Freedom of Information – Malfeasance and Corruption at the City of Redmond’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Office – Redmond, WA (Part 17)

Update: $50 this former NBA player could have his convictions completely overturned by filing a motion based on what is in this blog and that is not on me, that’s on the Prosecutors in Redmond. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/crime/article/No-more-jail-for-ex-Seattle-Sonic-Robert-Swift-6524701.php Let’s test Brady v Maryland.

While it is true that bad things happen to good people, it is also true that Creeps, Pedophiles, Heroin Dealers, and Common Thieves get off on technicalities in the law while innocent people rot in prison as a result of Brady Cops. When Prosecutors like that of the City of Redmond violate the very principles of the Bill of Rights, in particular Brady vs Maryland and commit acts of malfeasance, racketeering, corruption, and organized crime, justice is not done. Justice not served is justice not done. This 17th Part of the Freedom of Information series will show just how corrupt the Prosecutor’s Office at the City of Redmond is, knowingly knows about Brady violations and persisted in their misconduct to protect others, obstruct justice, and simply fix cases in an absolutely and 100% corrupt fashion. On another note, by exercising this 1st Amendment RIGHT, that which comes from the Bill of Rights, I challenge any and all scumbags to try to sue me or drag my ass into court, because I will be glad to depose each and every one of you, including past employees and co-conspirators, so try it at the taxpayers expense, like you fix everything else, I will be glad to call you out and prove the corruption and malfeasance and drag the rest of the criminals behind you. It’s looking like you can admit to Class C Felony and take it on the chin or you can pay up via violations of civil liberties on a grande scale and for violating the public records act and for the destruction of public records and evidence. And on that note, to each and every person arrested by those named on the “list”, let it be known you can get off by filing a motion, so let this be a lesson to those that obstruct justice and violate civil liberties. This is not on me, this is on you. And I have proof that you knew about it.
Credit:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Malfeasance
Malfeasance

The commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful.

Malfeasance is a comprehensive term used in both civil and Criminal Law to describe any act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or tort, but may be used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.

Malfeasance is an affirmative act that is illegal or wrongful. In tort law it is distinct from misfeasance, which is an act that is not illegal but is improperly performed. It is also distinct from Nonfeasance, which is a failure to act that results in injury.

The distinctions between malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance have little effect on tort law. Whether a claim of injury is for one or the other, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached in some way, and that the breach caused injury to the plaintiff. One exception is that under the law of Strict Liability, the plaintiff need not show the absence of due care. The law of strict liability usually is applied to Product Liability cases, where a manufacturer can be held liable for harm done by a product that was harmful when it was placed on the market. In such cases the plaintiff need not show any actual malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer. A mistake is enough to create liability because the law implies that for the sake of public safety, a manufacturer warrants a product’s safety when it offers the product for sale.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
malfeasance

n. intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. Malfeasance is distinguished from “misfeasance,” which is committing a wrong or error by mistake, negligence or inadvertence, but not by intentional wrongdoing. Example: a city manager putting his indigent cousin on the city payroll at a wage the manager knows is above that allowed and/or letting him file false time cards is malfeasance; putting his able cousin on the payroll which, unknown to him, is a violation of an anti-nepotism statute is misfeasance. This distinction can apply to corporate officers, public officials, trustees, and others cloaked with responsibility. (See: misfeasance)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
malfeasancenoun bad conduct, corruption, deviation from rectitude, ill conduct, illegal action, infringement, injurious action, misbehavior, misdeed, misdoing, misgovernment, mismanagement, overstepping, peccadillo, peccancy, transgression, unjust performmnce, unlawful action, wrongful action, wrongful conduct
Associated concepts: malfeasance in office, malfeasance of a public officer, misconduct, misfeasance, nonfeasanceSee also: abuse, blame, conversion, crime, culpability, delict, delinquency, disloyalty, disservice, guilt, knavery, maladministration, misappropriation, misconduct, misdeed, misdemeanor, misprision, misrule, offense, tort, wrong
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Credit:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Corruption

corruptionnoun abuse of public trust, act of bribing, act of profiteering, baseness, breach of faith, breach of trust, bribery, complicity, conduct involving graft, corrupt induceeent, corruptibility, crime, criminality, debasement, deception, deviation from rectiiude, deviousness, disgrace, dishonesty, dishonor, disloyalty, disrepute, fraudulence, fraudulency, graft, improbity, indirection, injustice, jobbery, knavery, lack of conscience, lack of principle, lack of probity, malignancy, obliquity, perfidiousness, perfidy, perversion of integrity, scoundrelism, turpitude, unscrupulousness, venality, villainy, want of principle, wickedness
Associated concepts: corruption in public office
Foreign phrases: Corruptio optimi est pessima.The corruption of the best is worst. Maledicta est expositio quae corrumpit textum. It is a cursed interpretation which corrupts the text.See also: bad repute, bribe, bribery, crime, decline, defilement, delict, delinquency, deterioration, detriment, dishonesty, dissolution, graft, gratuity, guilt, improbity, knavery, malfeasance, misconduct, misusage, nepotism, perversion, pettifoggery, racket, seduction, spoilage, turpitude, vice
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

CORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another. Merl. Rep. h.t.
2. By corruption, sometimes, is understood something against law; as, a contract by which the borrower agreed to pay the lender usurious interest. It is said, in such case, that it was corruptly agreed, &c.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Credit:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. G. Robert Blakey, an adviser to the United States Senate Government Operations Committee, drafted the law under the close supervision of the committee’s chairman, Senator John Little McClellan. It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

Beginning in 1972, 33 States adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.

Let’s begin, shall we?

 

This is a good place to start, and I am sorry that the conglomerate of records is all attached, but that is the unalterable PDF file received, for your information. But this is a good place to start as it indicates what is “knowingly known” by the Prosecuting Attorney.

expunge
The legal definition of EXPUNGE
Expunge

To destroy; blot out; obliterate; erase; efface designedly; strike out wholly. The act of physically destroying information—including criminal records—in files, computers, or other depositories.

expunge verb abrade, annul, black out, blot out, cannel, cause to disappear, censor, cross off, cross out, delere, delete, destroy, dispose of, do away with, edit out, efface, eradicate, erase, excise, extinguish, extirpate, inducere, leave no trace, nullify, obliterate, oblitterare, put an end to, quash, quell, raze, remove, remove all sign of, remove all trace of, render illegible, rub out, scratch out, strike out, take out, wipe away, wipe off, wipe out
Associated concepts: expunge the recordSee also: annul, bowdlerize, cancel, censor, delete, destroy, edit, efface, eliminate, eradicate, excise, expurgate, extinguish, obliterate, redact, remove, revoke

*Note Date reflects incident in 1998 (not current)
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-140716.html

Gregory Patrick, 35, Redmond police officer

Leta Bakke’s phone rang at least nine times in the hour before midnight on May 24, 1998.

When Bakke finally answered, the angry man on the line was her ex-husband, Gregory Patrick.

“Are you sleeping with Paul?” he demanded, according to her statement to police. “If you are I will kill you, and I will kill Paul.”

That night, Bakke told police that Patrick, a Redmond patrolman, threatened to kill her and himself some 30 times during their nine-month separation. At the time of the latest alleged threats, their divorce had been final for a month.

When she first moved out with her 9-month-old daughter, Patrick talked about suicide, she said. Her new relationship sparked death threats.

Renton police arrested Patrick early the next day. Officers seized two handguns and a shotgun from his house.

PRIOR PROBLEMS: During their 2-year marriage, Patrick was prone to violent tantrums, kicking and breaking things, according to court papers.

INVESTIGATION: Patrick was initially charged with felony telephone harassment. The charge was reduced to a misdemeanor when Bakke refused to testify. If he lost his job, she worried he’d stop making $400-a-month child support payments, according to court records.

He was sentenced to probation for a year and ordered to receive anger-management counseling, if recommended. An internal investigation found no proof of wrongdoing.

A federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing a firearm did not apply in Patrick’s case because he pleaded guilty to “making basically an obscene telephone call,” said Redmond City Attorney James Haney.

In response to inquiries by the P-I, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case.

DISCIPLINE: None.

UPDATE: Patrick is currently a patrol officer and member of the department’s SWAT team. He and Bakke declined comment.

© 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/132014_dvprofiles23.html

From: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:33 AM
Subject: Public Records Request – 3-25-15
To: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>, John Marchione <jmarchione@redmond.gov>

Ms. Hart,
I wish to submit a pubic records request as per RCW 42.56

I had submitted a public records request in 2013 and submitted a similar one in 2014 as it relates to officers with a sustained record of dishonesty. On both occasions I received records on one officer. In reviewing records from the City of Redmond I identified another officer or detective, Gregory Patrick.
It is my understanding that the Brady List has everything to do with a history or sustained record of dishonesty, yet that name did not appear two different times and I saw it on an official list as I mentioned.
My request is for the following (all pertaining to Patrick Gregory)

All records that indicate if this individual is still currently employed at the City of Redmond in the Police Department.
All records that indicate this officer’s official title and capacity if still employed.
All records related to any Brady violations.
All internal affairs records on this officer.
All records related to criminal arrest and conviction maintained by Redmond.
All records between the City of Redmond and the US Attorney’s Office as it relates to any criminal arrests or convictions or allegations.
All records between the City of Redmond and the City of Renton as it relates to criminal arrest of this officer.
All records of any death threats or threats of suicide or both.
All records pertaining to domestic violence.
All records that indicate if this officer is on the SWAT team (if currently employed)
All records that indicate this officer is certified to have a gun in official capacity.
All records of any plea bargains related to criminal arrest of this individual.
All records of disciplinary action taken.
All records indicating supervisors involved in disciplinary action and all records of paperwork related to disciplinary action.
All records of disciplinary action of any kind of this officer.
All records pertaining to criminal arrests.
All records of formal complaints or allegations made against this officer.
All records of exculpatory evidence (given this detective is on the Brady List)
All records indicating the date this officer officially made the Brady List with both Redmond and King County and the date the Brady Violation occurred.
All records indicating the officer in charge of public records as it pertains to the public records request I made in 2013 and 2014 and is responsible for not providing this name and all records from those requests.

I am seeking these records in electronic format or by email.

I mean I am still trying to figure out why this name never came up on two different occasions. But I guess I will find out. Your lawyer said this is the first time she saw the name show up herself. I’m still trying to figure out the Brady violation versus the criminal arrest, as Brady laws indicate dishonesty or lying in an official capacity, but because the records were not provided previously on two different occasions, I will need to know exactly what the dishonest acts were. I don’t believe pleading to obscene phone calls would put that on the list and your city not finding any wrongdoing wouldn’t indicate that, but the officer made the Brady List nonetheless, so that will have to be addressed with my public records request.

Let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate your assistance.

brent woods

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>,
John Marchione <jmarchione@redmond.gov>
cc: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>,
“Allison G. Gordon” <agordon@redmond.gov>,
Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>
date: Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM
subject: RE: Public Records Request – 3-25-15
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Brent,

The City of Redmond is in receipt of your request. With a copy of this email, I am sending it to Attorney Summerfield for response. She will track this request and will touch base with you regarding timeline to address your request, and any need for clarification of your request.

Thank you and have a good day.

Michelle Hart

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:44 AM
subject: CORRECTION – PRR 3-25-15
mailed-by: gmail.com

That correct name should be Gregory Patrick.
I put down both Gregory Patrick and Patrick Gregory.
Meant to say Gregory Patrick so as to not confuse.
Sorry.

brent woods

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
cc: Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>,
“Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>,
“Allison G. Gordon” <agordon@redmond.gov>
date: Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM
subject: RE: CORRECTION – PRR 3-25-15
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Thank you for this clarification, Brent. Noted for the record.

Michelle

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
cc: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
date: Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:29 AM
subject: RE: CORRECTION – PRR 3-25-15
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Brent,

I wanted to let you know that the attorney is currently away from the office and will not return until next week. She will be addressing your request at that time.

Thank you.

Michelle

from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
cc: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>,
“Allison G. Gordon” <agordon@redmond.gov>,
Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>
date: Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:57 PM
subject: City of Redmond – Woods PRR March 25, 2015 – follow up response

Hi Brent. I am back in the office after a week away. The purpose of this email is to follow up on our earlier communications relating to “Brady” and to follow up on the email you received from Michelle Hart on March 26, 2015 acknowledging receipt of your new public records request.

First, in your email to me dated March 23, 2015 at 12:36PM, you stated:

I will be needing to know date of arrest. (Brady List – Criminal Charges of Detective)

I will need an explanation how this is not a sustained act of dishonesty.

Or if I don’t hear back I will assume that means I will need to ask for the records as per RCW 42.56.

I have since learned the arrest was in 1998 involving a domestic violence allegation outside the City of Redmond (City of Renton). The criminal complaint was resolved with a plea to a lessor offense which has since been expunged from the record. The City does not possess records of the incident and it is possible the officer is no longer a “Brady” officer.

————————————————————

As for your public records request dated March 25, 2015 relating to Gregory Patrick, I’m pasting your original request below with responses to each, and designated each item with a capital letter for ease of future reference.

A. All records that indicate if this individual is still currently employed at the City of Redmond in the Police Department.

Response: Gregory Patrick is currently employed by the City of Redmond. Many records may imply he is currently an employee but do not actually state he is currently an employee. If the City maintains a list of current employees as of the date of your request, would that satisfy your request or is this response sufficient? Please clarify.

B. All records that indicate this officer’s official title and capacity if still employed.

Response: Gregory Patrick is a detective. He was assigned to that position in May of 2009. I’ve attached the “personnel action notice” reflecting the assignment (page 1 attached), redacting employee social security number, address, telephone numbers and month and year of birth, emergency contact information, and bank account information. (RCW 42.56.250(3) authorizes redaction of residential addresses, telephone numbers and SSNs of employees along with emergency contact information. RCW 42.56.250(8) exempts release of the mo/yr of birth in the personnel files of law enforcement officers. RCW 42.56.230(5) exempts release of bank account numbers.) Very technically, this request could be interpreted to include every single record that includes the words “Detective Gregory Patrick”, including every email sent if an automatic signature is used. Did you intend to request all such records, or is the personnel action notice sufficient to satisfy your request? Please clarify.

C. All records related to any Brady violations.

Response: See attached memorandum (page 2 of attached) regarding IA 98-01, redacting accused officer identity where complaint was unsubstantiated. (RCW 42.56.240(1); Non-disclosure is essential to protect a person’s right of privacy; Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398 (2011) officer has right to privacy in identity where complaint is unsubstantiated.) See also attached email from Shari Shovlin to Daniel Clark dated November 1, 2013 (page 3 of attached), which was previously provided in connection with your December #24 request.

D. All internal affairs records on this officer.

Response: See response to “C” above. No further responsive records exist.

E. All records related to criminal arrest and conviction maintained by Redmond.

Response: The City interprets this request to mean arrest and conviction of the officer. The City has no responsive records.

F. All records between the City of Redmond and the US Attorney’s Office as it relates to any criminal arrests or convictions or allegations.

Response: The City has no responsive records.

G. All records between the City of Redmond and the City of Renton as it relates to criminal arrest of this officer.

Response: The City has no responsive records.

H. All records of any death threats or threats of suicide or both.

Response: The City has no responsive records.

I. All records pertaining to domestic violence.

Response: See response to (C) above. No further responsive records exist.

J. All records that indicate if this officer is on the SWAT team (if currently employed)

Response: No responsive records exist, as this officer is not on the SWAT team.

K. All records that indicate this officer is certified to have a gun in official capacity.

Response: See three attached letters (pages 4-6 of attached) dated January 16, 2013, March 26, 2006, and April 25, 1999.

L. All records of any plea bargains related to criminal arrest of this individual.

Response: The City has no responsive records.

M. All records of disciplinary action taken.

Response: The City has no responsive records. See response to (C) above for the closest record.

N. All records indicating supervisors involved in disciplinary action and all records of paperwork related to disciplinary action.

Response: The City has no responsive records. See response to (C) above for closest record.

O. All records of disciplinary action of any kind of this officer.

Response: See response to (C) above for the closest record. No further responsive records.

P. All records pertaining to criminal arrests.

Response: The City interprets this request to apply to any arrests made of the officer. The City has no responsive records.

Q. All records of formal complaints or allegations made against this officer.

Response: See attached pages (pages 7-10 of attached) from internal investigation and inquiry logs. These have been redacted to remove the identities of officers where complaints were unsubstantiated or unfounded. See legal basis for redaction in response C above.

R. All records of exculpatory evidence (given this detective is on the Brady List)

Response: The City has no responsive records.

S. All records indicating the date this officer officially made the Brady List with both Redmond and King County and the date the Brady Violation occurred.

Response: The City has no responsive records.

T. All records indicating the officer in charge of public records as it pertains to the public records request I made in 2013 and 2014 and is responsible for not providing this name and all records from those requests.

Response: This request assumes facts that are not accurate as the requests in 2013 and 2014 were for requests for information (rather than public records requests) involving any “Brady” officers and was limited to those with sustained allegations of dishonesty. Detective Patrick does not have a sustained allegation of dishonesty. As such, no responsive record exists.

Please let me know if the responses to A and B above are sufficient. If not, please clarify the records you are seeking. All remaining items have been fully addressed.

Best regards,

Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney

Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500

Seattle, WA 98164
Phone: 206.447.2250 | Facsimile: 206.447.0215

asummerfield@omwlaw.com | omwlaw.com

 

from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
cc: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>,
Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>
date: Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:36 PM
subject: RE: City of Redmond – Woods PRR March 25, 2015 – conclusion

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
to: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
date: Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:45 PM
subject: Re: City of Redmond – Woods PRR March 25, 2015 – conclusion
mailed-by: gmail.com

That no responsive record exists and the fact that this officer made the Brady List and yet you say he may not be even be on the Brady List is troubling given the circumstances and the paper trail that exists to this day.

So my question is when did the officer officially make the Brady List? When was the date of incident? And when did the officer get removed from the Brady List? Can you detail that because either no existing records exist, he may or may not have been removed from the Brady List.
I guess my question is also how did the officer make the Brady List as you say this was not a sustained act of dishonesty and yet the Brady List (even if from 1998) relates to dishonesty, so how does one make the list if it is not a sustained act of dishonesty?

brent woods

from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM
subject: RE: City of Redmond – Woods PRR March 25, 2015 – conclusion

Brent, I just today received the attached from King County which you may find helpful. At the top of page 3 they address “criminal conviction” in addition to sustained allegations of dishonesty. The City does not have record of the exact date of the incident. I understand it to have taken place in 1998. You can make a request to the City of Renton for the incident report.

Hope this helps.

–Angela

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
to: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
date: Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:23 PM
subject: Re: City of Redmond – Woods PRR March 25, 2015 – conclusion

Brady evidence regarding recurring government witnesses usually falls into one of

several general categories: misconduct involving dishonesty; evidence tending to show a bias or some motive to lie; and — for expert witnesses — a pattern of confirmed performance errors that could compromise the expert’s conclusions.

That’s right out of that King County bulletin but it discusses dishonesty and lying versus what you are claiming was a criminal conviction. But since the records were expunged or there are no responsive records, this would be one to compare with the standard.

from: B Woods
to: John Marchione
date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:16 AM
subject: Public Records Request September 15 2015
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

Sep 15 (8 days ago)

to John
Mayor Marchione
I wish to submit a public records request per Washington State RCW 42.56.
By your City Attorney’s own admission, and I have the original letter on their letterhead, your city destroyed public records prior to 4 years (all criminal records).

Please find the following to help you in this public records request:

“In my letter to you of Aug 9, I promised to have a response for you by today on your request for date stamped copies off discovery requests made by you or your attorney and responses made by the City in Case 20031. The City has searched its records and currently has no documents that are responsive to your request. It is the policy of the City prosecutor’s office to destroy all criminal and traffic case files two years after conviction and sentencing. It is the policy of the City’s police department, pursuant to the State of Washington’s General Records Retention Schedule for Law Enforcement Agencies, to destroy records such as those you have requested at the end of the year following the year in which the record was received. The conviction in your case occurred in September 2001 and sentencing took place in March 2003 after your appeal to King County Superior Court was denied. the last request for information that the police department received from you was also in 2003. Therefore, the prosecutor’s office and the police department have destroyed any date stamped copies the City may have once had. You may wish to contact your trial counsel, whom I understand was ……., and see if he has any date stamped copies available.”

“You also asked whether the City prosecutor provides officer’s discipline records in response to requests for exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor’s office does not have any written policies or documents that are responsive to your request, but my understanding is that the prosecutor does not routinely provide such material in response to generalized requests for exculpatory evidence. …..”

Mayor, the City of Redmond claims they destroyed public records within the retention schedule based on the denial of an appeal. You have a problem here. I was not denied an appeal. I made the appeal and the City destroyed public records (criminal records)

My request is seeking the log or logs for the destruction of those public records (all criminal records for case 20031) as indicated from the information provided by your City Attorney (above in bold) for case 20031 and the records indicating the public officer and signature of who signed off on that log (or logs) for destruction prior to 4 years. While the city may not have the records I had requested because they were destroyed, I am seeking the log files and all records indicating the destruction of those records. It’s not my fault the records were destroyed based on Redmond’s claim that I was denied an appeal and there is no statute of limitations in these matters. Therefore I am seeking all records as described. These records will prove the date of destruction and if this was within the retention schedule, because again I was NOT DENIED AN APPEAL. Those records should not have been destroyed based on the letter from your City Attorney, not on that retention schedule. But I need those logs. Those records I requested…that was from a long time ago, but those records should not have been destroyed, but I will have to review those logs for the case indicated and determine the City of Redmond’s negligence in these matters and if any crimes were committed.

For those responsive records that currently exist in electronic format (such as email, Word, or PDF files), please provide those documents in native searchable format including metadata. You are free to forward the files to me by email or copy the .pst files (with metadata) onto a CDR or DVD. Alternation of original email from its original .pst file along with its metadata is considered a violation of the Public Records Act; see Shoreline. For those documents which exist only in paper form, please scan those documents into PDF files and copy those files onto a CDR or DVD. Where paper copies of records available in electronic form contain handwritten marks or notes, please provide both the native electronic record and a copy of the paper record.

“Public record” includes “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state, county, or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” RCW 42.56.010(2). “‘Writing’ means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.” RCW 42.56.010(3).

This request specifically includes -and you are specifically directed to obtain, preserve in native format, and produce -any records that exist on agency computers, portable phones, BlackBerries, Kindle, IPad, or other devices, or in email, data, voice mail, or text mail accounts owned, controlled or paid for by the any government agency.

For each record that you contend is exempt from public disclosure, please specifically identify the record by subject, title, author, custodian and date, and specifically state how the specific statutory exemption applies to the record as required by RCW 42.56.210(3). For each record that is only partially exempt from public disclosure, please provide a redacted copy of that record. Failure to comply with this request for public records may require you to pay attorney fees as well as mandatory penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4). Yousoufian v. Sims, 152 Wn.2d 421,433, 98 P.3d 463 (2005) and Rental Housing Ass’n v. Des Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525, 199 P.3d 393 (2009).

Whether or not the Agency asserts that any requested records are exempt from disclosure you are required by RCW 42.56.100 to protect all records from loss or destruction until this matter is resolved.
You have five days to respond to this request as required by RCW 42.56.520.

Please notify me as to any costs or expense to anticipate in advance.

brent woods

from: B Woods
to: Michelle Hart
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:30 AM
subject: Public Records Request September 15 2015 11:16 AM to Marchione
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

9:30 AM (3 hours ago)

to Michelle
Ms. Hart,

As you can see there was a Public Records Request for September 15, 2015 sent to Mr. Marchione at 11:16 AM.

While I do appreciate you sending me public records of destruction of logs and citations as it relates to a specific case within my public records request, I have reviewed those destruction logs. While citation and criminal case records were what I am pursuing, this request is not fulfilled.
I am requesting the records the prosecutor’s office destroyed prior to retention schedules and I am formally requesting those records.
Let me back up, I submitted a public records request, yes records, not to be confused with information, as my request sought public records specifically. I have a letter on your City Attorney’s letterhead and dated saying that the records I requested were destroyed based on a denial of an appeal. I had requested specific records and that had to do with the prosecutor’s office at the City of Redmond. While it is true that records that originated from the Redmond Police Department would be a part of my request, the City of Redmond has provided records specific from the Redmond Police Department and not what I am seeking, those destruction logs from your city’s prosecutor’s office, based on destruction of evidence prior to retention schedules, because again, I was never denied an appeal, and I am aware of the retention schedule, and I can assure you I appealed, and I know the dates of my public records requests with the City of Redmond. That was a LONG time ago.
So to summarize, I need the destruction logs from the prosecutor’s office and all the records I requested in my public records request, because I am not seeing it, nothing from the prosecutor’s office. I see records from the Police Department, but the prosecutor would have both the police records and was the one that destroyed public records, therefore I require the destruction logs just as my public records request states. From the letter from your City Attorney states, it was the prosecutor’s office that destroyed the records. Those are the destruction logs I require because they destroyed records I requested based on their claim I was denied an appeal, when in reality I appealed. Please provide those destruction logs just as my request stated.
This public records request is NOT closed. The records have not been provided. I do thank you however for taking the time to provide the destruction logs from what the Police Department had, but that wasn’t entirely what I am seeking, as per my formal request dated in the heading of this email. Again that went to your mayor.
Please advise.

brent woods

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods
cc: “Allison G. Gordon”
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:37 AM
subject: RE: Public Records Request September 15 2015 11:16 AM to Marchione
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart

10:37 AM (2 hours ago)

to Allison, me

Brent,

There are no destruction logs from the Prosecutor’s Office responsive to your request. This search was performed and all responsive records in the possession of the City were provided to you. I am sorry if they are not the records you seek.

Michelle Hart

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods
to: Michelle Hart
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:42 AM
subject: Re: Public Records Request September 15 2015 11:16 AM to Marchione
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

10:42 AM (2 hours ago)

to Michelle
I will be requiring all destruction logs from the Prosecutors Office and will submit under separate cover as a new request.

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods
cc: “Allison G. Gordon”
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:47 AM
subject: RE: Public Records Request September 15 2015 11:16 AM to Marchione
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart

10:47 AM (2 hours ago)

to me, Allison

If they keep destruction logs, Brent, those records would be responsive to that request. If they do not, the City would have no records to produce to you.

Michelle Hart

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods
to: John Marchione ,
Michelle Hart
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM
subject: Public Records Request September 23 2015 – Destruction Logs – Prosecutors Office
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

10:53 AM (2 hours ago)

to John, Michelle
Mayor Marchione, CC Ms. Hart (City Clerk)

Pursuant to RCW 42.56, I am going to submit a public records request.

My request is for all records as they pertain to destruction logs created, maintained, and in possession by the Prosecutor’s Office at the City of Redmond. While you say there are no destruction logs from the Prosecutor’s Office responsive to a previous request, we shall see what destruction logs the City of Redmond possesses, creates, and maintains.

This should be a fairly simple request to fulfill, in fact I hope I can get that filled in the very near future, given that you claim there are no responsive records.

So to clarify this request, you are saying the Prosecutor’s Office does not maintain, possess, or create destruction logs, yet they destroy public records? Am I hearing this correctly? Regardless I will require all records from beginning to end.

For those responsive records that currently exist in electronic format (such as email, Word, or PDF files), please provide those documents in native searchable format including metadata. You are free to forward the files to me by email or copy the .pst files (with metadata) onto a CDR or DVD. Alternation of original email from its original .pst file along with its metadata is considered a violation of the Public Records Act; see Shoreline. For those documents which exist only in paper form, please scan those documents into PDF files and copy those files onto a CDR or DVD. Where paper copies of records available in electronic form contain handwritten marks or notes, please provide both the native electronic record and a copy of the paper record.

“Public record” includes “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state, county, or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” RCW 42.56.010(2). “‘Writing’ means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.” RCW 42.56.010(3).

This request specifically includes -and you are specifically directed to obtain, preserve in native format, and produce -any records that exist on agency computers, portable phones, BlackBerries, Kindle, IPad, or other devices, or in email, data, voice mail, or text mail accounts owned, controlled or paid for by the any government agency.

For each record that you contend is exempt from public disclosure, please specifically identify the record by subject, title, author, custodian and date, and specifically state how the specific statutory exemption applies to the record as required by RCW 42.56.210(3). For each record that is only partially exempt from public disclosure, please provide a redacted copy of that record. Failure to comply with this request for public records may require you to pay attorney fees as well as mandatory penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4). Yousoufian v. Sims, 152 Wn.2d 421,433, 98 P.3d 463 (2005) and Rental Housing Ass’n v. Des Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525, 199 P.3d 393 (2009).

Whether or not the Agency asserts that any requested records are exempt from disclosure you are required by RCW 42.56.100 to protect all records from loss or destruction until this matter is resolved.
You have five days to respond to this request as required by RCW 42.56.520.

Please notify me as to any costs or expense to anticipate in advance.

brent woods

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods ,
John Marchione
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:57 AM
subject: RE: Public Records Request September 23 2015 – Destruction Logs – Prosecutors Office
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart

10:57 AM (2 hours ago)

to me, John

Brent,

For the third time now, keeping of destruction logs is not a requirement under RCW 42.56. And yes, record retention requirements of the State are still applicable. I have received your request below and will forward this request to the Prosecutor’s Office for response.

Thank you and have a good day.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods
to: Michelle Hart
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:07 AM
subject: Re: Public Records Request September 23 2015 – Destruction Logs – Prosecutors Office
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

11:07 AM (2 hours ago)

to Michelle
Please provide all identifiable records. And for further clarification, I will need all records as they also pertain to dates and names of who signed off on destruction of public records, but that is inherent in the request. But if there are no responsive records, this should be very interesting. Copy your Prosecutor’s Office in on that.

from: City of Redmond Public Records Center
to: brent.a.woods@gmail.com
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:29 AM
subject: Public Records Request :: W000384-092315

City of Redmond Public Records Center

11:29 AM (1 hour ago)

to me

RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of 9/23/2015, Reference # W000384-092315

Dear Brent,

The City of Redmond received your public records request on 9/23/2015, regarding “Pursuant to RCW 42.56, I am going to submit a public records request. My request is for all records as they pertain to destruction logs created, maintained, and in possession by the Prosecutor’s Office at the City of Redmond. While you say there are no destruction logs from the Prosecutor’s Office responsive to a previous request, we shall see what destruction logs the City of Redmond possesses, creates, and maintains. This should be a fairly simple request to fulfill, in fact I hope I can get that filled in the very near future, given that you claim there are no responsive records. So to clarify this request, you are saying the Prosecutor’s Office does not maintain, possess, or create destruction logs, yet they destroy public records? Am I hearing this correctly? Regardless I will require all records from beginning to end.”.

Your request will be forwarded out to the applicable department(s) for response.

You will be notified regarding the status of your request by 9/30/2015 (5 business days per RCW 42.56).

Thank you for your submission,
City of Redmond
Public Records Coordinator

Login: City of Redmond Public Record Center

from: B Woods
to: City of Redmond Public Records Center
date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:33 AM
subject: Re: Public Records Request :: W000384-092315
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

11:33 AM (1 hour ago)

to City
You are welcome. Thanks for all you do!

B Woods

8:17 PM (19 hours ago)

to Judy, Toby, Nancy
Dear Bob Ferguson, Nancy Krier, and Governor Jay Inslee
I contacted the ATG office on August 19th (copied below) and submitted a formal complaint as it relates to Public Records being removed from formal audit trails. As of today, September 1st, 2015, I have not received acknowledgement from the ATG office or Nancy Krier. This is nothing new.
First I want to get acknowledgement that the Ombudsman for the State of Washington has received this formal complaint. Second I want to know what the course of action for this situation is.
Governor, I have contacted the ATG office before and through the City of Redmond was told that they shredded documents according to law and within retention schedules. This is absolutely false.
Through the City of Redmond’s (City Attorney) own self admission they destroyed public records related to a court case based on the denial of an appeal, which is false, I made the appeal. I never was denied appeals and I certainly have not exhausted all my appeals. I provided the timeline as to the destruction of those public records and it was not within the scope of the law or within the retention schedules, and that is clearly documented.
Your ATG Office failed to do their job then Governor Inslee, and they are failing to do their job now.
As far as I am concerned, the ATG is covering up for what the courts and cities within their responsibilities and they are not fielding complaints, let alone acknowledging them.
I expect an acknowledgement of of the complaint as to the City of Redmond withholding public records as it is documented that the records were removed from the audit trail.
I am sending this letter to the Governor under separate cover to let him know what is going on at the ATG office.
I contacted the ATG with a public records request in order to get proof that the records were destroyed within the legal time frame, because clearly they were not.
Now the same city is withholding public records, I put in a formal complaint with the State Ombudsman who in my eye should be the appropriate person for the complaint in this situation as it pertains to open government laws in particular Public Records Act 42.56 (which is clearly under attack) and I have received ZERO response.
It is a shame that the ATG Office conducts itself in this regard.
I expect a follow up on the formal complaint to Nancy Krier, so you might as well start with a formal acknowledgement.
I had contacted Bob Ferguson as it pertained to the City destroying public records illegally based on their claim that I was denied an appeal. I don’t think he even replied, much like this formal complaint.
Governor, is this how your cabinets conduct themselves under your leadership? Is this what you expect from your cabinets as it pertains to public records laws and the illegal destruction of records and illegal withholding of public records. Is this how you condone formal complaints? This is under your watch Governor.
As a citizen of Washington State, I expect better, but it’s not being seen.
I want to know when I can expect to hear from the ATG Office and i want to know what the next step will be in the formal complaint process. So far I just have record from the ATG that they do not represent the people of the state of Washington but the agencies and municipalities and that I should contact some other department in your administration.
Please find the formal complaint to the ATG sent on August 19th that I have not received a response back on. This was a formal complaint to the State Ombudsman. That’s why I sent it. I have proof that records (factual evidence) was withheld.
Brent Woods

from: B Woods
to: cityclerk@redmond.gov,
“Krier, Nancy (ATG)” ,
RLGIBSON@redmond.gov,
ombudsman@kingcounty.gov
date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM
subject: Formal Complaint August 19 2015
mailed-by: gmail.com

Dear Chief of Police Redmond WA, King County Ombudsman, and Washington State Ombudsman,

I wish to file a formal complaint within your respective jurisdictions as it pertains to the removal of evidence and records from public view in the City of Redmond’s Police Records Division.

As you can see below, it is well documented and as a result I was provided false and erroneous records per a public records request.

As you can see Ogden Murphy Wallace claims there were no responsive records prior to November (2014) which is false. As you can see, there is an audit trail. As you can see there is a formal request for public records. As you can see the request was not provided per the attorney who handled the request. But as you can see with 100% certainty, it was removed from the audit log. It is even noted that once turned over to the City Clerk, that she said it would not be tracked or logged because it was being handed over to the Police Records Division. As you can see the City Attorney said I must have turned the request over to the Police Records Division, which is a false statement because the email was sent to her in 2013. But as you can see, the attorney said no responsive records existed prior to November of 2014. Not only was the response back non responsive, but it was false and erroneous. I do not believe this is in accordance to the law RCW 42.56. Therefore I wish to file a formal complaint within each of your jurisdictions as this does not appear right at all. The audit log indicates that.

There is a response from Cathy Smoke from the Redmond Police Department that responded to the public records request in 2013. But as you can see, it was not in the audit log and the attorney for the City of Redmond came back with false and erroneous records.

Please notify me as to how this formal complaint will be handled. I look forward to your acknowledgement of this complaint and your response. Please let me know if you need any more records.

At the moment, I do not know who is ultimately responsible however it is within my rights to file a formal complaint at this time based on the evidence and records removed from public view and per my records request.

Sincerely,

brent woods

from: B Woods
to: Michelle Hart ,
“Krier, Nancy (ATG)”
date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:14 PM
subject: False and Erroneous Records
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

12/11/14

to Michelle, Nancy
Ms Hart,

I want to let you know I read this in the emails.

“Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions. Just let me know you have received my email here, I will not log and track this request as I am forwarding it over to you. Many Thanks!! :)”

Michelle

From your email dated November 18 2013, 10:25 AM

So this might explain why I got false and erroneous records back from the City of Redmond as per my request, in fact this explains a lot to me. I do not know, but I will no longer have any communication with you as a result. Pretty much what I suspected all along. And now I know how.

b woods

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods ,
“Krier, Nancy (ATG)”
date: Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM
subject: RE: False and Erroneous Records
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart

12/13/14

to me, Nancy

Brent,

Per my earlier email on processing, the Police Department and City Attorney are logging and tracking your requests in their logs as they are being processed, as majority of the records sought are held within the Police Department.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

BACKTRACK TO NOVEMBER 25, 2013
from: Police Record Requests
to: “brent.a.woods@gmail.com”
date: Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM
subject: WOODS, Brent > Request for Police Information & Records
mailed-by: redmond.gov
Police Record Requests
11/20/13

*** RECEIPT CONFIRMATION ONLY *** God Afternoon Mr. Woods, Your e-mail request for records dated November16, 2013 has been forwarded to the Redmond Police Records Division by the City of Redmond Clerk’s office. The Record Division’s business hours are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. This request has been stamped as “received” today Monday, November 18th – our next business day. Please note that RCW 42.56.520 allows 5 business days to respond to requests. The fifth business day for this information and records will be Monday, November 25, 2013 by 5:00 p.m. Cordially, Cathy SmokeSupport Services Specialist – Records DivisionRedmond Police Department425-556-2608

FAST FORWARD TO December 5, 2014
to me
from: Angela G. Summerfield
to: B Woods
cc: Police Record Requests
date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:53 PM
subject: City of Redmond PRR Nov #7 – 5-day letter
ngela G. Summerfield
12/5/14

Hello. As you know I am an attorney for the City of Redmond, assisting the City in responding to your publicrecordsrequest to the City received by email dated November 26, 2014 at 12:15PM. You requested: I am seeking all public records with regards to every public records request I have ever put in with the City of Redmond. I also am seeking all public records and all emails related to an incident I recall all too well. The incident I am referring to to clarify and not appear ambiguous, is related to when I spoke to your records specialist, who said I was doing the right thing by the way, by requesting proof of impound of my car, as she told me that I was right that proof of impound of the car was supposed to be in the file, and it was not. She asked if I wanted to speak to the officer involved and I said no. She got her supervisor on the phone who immediately started saying I was harassing the City of Redmond, when in reality, I was requesting the paperwork which you did not have, and yet your officer testified my car was impounded.I’d also like a copy of the letter that said no impound paperwork existed as per the original inquiry. For efficiency in processing, the City is breaking this request into three parts as follows: Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses. Nov #7B. Allrecords relating to described communication with records specialist. Nov #7C. Copy of letter stating no impound paperwork existed. In accordance with RCW 42.56.520, I am writing to provide you with estimates of the time anticipated to comply with your requests. As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to publicrecordsrequests: “Retain for 2 years after publicrecordsrequest fulfilled then Destroy.” As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request. As to Nov #7C, the City is continuing its search for the letter you reference. If you can provide the name of the sender and the date or approximate date, that may help the City identify the record. Thank you for your patience as the City works toward completion of your requests. Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500Seattle, WA 98164
Phone: 206.447.2250 | Facsimile: 206.447.0215asummerfield@omwlaw.com | omwlaw.com
to me, Police

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to public records requests: “Retain for 2 years after public records request fulfilled then Destroy.”

As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request.

*Editor’s Note: Above is more evidence to substantiate that public records requests were not being tracked or logged in the City of Redmond’s own self admission. I requested the public records request in 2013 and circled back in 2014 and requested all public records requests I had submitted because I suspected this department was running “dual set of books” with public records requests and complaints. I suspected 3 Card Monty with the requests – out of public view. Based on the response from the attorney that no other responsive records existed, was the City of Redmond’s official answer as you can see. It’s all in the evidence. This clearly exemplified my belief and thus the public records requests.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government

Open Government

“Government accountability means that public officials — elected and un-elected — have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to the citizens. Government accountability is achieved through the use of a variety of mechanisms — political, legal and administrative — designed to prevent corruption and ensure that public officials remain answerable and accessible to the people they serve. In the absence of such mechanisms, corruption may thrive.”

— U.S. Department of State
– See more at: http://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government#sthash.ZPTdDLi9.dpuf

http://www.atg.wa.gov/Open-Government-Internet-Manual/Chapter-1

From Washington State ATG Office website:

Washington citizens to know what their government is doing. A transparent and accessible government is essential to a successful free society, and fosters trust and confidence in government.

Strong “sunshine laws” are crucial to assuring government accountability and transparency. In Washington State, those laws provide for open public records and open public meetings.

Since Washington voters approved the Public Disclosure Act more than 40 years ago, a growing number of exemptions have been added to public records laws.

Also, under the Open Public Meetings Act, some parts of open public meetings may be closed to the public, but only if certain requirements are met.

To assist the public and public agencies in understanding and implementing the sunshine laws, the Office of the Attorney General provides several resources.
– See more at: http://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government#sthash.Co9I8ZMI.dpuf

Bitcoin Macroeconomics will leave the conjecture out. The law is the law.

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods
date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

I am sorry I was not available when you called. I am working, and in meetings.

From your email below, it appears that you are not requesting a record. The task of records manager has always fallen with the City Clerk’s Office. The City Clerk prior to me was Malisa Files. The City Clerk prior to that was Bonnie Walton. That being said, records retention/destruction is a function of the departments. Meaning, all staff is responsible for the maintenance and retention of their records per the Washington State retention schedule.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods
date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:26 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by:

Michelle Hart

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

Here is the information as I know it to-date:

You had an incident that occurred with the Redmond Police Department in 2000 (almost 15 years ago).

In 2006, you must have had some correspondence with the City, as I have an email referencing a letter from the city attorney, provided to you I believe, noting that records you had requested somewhere in that latter timeline had been destroyed per retention schedule.

In October 2013, you came back to the City (contacted me, did not put in a request with me, and after our conversation, noted that you would be putting in a request with the Police Department). I assume you did that.

In November 2014, you are back at the City and have filed numerous records requests. I believe in part you are asking for the original records you requested way back when and were informed at that time that those records had been purged per the retention schedule, which as I have shared with you, is relatively short retention schedule for booking videos.

In addition, I have addressed the sentence you keep referencing below with respect to my statement that “I would not be logging and tracking the requests on my end”. I will state to you again (as I have now in several emails) I am not logging or tracking the requests…because they are already being logged and tracked by the persons filling your requests. This is correct protocol, and as you are aware, I am very much involved in those conversations and am working with the staff and the attorney to fill your requests.

I am not sure what appeals process you are referring to below. Have you been denied some appeals process that you are contesting? If so, can you please tell me which appeals process you have been denied and the timeline associated with that appeals process so that I may try to address that for you as well?. Thank you.

Michelle Hart

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods
date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:21 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

The request you put in went to the Police Department. It came through me as a pass-through to the record holding division – the Police Department. I believe my 2013 email in this regard has already been provided to you. I am including it again here for your information. And you are correct – I should have re-read it first before sending my email below to be infinitely clear… and I apologize if it was not.

I have the log and I have the emails. The last email I have from you in 2013 indicates that I received your written request and forwarded to the Police Department for their processing (logging, tracking, and response). Requests for police department records go to the Police Department records division to fill. From the time my log entry notes, “request closed,” your request at the Police Department started and they logged and filled the request.

Does this better help to explain the correspondence and process in 2013, at least in the interaction between you and I?

I am truly doing everything I can to help you attain the records you are seeking, Brent. I will continue to work with you until it is all finalized. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Michelle Hart

10/23/13

Email

Brent Woods

brent.a.woods@gmail.com

10/23/13 – Hart (Young)

10/23/13 – Hart to requestor requesting that he fill out a PRR form which she attached to the email

????????????????????

10/23/13 – Requestor emailed Ms. Hart several times asking questions such as cost per page for documents, but never specified the type of documents he is interested in.

10/30/13 – Ms. Young emailed Ms. Hart asking if she had heard anything further from Mr. Woods and if we should send him an email saying that if we don’t hear from him by such and such a date, we will close his request.

10/30/13 – Ms. Hart emailed requestor asking if he is still interested in submitting a Public Records Request.

10/31/13 – Requestor responded that he can find the information he is looking for.

11/16/13 – Requestor, Brent Woods, emailed Ms. Hart that he has changed his mind and decided to do a Public Records Request re: City of Redmond Police Officers that have sustained records of dishonest, names, badge numbers, dates, incidents, etc. and also would like the dates of City Council meetings for December 2013.

11/18/13 – Ms. Hart responded to requestor that she is referring him to the Police Dept. to fill out their PRR. She advised him that, in the month of December, the Council is only meeting on Tuesday, December 3 .

REQUEST CLOSED.

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

BACK TO THE RESPONSE FROM THE ATTORNEY

to me
from: Angela G. Summerfield
to: B Woods
cc: Police Record Requests
date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:53 PM
subject: City of Redmond PRR Nov #7 – 5-day letter
ngela G. Summerfield
12/5/14

Hello. As you know I am an attorney for the City of Redmond, assisting the City in responding to your publicrecordsrequest to the City received by email dated November 26, 2014 at 12:15PM. You requested: I am seeking all public records with regards to every public records request I have ever put in with the City of Redmond. I also am seeking all public records and all emails related to an incident I recall all too well. The incident I am referring to to clarify and not appear ambiguous, is related to when I spoke to your records specialist, who said I was doing the right thing by the way, by requesting proof of impound of my car, as she told me that I was right that proof of impound of the car was supposed to be in the file, and it was not. She asked if I wanted to speak to the officer involved and I said no. She got her supervisor on the phone who immediately started saying I was harassing the City of Redmond, when in reality, I was requesting the paperwork which you did not have, and yet your officer testified my car was impounded.I’d also like a copy of the letter that said no impound paperwork existed as per the original inquiry. For efficiency in processing, the City is breaking this request into three parts as follows: Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses. Nov #7B. Allrecords relating to described communication with records specialist. Nov #7C. Copy of letter stating no impound paperwork existed. In accordance with RCW 42.56.520, I am writing to provide you with estimates of the time anticipated to comply with your requests. As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to publicrecordsrequests: “Retain for 2 years after publicrecordsrequest fulfilled then Destroy.” As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request. As to Nov #7C, the City is continuing its search for the letter you reference. If you can provide the name of the sender and the date or approximate date, that may help the City identify the record. Thank you for your patience as the City works toward completion of your requests. Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500Seattle, WA 98164
Phone: 206.447.2250 | Facsimile: 206.447.0215asummerfield@omwlaw.com | omwlaw.com
to me, Police

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to public records requests: “Retain for 2 years after public records request fulfilled then Destroy.”

As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request.

Exhibit A (#7A)

Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses.

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines.

Conclusion: The City of Redmond obscures (removes) from public view in this manner above, (Nov #7A) and then purge with retention schedule. This example would prove to not be in accordance with the law, RCW 42.56

B Woods

Aug 19

to cityclerk, Nancy, RLGIBSON, ombudsman
Correction

I meant to say …as you can see the City Clerk said I must have turned the request over to the Police Records Division (not the attorney). Clearly the email was submitted to the City Clerk, so the claim that I must have submitted it to the Police Records Division is inaccurate.

brent woods

Through investigative work and the right to public records as per Washington State’s Public Records Act RCW 42.56, I am confident to report the findings of the public records that absolutely and 100% point to collusion and corruption in the City of Redmond. Not only that, I am confident to report gross civil rights violations, not just to myself but to huge numbers of others as I will point out. I will keep this simple, as it is all in the public record.
As you can see before I had even submitted a public records request, you will see an Ingrid being copied in on the emails. I believe Ingrid (Young) is with the Redmond Police Department, as some quick internet checking is detailing. So without me even requesting records, you can see the collusion, as it played out. I mean how else could it be that the police are asking about a request I hadn’t even made? This points to collusion, as the request could have been about the parks department or street signs for all they know. And as you can see from the investigative work, the public records were removed from public view and audit trail, but that’s not all (there is more coming). And as you can see from emails provided from 2006, Larry Mitchell was copied in on emails it related to what amounts to exculpatory evidence, so the claim he did not know is balderdash while it is the duty of the prosecutor to provide all exculpatory evidence, which has not happened as detailed from this 14 part series. There is a culture of corruption in the City of Redmond and I believe with 100% certainty that civil rights violations have occurred, including my own, and this is going to hurt. What you are witnessing is collusion and corruption, and racketeering. An inquiry into public records or FOIA ends up at the police department, thanks to the City Clerk. And as you can see the prosecutor knowingly knew about exculpatory evidence and failed to do his job and Brady vs Maryland has been violated, and this amounts to misconduct and suppression of evidence. And you know what? I’m not done yet. The State Attorney General’s Office has failed in fielding the complaint as well, and they will feel the wrath of what amounts to civil rights violations on a grande scale for their dereliction of duty. It’s pretty funny to see such Keystone Cops covering up in 2015 with the serious nature of this all. But to be asking about public records requests or FOIA inquiries before I even made them, the RPD must be god damn mind readers. Instead they got caught removing public records from the audit log. I’d have to say that is unbecoming of an officer and dishonesty. In fact, I would believe this to be criminal. Let’s start in on the civil rights violations. You feel me homey?

*According to RCW 40.16.010, it’s a felony to tampering with public records.

Injury to public record.

Every person who shall willfully and unlawfully remove, alter, mutilate, destroy, conceal, or obliterate a record, map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or deposited in a public office, or with any public officer, by authority of law, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both.
*Compliments www.goldbarreporter.org

“Collusion

An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.

A secret arrangement wherein two or more people whose legal interests seemingly conflict conspire to commit Fraud upon another person; a pact between two people to deceive a court with the purpose of obtaining something that they would not be able to get through legitimate judicial channels.

Collusion has often been used in Divorce proceedings. In the past some jurisdictions made it extremely difficult for a couple to obtain a divorce. Often a “sweetheart” agreement would take place, whereby a husband or wife would commit, or appear to commit, Adultery or other acts that would justify a divorce. The public policy against collusive divorces is based on the idea that such actions would conflict with the effective administration by society of laws on marriage and divorce and would undermine marriage as a stabilizing force in society.

Virtually all jurisdictions have adopted no-fault divorce statutes or laws that allow a couple to obtain a divorce without traditional fault grounds, such as adultery or cruel and inhuman treatment. Because of this development, collusive divorces should diminish in number, since it will no longer be necessary for persons seeking a divorce to resort to such measures.

The fundamental societal objection to collusion is that it promotes dishonesty and fraud, which, in turn, undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system.”
Credit: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collusion

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:43 PM
subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

Attachments10/23/13

to Michelle
Ms. Hart,
I apologize, I forgot to ask a question in my original email.

Is there a cost per page that I may anticipate or a cost associated with requests for public information (WA RCW)? I’d like to be clear on that policy in advance.

Thanks,

Brent Woods

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

10/23/13

to me, Ingrid

Mr. Woods,

Hard copy prints are .15 cents per page. The city does not charge for electronic information sent. Oversized documents may be required to be copied off-site and the applicable print house charge would be associated with that, as well as any sales tax the city was charged to copy that oversized item (if any at all). There are fee schedules at the City for other documents – it just depends on what is being requested – for example, maps. The City would also call you in advanced and let you know if there are any applicable charges to fill your request, and what those would be. Also, inspection of files and designation of the records you absolutely want is also an option for you prior to our copying of any records. It is totally up to you on how you want to proceed. RCW 42.56 is not applicable to “information” requests, but rather, for “records” requests. Of course, if a requestor asks for information, as opposed to records, the City would be responsive to your inquiries as well. 🙂

I hope this helps – and please do not hesitate to let me know any additional questions you may have.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM
subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

Attachments10/23/13

to Michelle
Ms. Hart,

Thank you for that information. That was very helpful.
I see that (my use of the word information is confused FOIA) so I will try not to request information, but complete records and files.

Again, thanks for clarifying that up for me.

Regards,

Brent Woods

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

10/23/13

to me

I am glad it was helpful. We are happy to work with you in any way that works best for you. J

We do get a hybrid of records/information requests regularly. We’ll pick it apart to sort through it when it comes. 🙂 No worries there. And if staff has any need for clarification over your request, we will give you a call in the interest of fulfilling the request in a timely manner. 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

10/30/13

to me, Ingrid

Mr. Woods,

I am following up with you regarding whether or not you are still interested in submitting a records request to the City of Redmond. Please advise. Thank you.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM
subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

Attachments10/31/13

to Michelle
Thank you for the follow up. I think I got hung up given the scope of the information versus the records you discussed previously.
I think if I look hard enough, I will be able to find the answer to my question.
Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

10/31/13

to me, Ingrid

Thank you, Mr. Woods. Should you decide to submit a request in the future, please do just let me know.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:18 AM
subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

Attachments11/16/13

to Michelle
Ms. Hart,
Pursuant to our previous conversation, I decided to do a public records request. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. This request should take all of 5 minutes, as I don’t want to waste your time or the taxpayers time.

How many of the City of Redmond Police Officers have sustained records of dishonesty (which includes lying, untruthfulness, dishonesty, false claims etc.)?

What are the officers names?

What are the officer’s badge numbers?

What was the date of incidents of the sustained event (if any)?
When was the sustained event documented proven as sustained officially?
What was the name and title of the supervisor that signed off on the sustained act?

The other request I have is for an entire file. The file I ask for is the entire file on the policy of the City of Redmond, WA that explains the policy as it relates to law enforcement officers with sustained records of dishonesty.

One more thing, I am requesting the entire file on the policy of the City of Redmond, WA as it pertains to a law enforcement officer testifying in the court of law should the law enforcement officer be found to have a sustained act of dishonesty (which includes but is not limited to acts of dishonesty, untruthfulness, and lying, and false claims).

Do you happen to have a schedule for the City of Redmond’s City Council meetings for December?

I thank you for your time and cooperation. I have nothing more to say on this, as my questions were precise, so I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods
from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:21 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

The request you put in went to the Police Department. It came through me as a pass-through to the record holding division – the Police Department. I believe my 2013 email in this regard has already been provided to you. I am including it again here for your information. And you are correct – I should have re-read it first before sending my email below to be infinitely clear… and I apologize if it was not.

I have the log and I have the emails. The last email I have from you in 2013 indicates that I received your written request and forwarded to the Police Department for their processing (logging, tracking, and response). Requests for police department records go to the Police Department records division to fill. From the time my log entry notes, “request closed,” your request at the Police Department started and they logged and filled the request.

Does this better help to explain the correspondence and process in 2013, at least in the interaction between you and I?

I am truly doing everything I can to help you attain the records you are seeking, Brent. I will continue to work with you until it is all finalized. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Michelle Hart

10/23/13

Email

Brent Woods

brent.a.woods@gmail.com

10/23/13 – Hart (Young)

10/23/13 – Hart to requestor requesting that he fill out a PRR form which she attached to the email

????????????????????

10/23/13 – Requestor emailed Ms. Hart several times asking questions such as cost per page for documents, but never specified the type of documents he is interested in.

10/30/13 – Ms. Young emailed Ms. Hart asking if she had heard anything further from Mr. Woods and if we should send him an email saying that if we don’t hear from him by such and such a date, we will close his request.

10/30/13 – Ms. Hart emailed requestor asking if he is still interested in submitting a Public Records Request.

10/31/13 – Requestor responded that he can find the information he is looking for.

11/16/13 – Requestor, Brent Woods, emailed Ms. Hart that he has changed his mind and decided to do a Public Records Request re: City of Redmond Police Officers that have sustained records of dishonest, names, badge numbers, dates, incidents, etc. and also would like the dates of City Council meetings for December 2013.

11/18/13 – Ms. Hart responded to requestor that she is referring him to the Police Dept. to fill out their PRR. She advised him that, in the month of December, the Council is only meeting on Tuesday, December 3 .

REQUEST CLOSED.

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Thank you for the follow up. I think I got hung up given the scope of the information versus the records you discussed previously.
I think if I look hard enough, I will be able to find the answer to my question.
Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Mr. Woods,

I am following up with you regarding whether or not you are still interested in submitting a records request to the City of Redmond. Please advise. Thank you.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: Michelle Hart
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:59 PM
To: ‘B Woods’
Subject: RE: FW: FOIA Question

I am glad it was helpful. We are happy to work with you in any way that works best for you. J

We do get a hybrid of records/information requests regularly. We’ll pick it apart to sort through it when it comes. 🙂 No worries there. And if staff has any need for clarification over your request, we will give you a call in the interest of fulfilling the request in a timely manner. 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:57 PM

To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for that information. That was very helpful.

I see that (my use of the word information is confused FOIA) so I will try not to request information, but complete records and files.

Again, thanks for clarifying that up for me.

Regards,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Mr. Woods,

Hard copy prints are .15 cents per page. The city does not charge for electronic information sent. Oversized documents may be required to be copied off-site and the applicable print house charge would be associated with that, as well as any sales tax the city was charged to copy that oversized item (if any at all). There are fee schedules at the City for other documents – it just depends on what is being requested – for example, maps. The City would also call you in advanced and let you know if there are any applicable charges to fill your request, and what those would be. Also, inspection of files and designation of the records you absolutely want is also an option for you prior to our copying of any records. It is totally up to you on how you want to proceed. RCW 42.56 is not applicable to “information” requests, but rather, for “records” requests. Of course, if a requestor asks for information, as opposed to records, the City would be responsive to your inquiries as well. 🙂

I hope this helps – and please do not hesitate to let me know any additional questions you may have.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:43 PM

To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

I apologize, I forgot to ask a question in my original email.

Is there a cost per page that I may anticipate or a cost associated with requests for public information (WA RCW)? I’d like to be clear on that policy in advance.

Thanks,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Wonderful! Thank you, Mr. Woods. You may email this directly to me, and I will send you a confirmation once I have received your request so that you know it made it safely to its destination! 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for your response. I do have the RCW for WA and do have the obligations of the requester. I will be specific.

Again, I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Brent,

My name is Michelle Hart. I am the City Clerk for the City of Redmond, and am in receipt of your inquiry below.

The Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to City records, as it is a federal provision that applies to federal agencies. Locally, the Public Records Act for the State of Washington is applicable. I am attaching the necessary form for you to fill out in order to begin processing your request. You can fill this out, sign it, and fax or email back to me here at my address. You may also opt to mail it in or bring it in in person, that is totally up to you on what may be more convenient for you. Please be specific with the records your seek so that they may be identified within the responsive department. Upon receiving your request, I will forward this out to the appropriate department(s), and they will be in direct contact with you regarding production.

Thank you for your inquiry and I look forward to assisting you in your search.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: City Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:14 AM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: FW: FOIA Question
Importance: High

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:33 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FOIA Question

Dear Clerk’s Office,

I am going to file a Freedom of Information Act with your office and I would like to see if I could get the name and contact information of the person in your department that I will need to address this request to.

Also, do you have any problem if I file this via email?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

Wonderful! Thank you, Mr. Woods. You may email this directly to me, and I will send you a confirmation once I have received your request so that you know it made it safely to its destination! 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for your response. I do have the RCW for WA and do have the obligations of the requester. I will be specific.

Again, I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Brent,

My name is Michelle Hart. I am the City Clerk for the City of Redmond, and am in receipt of your inquiry below.

The Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to City records, as it is a federal provision that applies to federal agencies. Locally, the Public Records Act for the State of Washington is applicable. I am attaching the necessary form for you to fill out in order to begin processing your request. You can fill this out, sign it, and fax or email back to me here at my address. You may also opt to mail it in or bring it in in person, that is totally up to you on what may be more convenient for you. Please be specific with the records your seek so that they may be identified within the responsive department. Upon receiving your request, I will forward this out to the appropriate department(s), and they will be in direct contact with you regarding production.

Thank you for your inquiry and I look forward to assisting you in your search.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: City Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:14 AM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: FW: FOIA Question
Importance: High

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:33 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FOIA Question

Dear Clerk’s Office,

I am going to file a Freedom of Information Act with your office and I would like to see if I could get the name and contact information of the person in your department that I will need to address this request to.

Also, do you have any problem if I file this via email?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

Mr. Woods,

Hard copy prints are .15 cents per page. The city does not charge for electronic information sent. Oversized documents may be required to be copied off-site and the applicable print house charge would be associated with that, as well as any sales tax the city was charged to copy that oversized item (if any at all). There are fee schedules at the City for other documents – it just depends on what is being requested – for example, maps. The City would also call you in advanced and let you know if there are any applicable charges to fill your request, and what those would be. Also, inspection of files and designation of the records you absolutely want is also an option for you prior to our copying of any records. It is totally up to you on how you want to proceed. RCW 42.56 is not applicable to “information” requests, but rather, for “records” requests. Of course, if a requestor asks for information, as opposed to records, the City would be responsive to your inquiries as well. 🙂

I hope this helps – and please do not hesitate to let me know any additional questions you may have.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:43 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

I apologize, I forgot to ask a question in my original email.

Is there a cost per page that I may anticipate or a cost associated with requests for public information (WA RCW)? I’d like to be clear on that policy in advance.

Thanks,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Wonderful! Thank you, Mr. Woods. You may email this directly to me, and I will send you a confirmation once I have received your request so that you know it made it safely to its destination! 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for your response. I do have the RCW for WA and do have the obligations of the requester. I will be specific.

Again, I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Brent,

My name is Michelle Hart. I am the City Clerk for the City of Redmond, and am in receipt of your inquiry below.

The Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to City records, as it is a federal provision that applies to federal agencies. Locally, the Public Records Act for the State of Washington is applicable. I am attaching the necessary form for you to fill out in order to begin processing your request. You can fill this out, sign it, and fax or email back to me here at my address. You may also opt to mail it in or bring it in in person, that is totally up to you on what may be more convenient for you. Please be specific with the records your seek so that they may be identified within the responsive department. Upon receiving your request, I will forward this out to the appropriate department(s), and they will be in direct contact with you regarding production.

Thank you for your inquiry and I look forward to assisting you in your search.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: City Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:14 AM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: FW: FOIA Question
Importance: High

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:33 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FOIA Question

Dear Clerk’s Office,

I am going to file a Freedom of Information Act with your office and I would like to see if I could get the name and contact information of the person in your department that I will need to address this request to.

Also, do you have any problem if I file this via email?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

I am glad it was helpful. We are happy to work with you in any way that works best for you. J

We do get a hybrid of records/information requests regularly. We’ll pick it apart to sort through it when it comes. 🙂 No worries there. And if staff has any need for clarification over your request, we will give you a call in the interest of fulfilling the request in a timely manner. 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:57 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for that information. That was very helpful.

I see that (my use of the word information is confused FOIA) so I will try not to request information, but complete records and files.

Again, thanks for clarifying that up for me.

Regards,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Mr. Woods,

Hard copy prints are .15 cents per page. The city does not charge for electronic information sent. Oversized documents may be required to be copied off-site and the applicable print house charge would be associated with that, as well as any sales tax the city was charged to copy that oversized item (if any at all). There are fee schedules at the City for other documents – it just depends on what is being requested – for example, maps. The City would also call you in advanced and let you know if there are any applicable charges to fill your request, and what those would be. Also, inspection of files and designation of the records you absolutely want is also an option for you prior to our copying of any records. It is totally up to you on how you want to proceed. RCW 42.56 is not applicable to “information” requests, but rather, for “records” requests. Of course, if a requestor asks for information, as opposed to records, the City would be responsive to your inquiries as well. 🙂

I hope this helps – and please do not hesitate to let me know any additional questions you may have.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:43 PM

To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

I apologize, I forgot to ask a question in my original email.

Is there a cost per page that I may anticipate or a cost associated with requests for public information (WA RCW)? I’d like to be clear on that policy in advance.

Thanks,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Wonderful! Thank you, Mr. Woods. You may email this directly to me, and I will send you a confirmation once I have received your request so that you know it made it safely to its destination! 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for your response. I do have the RCW for WA and do have the obligations of the requester. I will be specific.

Again, I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Brent,

My name is Michelle Hart. I am the City Clerk for the City of Redmond, and am in receipt of your inquiry below.

The Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to City records, as it is a federal provision that applies to federal agencies. Locally, the Public Records Act for the State of Washington is applicable. I am attaching the necessary form for you to fill out in order to begin processing your request. You can fill this out, sign it, and fax or email back to me here at my address. You may also opt to mail it in or bring it in in person, that is totally up to you on what may be more convenient for you. Please be specific with the records your seek so that they may be identified within the responsive department. Upon receiving your request, I will forward this out to the appropriate department(s), and they will be in direct contact with you regarding production.

Thank you for your inquiry and I look forward to assisting you in your search.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: City Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:14 AM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: FW: FOIA Question
Importance: High

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:33 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FOIA Question

Dear Clerk’s Office,

I am going to file a Freedom of Information Act with your office and I would like to see if I could get the name and contact information of the person in your department that I will need to address this request to.

Also, do you have any problem if I file this via email?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

Mr. Woods,

I am following up with you regarding whether or not you are still interested in submitting a records request to the City of Redmond. Please advise. Thank you.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: Michelle Hart
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:59 PM
To: ‘B Woods’
Subject: RE: FW: FOIA Question

I am glad it was helpful. We are happy to work with you in any way that works best for you. J

We do get a hybrid of records/information requests regularly. We’ll pick it apart to sort through it when it comes. 🙂 No worries there. And if staff has any need for clarification over your request, we will give you a call in the interest of fulfilling the request in a timely manner. 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:57 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for that information. That was very helpful.

I see that (my use of the word information is confused FOIA) so I will try not to request information, but complete records and files.

Again, thanks for clarifying that up for me.

Regards,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Mr. Woods,

Hard copy prints are .15 cents per page. The city does not charge for electronic information sent. Oversized documents may be required to be copied off-site and the applicable print house charge would be associated with that, as well as any sales tax the city was charged to copy that oversized item (if any at all). There are fee schedules at the City for other documents – it just depends on what is being requested – for example, maps. The City would also call you in advanced and let you know if there are any applicable charges to fill your request, and what those would be. Also, inspection of files and designation of the records you absolutely want is also an option for you prior to our copying of any records. It is totally up to you on how you want to proceed. RCW 42.56 is not applicable to “information” requests, but rather, for “records” requests. Of course, if a requestor asks for information, as opposed to records, the City would be responsive to your inquiries as well. 🙂

I hope this helps – and please do not hesitate to let me know any additional questions you may have.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:43 PM

To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

I apologize, I forgot to ask a question in my original email.

Is there a cost per page that I may anticipate or a cost associated with requests for public information (WA RCW)? I’d like to be clear on that policy in advance.

Thanks,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Wonderful! Thank you, Mr. Woods. You may email this directly to me, and I will send you a confirmation once I have received your request so that you know it made it safely to its destination! 🙂

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Re: FW: FOIA Question

Ms. Hart,

Thank you for your response. I do have the RCW for WA and do have the obligations of the requester. I will be specific.

Again, I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov> wrote:

Brent,

My name is Michelle Hart. I am the City Clerk for the City of Redmond, and am in receipt of your inquiry below.

The Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to City records, as it is a federal provision that applies to federal agencies. Locally, the Public Records Act for the State of Washington is applicable. I am attaching the necessary form for you to fill out in order to begin processing your request. You can fill this out, sign it, and fax or email back to me here at my address. You may also opt to mail it in or bring it in in person, that is totally up to you on what may be more convenient for you. Please be specific with the records your seek so that they may be identified within the responsive department. Upon receiving your request, I will forward this out to the appropriate department(s), and they will be in direct contact with you regarding production.

Thank you for your inquiry and I look forward to assisting you in your search.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: City Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:14 AM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: FW: FOIA Question
Importance: High

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:33 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FOIA Question

Dear Clerk’s Office,

I am going to file a Freedom of Information Act with your office and I would like to see if I could get the name and contact information of the person in your department that I will need to address this request to.

Also, do you have any problem if I file this via email?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Brent Woods

Click here to report this email as spam.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com

Here is one.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party.

HOW DID WE DO?: Click here to take survey

(Filling out the short survey will assist us in knowing how better to meet your needs)

Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA6C18.EBB0AE00

From: Cheryl D. Xanthos
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 4:02 PM
To: Michelle Hart
Subject: Emailing: Message.htm

From: Malisa Files
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:34 AM
To: Sandy Marion
Subject: FW: Additional Public Records Response to Brent Woods

Importance: High

FYI

—–Original Message—–
From: James E. Haney [mailto:jhaney@omwlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:27 PM
To: George Potts; Larry Mitchell; Malisa Files; Terry Morgan
Subject: Additional Public Records Response to Brent Woods
Importance: High

Attached is my latest letter to Brent Woods in response to his public records request. I’ve now responded to all of his requests except the one for records of complaints against the police officers involved in his DUI case. I assume George is working on that 🙂 based on my previous emails. Note that I have told him I can get that information to him by September 6.

______________________________________________
From: roadrunner@omwlaw.com [mailto:roadrunner@omwlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:40 PM
To: James E. Haney
Subject: Attached Image
Importance: High

<>’
from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>cc: Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>,
Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:05 PM
subject: RE: 3 of 4: Additional records for Nov #7, past records requests

Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>

Attachments12/11/14

to me, Police, Michelle

3 of 4

From: Angela G. Summerfield
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:05 PM
To: ‘B Woods’
Cc: ‘Police Record Requests’; ‘Michelle Hart’
Subject: RE: 2 of 4: Additional records for Nov #7, past records requests

2 of 4

From: Angela G. Summerfield
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:04 PM
To: ‘B Woods’
Cc: ‘Police Record Requests’; Michelle Hart
Subject: 1 of 4: Additional records for Nov #7, past records requests

Mr. Woods, as a follow up to my email to you dated December 5, 2014 at 4:04PM I write to inform you that the City was able to locate additional records requested in your public records request dated November 26, 2014 at 12:15PM for public records requests you have made in the past, including requests made in November 2013 and August 2006. I will be sending a total of 4 emails:

–this email with part 1 of attachments and a listing of the records withheld and the reason why;

–second email with part 2 of scanned records;

–third email with 6 emails;

–fourth email with 5 emails.

If you do not receive all 4 or if you have any difficulty opening attachments, please let me know.

Once all have been sent, your request will be concluded.

Exemptions and basis for Withholding: the following emails have been withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, RCW 42.56.070(1) “other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure”; see also Hangartner v. Seattle, 151 Wn.2d 439, 453 (2004); RCW 5.60.060. Each email contains requests and provision of legal advice protected by the attorney-client privilege.

From Police Records Requests to Angela Summerfield dated November 19, 2013 at 7:02PM, 1 page.

From Angela Summerfield to Police Records Requests dated November 20, 2013 at 9:07AM, 1 page.

From Police Records Requests to Angela Summerfield dated November 25, 2013 at 10:32AM, 2 pages.

From Angela Summerfield to Police Records Requests dated November 25, 2013 at 10:35AM, 2 pages.

From Police Records Requests to Angela Summerfield dated November 25, 2013 at 11:36AM, 2 pages.

From Angela Summerfield to Police Records Requests dated November 25, 2013 at 11:47AM, 3 pages.

From Police Records Requests to Angela Summerfield dated November 25, 2013 at 11:49AM, 3 pages.

From Angela Summerfield to Police Records Requests dated November 25, 2013 at 11:50AM, 3 pages.

From Angela Summerfield to Police Records Requests and Shari Shovlin dated November 25, 2013 at 12:41PM, 3 pages.

From Police Records Requests to Angela Summerfield dated November 25, 2013 at 1:43PM, 3 pages.

From Angela Summerfield to Police Records Requests dated November 25, 2013 at 1:53PM, 3 pages.

From Police Records Requests to Angela Summerfield dated November 25, 2013 at 1:54PM, 4 pages.

Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney

Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500

Seattle, WA 98164
Phone: 206.447.2250 | Facsimile: 206.447.0215

asummerfield@omwlaw.com | omwlaw.com

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION – This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender. It may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the contents is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original transmission and all copies.

6 Attachments
Preview attachment noname.eml
[Message]
Preview attachment noname.eml
[Message]
Preview attachment noname.eml
[Message]
Preview attachment noname.eml
[Message]
Preview attachment noname.eml
[Message]
Preview attachment noname.eml
[Message]

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:21 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

The request you put in went to the Police Department. It came through me as a pass-through to the record holding division – the Police Department. I believe my 2013 email in this regard has already been provided to you. I am including it again here for your information. And you are correct – I should have re-read it first before sending my email below to be infinitely clear… and I apologize if it was not.

I have the log and I have the emails. The last email I have from you in 2013 indicates that I received your written request and forwarded to the Police Department for their processing (logging, tracking, and response). Requests for police department records go to the Police Department records division to fill. From the time my log entry notes, “request closed,” your request at the Police Department started and they logged and filled the request.

Does this better help to explain the correspondence and process in 2013, at least in the interaction between you and I?

I am truly doing everything I can to help you attain the records you are seeking, Brent. I will continue to work with you until it is all finalized. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Michelle Hart

10/23/13

Email

Brent Woods

brent.a.woods@gmail.com

10/23/13 – Hart (Young)

10/23/13 – Hart to requestor requesting that he fill out a PRR form which she attached to the email

????????????????????

10/23/13 – Requestor emailed Ms. Hart several times asking questions such as cost per page for documents, but never specified the type of documents he is interested in.

10/30/13 – Ms. Young emailed Ms. Hart asking if she had heard anything further from Mr. Woods and if we should send him an email saying that if we don’t hear from him by such and such a date, we will close his request.

10/30/13 – Ms. Hart emailed requestor asking if he is still interested in submitting a Public Records Request.

10/31/13 – Requestor responded that he can find the information he is looking for.

11/16/13 – Requestor, Brent Woods, emailed Ms. Hart that he has changed his mind and decided to do a Public Records Request re: City of Redmond Police Officers that have sustained records of dishonest, names, badge numbers, dates, incidents, etc. and also would like the dates of City Council meetings for December 2013.

11/18/13 – Ms. Hart responded to requestor that she is referring him to the Police Dept. to fill out their PRR. She advised him that, in the month of December, the Council is only meeting on Tuesday, December 3 .

REQUEST CLOSED.

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

BACK TO THE RESPONSE FROM THE ATTORNEY

to me
from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>cc: Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov> date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:53 PM
subject: City of Redmond PRR Nov #7 – 5-day letter
ngela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
12/5/14

Hello. As you know I am an attorney for the City of Redmond, assisting the City in responding to your publicrecordsrequest to the City received by email dated November 26, 2014 at 12:15PM. You requested: I am seeking all public records with regards to every public records request I have ever put in with the City of Redmond. I also am seeking all public records and all emails related to an incident I recall all too well. The incident I am referring to to clarify and not appear ambiguous, is related to when I spoke to your records specialist, who said I was doing the right thing by the way, by requesting proof of impound of my car, as she told me that I was right that proof of impound of the car was supposed to be in the file, and it was not. She asked if I wanted to speak to the officer involved and I said no. She got her supervisor on the phone who immediately started saying I was harassing the City of Redmond, when in reality, I was requesting the paperwork which you did not have, and yet your officer testified my car was impounded.I’d also like a copy of the letter that said no impound paperwork existed as per the original inquiry. For efficiency in processing, the City is breaking this request into three parts as follows: Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses. Nov #7B. Allrecords relating to described communication with records specialist. Nov #7C. Copy of letter stating no impound paperwork existed. In accordance with RCW 42.56.520, I am writing to provide you with estimates of the time anticipated to comply with your requests. As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to publicrecordsrequests: “Retain for 2 years after publicrecordsrequest fulfilled then Destroy.” As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request. As to Nov #7C, the City is continuing its search for the letter you reference. If you can provide the name of the sender and the date or approximate date, that may help the City identify the record. Thank you for your patience as the City works toward completion of your requests. Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500Seattle, WA 98164
Phone: 206.447.2250 | Facsimile: 206.447.0215asummerfield@omwlaw.com | omwlaw.com
to me, Police

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to public records requests: “Retain for 2 years after public records request fulfilled then Destroy.”

As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request.

Exhibit A (#7A)Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses.

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines.

Conclusion: The City of Redmond obscures (removes) from public view in this manner above, (Nov #7A) and then purge with retention schedule. This example would prove to not be in accordance with the law, RCW 42.56

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

7:40 PM (2 hours ago)

to cityclerk, Nancy, RLGIBSON, ombudsman
from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: cityclerk@redmond.gov,
“Krier, Nancy (ATG)” <NancyK1@atg.wa.gov>,
RLGIBSON@redmond.gov,
ombudsman@kingcounty.gov
date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM
subject: Re: Formal Complaint August 19 2015
mailed-by: gmail.com
Correction

I meant to say …as you can see the City Clerk said I must have turned the request over to the Police Records Division (not the attorney). Clearly the email was submitted to the City Clerk, so the claim that I must have submitted it to the Police Records Division is inaccurate.

brent woods

PUBLIC OFFICIALS and PUBLIC RECORDS

CONGRATULATIONS REDMOND, WA

You are now a part of Washington’s history! And you are now on notice and will find out what it means to destroy public records prior to retention schedules, the Class C Felony that comes with it, the penalties for not providing the evidence and public records requested because they were destroyed prior to retention schedules and what that means per document, per day, since 2006, plus penalties, plus legal fees. You just made my day. But I am in no hurry at $100 dollars per day per document, plus penalties, so take your sweet time getting back to me. Take your time!
Oh scratch that! There are no responsive records, the common theme. The common theme is the game of hide the salami.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/archives/RecordsManagement/PublicOfficialsandPublicRecords/FINALPublicOfficialsandPublicRecords_print.html
From The Secretary of State’s Website:

Did you know?

There are requirements to preserve and protect public records.

Effective in 1957, Chapter 40.14 RCW Preservation and Destruction of Public Records outlines the requirements for the retention and disposition of public records.

Chapter 40.14 RCW is the foundation for public records management for the state of Washington.

Although the way we have conducted business since 1957 has changed due to technology, the fundamentals of recordkeeping and the reasons for keeping good records have not changed.

The use of technology has only increased the importance of access and availability.

What is a public record?

Public records are defined by three key criteria in Chapter 40.14.010 RCW

1. “Made by or received by any agency in the State of Washington”

Public records include both records that an agency creates and records that an agency may receive or collect. For example, when an agency solicits public comment on an issue, both the request for comment and any comments received in response are public records.

2. “In connection with the transaction of public business”

A record provides the proof or evidence of agency business. Agency business includes not only the core mission of the agency, but also those functions that support the agency’s continuing operation such as finance, human resources, facility and asset management.

If a record meets the two criteria listed above, then it is a public record that needs to be retained and managed.

3. “Regardless of physical form or characteristics”

A public record is a public record, regardless of the format in which it was sent or received. Not only paper records, photographs or microfilm, but records that are created or received using any kind of digital format or application. This includes emails, websites, blogs, wikis, digital photos, text messages, blogs, tweets, and any emerging technologies used to conduct agency business. Having a record in a different format does not change the retention requirements or disposition that is to be applied.

To preserve and protect.

As a public official, you have an responsibiltiy to make sure your agency or entity retains and manages the records of your service and adminstration as well as the agency records.

How many different ways are there to create a record?

Think of all the methods we now use to conduct business. From emails to social media, public officials are using technology in order to communicate and conduct business. What is important is that public officials understand that it’s not the medium itself that is the record, it is what is being said and communicated – “regardless of physical form or characteristics.”

It’s not just paper anymore!

from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:53 PM
subject: RE: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20

Brent, you requested records relating to Gail Marsh’s termination. Does your request include the grievance/arbitration that followed the termination? If so, I’ll definitely need to break this down into installments as the arbitration records are voluminous. Thanks in advance for letting me know whether you want those records.

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:06 PM
subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20
mailed-by: gmail.com

YES, of course it does. if you have any questions refer to my original public records request.

from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM
subject: RE: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20

Thanks, just wanted to make sure. The first installment should be available around the end of October. That installment will also include at least 532 MB of records relating to Marcella Fogg as well.

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:31 PM
subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20
mailed-by: gmail.com

I have already provided ample space in terms of MB with the CD Roms provided. All 10 discs provided as I recall would have fit all these records with the space allowed. I provided the discs for a reason. I am after original files. So to answer your question, no.

brent woods

from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:33 PM
subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20

Then those records will need to be produced via thumb drive as it is not technically feasible to provide in the format you requested.

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>to: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>,
Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:40 PM
subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20
mailed-by: gmail.com

Ms. Summerfield
Let me know how many you need and I will provide the thumb drives with ample space for the records requested.

BACKTRACK TO JANUARY 2015

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM
subject: Public Records Requests – I will provide thumbdrives etc
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

Jan 12

to Michelle
Ms Hart,
I will be providing all thumb drives, or media going forward. I will need to know your specifications.

I have asked for all public records requests in electronic format. I am not interested in paper copies or CD’s at $7.50 per CD in “installments”, but rather on as you said the media I provide, which will probably be thumb drives.

Just want to include that in the record and determine what exactly it is I need to provide as per your specification or requirement. Please advise.

(then again, I would have reasonably thought that emails could have been forwarded for the time frames specified). But I will need to know what you need in order to provide for the records requests.


b woods

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:08 AM
subject: RE: Public Records Requests – I will provide thumb drives etc
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

Jan 12

Mr. Woods, Specifications have been provided via my earlier emails today. As well, I have just consulted with my IS Department and they advise there is no thumb drive that exists that is not rewritable. It is my understanding then that the only way for me to provide records to you that would be in a state where they could not be modified would be in a PDF or other similar file format if a thumb drive were to be used. You have asked for native file format, so providing thumbdrives will not work, based on the information I am receiving from my IS folks. If you would like to provide your own non-rewritable DVDs or CDs (DVDs/CDs where none of the data files on the DVD/CD can be modified), I can take that media and use it to fill subsequent requests. Your first installment is ready, and it is $7.50. The request will be filled in installments until the final installment has been provided. Have a good day. Michelle Hart Michelle M. Hart, MMCCity Clerk425.556.2190 (ph)425.556.2198 (fx)mhart@redmond.govVisit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

to me

———————–

ARE YOU SEEING WHAT I AM SEEING? ONE THEY WANT TO ALTER ORIGINAL FILES (CD ROM) vs THEY SAY I CAN’T PROVIDE THUMBDRIVES BECAUSE THEY ARE REWRITEABLE. WORTH A MENTION. AND WELL NOTED. I PROVIDED ALL THE CD’s AND THEY SENT THEM BACK EARLY ON (WHAT WASN’T USED) THOUGH REQUESTS HAVE HARDLY BEEN PROVIDED AFTER MULTIPLE STUNTS. THEN THEY SAY WHAT IS PROVIDED MUST BE PROVIDED IN ORIGINAL FACTORY SEAL. BUT DO NOTE THE CITY OF REDMOND TRIED CHARGING ME $7.50 PER CD! THEY EVENTUALLY CAME TO THEIR SENSES. ALL PAR FOR COURSE! Ahhh, the precreation of technicalities (non admissible).

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>> wrote:
You can start with 1 or 2 or more of you want. They need to be in unopened, factory sealed packaging.

from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
cc: Michelle Hart <mhart@redmond.gov>
date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM
subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20

Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>

Aug 21 (2 days ago)

to me, Michelle
Since I hope to have a large installment end of October then early or mid-October would be fine.
You can either send to my office or mail or drop off at City Hall. Thanks.
On Aug 21, 2015, at 6:44 PM, B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>> wrote:What day do you need them by and what address do you want me to send them to (or just drop them off at City Hall)?On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>> wrote:
You can start with 1 or 2 or more of you want. They need to be in unopened, factory sealed packaging.

On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:40 PM, B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>> wrote:Ms. Summerfield
Let me know how many you need and I will provide the thumb drives with ample space for the records requested.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>> wrote:
Then those records will need to be produced via thumb drive as it is not technically feasible to provide in the format you requested.

On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:31 PM, B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>> wrote:I have already provided ample space in terms of MB with the CD Roms provided. All 10 discs provided as I recall would have fit all these records with the space allowed. I provided the discs for a reason. I am after original files. So to answer your question, no.

brent woods

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>>> wrote:
We can copy onto CD if you don’t object that some of the file names need to be shortened. For whatever reason, lengthy file names copy fine onto a thumbdrive but not onto CD. Is it okay with you if I have our copy center shorten the names of those long files?

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 5:21 PMTo: Angela G. Summerfield
Subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20

I think the City Clerk sent me back the CD Roms I had that would have worked for all the MB. Let me know if you want me to drop it off at the City of Redmond (City Hall). I’d be glad to.
brent woods

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>>> wrote:
Thanks, just wanted to make sure. The first installment should be available around the end of October. That installment will also include at least 532 MB of records relating to Marcella Fogg as well.

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 4:07 PM
To: Angela G. Summerfield
Subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #20
YES, of course it does. if you have any questions refer to my original public records request.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>>> wrote:
Brent, you requested records relating to Gail Marsh’s termination. Does your request include the grievance/arbitration that followed the termination? If so, I’ll definitely need to break this down into installments as the arbitration records are voluminous. Thanks in advance for letting me know whether you want those records.
From: Angela G. Summerfield
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:23 PM
To: ‘B Woods’
Subject: RE: City of Redmond PRR Dec #23, Dec #20, Dec #21

Part of the problem here is that the form of your request does not lend to reasonable searches—we have to guess at what you are looking for and the City is not a mindreader. You will receive records relating to Gail Marsh in connection with your request identified as Dec #20. We estimate those records will be available by the end of September, if not sooner. You will receive records relating to Marcella Fogg complaints and claims in connection with your request identified as Dec #21. The first installment of that request is estimated to be available by the end of July.

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:15 PM
To: Michelle Hart; John Marchione; Angela G. Summerfield; Toby Nixon
Subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #23 – 5-day letter
As for the Gail Marsh incident…that involved a witness. it involved a lawsuit. It made front page news. it involved fabrication of evidence (records). It involved someone getting fired. And to think that the City of Redmond said I cancelled the request, which records clearly indicate I did not. This has withheld these records and my right to pursue lawful remedies under the law in a timely manner. And then you bring up destruction of records and retention schedules?
And I believe the Gail Marsh incident involved a Gag order.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:08 PM, B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>> wrote:———- Forwarded message ———-

From: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>>
Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #23 – 5-day letter
To: “Angela G. Summerfield” <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>>>
I want all the records from the police reports and all records as requested

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>>> wrote:
Thank you for identifying a potential record from Ms. Lambert. A search will be performed for that letter. (If the City received such letter, not knowing the timeframe for the letter, it is possible the letter may have be destroyed in accordance with retention schedules.)
As for the Gail Marsh and Marcella Fogg matters, I am confirming whether or not those involved allegations of fabrication of evidence or suppression of evidence.

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:02 PM
To: Angela G. Summerfield; Michelle Hart; John Marchione
Subject: Re: City of Redmond PRR Dec #23 – 5-day letter
you said ….

As for the first portion of your request, to help staff locate the records you are requesting, when you state “pertaining to the City of Redmond,” do you mean pertaining to an allegation that the City of Redmond (or public official, officer, prosecutor, etc.) engaged in untruthful/dishonest conduct? Records are not maintained in a manner that allows staff to locate the records based on this description. Do you have examples you can provide to help staff locate the records?
My request stands just as I stated it.
This is what you broke it down for your records, not mine.
Dec #23A. all public records (including complaints) related to false claims, untruthfulness, or acts generally known to be “dishonest” pertaining to the City of Redmond. This will include public officials, officers, your prosecutor’s office, and City Attorney, including any law firms contracted by the City of Redmond
This includes obviously any public officer. This also includes any employee or group of employees that work in an official capacity within the City of Redmond. And this also includes any contractor hired by the City of Redmond.
I asked for all public records as per my request as requested.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:51 PM, B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com><mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com<mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Dec #23B. all public records pertaining to fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence, and the withholding of public records as per request and by law.
You came back and said….
Brent, the City does not have any records responsive to the second portion of your request below (labeled Dec #23B
Why are you withholding the public records (evidence) as it pertains to Marchella Fogg and Gail Marsh? The common theme coming from your law firm and the City of Redmond is that there are no responsive records. What happened to the records in these two incidents? Or even the claims by a Ms. Lambert as it pertains to the City of Redmond and the fabrication of evidence or lying? All of this is very relevant to 23B. You might want to reconsider this one.
And if the City of Redmond wants to suppress these 2 incidents and say there are no responsive records, then that makes one wonder what else is being suppressed. Even I submitted a complaint pertaining to fabrication of evidence, in a formal complaint. That’s 3 that you claim there is no responsive records. And you say there are no responsive records?
Does the City of Redmond even conduct basic record keeping or is this why the City of Redmond persists in saying over and over that there are no responsive records?
I demand all the public records I have requested and that which seems to be suppressed.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>>> wrote:
Brent, the City does not have any records responsive to the second portion of your request below (labeled Dec #23B). As for the first portion of your request, to help staff locate the records you are requesting, when you state “pertaining to the City of Redmond,” do you mean pertaining to an allegation that the City of Redmond (or public official, officer, prosecutor, etc.) engaged in untruthful/dishonest conduct? Records are not maintained in a manner that allows staff to locate the records based on this description. Do you have examples you can provide to help staff locate the records?
Thank you in advance.
–Angela
From: Angela G. Summerfield
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:14 PM
To: B Woods
Cc: ‘Police Record Requests’; ‘Michelle Hart’
Subject: City of Redmond PRR Dec #23 – 5-day letter

Hello. As you know I am an attorney for the City of Redmond, assisting the City in responding to your public records request to the City received by email, dated December 18, 2014, at 9:30PM.

You requested: “all public records (including complaints) related to false claims, untruthfulness, or acts generally known to be “dishonest” pertaining to the City of Redmond. This will include public officials, officers, your prosecutor’s office, and City Attorney, including any law firms contracted by the City of Redmond. I am also seeking all public records pertaining to fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence, and the withholding of public records as per request and by law.”
For efficiency in processing the City is breaking this request into two parts, as follows:

Dec #23A. all public records (including complaints) related to false claims, untruthfulness, or acts generally known to be “dishonest” pertaining to the City of Redmond. This will include public officials, officers, your prosecutor’s office, and City Attorney, including any law firms contracted by the City of Redmond

Dec #23B. all public records pertaining to fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence, and the withholding of public records as per request and by law.

In accordance with RCW 42.56.520, I am writing to provide you with an estimate of the time anticipated to comply with your request. I understand from your email to Michelle Hart dated 12/22/14 at 3:0PM that you are requesting records back to the year 2000. I also understand that for Dec #23B you are seeking all complaints to the City containing allegations of fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence and improper withholding of records.

Due to the number of pending records requests from you and others and workloads at the City, along with significant research to locate these records, the City estimates records responsive to your request will be available, in whole or in part, by the end of May, 2015.

The records will be provided in electronic format on CD which may be picked up at the police department, or mailed to you after payment of postage and other applicable costs and you providing the City with a mailing address. If the searches result in a limited number of records, it is possible the records may be sent via electronic mail.

Thank you for your patience as the City works toward completion of your requests.

Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney

Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
Seattle, WA 98164

Phone: 206.447.2250<tel:206.447.2250><tel:206.447.2250<tel:206.447.2250>><tel:206.447.2250<tel:206.447.2250><tel:206.447.2250<tel:206.447.2250>>> | Facsimile: 206.447.0215<tel:206.447.0215><tel:206.447.0215<tel:206.447.0215>><tel:206.447.0215<tel:206.447.0215><tel:206.447.0215<tel:206.447.0215>>>
asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com><mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com<mailto:asummerfield@omwlaw.com>>> | omwlaw.com<http://omwlaw.com><http://omwlaw.com><http://www.omwlaw.com/>

from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
date: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:50 AM
subject: Misrepresentation of Evidence
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

May 19

to Michelle
The City of Redmond’s claim of no responsive records is troubling in light of exculpatory evidence, records in general, or record keeping in general. The fact that you have no relevant records, even to the extent of legal expungement (in one incident) yet the City did not provide that information previously as it related to acts of dishonesty (and yet there are 2 officers on the Brady list, but the city only previously provided one) is a misrepresentation being the communications made to date were relevant records and those were not produced making your claim a misrepresentation or proving the City is not worthy of producing records and is stealing public funds. But it seems to me that there is evidence being withheld, as it previously existed, as Brady List would indicate, and this is central to my right to execute a remedy in law, and that whoever is responsible to produce these public records which appears instrumental to effect lawful remedies, is the one withholding those records and information, obstructing justice, as it obstructs the public’s and my property interest we have in the public interest appurtenant our lawful remedies.
Since the evidence previously existed I challenge the City of Redmond to produce all records requested (which the City claims there are no responsive records) or be challenged in the misrepresentation of it’s non existence or I will attempt to place accountability upon each person responsible for the misrepresentation.

brent woods

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
date: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:54 AM
subject: RE: Misrepresentation of Evidence
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

May 19

to me

Brent,

I am in receipt of your correspondence below.

Thank you and have a good day.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

NOW TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING EVIDENCE FROM AUDIT TRAIL AND THE MISREPRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE…AND REMEDY UNDER LAW…OH SWEET JUSTICE

 
from: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
to: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>,
“Krier, Nancy (ATG)” <NancyK1@atg.wa.gov>
date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:14 PM
subject: False and Erroneous Records
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>

12/11/14

to Michelle, Nancy
Ms Hart,

I want to let you know I read this in the emails.

“Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions. Just let me know you have received my email here, I will not log and track this request as I am forwarding it over to you. Many Thanks!! :)”

Michelle

From your email dated November 18 2013, 10:25 AM

So this might explain why I got false and erroneous records back from the City of Redmond as per my request, in fact this explains a lot to me. I do not know, but I will no longer have any communication with you as a result. Pretty much what I suspected all along. And now I know how.

b woods

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>,
“Krier, Nancy (ATG)” <NancyK1@atg.wa.gov>
date: Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM
subject: RE: False and Erroneous Records
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

12/13/14

to me, Nancy

Brent,

Per my earlier email on processing, the Police Department and City Attorney are logging and tracking your requests in their logs as they are being processed, as majority of the records sought are held within the Police Department.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

BACKTRACK TO NOVEMBER 25, 2013

from: Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>
to: “brent.a.woods@gmail.com” <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
date: Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM
subject: WOODS, Brent > Request for Police Information & Records
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>

11/20/13

*** RECEIPT CONFIRMATION ONLY *** God Afternoon Mr. Woods, Your e-mail request for records dated November16, 2013 has been forwarded to the Redmond Police Records Division by the City of Redmond Clerk’s office. The Record Division’s business hours are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. This request has been stamped as “received” today Monday, November 18th – our next business day. Please note that RCW 42.56.520 allows 5 business days to respond to requests. The fifth business day for this information and records will be Monday, November 25, 2013 by 5:00 p.m. Cordially, Cathy SmokeSupport Services Specialist – Records DivisionRedmond Police Department425-556-2608

FAST FORWARD TO December 5, 2014

to me
from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
cc: Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>
date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:53 PM
subject: City of Redmond PRR Nov #7 – 5-day letter

ngela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>

12/5/14

Hello. As you know I am an attorney for the City of Redmond, assisting the City in responding to your publicrecordsrequest to the City received by email dated November 26, 2014 at 12:15PM. You requested: I am seeking all public records with regards to every public records request I have ever put in with the City of Redmond. I also am seeking all public records and all emails related to an incident I recall all too well. The incident I am referring to to clarify and not appear ambiguous, is related to when I spoke to your records specialist, who said I was doing the right thing by the way, by requesting proof of impound of my car, as she told me that I was right that proof of impound of the car was supposed to be in the file, and it was not. She asked if I wanted to speak to the officer involved and I said no. She got her supervisor on the phone who immediately started saying I was harassing the City of Redmond, when in reality, I was requesting the paperwork which you did not have, and yet your officer testified my car was impounded.I’d also like a copy of the letter that said no impound paperwork existed as per the original inquiry. For efficiency in processing, the City is breaking this request into three parts as follows: Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses. Nov #7B. Allrecords relating to described communication with records specialist. Nov #7C. Copy of letter stating no impound paperwork existed. In accordance with RCW 42.56.520, I am writing to provide you with estimates of the time anticipated to comply with your requests. As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to publicrecordsrequests: “Retain for 2 years after publicrecordsrequest fulfilled then Destroy.” As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request. As to Nov #7C, the City is continuing its search for the letter you reference. If you can provide the name of the sender and the date or approximate date, that may help the City identify the record. Thank you for your patience as the City works toward completion of your requests. Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500Seattle, WA 98164
Phone: 206.447.2250 | Facsimile: 206.447.0215asummerfield@omwlaw.com | omwlaw.com

to me, Police

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to public records requests: “Retain for 2 years after public records request fulfilled then Destroy.”

As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request.

 


*Editor’s Note: Above is more evidence to substantiate that public records requests were not being tracked or logged in the City of Redmond’s own self admission. I requested the public records request in 2013 and circled back in 2014 and requested all public records requests I had submitted because I suspected this department was running “dual set of books” with public records requests and complaints. I suspected 3 Card Monty with the requests – out of public view. Based on the response from the attorney that no other responsive records existed, was the City of Redmond’s official answer as you can see. It’s all in the evidence. This clearly exemplified my belief and thus the public records requests.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government

Open Government

“Government accountability means that public officials — elected and un-elected — have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to the citizens. Government accountability is achieved through the use of a variety of mechanisms — political, legal and administrative — designed to prevent corruption and ensure that public officials remain answerable and accessible to the people they serve. In the absence of such mechanisms, corruption may thrive.”

— U.S. Department of State
– See more at: http://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government#sthash.ZPTdDLi9.dpuf

http://www.atg.wa.gov/Open-Government-Internet-Manual/Chapter-1

From Washington State ATG Office website:

Washington citizens to know what their government is doing. A transparent and accessible government is essential to a successful free society, and fosters trust and confidence in government.

Strong “sunshine laws” are crucial to assuring government accountability and transparency. In Washington State, those laws provide for open public records and open public meetings.

Since Washington voters approved the Public Disclosure Act more than 40 years ago, a growing number of exemptions have been added to public records laws.

Also, under the Open Public Meetings Act, some parts of open public meetings may be closed to the public, but only if certain requirements are met.

To assist the public and public agencies in understanding and implementing the sunshine laws, the Office of the Attorney General provides several resources.
– See more at: http://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government#sthash.Co9I8ZMI.dpuf

Bitcoin Macroeconomics will leave the conjecture out. The law is the law.

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

I am sorry I was not available when you called. I am working, and in meetings.

From your email below, it appears that you are not requesting a record. The task of records manager has always fallen with the City Clerk’s Office. The City Clerk prior to me was Malisa Files. The City Clerk prior to that was Bonnie Walton. That being said, records retention/destruction is a function of the departments. Meaning, all staff is responsible for the maintenance and retention of their records per the Washington State retention schedule.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:26 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by:

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

Here is the information as I know it to-date:

You had an incident that occurred with the Redmond Police Department in 2000 (almost 15 years ago).

In 2006, you must have had some correspondence with the City, as I have an email referencing a letter from the city attorney, provided to you I believe, noting that records you had requested somewhere in that latter timeline had been destroyed per retention schedule.

In October 2013, you came back to the City (contacted me, did not put in a request with me, and after our conversation, noted that you would be putting in a request with the Police Department). I assume you did that.

In November 2014, you are back at the City and have filed numerous records requests. I believe in part you are asking for the original records you requested way back when and were informed at that time that those records had been purged per the retention schedule, which as I have shared with you, is relatively short retention schedule for booking videos.

In addition, I have addressed the sentence you keep referencing below with respect to my statement that “I would not be logging and tracking the requests on my end”. I will state to you again (as I have now in several emails) I am not logging or tracking the requests…because they are already being logged and tracked by the persons filling your requests. This is correct protocol, and as you are aware, I am very much involved in those conversations and am working with the staff and the attorney to fill your requests.

I am not sure what appeals process you are referring to below. Have you been denied some appeals process that you are contesting? If so, can you please tell me which appeals process you have been denied and the timeline associated with that appeals process so that I may try to address that for you as well?. Thank you.

Michelle Hart

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:21 PM
subject: RE: Conflict of Interest – Contacted by your City Clerk
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart <MHART@redmond.gov>

12/15/14

to me

Brent,

The request you put in went to the Police Department. It came through me as a pass-through to the record holding division – the Police Department. I believe my 2013 email in this regard has already been provided to you. I am including it again here for your information. And you are correct – I should have re-read it first before sending my email below to be infinitely clear… and I apologize if it was not.

I have the log and I have the emails. The last email I have from you in 2013 indicates that I received your written request and forwarded to the Police Department for their processing (logging, tracking, and response). Requests for police department records go to the Police Department records division to fill. From the time my log entry notes, “request closed,” your request at the Police Department started and they logged and filled the request.

Does this better help to explain the correspondence and process in 2013, at least in the interaction between you and I?

I am truly doing everything I can to help you attain the records you are seeking, Brent. I will continue to work with you until it is all finalized. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Michelle Hart

10/23/13

Email

Brent Woods

brent.a.woods@gmail.com

10/23/13 – Hart (Young)

10/23/13 – Hart to requestor requesting that he fill out a PRR form which she attached to the email

????????????????????

10/23/13 – Requestor emailed Ms. Hart several times asking questions such as cost per page for documents, but never specified the type of documents he is interested in.

10/30/13 – Ms. Young emailed Ms. Hart asking if she had heard anything further from Mr. Woods and if we should send him an email saying that if we don’t hear from him by such and such a date, we will close his request.

10/30/13 – Ms. Hart emailed requestor asking if he is still interested in submitting a Public Records Request.

10/31/13 – Requestor responded that he can find the information he is looking for.

11/16/13 – Requestor, Brent Woods, emailed Ms. Hart that he has changed his mind and decided to do a Public Records Request re: City of Redmond Police Officers that have sustained records of dishonest, names, badge numbers, dates, incidents, etc. and also would like the dates of City Council meetings for December 2013.

11/18/13 – Ms. Hart responded to requestor that she is referring him to the Police Dept. to fill out their PRR. She advised him that, in the month of December, the Council is only meeting on Tuesday, December 3 .

REQUEST CLOSED.

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

BACK TO THE RESPONSE FROM THE ATTORNEY

 

to me
from: Angela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>
to: B Woods <brent.a.woods@gmail.com>
cc: Police Record Requests <PoliceRecordRequests@redmond.gov>
date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:53 PM
subject: City of Redmond PRR Nov #7 – 5-day letter

ngela G. Summerfield <asummerfield@omwlaw.com>

12/5/14

Hello. As you know I am an attorney for the City of Redmond, assisting the City in responding to your publicrecordsrequest to the City received by email dated November 26, 2014 at 12:15PM. You requested: I am seeking all public records with regards to every public records request I have ever put in with the City of Redmond. I also am seeking all public records and all emails related to an incident I recall all too well. The incident I am referring to to clarify and not appear ambiguous, is related to when I spoke to your records specialist, who said I was doing the right thing by the way, by requesting proof of impound of my car, as she told me that I was right that proof of impound of the car was supposed to be in the file, and it was not. She asked if I wanted to speak to the officer involved and I said no. She got her supervisor on the phone who immediately started saying I was harassing the City of Redmond, when in reality, I was requesting the paperwork which you did not have, and yet your officer testified my car was impounded.I’d also like a copy of the letter that said no impound paperwork existed as per the original inquiry. For efficiency in processing, the City is breaking this request into three parts as follows: Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses. Nov #7B. Allrecords relating to described communication with records specialist. Nov #7C. Copy of letter stating no impound paperwork existed. In accordance with RCW 42.56.520, I am writing to provide you with estimates of the time anticipated to comply with your requests. As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to publicrecordsrequests: “Retain for 2 years after publicrecordsrequest fulfilled then Destroy.” As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request. As to Nov #7C, the City is continuing its search for the letter you reference. If you can provide the name of the sender and the date or approximate date, that may help the City identify the record. Thank you for your patience as the City works toward completion of your requests. Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500Seattle, WA 98164
Phone: 206.447.2250 | Facsimile: 206.447.0215asummerfield@omwlaw.com | omwlaw.com

to me, Police

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines. Please note the state retention/destruction schedule authorizes destruction of these records in accordance with Disposition Authority Number GS2010-014. This rule requires the following with regard to public records requests: “Retain for 2 years after public records request fulfilled then Destroy.”

 

As to Nov #7B, I attach a copy of an audit trail which includes communication between yourself and a City of Redmonds records specialist, which we believe may be responsive to your request. No further records exist related to this request.

 

Exhibit A (#7A)

Nov #7A. Allpublicrecordsrequests submitted by B. Woods to the City of Redmond and all responses.

AND FOR THE KICKER

As to Nov #7A, other than the requests you made earlier in November, the City has no responsive records, as the requests were purged in accordance with state guidelines.

Conclusion: The City of Redmond obscures (removes) from public view in this manner above, (Nov #7A) and then purge with retention schedule. This example would prove to not be in accordance with the law, RCW 42.56

 
http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/12/freedom-of-information-redmond-wa-part-1/ Freedom of Information – Redmond WA (Part 1)

http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/12/freedom-of-information-redmond-wa-part-2/ Freedom of Information – Redmond, WA (Part 2)
http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/12/freedom-of-information-expunged-records-redmond-wa-part-3/ Freedom of Information – Redmond, WA (Part 3)
http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/12/freedom-of-information-redmond-wa-part-4/ Freedom of Information – Redmond, WA (Part 4)
http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/13/freedom-of-information-the-parsing-of-requests-redmond-wa-part-5/ Freedom of Information – The Parsing of Records – Redmond, WA (Part 5)

http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/14/freedom-of-information-fabrication-of-evidence-redmond-wa-part-6/ Freedom of Information – The Fabrication of Evidence – Redmond, WA (Part 6)

http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/14/freedom-of-information-washington-state-attorney-generals-office-does-not-work-for-the-people-the-destruction-of-public-records-before-retention-schedule-allows-redmond-wa-part-7/ Freedom of Information – Washington State Attorney General’s Office Does Not Work For The People – Redmond, WA (Part 7)

http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/14/freedom-of-information-remedy-under-law-misrepresentation-of-evidence-redmond-wa-part-8/ Freedom of Information – Remedy Under Law; Misrepresentation of Evidence – Redmond, WA (Part 8)

http://bitcoinmacroeconomics.com/2015/08/11/why-john-marchione-should-resign-as-the-mayor-of-the-city-of-redmond-wa/ Why John Marchione should resign as the mayor of the City of Redmond WA

from: Angela G. Summerfield
to: B Woods
cc: Michelle Hart
date: Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:57 AM
subject: RE: Status Request – Dec #24

Angela G. Summerfield

Aug 12

to me, Michelle

All responsive records were provided March 19, 2015, at which time the request was concluded.

From: B Woods [mailto:brent.a.woods@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 7:52 PM
To: Angela G. Summerfield; Michelle Hart
Subject: Status Request

Ms. Summerfield,

The following is from a public records request submitted to your mayor in December

I am seeking the names and arrest records of any citizen arrested outside the City of Redmond’s jurisdiction as it relates to this issue of sustained record of dishonesty and the requirement to provide all exculpatory evidence as required by law.

The City of Redmond has not provided these records. I asked in December. I will be needing all of these records by August 31st, 2015. This has been a reasonable amount of time for these records. And I wish to notify you that these records have not been provided and this request has not been fulfilled in a reasonable amount of time, as per RCW 42.56.

What is the status of this request at this time? The City of Redmond is notified to provide all identifiable records as per request.

brent woods

from: B Woods
to: “Angela G. Summerfield” ,
ali.spietz@mercergov.org,
Michelle Hart
date: Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:26 AM
subject: Re: Status Request – Dec #24
mailed-by: gmail.com

B Woods

Aug 12

to ali.spietz, Angela, Michelle
The City of Redmond did not provide all identifiable records and is not in compliance with RCW 42.56.

Mercer Island is but one example.
Not only that but failure to provide all exculpatory evidence to all defendants in the court of law, and that includes Mercer Island and any other jurisdiction beyond Redmond’s authority that the City of Redmond is failing to provide.

You have been notified that Redmond is not in compliance with RCW 42.56. And Redmond did not fulfill my request as per law, not at all, and certainly not in a reasonable amount of time.

2002 to 2013 is a big gap of time. I think anybody will agree with that statement. I will be looking into if this is suppression of evidence or malfeasance. More so, that defendants are entitled due process of law. (Brady v Maryland)

brent woods

from: Michelle Hart
to: B Woods
cc: “Angela G. Summerfield”
date: Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:40 AM
subject: FW: Status Request – Dec #24
mailed-by: redmond.gov

Michelle Hart

10:40 AM (1 hour ago)

to me, Angela

Brent,

With respect to your inquiry of today regarding the status of request titled “December #24”, the City of Redmond has, once again, already responded to you with the status of this request. Please see email below of August 12, 2015, noting, once again, that this request as closed on March 19, 2015, with responsive records, once again, already being provided to you. The City has no further responsive records to provide to you regarding this request, and has nothing more to input regarding this request.

Thank you and have a good day.

Michelle Hart

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov

from: B Woods
to: Michelle Hart ,
“Angela G. Summerfield”
date: Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM
subject: Re: FW: Status Request – Dec #24

B Woods

11:23 AM (29 minutes ago)

to Michelle, Angela
from:Michelle Hart to:B Woods
date:Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:57 PMsubject:RE: Installment No. 3 and Status of Requestmailed-by:

Your inquiry with respect to the Brady cops request response has been sent to the attorney for response.

Thank you and have a good day.

Michelle

Michelle M. Hart, MMC

City Clerk

425.556.2190 (ph)

425.556.2198 (fx)

mhart@redmond.gov

Visit the City’s website at www.redmond.gov
Michelle Hart

Mar 19

to me

From: Angela G. Summerfield
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:15 PM
To: B Woods
Cc: ‘Police Record Requests’; ‘Michelle Hart’
Subject: City of Redmond PRR Dec #24 – 5-day letter

Hello. As you know I am an attorney for the City of Redmond, assisting the City in responding to your public records request to the City received by email, dated December 19, 2014, at 9:57AM.

In accordance with RCW 42.56.520, I am writing to provide you with an estimate of the time anticipated to comply with your request. You requested the following, and I have added designations for ease of reference.

Dec #24A. This public records request is asking for all records as it pertains to providing this exculpatory evidence [relating to Brady cop] to outside agencies, cities, or municipalities specifically outside the jurisdiction of the City of Redmond with regards to arrests and court proceedings as required by law, as well as to the defendant(s) in all arrests that resulted in charging the defendant with a crime or accusing the defense of a crime of any sort.

Response: Due to the number of pending records requests from you and others and workloads at the City, along with significant research to locate these records, the City estimates records responsive to this request, if any, will be available, in whole or in part, by the end of February, 2015.

Dec #24B. I am seeking the names and arrest records of any citizen arrested outside the City of Redmond’s jurisdiction as it relates to this issue of sustained record of dishonesty and the requirement to provide all exculpatory evidence as required by law.

Response: The City requests clarification. Are you looking for arrest records for persons arrested by the “Brady cop” outside the city limits and if any, any prosecutorial record providing notice? (Please note the City would only have records relating to the City’s prosecutor.)

Dec #24C. To clarify, I am seeking all records that prove the City of Redmond has met this requirement in working beyond the jurisdiction of Redmond in law enforcement, task force activities, etc, with any agency beyond your cities jurisdiction, all which includes the arrest of citizens or testifying by your city or involvement in arrests against any citizen beyond the City of Redmond’s jurisdiction.

Response: To the extent records responsive to this request can be identified, they will be supplied in response to Dec #24A and #24B above.

Dec #24D. This request is seeking this evidence and public records be it in Mercer Island or anywhere outside the City of Redmond’s jurisdiction.

Response: Regarding Dec #24D, the City does not maintain the records of other jurisdictions, but to the extent records of other jurisdictions are maintained in City files and responsive to this public records request, those records will be provided.

The records will be provided in electronic format on CD which may be picked up at the police department, or mailed to you after payment of postage and other applicable costs and you providing the City with a mailing address. If the searches result in a limited number of records, it is possible the records may be sent via electronic mail.

Thank you for your patience as the City works toward completion of your requests.

Angela G. Summerfield | Attorney

Response: To the extent records responsive to this request can be identified, they will be supplied in response to Dec #24A and #24B above.

OK I just wanted to make sure that your claim that the request is complete is accurate, because I did not receive identifiable records as it pertains to the requirement to provide all exculpatory evidence and I want to make sure that is included in the record. Thank you for confirming definitively that no evidence exists as to the exculpatory evidence not being provided as per requirement of Constitutional Law. The fact that evidence previously existed and that it has not even been provided beyond the jurisdiction of Redmond’s authority exhibits suppression of evidence.

It is a prosecutor’s duty to provide this evidence in each and every case as it relates to your Brady Cops. This is paramount to justice. Without providing this evidence per my request this represents a misrepresentation of evidence, as it once existed, and if no responsive records exist that would reflect suppression of evidence.

Without providing responsive records and with the misrepresentation of evidence, it is not possible to affect lawful remedies under the law.

The City of Redmond’s claim of no responsive records is troubling in light of exculpatory evidence, records in general, or record keeping in general. The fact that you have no relevant records, even to the extent of legal expungement (in one incident) yet the City did not provide that information previously as it related to acts of dishonesty (and yet there are 2 officers on the Brady list, but the city only previously provided one) is a misrepresentation being the communications made to date were relevant records and those were not produced making your claim a misrepresentation or proving the City is not worthy of producing records and is stealing public funds. But it seems to me that there is evidence being withheld, as it previously existed, as Brady List would indicate, and this is central to my right to execute a remedy in law, and that whoever is responsible to produce these public records which appears instrumental to effect lawful remedies, is the one withholding those records and information, obstructing justice, as it obstructs the public’s and my property interest we have in the public interest appurtenant our lawful remedies.
Since the evidence previously existed I challenge the City of Redmond to produce all records requested (which the City claims there are no responsive records) or be challenged in the misrepresentation of it’s non existence or I will attempt to place accountability upon each person responsible for the misrepresentation.

I will be sure to let my lawmaker know how he cannot affect lawful remedies without evidence provided by the voters in his district. I will let him know how this points to a much broader problem, as seen, as it relates to fair trials, the right to question one’s accusers, or due process of law.

Thank you for confirming that this public records request is closed. That’s what I needed to hear from the City of Redmond as it seemed open ended that you may be looking for records that obviously existed at one time and were identifiable at one time, but it is clear there are no responsive records as it pertains to exculpatory evidence.

Let the record reflect this.

brent woods

redmond.gov
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Malicious+prosecution
Malicious Prosecution

An action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without Probable Cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.

An action for malicious prosecution is the remedy for baseless and malicious litigation. It is not limited to criminal prosecutions but may be brought in response to any baseless and malicious litigation or prosecution, whether criminal or civil. The criminal defendant or civil respondent in a baseless and malicious case may later file this claim in civil court against the parties who took an active role in initiating or encouraging the original case. The defendant in the initial case becomes the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit, and the plaintiff or prosecutor in the original case becomes the defendant. In most states the claim must be filed within a year after the end of the original case.

A claim of malicious prosecution is a tort action. A tort action is filed in civil court to recover money damages for certain harm suffered. The plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit seeks to win money from the respondent as recompense for the various costs associated with having to defend against the baseless and vexatious case.

The public policy that supports the action for malicious prosecution is the discouragement of Vexatious Litigation. This policy must compete against one that favors the freedom of law enforcement officers, judicial officers, and private citizens to participate and assist in the administration of justice.

In most jurisdictions an action for malicious prosecution is governed by the Common Law. This means that the authority to bring the action lies in case law from the courts, not statutes from the legislature. Most legislatures maintain some statutes that give certain persons Immunity from malicious prosecution for certain acts. In Colorado, for example, a merchant, a merchant’s employee, or a police officer, who reasonably suspects that a theft has occurred, may detain and question the suspect without fear of liability for slander, false arrest, False Imprisonment, unlawful detention, or malicious prosecution (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-4-407 [West 1996]).

An action for malicious prosecution is distinct from an action for false arrest or false imprisonment. If a person is arrested by a police officer who lacks legal authority for the arrest, the proper remedy is an action for false arrest. If a person is confined against her or his will, the proper remedy is an action for false imprisonment. An action for malicious prosecution is appropriate only when the judicial system has been misused.
Elements of Proof

To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case, (3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and (4) that the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff.

The Original Case Was Terminated in Favor of the Plaintiff The original case must end before the defendant or respondent in that case may file a malicious prosecution suit. This requirement is relatively easy to prove. The original case qualifies as a prosecution if the defendant or respondent had to appear in court. The original case need not have gone to trial: it is enough that the defendant or respondent was forced to answer to a complaint in court. If the original case is being appealed, it is not considered terminated, and the defendant or respondent must wait to file a malicious prosecution suit.

To proceed with a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must show that the original case was concluded in her or his favor. Generally, if the original case was a criminal prosecution, it must have been dismissed by the court, rejected by the Grand Jury, abandoned by the prosecutor, or decided in favor of the accused at trial or on appeal. If the original case was a civil suit, the respondent must have won at trial or the trial court must have disposed of the case in favor of the respondent (now the plaintiff).

If recovery by the plaintiff in a civil action was later reversed on appeal, this does not mean that the action was terminated in favor of the respondent. However, if the plaintiff in the original case won by submitting fabricated evidence or by other fraudulent activity, a reversal on such grounds may be deemed a termination in favor of the respondent. A settlement between the plaintiff and the respondent in a civil suit is not a termination in favor of the respondent. Likewise, courts do not consider a plea bargain in a criminal case to be a termination in favor of the defendant.

The Defendant Played an Active Role in the Original Case In a malicious prosecution suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant played an active role in procuring or continuing the original case. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant did more than simply participate in the original case. False testimony alone, for example, does not constitute malicious prosecution. Moreover, witnesses are immune from suit for Defamation, even if they lie on the witness stand. Such is the case because the concept of a fair and free trial requires that witnesses testify without fear of having to defend a defamation suit owing to their testimony.

An action for malicious prosecution focuses on the abuse of legal process, not on defamatory, untruthful statements. If a person helps another person launch a baseless case or takes action to direct or aid such a case, the first person may be held liable for malicious prosecution. The defendant must have been responsible in some way for the institution or continuation of the baseless case. This position of responsibility does not always include criminal prosecutors and civil plaintiffs. For example, if a prosecutor bringing criminal charges is tricked into prosecuting the case by an untruthful third party, the deceiving party is the one who may be found liable for malicious prosecution, not the prosecutor.

The Defendant Did Not Have Probable Cause to Support the Original Case The plaintiff must prove that the person who began or continued the original case did not have probable cause to do so. Generally, this means proving that the person did not have a reasonable belief in the plaintiff’s guilt or liability. In examining this element, a court will look at several factors, including the reliability of all sources, the availability of information, the effort required to obtain information, opportunities given to the accused to offer an explanation, the reputation of the accused, and the necessity in the original case for speedy judicial action.

A failure to fully investigate the facts surrounding a case may be sufficient to prove a lack of probable cause. The termination of the original case in favor of the original defendant (now the plaintiff) may help to prove a lack of probable cause, but it may not be decisive on the issue. The plaintiff should present enough facts to allow a reasonable person to infer that the defendant acted without a reasonable belief in the plaintiff’s guilt or liability in beginning or continuing the original case.

In a criminal case, an acquittal does not constitute a lack of probable cause. A criminal defendant stands a better chance of proving lack of probable cause if the original case was dismissed by prosecutors, a grand jury, or the court before the case went to trial. The criminal process provides several safeguards against prosecutions that lack probable cause, so a full criminal trial tends to show the presence of probable cause. Civil cases do not have the same safeguards, so a full civil trial does not tend to prove probable cause.

The Defendant Initiated or Continued the Original Case with an Improper Purpose In a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove with specific facts that the defendant instituted or continued the original proceeding with an improper purpose. Sheer ill will constitutes an improper purpose, and it may be proved with facts that show that the defendant resented the plaintiff or wanted somehow to harm the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant felt personal malice or hostility toward the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff need only show that the defendant was motivated by something other than the purpose of bringing the plaintiff to justice.

Few defendants admit to improper purposes, so improper purpose usually must be inferred from facts and circumstances. If the plaintiff cannot discover any apparent purpose, improper purpose can be inferred from the lack of probable cause.

Hodges v. Gibson Products Co. Hodges v. Gibson Products Co., 811 P.2d 151 (Utah 1991), contained all the elements of a malicious prosecution. According to Chad Crosgrove, the manager of Gibson Discount Center in West Valley, Utah, store money was noticed missing during the afternoon of September 4, 1981. Both Crosgrove and part-time bookkeeper Shauna Hodges had access to the money, and both denied taking it. On September 9 Crosgrove and Gibson officials went to the local police station, where they lodged an accusation of theft against Hodges. Crosgrove was not accused. Hodges was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail. After a Preliminary Hearing, she was released on bail and ordered to return for trial on May 12, 1982.

After Hodges was formally charged, an internal audit at Gibson revealed that Crosgrove had embezzled approximately $9,000 in cash and goods from the store. The thefts had occurred over a time period that included September 4, 1981. Gibson still did not charge Crosgrove with theft. Instead, it allowed him to resign with a promise to repay the money.

The night before Hodges’s trial was to begin, and almost two months after Crosgrove’s Embezzlement was discovered, management at Gibson notified Hodges’s prosecutor of Crosgrove’s activities. The prosecutor immediately dropped the charges against Hodges. Hodges then filed a suit for malicious prosecution against Gibson and against Crosgrove.

At trial Hodges was able to prove all the elements of malicious prosecution to the jury’s satisfaction: (1) She had been subjected to prosecution for theft, and the matter had been terminated in her favor. (2) She had sued the correct parties, because Gibson and Crosgrove were responsible for instituting the original proceedings against her. (3) She had ample evidence that the original prosecution was instituted without probable cause because Gibson failed to investigate Crosgrove until after she had been arrested and because the prosecutor dismissed the charges against her. (4) Finally, there were enough facts for the jury to infer that both Gibson and Crosgrove had acted with improper motive: Gibson had acted with an apparent bias against Hodges, and Crosgrove apparently had accused Hodges for self-preservation. The jury awarded Hodges a total of $88,000 in damages: $77,000 from Gibson, and $11,000 from Crosgrove. The verdict was upheld on appeal.
Damages

The plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution can recover money from the defendant for certain harms suffered. Typical injuries include loss of reputation and credit, humiliation, and mental suffering. If the original action was a criminal case, additional harms often include discomfort, injury to health, loss of time, and deprivation of society with family.

If the plaintiff suffered an economic loss directly related to the original action, the plaintiff can also recover the amount lost. This amount includes attorneys’ fees and court costs incurred by the plaintiff in defending the original case.

Finally, the plaintiff may recover Punitive Damages. Punitive damages are imposed by judges and juries to punish misconduct by a party. Because an action for malicious prosecution requires proof of improper intent on the part of the defendant, punitive damages commonly are awarded to malicious prosecution plaintiffs who win damages awards.
Other Considerations

Actions for malicious prosecution must compete against the public interest in allowing parties to pursue cases unfettered by the specter of a retaliatory case. Very few civil or criminal cases result in an action for malicious prosecution. This is because it is difficult to prove that the defendant procured or continued the original case without probable cause and with an improper purpose.

Another difficulty for the plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution is immunity. Generally, the law protects witnesses, police officers, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers from suit for malicious prosecution. Witnesses are given immunity because justice requires that they testify without fear of reprisals. Law enforcement and judicial officers are given immunity because they must be free to perform their duties without continually defending against malicious prosecution cases.

There are exceptions, however. If a law enforcement or judicial official ventures outside the bounds of official duties to instigate or continue a malicious prosecution, the official may be vulnerable to a malicious prosecution suit. For example, a prosecutor who solicits fabricated testimony to present to a grand jury may be sued for malicious prosecution. The prosecutor would receive only limited immunity in this instance because the solicitation of evidence is an administrative function, not a prosecutorial function (Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S. Ct. 2606, 125 L. Ed. 2d 209 [1993]).

Private parties may also at times enjoy immunity from actions for malicious prosecution. For example, a person who complains to a disciplinary committee about an attorney may be immune. This general rule is followed by courts to avoid discouraging the reporting of complaints against attorneys.
Further readings

American Law Institute. Restatement (Second) of Torts, div. 7, ch. 29, topic 2, §§659–661. 1977. St. Paul, Minn.: American Law Institute.

Cooper, David R. 1993. “Attorneys as Plaintiffs: Absolute Immunity for Ethics Complainants Bars Suit by Attorney for Malicious Prosecution (Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645, 830 P.2d 23 [1992]).” Washburn Law Journal 32.

Linscott, Steven, and Randall L. Frame. 1994. Maximum Security: The True Story of Steven Linscott. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Schillaci., Jacques L. 2002. “Unexamined Premises: Toward Doctrinal Purity in §1983 Malicious Prosecution Doctrine.” Northwestern University Law Review 97 (fall).

Sherwood, Carlton. 1991. Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway.

Silver, Isidore. 1989. Police Civil Liability: Law and Practice. New York: Matthew Bender.Toomey, Kate A. 2002. “Practice Pointer: The Rule Against Threatening Criminal Prosecution to Gain an Advantage in a Civil Matter. Utah Bar Journal 15 (December).

Weber, Christopher W. 1994. “The Loss of Consortium-Malicious Prosecution Nexus: No Recovery for Loss of Spousal Consortium Absent Physical Injury and No Recovery for Malicious Prosecution Beyond the Person Prosecuted: Browning Ferris Industries v. Lieck, 881 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1994).” Texas Tech Law Review 26.

Zbytowski, Jennifer S. 1995. “The Case Against Section 1983 Immunity for Witnesses Who Conspire with a State Official to Present Perjured Testimony.” Michigan Law Review 93.
Cross-references

False Arrest; Malice; Probable Cause; Tort Law.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
malicious prosecution

n. filing a lawsuit with the intention of creating problems for the defendant such as costs, attorneys fees, anguish, or distraction when there is no substantial basis for the suit. If the defendant in the lawsuit wins, and has evidence that the suit was filed out of spite and without any legal or factual foundation, he/she may, in turn, sue for damages against the person who filed the original action. If malice is clearly proved against the party who brought the original suit, punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general damages. In recent cases, courts have ruled that an attorney who knowingly assists a client in filing a worthless lawsuit out of malice or spite may be liable for damages along with the client. The suit by the victim to recover damages for a malicious prosecution cannot be filed until the original law suit is decided in favor of the victim. (See: malice)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
malicious prosecutionnoun indefensible proseeution, Kafka-like prosecution, malicious charges instituted by a prosecutor, malicious criminal enforcement, malicious pursuit by a law enforcement agency, prosecution mainnained with venal intentions, prosecution without proper procedures, reprehensible prosecution, unconscionable prosecution, unconstitutional prosecution, underhanded prosecution, unfair prosecution, unjust and unfair pursuit of criminal charges, unjustifiable prosecution, unmerited prosscution, unprincipled prosecution, unscrupulous prosecuuion, unwarrantable prosecution, wrongful prosecution
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *