Posted on 05/25/2010 2:39:51 PM PDT by Beaten Valve
When Sen. Jim Bunning complained on the Senate floor in February that he'd missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because of a debate on unemployment benefits -- a debate the Kentucky Republican himself prevented from proceeding to a vote -- Bruce Shore got angry.
"I was livid. I was just livid," said Shore, 51, who watched the floor proceedings on C-SPAN from his home in Philadelphia. "I'm on unemployment, so it affects me. I'm in shock."
Instead of just being angry, Shore took action: He sent several emails to Bunning staffers, blasting the senator for blocking the benefits.
"ARE you'all insane," said part of one letter Shore sent on Feb. 26 (which he shared with HuffPost). "NO checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT??"
In that letter he signed off as "Brad Shore" from Louisville. He said he did the same thing in several messages sent via the contact form on Bunning's website. "My assumption was that if he gets an email from Philadelphia, who cares?" he said. "Why would he even care if a guy from Philadelphia gets upset?"
Bunning might not have cared, but the FBI did. Sometime in March, said Shore, agents came calling to ask about the emails. They read from printouts and asked if Shore was the author, which he readily admitted. They asked a few questions, and then, according to Shore, they said, "All right, we just wanted to make sure it wasn't anything to worry about."
But on March 13, U.S. Marshals showed up at Shore's house with a grand jury indictment. Now he's got to appear in federal court in Covington, Ky. on May 28 to answer for felony email harassment. Specifically, the indictment (PDF) says that on Feb. 26, Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."
The language of Shore's indictment is taken directly from the statute -- there's no description of the actual crime. The Kentucky U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment, but said it's a typical indictment.
Shore knows he's in trouble but he isn't sure why. He said he thought sending angry letters to Congress was a First Amendment thing. He swears he didn't intend to make a threat. "If I send 50 letters to Congress, is that illegal or is it just me wasting paper?"
Harvey Silverglate, a prominent civil liberties lawyer and the author of "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent", has long argued that vague laws allow the federal government to prosecute citizens for things most people wouldn't consider crimes. (The message of his book's title is that the average person unintentionally commits three felonies a day. "Half of the anonymous Internet comments would" be illegal according to the statute used against Shore, said Silverglate.)
"If nothing else the U.S Attorney has managed to harass a defendant. Now we have to find out if the defendant managed to harass anybody," said Silverglate, who looked at Shore's indictment. "When finally the government is forced by a judge's order to specify what the criminal harassment consisted of, if in fact the words used are quite innocuous and don't by any standard rise to the level of a real threat, it's going to be an example of exactly what my complaint is about."
Bunning's office is not involved in the prosecution. A staffer said the office received lots of email over the unemployment issue and turned some over to the Capitol Police. It's up to the Capitol Police whether to involve federal or local law enforcement, and up to those agencies to pursue a case.
Shore said he's been unemployed for the past two years since losing his job as an office manager. He recently received his final unemployment check, joining the ranks of 35,200 Pennsylvanians and hundreds of thousands of Americans who've exhausted all their benefits. He said he used a credit card to book a hotel room in Covington for Friday.
He's particularly alarmed because he's already got a criminal record: In 1995, he and his girlfriend pleaded guilty to 35 burglaries in Bucks County, Pa. The Philadelphia Daily News dubbed them "Bonnie & Clyde": "Their last embrace came in their Northeast Philadelphia apartment. Cops with a warrant did some breaking in of their own and caught the couple, well, coupling -- surrounded by half the booty they'd burgled."
Shore said he got out of prison in 1999 and his lived since then with his mother, who is 81. He's afraid his email indiscretion will wipe out his progress, which includes community college and classes at Temple University, where in 2004 he was on a team that won a $2,000 prize in an IT excellence competition.
"I'm walking around in my head: jail for email, jail for email," he said. "At this point I'm just looking at my government and going, anything is possible. When do the adults wake up and say, 'This gentleman is just angry and frustrated?' I'm just speechless. Shocked. I probably dropped 10 pounds in a week. To think you turn your life around, you don't do anything wrong after you make a mistake when you were younger..."
*Why is everyone attacking the victim in this case. Sure he should get a job. Sure he has a record.
The point is he sent non-threatening emails to Congress and is being prosecuted for those emails*
We are bereft of most of this man’s life story, but based on what we do know, which was more likely to affect this man’s likelihood of finding a job?
a) his criminal record
b) anything that the United States Senate may or may not have done
Do you get it? Its not about his criminal record. Its about him being prosecuted for sending simple emails to Congress.
Are you ok with Congress pressing charges against people to stifle free speech?
“did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication.”
If you accept the government’s theory, it sounds to me that a good deal of what is posted on this website is felonious.
The first amendment should be strongly asserted to protect this man. What does “the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances” mean if you’re not allowed to complain to government officials without being prosecuted?
No kidding. And what about the way some congress critters and the this Administration has “addressed” the American people, especially Tea Party Members?
“In 1995, he and his girlfriend pleaded guilty to 35 burglaries.”
No sympathy. Some of us got laid off in the Obama depression too. We didn’t subsist on 2 years of unemployment. Get a job, you crook.
*Do you get it? Its not about his criminal record. Its about him being prosecuted for sending simple emails to Congress.*
Can you not comprehend what you read? I am not addressing that aspect of the story. I am commenting on whether its wise to complain about needing a handout for food from Congress when it’s likely your own stupidity in life that lead to that situation—not something Jim Bunning did or said.
Mmmm...Maybe you should read the post that I was responding to, again. I don’t think anyone supports this guy’s criminal history or unemployment status. If freedom of speech doesn’t apply to all, there is none. Agree or disagree?
PuffPo hasn’t posted what this guy sent to Bunning. Until then, I can’t say I support. For all we know he sent Bunning a death threat.
If he’s a danger to society then put him back in jail.
a) his criminal record
b) anything that the United States Senate may or may not have done
It's hard to tell. But in a healthy economy a person with a criminal record should be able to get a job. Not a job of a teller in the bank, perhaps, but there ought to be plenty of positions that don't demand much trust. And it's Senate's job to keep the economy healthy.
Yeah, that’s not even what I am commenting on, but keep on focusing on that.
I completely understand your point and I agree, however that is not what either of us were saying so it's really irrelevant to our posts.
“Doing your time...” is not enough, any more. No one is EVER forgiven. With modern record keeping and access, you are branded for the rest of your life, more effectively than if the local bailiff had seared an “F” into your forehead.
Whoa! Take a looksee at this article, yikes!!
Yep. Undoubtedly there is a “rest of the story” here.
Also interesting that Mr. Unemployed was watching C-Span. This means he either has cable or satellite. Maybe a little scrimping is in order.
But if he overtly threatened Bunning and/or his staff, then he would have been taken in at once, it would not have required a grand jury.
The point is he sent non-threatening emails to Congress
Did he? It is entirely conceivable that the emails were threatening but prosecutors went with the easily provable charge without letting the defense distract the jury on what consists of a “threat”.
Basically, this is a press-release from the defense attorney and lots of people on FR get worked up about these stories before they find out that they’ve been played for a sucker.
The "and" in the indictment (presumably in the statute as well) means that it is virtually impossible to obtain a conviction. It is really easy to obtain an indictment and I would therefore have to assume that the US Attorney (under Obama's control) indicted the man "with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the" communication indictment"
No doubt he will always have trouble finding a job, at the same time if you could say pull down 50 thou a robbery that'd be 1.75 mil, and 4 years locked up, you'd be earning 400 thou + per year ~ which is probably more than most Freepers earn in 20 years.
Ain't bad when you get right down to it ~ of course that assumes he got to keep his loot.
So, what was the topic? This guy complained that unemployment kept him short of change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.