Instead, DeNaples' attorneys are trolling for alleged leaks to the news media stemming from a grand jury investigation involving DeNaples.

Earlier this year, a grand jury indicted DeNaples on perjury charges for allegedly lying to state gambling regulators about his relationships with organized-crime figures and people linked to the corruption probe of City Hall under then-Mayor John F. Street.

DeNaples denies the charges and plans to mount a vigorous fight. In the meantime, DeNaples' lawyers want to know if grand-jury secrecy rules were violated.

Grand juries operate behind closed doors. Prosecutors, jurors and other officers of the court are not allowed to speak about the proceedings.

However, witnesses who testify before a grand jury are allowed to disclose what they discussed.

DeNaples' lawyers say news stories about the probe that use unnamed sources indicate the secrecy rules were violated.

Most lawyers need to do better than that before the state Supreme Court green-lights a fishing expedition. But not this Supreme Court. The court in May issued an order telling a Dauphin County judge to determine if grand-jury secrecy rules were violated.

Then DeNaples' lawyers launched their witch hunt. Last week, DeNaples' lawyers subpoenaed 15 journalists, including seven from The Inquirer and three at the Daily News, ordering them to appear June 30 before Dauphin County Judge Todd A. Hoover.

The subpoenas demand that the reporters turn over all notes, e-mail, telephone records and other documents relating to stories about the grand-jury probe.

This is an absolute abuse of power - in short, an attempt to bully the media - and a complete waste of the overburdened court's time.

For starters, the state Shield Law is abundantly clear in protecting reporters from being forced to divulge confidential information. The court and DeNaples' attorneys are well-aware of the law.

But for those not aware, let's review what the Shield Law says: "No person engaged in, connected with, or employed by any newspaper of general circulation or any press association or any radio or television station, or any magazine of general circulation, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing or publishing news, shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit."

The law provides journalists with an absolute privilege against the compelled disclosure of confidential sources of information.

The courts have interpreted the law to protect the names of reporters' sources, as well as documents, unpublished materials and all sources of information obtained by reporters - even if they are subpoenaed.

On the face, it seems pretty clear there hasn't been much of a leak here anyway. If 15 journalists are writing stories on this topic, it seems like the information is widely available. And it's unlikely that anyone violating a court secrecy rule would leak the information to 15 journalists at several different news organizations.

If there really were illegal leaks, the first step should be to question the possible leakers, not the media. But perhaps that's not the real agenda here.