Site that snitches on snitches irks judges

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 07/22/07 | Emilie Lounsberry

[Kid Shelleen]

In spring 2003, Eugene "Twin" Coleman began cooperating with the FBI after he was linked to a murder and a cocaine ring run by one of Philadelphia's most notorious drug kingpins. By the time Kaboni Savage was convicted in December 2005, two other potential witnesses had been gunned down. Coleman's mother and five other family members were dead, too, killed in a house fire that investigators believe was set in retaliation.

Coleman went into the federal witness-protection program.

But if he thought he could fade into obscurity, he was wrong. His role as an informant is detailed at www.whosarat.com. The vitriol-filled Web site lists more than 4,300 purported snitches from around the world. And that is sending a wave of worry through the criminal justice system, where informants play a critical role

[MacDorcha]

...wow

[Mark was here]

From their site:

1. This web site and the information contained within is definitely not an attempt to intimidate or harass informants or agents or to obstruct justice. This websites purpose is for defendants with few resources to investigate, gather and share information about a witness or law enforcement officer. Freedom of speech , freedom of information act, and an individual's constitutional right to investigate his or her case protect this website. Some Information contained in this website may not be 100 percent accurate and should be used for information / entertainment purposes only.

I suppose a case could be made for a proper defense, on the other hand witnesses should not be murdered. I'm glad I do not have to draw this line.

[kingu]

I think what is most chilling is the restriction of court documents, and the excuse to pull these documents off of websites and out of the public eye. ‘Documents still available at courthouse’ - lovely, that means the people you’re claiming to keep it from still have access to it, and just the public loses out.

But it wouldn’t surprise me if this keeps creeping along. Next, it’ll be ‘criminals are still getting this information, we need to restrict it further’ until it gets to the point that only the lawyers involved get a copy, or we completely ignore the constitution and the right to face one’s accusers.

So what, a website in poor taste. There’s a zillion of them out there, the same could be accomplished with an e-mail list or heck, even a thread in the dark smokey back room here on Free Republic. That is not an overriding concern that should take these documents out of the public eye. If anything, they should be made more accessible so we can hold our elected and unelected responsible for the miscarriages of justice that happen every day. Such as letting murderers walk for expediency rather than actually providing a case, and getting rid of the courtroom shenanigans that virtually require a videotape, DNA, fingerprints, and four eyewitnesses to silence the calls from the defense that someone’s innocent.

[brityank]

I think what is most chilling is the restriction of court documents, and the excuse to pull these documents off of websites and out of the public eye. ‘Documents still available at courthouse’ - lovely, that means the people you’re claiming to keep it from still have access to it, and just the public loses out.

No; what is chilling is the belief held by the Media that they have every right to publish whatever they learn by whatever means. I will point you to the lists of Concealed Carry permit holders, as a prime example.

If the records were supposed to be Published, they would be, as are death notices, tax liens, legal notices, etc., and are stipulated so in the laws pertaining thereto.

You can still go down to the Records Office and look at them, you have no right to publish them.

[brityank]

Ping.

Shudder!

[Tribune7]

ping

[kingu]

No; what is chilling is the belief held by the Media that they have every right to publish whatever they learn by whatever means. I will point you to the lists of Concealed Carry permit holders, as a prime example.

Sorry, the second amendment was pretty clear; the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Don't believe that they have a right to have concealed carry permits, it's very clear in the constitution that it can not be touched. But liberals are too busy finding invisible print in the very simple document.

As for your point, what person would benefit from publishing general court documents? Almost no one. But put on the web, since they are part of the general public record, that is an appropriate use for them. And I guarantee the ones who fight the hardest to keep those records secret will always be the government prosecutors who don't want their scams exposed.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

This is another example of how the revolution in technology for storing and sharing information is dissolving the capacity of polities to maintain themselves.

We are about 50 years into Gutenberg Revolution II, and into the second decade of A.G. Bell Revolution II (aka history of the internet).

Fasten your seat belts and get used to the effects of “liftoff”.

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gutenberg

http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

http://www.d-n-i.net/creveld/the_fate_of_the_state.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-State-Martin-Creveld/dp/052165629X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld

[an amused spectator]

I was thinking that we should keep the names of the judges and the prosecutors secret, to protect them...