Last Friday I received an email from a Lt. Carlos B. Sanchez of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, Criminal Division, with an attached PDF File asking that I cease posting about a “Keith Gills” vis a vis the San Francisco District Attorney’s office due to the confidentiality of criminal investigations.
Of course I had no idea of any potential pending criminal investigation, and had been blogging that the San Francisco DA’s office Consumers Protection Unit had assisted me with an issue with twitter and that their unit had opened files, including once on 1/12/2015 subsequent to what apparently was a false report by Keith Gill, AKA Digitalkeith.
MR. Gill’s behavior, along with the other “goon squad” was so extreme that not only did the San Francisco DA’s office assist, but the CA DoJ opened an inquiry into Twitter’s handling of the matter on 12/30/2014.
I emailed Lt. Sanchez back, and recieved a notification that he was out of the office, and was instructed in the reply to contact a Lt. Van Jackson if in need of assistance.
I did so, and confirmed the legitimacy of the correspondence, including that that Mr. Gill seems to be under investigation for consumers fraud by the San Francisco DA’s office, and that the consumers unit had previously handled the matter. As his knowledge matched what I know, it seems likely this is indeed Keith Gill of Arizona, employee of Avisolve, CEO of PunkPit and Telecom and Data Guru.
Yesterday the postmarked letter from the DA’s office arrived, thus I am firmly convinced of the legitimacy of the correspondence.
Given the fact that I was just forced by twitter to delete a tweet detailing the assistance I received from the DA’s office to “unlock” my twitter account, I hope the DA’s office investigates thoroughly.
I have asked Ethel Newlin of the Consumers Protection Unit to reopen an inquiry into Twitter on my behalf to find out why I was forced to delete this tweet.
Given that this tweet is literally true, that Ethel Newlin of the San Francisco DA’s office directed filing a FTC complaint, which I had already filed, and the FTC accepted the complaint and placed the information in their database, I have no idea how the literal truth could violate Twitter’s policy.
This seems very strange given Twitter’s insistence this year that they stand for protecting free speech.
In this case they seem to be protecting a false advertiser. Why?
What does Twitter have against informed consumers and consumer protections?
Why would they require deletion of an honest tweet?