A good day for old news!!!!

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/may/11/city-of-spokane-rejects-police-captains-grievance-/

FURNITURE-GATE PART EIGHT… IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT???

 

This will be the last story, at this point, concerning FURNITURE-GATE. Because there are “moving parts” there may be more later however. One of those “moving parts” is that Arleth’s appeal is now sitting on Teresa Sanders desk awaiting her decision to make this RIGHT, or continue the threat to ALL cops not to buck the Condon Administration and their Cronies or there will be consequences.

 

If you read PART SEVEN of this Series, I don’t know how you or anyone else wouldn’t come to the conclusion that Tim Schwering’s Internal Affairs Investigations have NOT gotten any better since the Use of Force Commission Report, or for that matter the COPS/DOJ Report and Six Month Review.

 

PART SEVEN:

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/28/furniture-gate-part-seven-the-garrity-statements/

 

If you read PART SIX of this Series you would see that SPD is in the process of a “CLEAN-UP”, and that “CLEAN-UP” continues as I type. The CLEAN-UP however goes well beyond what I reported in PART SIX.

PART SIX:

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/26/furniture-gate-part-six-the-clean-up/

 

As I mentioned before, and many of you know, I have been railing for years about SPD’s continued violation of the Washington State Public Records Act. They have time and time again released personal information, including names, date of births, addresses, phone numbers, even Driver Licenses and Social Security Numbers to the Public. What is even worse is that they often released the personal information of people who made IA Complaints against Cops on Schwering’s Website.

 

As far as the “CLEAN-UP” is concerned my railing about it, even to the Spokesman Review, and the previous City Council did nothing to get it taken care of. My railing fell upon deaf ears. I have been criticized by some members of the Public for picking a Cop IA Case to demonstrate just how bad things are at SPD when I could have used any number of complaints made by Citizens against Cops, instead of Cop complaints against another Cop. The fact is…what the Cops get, in some cases, is the same thing a Citizen gets and this one was SO EASY. Guess what folks…it wasn’t my railing which was responsible for SPD starting the cleaning up of Schwering’s Website…nope…it was this Cop IA Case that got it started for you Private Citizens. Why?? you might ask. Pretty simple! When SPD released the Arleth IA case to the Public they DID NOT redact Arleth’s Personal Information, The Union complained, and now as you can see SPD is FINALLY in the process of trying to right all of their past wrongs…but it is far too late SPD…I have copies.

 

Part of the “CLEAN UP”, as I have noted, included getting rid of the notes Lundgren took when Arleth presented evidence to him which was never included in the IA File. If it were you as a Private Citizen, what would you think of that. Please keep this in mind as we continue.

LUNGREN’S INVESTIGATIVE FOCUS…WHY THE CHANGE???

 

Remember that this IA Investigation began on December 30^th, 2015 when Meidl at the direction of Dobrow went to Lundgen to male the complaint. Meidl’s complaint according to Lundgren’s report was two fold:

1) Arleth violated an order “contrary to the wishes of the Department and City Hall, specifically City Administrator Teresa Sanders.” (Get the drift?).

2) “Captain Artleth had expressed many concerns about moving the DTP to the Intermodal Facility and had spokane out in a meeting attended by the public against leaving the Peyton Building, according to Chief Dobrow.

 

 

The following day December 31^st, 2015 Lundgren starts his Investigatigation with a focus emails between the key players in this game with the exception of one, “BIG MOMMA” (Most of the Cop Climbers are afraid of “BIG MOMMA”).

 

 

 

Having some experience with the City of Spokane’s Enterprise Vault Storage System and the methodology used to search it I can pretty much guarantee you the bulk of the emails Lundgren received came from this request. I would also venture a guess that some of the emails Arleth presented during his Garrity statement which were ignored were also in this batch.

 

Something else that could be contained in this first batch is communication between Lukas, Simmons, and Knight that might demonstrate Lukas, or all of them, knew the NEW, PURCHASED, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FURNITURE was all BS.

 

As you can see from Lundgren’s IA Report, he received the first email dump on 01/05/16. Fifteen days later Lundgren states in his report that he “needed to conduct a broader search”. The truth is that the second search he requested is not “broader”, actually it is NARROWER with the exception of extending the date to 09/01/2015. As you can see Lundgren’s search was narrowed to Arleth, Meidl, and Dobrow.

 

 

 

If Arleth ever decided to sue the City of Spokane, I can assure you one of the many, many questions Major Lundgren would be asked in his deposition is why he narrowed his “Investigative Focus” 15 days later and whether or not it was solely his decision as the “Independent IA Investigator”.

 

 

Lundgren’s report states that he received over 1800 email threads from his two requests and that “Some were not relevant to the investigation”

 

 

 

 

 

Lundgren makes clear in his report that of all of those email threads he only found two which were relevant to the investigation, he describes them as email string #1 and #2, which you can read for yourself.

Lundgren submitted his case file to OPO Bart Logue and Dobrow on 02/19/16, and even though Arleth had provided Lundgren, during Arleth’s Garrity Statement, with what sound to be relevant emails and would have been included in the ones Lundgren received from IT, Lundgren whether on his own or with some help decided the evidence Arleth provided was NOT relevant and it never appeared in the file. So even though Lundgren made notes when Arleth gave him the defense evidence…it wasn’t relevant???

 

If Arleth decided to sue the City, the Investigator for the Law Firm hired by Arleth would be going through all 1800 emails Lundgren “reviewed” and would be picking a bunch out that would be used in Lundgren’s deposition (Trust me I know, and it is a pain in the ass, but the money is good!).

 

At this point, I think I’ve pretty much filled in most of the blanks…. so let’s move on.

 

On Friday, February 19^th, 2016, Lundgren submits his case to Interim Ombudsman Bart Logue. I forgot to mention that Major Lundgren back when he was a Lieutenant was one of the individuals along with Dennis Hession who put Logue’s name forward to the OPOC (Long story another time).

 

TWO working days later on the morning of Wednesday, February 24^th,2016 at 9:30 AM Logue and Lundgren meet in person and discuss the Arleth case, after the discussion between the two on the same day at 6:44 PM Logue delivers his written “Certification” Lundgren.

I wonder what Bart Logue would have to say in a deposition about the conversation he had with Lundgren prior to his certification.

I wonder how an individual other than a Cop making an IA Complaint would feel if they knew the OPO went in and talked to the IA Investigator, made recommendations about the handling of the case prior to a certification, and then came up with this weird “Certification”?

 

 

 

 ATTENTION OMBUDSMAN LOGUE!

 

 

When you read Logue’s “Certification” you have to understand that Logue is a former Marine Corps Lt. Colonel and it takes them a while to learn what the world outside the Marine Corps and the UCMJ really is, so I’ll try and help him out.

 

Colonel Logue you document in your recommendation “1.”, and that would be a… “No shit sir!” … there isn’t any “substantive documents or statements” regarding Arleth’s “general attitude or demeanor about the move”.

Yes, Colonel you were right! Even though on 12/30/2015 it was part of Meidl’s complaint, and it was hit hard on by Lundgren in Meidl’s and Arleth’s Garrity Statements ZERO effort was made to Investigate it, and here is why it wasn’t. The list of witnesses, as you know, for Garrity Statements would have been:

Teresa Sanders

Ed Lukas

Scott Simmons

 

It should have been plain to you that they were OFF-LIMITS, to coin a military term. As a Civilian OPO part of your job try and establish the underling motive behind a complaint and determine whether or not it played a role in the complaint itself or the way the investigation may have been conducted, it doesn’t matter whether the complaint originates from a Citizen against a Cop, or a Cop against a Cop.

If you have a concern about underlying motives or any other aspect of an IA Case DO NOT Certify it. Submit in writing your questions to IA and ALWAYS get the answers in writing…in other words CYA, the need for CYA out here is much more important than it was in the Corps.

 

You are right again in your recommendation “2.”! She did say to “mark the furniture” and a statement should have been taken from her…but once again… obviously OFF-LIMITS.

 

Colonel you are WRONG in both “1. And 2.” when you state “it does not impact the charges of whether Captain Arleth disobeyed or was insubordinate between 12/23/15 and 12/30/15”.

Of course it does Colonel, and based upon your Certification documentation you were able to figure that out.

When you state “as Judy Knight was not in a position to provide an order to Captain Arleth.” It ain’t that way our here Colonel and Lundgren’s IA Report clearly delineates the “Chain of Command”; Teresa Sanders to Ed Lukas, Ed Lukas to Judy Knight…this entire gig was City Hall’s NOT SPD’s. So when Sanders granted supervisory authority to Lukas, and Lukas granted Knight her authority everyone from Dobrow on down were GRUNTS. So when Arleth followed Knight’s orders to mark and move he did.

 

Your 9:30 AM meeting with Lundgren obviously had the element of “Between The Four Corners Doctrine” which in essence means the only thing that counts is what is written inside the four corners of the document. The case you certified had more that the Four Corners of the charging document, there were lots of pages containing Four Corners, and just so you know the whole truth will never be between the Four Corners of ANY document you receive whether it be from Cops or Citizens, your job Sir is to go outside the Four Corners and get to the TRUTH. Just in case Arleth does sue or you are called to testify in an Arbitration Hearing you might want to have your notes from your morning conversation with Lundgren on February 24^th, 2015 at 9:30 AM handy.

Ever wonder why Lundgren pulled the Intermodal contracts, found that there never was any new, specifically designed furniture, and that entire aspect of the case ended. Does it make you wonder who ended it?

 

TIMELY? Can’t argue with that it went pretty quick, of course as you point out not all the witnesses were contacted. THOROUGH? You even noted in your recommendations it wasn’t. OBJECTIVE? Wow…just Wow!

 

LET’S TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME DON’T YOU THINK?

 

I would hope I have pointed out to the folks reading this what a JOKE this was, and it may end up a costly JOKE. As far as I’m concerned a real sloppy investigation. If you don’t believe me that this was sloppy just take a look at what I saved for last:

 

I must have been dreaming when I took a look at the Arleth IA Case File…because the record is clear between the Four Corners…FURNITURE-GATE…hasn’t even happened yet. So I’ll wait and take a look at the case when Arleth is scheduled to be Disobedient and Insubordinate on 12/29/2016!

 

I swear…I do not make this stuff up!!!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have learned that Mayor Condon is refusing the City Council’s request to utilize the power he has to force OUR employees to talk to the City Council’s Investigator.

 

You might recall that news of the Council’s request was reported here on March 12^th,2016.

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/12/now-what-will-the-mayor-do/

 

I did a follow-up story on March 16^th, 2016.

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/16/will-he-or-will-he-not/

 

And again on March 18^th, 2016 after the Inlander ran their story.

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/03/18/stuckart-asks-mayor-to-compel-participation-in-the-straub-investigation

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/18/the-inlander-gets-it-the-spokesman-review-doesnt/

 

It is somewhat fitting that Mayor Condon’s refusal has come to light now since I have just done stories covering the compelled statements, under Garrity vs New Jersey, of Cops in IA Cases.

Despite what may come from City Hall as an excuse not to invoke Garrity the facts are clear that he has the power to do so, and it is standard procedure all over the US for Cities, Towns, and Counties. Only in Spokane as the saying goes.

Can Condon’s choice be considered “Obstructionist”? Well sure it can! Does Condon’s decision establish a precedent for the City of Spokane? Hopefully only for his Administration. Should Mayor Condon force Erin Jacobson a key figure in the investigation to talk? Well of course he should.

It is important to keep in mind that the Investigation is not only looking into the conduct of City Employees but also Condon’s conduct as well. If the players involved are not forced to talk how will the truth come out?

Is it fair? I can tell you a lot of Cops don’t think it is, simply because Condon through his Chief of Police forces them to talk, but refuses to force the people close to him to talk. I haven’t talked to any Garbage Collectors, Secretaries, or Maintenance Folks, but I would assume they have the same feelings that Cops do, as the Mayor can force each and every City Employee to talk, if he wants to, and he has in the past.

 

So were all of Mayor Condon’s election promises of transparency, just that…election promises? Well…you be the Judge.

 

So what can the City Council do to overcome the obstruction? The answer is they are limited, and whatever move they make it will likely cost us more money. The City Council is relying on the subpoena power granted them by the City Charter to force OUR City Employees to talk. Will it work? I have my concerns (It ain’t my first rodeo) and here is why. The City Council has the power to issue what are referred to as Administrative or Non-Judicial Subpoenas. That means they aren’t signed by a Judge. So here is how the process works you serve the Administrative Subpoena on the person, or business, depending upon the situation, the person or business gives the subpoena to their Lawyer, the Lawyer calls the folks who issued the subpoena and says… “We ain’t going to comply!”. Then whomever issued the subpoena has to go before a Judge plead their case as to the validity of the subpoena and get a Judge to sign one. Then the person or business is again served with the Judicial Subpoena and must comply or possibly face contempt charges. What a hassle right?

There are a lot of billable hours that take place once the Judicial Subpoena is served, but what happens often in a case like this is the individual shows up with their Lawyer who has already advised them to stand on their Fifth Amendment Rights so they do. I don’t know about you folks but I would love to join George McGrath in the City Council Chambers and watch that scenario play out…the question is will it?

 

I think you can see how much more expedient, and cost-effective it would be if OUR Mayor simply did the right and honest thing…but this is Spokane after all!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

The first thing I would like to point out in PART SEVEN is that it is my opinion that BOTH Honest Cops and Honest Citizens want the same thing from any IA Complaint, quite simply, an IA Investigation which is “timely”, “thorough”, and “objective”, something the Spokane Police Ombudsman is responsible for making sure happens. So when you read these stories keep in mind that…YES this involves a Cop Complaint against a Cop…but the truth is it could just as easily have been YOUR complaint against a Cop.

It should be obvious that my opinion, as far as this case is concerned, is that the investigation was not thorough or objective and was influenced directly from City Hall. As far as “timely” goes, it didn’t take long, but it sure as hell should have taken more time.

 

Let’s start by looking first at what some of the things the COPS/DOJ Report said about IA Investigations when it was released back in December of 2014.

 

 

 

Now let’s take a look at the COPS/DOJ Six Month Assessment released in December of 2015 (Yes, I know it was more than six months, but that is the way these things work.):

I would agree with the COPS/DOJ Consultants…it appears to be a big fat goose egg.

 

Here is the explanation Rachael Alexander received regarding the status of Recommendation 8.8:

 

Needless to say that after reviewing the Arleth IA Case, and others, I’m wondering just exactly what the hell this document Major Lundgren is putting together will look like.

 

Now we should go further back and look at just some of what the Use of Force Commission had to say:

___________________________________________________________

Use of Force Commission Report

 

1. Whenever possible, avoid collecting witness statements or even follow-up responses

from witnesses through methods (e.g., email, voice mail, etc.) other than in-person

interviews. Exhibit D at 25-27.

_____________________________________________________

 

 

 

Of course the above is all pretty basic stuff…like…interview ALL the witnesses, collect ALL the evidence, take proper statements no emails etc…just the simple things.

 

HERE WE GO!!!

I’m going to focus primarily on the Arleth statement because it had some very telling parts, however, a few comments first. Statement after statement I have read in SPD cases DO NOT follow procedures that many cops feel are a pain in the ass because they require more of their time, but the fact is if you take the proper steps you end up doing less work in the long run and you don’t look dumb on the witness stand, and not just IA cases.

1) Most SPD recorded statements over the last several years for some reason DO NOT contain a closing admonishment nor are they ever sworn to and notarized. Yep, that means you have to go through the hassle of having the individual come back read and make any necessary corrections on the transcription and sign it under oath before a notary. In an IA Case relying solely on the Garrity Admonishments could get you in trouble unless you clear up any ambiguities.

 

Here is an example of a closing for Cop Statements:

________________________________

You____________ have been informed of and understand your Garrity Rights in this matter is that correct?

You__________ have also signed and dated your Garrity Warnings form in this matter is that correct? 

Other than the rights afforded you under Garrity vs New Jersey, have I, any other police officer or person promised you anything or threatened you in any way in order to make you provide this statement?

Is the foregoing recorded statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge? 

When your statement is transcribed into a type written form will you review it, make any necessary corrections, and sign it as the sworn truth under the penalty of perjury? 

This recorded statement is ended at… Time________ Date___________

__________________________________

 

2) Any corrections the individual makes on the transcript are initialed.

3) When the individual returns to review and sign the statement under oath, it is golden, and the recording is evidence.

4) It isn’t that difficult.

 

The Arleth Statement.

Again here is the complaint language which Lundgren prepared prior to taking Meidl’s statement, and note that NOTHING in the complaint makes any reference to what Arleth had said during a meeting of the Downtown Spokane Partnership BID Board. It has to be obvious to people that there was discussion between Lundgren and others PRIOR TO taking any statements or conducting any investigation about Arleth’s truthful statements to the BID Board.

 

 

This same language was used in all FOUR statements taken in this case…YES I said FOUR and only FOUR.

I covered the true issue in this IA Case in PART FIVE:

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/24/what-do-you-do-when-your-asset-manager-lies-in-official-correspondence-part-five/

 

As I noted most experienced IA Investigators know the series of hoops that must be jumped through to make a case against a Public Employee for not properly excersising their free speech rights. None of those hoops were were jumped through by Lundgren making it clear, to me at least, that this case is not about Furniture, and “Insubordination”… it is enitrely about sending a warning NOT TO deviate from the Condon Administration’s flawed plans for SPD, and whether or not the issues are, as the cases law states, “a matter of public concern” or not, you better keep your mouth shut.

 

Adding to the evidence is the last page of Lundgrens report:

 

Major Lundgren chose NOT TO investigate the public statement issue…so why is the above in his report…and the big question…”Why wasn’t it investigated?”

 

As we go through Captain Arleth’s statement please keep in mind not only what I have said above but also what the Use of Force Commission said and what COPS/DOJ said in their Reports! Also consider whether you were a Cop or a Citizen if this what you would want from an IA Complaint. Also consider that the documents used in the IA Case file are what the Decision Makers use to base their “Decisions” on…or at least that is supposed to be the way it works.

 

SAY WHAT??? These are just a few of the “Unintelligible” you find through out the statements which point directly to serious problems I mentioned earlier.

Either SPD is not equiped with sensitive enough recording devices to pick up statement conversations or they don’t want to take the proper steps necessary, even though they are a hassel, to make sure the statements are accurate and complete for the decision makers (see above).

 

This is also bad:

 

Any Investigator that has taken solely audio recorded statements knows that audio recodings DO NOT RECORD shoulder schrugs, head nodding, or jestures, here it appears there were two and they were to important questions. ALWAYS GET A SPOKEN ANSWER!!!

 

SO HERE IT COMES…THE REAL STORY!!!

 

 

I’m sure that Arleth and his representitives knew the real issue and that it would crop up at some point in his interview so CR (Sergeant Chuck Reisenauer a former SPD IA Investigator) jumps in as someone should have.

 

Lundgren responds with this:

 

 

CR Shoots Back:

What Reisenauer is doing here is saying wait a miniute the “Complaint” does not include anything to do with Arleth violating his free speech rights as a public employee and Garrity requires that the questioning be narrowly and specifically related to his duties as a police officer.

 

Lundgren tries to justify by stating the question is within the scope, apparently because a lack of “enthusiasm” might mean an order was violated because of the recipient of the order wasn’t enthusastic about it:

 

CR Shoots Back…Can We Talk About This?:

 

Lundgren says HELL NO:

 

 

CR Puts A Not So Artful Objection On The Record:

 

After all that Lundgren again goes to the real issue here…and it ain’t FURNITURE:

 

You can read for yourself from the IA Report, but Arleth goes on to explain what transpired when he offerd his opinion to the BID Board.

When you do you will see that Arleth does confront Lundgren to an extent regarding what is the real issue. Arleth does it his way…The Breen way would have been like this; “Okay Justin so this bull shit complaint isn’t really about the furniture is it…it is about what I said to the BID Board?”.

 

Whether you used the Arleth way or the Breen way, the answer would have been the same from Lundgren:

 

I’m just trying to establish your motive for doing what you did and I’ve been investigating this case since December 30^th, 2015…I have taken statements from THREE other witnesses you know…Meidl, Stevens, and Reese.

 

The Arleth response to Lundgren was; “Okay. I hear what you are saying.”…The Breen response would have been; “I’m glad to learn you are just trying to delve into my level of enthusiasm for the move, that what was said at the BID Board is not an accusation, and you aren’t trying to stifle my free speech rights, that is good to know.”

 

To somewhat put things in perspective, this fiasco would be somewhat similar to a private citizen agreeing to give a cop a voluntary statement about a theft, and the cop starts asking you about your involvment with a rape. If your lawyer was with you he/she would cut the statement off at that point and walk out the door with you. Because this is a Public Employee Compelled Garrity Statement it gets a little more technical, and experienced IA Cops know what I’m talking about.

 

When folks like Interim Chief Meidl, Justin Lundgren, and Tim Schwering read my comments above they will say…”Breen you idiot he can question Arleth about anything narrowly and specifically related to his duties as a cop!”. The fact is that would basically be true, but here is your problem guys.

 

From Meidl’s statement:

 

Come on you guys…as you can see Meidl “Pitched The Bitch” in his statement…well kind of anyway. After Meidl’s statement not one ounce of investigation was done to determine if Arleth made an inappropiate public statement. Of course had there been an investigation into Arleth’s public comments at the BID Board, and that hit the media, boy would that look bad, so Furniture must have been the next best alternative.

 

It didn’t work though did it?

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/03/14/are-spd-command-staff-free-to-publicly-disagree-with-police-department-decisions

 

 

There were two other statements taken by Lundgren in this case, they were prior to the statements of Meidl and Arleth, and aside from the statements themselves and some of the problems I have alluded to earlier…GUESS WHAT???… Despite the UOFC Report, and the COPS/DOJ Report…SPD is STILL in “MAIL IN YOUR STATEMENT MODE.”

 

As Interim Chief Meidl stated in his email there “are ongoing moving parts” in this case…well there sure are including the possibility of some ethics complainants. So I’ll keep moving as the parts keep moving.

 

MORE TO COME

 

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

 

 

 

 

For those of you that have followed me you know that since 2012 I have continually pointed out that SPD, and the City of Spokane, over and over again, has violated the Washington State Public Records Act by releasing to the public personal information on people and I have file after file demonstrating just that.

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/03/22/dont-blame-me/

 

If someone were to ask Alison Boggs of the SR about our email exchange regarding this issue she could provide insight some might find to be typical HSS (Hilarious Spokane Stuff).

 

One of the critical things for an Investigative Reporter to have is “wiretaps” strategically placed throughout various places in the City where you work because they give you a heads-up about what is actually going on. So when you receive a tip you check it out.

 

It looks like SPD is quietly trying to clean up Tim Schwerings IA Website, which by the way will be a monumental task. So let’s see if that is true.

This is a screenshot I took of Schwering’s IA Website on March 21^st, 2016:

 

 

You will notice from the screenshot there were active links to the IA Investigations as of March 21^st, 2015.

 

This link will take you to Schwering’s Website today March 26^th, 2016 (The link was copied at 7:57AM today.)

 

https://my.spokanecity.org/police/accountability/reports/

Just in case someone decides to make changes to Schwering’s Website here are the screenshots from today:

 

As you can see there are NO LINKS to the IA cases today. So the question is, are they finally being CLEANED UP? Interestingly I had a conversation with another Investigative Reporter the other day about what a complete JOKE Schwering’s Website was, in a number of ways, especially in light of the COPS/DOJ Report that gave SPD an “At a Boy/Girl” for posting the IA Cases. If the Consultants had actually read the posted IA Cases they would have observed that many important cases were never posted and many contained NO copies of the actual investigation.

(*** Take note Rachael Alexander!)

 

I know what you are thinking…” Okay Breen, what the hell does this have to do with Furniture-gate?”

 

Quite a bit actually! There was an “Oh shit!” CLEAN-UP of the initial public release of the Furniture-gate IA Case. The CLEAN-UP is very telling from the standpoint of establishing that Furniture-gate was a hose job.

 

Ordinarily this kind of stuff would be an investigative holdback for me but because, as Interim Chief Craig Meidl referred to, the currently “ongoing moving parts” I felt now is the time, to release a little bit of info to you.

Major Lundgren made a Major Mistake (No pun intended) when a working copy of the IA Case was allowed to be used for notes. That working copy contains notes that record information regarding email strings Arleth presented to Lundgren during his Garrity statement which were NOT made a part of the IA Case Report.

Here is the link to the original release of the Furniture-gate IA case…see where it takes you:

_________________________________________

PDF]15-108 – City of Spokane

https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/police/…/ia-report-15-108.pdf

1. Cached

Mar 3, 2016 – Number. Material Withheld. Brief Explanation of Why Material. Withheld. Legal / Statutory Basis. Witness. Exemptions. #1a. Name / Identity of …

__________________________________________

 

Depending upon your browser the first link will either take you nowhere or to this:

 

 

 

I’m giving away semi-secrets here but…that’s okay. Now click on the “Cached” link and you will be able to tell somewhat how the changes were made. Also notice the date March 3, 2016.

 

Ordinarily you could go to Schwering’s Website click on IA Case Number C15-108, but apparently Schwering’s website is being cleaned-up. 🙂 So here is my copy of the redacted report:

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/7ffee15d-0cd3-436e-a39e-4e537b28cf2e

 

What I would like you to notice for now from the redacted (Cleaned-up) IA Case is just one page at this point:

 

 

 

 

 

Now compare the above page to the unredacted (Not Cleaned-up) IA Case origanally released to the public:

 

 

 

Notice the handwritten marks and the circled “c”? That is indicative of a number of notes on the IA Report that were Cleaned-up on the “Oh shit!” realease.

I would assume there are copies of IA Report C15-108 floating arround somewhere, but how should Arleth’s representitives handle it? Well here is how:

 

1) Go directly to Lundgren and demand in writing a copy of all of the notes from his investigation including notes contained on the report originally released to the public.

2) Copy all the other Brass, and request any notes they have.

3) Obtain a copy of the case file presented to Heather Lowe, and obtain all of her notes.

4) Now that it is on Teresa Sanders desk do the same for her.

5) Check to see if any PRRs were submitted regarding C15-108, make sure you check the exact date the PRRs were submitted (This is important).

6) If you receive a denial that they exsist you should know what to do.

7) Obtain a copy of the emails Arleth provided Lundgren in his Garrity Statement, and compare them to the notations on the unredacted report which was made public.

8) If Big Momma wants a battle give it to her and go to Arbitration, when the facts come out the idiotcy of this will be evident.

9) Keep in mind Big Momma is on her way out…just a timing issue…and McDevitt might take her place.

 

Lots More Coming!!!

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!