ARCHIVE 10/9/08: Benoit Author Muchnick Requests Expedited Hearing on ‘Wikipedia Hacker’ Police Video

Benoit Author Muchnick Requests Expedited Hearing on ‘Wikipedia Hacker’ Police Video

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Below is the text of Irvin Muchnick’s October 9 letter to The Honorable Andrew J. O’Keefe, chairman of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.

=====

Dear Commissioner O’Keefe:

I am the complainant in Irvin Muchnick v. Chief, Police Department, City of Stamford; and Police Department, City of Stamford, FIC 2008-493. By this letter, I respectfully request an expedited hearing date in this matter.

I elaborate below on two core arguments. Though it is possible that neither argument alone would compel the Commission to expedite, I believe that the two arguments in combination do so, and I plea for their careful consideration.

Copies of this letter are being sent to Michael S. Toma, assistant corporation counsel, City of Stamford, and Tracie C. Brown, the Commission’s assigned ombudsman. As I am not being represented by professional counsel, I apologize in advance for any possible flaws in procedural rigor.

I. The chain of pre-complaint events strongly suggests that respondent Stamford Police Department (“Stamford PD”), possibly in collusion with an out-of-state law enforcement agency, refuses to provide the common-sense and good-faith relief that would make adjudication of this dispute unnecessary.

At the eventual hearing, expedited or otherwise, I will document in full the evidence supporting this point. For purposes of this request to expedite, it is appropriate to summarize what on information and belief are indisputable facts:

* The subject record, a videotaped interrogation by Stamford PD of a Stamford resident, was made at the behest of the Fayette County (Georgia) Sheriff’s Office (“FCSO”).

* The subject record is referenced in a report of a closed criminal investigation by FCSO, which has stated unequivocally that the record would be released by it in compliance with Georgia public information law.

* A copy of the subject record was obtained by FCSO from Stamford PD. (A second-generation copy, in turn, was sent to the complainant by FCSO.) However, that copy is defective.

* FSCO has said it will forward a non-defective copy to the complainant as soon as a replacement master copy is received from Stamford PD. However, neither FCSO nor Stamford PD will confirm (a) that FCSO has ordered a replacement master copy from Stamford PD and (b) if such an order was made, its status.

* The subject videotaped interrogation is of the son of a City of Stamford employee and impacts the interests of a large, publicly traded corporation headquartered in Stamford.

In sum, Stamford PD was and is capable of simply sending FCSO a good copy of the subject record without delay, and so informing FCSO and the complainant. In that event, there would be no need to hear the respondents’ claim of an exemption of the record under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (“FOI”).

II. Further delays would unduly burden the complainant in ways that violate the spirit and intent of FOI.

I am a freelance journalist and author, based in California. The subject record is being sought in connection with research for my book Chris and Nancy: The True Story of the Benoit Murder-Suicide and Pro Wrestling’ Cocktail of Death. The book is scheduled for publication in 2009 by ECW Press, and by contract I am committed to delivering the manuscript to the publisher by the end of 2008. Therefore, in a concrete sense, “justice delayed” here would be “justice denied.”

This factor compounds the fundamental one that an out-of-state complainant already must bear extraordinary travel costs in order to make an appearance at the Commission hearing and prevent dismissal for failure to prosecute. I believe that in instances such as the present one, in which serious questions arise as to the good faith of a respondent public agency’s defense, and the costs of appearance by the parties are so grossly unbalanced, the Commission’s bedrock principle of enforcing the spirit and intent of FOI justifies the discretionary step of an expedited hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Irvin Muchnic