IMPD officers arrested.

[Cameramonkey]

This is disconcerting. I see why some would push for more transparency.
Is there a time frame to where this flips over to full access.

Not at all. I see a perfectly valid reason. Privacy. (100% theoretical) One of the terrorists and mom are involved in a criminal event as victims. But mom isnt squeaky clean in her recent past. Public version redacts their names, but private version only accessible to lawyers do not.

I presume other lawyers would be able to see her involvement and be able to know that she is involved in shenanigans as they could relate to other cases, etc. while the rest of us cant see that.

And if I got involved legally in the situation (or near it), I could hire a lawyer for help, and they would be able to help me sort out part of it via their access. It keeps info I dont need to know as an unrelated citizen away from me.

 

[churchmouse]

Not at all. I see a perfectly valid reason. Privacy. (100% theoretical) One of the terrorists and mom are involved in a criminal event as victims. But mom isnt squeaky clean in her recent past. Public version redacts their names, but private version only accessible to lawyers do not.

I presume other lawyers would be able to see her involvement and be able to know that she is involved in shenanigans as they could relate to other cases, etc. while the rest of us cant see that.

And if got involved legally in the situation (or near it), I could hire a lawyer for help, and they would be able to help me sort out part of it via their access. It keeps info I dont need to know as an unrelated citizen away from me.

And I fully agree with this but it seems that many are wanting to know more. And they also feel with the interwebs accesses we now have THAT THIS INFO SHOULD FALL INTO THEIR LAPS. In that I see the barriers put in place.

Nick is a friend and I am really wanting to know more about what big brother is doing but I also respect the privacy issues involved.

Privacy. Remember that concept folks.

It has been mentioned up thread as to where the gun could possibly be. Having dealt with and currently dealing with this again I get that. I really do. On a very personal level. But that does not mean we kick down those barriers put in place for what I see as a fair reason.

This will be closely monitored due to the involvement of an Ingo member. Not seeing much slip by folks as this unfolds.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I guess if somebody here REALLY wants to know more details and see behind the curtain, I guess they could hire an attorney and pay for his time to access the private version of the mycase file.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Because transparency? Because the public has the right to know the details?

Because IMPD and the MCPO are not the gestapo conducting secret arrests?

Because with the release of information may come a valid reason and or defense?

1) The public does. And the public can get the information from the clerk. It's not secret. You want to cry you can't get the info but you're really crying you want it spoon fed to you.

2) There was a press release about the arrests immediately. That's pretty much the opposite of a gestapo conducting secret arrests. The fact you know about it contraindicates what you're crying about.

3) It might contain exculpatory information, but apparently not enough a judge denied probable cause existed.

First, let me specifically say I understand that it has nothing to do with this case.
I find it curious that a public portal is set up to differentiate between lawyers and non lawyers in what public information is made available.

Because redaction is done by a human and then double checked by a different human. Redaction is done by reading the entire document and physically marking out information and then making copies. It is not an automated process. Until very recently (as in about 2-3 years ago) it was still done with paper copies and a Sharpie, although with the push to digitize everything I would guess it's done on the computer these days. Given the number of affidavits (and remember search warrant affidavits are also public record) and the length of some PCs, the sheer number of man-hours required to redact every single PC when most generate no interest to uninvolved parties isn't worth it. Lawyers are often involved parties and will actually need the documents routinely.

It is the same barrier as body cams. The cost of walking the line between privacy (redaction requirements) and transparency (releasing footage) is an expensive one to walk. And as this thread indicates, the general public doesn't know or care about that and just assumes it's free and immediate and some immediately assume something nefarious must therefore be the answer.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess if somebody here REALLY wants to know more details and see behind the curtain, I guess they could hire an attorney and pay for his time to access the private version of the mycase file.

That's overkill. You can get the redacted version from the clerk yourself. Redactions only remove personally identifying information like date of birth, SSN, etc. Contact information (exact address but will allow hundred block), telephone number. Names of any juveniles involved. You get all the info relevant to the allegation.

I think some people think the PC is the entire case file, though, and that's not the case. There can be a lot of information known that's not in the PC. The PC only has to establish probable cause, not convince a jury. The discovery packet is how the defense gets all that information that's not in the PC.

 

[Cameramonkey]

That's overkill. You can get the redacted version from the clerk yourself. Redactions only remove personally identifying information like date of birth, SSN, etc. Contact information (exact address but will allow hundred block), telephone number. Names of any juveniles involved. You get all the info relevant to the allegation.

I think some people think the PC is the entire case file, though, and that's not the case. There can be a lot of information known that's not in the PC. The PC only has to establish probable cause, not convince a jury. The discovery packet is how the defense gets all that information that's not in the PC.

Thanks. I learned something today. Does that mean I can go home and go back to bed?

 

[chezuki]

I have been misspelling that word.

Lol, same.

 

[KG1]

Just wanna make something clear. I want to see the member that got caught up in all of this get a fair shake like anyone else. Not making any accusations or passing judgement regardless of their profession or standing connected with this forum.

I would be interested to hear about any further developments but until then. 'Nuff said.

 

[Expat]

1)
Because redaction is done by a human and then double checked by a different human. Redaction is done by reading the entire document and physically marking out information and then making copies. It is not an automated process. Until very recently (as in about 2-3 years ago) it was still done with paper copies and a Sharpie, although with the push to digitize everything I would guess it's done on the computer these days. Given the number of affidavits (and remember search warrant affidavits are also public record) and the length of some PCs, the sheer number of man-hours required to redact every single PC when most generate no interest to uninvolved parties isn't worth it. Lawyers are often involved parties and will actually need the documents routinely.

It is the same barrier as body cams. The cost of walking the line between privacy (redaction requirements) and transparency (releasing footage) is an expensive one to walk. And as this thread indicates, the general public doesn't know or care about that and just assumes it's free and immediate and some immediately assume something nefarious must therefore be the answer.

I guess I am just surprised that they allow any and all attorneys to have the documents, if they need to be reviewed and redacted by a clerk before being released to the general public. I don't see the interest of an attorney that has no real interest in the case being superior to the publics. If the information should be reviewed and redacted for the public, so should it be to noninvolved attorneys.

 

[printcraft]

Attorneys are "officers of the court"... as in involved in the legal process generally.

BUT a non involved attorney divulging info on this or any other case is "probably" grounds for an ethical complaint.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Methinks you are being tried in the court of public opinion now on this forum for daring to be too inquisitive about a prominent member.

I’ve even been accused of being a troll myself at one point in this thread just for trying to get a better understanding of what might have happened.

I didn't call him a troll. I asked him why he has such a hard on about this incident. And he has yet to respond to that question or my question about what "other" case there is against Nick, which he has alluded to. So maybe he is a troll?

 

[churchmouse]

I didn't call him a troll. I asked him why he has such a hard on about this incident. And he has yet to respond to that question or my question about what "other" case there is against Nick, which he has alluded to. So maybe he is a troll?

Just to put this out there.....that member is sending up a few flags as to his responses in threads like he knows everyone and is comfy moving around the site. Right at home from the get go. And yes he has had an intense interest in this all along in his "Demands" for info when it has been openly discussed how we can get everything that is out there but for the asking.

If I am wrong that he is a re-boot then I apologize but several have shared the same feelings with me.

 

[printcraft]

.......

I'm very curious and find the phrase "as to this case only" to be both curious and troubling.

It's neither curious or troubling it's just how you are interpreting the language.
As others have said it's general legal language addressing ONE case in the system, there doesn't have to be another.
When the order is issued for "this case only" and they have another case pop up they can be taken back into custody or stopped from being released from custody.

They can't issue a general "get out of jail card" because people that have multiple cases against them would use it as a catch all.

 

[KG1]

I didn't call him a troll. I asked him why he has such a hard on about this incident. And he has yet to respond to that question or my question about what "other" case there is against Nick, which he has alluded to. So maybe he is a troll?

I don't know the poster or what his motivation might be. I was just referring to my own instance of all but being accused of being a troll up thread suggesting that I was asking to many prying questions. That's all. Maybe he is going to far in inferring that there may be more to the story than what we know such as having a suspicion that there may be another case. I'm not going that far.

 

[printcraft]

It's why they have "one coupon per person per visit" "this offer not valid in conjunction with any other offers" on your sandwich coupons.

It that wasn't on there it would be a free for all. It's a glimpse into human nature.

 

[KG1]

It's why they have "one coupon per person per visit" "this offer not valid in conjunction with any other offers" on your sandwich coupons.

It that wasn't on there it would be a free for all. It's a glimpse into human nature.

Ok. Now i'm getting hungry. Have'nt had lunch yet.

 

[bwframe]

Just to put this out there.....that member is sending up a few flags as to his responses in threads like he knows everyone and is comfy moving around the site. Right at home from the get go. And yes he has had an intense interest in this all along in his "Demands" for info when it has been openly discussed how we can get everything that is out there but for the asking.

If I am wrong that he is a re-boot then I apologize but several have shared the same feelings with me.

This seems quite obvious.

Certainly appears to be a ghost from the past? One with an agenda?

 

[chezuki]

.

 

[churchmouse]

The man who brought us “FATWO” and “Nuke it from orbit” is bound to have ruffled some feathers along the way.

Yup but lets not go there OK.

 

[chezuki]

Yup but lets not go there OK.

??