Massachusetts State Police Take $180 From Records Requester; Refuse To Turn Over Records
Furnished content.
The police department of the largest city in the US often tops the list of public records villains. According to FOIA requesters, the NYPD manages to out-stonewall notoriously recalcitrant entities like the NSA, FBI, and CIA. Not far behind the NYPD, however, is the entire state of Massachusetts.This state has the worst public records laws in the nation, with 19 pages of exemptions -- almost one-third of its 60-page public records statute. Various state entities have done things like withhold documents on a 63-year-old murder case, citing the "ongoing" nature of an investigation with zero leads and several dead suspects. Officials have also claimed the state's SWAT teams are private entities, out of the reach of public records requests. The state's lawyers have previously argued the state laws -- as crippled as they are -- hand over too much power to constituents.But possibly nothing beats the Massachusetts state police. Investigative Reporters and Editors handed the agency its "Golden Padlock" award in 2015 for being the most secretive agency in the nation. The agency does far more than stonewall requesters. It sets up astronomical paywalls between requesters and their records.IRE notes the $42,750 and $62,220 fees handed to the Boston Globe for the log of its public records requests and records of crashes involving police cruisers, respectively. IRE also mentions that a Bay State Examiner reporter was told to pay a $710.50 “non-refundable research fee” for an estimate of another fee to obtain copies of internal affairs reports. MuckRock records requester Andrew Quemere wasn't hit with a huge fee for his records request. He was asked for $180 up front before the state police would respond to his request for records. But then the state police decided to keep its records… and Quemere's money, too.After pocketing $180 in fees for a public records request, the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) turned around and attempted to convince the state supervisor of public records that the agency didn’t have to turn the records over. Quemere was searching for records on marijuana possession enforcement, attempting to see if the MSP were still busting people for pot after voters had approved legalization but before the law took effect. He made this request last December. At first, the MSP tried to argue all the records were exempt from disclosure, citing a criminal records statute which forbade the disclosure of suspects' and arrestees' names and other personal info.Quemere pointed out this information could be redacted before the docs were released to him. The state's Supervisor of Records agreed with Quemere and told MSP to release the redacted records. The state police then asked Quemere for $180 to cover the review and redacting costs: 7.2 hours @ $25/hour.Quemere crowdfunded the fee and sent MSP the check. That's when the state police went from less-than-responsive to entirely unresponsive.I raised the money through a crowdfunding campaign, and MuckRock sent the MSP a check on March 1. However, the MSP never turned over the records or even acknowledged receiving the check. On March 31, I asked the MSP if they had received the check, but the agency did not respond. Quemere filed another appeal, hoping to at least find out where his money was, if not his requested records. The state supervisor again ruled in favor of Quemere and noted the state police claimed the records would be ready in ten days. Guess what didn't happen.Instead, Glenn Rooney, an MSP lawyer sent the supervisor of records an email on April 28th in which he again argued that the reports were exempt under the CORI statute. Rooney wrote that the CORI statute allows agencies to withhold records in their entirety, and there is no obligation for them to redact records protected by CORI. He further argued that the MSP could not release the records because someone could use police logs to identify the arrestees. Nearly a month later, Quemere filed his third appeal. And for a third time, the state records supervisor overruled the state police and told the agency to hand over the records.I wish I could tell this has now been resolved but a visit to the request page shows the state police still have yet to turn over the requested records, much less give Quemere an expected due date. As it stands now, there's a ton of unproductive correspondence from the state police uploaded and an expected completion date of "none."
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 03-Aug-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Would You Confuse 'Pierogi Fest' With 'Edwardsville Pierogi Festival'? Neither Would We
Furnished content.
You write about enough trademark disputes and you come across some real whoppers. And, man, have I seen some doozies. Still, I never stop being suprised by how silly these things can get. Today's example of this revolves around the Chamber of Commerce for Whiting, Indiana sending out trademark threat letters to the Edwardsville Hometown Committee in Pennsylvania over the latter's 'Edwardsville Pierogi Festival.Lawyers for the Whiting Pierogi Fest in Whiting, Indiana, recently sent a letter to the nonprofit Edwardsville Hometown Committee demanding it stop using the trademarked name or pay royalties for its use.They claim the usage leads to “unfair competition” and “is likely to cause consumer confusion.” Two separate letters were sent to this effect, actually, both making the claim that consumers would be confused between a suburban Chicago "Pierogi Fest" and the "Edwardsville Pierogi Festival." These claims rest on the Chamber's federally registered trademark for "Pierogi Fest", which is itself a laughably broad and almost perfectly descriptive phrase, causing me to wonder how the USPTO approved the mark to begin with. That aside, it should be obvious that any fears for consumer confusion between two geographically distinct (678 miles!) pierogi festivals would make Chicken Little roll his eyes. And it's worth mentioning that both of these threat letters included offers to license the trademark for money, as well.Well, the Edwardsville Hometown Committee declined to license the phrase and has instead filed suit for declaratory relief. In that filing, the Committee reveals that it was not the only recipient of the Chamber's threat letters.25. The Hometown Committee has both existing contractual relationships with the sponsors of the Edwardsvilie Pierogi Festival and potential contractual relationships with additional sponsors for upcoming Edwardsville Pierogi Festivals. 26. By sending correspondence to sponsors of the Edwardsville Pierogi Festival threatening them with liability for trademark infringement, the Chamber has purposefully and intentionally sought to harm the relationship of the Hometown Committee with its existing sponsors and to prevent prospective relationships between the Hometown Committee and future sponsors of the Edwardsville Pierogi Festival. So the Chamber sent threats to the sponsors of the Committee's Pierogi Festival as well. Not a good look when we're talking about a trademark as broad and descriptive as "Pierogi Fest", particularly when there are lots of other festivals using that same name already. I'm not sure if the Chamber thinks it has a great licensing opportunity with all of the pierogi festivals out there or not, but it's certainly not doing a great job of protecting the trademark it never should have been granted.I imagine Whiting's Chamber of Commerce actually never expected to find itself in court, figuring Edwardsville would simply bow to its demands and license the mark. Hopefully the court will see fit to take this case to its proper end and invalidate the "Pierogi Fest" trademark entirely.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 03-Aug-2017
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|