Notice the law 50-18-72. It looks good until you read the complete section of the law. It reads "(iv) Any plan, blueprint, or other material which if made public could compromise security against sabotage, criminal, or terroristic acts."
Can you just break up the complete law to make it fit? I believe the "other material" is related to "any plan, or blueprint." Which disciplinary reports would not fall under. Although the law states that these reports are public records.
Here is the complete list of what you can't release for open records. This is the 50-18-72 code:
For the complete open records law see the link sections.
Will post more.
21 comments:
Needless to say, I'm not that easily baffled by bullshit.
I sent off another registered letter the same day I received the first non-response.
They were advised to feel free to redact all info such as the officer's address, D.O.B, SSN, etc., but to send me the requested copies of any disciplinary actions or counseling from his file.
I should receive the next insult to my intellignece within the next 24 to 48 hours.
I'll keep you posted.
Jay,
I will post the rest tonight. I started looking up the law last night and never got yo the rest of the papers.
Since when is somebodies discipline reports considered a blue print. Wouldn't you agree that when put in context, this statue does not even apply to your request.
Here, cut and pasted, is the exact language from the O.C.G.A. which they cite.
(iv) Any plan, blueprint, or other material which if made public could compromise security against sabotage, criminal, or terroristic acts.
This comes way down the line on a long list of things which may be legally withheld from disclosure.
It would be clear tyo any HONEST fool that "or other material," in this context, means other material of the same informative nature as the previoulsly referenced "plan," or "blueprint" (i.e., a "schematic" of a security system's wiring.)
This clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with my request, as will become apparent to readers as soon as you post my original request.
This is just another example of why Big THUG Willie so richly deserves his moniker. He and his upper echelon staff have utter nad complete contempt for any laws they find inconvenient as well as for the electorate of this county.
Remeber, this is the same crowd that often intoes the letters "D.A.R.E." in voodoo-like ceremonial blessings of patently illegal expenditures of drug funds. What else would you expect from these people?
Here, again cut and pasted, from the actual O.C.G.A., is the language which does outline what may (and should) be legally redacted from the information I have requested.
(13) Records that would reveal the home address or telephone number, social security number, or insurance or medical information of employees of the Department of Revenue, law enforcement officers, judges, scientists employed by the Division of Forensic Sciences of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, correctional employees, and prosecutors or identification of immediate family members or dependents thereof;
Perhaps Officer Mills will step forward and demand release of his records.
I am curious to Jay's continuous attempt at this officers personnel file and disciplinary actions. Who is this guy and how is he so important to your crusade? I remember the "back and forth" between "him" (Deputy Mills)and Jay on the blog, but I still do not understand his importance to your "quest".
Wouldn't it seem you would focus your attention more on the "facts" rather than trying to "stir up dust" on something that doesn't exist?
I am baffled as to what Jay's intentions are regarding his "New Venture" in now going after a deputy.
Who is this guy and why is he so important to you? Why don't you just request all of the deputies records...then you would have them all when you were ready to use them....what is so special about Deputy Mills?
I find it funny that you question Jay in his venture to get the disciplinary reports, which is his right and he has the right to get them, but you don't question the Sheriff ignoring the law. Why do you continue to question those who obey the law yet you give a pass on the Sheriff who continues to ignore the law.
The question should be why does the Sheriff continue to tell lies and refuse access to public record as set fourth in the Open Records Law.
Can you read? Did you see were the Sheriff chopped up the law and used the piece that fit. DO YOU THINK THAT IS OK.
Would it be OK for one of the other deputies to give us this info, even though the Sheriff refuses.
You are till protecting those who can't follow the oath they took.
No, Ill leave a thorough review of all employee records up to the next sheriff.
You'll just have to remain baffled (although I don't believe for a nano-second that you actually are) until such time as I receive the records, one way or another. Then, all will become clear.
By the way, Wanda Easterling signed for my second request on Monday, 9/24/07.
The clock runs out tomorrow, 9/27, at close of business.
Stay tuned.
Jay,
Just got off the phone with the Attorney Generals Office. It is illegal to pick apart a law to meet your objective. This is an open records violation, but the penalty for using a false law is greater than just a normal violation. It show they intentionly held records that they knew they had to release.
Send them this and put it to the attention of Stephan Ritter.
Rick,
I don't think at all I stated that I DID NOT question anything about the sheriff. I have always said if he does wrong or has done wrong, then he should be held accountable and penalties dealt to him as seen fit. If he picked apart a section of law, then he did, and any penalty set forth that would deal with that should be dealt.
The basis behind my question was why is it every other week or two, there is a "new kid on the block" to go after. What is the basis of his reasoning for going after Deputy Mills or any other deputy for that matter. He (and you) have always stated your main issue is with the Sheriff and that you do not attack the deputies and those serving....UNLESS...you have PROOF, that there was wrong doing....am I correct?
So my question to Jay was what is the reason...(or proof) that this deputy did something wrong that has lead to this big issue in requesting disciplinary records.
Jay, did not answer my question to him....he gave me about as good an answer as "In A Dance Hall Daze" gave you guys when you asked about the so called lies you have told.
If he HAS information, he has never been withholding in releasing his info before. Is there any info?....or is he "searching"? That is what I am getting at. I never said he couldn't ask for it, if it's legal....let him, that is not what I was questioning....the motive is what I am questioning.
Just for the record, there is no "motive" test in the law, either.
However, I think that the question as to the motivation of the low life bastard Thuggie behind my getting an inquiry from Social Security today as to my status - three years ahead of schedule - is quite obvious.
Took me all of five minutes and all is well. Nice try, but remember - you bastards will have to literally kill me to silence me.
First off I didn't call you any names, so if you are referencing back to me do not include me in your "name calling".
Second, I will assume (though I hate to assume) that you have proof as to your allegation on who or why you were inquired on 3 years early.
Third, so in essence it is not because he has done anything wrong regarding the Sheriffs Office or his job......it is strictly personal.
Just curious.....and don't start the name calling....I have never called you any names Jay.
Igneous Brain 23,
Reread, slowly and carefully.
You will note that I just got the letter from the Social Security Administration TODAY.
There is no correlation between my request for the records in question and someone having contacted Social Security as was threatened over on Topix.
Try to keep up - or better yet, don't.
Nice Jay,
Trying to have a conversation and you get pissed off and start name calling. Funny, how you call people out when they cuss or call people names but it is OK for you to do it. I have never called you a name or popped off with smart ass comments to you at all. I asked you not to do it and you did.......I have seen this numerous times from you but you never did it to me, we always had respectful conversations on these blogs. Well, you now have tried me and started the childish name calling bullshit I respectfully asked you not to do and started with the comments stating "try to keep up - or better yet don't". All I did was question you as I have in the past and you "Bill Clinton" it with smart ass comments and smoke screen half ass answers. Don't start the pop off game.
First, if the two of you are going to talk like that take it to Topix and keep it off my blog or i will delete the comments.
Second, My motive is to find the truth. If Mr. mills is telling the truth there will be nothing in the report on it. But since the Sheriff has used less than ethical tactics I can say even if we do get the report it most likely won't be complete. That is the Sheriff's fault. Once you lie and try to cover things up with laws that don't apply, you lose the trust of people. And a lot people don't trust him anymore.
Rock,
How many times have you heard the Sheriff say he has gotton permission from the State or Federal Govts. All the time. I ask for a copy of those authorizations and now they don't exist. How many times have any government agency given verbal permission to spend money. Never. It is by law suppossed to be in writing and always has been.
So where are they? Now if you read yesterdays Tribune he state he never used any money outside of the law. I think we have all proven that as a lie. And once the grand jury is set again in Nov. I think you will some indictments handed down.
Rick,
I agree with you. And like I have said before, if the sheriff did something wrong, he should pay the price.
Sorry about the "talk".....your boy started it.
Yeah, you're right: a man can hardly let profanity like "Igneous Brain 23" go unanswered.
"IF the sheriff did something wrong?"
What will it take - an announcement by an archangel?
A signed confession on the side of the Goodyear blimp?
What?
G.I. Jay,
If you feel better calling me "Igneous Brain 23" go ahead. Funny how you pick apart what I say, I will break it down for you, if ANYONE does something wrong, they should suffer what consequences come along with it. Whether it be the Sheriff or you. I have stated that to Rick and everyone else on these blogs. I hold no allegiance to anyone in office, just stating my opinion. I like everyone else want law abiding upsatnding individuals to serve in public office. The facts...not sure if there is any. It's politics, and with that comes BS. But, I hold true to believe that there are better options out there whether it is for Sheriff, County Commission, City Council, President of the US, whatever.
Obviously, I struck a cord, trying to be polite and have some friendly banter with you and others, and you result to playground name calling, which is fine, I can play along too.
Do you believe in archangels G.I. Jay? I think we had the religios conversation already.....funny thing was you resulted to playground antics there. Actually respected your opinion, didn't agree, but respected it.
Sorry Rick, your boy G.I., must have had his Tiddly Winks stolen or something.
Sorry, forgot a 2 words
Do you believe in archangels G.I. Jay? I think we had the religious conversation already.....funny thing was you DID NOT result to playground antics there. Actually respected your opinion, didn't agree, but respected it.
Oh, the contortions these poor KoolAid gulping thuggies have to go to in order to deflect (well, try to, anyway) attention away from the blatant, documented malfeasance in office of their hero, Sheriff William E. Smith.
One suspects that these folks would have made great little heel-clicking, goose-stepping, oven-tending, order following Nazis.
Cherio - I'm off to commune with more intelligent life forms for a few hours.
Well, I've received my mail for today: no response from BTW on my second FOI letter.
Rick, go ahead and e-mail me that contact information for the state AG's office.
Thanks.
I have seen the viper at station 12.It is sitting there as pretty as can be. Except for the cob webs and dust.needs to be cleaned up and sold.
Post a Comment