 |
General » Why Not Just Release The Records?
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
Eight others face charges Woman pleads guilty to accessing Obama’s student loan records Story Discussion Woman pleads guilty to accessing Obama’s student loan records Brian Wellner The Quad-City Times | Posted: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:08 pm | 1 Comment Font Size: Default font size Larger font size A woman pleaded guilty in Davenport federal court Wednesday to accessing Barack Obama’s student loan records without permission. Mercedes Costoyas, 53, of Iowa City, is one of nine people charged with exceeding authorized computer access. The indictments were filed last month in U.S. District Court, Davenport. Each person faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, if convicted. By pleading guilty, Costoyas still faces up to a year in prison. But her attorney, Christopher Hagenow, and prosecutor Joel Barrows said she likely faces zero to six months jail time. The issue of her facing deportation was mentioned, but Judge James Gritzner said “that issue is for another court on another day.” Her sentencing is set for Sept. 24. The remaining defendants are set for trial July 6. Costoyas and her attorney declined to comment about her intentions for accessing Obama’s student loan records. The defendants worked for a Department of Education contractor in Coralville, Iowa, and each accessed the records on different dates between July 26, 2007, and March 13, 2009, court records state. The others charged include Andrew J. Lage, 54, Patrick E. Roan, 51, and Sandra Teague, 54, all of Iowa City; Lisa Torney, 49, and Gary N. Grenell, 58, both of Coralville; Anna C. Rhodes, 32, of Ainsworth, Iowa; Julie L. Kline, 38, of West Branch, Iowa; and John P. Phommivong, 29, for whom no hometown was listed. The records were accessed while Obama was a candidate for president, president-elect and after he took office, documents say. |
|---|---|
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
Have we ever had a president with so much to hide? One so secretive? One with aliases? One who has admitted to using illegal drugs? WHO IS THIS GUY WHO IS RUINING OUR COUNTRY? |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
??? You people find some dopey things to whine about... How does this criminal act you reference have anything to do with what Obama has or hasn't done? |
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
brain dead |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
Finally, you explain the reasoning behind your silly posts... |
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
*yawn* |
|
nav68 1 year, 7 months ago |
Heidi, we both know that if this was Bush hiding his records the press would be all over those him and the paper. I understand that there won't be a trial with the guilty plea. If the prosecutor is worth a damn, the plea would be conditioned on a full and complete confession by the defendant. That would include why she did it, for whom (if there are confederates), and the full details of what she stole. I'm sure a question of privilage would arise from the Prez, but wouldn't that be too sweet? The Prez going to court to prevent public disclosure of his financial records, especially if those records don't square with his disclosures when he ran for president, would not be a pretty sight. But then like many things that are shiny and sparkley and give off pleasant sounds, once exposed this president, like the shiny baubles, would be exposed as the empty thing that he is. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
You people have fallen into the pathetic... For starters, these mental giants are going to do time and pay a fine for looking at someone's 'student loan records'... Wow... exactly what the hell do you think is in a student loan record? His thoughts on Allah?... Plans to sell Luxembourg to the Chinese? ... A picture of a ? tattoo on his right buttock? The President would not have to 'go to court' to protect anything, as the content of the records is immaterial to the case--and no court would find it relevant, let alone something to disclose publicly... I must admit, though... it is funny to see people hanging their hopes on this kind of stuff.... |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
...In the above '? tattoo' the question mark was actually a 'hammer and sickle' wingding and looked funny as hell as I typed it... Sorry it didn't show up that way... |
|
nav68 1 year, 7 months ago |
The point, in part, is the wide disparity in the treatment by the media of Bush (whom they have always hated), and Obama (who, if he ever comes to sudden halt, is going to leave many "journalists" with brown faces). Furthermore, loan records of any type have a lot of information in them. Inasmuch as this president claims transparency, and is not guilty of same, it doesn't surprise me that there are those that are poking into every corner of his life. The content of the material is, well, material to the case, if the reason for looking at the records was to see what was in them. I'm quite sure that the prosecutor would try to keep the content out. It'd depend on the judge he got. As for hanging our hopes on this stuff...I hang my hopes on Obama continuing to be the mindless, incompetent, smoke blowing puppet that he's always been. I think his trajectory, when he bloiws himself out of office, is going to rival one of the moon shots. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
Sorry, but there's no court in the country that would consider the content of private records to be relevant to a defense, to a point that the information contained in them should be disclosed--as nothing could be contained in the records that would justify the accused having accessed them... This fact renders the content "irrelevant". And, I do understand the Rights' hysterics when it comes to Obama's background... I saw the same thing with the Left and Bush -- You have a frustration over feeling powerless, so you cling to things like 'birth certificates' and 'muslim backgrounds'.... |
|
nav68 1 year, 7 months ago |
I've been through this, in court, so I know that what I said is true. It's frequently up to a judge as to what and/or how much gets put into the record, if any of it. But it can be ruled relevant. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
You've been involved in a case where people are being prosecuted for illegally accessing personal information and the judge found the content of the information to be relevant to the defense to the point where the information was disclosed in open court?... Yeah, that happened... |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
Sorry, Nav... but "the content of the material" would only be relevant to the defense's case if there was the possibility that the content would absolve the accused of guilt. Since nothing in the record could or would make the unauthorized person 'authorized' to access the record, the content is irrelevant, and will never get disclosed in open court... |
|
nav68 1 year, 7 months ago |
I'm sorry. That must have been a dream I had. Still, I didn't see you in it. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
It would have had to have been a 'dream', as it has no basis in law. |
|
nav68 1 year, 7 months ago |
I've heard that from you before, about legal bases. You were wrong then (as has proven out) as you are now. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
Ironic, you make these two claims with no supporting facts....... (Like this one: According to Federal law, rule 104, (b), the content of the records will never be brought into evidence, and disclosed, because the request fails relevancy conditioned on fact... As I said, since there's nothing that could be included in the records that would be material to the defense case, there's no legal basis for anything more than the records themselves being entered into evidence.) |
|
crossofcrimson 1 year, 7 months ago |
Here's an idea: how about attacking the ideas and policies of your political enemies instead of trying to personally demonize them? You sound just as impressive as the liberals with their anti-Bush fixation. |
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
How come libs have no sense of humor? |
Post a Reply
Please login to post a reply.