Former Gun Store Owner Jailed for........

[longslide10]

Former Gun Store Owner Jailed for Refusing to Surrender His Facebook Password Un-friggin-believable!


A conflict between the previous owner of a gun store and its new owner has moved into unexplored legal territory. Jeremy Alcede was the owner of Tactical Firearms in Katy, Texas when the company went bankrupt. The new owners insisted Alcede’s Facebook account should convey with the business. When the two parties could not agree, they went to court, and Alcede ended up in jail for seven hours.

The judge who heard the case at first ordered Alcede to surrender his password. When he refused to provide it, he was arrested for contempt of court. Alcede told KTRK-TV in Houston he believes the judge did not understand the finer points of social media, since his Facebook account is a personal page and not a business page.

When they said they wanted the Facebook, I explained to the attorney who was representing the company that there is no company Facebook page and there’s just my personal page. And I asked her to convey that to the judge, and obviously it wasn’t conveyed.

During the time Alcede still owned Tactical Firearms, he posted some outspoken political signs on the store, resulting in lots of online attention. He thinks that is why the new owners are eager to have access to his Facebook “friends.”

John Boyert, the new owner, told KTRK-TV:

At the point in time, he was an employee of the company and he was building that for the company regardless of who is owner or not.

This case is prompting high interest among users of social media, particularly business owners. When Alcede posted a link to a news article about the case, one Facebook friend commented, “If it is this page they’re trying to obtain access to, they cannot. It would violate Facebook’s terms of service: ‘4.8 You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.'”

The judge hearing the case has now appointed an outside administrator to count the number of business posts versus business posts. Once he has that information, he will make a ruling on who will ultimately own the Facebook page.

We are living in a new world of online social media. New legal issues are coming to the fore, and not just in cases involving terrorism, online bullying or cybercrimes. It is clear new ground is being broken in the area of business contracts, as well.

Former Gun Store Owner Jailed for Refusing to Surrender His Facebook Password

 

[BC1]

Kind of unchartered waters there? The value of the facebook account is probably pretty good as he has a large following. There's data-mining gold in those contacts for their business. He should negotiate a deal where he maintains the account, writing and attracting more users while they mine the account data for its target marketing value. Split the proceeds accordingly. The facebook account is his intellectual property and I don't believe anyone has the right to see it without justly compensating him. Be interesting to see how this plays.

 

[Ghost Rider]

That`s why I don`t use facebook or any of the others out there, because my personal business is just that, personal. That means its nobody`s damn business but mine, and I`m not looking for any friends or followers.

 

[Bluestar99]

Why not delete his Facebook account? If he is out of business it serves him no purpose and he can keep the new owner from benefiting from it. He went bankrupt, so what can they sue him for?
Facebook should be involved with this case. They stand to lose big if the new owner prevails.

 

[XD40scinNC]

How bad a businessman do you have to be to go bankrupt selling guns with the current demand for the product?

 

[BC1]

Why not delete his Facebook account? If he is out of business it serves him no purpose and he can keep the new owner from benefiting from it. He went bankrupt, so what can they sue him for?
Facebook should be involved with this case. They stand to lose big if the new owner prevails.

That account is worth $$ to the new owners. He could surely strike a deal.

 

[longslide10]

I would say that if a client list wasn't part of the original contract/deal then tough S***.

 

[XD40scinNC]

I would say that if a client list wasn't part of the original contract/deal then tough S***.

It wasn't a traditional sale of a business, but a bankruptcy. Heck, it might have been sold on the courthouse steps.

 

[Peggy Reist]

Why not delete his Facebook account? If he is out of business it serves him no purpose and he can keep the new owner from benefiting from it. He went bankrupt, so what can they sue him for?
Facebook should be involved with this case. They stand to lose big if the new owner prevails.

You can't really delete a Facebook account. There are things you can do to protect it from snoops, but deletion isn't one of them. And once they have your password, they can do most anything with it.

 

[longslide10]

It wasn't a traditional sale of a business, but a bankruptcy. Heck, it might have been sold on the courthouse steps.

True, a small piece of information I forgot.

 

[nogods]

We have a judicial system for resolving these matters. He chose to thumb his nose at it. He could have filed an appeal, instead he refused to follow a Judge's order. the result was a contempt citation. Next time he'll be more respectful of the system our founding fathers created.

 

[Oldgrunt]

We have a judicial system for resolving these matters. He chose to thumb his nose at it. He could have filed an appeal, instead he refused to follow a Judge's order. the result was a contempt citation. Next time he'll be more respectful of the system our founding fathers created.

I think the man did right in withholding his password. BC1 explained how his account could be valuable to the new owners of the shop if it was a business account rather than a private account and also how it would violate his agreement with Facebook. This is just another step in the government over stepping its bounds without what I would think to be legal authority. If someone demands your password for internet accounts will you willingly give it up? That is private information and I know of no law that might be used to force such an action. Also, when our Founding Fathers established our Constitution, I don't think they had any idea that Facebook would come down the pike. As has been drummed on here so many times, we only have the rights we stand up for. Kudos to him for standing up! Maybe the judge will have his toes stepped on for going too far.

 

[Seeya]

We have a judicial system for resolving these matters. He chose to thumb his nose at it. He could have filed an appeal, instead he refused to follow a Judge's order. the result was a contempt citation. Next time he'll be more respectful of the system our founding fathers created.

He did not thumb his nose at the Judge. The Judge clearly did not take everything into consideration. Be held for defying a order that is suspect, clearly violated his cival liberties un USC title 18 241 & 242 The Court must be wary of infringing on rights.

Boyd v. US, 116 US 616
5th Amendment rights. "...constitutional provisions for the security of
person and property should be
liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for
the constitutional rights of citizens,
and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."

 

[nogods]

so what do you think should have happened? The judge orders him to disclose the password. He refuses and just goes about his way? What if a judge tells a county sheriff to give back guns he seized from a citizen. Sheriff tells the judge no, and nothing happens? Everyman becomes a law unto himself?

Our founding fathers created a system for handling these matters in a civilized manner. Maybe he is a martyr for the sanctity of facebook passwords, but martyrs have to be willing to be burned at the stake for their cause.

 

[Rhino]

He's no martyr, and obviously you didn't read very carefully. He was correct not to divulge his password because a personal Facebook account does not in any way convey with a business. You are incorrect in portraying the court order as a just and valid demand that he was remiss in not obeying. The order was invalid because the judge incorrectly assumed it to be a business Facebook account tied to the store. Apparently that wasn't the fault of the judge though, because the mans' attorney never conveyed to the judge the fact that it was a personal account, and she should have.

 

[nogods]

He's no martyr, and obviously you didn't read very carefully. He was correct not to divulge his password because a personal Facebook account does not in any way convey with a business. You are incorrect in portraying the court order as a just and valid demand that he was remiss in not obeying. The order was invalid because the judge incorrectly assumed it to be a business Facebook account tied to the store. Apparently that wasn't the fault of the judge though, because the mans' attorney never conveyed to the judge the fact that it was a personal account, and she should have.

That's your argument, it is not what happen. What happen is the man violated a court order. Happens everyday. People who violate court orders face contempt citations, either civil, criminal, or both. They don't have the option of saying no to an order an then expecting nothing to follow from their refusal.

The can ask the judge to re-consider, they can appeal, or they can just take the imposed results (which is what many reporters do in 1A cases) and wait it out. But they can't expect the Judge to say "You are not going to follow my order? OK, be on your way..."

Our founding fathers established a system of rule of law. Not rule by emotions.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact this business went bankrupt and was sold by the creditor to satisfy outstanding liens.

So one morning a deputy sheriff shows up with forclosure paperwork from the courts detailing that the creditor is taking possession of the business, property, inventory, etc. and then puts the foreclosure notice and a padlock on the door.

The creditor, or the sheriff on behalf of the creditor, possibly on the steps of the courthouse, then sells the business to hopefully recover their money, or at least a portion of it.

At what point did the facebook account come into this. The accounts are free so there can't be a lien on it. Was the facebook account listed as part of the property seized during the foreclosure? I suspect not.

 

[longslide10]

That's your argument, it is not what happen. What happen is the man violated a court order. Happens everyday. People who violate court orders face contempt citations, either civil, criminal, or both. They don't have the option of saying no to an order an then expecting nothing to follow from their refusal.

The can ask the judge to re-consider, they can appeal, or they can just take the imposed results (which is what many reporters do in 1A cases) and wait it out. But they can't expect the Judge to say "You are not going to follow my order? OK, be on your way..."

Our founding fathers established a system of rule of law. Not rule by emotions.

They also established the court of appeals for when judges step out of line. Just because they make a ruling or judgement doesn't make them right. Any person in their right mind would have defied his order.

 

[Rhino]

That's your argument, it is not what happen. What happen is the man violated a court order. Happens everyday.

That is what happened. All you need do is go back and read it. And I never said he didn't violate a court order. I said he was right in doing so, and he was. I did make one mistake though. The court order wasn't invalid as I stated. The premise it was based on was invalid. I apologize for the improper wording in that regard.
.

People who violate court orders face contempt citations, either civil, criminal, or both. They don't have the option of saying no to an order an then expecting nothing to follow from their refusal.

I never said they did. Are you sure this reply is meant for me?
.

The can ask the judge to re-consider, they can appeal, or they can just take the imposed results (which is what many reporters do in 1A cases) and wait it out. But they can't expect the Judge to say "You are not going to follow my order? OK, be on your way..."

Again, are you sure this reply is meant for me? I never said he should have expected any different result from defying the court order.
.

Our founding fathers established a system of rule of law. Not rule by emotions.

You really shouldn't attempt to lecture on topics you apparently have little knowledge of. Our founders were very much aware of the fallibility of the governmental system they established, and they openly advised defiance when it was misused or applied in manners inconsistent with its' intention, which was the case here.
.
"Experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
--- Thomas Jefferson 1779
.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
--- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846), U.S. President, Letter to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787
.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
--- Thomas Jefferson
.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
--- Thomas Jefferson
.
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
--- James Madison
.
"Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done."
--- James Madison
.
There is absolutely nothing in the system or rule of law that our founders established that in any way even suggests that any private property or materials be handed over in the transfer of a commercial business, and you very well know it. You need to demand a refund of your tuition if you don't. Your attempt to use the founders to justify such an act is pretty despicable in my book. And you also have one very important principle bass ackwards.
.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government --- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--- Patrick Henry
.
The Constitutional system our founders set up doesn't protect the government. It protects the people from the government. So if you wanted to apply that principle to this case, it would help Mr. Alcede, not the court. Besides, I didn't fault the court. I faulted the lawyer, something you apparently disregarded. Would that be because you're a lawyer?