Statement on the Order......

This afternoon the Board received word that the Okaloosa County Judge that was handling the Replevin and conversion lawsuit to recover stolen county files has issued an order.  The order was a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, and with attorney's fees and costs.  Obviously it is a disappointing outcome.  All we have attempted to do with this lawsuit, which the Board filed filed under advice from our attorneys,  was to recover confidential, privileged, data that was stolen from the county's IT department.  Social Security numbers, bank accounts, medical information, Driver's licenses--full color pictures of all of these, etc.  This was never an attempt to silence anyone--because ALL of the files that were public records were already released by the county.  Months ago.  This is specifically why this is NOT a SLAPP suit. Never was.  The board will meet in executive session on Sept. 5th and I will strenuously advocate for an appeal------ because this is a disappointing ruling, the court got it wrong here, this is a young judge--- and I believe this will be overturned on appeal or at a minimum-remanded back to this Judge for further proceedings. Separately--- criminal investigations and ethics investigations/proceedings continue against those who unlawfully, gleefully admit they have this stolen data--as the mere possession of this information by those who are not entitled to it is unlawful under 817.5685 Florida Statutes.

What is the Status of the FBI's Investigation into Stolen County Files?

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

Show Cause Hearing Held: Jonathan Owens takes the 5th--Refusing to Testify

Does the "press" have the right to possess personal identification information, in contravention to state statutes, when such information neither serves the public interest nor is a public record?

Escambia County's case against Gannett, Jonathan Owens, and Alex Arduini moved forward yesterday with a show cause hearing on Zoom that lasted about two hours.

The county presented its case and called a number of witnesses.  I was first, and I testified truthfully.  Jonathan Owens was called to testify and through his lawyer, he took the 5th amendment and did not testify.  Alex Arduini, initially advised by his own lawyer to also take the 5th amendment actually did answer questions and testified that he has never seen the text file nor has he ever possessed it.  That was his testimony under oath.  Not one (1) person from the PNJ bothered to show up to testify.  Their lawyer informed the court they would not testify and that they would be shielded from testifying about the identity of their anonymous source that gave them their files via a Florida law that protects the media.

The judge was very methodical and allowed all attorneys present to speak and present their cases.

I was allowed to testify to the fact that several of my family members have endured fraud on their accounts in the last 8 months, and I was given space to describe the circumstances under which I needed to have my phone's contents backed up to preserve county records.

At the end of the day where this case goes next is entirely up to Judge Schlechter.  I believe the county presented rational arguments for the return of the stolen files from those who possess it currently.  I believe the county presented rational arguments for the case to continue to discovery so that the county can depose individuals to learn more about who has the files, how such files were obtained, and to whom files have been shared.  This case is much larger than just me.  There are a lot of innocent, unaffiliated individuals who now have their private medical information out in the public--including current and former county employees---due to no fault of their own.  These files were in the care and custody of the county's IT department and we believe it is wholly appropriate for the county to work through the courts to retrieve these stolen county files.

And to the defense the attorney for Gannett put forward, at some point some court, somewhere, will need to rule on this to answer this very important question:  Where is the line for what the media can and cannot do because of the protections they enjoy under the 1st Amendment.  Where is the line?  And when I ask that, rhetorically speaking, I mean--does press freedom and legal precedents from last century allow the media to transcend and violate existing state law?  

The PNJ readily admit they possess the files at issue here, which files contain the personal identification information on more than a dozen local citizens.  The mere possession of data like this is a felony under state law 817.5685.  How does the media's possession of my daughter's bank account number, my son's tax form and my other son's social security number serve a public purpose or the public interest?  Answer: it doesn't.  So if the folks that possess stolen personal information are given leave by the courts to keep such data in contravention to state law---doesn't that serve to encourage more folks to engage in the nefarious conduct of stealing and possessing others' personal identification information?  

Really--where is the line for the "press's" immunity?  Could they have child porn on their computers if they were using such disgusting information for a story?  Could they protect a source if that source admitted committing murder?   Where is the line the press can't cross---and does state law trump the press's right to hold data unlawfully?

Maybe, just maybe, this little case might start to provide an answer to this question.  We will see.

New Judge in County's Replevin/Conversion Lawsuit is Moving Quickly

After the last minute recusal by the Escambia County Judge assigned in Escambia County's Replevin/Conversion Lawsuit against Jonathan Owens, Alex Arduini, and Gannett--the case was transferred to Okaloosa County.  Nobody knew how long a delay this inexplicable, last-minute recusal would cause.

Late yesterday afternoon we got the answer.

The newly appointed Judge in this case has immediately scheduled a show cause hearing.  And this new judge in the county's case is moving quickly.

The hearing is one week from tomorrow at 11:30.

See Judge Schlechter's order, below.

Important Factual Details Must Not Be Overlooked, Part I

As we saw in the last meeting of the Board of County Commissioners where one commissioner, his secretary (who wants to run against me for my seat with the blessing and support of his boss), and one citizen (an ally of the current D2 commissioner and his secretary--as well as the former D2 commissioner and his secretary) teamed up to create a ruckus, a political stunt aimed at damaging me and creating a splash in the press---some important details never made it into the subsequent reporting on this issue.  Not surprising.

But important details must never be overlooked. To do so by one's political opponents is to be expected; to do so by the press is disingenous at best, deliberate and intentional with actual malice and in a false light at worst.  

So here is what is important for folks to know, in granular, factual detail.

1.  County records were stolen, this was investigated by the county, and is being investigated by Law Enforcement Authorities currently as I write this.

2.  Some of the records stolen are indeed bonafide, releasable public records.  However, many (if not most) of the files stolen and inappropriately disseminated are not public records and would never be released or released unredacted under any public records request made of the county, ever.

3.  The records within the stolen file that are bonafide public records were not requested of me by the lawyers representing Dr. Rayme Edler--otherwise they would have been provided.  We learned subsequently these texts were not requested because these lawyers opposing the county had already been provided this file by Jonathan Owens, unredacted, and outside of the discovery process in that case.

4.  On June 5th  the county attorney proactively reported this theft of files directly to the state attorney once it was determined that records had been stolen, disseminated by former employee Jonathan Owens unredacted, and subsequently possessed unlawfully by multiple individuals and entities.  

5.  An investigation into potentially criminal misconduct associated with this episode was launched and both the county and I have cooperated every step of the way.

6.  Florida Statutes, specifically 817.5685, provide that mere possession of another's personal identification information, unauthorized, is a misdemeanor.  If the unlawful possession by a person includes personal identification information on five or more individuals, it is a Felony.  The information within the stolen files contains such information on more than 5 persons.  A total of 23 citizens' information is contained in the stolen files.  Cancer diagneses and prognosis, medical information, personal identification information, and reams of files that would be unlawful to release.

7.  There does not appear to be an exception to this possession of personal identification information law allowing for the media to possess such information. (e.g. what specifically within 817.5685  would allow for the PNJ to possess the Driver's Licenses and Passports of my wife and children who are not even public figures?  What exception in that law allows the PNJ to keep my daughter's bank account number?)

8.  On June 14th County Attorney Alison Rogers, County Administrator Wes Moreno, and I met in my office with law enforcement investigators assigned to look into the unlawful theft of the property from the county and any other associated crimes.  The County and I personally signed a release on the spot allowing unfettered access to these files to investigate ANY crimes associated with these files by law enforcement.   (I have asked for a releasable copy of this signed waiver and would have published it here, but I have been told by law enforcement this is not releasable yet, until the investigation has been formally completed)

9.  I also provided my copy of my complete, unadulterated iPhone Download contained on a stick drive I had in my safe to law enforcement investigators as well----months ago.  And I consented--- by voluntarily providing this file--- for them to search it for any evidence of ANY crime.  I have nothing to hide, there is no "there" there as I stated at the last meeting.  

10.  An analysis of my downloaded phone file that I provided to law enforcement, originally produced in  February 2022, is an exact match of the file that law enforcement retrieved from the county's computer systemf a year and a half later in June of 2023--the hash files are identical.  This has been verified to me by the principal investigator in this case.

11.  I have also been told by law enforcement investigators that my file that I provided to law enforcement is NOT  an exact match of the file that Jonathan Owens provided to lawyers for Dr. Rayme Edler.  The hash files DO NOT Match, the original file has been manipulated.  This has been verified to me by the principal investigator in this case.

12.  The County's replevin/conversion  civil lawsuit for return of stolen county property from other entities (Jonathan Owens, Alex Arduini, Gannett, and others potentially via follow on amended complaints as necessitated by facts obtained in the soon to commence depositions in this case), authorized by the BCC via a 4-1 vote, will enable a comparison by law enforcement of the unadulterated county file to these stolen files

Where is the Replevin Case Going from Here?

Is the media always right?

The judge assigned to the County's Replevin/Conversion civil suit  against Gannett, Jonathan Owens, and Alex Arduini (and potentially others as discovery, interrogiaories, and depositions proceed) has now put forward a case management report, detailing an initial roadmap for how the case proceeds from here.

Interesting that it appears, from this initial case management report, that the case will continue into August of 2025.  I'm told this sort of a document is standard and is subject to change and revisions as the case progresses.  In speaking with multiple attorneys on this matter, I am told that it is a novel area of law--replevin of data-- and there is a lot of research to be done.

The Gannett motion for dismissal was filed as well, in addition to the assignment of an attorney for Jonathan Owens.

It will be interesting to watch how this proceeds and how the parallel investigation into the theft of the files from the county and the associated crime of multiple individuals' possession of personal identification information, which appears to be a Felony as the information possessed unauthorized contains records on more than 5 individuals, intermixes with this civil trial.

A lot of people believe the media can do anything they want, anytime they want, to anybody they want with reckless abandon and disregard for the truth and regardless of damage their actions cause.  After all, who holds them accountable?

Maybe they are right?

I believe that is too much power to give to anyone, even the media.  Others agree.  

Meanwhile that question simmers as this case is simply about retrieving stolen property.  People still have to answer questions though, under oath, so who knows what additional information comes from this civil case and bleeds over into other cases and investigations?  Remember, don't lie under oath in this case, or to investigators in another parallel investigation......

Back to the media's unfettered right to do anything they want----I don't know the answer to that question but I did follow the multiple lawsuits filed by one student against the titans of media for a combined total of nearly a billion dollars for the media's feckless, reckless, inappropriate way they collectively distorted the truth about what happened at a Washington DC rally in 2019.

Interesting that one by one, multiple media companies settled in that case, and of particular note. each settlement in that affair contained terms that were "confidential" .

The media also paid a large settlement when apparently baseless assertions about the accuracy of voting systems from one company were spouted by at least one large cable news network.  They paid a large settlement for the damage they caused in that case, too.

So sometimes the media don't get everything they want.  Sometimes they lose.

And I know this: most in this area have a negative perception of the PNJ and the PNJ know it.  Garbage like this current situation reinforces that sentiment, demonstrated also by PNJ's diminishing subscriber base and their associated revenue losses.

Stolen County Files Part I: The Story Doesn't Add Up and the Dates Don't Jibe Either, "Darth" Newman

The "force" is not strong with attorney  "Darth" Newman's  version of the timeline of his receipt of stolen Escambia County files and records....

The problem with lies is that they will always be found out.  A liar who lies and tells lies will invariably lose track of the lies he tells and then the lies he or she told will be discovered.  Then, that person will be discredited, ostracized, ridiculed and even made a pariah. 

Or it could be worse.

Sometimes you lose a relationship when you get caught in a lie---- be it  a business, personal, or other type relationship.

Worse than this--if a lie is told to a federal agent--that's a crime.

And if a lie is told under oath, that's perjury.

If a lie is told to a judge by an "officer of the court "-- well, there are professional ramifications that can be significant and career threatening or career ending: there could be sanctions up to and including a formal bar complaint, a reprimand, a sanction, or disbarment.

So liars ought to be careful about telling lies--lest they get wrapped up in their own webs of dishonesty and have to pay a price for it.

Currently---there are lots of lies flying around Escambia County as it pertains to stolen Escambia County files that contain lots of county records, medical records, personal identification information, attorney-client protected conversations, and a host of other records that are not public records and would never be released under any circumstances--let alone unredacted--- under any valid public records request ever.  Yes, there may be a number of bonafide public records within the larger file of stolen records as well, any one or all of which would have been provided upon request because these files were saved from deletion via action taken by the county---but the majority of the file would not have been a public record.  

Nobody ever asked, though, and no public records requests were made of the information in these files.  until the whole thing was stolen.

And, again, the vast majority of what was stolen and disseminated inappropriately and unredacted by Jonathan Owens is NOT public record.

Webbed into all of these lies, potential crimes,  and other problems are the issues of the separate, frivolous Federal Quitam and harrassment case brought by lawyers for former Medical Director Rayme Edler. 

That case is baseless, meritless, and frivolous and will be defeated in court--that's my opinion.   

And that separate federal lawsuit against the county, along with the previously settled cases of 5 former EMS employees (ALL but 1 of whom were NOT prosecuted) has apparently provided Gannett and the Pensacola News Journal with just enough cover for them to use (conflate) the stolen, unverified county text message files they now possess unlawfully---somehow----- with the 2019 EMS challenges and the former Medical Director's currently stalled case.  

That's their pretext.

The thing is this, though.  The files at issue, from my phone, were stolen from the county, and after being stolen--these files have been manipulated.  

And this issue, this case, and this Escambia County lawsuit to recover these files are separate and distinct and have NOTHING to do with previously settled EMS cases or with Dr. Edler's current, frivolous and meritless lawsuit(s) against the county which will be defeated in court.  

I have it on very good authority, from a source that knows, that manipulation to these stolen files has already happened, and there will be much more to come on this in the next 6-12 months as discovery, depositions, the currently confidential but soon-to-be released FBI investigation report, potential prosecutions, ethics violation investigations, and other evidence and information is brought forward, gathered and presented to the court to bolster the county's replevin lawsuit.  

By contrast to the files the PNJ have---which have been manipulated---my original jump drive  (provided to me and in my posession since imaged and copied by the county IT staff in February of 2022 and provided to investigators recently and upon their request) is an exact duplicate of what was on the county's harddrive after my phone was imaged.  That has now been confirmed, again, by a source intimately familiar.  

The file that Dr. Edler's attorney's have, by contrast, is NOT an exact copy, it has been manipulated, the hash signitures do not match.  This, again, is the same file the PNJ has.  

So as we do discovery for our replevin case, and we take depositions, we will find out how this happened as we ask a lot of questions about this.  Lots.  And we'll be asking questions of lots of people including the PNJ reporters and editors that have this manipulated copy of stolen files and ran with it in multiple stories they have manufactured and  published as gospel truth anyway--never bothering to do what legitimate, honorable and reputable journalists do----- verify the authenticity of the data from the source-----the county or me----before publishing inaccuracies.

As bad as all of that is, (And it is REALLY BAD) worse is the fact that the timeline(s) of the "when" Dr. Edler's attorneys first received this manipulated, unredacted copy of my files to attempt to use in their separate, frivolous lawsuit(s) against the county does not add up with what Jonathan Owens----their lynchpin star witness himself-------- is saying. 

The Story Doesn't Add Up and the Dates Don't Jibe, Either, "DARTH"

Lawyer Darth Newman from Pennsylvania has submitted an affidavit in Federal Court to Magistrate Hope Cannon in Rayme Edler's case that he (Newman) is working.  In it, he states that he had no idea the stolen county text message data file was coming to him, did not request it (of Owens), and that it was emailed to him unsolicited, unannounced on March 15, 2023.  "Darth"  goes on to state he is the only one of Edler's co-counsels that have "substantially" (whatever that means) viewed it and that he notified the defense counsel "shortly after coming into possession of the file."  Read his sworn statement, here.  (Notably--the notification from Darth Newman to the County Attorney did not come until nearly two weeks later, on March 27th, and this notification was nonchalantly offered up multiple paragraphs into (buried) and within the body of a voluminous email full of legal mumbo-jumbo and minutae on a variety of ongoing, monotonous discovery gripes--AND obviously and conspicuoulsy NOT highlighted.  Nevertheless--the notification should have been immediate, via a call to the county or a stand alone email as this was an important development.  And county staff moved WAY too slow catching on and I was not told until nearly 3 Months later which was massively disappointing.  But that is a separate issue which I have discussed at length with the county attorney privately.)

Meanwhile--Jonathan Owens has proudly, in cocky fashion like a weird sort of proud rooster, stated on the radio and in the press on August 7th of this year that he kept the file after he left county employment, read the files,  was asked by Edler's lawyers if he had anything else that could help their case for Edler and against the county----------- AFTER he was interviewed by them and AFTER he provided an affidavit for their case against the county.  Problem is--their interview and Owens' affidavit is dated April 3rd, 2023.  Three weeks after Darth Newman said Owens sent him the file unsolicited on March 15th 2023.  Read Owens' sworn affidavit, here

None of these tools have a time machine, so this is obviously a lie.

Someone is lying, obviously, and these timelines don't mesh.  Owens even states in the transcript of his radio interview from August 7th of this year---on page 11 of the county's lawsuit filed against him and two others, here----that he provided Edler's attorneys a copy of the stolen files "Last year."  

Wait-----That would have been 2022--way before "Darth" says he received the unsolicited email on March 15th of 2023.  Did "Darth" get the file in 2022 as Jonathan stated, or is Jonathan lying?  Or is "Darth" Newman Lying?  Or did co-counsels actually have it and read it in 2022 as Jonathan clearly stated and did/does Rayme Edler actually possess this stolen file, too?  If co-counsels to "Darth" had it "Last Year" like Owens proudly stated--this makes the entire affidavit submitted by "Darth" Newman inaccurate at best--a series of lies at worst.  So, who is lying? 

These stories do not jibe, people are lying, and timelines are changing, evolving, and revolving.

Lying liars are lying all over the place on this timeline, in affidavits, on the radio, and in the press using manipulated, stolen data to bolster their lies.  

Did they even lie to the Federal Magistrate, Hope Cannon, with this "timeline?"

Wow---too many questions.  

But make no mistake: between the FBI investigation report (which will be made public once the federal prosecutors and/or state prosecutors are done with it and have made decisions on prosecution(s)) and what the county will find and learn as we move forward with our replevin case and enter discovery and begin multiple depositions of multiple persons, we will get to the bottom of it all.  All of it.

And folks will be under oath and they will answer the questions or invoke their 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination, because that's how depositions work, folks have to answer the questions, objections can be noted but the questions will be answered lest the Judge in the case have to get involved---and that's not good when that happens.  So understandably--- we'll be meticulous in our questions of multiple individuals we will depose as we seek to get back the property, every copy of it, that was stolen from the county and now possessed still to this day, unlawfully and unredacted, by multiple individuals and entities.

I have it on good authority and have been told by multiple persons with firsthand knowledge that clerk of the court Pam Childers unlawfully possesses a copy of this stolen, maniplutlated file.  She will not answer direct requests of her made by the county attorney as to whether or not she has a copy-- so we