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.

Important Facts Ignored in Latest PNJ Hit Piece that Attempts to Portray Me in a False Light with Actual Malice

I suppose I should not be surprised when a former employee of Gannett's PNJ called me yesterday and the conversation quickly went to the two recent PNJ articles that do not reflect reality and actually attempt to portray me in a false light deliberately.  Not the first time PNJ has done this to me, probably won't be the last.  Ironic that these antics always occur during campaign season......

"I'm sorry this happened and they did this to you, she stated.  When I was there, they had a strict policy of never printing anonymous documents they did not first independently verify"  said this former employee.  I guess they are justifying this publication by saying the "anonymous source" that provided them the stolen texts had a document that they verified with Jonathan Owens' copy.  Wait, though:  What if that copy was manipulated, and that  copy was provided to the PNJ's source  which matched up with Jonathan's--- but both of which are stolen and neither of which have actually been verified as accurate?  

Looks like journalistic integrity and standards have been lowered in the organization in light of poor economic performance, decrased relevancy (and subscriber numbers) and vanishing ad revnue coupled with higher costs.  Plus, it's easier to sell newspapers if the headlines are salacious, scandalous, and sensational.   Facts, who cares, right?

So in this morning's hard copy edition, they have once again published what is an outright falsehood, and did not bother to ask my side.  True, I said I would not comment on the ongoing federal investigation into how my data was stolen--- but I most certainly would have commented on this garbage quote.

"Using keyword searches related to public business, the News Journal reviewed the texts and reported that Bergosh referenced Edler more than 100 times in texts that seemingly should have been released as a matter of public record under Florida Sunshine Law, but were not." 

I have never once in 17 years as an elected offical failed to produce a public record, ever.  Not once, and I did not in this instance, either.  I'm not the disgraced former commissioner with more ethics violations, recommendations for removal from office, Federal and State lawsuits and continuing problems even after he left office than any other commissioner in the history of this county.  No, unlike that guy-- Doug Underhill----- and his acolyte, minion, secretary--- Jonathan Owens--------I follow the law to the letter even though I say things and do things the PNJ don't like.

So the fact is this.  I never received a request for public records related to these texts that I failed to produce, and I have never failed to produce any of my personal text messages regarding the Edler case. The county received voluminous requests for other emails and correspondence, and data requests, which the lawyers are working to fulfill via the discovery process.  Importantly:  The lawyers did not request these text messages under a PRR, nor did anyone else.  Had a request been made of me, I would have fulfilled it as I have always done and have a track record of doing.  But instead, my entire text file was stolen.  Mention of this was made by the lawyers for Edler via email on March 27th.  Attorneys for Edler sat on these purported text messages of mine for two months and did not provide them to the attorneys for the county until nearly two months later, on May 24th.  I was not notified until June that there was potentially a breach of my data, but I was concerned because I was never requested to provide my text messages relevant to this case because I was told the other side already had "all of them."

So instead of getting the facts from the source, PNJ runs with an article that intimates I failed to produce a record, which is a lie.  It is untrue. It is libel.

The truth of the matter is, this discovery process continues, and now we are working on a fair way to redact the files from my phone that were stolen in an attempt to protect attorney-client privileged communications, exempt records, and personally identifiable information that is contained within that stolen text file while simultaneously working to maintain our obligation to produce responsive records.  And no final decision has been made on what will be released because it is tied up in the courts.

First email notification March 27th, 2023

Escambia County finally  receives purported Bergosh text file, June 1

--Other notable falsehoods:  The "quote" the PNJ references about "no public data on private cell phones" is not the position of the county's attorneys, and that was noted by the magistrate judge herself during the hearing in a back and forth with county attorneys.  Why leave that quote in there when it is clearly not the position of the county's attorneys and that was acknowledged in court because it is an inaccurate, non-factual assertion?