The City of Oakland sees it differently. According to SFGate:

The mayor dismissed Edgerly in July 2008 after instances of possible nepotism involving her surfaced, including the allegation that she had tipped her nephew, who also worked for the city, of an impending gang raid.

In May 2008, the suit says, Cynthia Dellums asked Edgerly to come up with city money to pay the couple’s $1,600 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. bill.

Edgerly also claims that City Attorney John Russo balked at her request that he pay the city back $4,200 in paycheck advances.

Russo said Tuesday, “I don’t remember it that way at all. I was the one who offered the repayments when Edgerly said there was no problem.”

You might remember that Edgerly is alleged to have alerted her nephew to an undercover raid by Oakland Police on the notorious Acorn gang.

Several stories from SFGate will illustrate the very interesting chain of events.

INTERESTING TIDBIT: Deborah Edgerly hired Doron Weinberg, a very well known criminal defense attorney, early on in the probe against her. Weinberg recently represented Phil Spector (currently in prison, intake photo), Bernie Ward (currently in prison, previous postings), William Ayers, child psychiatrist currently on trial for allegedly molesting children (likely going to prison). His record seems to be comparable to Geragos.

Some public records of new state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s eight years as Oakland mayor are missing and others were apparently improperly destroyed, raising questions about whether the state’s top law-enforcement official has violated California’s public records law.

The San Francisco Peninsula Press Club mentions an even more disturbing notion. Is this the guy we really want to run California again? He did “wonders” for Oakland. Vexatious Requesters…

Attorney General Jerry Brown is sponsoring a bill, AB520 (text and legislative history) that would let government agencies and local governments file petitions to have people declared “vexatious requestors” of public records.

An agency or local government would have to allege that the requestor was seeking records for an “improper purpose.” What’s an improper purpose? “Harassment of a public agency or its employees.” No further explanation is given.

If a judge agrees, then the agency can stop responding to public records from the “vexatious requestor.”

Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto, introduced the bill on behalf of Brown.

What about providing a guarantee fee award and sanctions for agencies that don’t comply with the initial request? Why must citizens fight so hard to get what we’re entitled to? If we can be deemed Vexatious Requestors, I want a bill that allows them to be deemed Serial Violators.

Original story by CNPA. CalAware has posted this letter in opposition.

]]> http://www.publicrecordsguy.com/jerry-brown-hiding-something/feed/ 0 http://www.publicrecordsguy.com/jerry-brown-hiding-something/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PublicRecordsGuy/~3/xWtPHaoqOGM/ http://www.publicrecordsguy.com/more-transparency-for-us-courts/#comments Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:03:53 +0000 Jeremy http://www.publicrecordsguy.com/?p=540 According to the U.S. Courts blog, Pacer will start listing Sealed cases.

The Judicial Conference, in its continuing efforts to ensure appropriate public access to court files, has voted to make federal court sealed cases more readily apparent.

The Conference, acting at its March 17 meeting, voted to have Internet lists of civil and criminal cases in district courts include a case number and generic name, such as “Sealed vs. Sealed,” for each sealed case.

Such lists for each of the 94 district courts are generated by the Judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system and are accessible through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.

Currently, PACER lists of sequentially numbered district court cases skip the sealed cases, but a member of the public could query the missing case number directly and would see a message stating that the case “is under seal.”

The Conference in 2007 strongly encouraged district courts to change the message that PACER users receive when querying a sealed case-from “this case does not exist” to “this case is under seal.” The latest Conference action is consistent with and further implements the 2007 Conference policy by providing the public with information to confirm the existence of a sealed case.

The Conference left it up to the individual district courts to determine what additional information about sealed cases, such as the initials of the assigned judge or the date of filing, should be available to the public.

 

In Jones Day v. BlockShopper LLC, (N.D. Ill. Case No. 08CV04572), Jones Day filed a complaint against BlockShopper for its linking to Jones Day attorney profiles, claiming it violates their service mark.

Details on the story courtesy of Slate:

Last April, startup real estate news site BlockShopper ran the headline “New Jones Day Lawyer Spends $760K on Sheffield” with a link to the bio for the lawyer in question-Jacob Tiedt-from the Web site of his law firm, Jones Day. In July, it ran a similar item about a home purchase by Dan Malone Jr., another Jones Day lawyer, with the link to his Jones Day bio.

Public Citizen weighs in:

Jones Day, a national law firm, found it objectionable when BlockShopper.com, a web site that reports on real estate transactions in tony neighborhoods in several cities, published articles on condo purchases by two associates in its Chicago office. It sued BlockShopper claiming that by mentioning the firm name in headlines in the articles, and by linking to the associates’ bio pages on the Jones Day web site, BlockShopper infringed and diluted its trademark. In a brief co-authored with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen argued that the trademark claims were preposterous and, in any event, were barred by the First Amendment which protects the right to publish truthful information even if the information is about a trademark holder and hence uses the trademark to convey the truth.

Public Citizen also filed an Amicus Brief along with Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in support of the defendants motion to dismiss.

I often link to the California State Bar’s website when I mention attorneys, so that readers can quickly look to “authoritative” links. I prefer to link to the licensing agency whenever possible, before linking to the persons personal website. I wonder if the State Bar is going to come crashing down on me now?

The case ultimately settled, but what value is the settlement to Jones Day? The settlement agreement requires BlockShopper to simply change the way they link to Jones Day. In this day and age of SEO and relevant links, I don’t know how the new linking requirement will affect pagerank or authority.

So how is BlockShopper to link to Jones Day? Instead of embedding the link to Tiedt like, “Tiedt is an associate,” the site will write “Tiedt (http://www.jonesday.com/jtiedt/) is an associate.” (The agreement also calls on BlockShopper to say that the lawyer in question is employed at Jones Day and that more information about the attorney is on the firm’s Web site.)

How do you feel about a law firm claiming your “linking” is a violation of their trademark or service mark and dictating how you publish? Is this lawsuit just another form of abuse?

RELATED DOCUMENTS

• Memorandum Opinion and Order (11/13/2008)
• Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae (09/24/2008)
• Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae (09/23/2008)
• Amicus Brief (09/19/2008)

It’s unlikely though, given that Anderson has already served 1 year in Federal Prison on a Contempt Order for refusing to testify to the Grand Jury citing it violates his plea agreement with the DOJ. It appears to me that the DOJ is playing REAL DIRTY. They made a deal with Anderson and now they are trying to exert pressure against him in contravention to the deal. Regardless of your feelings about Anderson, if the DOJ made a deal (even with the Devil) they need to lie in the bed they’ve made. Just because you don’t like the sheets now, knowing that perhaps you need more information out of Anderson, you made the deal.

Seriously, is it that big of a deal that a baseball slugger was using performance enhancing agents (legal or illegal and The Clear was legal) against a pitcher throwing a ball with the benefit of muscles developed with performance enhancing agents (legal or illegal). None of these drugs helps the hand to eye coordination for the slugger nor do they help “aim” the ball for the pitcher. The sluggers and the pitchers were both using performance enhancing agents.

Superseding Indictment against Barry Lamar Bonds.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently wrote:

It’s only his first day in office, but President Obama has already signaled a serious commitment to transparency and accountability in government. The President ordered federal agencies in a memorandum released today to approach the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) “with a clear presumption: in the face of doubt, openness prevails.”

Here is Obama’s FOIA Memo.

Any problems?

According to EFF:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU of Northern California filed suit in federal court today to protect the privacy and free speech rights of two San Francisco Bay Area community organizations after the groups’ computers were seized and the data copied by federal and local law enforcement. Both organizations, Long Haul and the East Bay Prisoner Support Group (EBPS), are publishers of information for social and political activists.

Here is a copy of the lawsuit: Longhaul, Inc., et al. v. U.C. Regents, FBI, et al.

This is a Freedom of Information action seeking expedited processing and release of CIA records pertaining to the 2005 destruction of videotapes of the interrogations of suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

The destruction by Central Intelligence Agency officials of videotapes showing the interrogation of suspected terrorists is the subject of “an ongoing criminal investigation” that is expected to conclude in the near future, according to a prosecution official.

“Investigators are now in the process of scheduling interviews with the remaining witnesses to be interviewed in this investigation,” wrote John H. Durham, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in an affidavit (pdf) late last month. “Based on the investigative accomplishments to date, we anticipate that by mid-February 2009, and no later than February 28, 2009, we will have completed the interviews.”

His remarks came in the course of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the James Madison Project for documents pertaining to the CIA videotape destruction. The government asked for a stay of the FOIA proceedings until witness interviews are completed. At a hearing on January 6, the request for a stay until February 28, 2009 was granted by the court, said attorney Mark S. Zaid, director of the James Madison Project. – FAS

Here are the filings:

JMP FOIA Complaint

CIA Motion For Stay | Declaration of John H. Durham

JMP Opposition Brief To Stay | Declaration of Mark S. Zaid | Exhibit A | Exhibit B

CIA Supplement Brief For Stay

According to City Attorney Carol Lynch:

It was an arduous, arduous task for the city. To put everybody through this exercise for no reason, that really galled me.

The issue I see is not with Mr. Hildreth, but with the City’s position that it would be “galled” for doing its job, serving the people. The City makes numerous decisions each day that don’t benefit the taxpayer or resident.

So my question is … Should the Requester be forced to pay for records it requested in the event that the request is withdrawn?

This is particularly why I request to “inspect” the records first, then make copies. The City can’t argue that my right to inspect the records cost them anything. The right to inspect is free.

By far the most reliable forensic science, it still has limits: Samples can be contaminated and may go untested for years. And collecting it may violate privacy laws.

Using California’s Public Records Act, records were obtained to show how the crime labs were handling samples and some of the problems with the collection and preservation.

Through the California Public Records Act, The Times obtained documents from five state-run and three county forensic labs reporting scores of laboratory errors or “unexpected” results over a five-year period ending in 2007. Labs must track these outcomes and keep them on file under state and federal rules.

Thompson, who reviewed the records for The Times, said that “on a regular basis, laboratory personnel make mistakes that could lead to false identifications” of suspects.

The records show, for instance, that between 2003 and 2007, the Santa Clara County district attorney’s crime laboratory caught 14 instances in which evidence samples were contaminated with staff members’ DNA, three in which samples were contaminated by an unknown person and six in which DNA from one case contaminated samples from another.

Using the PRA to obtain and uncover records can help the public learn about the process and hopefully correct some of the many shortfalls.