Some days, I love my job :). (California CCW wars comedy)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim March

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,732
Location
SF Bay Area
As many of y'all know, I'm filing a big pile of Public Records Act Requests for CCW-related data. See also:

http://www.equalccw.com/prarwars.html

I'm actually encouraging EMail responses.

Got this gem today:

Dear Mr. March,

I have 42 pages of documents ready for copying and sending to you related to your CCW public records request to xxx xxxxxx County. Please remit to me at the address below a check in the amount of $74.20 for duplication fees ($0.10 per copy and $10.00 per hour in time compiling records (7 hours)). Once I receive your check, I will forward copies to you by mail. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx, Asst. County Counsel
Office of the County Counsel, xxxxx xxxxxxx County
(phone number, address, etc.)

Waitasec...that ain't right.

Did about five minutes of googling, then drafted a response:

Ms. xxxxxx,

I have some recommended reading for you: North County Parents v. DOE, 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (1994). The full text is archived at:

http://cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/north.html

Allow me to quote:

--------------------
Appellant requested copies of all decisions rendered in the last two years. Department charged $.25 per page for furnishing the copies, rendering a total bill of $126.50. This charge not only covered the cost of duplication of the documents, but also reimbursed Department for staff time involved in searching the records, reviewing records for information exempt from disclosure under law, and deleting such exempt information. Department refused to reduce this charge, and also refused to waive the charge upon the ground that "there is no legal authority to waive such charges." Appellant paid the charge and then brought this action seeking miscellaneous relief.

The trial court ruled for the Department, finding that section 6257 permits the Department to charge "the full direct costs of duplication," and that the Department's charge of $.25 per copy "was not in contravention of section 6257." The court made a second ruling pertaining to the potential of waiver of fees. It ruled that the Department had discretion to waive fees pursuant to section 6253.1, but that it was not required to waive fees and did not err in this case by refusing to consider waiver. Appellant contends both rulings are in error.

[1] We agree with appellant. Section 6257 provides that one who requests copies of public documents must pay the statutory fee for same, if there is one. The parties agree there is none prescribed in this case. Lacking a statutory fee the cost chargeable is a "fee[ ] covering direct costs of duplication." There seems to be little dispute as to what "duplicate" means. It means just what we thought it did, before looking it up: to make a copy. (See Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1968) p. 593 ["to ... reproduce exactly"]; Webster's Third New Internat. Dict. (1981) p. 702 ["to be or make a duplicate, copy or transcript ..."].) Since words of a statute are to be interpreted "according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them" (In re Alpine (1928) 203 Cal. 731, 737 [265 P. 947, 58 A.L.R. 1500]), we conclude that the cost chargeable by the Department for furnishing these copies is the cost of copying them.
--------------------

My final question: do you actually want a check for $4.20, knowing that the cost of processing the check is probably higher than that amount?

I await your response, and thank you for your time.

Jim March

About half hour later...

Yes, I actually want a check for the duplication costs. And if by that and your case reference you are refusing to reimburse the County for the compilation time of duplication, then yes, you need to send a check for $4.20.

xxxxx xxxxx

Hey! She's dropped the "Dear". I wonder why?

$4.20 on it's way.

Thanks,

Jim March

:evil:

(Name changed to protect the guilty mainly 'cuz I ain't got the stuff yet :D.)
 
Last edited:
If it takes someone 7 hours to compile 42 pages of info, they're either lying or brain-dead.

It's a separate sub-species: a public trough feeder in the People's Republic of California, where it can take two hours and longer to change one's address on a driver's license.
 
Standing Wolf said:
It's a separate sub-species: a public trough feeder in the People's Republic of California, where it can take two hours and longer to change one's address on a driver's license.

I am ENTRANCED by Jim March's current goings-on...

I feel like I'm watching the leaning tower of CCW, taking pictures just as a few pieces begin to crumble...

:D
 
Just got another one even funnier, and I'm tempted to actually quote this clown:

Re: your web site

[email protected] wrote:

As the officer who monitors the requests for CCW permits at out agency, I have absolute knowledge that Chief Skerry has never issued a CCW permit to anyone. Your allegations about Santa Cruz Police Department and Chief Skerry being racist and only giving CCWs to rich people and political cronies as stated on your web site is a big lie! I wonder how many other big lies are included on your web site? In any case, I am forwarding the information to our city attorney. Maybe suing you will get your attention.

Sgt. Lunnen

SCPD Professional Standards Unit

(DO NOT mail-bomb this idiot, OK? Please?)

My response:

=========================

I never said that about Santa Cruz PD. It is however a pattern across the entire state, one that has been partially documented so far but hasn't been extensively tracked because the Public Records Act wasn't potent enough. Prop59 just changed that.

Let's start with "Skerry never issued CCW" - I recommend reading Salute v. Pitchess 61 Cal. App. 3d 557. It's not *exactly* analogous to what Skerry does - Sheriff Pitchess of LA was restricting CCW to government employees only. The court said:

------------
While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

The petition before us alleges that petitioners are of good moral character and are residents of Los Angeles County. It is admitted that no inquiry into the existence of good cause has ever been made in connection with the application of these petitioners, or of any other applicant outside the limited group of public officials. It is the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050.
------------

Remember, that's not me saying that Skerry's lack of "investigation and determination on an individual basis" is "abusive", it's a binding California appellate court decision.

As to what's going on elsewhere, start here:

http://www.equalccw.com/ccwdata.html - your odds of having a permit depend in large part on whether or not your county of residence has a high black population. By a FIVE TO ONE MARGIN!

http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf - "In Vino Veritas" - drunk permitholder blabs about the campaign finance link to his permit in a police report.

http://www.equalccw.com/donperata.gif - State Senator Don Perata (known hardcore gungrabber) CCW permit application letter considered so funny it made Matt Drudge.

http://www.equalccw.com/oaklandzen.html - True comedy - it appears one has to be either a serial sexual harasser or the mayor's best friend and roommate to score CCW in Oakland Calif.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/pennpermit1.html - Sean Penn's CCW permit data - apparantly another route to a permit runs fist-through-noses of papparazi?

Do you really think any of the above meets "professional standards"?

Jim March
 
Last edited:
What is wrong with these people?

The very first thing that jumped into my head was "do I look like a veterinarian" but let's not go there.

The second (the "professional standards" moron from SCPD) is just par for the course. What I can't figure out is the first - I ain't a lawyer, but it took me five minutes (literally) googling on the subject of PRAR fees to debunk her (and save CCRKBA $70 just on this one response). And she IS a lawyer.

:confused:

:scrutiny:

Your tax dollars at work I guess...
 
Good job Jim!
What I don't understand is why a citizen of the state
has to pay anything other than direct copying fees($.03 ?).These morons work for us!! They get paid whether they are looking stuff up(their job?)
or sitting on their duff(more likely).

QuickDraw
 
As has been said by many others in many different threads - Jim, you are my hero
Hail.gif
.

Give 'em hell :D .
 
Jim,

In the case of Sgt. Lunnen, why do you even waste your time responding to these trained monkeys? Just tell them to do their job (and maybe throw them a banana or two).
 
So Jim,

This means I can start thinking about applying for a CCW here in San Diego County? :what:

Talk about a Christmas present! I CAN'T WAIT!!!!

Thanks so much for what you're doing (and PLEASE let me know if there's anything I can do to help!)

Esky
 
I love the 7 hour thing - if it really took that long to copy 42 pages, then I want that job. Clock in, go to the range, six hours later drive back, make copies, hand to boss, say "All done, finally!" and clock out.
Jim, please keep us updated on all of these good responses, us in the PRK need the info; and everyone in the USA needs the laughs.
 
I would turn her to whatever investigative agencies California has. I'm willing to bet she's committing fraud and extortion to many people more than you. In other words, pocketting that extra money. Think if she made even less than $70 per person making document requests... The amount of money would quickly add up.
 
The seven hours isn't so totally crazy, if you realize it includes tracking all the documents down, confirming that they are the correct documents, and ONLY the correct documents, confering with somebody to determine whether they're so incriminating that it's worth saying they got lost in a flood, five minutes at the copying machine, and then putting them all back.

I'm not saying they were entitled to the seven hours' pay, but it might well have taken seven hours to do all that.
 
Quickdraw:
Its a government copier and paper. Due to the wonders of contracting, the copier probably costs $10,000 and the paper goes for $20/ream. Dont even ask about the toner cartridge.

Jim:
Nice way to stick it to them, the laughs just keep on coming.

Kharn
 
First, yeah, I can see seven hours coping with this :).

And the lady lawyer in question wanted the check made out to the county, not herself or cash, so I don't think she was doing anything for personal gain here.

It's probably legal for them to ASK for the extra money...and then cave in rather quickly when she realized she wasn't up against a newbie in all this :D.

So no, I don't think there's anything to "report" here, 'cept maybe a semi-comical footnote in the final legislative report.

The only other response so far is from Yolo County's sheriff, where a staffer politely said (paraphrased, both in EMail and in a letter in today's mail) "ummm, I gotta go talk to our lawyers about all this, I'll get back to you soon" which isn't completely unreasonable given that Cal-DOJ has "muddied the waters" on this whole process to an unbelievable degree.

By around Friday the "10 day initial response limit" will be about up...then we get to see who's being naughty and who's being at least semi-nice. I sent all the PRARs (except DOJ's) via certified mail...the cheap sort where I get this big tracking number I can check on the USPS website. Joy. I can just see myself spending a few hours on that this coming Sunday on the ones that ain't replied by Saturday's mail...

Oh well.
 
Mr. March, you're my hero. I just love stories like this. I think you should have published the attorney's name as well. This sort of behavior really burns me up, but I get an equal amount of enjoyment when somebody who takes the time to research the matter calls their bluff. I can just imagine this person's mouth hanging open as they read your response. You made my day.
 
Frohickey said:
Hey, Jim.

Do you have to actually send her a check for $4.20?
Couldn't you just send her 420 pennies instead? :evil: :evil: :evil:

OH GOD, THE TEMPTATION!!!

:p

Naw. Better not :).

Jeez, man, don't DO that to me!
 
Frohickey said:
Hey, Jim.

Do you have to actually send her a check for $4.20?
Couldn't you just send her 420 pennies instead? :evil: :evil: :evil:

He'd just give the bureaucrat cause for refusing the payment. She could say she can't (or won't) deal in small change.

Of course, it is tempting. . .

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top