 |
| I was informed yesterday that the FBI Investigation into who stole county records is still open......... |
"Where's the FBI on their investigation?"
Curiously--this was a question that was asked of my by the State Attorney's Office (SAO) two weeks ago when I spoke to them. I was talking to the SAO about what I could/could not say with respect to the "No True Bill" that had been handed down by the Grand Jury earlier that week--- vindicating me of any wrongdoing surrounding stolen text messages from my phone.
At the time it seemed like a curious question for the State Attorney's office to ask of me---as the FBI investigation into who stole and unlawfully disseminated unredacted personal identification information from the county has been going on for just shy of one full year. Actually, Tuesday the 11th will make one full year.
On the 11th if June last year--I met with the FBI and the County Administrator in my office where both Administrator Moreno and I signed blanket release forms allowing the search of all the county files the FBI had confiscated that day--"for evidence of any crime." We both signed it on the spot.
So why's the SAO asking me what the FBI is doing? Surely that matter, the FBI's investigation into stolen county files, must have been concluded by now I thought?
So I asked a question back of the SAO and did not really get a good answer. "Has the investigation from the FBI not been given over to the State Attorney yet?" I asked.
I didn't get a good answer.
So I waited a couple of weeks.
Monday and Wednesday of this week I called my FBI POC, the investigator assigned to this. I left a series of messages explaining to him that the county has a fairly significant hearing on Monday and "if
the investigation was complete, we would like a copy of it and how can we do that" was the flavor of the message.The county is currently engaged in civil litigation to seek return of files to the county from those individuals and one company who we know have unlawful possession of these unredacted, stolen county files containing personally identifiable information (passports, driver's licenses, medical records, social security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc. on more than a dozen citizens and former county employees ). It is a steep hill to climb in civil court, using 17th century legal constructs (replevin and conversion) typiclly utilized to compel the return of physical property----- for the 21st century problem of compelling the return of intangible, digital data from folks that possess it unlawfully. Although there is precedent and case law directly on point that illustrates replevin and conversion is an appropriate remedy for intangible property as well as physical property--and those cases are plainly cited in the County's legal filings. (United States v. Navarro, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2023 WL 2424625 *11-12 (D. D.C. 2023), SEIU Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership v. Evergreen Freedom Foundation, 427 P. 3d 688, 696-97 (Ct. App. Wash. 2018).
So I am trying to get the latest on the potential criminal investigation as perhaps this can be of assistance in our civil litigation.
I am also trying to figure out why in the world I was put through the ringer on politically motivated, unsubstantiated allegations and accusations I committed a second degree misdemeanor (which I didn't -- and have now been cleared from) when Jonathan Owens ADMITS on radio and in print he maintains possession of stolen files that contain massive quanitities of personal identification information ---the mere possession of which, unauthorized, is a FELONY.
Yesterday I received a written response (s) from the FBI which indicated, in part, the following:
"..conversations are happening between the federal side and the
state side, my investigation is still open; meaning that no records can be
disseminated. Furthermore, even if the case was closed, as I mentioned in
months past, you would have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
to obtain the records. The FBI does not release reports outside FOIA a request
and the FBI does not fall under the purview of Florida’s Sunshine Law.At such
point the case is referred/presented to the state and/or closed, I will notify
you so you can begin to take appropriate action..At this time, it still has not
been transferred to the state."
So the FBI investigation is still open.
But why does the SAO need it at all-----since Jonathan Owens has already publicly admitted he possesses these files unredacted and when this mere possession of this much PII on so many county personnel by persons unauthorized is a FELONY?
They don't need the FBI investigation to see this with their own eyes.
What are they waiting for?
It's a question I will keep asking.
Beacause people don't do their job.
ReplyDeleteFor instance Century is using federal ARP funds to give money to a network in South Florida instead of using it as intended.The municipality also hasn't turned in the audit to the state for the past year as required by law. They in the past don't include federal grants on the audit nor even some of the state ones. Where is the SAO on all that?
Why would anyone do differently -- when no one does their job to ensure accountability?
The commission could have it on the ballot to disincorporate, and your friend Saltzman, the State rep could call for legislation to remedy the situation. But she doesnt do her job there. Every one passes the buck. Smiles for the camera, gives lip service and does nothing. Barry plays dumb.
The state attn could look at the past Grand Jury report or even assemble another one, but they don't.
Making 8, getting a paycheck.
Seems to be the same here.
So people can steal files and possess them while people in position of accountability do nothing, Century takes federal money and gives it away.
Then they smile and say "vote for me"
Grifters everywhere.
Once the case for Edler is closed, perhaps the FBI figured they could go get a donut on free donut day and call it done.
What happened to our government.
We have a republic, if only we could keep it.
Keep asking. Squeaky wheels get the oil.
Meanwhile Rome is burning, our county struggles and you fight your vindictive battles
ReplyDeleteWhy is it not registering in your head lol. The Replevin was DENIED, by the judge. The current court date is on the basis that the judges DISMISSES the cases and the litigants that won the Denial are made whole. As Far as the FBI goes, the FBI is an investigative agency, they compile all the evidence and hand it over to the SAO, then they appoint a special counsel/prosecutor from the SAO. Your not out of the woods yet lol!!!
ReplyDeleteOur county struggles like all counties in Florida right now because our legislature and DeSantis and his administration are burning the state down with their negligence, special interest, corruption, seizure of home rule, and lawlessness.
ReplyDeleteAsking the agencies that nonethless are entrusted with enforcing our rule of law to carry out those duties objectively and equally has nothing to do with spite. Any reasonable and responsible person should be concerned about someone who boasts of their crimes to the media not being prosecuted for those crimes. Any other opinion is absurd.
12:58 Rome is not burning and I fight no vindictive battles. You are delusional. County records were stolen and disseminated inappropriately and frankly--illegally. Although I made good faith efforts to save all public records--bad actors and dishonest politicians and wanna be politicians pushed for an investigation of me. I passed that test because I break no laws--but nevertheless My family is/was affected negatively by this in many ways. Three of my family members have now had fraud on their accounts. So get back to me when this happens to you, someone steals something of yours that is illegal for them to even possess (like three years of your phone's data including 1600 color pictures of passports, driver's licenses, credit cards, bank accounts, and medical records--- and these bad actors laugh in the collective faces of the authorities and boast about maintaining possession of such files in BLATANT violation of 817.5685---- and these bad actors apparently face no consequences--even though mere possession of this much PII is a FELONY by those who are unauthorized to possess it.
ReplyDelete12:29 you have a fundamental misunderstanding of where we are in this process. Read this carefully for your full edification. The judge denied the pre-judgment writ of replevin, nothing more, nothing less. The hearing on Monday is on the defendants' collective motion(s) to dismiss based upon what they believe is a lack of legal sufficiency of the county's complaint--not on their clients' innocence. The facts necessary for the motion to dismiss they seek is a high bar to meet, the county's motion overcomes the defendants' arguments and I do not think the defendants' will prevail on their motion. But we will see and the Judge will make the call--not you or 15 legal "experts" on a facebook chat site.....
ReplyDeleteIf the judge Denied the “Pre-trail” Replevin lol, what makes you think he won’t side with the litigants, on the motion to dismiss. It’s funny you mention legal experts, you and your side piece (Mel) offer your legal opinions daily on this blog and you been wrong a number of times lol. I guess we will see what the judges decides but one can predict from what’s already transpired that he will dismiss this case!!!!
DeleteIt’s not a motion to dismiss. It’s three motions for sanctions against the county for filing a bogus lawsuit. Your writ of mandamus was denied. The conversion part is moot.
ReplyDelete2:12 and 1:36 you're both really confused. Judge didn't issue the pre trial writ of replevin but was careful in his wording to indicate this did not mean that at the end of the trial that would not change. Remember--this is complex, it's not a judge looking at Festus' tractor and being able to read the serial number to determine the tractro really belongs to Jethro and ordering the replevin, pre-trial, until all the facts could be worked out. This is quite a bit more complex than that. Go read his order. It is a hearing on a motion to dismiss--don't know how you could see it any other way, and there was no mandamus sought in this case--you're both mixed-up, discombobulated and confused. So the judge will do what he does, but a motion to dismiss is a HIGH BAR to meet--meaning the plaintiff has brought no colorable argument supporting the suit. High bar. Now, go figure out what all these words mean so you won't sound so dang glib......
ReplyDeleteMore tax dollars wasted on a personal vendetta. This is becoming a negative trend in Pensacola.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to post about Doug’s vindication as well?
ReplyDeleteIt was a 3 to 2. 718. Smooth talking Doug talked his way out of it. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteToo bad, now him and the person behind his profile, who by the way is the real problem have resurfaced typing their propaganda and showing who they are. Notice no one cares, via the lack of comments on the PNJ article he probably wrote himself.
The bad thing is the Governor didn't remove him before his term was up. No need to clog up the ethics board with a person non grata.