Denver Post misses point of Voorhis case

In response to a Denver Post article suggesting that the outcome in the Cory Voorhis case has negative implications for "privacy issues", I wrote this letter to the Post: Felisa Cardona’s article about “privacy issues” uses the same incorrect and irrelevant information and references as did the incompetent prosecutor in the Voorhis case. First, the article mentions “Voorhis’ decision to turn over records to a political campaign.” Voorhis made no such decision; he contacted John Marshall because he believed, based on a description in a Denver Post article, that Marshall was a “spokesman for Congressman Beauprez”, and it became clear in court that Marshall never clarified to Voorhis that he actually worked for Beauprez’s campaign for governor. Second, laws are already in place to protect privacy. The limited information Voorhis disclosed was A) explicitly not protected by privacy laws, B) required to be disclosed to a Congressional office if they requested it, and C) in furtherance of Voorhis’ job description and oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States. Voorhis has said all along that his actions were not partisan. His prior history (as a private citizen) of contacting and opposing Republican politicians whom he thought took incorrect positions on immigration demonstrate his commitment to the issue, not a party. So, because Voorhies knew that (Denver District Attorney) Bill Ritter’s office was obstructing justice and endangering the public safety, Voorhis gave non-protected information strictly within legal limits, in an attempt to force the DA's office to enforce the law. Claims that the Voorhis verdict has implications for medical records or tax records are a red herring. There is no such implication. Someone who tries to make a connection, and the reporter who lets him, simply demonstrate their utter ignorance of the Voorhis case and the law.
No feedback yet