Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I've ever stated anything personally against Dennis Cohen or his staff. It was actually Mr. Gatto who I was in contact with and who is the author (or at least his staff) of my denial.
My appeal to the Supreme Court is based on the law. If you notice the highlighted portion of the case law I cited in my appeal, it clearly states that it is the COUNTY'S duty to give a complete explanation of WHY, and not just state the County Law back verbatim as a blanket denial. That wasn't done. If they have to go through each piece of a report and redact information based on the Privacy LAWS, then that is acceptable. They can't just say, "It's part of an active investigation," without stating what laws a release would violate and why. The burden of proof lies on the "Agency" (in this case, the County) that a release would somehow hinder the ongoing investigation.
There are no POI's in this case, in fact, the public assertion by the SCPD is that SG was not murdered. If that is the case, there should be absolutely no problem (other than redacting personal identifying information of witnesses) with a release of the requested information.
Dennis Cohen IS the County attorney. Mr. Gatto is on Dennis' staff. Any letters written to you by Mr. Gatto were absolutely reviewed and signed-off by Dennis. Both men are dedicating their lives to being public servants. These are good people. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think either man is corrupt or part of a master plot to cover up a murder.
Excuse me if I sound arrogant when it comes to FOIL requests. For over six years I taught a course on the subject. If I sound like a self-proclaimed expert on the topic, it's because I have been told by countless individuals that I am.
Once again, your intentions are good. It's your legal arguments and the path you have chosen to pursue them that are flawed. Your requests were rightfully denied. Your argument for an appeal is even weaker than your initial request. If I am understanding this correctly, there are two parts to your request; the 911 recording and the records pertaining to the investigation of SG's possible causes of death.
The denial of your request for the 911 recording is obvious. After reading this thread I see that others attempted to point out to you that E911 recordings are exempt from FOIL requests. They were correct. The law is very specific. There is no
wiggle room here for Dennis' office to bend the rules and release the 911 recording to you. Never will happen under a FOIL request. I can get into the specific details if you request. All I am saying is that it will be a complete waste of your time. Supreme Court will let you know this too.
The second part of your appeal is based upon the argument that the County broke the law by not giving you specific details as to why you were denied specific items in your request. The problem here is that you actually did not request anything specific other than the 911 recording. Your request was a '
blanket request' for, well, basically every shred of evidence/document the county has on file regarding SG's ongoing investigation. So, to no surprise, you received a '
blanket denial'. Until the LISK is caught, there is no court in the Country that would not deny the fact that this is an ongoing investigation. Had you asked for a specific item (for instance, a copy of the transcripts of the interview with MP) the denial letter would have been more specific and stated how the transcripts of those interviews are part of the ongoing investigation. They can only supply you with a denial letter for what you requested. I can get into this further if you don't see the point.
On another note, the method in which you are going about your escalation of the requests/appeals is highly insulting to the public servants you are dealing with. The right thing to have done once you received that denial letter from the FOIL desk officer was to request to speak with his supervisor for a better clarification. You could have held the threat of an appeal over their heads as incentive for them to speak with you further. Instead, you chose to go over their heads and immediately filed an appeal with Dennis Cohen's office. Now, you received a denial letter from Mr. Gatto. What you should be doing now is requesting to speak with Dennis about the reasons behind your denial. You can hold the threat of an appeal to the Supreme Court over his head. If you instead go straight to the Supreme Court, you are once again insulting public servants. This is not how things get done in business or in government. It's never nice to go over anyone's head without speaking to them and giving a second or even third chance. On the playground, that's being a tattle-tale. That's being confrontational as well as showing a lack of tolerance on your part. Like I said, these are good people. Treat them well and they will open doors for you (sometimes even throw you a bone once in a while). I've had more than one instance where I (or someone I knew) was permitted to "glance" at a document that could not be released via a FOIL request. That is what happens when you play nice. Being a hard-stoned-file-every-possible-appeal-immediately kind of a player doesn't make friends with the people you want to cooperate with you. It's more like being a bully.
