"The Subpoenas" - Unmasking the Baptist Bloggers Under Force of Law

Readers: at the link below you will see three subpoenas issued to Google last October by Detective Robert A. Hinson of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (JSO), himself a long-time member of FBC Jacksonville, that were part of his investigation into the complaint filed by the First Baptist Church Jacksonville Church Administrator John Blount on September 29, 2008 about an "internet incident" that had "possible criminal overtones".

Subpoenas of the Baptist Bloggers

You will see that there are THREE subpoenas....one for this blog, and one for Tiffany Croft's blog (http://tiffanycroft.blogspot.com/), and one for the Bellevue Baptist Blog (http://newbbcopenforum.blogspot.com/).

Detective Hinson very soon after opening his investigation on September 29th issues a subpoena to identify the owner of the http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/ site. Then, a few weeks later, as a part of his investigation, he also decides that he needs information on the other two blogs.

Yes, for some reason as a part of the investigation into the "internet incident" reported by John Blount, Detective Hinson needed to find the IP addresses and names, and addresses, and social security numbers, log in dates and times, user IDs, registration/login information, etc. for not only the blog about FBC Jax, but also two other blogs that have been critical of pastors and churches in the Southern Baptist Convention.

The obvious questions that would be asked by someone looking at this: Why did Detective Hinson need this information? What was the alleged crime he was investigating? What "internet incident" reported by John Blount required personal, federally protected private information of bloggers in order for him to determine if there was a crime or not? What did he find in the information from http://www.fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/ subpoena that resulted in him issuing subpoenas to two other blogs critical of high-profile baptist preachers like Steve Gaines, Darrel Gilyard, and Paige Patterson? Tiffany Croft is quite disturbed, and understandably so, that her privacy may have been violated. She has ALWAYS blogged with her name and has nothing to hide. She believes this subpoena for her records, in a case that apparently has NOTHING to do with her blog, will only serve to scare people away from her site which was set up as a place where victims of Gilyard could communicate with others anonymously.

We might expect some of the answers to these questions to be found in the police reports filed by Detective Hinson for this particular JSO case under which the subpoenas were obtained. Unfortunately we don't know because in both incident reports filed by Detective Hinson associated with these subpoenas there is zero information at all. In his report he puts no detail at all regarding what the initial "internet incident" was. He gives no detail of any interviews he made. He gives no information as to what led to issuance of the subpoenas. Or what he found or didn't find that led to his conclusion that no crimes had been committed. See both incident reports for yourself:

September 29, 2008 Incident Report (Opens Case)

November 13, 2008 Indicent Report (Closes Case)

There was also a subpoena issued to Comcast to identify the name and address of the http://www.fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/ owner but requests for this subpoena have not responded to thus far. The deacons were told in their 2/23/09 meeting that there may be an on-going federal investigation, having to do with mail fraud or other such crimes.

It is no secret that Mac Brunson and the FBC Jax administration wanted very much to know my identity. Deacons have said so, that for over a year the church was working to find out my identity - Mac has even told deacons that the blogger was a disgruntled homosexual. Mac himself, just ONE WEEK before the Deacons 2009-1 Resolution was passed, preached on "Kingdom Killjoys", which he said were people in his church that take insignificant problems at the church, who blow them up into something big, and then talk about it to someone else to try to "rob their joy". His instructions to his church leaders, should they encounter such troublemakers was that they should be "SHUT DOWN", followed by a pregnant pause for effect. Watch it for yourself at the link below. Is this an example of a humble, patient, loving pastor teaching his people to love others, even those who might ask questions that he doesn't like? It looks and sounds to me to be a pastor who wishes to shut down people in an unloving, harsh manner, and has the audacity to instruct from the pulpit his leaders in the church to shut down people who are asking questions he doesn't like.

Mac's "Shut 'Em Down"

I always thought that privacy information like that requested by Detective Hinson was highly protected, that for a law enforcement official to get access to it required them to pass a high hurdle with much scrutiny, having a burden of some proof that the information was absolutely necessary in the investigation of a specific crime. These subpoenas were issued by Detective Hinson, approved by the Assistant State Attorney, and in a few days Detective Hinson had the information he requested.

Then, two weeks later, after Detective Hinson closed his case, I received my 11/28 letter from the Discipline Committee of FBC Jax notifying me declaring:

"You have been positively identified to us, by name and address, as the owner of fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com..."

and which banned my wife and I from the property with trespass warnings. The timing and sequence of the subpoena issuance, the closing of Detective Hinson's case, and the issuance of the letter and trespass warnings make it seem very likely that my identity obtained from Google and Comcast was then given to church officials so they could act on it and begin their unbiblical church discipline process against me and my wife.

As I said, I thought my Internet privacy AND ALL OF YOURS TOO, was something that was highly valued and protected by law. It sure looks like I was wrong. What good are Federal privacy laws if a local deputy can obtain the information so quickly - the subpoena was issued within days of the investigation opening up - and easily without any stated basis for obtaining it? Especiallly if the deputy happens to be a long time member of the church requesting it and then gives the Federally protected information to the church where he may work when off duty. And what prevents this personal information from being given to an agrieved party that claimed crimes were committed in the first place so they can cause you harm? It raises questions for me and is troubling to say the least. What else might a church be "looking into" about YOU, its members?