TexasCHLforum.com

The founders of the United States (Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and the rest) were elected representatives of American states that had been in existence and functioned fairly well for over a century, in some cases.

They declared their independence from the U.K. so that they could continue to manage their own affairs.

These hackers are simply throwing a protracted post-adolescent temper tantrum. They have no charter or popular backing. They have no record of positive achievement. They have no plan for the future. They are vandals.

- Jim

Let's try this again:

No one posting in this thread knows anything about this situation. The e-mail messages that are under discussion were put on a web site by an anonymous group of self-admitted criminal hackers and anarchists. There is no chain or custody, no credibility.

Anyone on this forum could get the treatment that Joe Horn got, including demonstrations in front of your house, media pundits calling for your hide to be tanned after you no longer needed it, and having to move permanently to an undisclosed location.

This is a similar internet mob scene over a much less serious offense, if any offense at all was committed.

Here endeth the lesson.

- Jim

A CAD is a central appraisal district. State laws allow one or more counties to use a CAD to replace the tax assessor's function. Some CAD offices are 30.06 posted, and they insist that their facilities are not public property.

- Jim

sjfcontrol wrote:First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not.

Welcome to the future. This kind of thing has been proliferating for decades. Privatized prisons probably are most obvious example. Also there are privately operated alternative schools, which are the functional equivalent of what used to be called juvie hall.

In the CHL world, we have seen CADs trying (successfully) to call themselves private organizations.

- Jim

I'm not defending the status quo; I'm trying to explain it. If you don't like it, you need to lobby the legislature or Congress, depending upon which regulations you are concerned about.

Most regulatory issues are not criminal. They are civil matters where the same level of due process is not required.

BTW, if you don't know already, the people at the SEC who investigate insider trading will look at the stock trades of your relatives, in-laws, barber, doorman, fellow members of your country club, college fraternity members, etc. Facebook has been a godsend to these people. They don't need probable cause to develop a case. When they have probable cause, they get the subpoenas and indictments.

- Jim

sjfcontrol wrote:And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

The fourth amendment does not define reasonable.

Regulatory issues generally are considered to be voluntary. IOW, if a company wants to provide insurance, telephone or electric service, medical care, etc., they consent to state regulation.

On a personal level, this is why you are subjected to search and seizure when flying. You don't have to fly. You are perfectly free to paddle your kayak to Hawaii.

Also, several amendments mention due process, which is not strictly defined. It means defined legal procedures must be followed, and official cannot act on whim. (This was a big issue in the revolutionary period. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.")

- Jim

I think the most even-handed opinion about this kerfuffle is that the situation needs to be investigated by those who are capable of establishing facts—whether that is the Galveston County DA, DPS, or federal authorities.

E-mail can be faked. I could do a passable job of it if I had one genuine e-mail message from the person whom I was (hypothetically) trying to spoof.

Also note that the hackers had access to the e-mail server itself, not just intercepted messages. That would allow them to commit mischief that would be difficult to trace.

Do I get another "also"?

If there is a man alive who has not at some time held a negative stereotype or made a crude joke based on race, sex, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, or appearance, I have not met that man. I don't see him in the mirror. I try to be open-minded, but I would cringe to have everything that I said in my entire life played back to me. (I think someone said this already.)

- Jim

Jumping Frog wrote:But from a management perspective, those are not free speech issues. They make the entity vulnerable to EEOC charges and lawsuits and can have a severe financial/litigation impact. To say that has no proper place in the workplace is not being "politically correct", it is being fiscally wise.

I understand that employers have both the legitimate power and responsibility to regulate what their employees say and write on the job—particularly high-ranking employees who make policy decisions.

There is no right to free speech at work for an employee of a privately owned company or organization. Constitutional rights apply only to the actions of government. I work for a company under a policy that would have me fired in a New York minute if I circulated offensive e-mail or spoke that way in the office.

There's the rub. The police chief works for a city. The city's rules have to meet a higher standard of scrutiny when they seem to impinge upon constitutional rights.

I am not a constitutional lawyer and don't play one on TV, so I can't cite all the relevant laws. A lot of it is federal case law.

Also a government employee is not an at-will employee to the same degree as one working for a private concern. Government employees are entitled to due process. Top-tier managers such as police chiefs nearly always have a contract that makes it difficult to fire them without an iron-clad reason. (Otherwise the employer usually pays them quite a bit to shut up and go away.)

We'll see what happens in this case. I just think it's premature to form even a preliminary opinion based on the information that has been made public.

- Jim

Credibility is subjective.

I trust the Galveston County Daily News with its 169-year publication history to quote a local public official more than I trust a web site that has is trying to attract eyeballs and has no skin in the game.

And I trust a statement by a sworn LEO who has never had an allegation of impropriety more than anonymous accusations.

I'm also going to say it again, because I am surprised by the politically correct attitudes I am seeing: It is not illegal to make racist or sexist jokes or even serious statements. It is not illegal to make defamatory statements about a particular religion. Those are core free-speech issues.

All of these things are in bad taste. They reflect poor judgment on the part of the person making them. They may be contrary to agency policy. In the context of a specific case, they may be evidence of illegal bias or prejudice.

But firing someone over a single e-mail that meets none of those conditions is a huge overreaction, IMHO.

I should add that I do not know the Friendswood police chief and wouldn't recognize him if I met him.

- Jim

Some of you seem to be forgetting that no one ever made an open-records request to the Friendswood police department for documents relating to racial profiling, racial or religious discrimination, sexist conduct, or anything of the sort (as far as I know).

Nor is there a credible accusation of discriminatory conduct by the Friendswood police department. (I have been in Friendswood thousands of times and never got a second look. Many members of this forum live there or are members of PSC range, which is located there.)

Someone combed through millions of illegally obtained e-mail messages and found a few naughty words. Heavens. That is the worst problem in the world today.

- Jim

Jumping Frog wrote:I have often responded to the email with a request that they do not send inappropriate email to my work email address. That response email then becomes part of my defense if ever asked the question.

I do the same thing.

I never send personal e-mail from work or expose my work e-mail address to public view. I give it only to specific people or a few companies that I do business with.

Nevertheless, I get spam from businesses and organizations that I have nothing to do with.

On my personal e-mail, I get messages from people I never heard of because someone responds to a three- or four-times forwarded e-mail. These are usually internet urban legends that have been circulating for years. Some of them are hateful or obscene.

- Jim

Let me make this a little clearer:

There is no credible evidence that the Friendswood police chief wrote any e-mail that would be considered racially or sexually offensive, insulting to a religion, or prejudicial to a criminal case. None.

These hacked e-mails, if they are authentic, indicate that he received some e-mails that he deleted. Many e-mail systems have a folder where deleted e-mails go until they expire or are otherwise permanently deleted.

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/255354" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I get offensive e-mail messages all the time from people who forward everything they get to everyone in their address book. These range from racist and sexist jokes to goofy conspiracy theories and warnings that the gub'mint is gonna grab my guns. I almost never respond unless I think the sender is educable (which is rarely).

I certainly am not accountable for unsolicited garbage that other people send me.

I also find it remarkable that people who have never been to Friendswood and could not find it on a map are so concerned by how that town is run.

- Jim

For those who are ready to end a man's career if not string him up, what proof do you have that he committed a crime?

If he did not commit a crime, what offense against morality or human decency did he commit?

How do you know this?

Hint: Blogs in and of themselves prove nothing.

- Jim