Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: DESPP still out of control - Ed P. request this time - Ed should file criminal charge

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    DESPP still out of control - Ed P. request this time - Ed should file criminal charge

    http://www.ct.gov/foi/lib/foi/hor_20...4/2013_420.pdf

    And DESPP's sign in/ID station? Not OK when doing records request ..

    See FIC2009-547 .. requiring ID is a no no

    Ed does a nice service here and he is completely correct ... DESPP simply does not care about complying with the Act and the FIC doesn't either

    I am trying to eliminate the FIC and replace it with a CA-style appeal process ~ then if they don't comply, you get $$ in your pocket. The FIC has, since my petitioning for this, decided not to hear any of my cases. But my case before NB will fix this BS.


    And a second case before the commission, likely the incident that Ed wrote about before months ago..
    http://www.ct.gov/foi/lib/foi/hor_20...4/2013_463.pdf

    The requirement to "make an appointment" is garbage. Ed was correct although not handled "gentlemanly" who cares ~ its DESPP ~ avoiders of providing public records

    I have no pity for any DESPP employee ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-24-2014 at 01:04 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.ct.gov/foi/lib/foi/hor_20...4/2013_420.pdf

    And DESPP's sign in/ID station? Not OK when doing records request ..

    See FIC2009-547 .. requiring ID is a no no

    Ed does a nice service here and he is completely correct ... DESPP simply does not care about complying with the Act and the FIC doesn't either

    I am trying to eliminate the FIC and replace it with a CA-style appeal process ~ then if they don't comply, you get $$ in your pocket. The FIC has, since my petitioning for this, decided not to hear any of my cases. But my case before NB will fix this BS.


    And a second case before the commission, likely the incident that Ed wrote about before months ago..
    http://www.ct.gov/foi/lib/foi/hor_20...4/2013_463.pdf

    The requirement to "make an appointment" is garbage. Ed was correct although not handled "gentlemanly" who cares ~ its DESPP ~ avoiders of providing public records

    I have no pity for any DESPP employee ...


    What does NB stand for?



    Thank you for your fight! You should be getting more exposure on this. Do you have a youtube page? A blog?

    Start emailing your story of your fight out to media outlets. This should and I believe will get picked up and gain steam.


    Seriously, WTF? Do we live in the united States, The Republic? Or have we all admitted we live in a totalitarian state, akin to Soviet Russia or Corporate-Fascism?


    Where are the "good" LEOs demanding enforcement of the law here???

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBeWithYourSoul View Post
    What does NB stand for?



    Thank you for your fight! You should be getting more exposure on this. Do you have a youtube page? A blog?

    Start emailing your story of your fight out to media outlets. This should and I believe will get picked up and gain steam.


    Seriously, WTF? Do we live in the united States, The Republic? Or have we all admitted we live in a totalitarian state, akin to Soviet Russia or Corporate-Fascism?


    Where are the "good" LEOs demanding enforcement of the law here???
    New Britain .. where cases are heard for this admin. agency's appeals (filed in Hartford, automatically removed to NB ~ why they just don't change the law to file in NB is a mystery)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, here is a snip from the last "batch" of notices not to schedule a hearing ...

    They referenced other cases I have pending (because its rare to have an agencyin this state complies with our FOIA Act~I have to threaten them with criminal charges to get responses).

    So I filed a record request in with the agency to review all these 136 case files of the agency and asked for a postponement to have time to review them (they gave me a whooping 4 hrs to respond to these goofy notices and the hearing is on upcoming Wed.). Filed this today.

    The real reason for the notices are because I am petitioning to eliminate the agency, this is shown in their merit brief filed in the pending NB case pending. And the other matters they tried to have to court ignore, the court's not ignoring but required them to provide further information to the court.

    This is an agency that deliberates behind closed doors, modifies decisions behind closed doors, talks to gov't agencies illegally regarding pending cases, and expects people to just say "its for the best"....well I don't think so and either does the law.

    And the law does not care if the Act is burdensome ... in CT, citizens must appeal to this commission. Must. So, its why this freedom of information exists ~ to hear appeals to records denials and open meeting violations..

    I saw that Ed P. has 38 pending records requests just with DESPP .... this, if me, would have been 38 appeals due to non promptness issues alone. So 136 over 3-4 yrs isn't excessive IMO.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •