Another informative report from S’punky. Remove the insults and hyperbole, made up exaggerations for effect, and what you are left with is a very disturbing premise. 

 

“FT, if you ever find an audience, your silliness gets some traction, and real harm is done to Mr. Stewart's reputation, he'll have to decide if making you eat your words is worth the effort. If you're a gainfully employed, contributing member of society, it may well be worth it. If you're an unemployed, welfare-consuming deadbeat with no assets, he wont sue you no matter what you do, because he wont be able to collect. Frankly, he's probably better off just letting you slink off after you lose in court and eat your lawyer's fees.”

 

Read that carefully. The idea behind it is: Faye Stewart has money. If FT does not then FT can be discriminated against. This can include being shot at. If he is poor he should not be allowed to even attempt to seek justice. Rich people are right because they are rich. It is wrong to even question if they are becoming rich by illegal means.

 

Oregon has a self-proclaimed mantle of “tolerance” that now seems to include the idea that a landlord can shoot at his renters for sport because they are poor and the landed gentry will protect them. This would put Lane County Oregon not in the ranks of the deep south of the 1850’s but back to the dark ages of England where “hunting serfs” was a sport of kings.

 

 

When Spunky wrote,” Oh, and here's further evidence of FT's inclination to make up stories: Once again, for the benefit of any reader who has ZERO military/firearms experience, shotguns don't have a 200 yard effective range. The effective range for a shotgun firing 00 buckshot, is only 50 yards. (Smaller bird-shot has even shorter range.) See this link:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/marinefacts/bl12gage.htm

Or just google "shotgun range" or "effective shotgun range".”

 

 

This is an example of using “information” to promote a false premise.

The spin is to minimize the fact that a person was shot at with a shotgun to intimidate and threaten. Since it appears that these folks are from the dark ages they might not be aware of video recording cameras. The video tape clearly records the sound of pellets hitting the house.  Without the evidence of cameras, the criminal shooting would tell the officer that he wasn’t shooting in our direction and if he was the pellets wouldn’t reach that far. For “proof” he could use the reference that Spunky used that refers to as “effective shotgun range”.  While the reference is valid the use is mis-directed. First, it is illegal to even point a gun, loaded or empty, at a person. Spunky keeps trying to conceal that. To point a weapon is a criminal act. To use a weapon to harass intimidate or coerce while committing a federal crime will increase the prison time. Being an accomplice either before or after will increase their prison time, the getaway driver is as guilty as the bank robber holding a shotgun in the bank. Imagine a lawyer trying to use the defense that the bank robber couldn’t actually kill someone in the bank or that he really didn’t intend to hurt people because his shot gun was “out of effective shotgun range” according to a military web reference. The crime is using a weapon in the commission of a crime. The federal crime here is housing discrimination. It stems from a “not for profit” with direct ties to a Lane County Commissioner retaliating against someone who complained that they were not following the HUD regulations for use of federal housing funds. Faye Stewart then participated in a cover-up that included the use of false or bogus documents in the limited hearing process, use of fake or bogus documents to facilitate a wrongful termination of a contract that used federal housing funds. The eventual use of firearms to intimidate. The fact that Spunky supports and defends this if it is focused on a poor person is just beyond belief.  

Let the Sunshine in

 

I am in the process of requesting a “Sunshine Law” access to all Lane County Commissioners E-mail records for the last 3 years. Since these are considered public records they will have to be made available un-redacted and un-filtered. Every e-mail sent or received through their official address is required by law to be freely available through the “Sunshine law”. I spoke with the help desk person at Lane County, Department of Information Service
125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401 
Phone (541) 682-4040 
Office Hours
8:00am - 5:00pm
Monday - Friday 
Administration Manager
Rhen Pond

She informed me that it would be “no problem” technically to get access to these documents. I suggested that I would want a “gateway” access with a search engine to look for what I want. I then contacted

Liane Richardson Assistant County Counsel

Phone (541) 682-4442 
Department Head
Teresa Wilson
County Counsel

She should contact me Monday March 25, 2008.

 

On the subject of the future private correctional facilities

From

http://www.lanecounty.org/News/News_2008/Release_33702.htm

 

“For current news and archives

For Immediate Release 03/18/08

Lane County Officials to Visit Maricopa Tent City

Contacts: Lane County Commissioner Bill Fleenor, 682-4203; Lane County Chief Deputy District Attorney Alex Gardner, 682-4261

 

Lane County Commissioner Bill Fleenor, Chief Deputy District Attorney Alex Gardner and City of Florence Police Chief Maurice Sanders will tour the Maricopa County Tent City Corrections Facility during the week of March 24.

According to Commissioner Fleenor, "the purpose of the visit is to learn first-hand and in greater detail the overall management and cost efficiencies of the tent city holding facilities for inmates held for up to one year’s time."

Local leaders will begin their two-day visit to Arizona with a tour of Maricopa County Tent City. They’ll also meet with law-enforcement officials and Maricopa County leaders to further discuss Maricopa County Tent City. The visit also includes a tour of the maximum security corrections facility in downtown Phoenix.

Discussions will focus on the downfalls and success stories of a tent city correction's holding facility environment and how they have dealt with past and potential liabilities. 

A follow up summary of the visit will be provided during a Board of County Commissioner meeting and future community dialogues, as well as access through the County web site.”

 

This is prep work to establish the base level of a tent prison similar to an 1880’s logging tent camp as an acceptable prison model. The next step would be a private company will submit a proposal through the Lane Council of Governments that will initially be funded by a “grant” to “explore the feasibility of moving forward on the use of private correctional facilities.”  When they get approval, they will make tent slums in the woods to hold county prisoners in a work camp out of public view.

 

Why go to Phoenix at this time?

 

“

Regionals: Thursday and Saturday, March 27 and 29, 2008

East Regional Charlotte Bobcats Arena Charlotte, North Carolina Host: University of North Carolina, Charlotte Ticket Info: SOLD OUT Ticket Price: $142 Phone: 704/688-9008 Web site: www.charlottebobcatsarena.com Official Packages: www.ncaa.com/regionals

West Regional  US Airways Center Phoenix, Arizona Host: Arizona State University Ticket Info: SOLD OUT Ticket Price: $122 Phone: 480/727-0000”   Too bad Oregon didn’t make it far enough to be seen on this county junket.

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:40 AM

Subject: Sunshine law

 

, I have informed all staff to please route your requests to me.  In this particular case, I believe it's best for all parties to correspond in writing, so that there is no question about what was said or not said.  If you have a public records request, let me know what that request is.  I will tell you if we have the items you are requesting and will inform you of any cost that may be involved.  I have not yet heard back from you regarding your last request, which was for the emails of the county commissioners for the last 3 years.  I have been told that an estimate is hard to give at this point, but that it would be well into the thousands of dollars range.  Perhaps you would like to limit your request, which may limit the cost. I do need to inform you that our email preservation system only records snapshots in time.  We do not have a full record of the emails sent to or received by the commissioners.  We also do not keep emails after one year on the IT systems.  If you would like to limit your request to certain topics or timeframes, we can give you a new estimation of costs.  Additionally, if you told me what you are looking for, specifically, that may help us reduce the cost of the search.

Liane Richardson
Lane County Office of Legal Counsel

 email sent in response to above email

 

 

Re: C7F7D5D7924ECA419AB62CD58238899287718C@lcexg02.lc100.net

 

Liane Richardson;

 

   I find it absurd that you would think that it would cost over a thousand dollars to make data available that is on a server. It is simply a matter of copying folders from the secure county space to a publicly accessible space. There is no need for me to narrow my search; all correspondence that is carried on by the county commissioners via their official email address is public business. It does not get to be censored, redacted or filtered by you or anyone else. It appears that this ploy of requiring a huge fee or a limited search conducted by your office is to prevent the public from seeing their public documents. If your “fee” is based on the actual expense for making public computer documents (files) available, send your calculations by return e-mail.. E-mail is accepted by the IRS for their official correspondence and I assume Lane County is technically on the level of a current grade school child. The email files exist on back-up tapes and on redundant (RAID) servers. They also exist on the servers through which they were received. So in light of that, also send me the procedure instructions from the Systems administer for the county email system. Your allusion to “thousand dollar” expense indicates a possible lack of good faith on your part in providing truthful information concerning this request for public email correspondence by elected public officials. You can also include your personal “resume” of computer expertise that you drew upon to get the “thousand dollar” figure for my request. Also send, as an email attachment, the form for me to complete my “Sunshine Law’ request. I will also need a sworn statement from you to the effect that you have not and will not cause email records to be destroyed, moved, or altered, along with any requests you may receive from those involved concerning the email situation. I am requesting this because if at a later time it comes to light that files were altered, this would be used in the federal lawsuit. 

 

To summarize: Send documents, by email attachment, for “sunshine Law” request of public documents, e-mail files.

                       Send email file handling procedure copies of original Information Services documents.

                       Send you detailed calculations for “thousand dollar” expense for making email computer data available.

                       Send your personal computer experience details which you used to come to the above fee.

                       Send copy of “sunshine” law which you are using in this series of requests.

                       Send a sworn statement that no email records have been altered, deleted or otherwise made inaccessible since                 I have contacted the county concerning these requests. 

                       Send the source of your authority to deny me access to any public employee that I might choose to contact.

                       Send list of any requests to have public emails modified.

                       Send a flow chart from “computer services” that details the “flow” of  emails including all storage redundancies and storage medias and off site archival depositories.

                       If you intend to only allow a limited access of emails to and from public officials through their official email account, please detail and document your reasoning for this position.                    

Liane:

 

“The County will comply in good faith with your requests, but we do not have to take verbal abuse from you.  We will speak to you professionally and courteously and we expect the same in return.”

I’m sorry you take offence so easily. You are a public servant, toughen up or put someone else on the job.

 

 We are discussing a matter where we were shot at 14 times, the first deputy went to the landlords house and was heard laughing, no action was taken on her part. The 13^th and 14^th time we were able to get the incident on video tape, deputies arrived, viewed tape, remarked, “you can clearly hear the pellets hitting the house”, this is reflected in the report along with a copy of tape being placed into evidence with the Lane County Sheriffs department. When this report was forwarded to the Lane County DA, they did not act. Their office has told me that they were waiting to see if anything else would happen. What happened later was that the landlord, Alvin Johnson, blocked our egress while we were moving our first loaded u-haul truck. As he was making a “gun sign” he said, “I’m going to kill you.” He let us leave but followed us to the next town. We pulled into an “auto salvage yard” to call 911. The sheriffs department did not show up, we waited 4 hours. Alvin Johnson came into the building and continued to threaten us. He left only by the intervention of the property owner. He then invited his friends over to loot the property we left. Alvin Johnson seemed to be under the impression that Lane County would let him do anything, including attempted murder, and nothing would happen to him. His lawyer was in contact with Nancy Waggoner, a county employee, at the time of the shooting and the latter event. When Faye Stewart was asked to intervene in this incident he replied, “I just remembered that my wife is having a baby tomorrow and I won’t be able to help you.”  I believe in being frank and open in what I say. I called Lane Counties IS department, they confirmed that it “would be no problem” to make these documents available through the net. You have now placed a gag order on any county employee talking to me. You then relay that it will take weeks to provide the data I requested. In light of the conflict in your statement and the IS employee I believe you are deliberately limiting my access to Lane County employees so that you can provide me with bogus information. If that hurts your feeling, so be it.

 

“If you simply want the rules that I noted, there will be no cost, because I believe most of those rules are already on-line or in a very accessible location.”

This should be an easy request for you, email the exact wording of applicable Oregon laws that you are relying upon in this matter, along with the web location.

 

I will limit requests to one per email so that your office is not overburdened in providing required requested information.

 

If a meeting is held as an “open meeting” but “closed meeting” material is discussed, the material is public information. The fact that Lane County employees may have conducted possible protected agendas via public email does not allow them to alter the public record after the fact. Altering the public documents that are requested for a federal lawsuit is a violation of federal law and would include federal prison time, regardless of whether or not you provided a “sworn statement” to that effect. I put that in to provide a written record that you were advised of the actions that would be taken if the public record documents are altered.

 

In the way of free computer advice, you should check on current “tagging” information that relates to modifications, accesses and creation times of electronic documents and email. When you look, it leaves a trail and a print.

 

Mr. *****

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Liane Richardson

To:

Cc: Liane Richardson

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:01 AM

Subject: RE: Sunshine and smoke

 

Mr. *****:

You are mistaken.  The vast majority of the emails you are requesting are not on a server.  They are stored off location in a secure warehouse.  We have to recreate every mailbox, one month at a time, for each individual.  I then need to review them because there are exceptions to the public records laws.  We have the right, pursuant to the public records laws, to charge for our expenses to collect and review those documents.     If you do not understand the laws, then please consult with an attorney who can explain to you what you are entitled to.  The Oregon Public Records law is located in the Oregon Revised Statutes.  You can review the statutes yourself, although I would recommend making sure they include the changes that were made effective January 2008.  We have complied with the statute in that we have informed you we have at least some of the requested public records, and have given you a very rough estimate of the fees that you must pay as a condition of receiving the public records.   We haven't yet given you a time estimate, because I had hoped to encourage you to narrow your search, but a good estimate to get you what we have is approximately 4-6 weeks, given staffing levels, the volume of the records requested, and the amount of time it will take to determine whether any of the records are exempt from disclosure.   We are allowed under the statute to require prepayment of our estimated charges before taking further action on your request.  ORS 192.444(4)(a).     If the actual charges are less than the prepayment, we are required to refund the difference promptly.  Actual cost includes a charge for our time locating the records, reviewing the records in order to delete exempt material, and in this case, recreating the data..  It specifically covers time spent by an attorney reviewing redacting and segregating the records.  We will not put the records in a publicly accessible space.  The law does not require that.  We will either make you copies or allow you to inspect the copies at our offices.  We will not send them by email. 

 

The County will comply in good faith with your requests, but we do not have to take verbal abuse from you.  We will speak to you professionally and courteously and we expect the same in return.  

If I understand your new request for information, you are requesting:

    1)     The procedure instructions from the systems administrator for the county email system.  I need clarification on this before I can give you a response.  What information do you need?  We don't have a "procedure instruction" for the county email system.  We have rules regarding the use of county email by county employees.  We have a rule regarding public records requests.  Are these what you are looking for, or something else?

 

    2)    I am not relying upon my computer expertise in answering your requests.  I'm corresponding with the IT department to try and determine what we have that complies with your request.  I did refer to a recent court case that I had, and the amount of time it took to resurrect the mailboxes in question, but that was just to give you an example of a case where there was a similar, although smaller request and the cost that was incurred complying with it.

 

    3)    Under the public records law, I do not have to create any documents for you.  I will not comply with your request for a sworn statement.  

 

    4)    You wanted documents for the "sunshine law".  I don't know what you are referring to.  I've referred you to the public records law for Oregon. We do not have to provide you copies of those laws; they are in the ORS and probably on line.  There is no specific document required for a public records law request.  We can require requests to be in written, but beyond that, there is no specific form required.

 

  5)    We have not given you a firm estimate as to the cost, because you have not indicated you are willing to pay anything significant for the documents in question.  It will actually take quite a bit of staff time to simply figure out the estimate.  I believe I told you it would be well over $1,000, not $1,000.  Please indicate either that you will be willing to pay for the documents requested or that you will not be willing to pay for them.  If you do not wish to pay for them, we will not begin acting on your request.  If you do wish to pay for them, we will come up with a better estimate for you within a couple of days. 

                                                                      

    6)    ORS 192.420(2) requires a party to litigation or one who has filed a tort claim notice to contact the attorney for the public body whenever they are making a public records request.   Additionally, under the public records law, we can designate who public records requests may be sent to.  In this case, I am the person all public records requests from you or ###### must go through.

 

    7)    You requested a list of any requests to have public emails modified.  There are no documents that satisfy that request.

 

    8)    You requested a flow chart from "computer services" that details the "flow" of emails including all storage redundancies and storage medias and off site archival depositories.  There is no such chart.  The public records laws do not require us to create documents, only to provide documents that exist.

 

    9)    You have requested me to document my reasoning.  No such document exists, nor am I required to create one.

 

To summarize, I need clarification on the first request listed above before we can respond to your request.  I also need a commitment from you to pay for the documents you are requesting.  If you are not willing to do so, we will not begin acting on your request for the emails of the commissioners.  I cannot give you a time or cost estimate for your newest request until you provide me with clarification.  If you simply want the rules that I noted, there will be no cost, because I believe most of those rules are already on-line or in a very accessible location.  If you are asking for something more, then there may be a cost.

                                                

 

 

Re: C7F7D5D7924ECA419AB62CD58238899287718C@lcexg02.lc100.net

 

Liane Richardson;

 

   I find it absurd that you would think that it would cost over a thousand dollars to make data available that is on a server. It is simply a matter of copying folders from the secure county space to a publicly accessible space. There is no need for me to narrow my search; all correspondence that is carried on by the county commissioners via their official email address is public business. It does not get to be censored, redacted or filtered by you or anyone else. It appears that this ploy of requiring a huge fee or a limited search conducted by your office is to prevent the public from seeing their public documents. If your “fee” is based on the actual expense for making public computer documents (files) available, send your calculations by return e-mail.. E-mail is accepted by the IRS for their official correspondence and I assume Lane County is technically on the level of a current grade school child. The email files exist on back-up tapes and on redundant (RAID) servers. They also exist on the servers through which they were received. So in light of that, also send me the procedure instructions from the Systems administer for the county email system. Your allusion to “thousand dollar” expense indicates a possible lack of good faith on your part in providing truthful information concerning this request for public email correspondence by elected public officials. You can also include your personal “resume” of computer expertise that you drew upon to get the “thousand dollar” figure for my request. Also send, as an email attachment, the form for me to complete my “Sunshine Law’ request. I will also need a sworn statement from you to the effect that you have not and will not cause email records to be destroyed, moved, or altered, along with any requests you may receive from those involved concerning the email situation. I am requesting this because if at a later time it comes to light that files were altered, this would be used in the federal lawsuit. 

 

To summarize: Send documents, by email attachment, for “sunshine Law” request of public documents, e-mail files.

                       Send email file handling procedure copies of original Information Services documents.

                       Send you detailed calculations for “thousand dollar” expense for making email computer data available.

                       Send your personal computer experience details which you used to come to the above fee.

                       Send copy of “sunshine” law which you are using in this series of requests.

                       Send a sworn statement that no email records have been altered, deleted or otherwise made inaccessible since                 I have contacted the county concerning these requests. 

                       Send the source of your authority to deny me access to any public employee that I might choose to contact.

                       Send list of any requests to have public emails modified.

                       Send a flow chart from “computer services” that details the “flow” of  emails including all storage redundancies and storage medias and off site archival depositories.

                       If you intend to only allow a limited access of emails to and from public officials through their official email account, please detail and document your reasoning for this position. 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Liane Richardson

To:

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:40 AM

Subject: Sunshine law

 

, I have informed all staff to please route your requests to me.  In this particular case, I believe it's best for all parties to correspond in writing, so that there is no question about what was said or not said.  If you have a public records request, let me know what that request is.  I will tell you if we have the items you are requesting and will inform you of any cost that may be involved.  I have not yet heard back from you regarding your last request, which was for the emails of the county commissioners for the last 3 years.  I have been told that an estimate is hard to give at this point, but that it would be well into the thousands of dollars range.  Perhaps you would like to limit your request, which may limit the cost. I do need to inform you that our email preservation system only records snapshots in time.  We do not have a full record of the emails sent to or received by the commissioners.  We also do not keep emails after one year on the IT systems.  If you would like to limit your request to certain topics or timeframes, we can give you a new estimation of costs.  Additionally, if you told me what you are looking for, specifically, that may help us reduce the cost of the search.

Liane Richardson
Lane County Office of Legal Counsel

 

 

Hey there, FT.

Why are you wasting limited county employee time with your silliness? It probably cost the employed, contributing taxpayers of Lane County $100 just to pay the time it took the county lawyer to read your nonsense and respond to it. Why don't you get a job and find a new hobby that the rest of us don't have to pay for?

Also, KMTR did a piece on the county's Arizona trip tonight: As usual, your statements about county plans for an inmate tent facility in the woods were nothing but baseless, fabricated lies.

Although it would be great to have a low cost way of managing lower-risk inmates, the Chief Deputy from DA's office said they probably would NEVER use TENTS for such a program in Oregon, and he didn't foresee ANY such program for housing Lane County low risk inmates within his "professional lifetime" (because Lane County residents are not willing to fund law enforcement.) (Even low cost inmate housing is more expensive than doing nothing at all, and that's what Lane County currently does with most low-level inmates like vandals, drunk-drivers, prostitutes, shoplifters and the like.)

As to the other matter, your nuisance lawsuit-without-cause, your data production costs would be nominal if you knew what you were looking for. Obviously, you don't, so you're demanding years worth of email correspondence, policy documents that don't exist, and a variety of other poorly-defined, probably-non-existent documents as part of a resource-wasting fishing expedition. You're wasting the time of many employees. That's expensive. I'm glad they're charging you for some of the time you're wasting.

It's a shame the Sheriff and DA can't charge you for filing the false police reports on the so-called "shooting" incidents you keep complaining about.

I can't wait to see/hear the final chapter of your tedious story -- the part where you lose, as predicted months ago, and then you struggle to find a way to blame the county/commissioners/government/DA/media/police/gods for your failures. That'll be rich.

Reply to Spanky post  at 03-28-2008 11:25 PM:

”Why are you wasting limited county employee time with your silliness? It probably cost the employed, contributing taxpayers of Lane County $100 just to pay the time it took the county lawyer to read your nonsense and respond to it. Why don't you get a job and find a new hobby that the rest of us don't have to pay for?”

 

Reminds me of a quote from the “Untouchables”. When they asked Eliot Ness why he was spending so much time trying to catch Al Capone, his reply was, “because it is my job”. The county Attorneys job entails answering my questions. If I wasn’t asking, he would still get paid the same. He is on a salary, so if he works longer hours it doesn’t cost extra. If you follow the link below you can see the start of another group engaging in the process of lifting the veil of secrecy in government.  http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/27/watchdog_group_seeks_obama_paper_trail/3105/#comments   

“Also, KMTR did a piece on the county's Arizona trip tonight: As usual, your statements about county plans for an inmate tent facility in the woods were nothing but baseless, fabricated lies.”

 

This is just the first salvo in “raising awareness”.  

“Although it would be great to have a low cost way of managing lower-risk inmates, the Chief Deputy from DA's office said they probably would NEVER use TENTS for such a program in Oregon, and he didn't foresee ANY such program for housing Lane County low risk inmates within his "professional lifetime" (because Lane County residents are not willing to fund law enforcement.) (Even low cost inmate housing is more expensive than doing nothing at all, and that's what Lane County currently does with most low-level inmates like vandals, drunk-drivers, prostitutes, shoplifters and the like.)”

 

Your statement above is a good example of how their next phase would be phrased. Basically you create a “paper tiger” option that has obvious flaws and then later, after expensive study and more trips to sporting event cities, they will propose a “privately run” prison. I see you are still trying to attach your opinion, above in ( ) to other peoples statements.

“As to the other matter, your nuisance lawsuit-without-cause, your data production costs would be nominal if you knew what you were looking for. Obviously, you don't, so you're demanding years worth of email correspondence, policy documents that don't exist, and a variety of other poorly-defined, probably-non-existent documents as part of a resource-wasting fishing expedition.”

 

It is PUBLIC INFORMATION. I can peruse it, if that is my want.

 

“You're wasting the time of many employees. That's expensive. I'm glad they're charging you for some of the time you're wasting.”

 

This is the same bogus argument that Liane Richardson Lane County Oregon Office of Legal Counsel used. However in the current digital age a child can move the documents in question to a public space on the county web and include a search engine in about 3 minutes. The “fee” they are wanting to collect is to pay them to censor and remove embarrassing and illegal correspondences. When I spoke with Informational Services they confirmed that it would indeed be that easy. One suggested that he could “just burn a DVD and mail it”. Expense: $0.50 DVD, $1.50 stamp and mailer and 10 minutes flunky time to “drag and drop” the folders.

“It's a shame the Sheriff and DA can't charge you for filing the false police reports on the so-called "shooting" incidents you keep complaining about.”

 

This line of reasoning falls flat because of those pesky video tapes, 911 tapes with gun shots on them, 911 tapes with landlord trying to break into our home and the comments of the investigating officer asking Alvin Johnson about him shooting at our home. He lied to the officer and said he wasn’t even shooting in our direction. The officer replied, I watched the tape and heard the pellets hitting the house.

”I can't wait to see/hear the final chapter of your tedious story -- the part where you lose, as predicted months ago, and then you struggle  to find a way to blame the county/commissioners/government/DA/media/police/gods for your failures. That'll be rich.”

 

As always you end with an insult, could this possibly be a childish ploy to get me to stoop to your level so that you could quote me later as an insulting olf. I think not. Good day.

 

FT, you're a laugh a minute. You make all these bald assertions about the way things are and are not...

What your rights are and are not...

What happened and didn't happen...

What the law allows and doesn't allow...

But none of the folks who actually KNOW the facts, the regulations, and the law agree with you :) They're just lawyers, judges and accountants! They're idiots, huh, FT. All out to get you, huh, FT? LOL If only they had your command of law and finance they'd rise to your level of command and contribution, right?

It's FT against the world, as usual.

And after all these many months, and all your claims of one victimization after another, from financial theft, to wrongful eviction, to attempted murder, nothing happens. Nobody will listen to you. Nobody cares.

I don't wonder why we hear nothing corroborating from anybody else.

Nothing. Nada. Bupkiss. Zilch.

In a land in which all it takes is a cat caught in a tree to make the evening news, you present one grand drama after another, and NOTHING ever makes it to the news. Not a single person will listen to you. Not the police, or the governor, or the city council, or the county commissioners, or the Sheriff, or the media, or the DA, or the Attorney General.

I know, I know, it's all a grand conspiracy to disadvantage the poor unemployed, trod upon, perennial victim who throws one tantrum after another because he feels he was wrongly deprived of some welfare benefit - or whatever.

Let's see, FT, who else has wronged you? Is it just the Lane County commissioners, the DA, the Sheriff, the woman on the board of the Foundation, and the County Attorney? How about the FBI and the Department of Justice? The Courts? Aren't they ALL out to get you? LOL :)

Heard this morning on KVAL around 7:30 AM. They received an anonymous letter that they alleged contained e-mail correspondence between Lane County sheriff Russell Burger and Lane County Administrator Jeff sparks. That seems a bit odd that at the time when I am asking for e-mails from their legal dept. I get a gag rule that no one is to talk to me and then the legal dept. refuses to supply any information. Yet someone is leaking e-mail documents that support their position.

Sounds like Spanky. Spanky, are you the anonymous letter writer to KVAL?

foundation trilogy:

Heard this morning on KVAL around 7:30 AM. They received an anonymous letter that they alleged contained e-mail correspondence between Lane County sheriff Russell Burger and Lane County Administrator Jeff sparks. That seems a bit odd that at the time when I am asking for e-mails from their legal dept. I get a gag rule that no one is to talk to me and then the legal dept. refuses to supply any information. Yet someone is leaking e-mail documents that support their position.

Sounds like Spanky. Spanky, are you the anonymous letter writer to KVAL?

Mr. Trilogy, my sister is an Assistant Attorney General, and I confirmed this with her: correspondence between county officials is public record, so they can't legally implement a "gag order". If you have made a demand for a record they have, and they refuse to produce it, you can have the District Attorney order the county to produce it.

Also, I can't say whether "Spanky" was the source of that anonymous email or not, but the referenced letter from the Sheriff was copied and widely published. I know it was sent to several retired law enforcement groups and the county health and human services leadership. I assume it was "leaked" to the public to apply pressure to the politicians because, contrary to the assertions of "Halo" and "Spanky", I think there are still some people around here who want to support public safety.

Yep, the "anonymous letter" was sent to employees throughout the county, groups outside of the county, and many others.  The media exaggerated the facts to sensationalize it and hopefully get some attention.  You of all people should recognize that tactic, foundation trilogy, aka Kyle Bussey.

Thank you for playing the straight man so I can give my reason for using "foundation Trilogy" as a posting name. A long time ago when people got their information from books there was a book called "the foundation" and its two sequels. They were known as the "Foundation Trilogy". If you wish you can read the wikipedia short version. It has the absurd premise of a computer developer getting so rich that he was able to influence world politics and shape the course of human history. The notion of getting people to self-sacrifice for clan, religion, country, corporation and finally for impending world catastrophe (sort of like global warming) was a main theme. Any way, the current "foundation trilogy" is the unholy alliance between the community foundations, the people they have trained and put into government and the "not for profits" they control. I realize it is an obscure reference to a little known book by I. A.

Below is the continuation of my attempt to get Lane County Oregon to make Public documents freely available using current technology. You will note in liane richardson’s response that suggests that they are unable to fax or e-mail a document but must copy and mail, maybe they have one of those gelatin hand crank hectographs from WW II. From my reading their exorbitant cost is "for my review of the documents to determine if there are documents that are not discoverable under the public records law. That charge would be a reduced rate of $110/hr." First, if that’s what we are paying for their services we could save some money by replacing liane richardson. If that is not what liane richardson’s county time is worth, why should I be charged a felonious rate. Secondly, why should I be charged for them to "review" the E-mails. E-mails using the county commissioners’ official E-mail are all public documents. They do not get to be "reviewed" and sanitized to purge embarrassing or illegal correspondence. Their insistence on charging a prohibitive, open-ended charge to get public documents that consist of official E-mails is all the more reason to want to see what they are trying to hide. The Emails I requested are from March 3rd - 5^th 2008, the preceding month and following month, Tony Black or any computer op should be able to copy and paste the requested documents in about 5 minutes. I requested these documents for Lane County Oregon County Commissioners Faye Stewart and Bobby Green. Liane didn’t want to send Bobby Green’s E-mails, why? Liane will get a reminder that I requested an E-mail quoting the Oregon State statutes that are being relied upon in this matter. Until then I will use the information From

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/192.h t m l

"192.005 Definitions for ORS 192.005 to 192.170. As used in ORS 192.005 to 192.170, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) "Archivist" means the State Archivist.

(2) "Photocopy" includes a photograph, microphotograph and any other reproduction on paper or film in any scale.

(3) "Photocopying" means the process of reproducing, in the form of a photocopy, a public record or writing.

(4) "Political subdivision" means a city, county, district or any other municipal or public corporation in this state.

(5) "Public record" includes, but is not limited to, a document, book, paper, photograph, file, sound recording or machine readable electronic record, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made, received, filed or recorded in pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public business, whether or not confidential or restricted in use. "

(this specifically includes machine readable electronic record, i.e. E-mail,… in connection with the transaction of public business, whether or not confidential or restricted in use. This means all e-mail that uses their official Lane County Oregon E-mail address, no redacting, filtering or blocking. Seems to me Liane has been blowing smoke to cover-up something. )

Public record" does not include:

(a) Records of the Legislative Assembly, its committees, officers and employees.

(b) Library and museum materials made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes.

(c) Records or information concerning the location of archaeological sites or objects as those terms are defined in ORS 358.905.

(d) Extra copies of a document, preserved only for convenience of reference.

(e) A stock of publications.

(f) Messages on voice mail or on other telephone message storage and retrieval systems.

(6) "State agency" means any state officer, department, board, commission or court created by the Constitution or statutes of this state. However, "state agency" does not include the Legislative Assembly or its committees, officers and employees. [1961 c.160 §2; 1965 c.302 §1; 1983 c.620 §11; 1989 c.16 §1; 1999 c.55 §1; 1999 c.140 §1]"

(Because the writers of this provision were aware of electronic records, not listing it here as being excluded and specifically listing it as being part of the public documents "whether or not confidential or restricted in use" it is very clear that E-mail is public and not subject to prior review.)

"192.240 Duties of state agency issuing report. To comply with the state policy relating to reports outlined in ORS 192.235, a state agency shall do the following:

1. Use electronic communications whenever the agency determines that such use reduces cost and still provides public access to information."

 

"192.430 Functions of custodian of public records; rules. (1) The custodian of any public records, including public records maintained in machine readable or electronic form, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, shall furnish proper and reasonable opportunities for inspection and examination of the records in the office of the custodian and reasonable facilities for making memoranda or abstracts therefrom, during the usual business hours, to all persons having occasion to make examination of them. If the public record is maintained in machine readable or electronic form, the custodian shall furnish proper and reasonable opportunity to assure access.

2. The custodian of the records may adopt reasonable rules necessary for the protection of the records and to prevent interference with the regular discharge of duties of the custodian. [1973 c.794 §4; 1989 c.546 §1]"

(This would be interpreted to mean have a web link to all E-mail in a read only format.)

 

"192.440 Copies or inspection of public records; written response by public body; fees; waiver or reduction; procedure for records requests. (1) The custodian of any public record that a person has a right to inspect shall give the person, upon request:

1. A copy of the public record if the public record is of a nature permitting copying; or
2. A reasonable opportunity to inspect or copy the public record.

 

( In the case of my asking to see county commissioner’s e-mails, reasonable opportunity would be a web link.)

(2) If a person makes a written request to inspect a public record or to receive a copy of a public record, the public body receiving the request shall respond as soon as practicable and without unreasonable delay. The public body may request additional information or clarification from the requester for the purpose of expediting the public body’s response to the request. The response of the public body must acknowledge receipt of the request and must include one of the following:

(a) A statement that the public body does not possess, or is not the custodian of, the public record.

3. Copies of all requested public records for which the public body does not claim an exemption from disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505.

(All e-mail that is from their county e-mail address is public)

(c) A statement that the public body is the custodian of at least some of the requested public records, an estimate of the time the public body requires before the public records may be inspected or copies of the records will be provided and an estimate of the fees that the requester must pay under subsection (4) of this section as a condition of receiving the public records.

(d) A statement that the public body is the custodian of at least some of the requested public records and that an estimate of the time and fees for disclosure of the public records will be provided by the public body within a reasonable time.

(e) A statement that the public body is uncertain whether the public body possesses the public record and that the public body will search for the record and make an appropriate response as soon as practicable.

(f) A statement that state or federal law prohibits the public body from acknowledging whether the record exists or that acknowledging whether the record exists would result in the loss of federal benefits or other sanction. A statement under this paragraph must include a citation to the state or federal law relied upon by the public body.

1. If the public record is maintained in a machine readable or electronic form, the custodian shall provide a copy of the public record in the form requested, if available. If the public record is not available in the form requested, the custodian shall make the public record available in the form in which the custodian maintains the public record.

 

(4)(a) The public body may establish fees reasonably calculated to reimburse the public body for the public body’s actual cost of making public records available, including costs for summarizing, compiling or tailoring the public records, either in organization or media, to meet the person’s request.

(I am requesting all e-mails uncensored and unfiltered with access via a web site)

(b) The public body may include in a fee established under paragraph (a) of this subsection the cost of time spent by an attorney for the public body in reviewing the public records, redacting material from the public records or segregating the public records into exempt and nonexempt records.

( all e-mails are nonexempt)

The public body may not include in a fee established under paragraph (a) of this subsection the cost of time spent by an attorney for the public body in determining the application of the provisions of ORS 192.410 to 192.505.

(c) The public body may not establish a fee greater than $25 under this section unless the public body first provides the requestor with a written notification of the estimated amount of the fee and the requestor confirms that the requestor wants the public body to proceed with making the public record available.

1. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection, when the public records are those filed with the Secretary of State under ORS chapter 79 or ORS 80.100 to 80.130, the fees for furnishing copies, summaries or compilations of the public records are those established by the Secretary of State by rule, under ORS chapter 79 or ORS 80.100 to 80.130.

1. The custodian of any public record may furnish copies without charge or at a substantially reduced fee if the custodian determines that the waiver or reduction of fees is in the public interest because making the record available primarily benefits the general public.
2. A person who believes that there has been an unreasonable denial of a fee waiver or fee reduction may petition the Attorney General or the district attorney in the same manner as a person petitions when inspection of a public record is denied under ORS 192.410 to 192.505. The Attorney General, the district attorney and the court have the same authority in instances when a fee waiver or reduction is denied as it has when inspection of a public record is denied.

(This would be my next step.)

(7) A public body shall make available to the public a written procedure for making public record requests that includes:

(a) The name of one or more persons to whom public record requests may be sent, with addresses; and

(b) The amounts of and the manner of calculating fees that the public body charges for responding to requests for public records.

(8) This section does not apply to signatures of individuals submitted under ORS chapter 247 for purposes of registering to vote as provided in ORS 247.973. [1973 c.794 §5; 1979 c.548 §4; 1989 c.111 §12; 1989 c.377 §2; 1989 c.546 §2; 1999 c.824 §5; 2001 c.445 §168; 2005 c.272 §1; 2007 c.467 §1]"

To summarize, Liane, have Tony move copies of all County Comissioners e-mails to a web site that is freely and publicly available and e-mail the web link to me.

 

The following is the background correspondence.

Why do posters refuse to examine the County Commissioners role in this situation? Bobby green has been in his position during the time that public safety has been systematically dismantled. Does being a former football player mean that the public must pay him for a job he is obviously unqualified to hold. The latest blunder of budgeting hundreds of thousands of federal money that didn’t materialize is definitely something that should be look into. In the recent past Lane County Commissioners went to Washington D C to lobby for federal support, I would expect that someone with KMTR would post a detailed itinerary of where they went, who they talked with, what they talked about, how much they spent, what gratuities they accepted, phone records and emails for the month before and the month after. These are public records that the public has a right to see. Why would KMTR not get the records and post them for us to see?

Copy of email I sent to faye.stewart@co.lane.or.us, liane.richardson@co.lane.or.us, Bobby.Green@co.lane.or.us

In the recent past Lane County Commissioners went to Washington D C to lobby for federal support, I would like a detailed itinerary of where they went, who they talked with, what they talked about, how much they spent, what gratuities they accepted, phone records and emails for the month before and the month after.

I will be posting the results and progress of this request on line at http://community.kmtr.com/forums/821/ShowForum.aspx

under the heading " Investigate Lane County Commissioners, impeach then imprison"

As you know the first draft of our lawsuit was dismissed because I didn’t sign the documents that I submitted to the federal court, according to their rules unsigned documents that are not corrected in the time limit are considered not to have been submitted at all, sort of like a shot fired across the bow. It did show me that you would tell county personnel to not provide me with information that I, as a member of the general public, have a right to access. It showed me that you would want to "sanitize" the E-mails before you release them to the public. You stated that the E-mail records only go back one year. I reminded you that I had had an E-mail hearing concerning the HOME TBA incident. By law, these records must be kept for 7 years. I them reminded you that E-mails are public documents and therefore available to the public in their original and complete form. You then quit correspondence. I intend to speak with any county employee I choose unhindered by your office. I may file a lawsuit if that is my want.

Response from "RICHARDSON Liane I" <Liane.RICHARDSON@co.lane.or.us>,

Cc to "STEWART Faye H" <Faye.STEWART@co.lane.or.us>, "GREEN Bobby" <Bobby.Green@CO.Lane.OR.US>, "BLACK Tony H" <Tony.Black@co.lane.or.us>

 

Mr. Bussey, in regards to your public records request, we have some of the materials you are requesting. For some of your requests, there are no documents that exist which satisfy that request. I'll address each of the requests in more detail below. I have received the packet of materials for the United Front trip to Washington D.C. which occurred March 3rd - 5th in regards to Commissioner Stewart. There are 103 pages of documents. This packet includes a detailed itinerary. I have not yet received copies of the receipts for the trip, which will add several more pages to this packet. Many of the documents in the packet indicate the general topics of conversation that were had between the attendees and those they met with on the trip. There are no documents that we are in possession of that indicate the specific details of any conversations that occured on this trip. As I've indicated to you before, the public records law does not require the County to create documents that do not exist, nor to obtain documents that are not within the County's possession and control. The amount of documents you have requested will exceed $25 to provide to you, as the cost of copying the documents I've already collected will exceed $25 alone. Prior to photocopying these documents and any additional documents, we will need you to come in and pay for the copies you've requested. We will hold off photocopying these documents until we receive payment. If you plan on coming in to pay for the documents, let me know and I'll give you a total amount. As for the emails you've requested, the above-referenced packet does not include copies of the emails from Commissioner Stewart's email account for the month of February nor April. You didn't ask for emails for the month of the trip, although that may have been an oversight on your part. In addition to photocopying fees, there will also be a charge for my review of the documents to determine if there are documents that are not discoverable under the public records law. That charge would be a reduced rate of $110/hr. I don't have an estimate as to the time it will take to pull all of these emails together nor do I have an estimate at this time regarding total cost, as I have not heard back from the IS department regarding how long it will take them to resurrect the documents, nor how many documents this request may cover. I can indicate to you that the last time I reviewed a month's worth of emails for a single individual, it took over 5 hours. As you are requesting at least two months worth of emails, a rough estimate is that it will take me 10 hours to review the emails. However, given my schedule, that realistically means that I will have the emails ready for you approximately 1 week after I receive them from the IS department. We will not begin to act on this request until we've received confirmation from you that you are willing to pay for this request, and have received payment. If you are willing to pay for it, I will give you an estimate that would cover all staff costs in recreating the data and reviewing it for release. Once we receive payment, the IS department will begin resurrecting the emails for Commissioner Stewart. I will encourage you again to speak to someone with legal knowledge. Your case was not dismissed because you didn't sign the document. It was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Lastly, Commissioner Green did not go to Washington D.C., so there are no documents in regards to him that satisfy your request. Liane Richardson

$110/hour for an attorney to review your rantings is a bargain, but it's a shame you are wasting tax payer money when the employees at the County could actually be doing something productive rather than work on your delusions. I looked up your case; the Court dismissed it because you didn't have a claim, not because you didn't sign something. All you have to do is read the order. And why are you targeting Bobby Green when he didn't even go on the trip? He has been a voice of reason on the Board of Commissioners over the years. In case you haven't noticed or are just naive, it takes 3 Commissioners to implement anything in the County, and with some of the other members of the Board, you aren't going to get any changes that actually help the people of this County any time soon.

From page 2 of civil no. 08-6068-TC, "the complaint is not signed by either plaintiff and is otherwise deficient." … (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) "(a)n unsigned paper shall be stricken unless the omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party." That would cause the action to stop, as the complaint would not exist to the court. The other commentary provided by the Judge serves as guidance on narrative style and exemplar concerning our request for statutory requisite appointed attorney. The Order taken as a whole becomes a guide for further actions. As per Federal law this action can be brought forth in many venues, including tribal court. That will be looked into Tuesday.

I admire your ability to find information but I am dubious as to your interpretive prowess.

So as a mini test, post your pro Bobby propaganda and I’ll post my "conspiratorial rantings". As always, show your sources and web links, I will do likewise.

How will making the e-mails of the Lane County Oregon County Comissioners accessible on the internet help the people of Lane County, Oregon. It will bring to light what they have been saying in their e-mails that they thought would never be seen by the public. We will be able to compare what they told us to what they told their cronies. The records of what they were e-mailing during the multi-million dollar measure 39 give-a-ways will be very interesting. What do you think Faye was saying concerning his voting to approve a family members claim?

"Computer term", RAID, Redundant Array of Independent Devises. That means that the e-mails exist on many separate locations. There will also be records of any attempts to remove, alter or conceal the e-mails.

triwanda:

Yep, the "anonymous letter" was sent to employees throughout the county, groups outside of the county, and many others.  The media exaggerated the facts to sensationalize it and hopefully get some attention.  You of all people should recognize that tactic, foundation trilogy, aka Kyle Bussey.

Kyle Bussey? That was the lawsuit that was dismissed, right?

Is it dead-dead?

Frankly, I thought it would take months to purge that frivolous hogwash. As I said in earlier threads, we all knew the baseless lawsuit would be pitched. it's a shame the county had to spend the money to respond, but I'm glad the commissioners were vindicated so quickly.

No doubt we can add federal judges to the nearly endless list of professionals who have victimized poor ol' FT :)

Unfortunately, pro se litigants tend to be given a lot of leeway in federal and state courts regardless of the merit of their claims, which costs us taxpayers. Thankfully it looks like the Court denied his application for a court appointed attorney, but he may be correct that he can attempt to refile again; many times that is the case. The County will have to spend more money to defend itself against him, even if we taxpayers saved the cost of providing an attorney for him.