 |
| Andrew Tallman (alias McKay) Thinks his Pensacola Listeners are dumb. |
Local morning radio opinion host Andrew Tallman (pseudonym/alias Andrew McKay) has a credibility problem.
Sure, he's not dumb. And he entertains with a morning drive opinion show that actually attracts a small audience.
But for someone who proclaims he's been everywhere, done everything, seen everything, and knows everything a la Walter Mitty--- and he'll be the first one to say that to you---he sure must think a lot of his Pensacola listeners are dumb.
Case in point from just yesterday.
Tallman plays selected snippets from an Ethics Hearing in Tallahassee from last week where former Escambia County employee Jonathan Owens was on the bottom end of a 5-0 vote (by neutral commissission members from around the state).
Tallman wants you to believe this five member board and the state's prosecutor got it wrong, though.
But this unbiased, fact finding, deciding Commission on Ethics is appointed by the Governor and they are all from out of our area. They don't know Tallman, me, or Jonathan Owens.
And on Friday this neutral, unbiased board voted unanimously to endorse the state's opinion that probable cause exists that Owens violated state ethics law.
Tallman wants you to believe they got that wrong, though!!
But here are the facts for you and Tallman: Owens sent stolen county records with protected information (he acquired when he was a county employee) unredacted, to entities out of state. He admits to doing it on the radio and in the PNJ saying it would be "helpful" to a law firm suing Escambia County.
It was an open and shut hearing, very cut and dried.
But Andrew Tallman McKay wants you to believe they got that wrong, Dummy!!!
No debate, only two questions for Owens' attorney, and the Ethics Commission voted unanimously against Owens, his attorney's, (and Tallman's) side------ and supported the Bergosh side of the story. ( I filed the ethics complaint against Owens after he admitted possession of stolen files that appears to be a felony under 817.5685)
Tallman thinks it was a bad decision, though!!! He likes Jonathan Owens and dislikes Jeff Bergosh.
Now, among the snippets of sound Tallman played yesterday where his contention and opinion is that this is just Jeff Bergosh "harassing" Jonathan Owens--he (Tallman) mysteriously leaves out the most damning part of the state's case against Owens: Owens sent the entire file to attorneys who are suing the county, and in those files were unredacted, attorney client conversations about this particular case that would have never been released to the other side, ever. They were protected, attorney client conversations Jonathan sent the other side--which was a huge benefit to them and their case.
Yes, Tallman didn't mention that all important piece that came directly from page 4 of the state's brief against Owens:
"The disseminated information contained approximately 60,000 lines of texts, and approximately 12 pages of texts with three pages of texts between County Attorney Alison Rogers that directly addressed the Edler litigation"
So, how can self-anointed "super lawyer" Tallman leave that all-important fact out of this segment? It's the lynchpin of the case that the state will have an easy time making but that Tallman doesn't want you to see or know.
Why? Because Tallman doesn't want you to know, he just wants you to believe what he tells you, adopt his opinions and swallow everything he dishes out to you because he is smarter than you, smarter than anyone in Pensacola, and he thinks his listeners are dumb.
But you're not dumb.
You can perceive the fact that this whole episode smells funny when you look at the plain facts of reality that are well documented...
1. Owens was the only commissioner's secretary on the 4th floor that "received" this stick drive containing stolen county records pertaining to his former rival Jeff Bergosh.
2. Owens is the only commissioner's secretary that previously ran against Jeff Bergosh (in 2020) for Commissioner and LOST.
3. Instead of returning the stolen files to the owner (Jeff Bergosh) like a normal human would do--- or going to the County Attorney or the Information Technology Office with what "turned up" in his office (stolen county files)-----he instead read it, knew it contained personal data not releasable under Florida Law, and also that it contained attorney client information that would potentially damage the County's position in current litigation. What did he do?--he sent it, unredacted, to lawyers suing the county and upon leaving county employment he "held onto it."
4. Owens admits disseminating the file unredacted to atttorney's suing the county because he "thought it would be helpful [to their case against Escambia County]."
So as the Ethics Commissioners rightly ruled unanimously---this thing appears to be a slam dunk case of Owens violating 112.313(8).
Don't worry though, Tallman thinks you are dumb and will tell you this is just Jeff Bergosh "harassing" Jonathan Owens for no good reason!
He knows 95% of ethics complaints are unfounded and never even get to the point where Owens' case is now--but he won't tell you that either.
Because he really thinks you are dumb.
Are you?
I predict the advocate will seek, and will eventually win, a $20,000 civil fine from Owens for this egregious conduct that continues.
I guess we'll see who are rational and right, and who are the dummies in this whole sordid matter, on August 20th.
Or sooner.
Unbelievable--he has actually outdone himself. What an absolute load of horse crap.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part is when he's getting ready to cut to commercial and does this "Oh and by the way" schtick as the music is rolling:
"Full disclosure, Jonathan's a good friend, okay? So I don't want you to think I'm some neutral arbiter in all of this. I try my best to assess these things as a neutral person would....that's kind of my training as a philosopher."
Ah yes, Andrew. Your brand is better known as sophistry, and let me guess your favorite chapter was the Schoolmen.
How about a breakdown of the breakdown McKay has provided, focused on the 4 points of the statute that Jonathan has broken--all four of them, clearly broken--with Jonathan's "good friend" just doing his best to assess his crime neutrally. And how many of the 4 points of the law meet Jonathan's actions, according to Andrew?
You guessed it, none of them. Not a single one of the four. Totally blameless babe in the woods that one. Blinking away tears through the snowflakes in his eyelashes.
1. He didn't obtain the stolen private property and confidential County record because of his job at the County. He just claims it was slipped under his office door, no wait, it landed on his desk behind a locked door. Except Jonathan stated in his request for legal to be paid by the County that is happened during to the course of his employment. IT'S IN THE AGENDA BACKUP MCKAY. You know how to get to the backup, right? Now there's a *real* paradox for you, Andrew.
2. The public wouldn't have had access to same confidential information. McKay first says, But the public *would* have access to all the public record (which is, of course, *not* what the ethics probable cause is about) and then says the public does have access to it because the PNJ has it. I guess I missed where the PNJ posted the entire contents of the phone for the public to access.
3. He provided them to someone else. No getting around this, so McKay just glosses over it. And well he should, because his opinion that "the parts that are inconvenient [for Commissioner Bergosh] are all public record and/or of public interest" of course begs the question of whether his Good Friend has shown him the file that is beyond the public record.
4. It could have resulted in individual benefit to him or someone else. McKay keeps the focus here on dithering about Jonathan being gerrymandered, poor guy hasn't said he's gonna run again, boo hoo, and keeps the attention away from the fact that Jonathan admitted publicly, ON MCKAY'S SHOW, that he gave it to a past employee BECAUSE IT MIGHT HELP HER IN HER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY.
2.
ReplyDeleteEven better, he repeats the yarn that makes people think of poor Jonathan being stuck in a house that used to be in District 1 but is now District 2. The only problem with that is, Jonathan moved out of that house, into a much nicer house--AFTER REDISTRICTING AND INTO A HOUSE IN DISTRICT 2. Not District 1. Because that was when Johnathan was setting his sites on being Chance Walsh's aide if Chance had won the D2 commissioner race, which is why Jonathan bought a place that nearly put him in Chance's lap, as any of Jonathan's Good Friends would be more than well aware.
He then wows his listeners with the (fake) paradox that his unfathomable philosopher's mind has been turning over, that (1) Jonathan didn't get his legal fees paid for for something he did while working at the County yet (2) the statute mandates that he had to obtain the confidential knowledge through the course of his government employment.
McKay--there's a reasonable, necessary caveat to that. If the employee's actions are egregiously harmful, the County does not have to pay for their legal fees. You know. Kind of like how the County dropped the legal for the 4 paramedics--because what they looked to have done was SO EGREGIOUS. Et voila, poof--no more legal. Except what happens when a number of them were being framed, and therefore have been exonerated by the judicial system? That's right. Then they get to come back to the County for reimbursement, as is their right by law.
Therefore, if Jonathan is exonerated by the Ethics Commission, he could make a case to come back for his legal. Doug was found guilty on several counts by the Ethics Committee, and fined 30 thousand dollars and recommended for removal, which is why nobody ever heard abouthim coming back to the County to pay for his legal on his ethics complaint. Something else you've never reported on, right Andrew? Because Doug was another Good Friend.
How's it coming with Stroberger? Good Friends with him yet?
Mel Pino--Absolutely spot on. Of course he knows he is lying. He just wants his small audience of listeners to believe HIS lies are actually true. And he's been "Svengalied" first by Disgraced former Commissioner Doug Underhill and now, apparently, also by Jonathan Owens. Yes, Tallman, it is everybody else's fault. "Poor Doug didn't do anything wrong, boo hoo those mean ethics commissioners that recommended he be removed from office and fined $35,000 ---those guys on that ethics board were merely bullying Doug!" ---Andrew Tallman (McKay). That's what he actually wants folks to believe. Doug and his boy Jonathan= pure as driven snow and everyone else, every judge that ruled against Doug and Jonathan, the ethics boards, the numerous citizens that sent ethics complaints in on these two---yes all those citizens and officials are "corrupt" according to what Tallman wants his listeners to think. Because Tallman thinks his listeners are Dummies. And they will slop up any garbage he throws them. Svengali job snakeoil salesman.....and a fraud, and a fake, and compromised, and unbiased, and annoying and obnoxious. Here's Tallman!
ReplyDeleteJust think, all this started with the drunk guy walking in front of a moving vehicle at night.
ReplyDeleteThe Never Ending Story.
11:32, point well taken, but it didn't actually start with that poor man and his mother.
ReplyDeleteIt started when a foolish, inept, and greedy past County Administrator shoe-horned Edler into the Medical Director job over the protestations of the County's then EMS Chief, who was later one of the people framed on certifications.
It was that action by a County "leader," and so many other County officials falling in line afterwards, that really initiated all of this. It wasn't the tragedy. It was the people willing to make use of it for their own longevity and livelihood.
And even before that, the same Administrator coming in with a wrecking ball on a very efficient EMS system, including playing politics with the Beach lifeguard unit and partnering with a certain Downtown player on a corrupt survey to force a replacement at the head of Public Safety.
There's a direct line between those decisions and right now. And it shoots through the next administrator sewing chaos to divide and conquer, and sooooooo many government officials just keeping their heads down so they can make that bank. I do not class Wes Moreno with those officials. But I do agree with the previous poster that it's long past due that any members of Team Edler in ANY division, be it Ethics and Compliance or Public Safety or anywhere else, are sent packing from the County.
No fricking wonder the County didn't come up with any of the results on the text investigation, considering who the lead investigator was. SMH.
Wow! Not sure if is more bat shit crazy, you or Pino
ReplyDeleteOh Mel cant help it she always talks about the Negative side. Gloom and doom does no good we cant change the past only learn from it. Lets try an look to the future and stay positive.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:00: If you believe, if you truly believe that to tell the TRUTH about the outcome of that ethics commission's proper and correct decision makes me (or anyone) "Bat Shit Crazy"(your words)--then you validate what Tallman believes about his audience. He honestly believes his audience is dumb.
ReplyDeleteYep, Mel. Brown not listening to White lead us to here also. Just listening to that interview posted in the sunshine was cringeworthy. In several ways.
ReplyDeleteThe conversation after was actually discriminatory toward the veteran.
Plus Brown consolidating 2 jobs to make the medical director draw the salary of 2 people was a contributing factor to the prima donna girl vibe. With lawyers on speed dial throwing letters and AMA forms around to tryto force the BCC was wild.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj5L9SYhoSE
Add sugar daddy ex politico hospital board member in the mix not helpful. Little eyelash flutters and boo hooing goes a long way.
So yes little novelette here...
However there are gray areas. Lazy fat slobs not getting CEU IS a problem. Drama queens making a big deal about that on facebook.
But back to the point.
Using one's position to get information not open to the public and using it to procure a favor for a friend or drinking buddy or hell, romance possibility is no no.
Tallman may think his audience is stupid or really, the possibility is he is stupid himself.