Friday, September 23, 2016

SAO on Settlement "Insufficient Evidence"

The SAO stated there was "insufficient evidence" that a crime occurred regarding the Mayor's action to settle the Bill Reynolds case for $95,000.

Let's play out a hypothetical and see what it looks like.

  • Reynolds slides me an envelope about the Chief of Staff at World of Beer as he and another staffer plot to remove their nemesis with the harassment claim documents. The other staffer releases the same documents to a Citizen that same night using a fake email of something like "Truth at City Hall"
  • I post the claim. 
  • The Chief of Staff and the alleged victim object.  
  • The Mayor promises an investigation to appease the press.
  • During the discussion, Reynolds tells Hayward that he gave me the documents. Maybe he also tells Hayward that another staffer did the same thing to a Citizen.
  • The documents have made the Chief of Staff's return impossible.
  • If Hayward fires Reynolds and the other staffer for the action, he has no one to run the City or give him words to say.
  • Hayward knows the investigation will not uncover anything as he knows Reynolds leaked the documents and Reynolds is doing the investigation.
  • Outzen is POed and doesn't let it go.  After a time he goes to the SAO to investigate the leak along with a sunshine violation.  
  • The SAO asks the City for any information.  The City provides nothing concrete or that identifies the leak.
  • The SAO contacts me to come in to a meeting, a meeting I assume is regarding a complaint for public records requests that the City has not been providing regarding emails. 
  • When I get to the SAO office, the SAO starts asking me who my source was for the harassment leak.  I don't tell him.  He continues to pressure me.  Finally, I tell him the whole incident at World of Beer with Reynolds.
  • The SAO tells Outzen of Reynold's actions.
  • Outzen writes a story.
  • The SAO must confirm the details one last time before Outzen goes to print so the SAO sends State Investigators to my home in order to confirm details so what the SAO told to Outzen is accurate.
  • The SAO tells Hayward about Reynolds and the WOB incident and tells him that he will note the incident in a report to be made public about another Reynolds incident.
  • The Mayor is in a pickle as he has no choice but to let Reynolds go.
  • The SAO never looks into that CJ Lewis was leaked the exact same data on the exact same night so the other staffer's actions aren't known and he doesn't have to be fired.
  • Reynold's knows Hayward must act when the info comes out about the leak.
  • Reynold's is fired assuming he will get the severance package he was promised in his contract.
  • Hayward renegs on the severance package and Reynold's is POed.
  • Reynold's files suit against Hayward (ie "The City")
  • Hayward moves on with life.
  • Reynold's attorney gets the Tamara Fountain information so the slam dunk looks a bit shakey.
  • Reynold's attorney schedules the Mayor's deposition.
  • Larkin delays with excuses.
  • Finally, the deposition is set.  The Mayor must swear under oath.
  • Hayward knows that it will come out that Reynolds told him immediately that he had leaked the information to me and that Hayward did nothing about it.  This would not be good based on the Mayor's previous statements and stance and his statement's when Reynold's was fired.
  • Larkin tells the Mayor that he will recommend as his lawyer who always gets the Mayor out of Charter breaches to quietly settle the case but don't tell anybody.
  • The Mayor agrees this is a good plan and tells Barker to slide it into the salaries line item for the Mayor's office and not to mention it in REQUIRED reports to Council.
  • Barker does exactly what he is told.
  • Larkin tells Bobblehead that he recommends the settlement and that he (Larkin) sees no issues under the Charter.  Bobblehead bobbles.
  • The checks are cut.
  • The budgets are fudged.
  • No one mentions it to Council or the Citizens.
  • Until Outzen gets the file.
"Insufficient Evidence?"  
  • How many interviews did the SAO conduct?
  • How many sworn statements were taken?
  • Could the above have happened?
  • If Hayward used City money to settle the above hypothetical situation, you have a crime.
Special Snowflakes!!

6 comments:

CJ Lewis said...

I would add two things. First, as you once told me, the document was in a stamped envelope addressed to Outzen at Inweekly. Only Reynolds knows if he ever really intended to mail the letter that night or from the start his plan was to give it to you but wanted you to think he had been intending to mail the letter to Outzen. Second, I knew nothing about the specific issue in question on the 7th floor. When I got the e-mail, I recall forwarded in to you asking if you knew anything about it. Unwittingly, my sending you the e-mail provided evidence to you that the information was being sent out to others. As I recall, I think Mark Taylor got the same or similar e-mail and forwarded it to Reynolds bringing to his attention that someone was sending out this information. If anyone had searched Reynolds' e-mails, they should have found the e-mail sent to him by Taylor. Plus, Taylor may still have a copy. For all I know, there might have been other people who got e-mails or letters. I can't speak to whether what Hayward did was a crime but the burden seems to be on him to cite a specific statutory authority for his action and expenditure of public monies.

Anonymous said...

Shady attorneys rendering shady "legal opinions" to a shady mayor who takes shady actions and is never held accountable by a shady legal system.

Does the Charter expressly prohibit the mayor from committing murder? Legal opinion from the bobblehead: "There is no language in the Charter that would prohibit the mayor from exercising his executive power to commit homicide."

SAO: "DNA results are a 99.9% match; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove there was any wrongdoing." "The smoking gun still in his hand is circumstantial and all of the eye witnesses are just a bunch of negative haters."

Anonymous said...


First of all, I didn't do it. Secondly, no one saw me do it so it doesn't count. Thirdly, if they didn't explicitly write a rule about it then I can do whatever I want. And finally, the lawyer I hired says it is OK so therefore it is legal. Nanny, nanny, booby...!

- Ashton Hayward

Anonymous said...

Once again, great job Maren! Of course, there are a bunch of blind Hayward followers including most of city council who will continue to support and defend him. Let's watch all the rats abandon ship once it begins to sink.

Anonymous said...

The fbi should investigate the sao pronto...

Anonymous said...

Has the sao never heard of conspiracy? The arrested the sandshaker bunch, charging some of them with conspiring to conspire...