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."

 

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?