The financial dealings and corporate connections of politicians are accessible through a recently launched Web site operated by the Center for Public Integrity. The news release describes the tool features and data sources. This aggregation of data on money influences on government expands the still too small pond of information available to business and political researchers. The site collects the contracts, and company profiles and principals for Iran/Afganistan war contractors, and political contributions of the pharmaceutical and telecommunications industries. Legal cases that allege prosecutorial misconduct are available.

Personal financial disclosure forms for each state legislator are also collected and made available here.

The Center for Public Integrity’s ‘In Your States’ pages are, without a doubt, the most comprehensive examination of the lobbying practices, ethical boundaries, political connections, and financial underpinnings that define state governments. The Center has analyzed not only those groups attempting to influence state politics, but also those legislators who have connections and interests outside the statehouse. The work we’ve done is methodical. And this new website feature gives a measure of transparency to local politics to help voters make better informed decisions.

The federal legislation that will criminalize unauthorized access to telephone customer data is steaming toward passage. HR 4709, Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006
passed the House by 409 to 0, with 23 representatives not voting. I’d say that the Senate will move this with little fanfare.

The bill is unambiguous in defining the covered activity and roles.

…whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly and intentionally purchases or receives, or attempts to purchase or receive, confidential phone records information of a covered entity, without prior authorization from the customer to whom such confidential phone records information relates, or knowing or having reason to know such information was obtained fraudulently, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than years, or both.

HR 4943, Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act will be discussed on the floor of the House May 3.

A Colorado newspaper has revisited a couple of sore subjects for private investigators: the closure of that states’ public records, which I detailed last month [read RCFP’s update]; the information broker whose high profile antics set in motion the Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation.

In State a data broker hub the author claims that the congressional interest in the solicitation of personal information through phone records is focused on Colorado.

Several private investigators –a profession not licensed in Colorado– happily got their names in the article and James Rapp, the former databroker convicted of racketeering, was profiled.

Today, the James Rapp’s are in the spotlight because of their self-promotion on the Internet leading to proposed federal legislation, congressional hearings, state laws specifically restricting procurement of telephone subcriber records, and litigation by state Attorneys General. I’ve written about 20 postings on this topic du jour, including the recent legislation passed in Washington and Florida.

While terms like “fraud” are applied to the practice of impersonating a customer to get their account details, until recently, this has not been unlawful.

The Wikipedia definition of fraud suggests that the pretexter is deceiving the subject, which isn’t the case when contact is made with the telephone provider, and the intent is to bring harm, which is probably not the usual situation.

In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them — usually, to obtain property or services from him or her unjustly.

Also see the recent report of the wholesale closure of court records by Colorado courts that claim they don’t have the resources to comply with the state Supreme Court mandate to redact personal information.

A Connecticut Supreme Court decision upheld a lower court’s determination that certain court case files are not public records. The lopsided ruling is expected to draw fire from some legislators who vow to consider this loophole in the public records law in the current legislative session.

The court ruled 4-3 in favor of Judicial Branch officials and the Meriden Superior Court clerk, who had rejected requests by attorney Russell Collins in 2002 to view documents and related files stored in the branch’s computer system.

Those items _ called the daybook and pending book _ provide information such as a defendant’s name and birth date, pending court dates and whether he or she is incarcerated.

The California legislation that can’t be reworked enough times is back in a barely revised form. Assembly bill 1015, which would remove financial information from a divorce record at the request of either party, is opposed by First Amendment advocates, who predict that this version, like the prior one, will be ruled unconstitutional.

The Navajo Nation has approved a measure that will require those convicted of sex related offenses who work or live on Navajo land to register with the Chief of Police. Read the AP story

Legislation No. 0875-05: An Act Relating to Public Safety, and
Judiciary; Enacting the Sex Offenders Registration Act of 2005;
Amending Title Seventeen of the Navajo Nation Code.

The Florida legislature has added its imprint to the mounting stack of bills that state governments have passed which outlaw acquiring or selling telephone customer account information. House bill 871: Relating to Telephone Calling Records is summarized:

Telephone Calling Records; prohibits person from obtaining or attempting to obtain calling record of another person by making false or fraudulent statements or by providing false or fraudulent documents to telecommunications company, or by selling or offering to sell calling record that was obtained in fraudulent manner; provides that it is not violation of act for law enforcement agency or said company to obtain calling records for specified purposes, etc. EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/2006.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed that state’s third lawsuit against databrokers for allegedly using fraud to obtain Illinois consumers’ cell phone records. The current action names Advanced Research Inc. of New Jersey. Read more

Considering the number of sex offender registrants who are listed on government Web sites the recent two killings in Maine seem to be an anomaly. Perhaps the Maine State Police got nervous, fearing a trend…or, what? They pulled the plug on the Maine registry Web site. No authority for doing this is cited in the press or at the State Police site. The Maine sex offender registry statute states that the bureau “shall” maintain a public access site, which seems to leave it up to law enforcement. §11221. Maintenance of sex offender registry:

Public access to information. The bureau shall provide information to the public as follows.

A. The bureau shall post on the Internet for public inspection the following information concerning a registrant:
(1) The registrant’s name, date of birth and photograph;

(2) The registrant’s city or town of domicile and residence;

(3) The registrant’s place of employment and college or school being attended, if applicable, and the corresponding address and location; and

(4) The statutory citation and name of the offense for which the registrant was convicted.
[2003, c. 711, Pt. C, §20 (amd); Pt. D, §2 (aff).]

CourtTV’s Crime Library explores the utility of sex offender registries, their role in vigilantism and the implied admission that the government can’t protect citizens from harm. Read the series.

And the Mullen case, apparently the first involving lethal vigilantism against registered sex offenders, calls into question the safety and effectiveness of that widely used system. Cites, counties and states are bracing for more lawsuits by other sex offenders who feel targeted by the registries. The Mullen murders likely will serve as ammunition for a new round of legal challenges.

John LaFond, the retired law professor, said he found dozens of cases of harassment and assault of sex offenders as a result of registry listings while researching his 2005 book, Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope with Sex Offenders.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming a state law that allows disclosure of records of private entities that are receiving government funds. The case facts are presented in the opinion summary.

In a unanimous decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the Auditor of State has authority to conduct a special audit of Oriana House, a private corporation that operates the Summit County Community-Based Correctional Facility. The Court also held that the auditor was within her authority to subpoena records of Correctional Health Services, one of several Oriana subsidiaries, but exceeded her authority by subpoenaing the personal financial records of Oriana House CEO James Lawrence.

Read the RCFP news report.

A few months ago, I reported on the North Dakota Attorney General’s opinion that publicly funded private entities may be subject to that state’s records disclosure laws.