Joshua Speaks about Fullerton v FFFF Lawsuit

Joshua Voice of OC
Photo by JULIE LEOPO, Voice of OC

I’ve been pretty quiet since the City of Fullerton decided to sue me, David Curlee and this blog. We were under a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) so knowing what I could and could not post was up for legal debate. Yet at the same time the TRO was active, the City Attorney, Kim Barlow, was out in the open calling us hackers and thieves to our friends, neighbors and the world at large.  Yay illegal prior restraints in violation of the 1st Amendment.

The basic issue here is that City Hall screwed up and then decided to smear and scapegoat us to cover their own bureaucratic hindquarters.

To this end they hired some experts to bloviate about BS in an attempt to confuse people and obscure the truth about what is actually being alleged against us and City Council bought it hook, line and sinker.

The ink on the City’s Press Release hit-piece was barely dry before The Fullerton Observer uncritically reprinted it and in an effort to attempt cover the story they brought in their own “expert” who copy and pasted the City’s nonsense in order to paint us as hackers and villains with malicious intentions and evil schemes.

But now I’ll tell you what is actually being alleged; The City is alleging that we went to it’s website and clicked links.

That’s it.

All of their preening about VPNs/TOR, link hashes, network security – All Of It – is a smokescreen. Despite the nonsense about needing to delay the lawsuit to secure the city’s network, the city never alleges that the their network was ever breached or hacked.

The real meat and substance of their argument and allegations is that we “exceeded authorized access” and are therefore “thieves” and “hackers” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

We allegedly “exceeded access” because they say we went to a link on the city’s own website, a link they themselves claim that they told us about, and allegedly clicked on files and folders they put there for the whole world to see plain as day. The argument is that we should have known better and shouldn’t have clicked on the files they put on the internet at the website they told us about. That is literally their allegations. That’s it.

We’re apparently supposed to have known what a $1Million+/year worth of government employees & lawyers didn’t know – that some files the city put online shouldn’t have been accessible from the city’s own website.

To bypass the obvious First Amendment issues in this lawsuit and to obtain their TRO the city made the claim that we accessed files that contain privileged medical records of police and their families, etc.

This is why they claim to have needed the prior restraint against us publishing data – to mitigate financial risks to the city. But there is no evidence this blog has published any such information made in the city’s grand accusations. Information, mind you, that the City themselves claim to have put on the internet for the entire world to access. By their logic we shouldn’t be allowed to do as journalists what they themselves have already admitted to doing as incompetents.

The City is trying to unring a bell here and blaming those who allegedly heard it instead of admitting they caused the commotion when they bonked their own heads.

Even if what the city alleges is true, that we allegedly went to the city’s own website and clicked links, the liability and financial risks to the city are of their own doing by their own admissions. It is not the responsibility of journalists or even the public to safeguard the city’s corruption and secrecy after the city itself has put it on display for the entire world.

To call the allegation that we went to their website and clicked links “hacking” and “stealing” is absurd. To demand myself, David Curlee, my former co-worker, this blog at large and unnamed Does 1-50 turn over our entire digital lives (phones, computers, hard drives, flash drives, CDs/DVDs, etc) to the city to cure this alleged link clicking is ludicrous on top of the absurd. And frankly it’s insulting and malicious.

Fullerton is rotten to the core when it actively buries misconduct by employees and officers but attacks bloggers & journalists for revealing truths. That our council would vote 5-0 to pursue this lawsuit and then vote 4-1 to continue it says a lot about our supposed leadership.

Thankfully the TRO was stayed by the Appellate Court and we are free to resume publishing. This is going to continue at least until 21 November and we’ll keep you posted as to the status of this ridiculous lawsuit.

Meanwhile I’m now out of a job thanks to this lawsuit while bills and attorney fees stack up. A good friend and all around great guy, Erik Wehn, set up a GoFundMe account and I’ll incur his wrath if I don’t mention it [HERE] so there it is and thank you to all of the people who have supported myself and this blog financially, emotionally and spiritually in these trying times. Sincerely thank you.

Fullerton v FFFF – Appeals Court Rules in Favor of FFFF

Stay of TRO

The Court of Appeals has issued a STAY on the Temporary Restraining Order issued against myself, David Curlee and this blog regarding publishing of information allegedly obtained through the city’s Dropbox:

“That portion of respondent court’s October 25, 2019 order cited above (paragraphs (1)(j) and (1)(k)) is STAYED pending further order of this court.”

Paragraphs (1)(j) and (1)(k) are as follows:

(j) Selling, publishing, distributing, disclosing or otherwise using any of the information or documents obtained from the City Dropbox folders and files listed at Exhibit A, without the City’s permission, or a valid court order; and

(k) Conspiring with third parties to sell, publish, distribute, disclose or otherwise use any of the information or documents obtained from the City Dropbox folders and files listed at Exhibit A, without the City’s permission, or a valid court order.

This means that the prior restraint against us has been struck down. The court also granted the amicus application from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Read the ruling [Here]

Reporters Committee on Press Freedom Files Amicus Supporting FFFF

On Sunday, 03 November 2019, the Reporters Committee on Press Freedom released an article [HERE] outlining their read on the case against us. They see the overreach and concern to journalists being posed by Fullerton’s read on the law.

“The prior restraint sought here is, of course, concerning. But this is the first case we’re aware of where the computer crime laws have been misused so brazenly against members of the news media. First, the conduct alleged — accessing publicly available documents over the public internet — is clearly not hacking. A court finding that accessing publicly available documents over the public internet constitutes hacking would pose serious concerns for data journalists.”

Two days later, 05 Nov, the same day the City Council voted 4-1 to continue the lawsuit against this blog and two of your humble friends, the RCPF filed an amicus brief supporting us in our appeals court effort to overturn the Temporary Restraining Order issued against us.

You can read the entire RCFP Amicus Brief [HERE]. Some highlights are as follows.

The allegations:

“The essence of the City’s allegations in this case is that bloggers reporting on newsworthy matters of clear public interest (namely, potential government misconduct) violated federal and state hacking laws by accessing information that was made available online by the City to all the world. The City claims it is entitled not only to an extraordinary prior restraint on publication but also damages, in part for claims against the City for breach of confidentiality caused by the City’s own cybersecurity lapses.”

This was not hacking:

“If Amicus’s reading of the declaration of the City’s information technology expert is correct, one did not even need a username or password to access files in the Dropbox account maintained by the City, in which it commingled allegedly sensitive and privileged information with material that it affirmatively invited public records requesters to download.”

The theft from a “house” analogy doesn’t work:

“A public website, including the Dropbox account here, is not like a “house.” When an entity chooses to make information available to the public on the internet, without a technical access restriction like a password, that information can legally be accessed by anyone.”

VPNs/TOR are industry practice:

“It is true that the use of a VPN and Tor serves to protect user anonymity, and that “even some journalists routinely use” them. Id. Indeed, the use of such services is not only commonplace among journalists—it is a recommended industry practice.”

“Everyone should be using encrypted services and applications to protect their communications. In fact, in 2017, the American Bar Association’s Committee on Ethics and Legal Responsibility recommended that lawyers use “high level encryption” or other “strong protective measures” to protect sensitive client information.”

Read the whole thing, it’s worth it. We’ll bring more updates as they happen.

City of Fullerton Is Suing Me And This Blog

You may have already seen the story and/or press release from the City of Fullerton articulating their lawsuit against myself, Friends for Fullerton’s Future and others.

You can read the Voice of OC’s write up on this lawsuit from the city [HERE]:

“Fullerton city attorneys are heading into Orange County Superior Court Friday to ask a judge for a temporary restraining order against resident Joshua Ferguson and a local blog to keep them from deleting city records they obtained and also asking a judge to appoint someone to comb through electronic devices for the records.”

That lawsuit from the city is retaliation for a Public Records Lawsuit I filed against the city last week which was written up by the Voice of OC [HERE]:

“Fullerton residents may soon find out exactly how former City Manager Joe Felz was given a ride home by Fullerton police officers after hitting a tree and trying to flee the scene following drinking on election night in 2016, after resident Joshua Ferguson filed a lawsuit against the city to produce police body camera footage from that night.”

I will have more details in the near future but our current response is HERE]:

“The basic purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from imposing prior restraints against the press. “Regardless of how beneficent-sounding the purposes of controlling the press might be,” the Court has “remain[ed] intensely skeptical about those measures that would allow government to insinuate itself into the editorial rooms of this Nation’s press.” (Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 560-561.)

“Consistent with that principle, over the last 75 years, the United States Supreme Court repeatedly has struck down prior restraints that limited the press’ right to report about court proceedings. The Court has made clear that a prior restraint may be contemplated only in the rarest circumstances, such as where necessary to prevent the dissemination of information about troop movements during wartime, Near, 283 U.S. at 716, or to “suppress[] information that would set in motion a nuclear
holocaust.” (New York Times, 403 U.S. at 726 (Brennan, J., concurring).)

“This case does not come close to presenting such extraordinary circumstances. Thus, the City cannot prevail as a matter of law, regardless of how the records were originally obtained. The City’s requests are flatly unconstitutional in and Defendants, therefore, respectfully request this Court denying the City’s request in its entirely.”

More to come as these two cases play out in court.

New Lawsuit Against Fullerton Alleges Police Misconduct & Cover-Ups

 

A lot has happened in Fullerton over the last several years and while my involvement has waned ever since the City threatened me civilly and criminally because I happen to be associated with this blog, and this blog published embarrassing things City Hall would rather hide from the people, I have remained committed to finding the truth and speaking up against the vapid and self-serving corruption of our council majority & the city hall they oversee.

In my capacity as a chronic malcontent these last few years I have made numerous records requests looking for information and many of those requests have been ignored, delayed or denied owing to dubious legal claims or just outright misrepresentations of the law. As such I have opted to sue the city of Fullerton for violations of the California Public Records Act.

The now filed Petition for Writ of Mandate alleges that the City of Fullerton has violated the CPRA in regards to my records requests related to no less than 5 separate issues.

Back when I first started filing requests, specifically for the body worn camera and dash cam videos of the Joe Felz DUI incident, the city was able to hide behind a lack of enforceable disclosure laws as SB1421 was not yet the law of the land. Cities did/do this because they know it takes a lot of time, effort and commitment to make them comply with disclosure laws.

Here in Fullerton the arrogance got so bad that they didn’t even try to hide their disdain for the public and transparency. At one point after claiming the Felz video was exempt from disclosure owing to the non-existent sham investigation, City Attorney Gregory Palmer asserted to me; “If you are dissatisfied with the response you have remedies”.

“You have remedies”

Skip ahead a few years and it turns out I DO have remedies and I have opted to act upon them. Hence this lawsuit.

For those interested, the lawsuit reads as follows (after the jump, emphasis in original, exhibits in the Writ link above):

(more…)

Will Fullerton’s Pensions Eat the Library and More?

Fullerton Hunt Library

You think we’re full of it when we warn you about the severity of the pension problem in Fullerton (and elsewhere). You think we’re joking about the pension crisis that threatens to eat our city budget whole.

You ignore when Fitzgerald laughs off structural deficits and joins our council in voting for every pay/benefits package our heroes demand.

Well it is a crisis. A crisis of math and a crisis of ethics.

How bad is it?

It’s so bad our City Manager is actively considering giving away property we can’t readily sell to pay what we owe on the pensions.

Here’s an except from an email forwarded by CM Ken Domer to now-former Administrative Services Director Michael B. O’Kelly, CPA asking for his feedback (emphasis added):

I wanted to share information about fairly new alternative funding concept in public pension – funding using “assets-in-kind”.

Followed by:

The concept of using assets-in-kind for pension and OPEB funding is currently being considered by the State of CT. Attached is one of the presentations made during the hearings of the CT Pension Sustainability Commission that explains the approach (PDF document). I thought it may be interesting for you to review. Of course, the approach is not specifically designed for the states, but can be implemented by the local government as well.

Assets for Pensions

Essentially, the pension fund is ready to foreclose on Fullerton.

First we’ll lose worthless assets like the poisoned park, the bridge & stairs to nowhere, some undeveloped land. Then council will vote for some more hero benefits and CalPERS will change the discount rate again and we’ll move on the hunt branch library, the main branch library, the community center, Hillcrest and so forth. At some point we’ll sell City Hall and Council Chambers to the pension fund which would be fitting considering the heroes and their pensions already own our council and staff.

We’ll do all of this because, according to our council majority the budget is balanced.

And because we’re in excellent financial shape.

nothing to see here more along

OC District Attorney Spitzer Goes Limp for Perv Cop

In case you haven’t heard by now, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office which is led by Todd Spitzer, filed a peeping charge against Fullerton Police Officer Jose Paez for filming up the skirt of a 16 year old student.

Let that sink in for a moment. A 16 year old, who Paez was on campus to protect, was his victim under color of authority.

According to the case information the violation date was 11/03/2017 and according to the FPD press release it was found by accident while investigating something else.

Paez Case Detail

Based on the Body Worn Camera audit conducted by FPD we know that Paez also attempted to film up a teacher’s skirt on 08/29/2017 which shows a pattern of behavior.

He also had underage sex videos and photos on a phone in his possession. Apparently chain of custody at FPD, regarding Child Pornography, is so lax that they don’t know who has it on what devices or where it’s stored.

To further complicate the issue, Paez was allowed to schedule deletion of his own Body Worn Camera videos.

Taking into account the potential charges such as peeping on teachers and underage students and possession of child pornography on his phone it seems unprofessional that Fullerton PD wouldn’t contract this case out to another department or agency. This ins’t a case of policy violations to be investigated by Internal Affairs but rather it is one of potential criminal conduct against children under color of authority. The community and students at FJUHSD deserved an objective outside source to look into these issues.

This is something they did not get because Fullerton put their perv officer first and the wall of silence stood still. Not a single officer came forward about Paez. Not a single council member. Not a single school board member. An officer was allowed to prey on our children in his capacity of School Resource Officer and the protected status of the police was more important than public notification.

Thanks to the DA only levying a single charge dating to almost two years ago this smells more like another case of FPD being caught with their pants down than actual due diligence. The priority doesn’t seem to be in protecting our city and our city’s children despite all of the attaboys Chief Dunn gave himself in his Press Release on the issue.

What stopped Paez from sharing nude photos of your daughters with his friends and co-workers? What’s to stop his replacement from doing the same?

Nothing and that’s how FPD likes it so shut up and go back to sleep. They’ll make this go away like so many other cases of criminality by their own in blue and then have the audacity to ask for a raise which council will give them.

This is the upside-down world we live in where justice consists of a press release followed by a likely plea deal where a pervert with a pattern of behavior of preying on women and children while under the color of authority will be allowed to walk with barely a slap on the wrist.

Spitzer is continuing the efforts of his predecessor who refused to file charges against Fullerton Officer Rincon despite groping women in his patrol car during traffic stops. A pattern that consisted of letting off Fullerton Officer Christopher Chiu who forced a naked women to stand for him so he could shine his light up her crotch and then ask for her number.

Sexual predation seems to be A-OK behind the Blue Wall of Silence supported by the brass at FPD, City Hall and the DA’s Office.

We all knew, based on the Jailhouse Snitch program, that there was seemingly nothing the Orange County District Attorney’s Office wouldn’t do to protect bad cops but now that includes downplaying sexual crimes against a School Resource Officer. All to protect a pervert in blue.

When did FPD send the case to the DA? How long did they sit on the Paez problem? Was he fired or was he allowed to quit? Chief Dunn won’t tell you. Did FPD or the DA even ask for potential victims to come forward or were they too worried about the bad press they’d get by possibly uncovering a #PaezMeToo problem they ignored for at least a year?

Meet DA Todd Spitzer, same as DA Tony Rackauckas – a hero for self-proclaimed heroes and nobody else.

Fullerton Cops Label Camera Data Wrong 60% of the Time

It was bad enough when we learned that Fullerton Officers had (have?) no oversight in how they themselves are allowed to categorize videos and schedule them for deletion. Do something wrong like the litany of SB1421 criminal cops? Just change the category to delete the videos and nobody is the wiser.

It was worse that we learned that in the context of Fullerton Officer Jose Paez perving on High School kids and teachers while on the job, including for allegedly shooting video up a 16 year old’s skirt for which he’s being prosecuted.

But it turns out that Fullerton cops label their video files wrong 60% of the time according to Chief Dunn himself:

BWC 60 Percent

“We also learned the way we label data, officers tag the video via an app on their phones, is incorrect 60% of the time.  This contributes to the storage overages and can cause evidence to be missed.”

So when officers aren’t just deleting the videos of their criminal activity, such as Paez did, they’re potentially missing evidence for cases by simply not doing their jobs correctly.

The guys and gals in blue whom we pay the vast majority of our budget to can’t manage to tag a video properly for evidence – when evidence is quite literally one of the most important aspects of their job.

Guess they need more training and raises to justify that training. Bring on Fitzgerald’s taxes to solve this pernicious police problem. Just kidding. We’re paying for software (CAD integration) because a machine is the only thing that can save us from officer incompetence. But we’ll still get hosed with the taxes to pay for their ever growing pensions just you wait.

Fullerton School Board Ignored Issue of Campus Police Pervert

Paez Barista

For those of you paying attention to the story of Perv Cop Paez, I’ll direct your attention to some correspondence with the Fullerton Joint Union High School Board of Trustees from back in December 2018 when rumors of this story first came to light.

This is an email a friend of ours sent to each member of the school board:

FUHSD re Paez

Hi,

I just heard a rumor that a school officer working with Fullerton police, officer Paez, had naked photos of at least one student on his phone. If the student is underage I understand a name not being released but how many victims are there and do I need to be worried about my children?

Should parents be concerned about their child being victimized?

Is this true and if so is the school district covering this up?

I would hope that you learned something about honesty after Lindgren molested students at Nicholas. Please let me know if these allegations have merit and that Fullerton isn’t in the habit of covering up sexual predators.

Thanks.

Concerned Parent

Only one member even bothered to respond and that was the following paltry message:

Thank you for the information, I will bring this up with our Superintendent tonight. 

Thanks,

Andy Montoya

So there you have it folks. A Fullerton Police Officer, in his capacity of School Resource Officer, was allowed to roam campus unchecked, film up the skirts of teachers and students, delete his own Body Camera videos with no oversight and allegedly store child pornography on his (department issued?) phone and you the public get to know nothing.

The Fullerton High School Board of Trustees won’t even bother to respond to you if you’re concerned about such things as predatory officers abusing their power to peep on your daughters.

To this day the school board has remained mum, the police chief put out a press release extolling his own virtues and you can bet our useless council will pat the department on the back for the bare minimum that was accomplished here.

How many students were victims of Fullerton PD while on campus? How many have a #PaezMeToo story to tell? Are your kids safe from predators while on campus? You don’t have a right to know according to the Fullerton Joint Union High School Board and Fullerton Police Department.

FUHSD School Board