The Collin County Observer™

GOOD FOR YOU BILL!

I'm glad there is at least one person in Collin County who is willing to take a stand on the freedom of the press.

Is this hearing open to the people? If so, any citizen interested in protecting free speech should plan to be there.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! Those records taken from the Collin County Courthouse are PUBLIC RECORDS and all taxpayers have a right to view them and to have knowledge of them.

Bill was asked to provide copies of articles that he wrote and published. Printing the results of the following Google query will provide a superset of the documents needed to comply with the "duces tecum" part of the subpoena:

rebecca littrell site:baumbach.org

What's the freedom of the press issue there?

I looked through the first 20 articles that appear from that query (skipping resposts from other sources such as DMN) and did not see where Bill himself alluded to or in any way referenced anonymous sources with regard to the charges specifically brought against Ms. Litrell. Therefore, it's unlikely that Bill can be questioned about anonymous sources that he referred to.

So again, what's the "freedom of the press" issue? In civil litigation, we'd object that the information is equally avaialable to the party demanding it and that being required to print it for them is unreasonably burdensome. Luckily for accused persons everywhere, I don't venture into criminal law and I don't know if that objection applies in this case.

He has NOT been asked to reveal the identities of people who have anonymously left comments and who claim to have insider knowledge about the case. Presumably he could do that by revealing email addresses provided in the comment form. Of course THAT would implicate a whole bag of Constitutional principals. But that's not what we have here.

All of his posts pertaining to Ms. Littrell refer to named sources, either specific people or documents that he obtained--and in many cases posted--by various open and legal means.

Bill has often broken or enriched stories with information from undisclosed sources. For example, he kept the fire turned up on the county auditor issue through the use of public and nonpublic sources. It was excellent reporting and he and his sources deserve the full complement of First Amendment protections.

However, here, the issue blew up so quickly that public sources or named sources were enough to keep the issue on the top page of his blog.

The only unattributed source that I can recall was very early in the story--before there even was a story, long before the Rangers were involved--when Bill obtained timesheets in order to follow up on rumors of misuse of official time on election day. He never disclosed (to my recollection) the source of those rumors, but his article on the subject did not mention Ms. Littrell and is therefore out of scope in terms of complying with the current subpoena.

That is, unless someone goes back and posts a comment referring to Ms. Littrell on that article . . .

You know America is in trouble when "they" start attacking those that can
"Read, Write & Think".
Prove's there is no shame among that "gang of 6" along with they keep working when they may have committed crimes against the public.
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW: That is also what is being proted here. We, the public, have a right to know how government, its officers, & other's are conducting OUR BUSINESS.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Bill: On it's face it looks like it would be for a hearing on a change of venue. A duces ticum is them asking for records that you have. Not for really for you. If you don't want to miss work, call deric and see if you can get him the records (blog posts) and a business records affadavit. That will probably get the job done and keep you from missing work.

Excuse me, but where's the subpoena (or as stated in the 1981 movie "Absence of malice" by Wilford Brimley ... su-PEE-nee) for Channel 8 over ITS reporting?????? Shouldn't this be an equal oppoetunity witchhunt???

One more thing: EVERYTHING is tried in the press - depends on WHOSE press it is to see whose ox is getting gored. If the press were reporting that this is a bogus case, her lawyers woul love it. Of course, any other jurisdiction means a MORE conservative, no-nonsense jury. Careful WHAT you wish for.