Monday, May 21, 2007

Follow up on Paul Gallegos' failure to comply with Public Records Act Request with the fine print and updates

May 21, 2007

To: Paul Gallegos
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office
825 Fifth St.
Eureka, CA 95501
districtattorney@co.humboldt.ca.us

My Public Records Act Request was dated May 8, 2007. By law, you had
10 calendar days in which to provide the information requested (as shown below). Which means I should have been given the information no
later than Friday, May 18 (last Friday). Today is Monday, May 21,
2007.

I expect to hear from your office today and I expect the information by the close of business tomorrow. This is more than reasonable.

I will also add that I have copies of previous reports (DA Summary,
Interview Summary and Law Enforcement Summary), and I know
not only what the reports look like but what information should be
contained. These reports are routinely kept, they take moments to retrieve
and providing this information should be a simple matter of pushing 'print.' Therefore no delay is justified.

I await an email letting me know it is ready.

###
The fine print:
A. This is a request made under the California Public Records Act. [Government Code 6250-6277].

B. By law you have 10 calendar days in which to respond to this request. [Government Code 6253(c)].

C. The Public Records Act mandates that public records be open to inspection and that every person has a right to inspect any public record unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. Unless exempt, upon a request for a copy of records that "reasonably describes an identifiable record or records" you are required to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering costs of duplication. [Government Code 6253].

D. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to the identity of any record sought, you are affirmatively required to assist the requesting party in better defining the request so that the records can be located and made available. [Government Code 6253.1].

E. You are required to justify in writing the withholding of any record. [Government Code 6253]. The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency. [Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 CA3d 781, 787 (1979)].

F. The Public Records Act does not limit access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure. [Government Code 6257.5].

G. Agencies are not permitted to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. [Government Code 6253(d)].

H. If a reasonably segregable portion of a record is exempt by law from production, that portion shall be deleted and the balance of the record shall be provided for inspection. [Government Code 6253(a)].

I. The legislative policy behind the Public Records Act favors disclosure. [Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 CA3d 931, 941 (1977)].

J. Any authorized fees will be paid to you on delivery, pursuant to an itemized invoice. BUT - Please note: These are to be billed out at 10 cents per page as per the County's fee structure - and NOT at 25 cents per page which is the County's fee for attorney's discovery. Billing this improperly will result in the county having to issue a refund check.

***
Monday, May 21 came and went with no word from the DA's Office.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem is Rose, that you might have to prove emotional stability to receive the documents. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Hey 6:55, you still havn't answered my question from earlier. What is PVG paying you to be his friend?

Anonymous said...

Are you an Orc 6:55 ? Only an Orc would shred public disclosure protections by trying to interfer with a citizens right to seek answeres or question their government. Very un-PC of you.

Anonymous said...

Yes,but it's typical of these Prog phonies.

Anonymous said...

"yea I have a statement... What???"

Anonymous said...

He is not going to give them to you because they stink so bad.

Rose said...

They're not his to withhold. These are PUBLIC RECORDS. The DA's office is not his private office.

Anonymous said...

Oh Rose you silly thing. Wasn't it easier when you were baking cookies and letting the men take of of these complicated issues?

Anonymous said...

Haul his ass into court. Let him explain himself to a judge. Of course, he'll come off sounding like an idiot, but what else is new?

Anonymous said...

3:49 p.m.:

It's sooooo "progressive" to be a blatant sexist.

Women are apparently relegated to cooking and housekeeping tasks in the "progressive" democratic party.

Rose said...

It may come to that.

Anonymous said...

silly wabbitt, there other things you little bunnies are good for. now wiggle your tail as you go make me another scotch.