On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

eLibrary - All Crimes and More Recorded!
Click this BIG button for ... All the evidence in one place! The documentation in pictures, documents and video of what was done to Marco Island .. and more!
Today is: Click here:Today's Meditation

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Predicted the Future

"When there is more government, industrialists take it over, and together they form a coalition against the individual."

Milton Friedman
1976

2 Comments:

  • An open letter to my friend Ed Foster. Have you read Joe Granda's diatribe in today's Marco Eagle? In it he gloats over the conviction of Mr. Kiester and makes all sorts of innuendos about him. This is what I was talking to you about. Taking a "can't we all get along" attitude is not the way to go in this instance. If out of the goodness of your heart you want to forgive someone that is your prerogative as an individual. But when the offense is against the community then justice must be served. If there was justice in the case of Mr.Kiester then we must have justice for Ms. DiSciullo and Mr. Tucker and any other councilman that broke the same law. I understand that in this corrupt County the law does not apply equally to the legal system's cronies. But that is why we must go out of our way to make the guilty bastards who beat the law squirm. Then, as Joe Granda says, we can move on.
    H. Sarlo

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, February 29, 2008 2:58:00 PM  

  • Mr. Sarlo,

    I posted the following following the Granda article:

    "Mr. Granda:

    Your diatribe is self defeating. "Mr. Kiester is the first elected official in the state to have been convicted for destruction of public records" because he was the first elected official to be charged with this "crime" despite two other Marco Island councilors having freely admitted to doing the same thing. Why was Kiester singled out? Because a vindictive person, Sal Sciarrino, was urged to bring the charge by John Arceri and Monte Lazarus, the founders of Celebrate Marco, a self-proclaimed bastion of love and "civility." (Was it not Monte Lazarus who proposed a City Ordinance demanding everyone be "civil"?)

    It is obvious that the suit was brought for political purposes. Their actions were and are disgraceful to themselves and to the city. No one can seriously believe that Chuck Kiester is the only city councilor in the state of Florida to have deleted messages from his e-mail account.

    You may "wonder if the hard drive was 'sanitized' and if the recovered emails were left to be recovered so as to satisfy state officials" because you are too ignorant to know that such an action can't be done. Had Mr. Kiester wished to wipe his hard drive clean, there are plenty of programs that do so, but the entire e-mail record would have been destroyed and nothing found. The fact that such was NOT the case, is prima facie evidence that Mr. Kiester had no criminal intent in deleting e-mails.

    I am not surprised that almost all the e-mails recovered were from after February 23, 2007. That is the result of how computers store information. When a computer "deletes" a file, the file data are not deleted. Instead, changes are made to the FAT (File Allocation Table) which directs the computer to the sectors of the disk on which the file is located. Those sectors that heretofore contained the "deleted" file are marked as "available" to store a new file but the data remain on the sectors until they are overwritten. Sooner or later, the computer uses those "now-available" sectors and, when that happens, the old data is destroyed. The longer the sectors are marked as "available," the more likely it is that they will have been overwritten and the original data destroyed. The evidence you cite sucggests that that is exactly what happened and that Mr. Kiester did not attempt to permanently remove specific files from his computer.

    Mr. Granda, before making accusations against the one councilor who has made it a practice of listening to citizen comments and complaints, you should learn how computers function. Your specious allegations encourage a continuation of the hatred rampant on Marco Island since Celebrate Marco was established.

    Ed Foster"

    I'm not trying to "get" Ms. DiSciullo or E. Glenn Tucker or any other councilor who has deleted e-mails from his/her personal computer. I submit that citizens must be able to communicate with their councilors and expect that communication to remain PRIVATE. The law forbids the destruction of "public records" which, to me, means records on the city server. The AG has given an "opinion" that the law extends to councilors' personal computers, i.e., that e-mails on a councilor's personal computer that conceivably can be construed to be about public business cannot be deleted. That "opinion" destroys a citizen's right to private communications with his/her councilor. If private e-mails are part of the "public record," telephone calls to a councilor must be recorded and maintained and private conversations on the street must be recorded and maintained as part of the "public record."

    Therein lies my problem: if the AG's "opinion" is upheld and extended to its logical conclusion, my constitutional right to privacy is compromised. I am not a particular fan of the ACLU, but this is a case that they should pick up and carry to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, to ensure that a citizen's right to private communication is not destroyed by a local elected judge. Anyone who wishes can file a request with the ACLU on line. The solution to the "problem" is very simple: if a citizen wishes his/her communication to be part of the public record, they send it to the city for forwarding to the councilor. If the citizen wishes the communication to be private, he/she sends the e-mail to the councilor's personal e-mail address and it is assumed NOT to be part of the public record.

    Ed Foster

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:45:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home