Friday, July 19, 2013

Updated: Asmar Letter to Council

Letter to Council

For those curious, here is the post they object to.

Here is the State Attorney Report

On Sunday, March 3, 2013 a city employee sent an e-mail to the City’s human resources department raising employment issues. The following day a copy of this email was sent to both Bill Reynolds and Jim Messer. The City treated this e-mail as a discrimination complaint and viewed it as either exempt or confidential. On March 5, 2013, Bill Reynolds gave a copy of this document together with a copy of his response to Maren DeWeese while at World of Beer. These documents were not provided pursuant to any public records request and were not solicited by Ms. DeWeese.  The documents provided to Ms. DeWeese were in an envelope and unredacted in any way.

Ms. DeWeese later published a redacted version of these documents on her blog. Section 119.071(2)(g)1.a., Florida Statutes, provides that all complaints regarding employment discrimination are exempt from the public records law until such time as a probable cause determination is made, the investigation of the complaints becomes inactive, or the complaint becomes part of the official record of any hearing or court
proceeding. Section 119.071(2)(g)2., goes on to state that where the alleged victim chooses not to file a complaint and request that records of the complaint remain confidential, all records relating to the allegation of discrimination are both confidential and exempt from the public records law. In this case, the complainant made such a request on March 7, 2013, two days after the release of the complaint.

Based upon our review, we have determined that the release of the discrimination complaint does not rise to the level of a criminal violation. All criminal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant. In applying that standard, we have determined that at the time the document was released it was exempt and not confidential. Therefore, the release of the complaint, while under the circumstances as described inappropriate, does not constitute a crime.

My reading is that Mr. Stevenson is claiming my possession is illegal.

My reading is that Mr. Marcille says its not.



Anonymous said...

It's on now. What are you going to do? Looks like they are gearing up to sue you. Why don't you respond to Asmar's attorney to turn over HIS records of the Mayor's illegal activities as he claimed. Furthermore, you could make a complaint to have him disbarred for being a part of criminal activities and covering them up. Clearly, he (Asmar) will try to claim "attorney client" privilege then the complaint should be amended to include illegal disclosure of "privileged" information bu claiming the Mayor's criminal activities.

Anonymous said...

Stevenson needs to submit another letter to the City demanding that it reveal the identity of the mystery cyber-leaker "Truth at City Hall" who was sending out documents all over the place related to this issue in early March.

That is the only way to accurately identify all persons to whom the one sensitive document in question was sent.

City Hall attack blogger Derek Cosson seems the most likely suspect. He worked hand-in-hand with Reynolds to advance Hayward's scheme to marginalize Asmar.

If Cosson did the dirty deed, just one of many, it should be easy to prove tracing his digital footprint.

As a separate matter, we know that a gang at the PNJ and all of the City Council received the document in question in early March.

I'm surprised that last night no one on the Council simply handed over their copy reassuring Stevenson that they have asked the City Attorney to verify that it and all SENT copies forwarded on to others was deleted from their e-mail archives.

Anonymous said...

They can't force the CONDOM letter's return. Even if its "confidential" the prohibition only applies to the city, not the press or any third party the documents are applied to.

By the way, when is the Ginny G going to give her official editorial opinion regarding "condom throwing" by public officials??? Is it a good thing... not so good thing???

Anonymous said...

You should respond with, GTFOOHWTBS.

Anonymous said...

On the PNJ's website, Nate Monroe has posted Reynolds' mea culpa letter that includes one nonsensical sentence reading, "If not for a chance meeting, it [the release of the document] would not have occurred." Monroe does not report that the document was contained in a sealed envelope addressed to Rick Outzen stamped with a stamp ironically with the words "Justice Forever." Is Reynolds now claiming that he never intended to mail the envelope? Moreover, who is the person known as "Truth at City Hall" who leaked the document all over the place at the same time by e-mail? Reynolds? Probably not. Derek Cosson? The likely suspect.