Replies

UPDATE

http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_11785992

Topix: No decision on releasing posters’ info
The York County D.A. wants information on possible eyewitnesses.

By RICK LEE

Daily Record/Sunday News
Posted: 02/25/2009 09:28:10 PM EST

Chris Tolles, CEO of Topix, said he has not decided whether his company will release information on the people who posted comments on a York Daily Record/Sunday News story about a fatal stabbing in Spring Garden Township.

Topix is contracted by the newspaper to operate the comment-posting feature at the bottom of news articles. Topix allows users to post comments anonymously.

The York County District Attorney’s Office is hoping the information it seeks from Topix will lead to witnesses of the stabbing death of Andrew Wright. The 22-year-old was killed inside Jamie’s Courtside Sports & Spirits on Dec. 28. Three men have been arrested.

At a hearing Friday in York County Common Pleas Court, Detective Jeffrey Martz testified under oath that he had spoken to an attorney for Topix and was assured the company would comply with a subpoena requesting the information. After an article on the court testimony was published, Tolles said, people started asking about the company.

“People are upset that we would give up the anonymous identities of people to court. The public perception is that we already have,” Tolles said Wednesday.

“I’ve taken a hit for this before I’ve even made my decision.”

In interviews Tuesday and Wednesday, Tolles stated repeatedly that, “No one is authorized to say what I will do.” He also said “it is premature to say that we are cooperating with the court. You cannot say I will do something until I say I will.

“My attorney does not speak for me. My lawyer does not have the nuanced understanding of what I do.”

Those statements came as a surprise to Chief Deputy Prosecutor Chuck Patterson, who is handling the homicide case, and prosecutor Timothy Barker, who put Martz on the witness stand in front of Judge Thomas H. Kelley on Friday.

Martz told Kelley that Philip Keating, who he identified as Topix’s Pittsburgh-based attorney, “advised me a subpoena would be sufficient” to obtain the anonymous posters’ Internet Service Providers.

On Wednesday, Patterson, who was not at Friday’s hearing, said he also had spoken to Keating.

“He told me, ‘Unless you hear from me otherwise, I’ll consider your phone call notice,’” Patterson said. “I took that to be there was no opposition unless they notified us that there was.”

Keating did not attend Friday’s hearing, and Tolles said Wednesday he was unaware of the hearing. Tolles also said Keating is now barred from speaking to the media about the ongoing matter.

Tolles initially argued the Daily Record story on Friday’s hearing was factually inaccurate, that sworn testimony in York County had no legal standing with his company and that Martz, by contacting Keating about posters’ information, had “a lack of understanding of the process.”

After speaking with Keating, Tolles said Wednesday the initial story was “not factually incorrect” and that Martz, to the best of Tolles’ knowledge, gave fair and honest testimony.

However, Tolles still contends that he is not legally bound by Martz’s statement to comply with any subpoena.

After Friday’s hearing, Martz sent a subpoena to the “Custodian of Records of Topix LLC” in Palo Alto, Calif. Tolles said Wednesday he has not yet received the subpoena.

Tolles said that, after he reviews the subpoena, he may or may not comply with the request.

“If he wants to fight it, that is his decision,” Patterson said. “The bottom line is, we have a murder investigation and we are looking for witnesses.”

Patterson said Friday’s hearing was scheduled to allow for any argument from Topix’s attorneys about the request. He said if Keating had expressed any hesitation about complying with a subpoena, the commonwealth would have asked Kelley to issue a court order allowing them to seek the information through a subpoena filed in California court.

“Judge Kelley didn’t issue an order because of Detective Martz’s sworn statement,” Patterson said. “There appeared to be no opposition.

“We can go back to court and get an order to proceed through the California court. We are trying to get any information we can obtain. This is just the first step.”