• "A new scam: Public records shakedown" - The Florida Bar News
    11 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Strapping a video camera around his neck, Jeffrey Marcus Gray entered the offices of Lutheran Social Services of Northeast Florida on June 16, and secretly recorded conversations with employees. The room was where people in need of housing or mental health services or those suffering from AIDS waited for help. The self-described “civil rights activist” said he only wanted to document his request for public records, and when Gray claimed he was denied those public records, he filed a lawsuit against the nonprofit corporation two weeks later, on July 1. But Fourth Circuit Judge Jack M. Schemer called Gray’s actions “a baiting gesture meant to achieve personal financial gain; not a legitimate request for public records,” and “nothing more than a scam.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The lawsuits took advantage of confusion surrounding a year-old change to Florida’s public records law requiring that private businesses contracting with public agencies must provide their records for public inspection. The predatory practice involved filing numerous public records requests against public and private agencies, and then suing for noncompliance with those requests. In reaction to news of the public records shakedowns of business owners who contract with state and local governments, Sen. Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, and Rep. Halsey Beshears, R-Monticello, filed Senate Bill 224 and House Bill 163. Rep. Halsey Beshears “Many Florida business owners contract with and perform services for public agencies,” Simpson said. “Over the summer, I learned that across Florida, individuals are approaching some of these businesses to make public records requests for only one purpose: creating confusion for the business owners that leads to frivolous lawsuits to obtain cash settlements.” Simpson called details uncovered by the FCIR “deeply troubling.” “I am an unwavering supporter of comprehensive public access laws, so citizens can hold their government accountable,” Simpson said. “In these cases, though, it is clear that the rights of private citizens and hardworking business owners are being trampled by some unscrupulous people bent on getting rich off a new scam.” In the case of Jeffrey Marcus Gray vs. Lutheran Social Services of Northeast Florida, Inc., according to the judge’s order, Gray asked to inspect and photograph the general insurance policy of LSS. When referred to a second employee, he asked for proof of insurance required by the contract with the Department of Children and Families Services. That employee said he believed that document was not subject to disclosure according to Chapter 119, Florida’s Public Records Act, and Gray should get it from DCF. The contract in question is that Lutheran Social Services would provide youth services to refugees living in Duval County. Gray left the office without providing contact information, and he testified that he wanted “anonymity.” The next contact Lutheran Social Services had with Gray was when he filed the lawsuit on July 1. “Oddly, Gray did not identify in his initial complaint the documents that he claimed were denied him,” Judge Schemer wrote in his order. “At a preliminary hearing held September 1, 2014, Shakfeh, with Gray beside him, was unsure whether or not his client wanted more than what had already been provided to him. Nevertheless, LSS offered and the court ordered Shakfeh and Gray an opportunity to inspect documents. “The means to request public records under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, utilized by Gray were unreasonable and a flagrant abuse of the statute. Gray, in an effort to ambush LSS, purposely denied LSS any advance or written notice of his demands, purposely failed to provide any contact information, and purposely appeared on a busy work day in hopes of manufacturing an attorneys’ fee, to be shared with Gray. It was nothing more than a scam.” Said Rep. Beshears: “In each case that I’ve reviewed, government agencies have the records that are being requested. Instead of simply asking the records custodian at the state agency, spam-like emails are sent or even worse, intimidating individuals wearing cameras go onto private property and make demands of office staff that have had no training in our public records laws.” Said Beth Rawlins, president of Florida Business Watch, a nonprofit trade association for government contractors: “Such abuses have cost businesses and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars; money that should have been spent providing services to citizens. This bill protects the citizen’s right to know, while also protecting contractors from bad actors scamming the system to line their own pockets.” The proposed legislation requires a party filing action to “provide written notice of the public records request, including a statement that the contractor has not complied with the request, by certified mail to the public agency’s custodian of public records at least five business days before filing the action, and provide such notices to the contractor if the contractor is a named party in the action.” Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, who is an FCIR board member, expressed concerns to the FCIR that the proposed legislation may limit access to public records too severely. Her main objections are that a certified letter must be sent five days before filing a lawsuit and proving that a vendor willfully did not comply with a records request.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/b7091c05e7c0ef1385257dd30046f19b!OpenDocument[/url] It seems to me that the businesses are in the wrong for not properly training their office staff the correct protocol when it comes to records. Thoughts?
[QUOTE=cody8295;47047958][url]http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/b7091c05e7c0ef1385257dd30046f19b!OpenDocument[/url] It seems to me that the businesses are in the wrong for not properly training their office staff the correct protocol when it comes to records. Thoughts?[/QUOTE] Maybe people shouldn't go around stirring up shit looking for AIDS-patient-help-centers to sue
[QUOTE=cody8295;47047958][url]http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/b7091c05e7c0ef1385257dd30046f19b!OpenDocument[/url] It seems to me that the businesses are in the wrong for not properly training their office staff the correct protocol when it comes to records. Thoughts?[/QUOTE] No, the businesses have an expectation to provide in a reasonable time, such requests should not and cannot be expected to be instantaneous due to confidentiality and a wealth of other factors, what this guy did in the article is clear example , he did not leave any contact info, nor did he follow up on his requests. If he had done anything like that then his request should be filled.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47048248]No, the businesses have an expectation to provide in a reasonable time, such requests should not and cannot be expected to be instantaneous due to confidentiality and a wealth of other factors, what this guy did in the article is clear example , he did not leave any contact info, nor did he follow up on his requests. If he had done anything like that then his request should be filled.[/QUOTE] But it's not like the company said 'Sure is there any way we can contact you about this?' they said something like 'No we're not giving you anything'
I was hearing a bit about this in the law office I work at, now it makes much more sense. Can totally imagine people trying to make a quick buck off legal issues. I heard of an attorney who was able to get some people like 7k for a bed breaking under them (like just the supports not the mattress) in a rooms to go
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47049006]I was hearing a bit about this in the law office I work at, now it makes much more sense. Can totally imagine people trying to make a quick buck off legal issues. I heard of an attorney who was able to get some people like 7k for a bed breaking under them (like just the supports not the mattress) in a rooms to go[/QUOTE] Interesting but I think this guy is just trying to make a point. It's the law that these places of business must produce public documents
[QUOTE=cody8295;47049017]Interesting but I think this guy is just trying to make a point. It's the law that these places of business must produce public documents[/QUOTE] The $$$$$$$ is just a side thing
So if I get this right, this guy realized that certain government and private offices were subject to a recent regulation change, so he made records requests that were specifically intended to find out which offices were compliant, not for the offices' sake or the public's sake, but rather to give himself an excuse to sue.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47050169]So if I get this right, this guy realized that certain government and private offices were subject to a recent regulation change, so he made records requests that were specifically intended to find out which offices were compliant, not for the offices' sake or the public's sake, but rather to give himself an excuse to sue.[/QUOTE] How can you know his motives? Perhaps he is attempting to make records request more available to normal-people. This would be amazing for the constituents, if we could access these details of public contractors in our neighborhoods. It would unearth the truth, and it seems to me that the ruling Judge and the Florida Bar only want to cover something up with this blatantly libelous article. To quote a comment on one site that was running the story, but with an obvious bias against government. [QUOTE]Instead of looking at the suits as a payday for Jeff, look at is as a score card of how many times he's found an egregious-enough violation that he took the time to sue. Instead of faulting him for doing it 18 times, we should congratulate him for being so effective at exposing violations.[/QUOTE] and another similar one [QUOTE]What is alarming is not how many suits Jeff filed in one county, but how many violations of the pubic records laws occurred in one county for which Jeff had to file suit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cody8295;47048401]But it's not like the company said 'Sure is there any way we can contact you about this?' they said something like 'No we're not giving you anything'[/QUOTE] You can not reasonable expect all office staff to know the particulars of the law and to what information it refers to. This can't be done like a pizza delivery- all your requests in 30 mins or the settlement is on us. He came in asking to see and copy various documents- an employee told them they believed that document was not mandated to be released under the law. The next step is for him to say "yes, it is- look into it and get back to me". This was obviously a blatent attempt to get settlement money.
Even if it is some attempt to make money, his claim is legitimate and legal. Business employees must know the law, and it's completely fair for them to be sued if the neglect to train their employees.
[QUOTE=cody8295;47053079]Even if it is some attempt to make money, his claim is legitimate and legal. Business employees must know the law, and it's completely fair for them to be sued if the neglect to train their employees.[/QUOTE] Yes of course, but you need to allow for some time. Just because you request a document does not mean it can be made available instantly. If you only contact the organisation once, don't leave contact information and then go ahead and sue them there is definitely something fishy. It just points to a loophole that is being exploited. There is a difference between the letter and the spirit of the law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.