• 3 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 21st, 2023


  • This sounds sideways, as FOIA processing is a part of city services, and state services, and federal services.

    Treating it otherwise has always seemed to invite abuse.

    We also have a rule regarding conversion of electronic data from internal proprietary format to something the requestor can read that allows us to refuse if responding to the request would cause an undue disruption to city services.

    How is that a legal workaround against FOIA? Literally every response to FOIA causes a ‘disruption’ to city services in that context. This sounds like a strategy from management that is incompetent or intentionally unethical trying to avoid processing FOIA requests. “Undue disruption” reads as a convenient scapegoat to hide things from the public, a public that the government is there to serve in the first place.

    It would have taken about 6 months for a full-time employee, and our city only has 11 staffers, so we were able to tell them “no.”

    ~165 hours for ever 10k documents to review at 1 min avg per doc. 45k documents = 750 hours = 25 work weeks @ 30hrs.
    That’s $11,250 @ $15/hr wages. Call it $16,000 for FTE total costs as a govt employer. You can engage 10 local contracted temp workers to process the data in a under 3 weeks.

    Once you have done the review, the dataset to that point has been compiled and can be used for other such requests without additional expenditures towards recompiling data up to that date.

    I’m sure budgets are carefully crafted to avoid including FOIA processing.

  • Now I’m very curious. It looks like the question revolves around how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved?

    Were you not ‘very curious’ enough to actually look at literally any of the real and active reporting on this before your comment?

    There was no question as to ‘how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved’ and it is a core fact among the details of why case was dismissed.

    They even played the officer’s bodycam footage of an early formal interview of the former officer that brought the bullets in as evidence (that the officer on the stand pitifully tried to pretend wasn’t an interview) in which the prosecutor was present. The evidence was intentionally filed under another case number so it wouldn’t be associated with Baldwin’s case (or the Reed case that I believe was ongoing when it was actually brought in). And THEN, cherry on top, they also discovered while looking at the undisclosed bullet evidence in this court, despite the prosecutors claims that the bullets were not associated with the Rust set thus not counted as evidence, that there were matching bullets of the type that were on the Rust set.

    Some link to this as the moment the case fully unraveled: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=28995s

    Where the prosecutor has put herself on the stand and opened herself up to answering defense questions under oath: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=32578s

    It’s among the craziest prosecutorial malfeasance shit I’ve ever seen from a high profile, video recorded court proceeding. One prosecutor resigned and LEFT earlier in the day as things were unraveling, and then the prosecutor that was still there put herself on the stand as-a-prosecution-witness to give testimony about the bullets, which even allowed the defense to question her about witness statements that she called Baldwin a cocksucker, about witness statements that she called Baldwin an arrogant prick, and about witness statements that she would ‘teach him a lesson’. In the context of a lawyer, putting oneself on the witness stand as a lawyer in the case, even as a prosecutor, is mental breakdown levels of personal desperation, even if they want to claim it was an attempt to preserve an appeal of the dismissal.

  • I do try to remain reasonable.

    I was commenting on the garbage decision of the governor to leave the state, rather than the garbage decision of OP to make up or repeat misinformation that it was outrage over a Cruz vacation. I’m with you on avoiding manufactured outrage.

    “It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip.” can be seen defense of the governor when you omit the details.

    You didn’t just call out OP’s bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.

    That is what compelled my reply.