Jonathan Owens' Ethics Problem: What is the Process from Here?

The Florida Commission on Ethics met yesterday in Tallahassee, and at that meeting the commission supported, via a unanimous vote, Commission Advocate (prosecutor) Elizabeth Miller's position that probable cause exists that Jonathan Owens violated state Ethics law.

Owens' attorney, in a really obnoxious, aggressive way, attempted to conflate other issues and other matters unrelated to this hearing during his time at the podium to convince the commission members his client Owens did no wrong.  He attempted to vilify me and blame the victim.  He tried to say his client did not get these stolen county files because of his position as an employee when he worked at the county.  This attorney also argued Owens did not get such data in the course of his job duties--which I found to be telling--because in the media in interviews Owens argues, disingenuously, that he received information like these stolen files all the time within his duty as an aide. Nobody believed that claim by Owens, by the way.  Owens' attorney's flaccid, weak, boorish and harried arguments were ultimately unpersuasive to the commission members present.  (Owens and his attorney did not even file their own answer brief to counter the Advocate's assertions......... which seems odd) 

Setting that aside--the only two questions commissioners asked Owens' attorney demonstrated they had read the advocate's very detailed and factual brief---- and the cognitive dissonance they were hearing from Owens' attorney, juxtaposed with the Advocate's narrative,  showed on their faces.  Watch the hearing at minute 6:00 of this video, below:

 

 "Isn't HIPPA implicated here, don't folks have to get permission before releasing medical records" asked one commissioner, to which Advocate Miller acknowledged the existance of concurrent civil proceedings and also the criminal investigation by law enforcement over the theft of the files and Owens' unlawful possession of said files under FL Statute 817.5685.

The other question was really shrewd:  "Did all the other commissioners recieve these files or just your client Owens?" asked another commission member.  To which Owens' attorney gave a nondescript, terse response. "I don't know."  (Truth is, only Owens received these files, no other commissioner did, and NOBODY believes this stolen file from the county servers just magically appeared on his desk or that it was slid under his office door as he has also publicly stated).

After only two questions from the commission members, the vote was called and an immediate motion was made, and two commissioners simultaneously seconded the motion, and the chairman called the vote.

by a unanimous vote, the commissioners rebuked Owens' attorney's arguments and supported the Advocate's position that probable cause exists that Owens violated state ethics laws.  5-0 vote.

Next steps, according to an ethics commission staffer with whom I spoke later that day, is this.

A. Owens and his attorney can negotiate a settlement directly with commission advocate Elizabeth Miller

or

B. They will face a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge that will settle the case, and send the disposition of the case back to the commission where they will implement an appropriate fine and/or punishment.

Maximum penalty for this infraction, if Owens is found guilty, is $20,000.00  (Plus his currently compounding and increasing legal fees)

My prediction is that Owens and his Lawyer go for the settlement, as this appears to be their only cost-effective option given the overwhelming evidence against them in this case.  I mean--how can this lawyer even argue this case???--given all the proud public statements Owens has now given about how he received the files as an employee, read them all, knew they contained private, confidential, privileged information that would never be released unredacted, didn't return the property, didn't consult legal or IT, and instead he "held onto them" when he left the county and worse than that--sent them out, over state lines, unredacted.  He also boldly boasts he still has them.

So, they'll settle---------Or, they can fight it and risk testimony being memorialized on the record in this case damaging their narrative in the civil case---- or worse---- giving prosecutors in the criminal investigation evidence that will be damaging to their defense in that proceeding.

Neither choice is optimal, and this is what happens when people can't win a straight up contest at the ballot box.  Greed, and lust for power, and a longing for a commission seat drove Owens on this.  He and his boss and best friend, disgraced former commissioner Doug Underhill, must have as their calling in life, the unyielding desire to beat me in D1.  They ran Karen Sindel in 2016, ran Owens in 2020, and now they are running a new guy against me this time.  They are going to get the same result.  Win on the issues, not slimy, dirty, disgusting and unseemley gamesmanship.  

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Doug's best buddy Jonathan Owens is in trouble.  

He freely admits he's sent these files to lawyers suing the county, and he also held onto these files for nearly two years since he left employment---hoping he could use them to damage me in my election and help his chances in a rematch against me.   That didn't pan out for Jonathan, though.  Not by a long shot.

It's a giant quicksand pit Owens walked into all on his own.  He's about waist deep in it now.  And sinking.  Good luck, dude.

Once the county gets a ruling on our show cause hearing on the replevin suit from Judge Schlechter--we will begin depositions in that matter.  As we find others who possess the unredacted files unlawfully, we will add them to the complaint, we will perfect/amend the complaint.  Who else has the files?  We'll find out, one by one, and we will depose them.  Not one of them----all of them.

The old bull is walking down the ridge to the pastures below---not running.  walking.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Jonathan Owens Declines Opportunity to Speak on his Own Behalf for Legal Fees He's Requested YOU Pay

When offered the opportunity to speak on his own behalf to personally request the county cover his legal bills for his own nefarious, unlawful conduct---- before discussion on this item at a public meeting ended-----Owens sat motionless like a wax statue of a ventriloquist's doll. Why?

Jonathan Owens,  the former county employee who worked for disgraced former county commissioner Doug Underhill and who is in possession of stolen county records----- recently had the gall to formally request a taxpayer funded legal defense for his transgressions and resultant troubles stemming from his unauthorized possession of said files.  

The County Attorney's Office added this request for a taxpayer-funded (i.e. YOU) defense from former employee Owens to our agenda on Tuesday.  And Owens even showed up to the meeting, sitting in the back row of the chambers.

Nevertheless----not one commissioner on the dais Tuesday showed any inclination of even countenancing this outrageous Owens request once it was up for consideration on the agenda.  (four of us were present, D2 commissioner Mike Kohler blew off the meeting and wasn't there) 

When offered the opportunity to speak on his own behalf to personally request the county cover his legal bills before discussion on this item ended-----Owens sat motionless like a wax statue of a ventriloquist's doll.

He had the opportunity to ask, speak, lobby, and request, --and he did nothing.

The thing that is incredible to me coming off of this awkward, cringe-worthy spectacle is the rank loyalty and feilty a handful of citizens and one radio talk show host are demonstrating toward Owens in this matter.

It really is both fascinating and sad.

But facts are facts and they cannot be surpressed no matter how much Kool Aid the Underhill/Owens/Tallman fanboy club chugs.  

FOCUS ON FACTS:

1.  The records at issue were stolen from the county, and the stolen records contain personal identification information (full photos of passports, Pictures of front and back of driver's licenses, bank account numbers and pins, social security numbers, tax forms, medical records, and a host of other data on more than a dozen citizens) that would never be released under any public records request, ever.

2. Jonathan Owens admitted he has all of these records, has read them all, knew much of the information was personal/private, kept all these files upon leaving employment from the county, did not report to relevant county staff he possessed them when he worked at the county, and has subsequently dissemenated these files to others unredacted.  He admitted this all freely and openly on Tallman Mckay's Podcast (which has been scrubbed from 1620's site) as well as in the News Journal.

3. Mere possession of this personal identification information as described above, unauthorized, on this many people is a third degree felony under Florida Law.  That's why the State Attorney and appropriate law enforcement agencies were notified and a criminal investigation was requested by the county on this matter back in June.  One week later--law enforcement investigators met me in my office and were given possession of the entire file--and both the county and I, personally, signed a waiver on that date allowing investigators to freely and without providing to us any immunity or amnesty-----free reign to search all the contents of all the files in question for ANY EVIDENCE of ANY CRIME. (Somebody wake up "letter-writers"  Mike Kohler and Steve Stroberger and let them know this)

4. Jonathan Owens is specifically NOT authorized to possess this type of data, nor was he ever authorized to possess it--- and his handling and/or possession of such data--which includes photos of my family members' passport documents, Photos of my Family's driver's licenses, my social security numbers, and my childrens' social security numbers, and my sons' tax returns----was never a part of his job duties and/or a normal course of his employment in the county.  What he should have done, if his story is true and this stick drive was shoved under his office door, was immediately turn the drive over to legal.  That would have been the appropriate course of action for him to take.  But Owens didn't do that.

5.  County staff that handles public records requests for the BCC have testified, under oath, that prior to the county becoming aware of this data breach and the theft of these records coming to light----no PRR's had been made for my text messages from my personal phone.  (for the geniuses reading this--it's because those who wanted these files were already given them by Owens, unlawfully, and outside of the PRR and/or discovery process--see the relevant testimony from the county's investigation, below)

Lying liars that lie, like Underhill/Owens/Tallman/Edler will say "Bergosh and the county were withholding these texts that were public records"  but the under oath testimony in this matter obliterates their lies:  No requests were made for these files prior to our notification that said files had already been stolen and disseminated unredacted.  

6. Nothing at all related to this matter implicates the whistlebolower statutes--Federal or State--as such status would have to have been determined and agreed to by the court PRIOR to the improper, unlawful

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.

Jonathan Owens wants County Taxpayers to Fund his Legal Defense

Owens sent the County Administrator and the County Attorney the request yesterday.  I'll print it below.

I personally do not feel he is entitled to any taxpayer funded legal representation because what he did is potentially criminal, fell outside the normal course of his job, and he remains in possession of stolen county records that he is not authorized to possess and that are in fact illegal for him to possess under Fl. Stat. 817.5685.  Furthermore, Owens admitted to reading the entire file  (In a radio interview with Andrew Tallman on AM 1620),  he knew it contained private, confidential records, yet he not only never told any county employee he had the file while he was working at the county--he also kept the file upon leaving employment and he also provided it, unredacted, to others---including opposing counsel in an ongoing court case against his former employer---------knowing it contained attorney client privileged conversations about that case in particular.

As Ricky Ricardo from "I love Lucy" might have exclaimed:  "Someone has some 'splainin to do!"

When he "acquired" this file and knew exactly what it was, he should have immediately returned the property the owner and promptly notified the county attorney's office.  He didn't.  He read it, kept it, and gave it to others instead.  He didn't need no stinkin' attorneys then!

But now he wants an attorney??

Nope, I don't believe he'll have three votes for this if it even comes to the board for our action--because he clearly DOES NOT qualify, under our policy, to be able to receive this coverage.  Period. This was not a job related function he was performing, and no, he ain't no whistleblower--there are specific statuatory definitions of what a whistleblower is--and he is not one.  Good luck with that.

Looks here like Jonathan Owens is following in the footsteps of his best friend, soul mate, and former boss,  Disgraced Former Commissioner Doug Underhill.

And like his mentor, partner and former commissioner Underhill----Owens now is also requesting you, the taxpayer to fund a legal defense to his reprehensible, potentially criminal conduct.

I can't make this stuff up!

What D2 resident and former Underhill Secretary Jonathan Owens sent the county yesterday:

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."