― Walter Scott
It was noted for some of the past few days that I would explain some points concerning the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Law.
Let me start with the current Lawsuit sitting down in P'burg Circuit Court under the control of one Mr. Beane. I have no illusions but that I will have that case dismissed also. The last hearing was 20 July. Maybe is a bit harder for Mr. Beane to just dismiss out of hand as I felt my arguments were actually quite good in spite of me versus all of them?
There are four points that I have for any future actions once the case is done. Two I can not discuss as they concern the Bench and its actions. Two are in the case denied by the City/ Mr. Rapp, yet are now apparently in play as are most after a case gets dismissed. Although in this case even while still pending? It has been said that the Judges will make a decision, sit on it for a while before it goes down to the Circuit Court Clerk to be entered into the Record? There too, it has been said that the Circuit Court Clerk will not post a decision for some days? Why you ask? Because there is a time frame for filing an Appeal. If one misses that, it is a dead dog when it goes to the WVSC in Charleston. I became aware of it from three different cases/ Attorneys who noted it to me and one specific case where the Attorney failed to file in time and it got thrown out in Charleston. I normally try to go in at least once a week to get a Certified Copy of the Docket to see what if anything has been entered and I have not received any notice. Not fool proof, but about as good as it can get. Couple of times back, I listened as one clerk asked another if anything was not in the file? Response is all cases were entered except a stack by her. There were from 10- 15 folders piled up there.
The First one was my claim that I as the requestor had the right to request the format that a response was to be provided to me. I even noted it in my 24 October posting on Ms. Powell's comment on what the Government could or could not do. "If the records requested exist in magnetic, electronic or computer form, the custodian of the records shall make copies available on magnetic or electronic media, if so requested. (The three (3), most important words in the above two (2), sentences are "if so requested". This because YOU as the "Requestor" have the right to ask for any format YOU want IF it is available? NOT the Governmental Entity".
Now it was the position of the City/ Mr. Rapp and supported in the first Hearing in January 2018 that I did NOT have the above choice. Mr. Beane noted he could not find it in the Law. The City had in their 700 document response to me said they could do emails and dumped 12 emails with attachments into my email account even though I explicitly said "don't do it", and have requested paper copies for years. Each had several attachments and once I realized what had happened refused to even open any more of them up. Even then, I had only been opening the basic email and none of the attachments. They than offered me a CD which at first I thought maybe? But than I came to my senses and realized anything in the emails would just be copied onto the CD. I was very concerned about some sort of malware as the data sent to me was from many sources? I demanded yet again the paper copies and in this third request, I was given a stack of papers that turned out to be like 14 shuffled decks of cards. That's right 52 x 14= 728, every which way but loose.
The second issue that created a big brouhaha was that in the second Hearing, Ms. Barr signed an Affidavit saying that my request for documents under the Provisions of a Vaugh Index were not correct. I was NOT entitled to receive partially redacted documents. Now the Vaughn Index is a WVSC Ruling that a Government Entity cannot decide what a person can or can not receive as being too personal such as in the case of Medical Records. The Court under that Ruling has to review these documents before they are provided and personal data such as DOB, SSN, and so forth would be redacted to protect one under the HIPA Law. The HIPA Law is the one that you sign a release for every time you see a new Medical Office to allow for personal information to be released from them to whomever such as Insurance for billing purposes. My response to that was that was the exact reason for the Vaughn Index to determine what I could or could not receive?
Regardless, the above case is still pending on Mr. Beane's Docket.
Now, I did another FOIA in late September asking for what I thought would be about 40- 50 documents. Instead I get a Letter from the City that "We have some, but will need another 7- 10 days to get the rest". Than at the Public Hearing if I may be generous, Mr. Rapp gruffly told me that Ms. Barr would hold the documents for 10 days and than close the FOIA if I did not pick them up. I said that I had not received any email from her and would not open it in any case or go back and forth for a few documents. He than told me it was about another 700 documents.
That is right, another 700 "paper" documents. I thought the City was just dumping the same 700 from the Case already in play. But got a letter on Monday and went down anyway to get whatever. It turned out to be 700 pages of mostly redacted documents. That means as most of you know a little or a lot may be blacked out to protect information. I believe this clearly proves there were hundreds more I should have received for the case now pending and the City knowingly refused to provide them.
These are two (2) or the four (4) points I was contesting in the pending case. So I am wondering if the Judge and Defense Attorney(s) are having more meetings and leaving me out as has been the case before? And realized I was correct that I could request how I received documents? And I could receive redacted ones also? For those two reasons, I think Mr. Beane is hard pressed to find against me? BUT, it is NOT uncommon as I said before that once a case is dismissed for the City to begin doing what it got sued for to begin with?
AND, this will now make it easier for any of you to also have that choice of how to receive and even if some information would be redacted? It does NOT have to be medical. It can be some that the City claims is Proprietary from a Manufacturer/ Supplier/ Government Entity. When in TRUTH, not all of it is. Remember that the U.S. Legislative Branches are both fighting the DOJ and the FBI for documents that have turned out to be redacted just to protect wrongdoing by the DOJ/ FBI.
As I have noted above and several times in other postings, YOU have certain rights that the Government can not decide for you. I have spent 5 1/2 years dragging data out of the City and it is finally paying off little by little. It has cost me thousands of dollars, hundreds and hundreds of hours and intense pressure and disrespect from both the City Administration, the Courts and people like Ms. Powell and the Group. But the Corruption that has been done and the attempts to hide it are coming into the light. Mr. Conley and Mr. Elam can believe Mr. Leach and Mr. Skogstad all they want, but I will stand by what I have in hand as of today.
Tomorrow, I am going to point out some very interesting data that while even redacted points out the extent the City will go to hide information. 'nuff said'.