[The following is the verbatim written opinion concluding our legal case concerning the publication of the list of names and information of employees of the Department of Imprisonment and the Board of Probation and Parole.] In the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,Council 13, AFL-CIO, through its Trestee ad litem, David Fillman; Bruce Facer, Leroy Robinson, and Gabe White, in their own behalf and in behalf of a class of Employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; and Phil Formicola and Philip Carroll, in theirown behalf and in behalf of a class of Employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Petitioners v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Edward G. Rendell, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Department of Corrections; Benjamin A. Martinez, Chairman, Board of Probation and Parole; Vicki L. Phillips, Secretary, Department of Education; Michael J. Masch, Secretary, Office of the Budget; Robert P. Casey, Jr., Auditor General; Barbara Hafer, Treasurer; and Sandra Feigley, in her personal capacity and in her capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Publisher of www.prisoners.com; and www.prisoners.com. Respondents No. 149 M.D. 2001 Before: Honorable Rochelle S. Friedman, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED Memorandum Opinion By Judge Friedman Filed May 20, 2005 Petitioners' "Second Amended Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" (Second Amended Petition) is presently before this court for disposition. On November 29, 2004, this court held a trial on the matter, and, ased on the evidence presented, we make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Count I Findings of Fact 1. Count I of Petitioners' Second Amended Petition alleges that the Commonwealth Respondents violated the constitutional right of privacy of the members of the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class by disclosing private information about them to the public pursuant to section 614 of the Administrative Code of 1929 (Administrative Code), Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, added by the Act of September 27, 1978, P.L. 775 asamended, 71 P.S. [section] 234. Count I of the Second Amended Petition also alleges that the information set forth in section 614 of the Administrative Code does not constitute a "public record" under the Right to Know Act, Act of June 21 1957, P.L. 390 as amended, 65 P.S. [sections] 66.1-66.9. (Ex. P-7, Second Amended Petition at 14-15.) 2. When this action was commenced in 2001, section 614 of the Administrative Code required that administrative departments, boards and commissions annually transmit to the Auditor General, the State Treasurer and the Secretary of the Budget a list of persons entitled to receive compensation from the Commonwealth for services rendered. The information on the list was to be public information and it included: name; position; date of birth; voting residence; salary; date of hire; whether the person has been continually employed by the Commonwealth since that date; and all periods of service and positions held as an employee of the Commonwealth, or such part of that information as the Governor may prescribe. 3. Pursuant to section 614 of the Administrative Code, the Governor's office issued Management Directive 505.12 Amended (Directive). The Directive stated that the Office of Administration will carry out the mandate of forwarding the information to the proper entities and that a complete list will be produced monthly on microfiche and will be maintained in the State Library for access by the general public. The Directive indicated that the list (Employee List) will include: name; position title; sex; date of birth; biweekly salary; appointment date; voting county; headquarters county; type of service and pay status. (Ex. P-16 Directive.) 4. Petitioners and Commonwealth Respondents have agreed that the members of the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class do not have a constitutional right of privacy in their last names, position titles and salaries and that members of the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class do have a constitutional right of privacy in their dates of birth and voting counties. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 16.) 5. On April 6, 2001 this court preliminarily enjoined the public disclosure of any class member's first name, middle initial, date of birth, voting county, sex, headquarters county, type of service and pay status. This court did not preliminarily enjoin the public disclosure of a class member's appointment date because Petitioners failed to demonstrate how knowing this information could lead to the acquisition of other, more damaging information. (Ex. P-4, P-5, 4/6/01 Preliminary Injunction Opinion and Order.) 6. On October 27, 2004, this court granted partial summary judgment to Petitioners and permanently enjoined Commonwealth Respondents from publicly disclosing the class members' dates of birth and voting counties. Moreover, because Commonwealth Respondents represented to this court that they no longer required public disclosure of an employee's sex, headquarters county, type of service or pay status, this court dismissed Count I as moot with respect to such information. (See 10/27/04 Opinion and Order.) 7. The only remaining question with respect to Count I is whether the Commonwealth Respondents may disclose the class members' first names and middle initial to the public under the Right to Know Act and without violating the constitutional right of privacy of the members of the Corrections Class and Probation and Parole Class. 8. Gary Scicchitano, Director of Human Resources and Acting Director for Management Services for the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, credibly testified that: (1) parole officers have business cards and name tags showing their first names, middle initials and last names, (11/29/04 Trial, N.T. at 20-21); and (2) although a memo dated October 5, 2001, was disseminated to parole officers allowing them to delete their first names from their business cards and name tags, not many parole officers have ordered new business cards and name tags, (11/29/04 Trial, N.T. at 22-23, 25; See ex. P-50.) Phil Formicola, a representative of the Parole and Probation Class, still uses a name tag that includes his first name. (11/29/04 Trial, N.T. at 25.) 9. Because some members of the Probation and Parole Class use name tags and business cards which reveal their first names and middle initials, we find that the class does not exhibit an actual expectation of privacy in first names and middle initials. 10. James D. Shutt, the Deputy Superintendent for Facilities Management at the State Correctional Institution at Frackville, formerly Director of the Bureau of Standards, Practices and Security at Central Office, and a twenty-eight-year employee of the Department of Corrections, credibly testified that: (1) a uniformed corrections officer is required to wear a name tag showing his or her first initial, middle initial and last name, (11/29/04 Trial, N.T. at 13, 16; see ex. P-49); (2) corrections officers use their first names in socializing at work, (11/29/04 Trial, N.T. at 19); and (3) inmates usually know the first names of the corrections officers, (id.). 11. Because some members of the Corrections Class wear name tags showing their first initial and middle initial, because some of the class members use their first names in socializing at work and because inmates usually know the first names of the class members, we find that the class does not exhibit an actual expectation of privacy in first names and middle initials. Conclusions of Law A. Constitutional Right to Privacy 1. An independent constitutional right of privacy arises under Article I, Sections 1 and 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This constitutionally protected right of privacy includes avoiding disclosure of personal matters. In re T.R., 557 Pa. 99, 731 A.2d 1276 (1999); Denoncourt v. Commonwealth State Ethics Commission, 504 Pa. 191, 470 A.2d 945 (1983). 2. The implicit right to privacy in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a person's legitimate expectation of privacy, Denoncourt. A person has a constitutionally-protected expectation of privacy in cases where: (1) the person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) society is prepared to recognize the expectation of privacy as reasonable. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 572 Pa. 438. 817 A.2d 455 (2003); Commonwealth v. Rekasie, 566 Pa. 85, 778 A.2d 624 (2001). A person's Constitutional right of privacy in a personal matter is not implicated when the person has placed the personal matter in plain view, i.e., where a person has not taken precautions to shield the information from the public. See Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 561 Pa. 545, 751 A.2d 1153 (2000). 3. Although a person may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a personal matter, the constitutional protection afforded the personal matter is not unqualified. Privacy claims must be balanced against state interests. The government may intrude into a person's private affairs where: (1) the state has a compelling interest in the intrusion; (2) the state's intrusion will effect its purpose and (3) there is no alternative reasonable method of lesser intrusiveness. In re T.R.; Dennoncourt. 4. In as much as the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class do not exhibit an actual expectation of privacy in first names and middle initials, we conclude that the class members do not have an expectation of privacy in their first names and middle initials that is protected by Article I, Sections 1 and 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Discussion Although this court preliminarily enjoined the public disclosure of the class members' first names and middle initials, this court found that, at the time, the class members were unaware of the threat posed to their privacy interests by the public disclosure of this information. However, the evidence presented to this court at trial shows that, since being informed about the possible threat to privacy, the classes have not taken adequate precautions to shield their first names and middle initials from the public, from inmates or from parolees. Therefore, the class members have no legitimate expectation of privacy in their first names and middle initials that is entitled to constitutional protection. B. Right to Know Act 1. A resident of the Commonwealth shall have access to "public records" under section 2(a) of the Right to Know Act, as amended, 65 P.S. [section] 66.2(a). A "public record" does not include a record which would operate to prejudice or impairment of a person's personal security. Section 1(2) of the Right to Know Act, 65 P.S. [section] 66.1(2). 2. Public disclosure of the name of public employees who work in law enforcement and the criminal justice system and who hold licenses to carry firearms does not implicate their personal security. Maintaining the confidentiality of their addresses operates to protect them and their families. Times Publishing Company v. Michel, 633 A.2d 1233 (pa. Cmwlth. 1993) appeal denied, 538 Pa. 618, 645 A.2d 1321 (1994). 3. Because the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class are public employees who work in law enforcement and the criminal justice system, we conclude that public disclosure of their first names and middle initials does not implicate their personal security. Non-disclosure of their addresses is sufficient to protect them and their families, Time Publishing Company. 4. Where the threat to a person's personal security is in the nature of a threat to a person's personal privacy, the person's privacy interests and the extent they may be invaded must be weighed against the public benefit which would result from disclosure, Times Publishing Company. 5. Because the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class do not exhibit an actual expectation of privacy in first names and middle initials, there is not a legitimate interest to weigh against public benefit. Discussion This court has considered the evidence presented by Petitioners to show that knowledge of a person's first name and middle initial makes it easier to discover the class member's home address via the Internet. However, knowing this, the class members have not taken adequate precautions to shield their first names and middle initials from the public, from inmates or from parolees. Thus, the fact that someone could more easily learn a class members' home address by knowing the class member's first name and middle initial does not establish a violation of the class member's constitutional right of privacy. Count II Findings of Fact 1. Count II of Petitioners' Second Amended Petition alleges that Respondents Sandra Feigley and www.prisoners.com (Non-Commonwealth Respondents) have obtained a copy of the Employee List and intend to publish portions relating to the class members on the worldwide web, thereby invading the privacy of the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class. Petitioners seek a permanent injunction. (Ex. P-7, Second Amended Petition, [paragraphs] 63-64; pp. 16-17.) 2. The web site www.prisoners.com is a non-profit corporation, and its stated mission is to benefit Pennsylvania prisoners, their families and their loved ones. (Ex. P-18 web site incorporation record; P-19, web site page, "The Voice of the Imprisoned.") Although inmates do not have access to the worldwide web, and the families of inmates and former inmates tend not to own computers for economic reasons, the web site serves as a voice for inmates and their families because Respondent Feigley uses information from the web site in speaking with legislators and the public about prison reform. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 145-46; Ex. P-3, 2/26/04 hearing, N.T. at 53-54.) The web site has received approximately 84,000 hits, and, based on email received, its users include: reporters; people involved in prison reform; people involved in death penalty reform; a few families of inmates; and the class members themselves. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 156-159; Ex. P-3, 2/26/04 hearing, N.T. at 53.) The web site's users include people from Australia and Mexico. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 159.) 3. Non-Commonwealth Respondents obtained the portion of the Employee List relating to the class members in January 2001 from the State Library of Pennsylvania; Non-Commonwealth Respondents intended to publish that information on www.prisoners.com. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 157; Ex. P-20, web site article, "The Employees of Corrections and Parole;" P-43, Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories at 8.) The stated reason was to provide "public information" about employees of the Department of Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole, who they are, where they live and what they are paid. (Ex P-20, website article, "The Employees of Corrections and Parole.") However, Respondent Feigley also hoped that publication of the information would intimidate corrections officers so that they would stop harassing her husband, an inmate in the state corrections system, and so that they would stop making death threats against her. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. 147; Ex. P-3, 2/26/04 hearing, N.T. at 44, 64.) On April 6, 2001, this court preliminarily enjoined publication of the Employee List information on the web site. (Ex. P-4, P-5, 4/6/01 Preliminary Injunction and Order.) 4. Petitioners have represented to this court that if we were to conclude that Commonwealth Respondents are permitted to publicly disclose the class members' first names and middle initials, Petitioners would withdraw their objection to publication of that information on www.prisoners.com. (Petitioners' brief at 17.) Thus with respect to Count II, we need decide only whether the publication of a class member's sex, date of birth, voting county, headquarters county, type of service and pay status on the web site would constitute an invasion of the class members' privacy. 5. The class members have presented no evidence to establish that they taken steps to disguise their gender while in public. Thus we find that the class members leave their gender, or sex, open to the public eye. 6. The headquarters county of a class member is the county of his or her place of employment. (Ex. P-12, Employee List code abbreviations.) The class members have presented no evidence to establish that they take steps to conceal their places of employment from the public, from inmates and parolees or from the friends and families of inmates and parolees. Phil Formicola credibly testified on behalf of Probation and Parole Class that parolees know where he physically has his office and that his business card includes his work headquarters. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 118, 123.) We find that the class members leave their county of employment open to the public eye. 7. A class member's type of service reveals whether he or she holds a civil service position or a non-civil service position. (Ex. P-12, Employee List code abbreviations.) The class members presented no evidence to establish that their type of service to the Commonwealth is a private matter. In fact, the class members do not object to the publication of their position titles, and section 3(d) of the Civil Service Act, Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. [section] 741.3(d), sets forth the positions included in the classified service. Section 3(d)(5) of the Civil Service Act states that all positions created under the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole are included in the classified service. 71 P.S. [section] 741.3(d)(5). Moreover, Pennsylvania case law reveals that corrections officers are included in the classified service. See, e.g., Pinto v. Civil Service Commission, 860 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Thus, we find that a class member's type of service is a matter of public record. 8. A class member's pay status reveals whether the class member is: (1) active; (2) separated; (3) on leave without pay with benefits; (4) on leave without pay without benefits; or (5) deceased. (Ex. P-12, Employee List code abbreviations.) The class members conceded during argument that giving publicity to a class member's pay status is "not horribly damaging." (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 188.) Thus we find that a reasonable class member would not be seriously aggrieved or highly offended by publication of his or her pay status. 9. The class members are concerned that publication of their dates of birth on www.prisoners.com would make it easier for the users of the web site to commit the crime of identity theft by using the information to obtain additional information about them via the Internet. (Ex. P-2, 2/11/04 hearing, N.T. at 23-24, 39, 50, 61, 63, 74.) See section 4120(a) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S. [section] 4120(a) (stating that a person commits identity theft if he possesses or uses identifying information of another person without the consent of that other person to further any unlawful purpose); see also section 4120(f) of the Crimes Code (defining "identifying information" as any fact used to establish identify, including birth date). 10. The class members presented credible evidence to show that the web site www.flassetlocators.com offers to perform, for a fee, background checks for legitimate purposes for business entities. (Ex. P-30, web site print-screen; P-31, web site print-screen.) To perform the background check, the web site requires the subject's date of birth or approximate age, but it also requires identifying information about the business entity. (Ex. P-34, web site print-screen; P-35, web site print-screen.) In the final report, the web site will not disclose the subject's date of birth, unless it was provided previously as part of the initial inquiry, in order to deter identity theft. (Ex. P-32, web site print-screen; P-33, web site print-screen.) Guy Partin suggested by his testimony for petitioners that anyone could obtain a background check from the web site by creating a phony sole proprietorship. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 55.) However, we do not accept this testimony because Partin did not establish a proper foundation by testifying that he had personal knowledge that the web site's verification process would not detect such fraud. We find that the record lacks sufficient credible evidence to establish that the users of the web site www.prisoners.com could or would utilize the class members' date of birth at www.flassetlocators.com to commit the crime of identify theft against the class members. 11. The class members presented credible evidence to show that the web site www.iinfosearch.com offers,for a fee, an individual's social security number to professional organizations which have a legal right to it. (Ex. P-36, web site print-screen.) To conduct the search, the web site requires the individual's name and last known address covering three years; the process takes two to four business days because the web site verifies the identity of the requester. (Ex. P-36, web print-screen.) Partin testified that the web site www.iinfosearch.com requires an individual's name and date of birth to produce a social security number, (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01) hearing, N.T. at 55); however, this testimony is rejected because the print-out of the web page at Exhibit P-36 shows that the individual's date of birth is not requested. We find that the record lacks sufficient credible evidence to establish that the users of www.prisoners.com could or would utilize www.iinfosearch.com to commit the crime of identity theft against the class members. 12. We find that because the record is deficient in showing that the users of www.prisoners.com could or would utilize the class members' dates of birth to commit the crime of identity theft against the class members by using the Internet, a reasonable class member would not be seriously aggrieved or highly offended by publication of his or her date of birth on the web site. 13. The Corrections Class members are concerned that publication of their voting counties on www.prisoners.com would make it easier for the users of the web site to locate their home addresses in order to injure their families. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing N.T. at 88; Ex. P-2, 2/11/04 hearing, N.T. at 23-24, 38, 50.) However, we find that unless a class member has an unlisted phone number, anyone can find a class member's home address in an Internet phone book, without knowing the class member's voting county. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 49-50.) It is true that, if other people who reside in different counties share the class member's name, knowing the class member's voting county would help to narrow a list to obtained from an Internet phone book. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01, hearing, N.T. at 133-134.) Even so, it would be possible to find the class member's home address without knowing the voting county by calling the people on the list. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 136.) Gabe White testified that someone in Virginia who was trying to locate people stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines found his home address by using the Internet. (Ex. P-2, 2/11/04 hearing, N.T. at 51.) 14. Where a Corrections Class member has an unlisted phone number, it still is possible to find the class member's address without knowing the voting county by using search engines at American Online (AOL) or Dogpile. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01, hearing, N.T. at 128-30.) Bruce Facer, who testified that he has an unlisted phone number, conceded that the Commonwealth Respondents found his address and phone number on the Internet by using only his first and last name. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 94-95.) 15. The Probation and Parole Class also fears that publication of the Employee List information will enable the users of www.prisoners.com to locate their home address in order to injure their families physically, financially or otherwise. (Ex. P-2, 2/11/04 hearing, N.T. at 74.) Class members Phil Formicola and Phillip Carroll incorrectly believe that the Employee List contains the class members' home addresses. (Ex. P-2, 2/11/04 hearing, N.T. at 60, 64-65, 73.) Even if it did not, Formicola concedes that anyone could find out the home address of class members by diligent use of the Internet. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 115.) 16. We find that class members' addresses already have been made public. We find that, once a persons knows a class member's address, it is easy to learn the class member's voting county, i.e., county of residence. (Ex. P-1, 3/21-22/01 hearing, N.T. at 134.) Conclusions of Law 1. In order to prevail on a petition for a permanent injunction, the party seeking the injunction must establish that; (1) the right to relief is clear; (2) there is an urgent necessity to avoid an injury which cannot be compensated for by damages; and (3) the greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting the relief requested. P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 669 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). We conclude that Petitioners have not established that their right to relief is clear. 2. One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy if the matter publicized is of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. Restatement (Second) of Torts [section] 652D (1976). 3. A private fact is one that has not already been made public. Harris ex rel. Harris v. Easton Publishing Company, 483 A.2d 1399 (Pa. Super. 1984). There is no liability for giving further publicity to what one leaves open to the public eye, and, generally, there is no liability for giving publicity to facts that are matters of public record, such as dates of birth. Restatement (Second) of Torts [section] 652D cmt. b (1976). 4. Because the class members leave gender and headquarters county open to the public eye, because type of service is a matter of public record and because addresses, which easily lead to voting counties, already have been made public, we conclude that Petitioners have not shown clearly that the Non-Commonwealth Respondents will invade the privacy of the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class by giving publicity to such information. 5. The rule against invasion of privacy gives protection only against unreasonable publicity of a kind highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable person. Restatement (Second) of Torts [section] 652D cmt. c (1976). "The protection afforded to the plaintiff's interest in privacy must be relative to the customs of the time and place, to the occupation of the plaintiff and to the habits of his neighbors and fellow citizens. Complete privacy does not exist in this world except in a desert, and anyone who is not a hermit must expect and endure the ordinary incidents of community life of which he is a part...It is only when the publicity given to him is such that a reasonable person would feel justified in feeling seriously aggrieved by it that the cause of action arises." Id. 6. Because a reasonable class member would not be seriously aggrieved or highly offended by the publication of pay status or date of birth, we conclude that Petitioners failed to show clearly that the Non-Commonwealth Respondents will invade the privacy of the Corrections Class and the Probation and Parole Class by giving publicity to such information. Discussion Petitioners failed to persuade this court that publication of Employee List information on www.prisoners.com constitutes an invasion of privacy. For the most part, the information already is in the public domain. In fact, the web site now informs users that it is possible to obtain information about class members by utilizing the Internet. (Ex. P-24, web site print-screen, Plan B.) Thus the class members' concerns that users of www.prisoners.com will locate their home addresses or steal their identities via the Internet is a present concern that does not involve further publication of the Employee List information on the web site. Moreover, the record lacks sufficient credible evidence that the users of www.prisoners.com are inclined to commit crimes against class members or their families. The class members assume that the users include former inmates who have grudges against them and who intend to harm them and their families. However, the evidence shows only a few inmate families are among the users of www.prisoners.com. We cannot accept the class members' assumptions without evidence. The class members attempt to show that it is a simple matter to utilize the Internet to steal another's identity. However, the evidence in the record regarding Internet sites indicates that the web sites require some identifying information from the user and that the web sites perform some verification process. There is no evidence that anyone ever utilized an Internet web site to steal another's identity. Finally, when this court preliminarily enjoined the publication of the Employee List information on www.prisoners.com. we concluded that the class members' voting counties were confidential. In reaching that conclusion, we recognized that although section 614 of the Administrative Code makes voting counties public information, the Voter Registration Act [Act of June 30, 1995, P.L. 170, 25 P.S. [sections] 961.101 to 961.5109, repealed by the Act of January 31, 2002, P.L. 18.] makes them confidential. Because of the apparent conflict in the laws, we applied the rule of statutory construction which states that, where the provisions of two statutes enacted by different General Assemblies are irreconcilable, the statute latest in date shall prevail. See section 1936 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. [section] 1936. Because the Voter Registration Act was later in time, we held that it prevailed. (Ex. P-4 at 13-14.) However, since than, the General Assembly has amended section 614 of the Administrative Code, making a public employee's county of residence, i.e., voting county, public information. See sections 1301 and 1302 of the Voter Registration Act, 25 Pa. C.S. [sections] 1301 and 1302 (relating to the residency requirements of electors). The current version of section 614 of the Administrative Code is later in time than the current version of the Voter Registration Act; therefore, section 614 of the Administrative Code now must prevail. Accordingly, we deny Count I of the Second Amended Petition with respect to the Commonwealth Respondents' public disclosure of the class members' last names, first names, middle initials, position titles, salaries and appointment dates. We deny Count II in its entirety. Rochelle S. Friedman, Judge ORDER And now, this 20th day of May 2005, having considered Petitioners' Second Amended Petition for Review, the evidence presented at trial and the arguments presented in the briefs, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. As to Count I, the Second Amended Petition for Review is denied with respect to the class members' last names, first names, middle initials, position titles, salaries and appointment dates. 2. As to Count II, the Second Amended Petition for Review is denied. 3. Respondent Sandra Feigley's post-trial motions are dismissed as moot. Rochelle S. Friedman, Judge Editorial Comments The unconventional punctuation in the opinion is in the original. I've never seen so many semicolons. The bold and italic (or lack of it for some titles) is in the original except for the italic I added in the caption to highlight our involvement in the suit. The abbreviations used in the original are arcane to most layman. PL=public law, NT=notes of testimony (the transcript), A2d=Atlantic Second Series, a set of books recording legal opinions, PS=Purden's Statutes, PaCS= Pennsylvania Consolidate Statutes, Pa=Pennsylvania Supreme Court case. The opinion contains numerous errors of fact which reflect the judge's bias against us, a website unpopular with authorities. Her assertion that www.prisoners.com has had 87,000 hits is false. It approximates 5,000 a day! Her mention of the countries from which the site have been accessed is also misleading. For the most recent week it was accessed from people in Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, India, Australia, Austria, Italy, Poland, Denmark and Hungry. It's obvious from the amount of space dedicated to us in the opinion as compared to that given to the Commonwealth, the aim of the case was to censor us, an unpopular website. The judge should have dismissed the case at once on the same grounds she mentions at the end of her belabored opinion. The information in the Employee List was already public and in the State Library. We were simply going to republish it. But the AFSCME is a powerful union. In Pennsylvania and in most of America, the "justice" one get depends upon who you are.