Scr3wFace writes: "After a church filed a complaint about a blog, a police detective — who also is a member of the pastor's security detail — opened an investigation. The detective got a subpoena from the State Attorney's Office requiring Google Inc. to provide information about whoever was behind the site. Names, addresses, etc. It's important to note that the blog never threatened violence. Was it harshly critical? Sarcastic? Unfair? That's a matter of opinion. But it never threatened violence. And the detective closed the investigation, finding no criminal wrongdoing.He also provided the church, his church, the identity of the blogger.
The church then issued a trespass warning against Thomas A. Rich and his wife.
Most chilling about all of this: Those in power — from the police to the church leaders — not only defend this chain of events, they say it's how things should work.
The Sheriff's Office says there wasn't a conflict of interest and that the detective did the right thing by passing along the blogger's identity to the church.
The State Attorney's Office says there wasn't anything unusual about the subpoena, which made it possible to figure out who was tapping away at a computer keyboard. Happens all the time. Not just with blogs. With e-mails, text messages, etc.
And I'm not sure what to make of one detail of the saga, other than perhaps the irony of it, but one form of communication that wasn't part of this investigation — face-to-face talking with the blogger.
This isn't necessarily unusual, police say, especially considering that no criminal wrongdoing was found. But what if, as the blogger believes, the ultimate goal of this process wasn't to find wrongdoing but to find him?
More details to this can be found here. http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/http://www.newbbc.accura.net/FBCSubpoenas.pdfhttp://www.newbbc.accura.net/JSO-InvestRep-Sept29.pdfhttp://www.newbbc.accura.net/JSO-InvestRep-Nov13.pdf"