[etherealmachine]

That indictment is some serious bullshit. Did you actually read it?

The first count is for identity fraud from requesting a subpoena. No evidence that they intended to present themselves fraudulently, just the fact they filed a request.

The second is "making a false statement" that "some of these checks appear to have not been deposited but cashed illegally". The burden of proof on this would be insane, there's no way to show the defendant knew this to be untrue.

Finally, just FYI, the notification statute applies to banks, not individuals. The bank has to notify you of a subpoena, and it just has to do it before the information is released. It doesn't make just requesting one flat out illegal.

[kw71]

The indictment accuses them of intending to steal money from the bank accounts, and seems to refer to the allegation the journalist is investigating as a "statement which he knows to be false."

I hope this is the end of Judge Weaver's career and that the Grand Jurors are found culpable.

[ledude]

an indictment won't present evidence. you want to skip the judicial process and have everything in step one. that's now how our judicial system works.

count 3 is the false statement charge, not 2. this isn't a civil defamation case. what the defendant knew is irrelevant.

your last statement is wrong.

[etherealmachine]

The indictment does in fact present evidence. Not to a jury, but to us, the readers. It makes claims that things are true. Ridiculous, outlandish claims, like that filing a subpoena was done to try to get checking account information.

You're right, I didn't notice the first count was identity fraud and the second was attempt to commit identity fraud. In a false statement, I'm pretty sure lots of laws, including the first amendment, protect your right to make a statement that might not be true. What you know is definitely relevant.

Finally, your excess of concern for this seemingly trivial case really confuses me. Who are you? Why do you care? What do you know that we don't? On the face of it, that indictment looks ridiculous but you claim there's more to there story. Can you back that up with anything?

[richman777]

I have to agree with you. The OP said they clearly violated the notification statute for banking record. Except that statute clearly states a subpoena issued by a valid agency (here a lawyer involved in a case) was a valid reason.

They presented just as poor of an argument against the article as they claim the article itself did.