In order to post on the User Forum, you still have to register, then log in and enter a password. I think I understand the impetus behind Martin Peterson's poll on requiring a password to access the forum. However, if the idea is to avoid having criminal defense attorneys and the public in general reading the messages or joining and posting queries, wouldn't the solution be to require that to enter and use the User Forum, you must be a member or associate member of TDCAA? I am not a prosecutor; I am a Senior Assistant General Counsel for the Texas Department of Public Safety and an associate member of TDCAA. However, I teach arrest, search & seizure, DWI law, etc. to our troopers, and answer a wide variety of criminal procedure and penal code questions from the troops. The User Forum has been an invaluable resource tool for me, and I would sincerely hate to lose it!

Just a thought,

Janette Ansolabehere

Janette, the idea behind using a password is to limit access or exclude certain people, but a separate decision would have to be made on who to include in the user group or how to disseminate the password. So far, I would say there is enough resistance to the idea that it probably will not be implemented. But, I would certainly consider you an "indirect prosecutor" who shares the same interests as those of us more directly involved and thus would hope that you and others of the same ilk would continue to have access.

I am not sure how I should have worded my fifth option in the poll, but I wanted to somehow distinguish between those currently oriented toward state interests objecting to the proposal and those who might ultimately be excluded from the forum and who were thus opposed for that reason alone.

But, Rob, I note I am apparently not the only one for whom this concept has some attraction. At least I do not think the board would "die" if made a bit more exclusive.

Prosecutors shouldn't have anything to hide. If you are asking about privileged information, you shouldn't be using the internet.

If you still think anything you do on the internet is private, you need to give Pete Townsend a call.

John, Pete got caught because he used a credit card not just because he used the internet. If passwords are useless for privacy, why are they so widely used? No one should be deluded by the degree of security offered. But we are not transmitting overly delicate information on this site. I just thought some degree of exclusivity might be appropriate since it seems we tend to discuss all angles of an issue and "outsiders" occaisonally clutter the board with requests for personal legal advice.

Pete Townsend may have been caught because he used a credit card, but you are fooling yourself if you think he couldn't be watched using the internet.

Frankly, I think the knowledge that our conversations could be viewed by the public improves the level of discussion.

Frankly, John I agree.

Speaking as a prior prosecutor, dedicated to the site as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney. I think the best discussions about the law happen on this site.

Because I deal 98% in criminal practice in my private practice, your site is the most relevant. I have enjoyed using the forum, and have hoped to add relevant information for either one side or the other (I'm sure it's open for interpretation).

I think open is best.

I say keep it open to the defense lawyers. It allows us to plant keystroke monitoring software, view their credit card information and dirty pictures, and ensure that they have the best and latest viruses on their PC's.

The forum does need a sign stating that the site does not provide free legal advice for plaintiffs or defendants or other aggreived persons.

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 01-17-03 at .]

I gues WHO-DUNNIT is no longer a question, it's now a declaration.

Funny, but the defense's website is protected against intrusion or, as our post-master once termed them, "interlopers." If it weren't for a few of my snitches, I wouldn't have even known the other side was "... seeking information on A.P. Merillat and Royce Smithey....in upcoming capital case." Interesting how that works -- they do their work in secret, we provide "discovery" -- wonder what they're so worried about us learning about their guilty clients. But, since our side has nothing to hide, we allow them to lurk, and probably rightfully so. If we're going to pass on some secret or great new strategy, there's always a fax machine, telephone or 8-track tape -- nobody would ever look there.

You make a great point, A.P. -- next time I hear the defense bar asking for mutual discovery, we'll throw a line in the bill to require them to open their website as well ...