immediately after the latest presidential debate, Joe the Plumber's child support records were checked for no apparent reason by a contractor with the OK of the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelly. An investigation is under way.
Other similar searches targeting the same individual have been confirmed and are under investigation, namely, the "Plumber"'s driver's license and vehicle registration information.
These breaches bring back memories of the hacking of Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account, which resulted in the indictment of the son of a Democratic Tennessee congressman.
Let's stay classy and resist the temptation to fight an unlawful fight. Invading the privacy of others can result in jail time, and runs counter to the values of the Democratic Party.
Update: "Toledo Police have confirmed that a TPD records clerk is accused of performing an illegal search of information related to 'Joe the Plumber.'
Julie McConnell, has been charged with Gross Misconduct for allegedly making an improper inquiry into a state database in search of information pertaining to Samuel Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16."
That's what makes it disheartening to learn via the Columbus Dispatch and the New York Times that immediately after the latest presidential debate, Joe the Plumber's child support records were checked for no apparent reason by a contractor with the OK of the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelly. An investigation is under way.
Other similar searches targeting the same individual have been confirmed and are under investigation, namely, the "Plumber"'s driver's license and vehicle registration information.
These breaches bring back memories of the hacking of Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account, which resulted in the indictment of the son of a Democratic Tennessee congressman.
Let's stay classy and resist the temptation to fight an unlawful fight. Invading the privacy of others can result in jail time, and runs counter to the values of the Democratic Party.
Update: "Toledo Police have confirmed that a TPD records clerk is accused of performing an illegal search of information related to 'Joe the Plumber.'
Julie McConnell, has been charged with Gross Misconduct for allegedly making an improper inquiry into a state database in search of information pertaining to Samuel Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16."
Advertisement
Would you care to show us the link where you took similar umbrage when Obama's passport records were illegally accessed?
Didn't think so.
"Let's stay classy..." That's rich, coming from you.
October 29, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is really beside the point, isn't it?
October 29, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris, you show true class in your comments here, as does truthseeker in sharing this information, which is of interest to anyone who cares about their civil liberties.
October 29, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
I believe that so long as laws and rules are made in accordance within the legally established procedure we are are obliged to observe them. If we violate the rules to attain our short term goal to win a particular battle then someone in the future will violate the rules to stick it to us.
As Bob Dylan said "the first one now will later be last".
TS77 is right, if the rules were violated.
October 29, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"truthseeker77" is a hypocrite. Note that he's defending the rights of a scofflaw and lair based upon his PRESUMPTION -- which is not proven -- that the accesses reported were ILLEGAL.
On the issue of the Republican's lying about "voter fraud" as excuse to attempt to prevent 200,000 voters voting he says NOTHING. Do we have to wait for THEIR records to be similarly accessed before their rights are defended by the hypocrite?
October 30, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so. I'm sure that Joe the Plumber, even though UNLICENSED -- let's be "classy" and call it "for his liberty against regulation protecting the consumer from his liberties" -- and actually named Samuel, isn't a hypocrite. So, supportive as he is of everything the Bushit criminal enterprise does, he is all for his own rights of privacy being negated (it doesn't exist anyway because it would protect "killing babies").
So where's the beef?
October 29, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The records which show Joe up as the determined faker that he is were all public records.
October 29, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Faker or not, his records should not be accessed illegally- per the first sentence of the Times link.
October 29, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has it been found, in fact, that the accessings of Joe [actual name Samuel] the UNLICENSED Plumber's records were illegal? I thought not. But lets join "truthseeker" in his ongoing transparent shillings for Republicans on any pretext whatsoever.
Plumbers are required to be licensed for protection of the CONSUMER -- the one paying the plumber's fees. WHETHER he is licensed -- he is not, in violation of law -- is a matter of public record.
What's his real name, beyond Samuel instead of Joe? We the people are being presented by him with assertions which are -- as it turns out -- false. Do we, the consumers of his one-way communication, have the right to protect ourselves from the possibility that he's a fraud? Yes, we do. And we find that in "ral life" he spells his last name with a "u," but as a voter he spells it with an "o". If he were a Democrat, that would be sufficient to deny him the right to vote. He is not a Democract, so both Republicans and Democrats will defend and protect his right to vote.
But let's nonetheless congratualate "truthseeker" on his dishonesty as exhibited in his fake outrage over that which hasn't been found to be illegal.
October 29, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's his real name, beyond Samuel instead of Joe?
---------------------------------------------------
Jeez, do you have any clue how stupid this is? Don't you realize that while a few giggling morons here might like this kind of illiterate ranting most people look at this and think you have the brain of a degenerate bovine?
Millions of Americans use their middle name. Have you ever heard of F. Scott Fitzgerald? Do you realize he used Scott all his life. I'm guessing you wouldn't read his books until he started to use his "real" name, Francis. The level of idiocy here from some people is more than I can take sometimes.
October 30, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a legal professional with an actual education in law, smartass. And, I happen to enjoy a good laugh at least as much as anyone else.
What you're seeing me do is FLAYING the "truthseeker" "logic" and exposing it for the dishonesty, and hypocrisy, it is.
October 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
PUBLIC records are public, hence the word public before the word record.
However the person using a Law enforcement database should be FIRED.
However, Joe should have known to stay out of the spotlight after the debate mentions. If he didn't realize his life would be picked apart it is all the more reason to wonder who he is actually taking direction from.
I have heard that Bill Cunningham (WLW) has put him up to all this from the very beginning. But I can't verify it.
October 30, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Joe the Plumber's private records have been illegally released or accessed than the guilty parties should be held to account.
October 29, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the investigation found any illegalities? Not to my knowledge.
Meanwhile, if 200,000 Democratic voters can be denied the right to vote due to typographical discrepancies, then so can "Joe the Plumber".
Fair?
October 29, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris, the record was in a restricted database but the information itself was publicly accessible. The clerk in the Toledo PD verified Not Joe's address for a reporter, that's all. And, according to the PDs Chief, there was no "ill intent."
October 30, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! This is right up there with Brittney Spears' medical records being breached! Oh no wait ... I guess it's a little different, Brittney is actually somewhat important.
BTW: if a person is behind on their taxes and announce their intent to purchase a business ON NATIONAL TV ... the government is GOING to check them out. How did he have the money? Where did it come from? Has he committed fraud(or filed a false return)? It turns out he was just lying. He's a broke liar - just the sort of person that GOPpers love. Maybe the RNC will buy him $150K worth of clothes run him with Palin in '12!
October 29, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even scofflaws have rights.
William Ayers was released because the Government acquired information illegally, and the crimes he was accused of were far more serious than tax evasion.
October 29, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Even scofflaws have rights. Except, of course, for Joe the Plumber's 200,000 fellow citizens/voters who are suspected of being Democrats.
October 29, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times does not share your view that this is an understandable, routine action. From the article:
Nor did I see any statements regarding Joe the Plumber's taxes. I don't think the government is a suspect either.
October 29, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but "The New York Times" is a "liberal bias" rag -- when you, "truthseeker," find it convenient to see it that way.
Intellectual honesty? Not from "truthseeker".
Non-payment of taxes: routine, no big deal.
Discrepancies in how one spells one's name for various purposes? Doesn't pass the smell test, but there's nothing to SEE here, so let's move on . . .
October 30, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look. Joe the Plumber is a complete fraud, as far as I'm concerned; and his basking in his notoriety is transparently pathetic. But if his records were illegally accessed then those responsible should suffer the consequences.
October 29, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. He obviously wants his 15 minutes of fame, and shouldn't be surprised at the scrutiny of his public records that inevitably comes with that, but private records are (ok, should be) completely off-limits.
And for what it's worth, I think it's a complete and total waste of time to go into his record at all. Or interview him.
October 29, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, if we truly want to get to the bottom of this, we need to send in Liddy, Hunt and... the Plumbers.
Just kidding, couldn't resist. If someone's done this illegally, then nail 'em. Standard procedure.
October 29, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hasve NO probelm with accessing his PUBLIC records and comparing the results with what comes out of his -- and McPalin's -- mouth about him.
As for accessing his "private" records: alleged, not proven.
The word on the latter remains:
I-F.
October 30, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest word in the English language is spelled:
I-F.
October 30, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Democrats have led admirable opposition to George W. Bush's intrusion into the phone records of many Americans.
I was waiting to read in your post somewhere to indicate this was a sarcastic sentence, but I waited in vain. Too bad none of the Democrats you speak of are in Congress...
October 29, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
A new article reveals that welfare and unemployment benefits were also checked.
Jones-Kelly claims that once a person becomes a public figure it's routine to check his/her records.
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/29/joe30.html?sid=101
October 29, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be routine. It may even be LEGAL.
But to be OBJECTIVE, "truthseeker," one would have to include THOSE facts -- which you omit.
Not-so-by-the-way: you're the guy who likes the one-way communications, the one-way diatribes: you're the guy who posts a smear, but doesn't allow talk-back. Yeah: you're a champion of civil librerties -- but only those of Republicans, and assholes who obviate reason by engaging in one-way communications as means to "win" "argument".
October 30, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the New York Times article:
October 30, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a generalization. It STILL doesn't show that the accesses were ILLEGAL in this instance.
Apparently you don't get it, "truthseeker": we don't make asseret that something is "illegal" UNLESS AND UNTIL it is SHOWN to be.
You've not done anything but quote from the "trustworthy-with-liberals" "liberal bias" "rag" in effort to PROVE that which has NOT been proven.
Your effort is transparently intellectualkly dishonest.
October 30, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make no sense, my grouchy friend who's always throwing a rant.
Aren't we having more than a "one-way" communication? And i remember clashing with you several times in the past.
October 30, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"truthseeker," everyone here knows your a troll. Your effort to pretend otherwise is D-I-S-H-O-N-E-S-T.
Is that fact simply too subtle for you?
When it is conclusively reported that Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber's private records were ILLEGALLY accessed, tell us about it. Until then, stop the bullshit efforts to create a sympathy for him which is undeserved: he supports the Bushit criminal enterprise, to whom NO ONE (outside themselves) has privacy rights that that enterprise is bound to respect and not violate. That includes Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber AND "truthseeker".
October 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I now learn that at least one person has been charged with misconduct. It is a police department in Clerk in Toledo, Ohio, who gave "Plumber"'s information to a reporter:
"You can't use that database unless it was for law enforcement purposes," Toledo police Chief Navarre told the newspaper.
link
October 30, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see . . .
It has been found that Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber is VIOLATING THE LAW which REQUIRES he be licensed.
"truthseeker" isn't all up in arms in fake outrage about that fact. Nor in GENUINE outrage about that fact.
It has been found that anti-taxer Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber owes back taxes -- which VIOLATES the LAW.
"truthseeker" isn't all up in arms in fake outrage about that fact. Nor in GENUINE outrage about that fact.
Instead, "truthseeker" is only concerned with showing that scofflaw liar Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber who owes back taxes is a "victim" in effort to distract from those facts.
Meanwhile, another above pointed to the fact that INTENT is a crucial element. And "truthseeker" the troll has YET to SHOW that the accesses were ILLEGAL.
October 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where in any of these articles was a Democrat suspected? Before you knew it was a police department clerk, it could just as easily have been a Russian spy or a London banker for all the pertinent information that you possessed.
Way to go for stirring shit that is not in the least worthwhile.
The Toledo PD Chief has this opinion:
I don't think there was any ill intent here. She made a mistake.
What next, Bill Ayers wrote Obama's book?
October 30, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I want to agree with the idea that Joe was and is entitled to privacy, I say no. He injected himself into this mess by not only pushing McCain's false lies but he went even further to suggest Barack could be a subversive and would bring the death of Israel.
The ACLU came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh for good reasons over his medical records, even though Rush has yet to thank the ACLU.
If Joe The Loser is just a "regular" Joe then this never happens. Joe was a prop for a political campaign and in politics if you decide to sling the mud and wallow with the pigs then the slaughter house cannot be too far down the road for Joe, figuratively speaking of course.
If the author wants to worry about rights and such, the author could dedicate some effort to ensure all the innocent people in Guantanamo Bay are afforded the rights all Americans have to a fair and speedy trial instead of the kangaroo crap that passes as justice by this obscene and twisted administration. Forget about Joe the Loser, he's gonna do just fine!
October 30, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is not "privacy."
The issue is whether laws were broken.
We don't have to "deserve" rights, that is why they are called "inalienable."
October 30, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again you confuse laws for the populace versus laws for politicians. You are either very shallow in thought if you assume that laws apply in political races or just very biased. Laws shouldapply to everyone but if that were the case then there would have never been a President GW Bush. Laws were broken, re-broken and then trampled on by the Florida gop as they strong armed their way into the process and thereby going around the "laws" and they decided on mob rule. If you'll meet me halfway diachronic and admit that all people of all parties in all states in all conditions should follow the law then I am with you. But until you call a spade a spade, you do not have a case. I am sorry.
October 30, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said, "If you'll meet me halfway diachronic and admit that all people of all parties in all states in all conditions should follow the law then I am with you. But until you call a spade a spade, you do not have a case. I am sorry.
But when did diachronic say or imply that only members of one party and not the other should have rights?
October 30, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he's the one person who recommended the post in which i accused President Bush of blackmailing the Bosnians, the Iraqis, and Congress, and this is his way of goading me into writing another.
October 30, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
the link is here http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/diachronic/2008/10/a-pattern-of-blackmail.php
the nonwords of html code are hell on dyslexics.
October 30, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, i agree that the Democrats' Church Committee is one of the Democrats' greatest achievements of the last half century, and as it is one of the very few instances in our history in which mechanisms were provided to roll back the power of the lawless Executive Branch, I was as aghast as you must have been to see Democrats themselves allow the LAWS which it prescribed lapse into oblivion:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/diachronic/2008/10/a-church-committee-for-the-pos.php
but the nasty truth is, just as the paradigm conservative, Goldwater, would have nothing to do with today's GOP, one of the greatest liberal Senators of all time, Frank Church, would be disgusted that today's Democrats refused to listen to his all-too-clear warning re NSA snoops: "I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge... I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
Agree with that? Then where the HELL was Barack Obama leading his party in opposition to making FISA a joke this year?
The hypocrisy on this thread is incredible.
October 31, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where in the Constitution -- which is the supreme Law of the Land -- does the word "inalienable" appear?
Yer right: Nowhere.
That word appears in the "Declaration of Independence," which has NEVER been LAW.
Now ask yourself: if "liberty" is in reality "inalienable," and being jailed or imprisoned strips you of "liberty," then being jailed or imprisoned, regardless reason, is unconstitutional?
October 30, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
you might have been happier if I quoted Bentham's equally famous declaration, that rights are "nonsense on stilts."
Re 'imprisonment' and the rest- you can't think the passage endorses some kind of immunity from punishment like Bush granted Blackwater in Iraq.
No one has ever read it in that way, and i don't think you ever did, either.
October 30, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend truthseekers new found respect for the rule of law.
Let's hope that he shows such respect in the future.
October 30, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
He will, and unbiasedly -- in favor of Republicans, and against Democrats.
October 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's note that as much as a stopped clock is right once (or twice, if it doesn't indicate AM or PM) a day, truthseeker has been right in principle (if perhaps not in detail), a grand total of once.
Whooohoooo! Your mother must be so proud.
October 30, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's stay classy and resist the temptation
Good luck with that. We have the internet and the blogosphere now, where everyone who ever wanted to has the opportunity to fulfill their dreama of playing scummy operative in their spare time. :-) From Dan Rather going down, to Chinese digital lynch mobs chasing "adulterers," law enforcement organizations have their hands full, especially as some "netizens" will always cry "freedom of speech, freedom of information" in defense of attempts at "smacking down" someone.
October 30, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. You yourself show a bit too much preference for using the keyboard for kung-fu fighting for my taste. I wouldn't put it past someone who takes things so ridicoulously personally to access records on another poster on a forum if he could.
October 30, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed reading about JTP owing back taxes and not having a plumbers license but this information must be gleaned by legal means, i.e. FOI requests and not some rogue clerk.
October 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
A plumber is required by law to be licensed. The licensing is intended to protect the consumer -- YOU.
If you hire a plumber, and ask if s/he is licensed, and aren't satisfied with the answer for any reason, you can readily find out from PUBLIC records whether the plumber is licensed. No FOIA necessary. It is technically the equivalent of looking up a "Doing Business As" record.
Taxes are not my baliwick, but as reported the fact that Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber owes back taxes came from court filings -- 99 per cent of which are open to public inspection, no FOIA necessary.
As well, there are exclusions from FOIA: one cannot get personnel medical records, as example, by means of FOIA. One of the pending questions concerning the Palins -- she was found to have abused the powers of her office; he, not having been elected, can't be found to have violated the powers of an office not his -- was their ILLEGAL accessing of Wooten's personnel file and workmen's compensation records. Those are, for reasons which should be obvious -- rights of privacy -- outside the scope of FOIA.
As for Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber's private records/rights of privacy: if he is opposed to the right of privacy, as is suggested by his wholesale and retail support of the Republican Party, then he cannot but include HIS rights of privacy in that equation.
Meanwhile, all in all, "truthseeker" is an intellectually dishonest hypocrite and troll: he is sielnt on the violation of law by Samuel the UNLICENSED Plumber while attempting to create sympathy for him as a "victim".
Victim? He knows he is required to be licensed in order to do plumbing; he knowingly ignores that fact and thus knowingly violates the law -- caveat emptor on the customer. He knows he is required to pay his taxes -- etc.
He is only a "victim" in that he is required to comply with the law like everyone else. If his rights of privacy were in fact violated -- which has not yet been shown to be the fact -- then he'll toss his support for "tort reform" and sue for BIG BUCKS.
October 30, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nag, can you explain the differences between the rights of a licensed versus an unlicensed plumber?
October 30, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
ren't procedures in the courts of Ohio public? On the internet it is possible to select a court such as common pleas then select the type of action, divorce criminal etc., add a name and get the decision. Unless a judge approves sealing the records, they remain public. Too much made of this. When people jump in the public's eye they will be scrutinized to the nth degree. Most of this happens because our "reporter's" careers are a quest for crap. Plus you have opposition investigators in each party whose careers are the same.
October 30, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe the plumber was right to be suspicious of Obama's tax
plans. Once Obama and Pelosi have taken all the rich
people's money and driven the economy into the ground, they'll
come after the middle class looking for more.
Welfare and the dole can only be supported by working
people in the end. After all it's patriotic to pay higher taxes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MDBnvDGms0
October 31, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink