Jonathan Owens Wants County Taxpayers to Fund His Legal Defense in a SECOND Matter He is Facing....

Former county employee Jonathan Owens, who worked for disgraced former commissioner Doug Underhill as his office secretary, has now sent the county a second request for taxpayer funded legal defense for a second matter he is apparently defending.  

He (Owens) sent this latest request in an email to Administrator Wes Moreno and County Attorney Alison Rogers yesterday evening at 6:30.

In the email he sent he describes this latest issue as some kind of new complaint that he is defending, and he references recent communication(s) with an "investigator" over this issue which he believes necessitates another taxpayer funded legal defense.

As I said in an earlier post when Jonathan Owens requested the taxpayers foot the bill for legal problems he has brought upon himself by unlawfully possessing personal identification information on five or more persons to which he is not entitled------------why should he be entitled to this?

I mean, when he proudly admitted reading, keeping, and disseminating personal identification information unredacted on five or more persons on Tallman McKay's Radio Show in August and also in the PNJ---he said he didn't need "no stinkin' lawyer" then!

Why does he think he's entitled to one now?

I don't think he'll get three votes for this, I don't think the taxpayers should fund his activities that appear to be criminal and NOT at all related to his former job as Doug's secretary.

Have the PNJ--and Others that Possess Stolen County Files Unlawfully--- Committed a Felony?

 Today's hatchet piece in the PNJ was not entirely surprising to me.  They were named, along with two others, in the county's lawsuit over stolen county records.  They knew that the files they received were stolen.  They have been told the files have been manipulated.  They have published anyway.

The Judge in the case has called a hearing and it will come soon.  The Gannett lawyers assigned took great umbrage to this, according to what I have been told today from staff.

I'm told lawyers for Gannett have even actually called the county attorney's office in advance of the soon to occur court proceeding with BS garbage about why they are entitled to hang onto these un-redacted, stolen county files that contain personal identification information on five individuals or more. They are the "media"--that's why!

The problem for them is---nobody has been able to find a single exception to the Florida Statutes that speak to personal identification information being  possessed, unauthorized, by the "media".  

There isn't one.  

Gannett's lawyers probably know that, thus the first of what will be many hatchet jobs as they seek to maximize the damage they attempt to cause with the stolen, manipulated county property they possess unlawfully.

Here's what the relevant statute,  § 817.5685 , says.  No "exception" for media outlets so far as I can tell.

Meanwhile, the PNJ has been served with an order to show cause as the county's lawsuit for replevin and conversion regarding stolen county files is moving rapidly through Escambia's court system.  It is coming up quickly, scheduled for February 5th.

Discovery and depositions are coming--get ready!

Thus, it is not surprising to see their (PNJ's) hamfisted hatchet piece online today--where they once again place me in a false light with actual malice by snipping and cutting purported text messages from the stolen county file they have in their possession (that they know has been manipulated)--putting exchanges out of chronological order purposely and glossing over the fact I was telling anyone and everyone my plan to bring Perdido Key back to D1 once the board decided to rush through the redistricting in a shortened timeframe.  I said it directly to my peers on the board at the first workshop in September of 2021 in no uncertain terms---so  to attempt to convince readers I have acted unlawfully and violated the state's sunshine law by discussing something I had already stated at an open advertised meeting as well as on the radio prior to discussions with a citizen is preposterous and ridiculous.  

That assertion is wrong, and PNJ knows it. It's garbage rubbish and they know it.

These files are manipulated, they know this, too and again the chronological order of the conversations in their hit piece is changed by the PNJ.  On top of this fact--in order to make the reader believe unlawful, shady, unethical requests are being made---the reality of the situation is that in the timeline PNJ shared with the readers it is quickly apparent that before this particular text exchange happened I had already told all board members my intention----in public meeting(s)-----to go back to the year 2000 district lines again where Perdido Key was in District 1!!!!  I'd also discussed it on the radio and publicly at an advertised meeting.

I also did a blog post on this topic three weeks before the redistricting meeting on October 5th.

It wasn't a mystery--certainly not to the other board members.

They (PNJ) leave that out purposely and conveniently, put conjecture in, change the timeline, and add in opinions from ill-infomed individuals on the sunshine law to add "credibility" to their attack, and insinuate I have done something illegal.  It is all garbage though-- a false light attack with actual malice.

This is par for the course with them: they (PNJ) are throwing spaghetti at the wall--because they know that there is likely to be a temporary restraining order issued to curtail their selected release of stolen, manipulated, unverified, and unredacted county files that they and others possess unlawfully.

So they'll likely be priniting a raft of similar stories, based upon these stolen files, over the next several weeks ahead of a potential temporaty restraining order that will prevent them from continuing to publish stories based upon these stolen files--but will rather force them to acquire public records the proper way----by requesting them like everyone else has to do.

That all said, though----------- the most important development to come from PNJ's B.S. garbage pile hit-piece today is the news that yes, they, (PNJ) do indeed have a complete copy of my downloaded iPhone.  They admitted it by posting this picture:

Prior to this article and this picture being published by the PNJ today--there was some question as to whether or not a complete copy of my iphone had been stolen unredacted from the county's servers.

 Jonathan Owens clammed up when approached by investigators--although he has mentioned multiple times in the media that he has a "jump drive".  Others have lawyered up.  So nobody knew one way or the other for sure-------------------until today---------------that all of the phone backup files had been stolen and disseminated unlawfully.  Thanks, PNJ, for confirmation!  

There was suspicion, but not confirmation, until today.    

So that will be more good information to develop questions for the coming depositions in the civil trial where folks won't be able to "not answer."  Can't wait for that.

Meanwhile-- with today's publication of this picture  above (which I verified was on my original, unadulterated, unmanipulated download from the county this evening when I got home from work)---we now know that whomever it was that has possessed this file not only possessed it unlawfully but also at a Felony level due to the fact that the pictures on this file contain personal identification information on at least five individuals, as stipulated in Florida Statutes.

In addition to all of this, I am also aware now that others that possess this file have lied about it to authorities and there is compelling, new  information on this now being looked into by investigators.

The thing to remember is not to lie.  Tell the truth, or the truth will find you.

Lie to the FBI and all bets are off.  period.  That's a felony and they don't like being lied to.  And it doesn't matter what title you hold or what office you occupy.

Lie to the FBI ad it is a felony. Could be a career ender.

So don't do it.

So What Does Fla. Stat. § 817.5685 Say, and What Does it Mean?

In the iconic opening credits sequence
of 1977's Saturday Night Fever, John
Travolta "struts" down the New York
street, carrying a can of paint.

I'm not a lawyer but I know several of them and I can read.  

So when I read the letter sent to law enforcement by the County Attorney in the aftermath of the recent data breach/theft of county records from the IT department-----I paid close attention to it.  The letter was sent to the State Attorney's Office in June, and a certain statute referenced in there piqued my interest. § 817.5685.  

This theft of information from the county which prompted the letter-- which breach subsequently led to confidential, private, privileged information being unlawfully possessed and disseminated by former county employee Jonathan Owens, a fact that he himself has admitted on the radio and in the news paper and a fact the attorneys for Rayme Edler have also confirmed --this theft is now being investigated by law enforcement.

And I am confident the authorities will find the guilty party who stole this protected, exempt information--whoever it was.

But even if someone other than Jonathan Owens actually stole the information and records (which I do not believe), and simply provided them to Jonathan while he was an employee of the county, as he, Jonathan, has publicly stated--it does not absolve Jonathan of any wrongdoing under this statute--because  according to this statute--the operative word is "possessed". Jonathan admitted to the PNJ in this article and on the radio on Tallman McKay's show that he not only read the text file and continues to possess it--- he's also  subsequently given it to others un-redacted. 

Because  he read it--Jonathan knew or should have known it contained exempt and personal identification information that should not only never be released--it should never even be possessed by anyone not specifically authorized to have it.  Jonathan is not authorized to have it--and he knows it.  

A thorough review of this file that Jonathan Owens unlawfully possessed, read, and then released un-redacted has now been completed--- and it has been revealed that this file contains more than 100 lines of exempt information.  (social security numbers of multiple persons, bank account numbers of multiple persons, loan numbers of multiple persons,  medical conditions, diagnoses and prognoses records of at least a dozen local citizens, security codes, access codes for premises, medical records and diagnoses on dependents on the county's medical plan as well as confidential medical information on citizens unaffiliated with the county that live out of state, privileged attorney client conversations,  and other sensitive information that would NEVER be released under any public records request, ever.).  

So why would someone who has handled a literal ton of public records requests (Owens, who was disgraced former D2 commissioner Doug Underhill's personal secretary and office manager) and who purportedly knows the rules and laws on this topic--supposedly------why would he release such information unredacted in contravention to Florida law?  Who knows, but he seems awfully proud about it.  Super proud and confident.  Almost as if he's strutting about it, like John Travolta in the opening scenes of "Saturday Night Fever." 

So What Does Fla. Stat. § 817.5685 Say, and What Does it Mean, and what penalties does it describe for violation, anyway?

Here is the relevant portion of the statute, verbatim

"817.5685 Unlawful possession of the personal identification information of another person.—

(1) As used in this section, the term “personal identification information” means a person’s social security number, official state-issued or United States-issued driver license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, Medicaid or food assistance account number, bank account number, credit or debit card number, and medical records.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to intentionally or knowingly possess, without authorization, the personal identification information of another person in any form, including, but not limited to, mail, physical documents, identification cards, or information stored in digital form.

(3)(a) A person who violates subsection (2) and in doing so possesses the personal identification information of four or fewer persons commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b)1. Proof that a person used or was in possession of the personal identification information of five or more individuals, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person who used or was in possession of the personal identification information did so knowingly and intentionally without authorization.

2. A person who violates subsection (2) and in doing so possesses the personal identification information of five or more persons commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."