Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Ground-breaking U.S. Supreme Court Decision on 9th & 10th Amendments
6.17.11
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on federalism. The Court unanimously held that not just states but individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision is as radical in the direction of liberty as the New Deal was radical in the direction of socialism;
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/728/483/Groundbreaking_US_Supreme_Court_decision_on_the_Tenth_and_Ninth_Amendment.html
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
NY Bar Resolution 2006 - A Civil Gideon Right
Toward a Right to Counsel in Civil Cases in New York State: A Report of the New York State Bar Association
Laura Abel
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Touro Law Review, Vol. 25, pp. 32-70, 2009
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-11
Abstract:
The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) and 11 other bar associations co-sponsored a 2006 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution that urged federal and state jurisdictions to establish a right to counsel in civil cases concerning basic human needs. This report compares the scope of the existing right to counsel in New York State to the five categories of basic human needs cases identified by the ABA: Cases concerning shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody. It also assesses the existing right to counsel in cases concerning members of special or vulnerable populations, and in cases involving deprivation of physical liberty. It also suggests areas for expansion of the right, particularly regarding cases concerning evictions, foreclosures, and unemployment insurance appeals.
Laura Abel
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Touro Law Review, Vol. 25, pp. 32-70, 2009
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-11
Abstract:
The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) and 11 other bar associations co-sponsored a 2006 American Bar Association (ABA) resolution that urged federal and state jurisdictions to establish a right to counsel in civil cases concerning basic human needs. This report compares the scope of the existing right to counsel in New York State to the five categories of basic human needs cases identified by the ABA: Cases concerning shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody. It also assesses the existing right to counsel in cases concerning members of special or vulnerable populations, and in cases involving deprivation of physical liberty. It also suggests areas for expansion of the right, particularly regarding cases concerning evictions, foreclosures, and unemployment insurance appeals.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Fudiciary Duty
The fiduciary relationship of partners is discussed in 59A Am. Jur. 2d Partnership § 420 (1987):
The courts universally recognize the fiduciary relationship of partners and impose on them obligations of the utmost good faith and integrity in their dealings with one another in partnership affairs. It is a fundamental characteristic of partnership that the partners’ relationship is one of trust and confidence when dealing with each other in partnership matters.
Partners are held to a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace, and their fiduciary duties should be broadly construed, connoting not mere honesty but the punctilio of honor most sensitive. In all matters connected with the partnership every partner is bound to act in a manner not to obtain any advantage over his copartner in the partnership affairs by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat, or adverse pressure of any kind. A partner cannot act too quickly to protect his own financial position at the expense of his partners, even in the absence of malice
The courts universally recognize the fiduciary relationship of partners and impose on them obligations of the utmost good faith and integrity in their dealings with one another in partnership affairs. It is a fundamental characteristic of partnership that the partners’ relationship is one of trust and confidence when dealing with each other in partnership matters.
Partners are held to a standard stricter than the morals of the marketplace, and their fiduciary duties should be broadly construed, connoting not mere honesty but the punctilio of honor most sensitive. In all matters connected with the partnership every partner is bound to act in a manner not to obtain any advantage over his copartner in the partnership affairs by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat, or adverse pressure of any kind. A partner cannot act too quickly to protect his own financial position at the expense of his partners, even in the absence of malice
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Jubic v. Jubic, et. al., Continued on Appeal
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Appellant George J. Jubic (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.) and Respondent Robert Jubic are brothers . In 1988, their father, Mr. George M. Jubic, deeded a certain parcel of land to them, located at 19 Cross St. in the City of Troy, County of Rensselaer, NY. The property was deeded to the brothers on the condition they create a general partnership for the purpose of constructing a multi-unit apartment building upon it whereby the brothers could derive income “for life” from rental income and at the same time grant a life-estate to the elderly parents in one of the units.
The agreement was for the two brothers to construct the building themselves all the while acting as equal partners, sharing jointly and equally in all liabilities and assets.
At the time of the signing over of the deed, Respondent Robert Jubic bought with him a close personal friend of his and partner in other real-estate ventures, (Respondent) Robert McAllister. Respondent Robert Jubic insisted that (Respondent) McAllister’s name be added onto the deed as a full 1/3 partner. Over objections, at Respondent Robert Jubics insistence, (Respondent) Robert McAllister’s name was added to the deed as a full 1/3 partner.
(See deed attached as Ex. ___________. Note Appellants aka name on deed as George M. Jubic, Jr.)
On 1/30/90, the three partners took out a joint loan together from the Troy Savings Bank, the funds to be used for construction materials. (See Troy Savings Bank loan, Ex________.)
The three partners worked side by side through all stages of the construction process, and by the end of 1993 the first of five units was completed and rented out. By 1995 all five units were completed and occupied, four being rented out and one given to the elderly Jubic parents as a life estate.
Respondent Robert Jubic was the self-appointed book-keeper of all the partnership affairs, and took care of all the accounts payable and receivable for the venture. As a partner and family member, Appellant trusted and put full faith and credit in his brother Roberts honesty and integrity to act as a fiduciary for his partnership interests, and trusted that he would be notified, as promised,.. when the venture started making profits.
From the years of construction to about 1999, Appellant preformed general maintenance duties on the property such as lawn and yard work, trash disposal, clean up of apartments in-between rentals, and other repairs in general.
In the year 2000, based on information provided by certain family members, appellant became aware that the joint loan taken out in 1990 from the Troy Savings Bank for construction of the apartment building had been fully satisfied on 5/31/96, leading Appellant to believe that the partnership property was indeed realizing profits. Appellant was never informed that this loan had been satisfied. (See Satisfaction of Mortgage attached as Ex. ______________.)
After this discovery Appellant hired attorney James L. Coffin to represent his interest in the partnership. Mr. Coffin tried unsuccessfully to resolve the issue informally but to no avail. (See “demand” letter attached as Ex.________.) When he requested an accounting he was provided with a spread sheet that indicated that Appellant George J. Jubic was indeed listed as 1/3rd partner and that his 1/3rd portion of the debt for the Troy Savings Bank loan had been paid out of partnership earnings. (See spreadsheet attached as Ex._______.) It is also stated on this spreadsheet that, from the year 1990 to 2004, the venture grossed nearly $300,000. It was also discovered upon review of this spreadsheet that the Respondents claimed “additional loans” were taken out “as against” the partnership property, of which Appellant had no knowledge of and was not a party to. However, a search of the clerks office in 2004 showed no liens were levied against the partnership property, a fact the partners could not satisfactorily explain.
In view of the failure to informally resolve the issue of the true and exact financial affairs of the partnership,….appellant was forced to file suit.
JUDICIAL HISTORY
On Aug. 4, 2005, by and through his attorney James L. Coffin, a lawsuit was filed against the partners in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Rensselaer Co. (Acting Supreme Court Judge Hon. Christian Hummel, Case # 214005) said lawsuit asking for an accounting, dissolution of partnership and partition of partnership property with appointment of receiver, and alleging several and various other causes of action including Breech of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Conversion and Unjust enrichment.
(See copy of complaint attached as Ex.______________.)
The parties entered into the discovery process whereby Respondants made the first demands and Appellant fully complied. However, Respondants failed to comply with any portion of appellants discovery requests and a moton to compell production was made and granted (See Order to Produce attached as Ex.________.) Despite the Order, Respondants failed to produce any of the documents requested by appellant and a Order of Preclusion was asked for and issued (See Order of Preclusion Ex._______.)
On or about Dec. 10, 2006, a pre-trial conference was schedualed but it was at this time that appellants counsel was nowhere to be found. A call to the NYS Bar Association was made in efforts to acertain the whereabouts of Mr. Coffin and it was discovered that he had been permanently barred from practicing law in the state of New York for matters unrelated to this case, and he was in fact at that time in prison for mis-use of another clients funds.
APPELLANTS REQUESTS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF COUNCEL
(To be continued)
Appellant George J. Jubic (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.) and Respondent Robert Jubic are brothers . In 1988, their father, Mr. George M. Jubic, deeded a certain parcel of land to them, located at 19 Cross St. in the City of Troy, County of Rensselaer, NY. The property was deeded to the brothers on the condition they create a general partnership for the purpose of constructing a multi-unit apartment building upon it whereby the brothers could derive income “for life” from rental income and at the same time grant a life-estate to the elderly parents in one of the units.
The agreement was for the two brothers to construct the building themselves all the while acting as equal partners, sharing jointly and equally in all liabilities and assets.
At the time of the signing over of the deed, Respondent Robert Jubic bought with him a close personal friend of his and partner in other real-estate ventures, (Respondent) Robert McAllister. Respondent Robert Jubic insisted that (Respondent) McAllister’s name be added onto the deed as a full 1/3 partner. Over objections, at Respondent Robert Jubics insistence, (Respondent) Robert McAllister’s name was added to the deed as a full 1/3 partner.
(See deed attached as Ex. ___________. Note Appellants aka name on deed as George M. Jubic, Jr.)
On 1/30/90, the three partners took out a joint loan together from the Troy Savings Bank, the funds to be used for construction materials. (See Troy Savings Bank loan, Ex________.)
The three partners worked side by side through all stages of the construction process, and by the end of 1993 the first of five units was completed and rented out. By 1995 all five units were completed and occupied, four being rented out and one given to the elderly Jubic parents as a life estate.
Respondent Robert Jubic was the self-appointed book-keeper of all the partnership affairs, and took care of all the accounts payable and receivable for the venture. As a partner and family member, Appellant trusted and put full faith and credit in his brother Roberts honesty and integrity to act as a fiduciary for his partnership interests, and trusted that he would be notified, as promised,.. when the venture started making profits.
From the years of construction to about 1999, Appellant preformed general maintenance duties on the property such as lawn and yard work, trash disposal, clean up of apartments in-between rentals, and other repairs in general.
In the year 2000, based on information provided by certain family members, appellant became aware that the joint loan taken out in 1990 from the Troy Savings Bank for construction of the apartment building had been fully satisfied on 5/31/96, leading Appellant to believe that the partnership property was indeed realizing profits. Appellant was never informed that this loan had been satisfied. (See Satisfaction of Mortgage attached as Ex. ______________.)
After this discovery Appellant hired attorney James L. Coffin to represent his interest in the partnership. Mr. Coffin tried unsuccessfully to resolve the issue informally but to no avail. (See “demand” letter attached as Ex.________.) When he requested an accounting he was provided with a spread sheet that indicated that Appellant George J. Jubic was indeed listed as 1/3rd partner and that his 1/3rd portion of the debt for the Troy Savings Bank loan had been paid out of partnership earnings. (See spreadsheet attached as Ex._______.) It is also stated on this spreadsheet that, from the year 1990 to 2004, the venture grossed nearly $300,000. It was also discovered upon review of this spreadsheet that the Respondents claimed “additional loans” were taken out “as against” the partnership property, of which Appellant had no knowledge of and was not a party to. However, a search of the clerks office in 2004 showed no liens were levied against the partnership property, a fact the partners could not satisfactorily explain.
In view of the failure to informally resolve the issue of the true and exact financial affairs of the partnership,….appellant was forced to file suit.
JUDICIAL HISTORY
On Aug. 4, 2005, by and through his attorney James L. Coffin, a lawsuit was filed against the partners in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Rensselaer Co. (Acting Supreme Court Judge Hon. Christian Hummel, Case # 214005) said lawsuit asking for an accounting, dissolution of partnership and partition of partnership property with appointment of receiver, and alleging several and various other causes of action including Breech of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Conversion and Unjust enrichment.
(See copy of complaint attached as Ex.______________.)
The parties entered into the discovery process whereby Respondants made the first demands and Appellant fully complied. However, Respondants failed to comply with any portion of appellants discovery requests and a moton to compell production was made and granted (See Order to Produce attached as Ex.________.) Despite the Order, Respondants failed to produce any of the documents requested by appellant and a Order of Preclusion was asked for and issued (See Order of Preclusion Ex._______.)
On or about Dec. 10, 2006, a pre-trial conference was schedualed but it was at this time that appellants counsel was nowhere to be found. A call to the NYS Bar Association was made in efforts to acertain the whereabouts of Mr. Coffin and it was discovered that he had been permanently barred from practicing law in the state of New York for matters unrelated to this case, and he was in fact at that time in prison for mis-use of another clients funds.
APPELLANTS REQUESTS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF COUNCEL
(To be continued)
Monday, April 11, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Motion for Extention of Time to Perfect Appeal
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
George J. Jubic, (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.),
Plaintiff, Pro Se
V. Notice of Motion
Robert Jubic and Robert McAllister, For Extension of Time
Defendants, To Submit Appeal
Case#510140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Clerk
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT I, George J. Jubic, the Plaintiff in the above mentioned case, based on the annexed affidavit, will move this court on the __________day of March, 2011, for an Order of the Court granting me permission for an extension of time to submit appeal.
Replies in opposition, if any, should be submitted no later than 3 days prior to the return date of this motion.
Dated: ___________________ _____________________________________
George J. Jubic
118 River Rd. 2nd Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753 - 7791
CC:
Michael P. Mansion, Attorney for Defendants
1528 Central Ave.
Albany, NY 12205
Rensselaer County Attorney
County Office Bldg.
Troy, NY 12180
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
George J. Jubic, (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.),
Plaintiff, Pro Se
V. Affidavit in Support Robert Jubic and Robert McAllister,
Defendants,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case #__________________
State of New York
County of Rensselaer;
I George J. Jubic, the Plaintiff / Appellant in the above mentioned matter, do
hereby swear under threat of penalty for perjury, that;
1. I did on the 2nd day of June, 2010, duly file a Notice of Appeal with the
Clerk of the Court for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rensselaer Co.,
as well as a copy to this Court sent that same day, in the matter of the lower court
case # 214085.
2. On the 28th day of June, 2010, along with an affidavit of indigency , I did
submit to this court an Application for permission to proceed on appeal as a poor
person for the purposes of waiving the costs, fees and expenses necessary to perfect
same.
3. By Order of this court dated September 13th, 2010, Motion was denied in part
and granted in part, requiring me to provide for myself a copy of the trial
transcripts of the lower court proceedings of which is the basis for this appeal,
but granting at the same time a waiver of the filing fees as required by CPLR 8022.
4. Being that it took a matter of several months before I was able to afford
and obtain a copy of said transcripts, and being also that I work full time and am
not able to devote as much time to the perfection of my appeal as I would like, I
submit this affidavit in hopes that the court will grant me a 30 day extension of
time in which to submit my appeal.
WHEREFORE I respectfully pray this Court to grant the relief requested in
this Motion and Affidavit, and for any other such further relief as the court may
deem just and fair.
In lieu of Notary, I do herein swear under threat of penalty for perjury, that the
aforementioned facts as set forth above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Dated: ___________________ _____________________________________
George J. Jubic
118 River Rd. 2nd Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753 - 7791
CC:
Michael P. Mansion, Attorney for Defendants
1528 Central Ave.
Albany, NY 12205
Rensselaer County Attorney
County Office Bldg.
Troy, NY 12180
----------------------------------------------------------
Affidavit of Service, etc. etc.
APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
George J. Jubic, (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.),
Plaintiff, Pro Se
V. Notice of Motion
Robert Jubic and Robert McAllister, For Extension of Time
Defendants, To Submit Appeal
Case#510140
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Clerk
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT I, George J. Jubic, the Plaintiff in the above mentioned case, based on the annexed affidavit, will move this court on the __________day of March, 2011, for an Order of the Court granting me permission for an extension of time to submit appeal.
Replies in opposition, if any, should be submitted no later than 3 days prior to the return date of this motion.
Dated: ___________________ _____________________________________
George J. Jubic
118 River Rd. 2nd Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753 - 7791
CC:
Michael P. Mansion, Attorney for Defendants
1528 Central Ave.
Albany, NY 12205
Rensselaer County Attorney
County Office Bldg.
Troy, NY 12180
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
George J. Jubic, (aka George M. Jubic, Jr.),
Plaintiff, Pro Se
V. Affidavit in Support Robert Jubic and Robert McAllister,
Defendants,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case #__________________
State of New York
County of Rensselaer;
I George J. Jubic, the Plaintiff / Appellant in the above mentioned matter, do
hereby swear under threat of penalty for perjury, that;
1. I did on the 2nd day of June, 2010, duly file a Notice of Appeal with the
Clerk of the Court for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rensselaer Co.,
as well as a copy to this Court sent that same day, in the matter of the lower court
case # 214085.
2. On the 28th day of June, 2010, along with an affidavit of indigency , I did
submit to this court an Application for permission to proceed on appeal as a poor
person for the purposes of waiving the costs, fees and expenses necessary to perfect
same.
3. By Order of this court dated September 13th, 2010, Motion was denied in part
and granted in part, requiring me to provide for myself a copy of the trial
transcripts of the lower court proceedings of which is the basis for this appeal,
but granting at the same time a waiver of the filing fees as required by CPLR 8022.
4. Being that it took a matter of several months before I was able to afford
and obtain a copy of said transcripts, and being also that I work full time and am
not able to devote as much time to the perfection of my appeal as I would like, I
submit this affidavit in hopes that the court will grant me a 30 day extension of
time in which to submit my appeal.
WHEREFORE I respectfully pray this Court to grant the relief requested in
this Motion and Affidavit, and for any other such further relief as the court may
deem just and fair.
In lieu of Notary, I do herein swear under threat of penalty for perjury, that the
aforementioned facts as set forth above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Dated: ___________________ _____________________________________
George J. Jubic
118 River Rd. 2nd Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753 - 7791
CC:
Michael P. Mansion, Attorney for Defendants
1528 Central Ave.
Albany, NY 12205
Rensselaer County Attorney
County Office Bldg.
Troy, NY 12180
----------------------------------------------------------
Affidavit of Service, etc. etc.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Supreme Question at SCOTUS: Judicial Ethics
Two Hi-Kort Judges committ cronieism on highest level-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch-industries_n_769843.html?utm_campaign=102010&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=Title&utm_term=Politics+Brief
Common Cause Inquires;
http://www.truth-out.org/common-cause-asks-court-about-thomas-connection-koch-brothers67764
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/scalia-thomas-koch-industries_n_769843.html?utm_campaign=102010&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=Title&utm_term=Politics+Brief
Common Cause Inquires;
http://www.truth-out.org/common-cause-asks-court-about-thomas-connection-koch-brothers67764
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Florida's Sunshine Laws
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0286/titl0286.htm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=%2D%3E2008%2D%3EChapter%20286
Exemptions, Costs, Time Limitations
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS Chapter 119
PUBLIC RECORDS View Entire Chapter
119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions.--
(1)(a) Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records.
(b) A custodian of public records or a person having custody of public records may designate another officer or employee of the agency to permit the inspection and copying of public records, but must disclose the identity of the designee to the person requesting to inspect or copy public records.
(c) A custodian of public records and his or her designee must acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good faith. A good faith response includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be accessed.
(d) A person who has custody of a public record who asserts that an exemption applies to a part of such record shall redact that portion of the record to which an exemption has been asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainder of such record for inspection and copying.
(e) If the person who has custody of a public record contends that all or part of the record is exempt from inspection and copying, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption that he or she contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to an exemption created or afforded by statute.
(f) If requested by the person seeking to inspect or copy the record, the custodian of public records shall state in writing and with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that the record is exempt or confidential.
(g) In any civil action in which an exemption to this section is asserted, if the exemption is alleged to exist under or by virtue of s. 119.071(1)(d) or (f), (2)(d),(e), or (f), or (4)(c), the public record or part thereof in question shall be submitted to the court for an inspection in camera. If an exemption is alleged to exist under or by virtue of s. 119.071(2)(c), an inspection in camera is discretionary with the court. If the court finds that the asserted exemption is not applicable, it shall order the public record or part thereof in question to be immediately produced for inspection or copying as requested by the person seeking such access.
(h) Even if an assertion is made by the custodian of public records that a requested record is not a public record subject to public inspection or copying under this subsection, the requested record shall, nevertheless, not be disposed of for a period of 30 days after the date on which a written request to inspect or copy the record was served on or otherwise made to the custodian of public records by the person seeking access to the record. If a civil action is instituted within the 30-day period to enforce the provisions of this section with respect to the requested record, the custodian of public records may not dispose of the record except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction after notice to all affected parties.
(i) The absence of a civil action instituted for the purpose stated in paragraph (g) does not relieve the custodian of public records of the duty to maintain the record as a public record if the record is in fact a public record subject to public inspection and copying under this subsection and does not otherwise excuse or exonerate the custodian of public records from any unauthorized or unlawful disposition of such record.
(2)(a) As an additional means of inspecting or copying public records, a custodian of public records may provide access to public records by remote electronic means, provided exempt or confidential information is not disclosed.
(b) The custodian of public records shall provide safeguards to protect the contents of public records from unauthorized remote electronic access or alteration and to prevent the disclosure or modification of those portions of public records which are exempt or confidential from subsection (1) or s. 24, Art. I of the State Constitution.
(c) Unless otherwise required by law, the custodian of public records may charge a fee for remote electronic access, granted under a contractual arrangement with a user, which fee may include the direct and indirect costs of providing such access. Fees for remote electronic access provided to the general public shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(3)(a) Any person shall have the right of access to public records for the purpose of making photographs of the record while such record is in the possession, custody, and control of the custodian of public records.
(b) This subsection applies to the making of photographs in the conventional sense by use of a camera device to capture images of public records but excludes the duplication of microfilm in the possession of the clerk of the circuit court where a copy of the microfilm may be made available by the clerk.
(c) Photographing public records shall be done under the supervision of the custodian of public records, who may adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing the photographing of such records.
(d) Photographing of public records shall be done in the room where the public records are kept. If, in the judgment of the custodian of public records, this is impossible or impracticable, photographing shall be done in another room or place, as nearly adjacent as possible to the room where the public records are kept, to be determined by the custodian of public records. Where provision of another room or place for photographing is required, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public record pursuant to paragraph (4)(e).
(4) The custodian of public records shall furnish a copy or a certified copy of the record upon payment of the fee prescribed by law. If a fee is not prescribed by law, the following fees are authorized:
(a)1. Up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for duplicated copies of not more than 14 inches by 81/2 inches;
2. No more than an additional 5 cents for each two-sided copy; and
3. For all other copies, the actual cost of duplication of the public record.
(b) The charge for copies of county maps or aerial photographs supplied by county constitutional officers may also include a reasonable charge for the labor and overhead associated with their duplication.
(c) An agency may charge up to $1 per copy for a certified copy of a public record.
(d) If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected or copied pursuant to this subsection is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the personnel providing the service that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance required, or both.
(e)1. Where provision of another room or place is necessary to photograph public records, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public records.
2. The custodian of public records may charge the person making the photographs for supervision services at a rate of compensation to be agreed upon by the person desiring to make the photographs and the custodian of public records. If they fail to agree as to the appropriate charge, the charge shall be determined by the custodian of public records.
(5) When ballots are produced under this section for inspection or examination, no persons other than the supervisor of elections or the supervisor's employees shall touch the ballots. If the ballots are being examined before the end of the contest period in s. 102.168, the supervisor of elections shall make a reasonable effort to notify all candidates by telephone or otherwise of the time and place of the inspection or examination. All such candidates, or their representatives, shall be allowed to be present during the inspection or examination.
(6) An exemption contained in this chapter or in any other general or special law shall not limit the access of the Auditor General, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, or any state, county, municipal, university, board of community college, school district, or special district internal auditor to public records when such person states in writing that such records are needed for a properly authorized audit, examination, or investigation. Such person shall maintain the exempt or confidential status of that public record and shall be subject to the same penalties as the custodian of that record for public disclosure of such record.
(7) An exemption from this section does not imply an exemption from s. 286.011. The exemption from s. 286.011 must be expressly provided.
(8) The provisions of this section are not intended to expand or limit the provisions of Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding the right and extent of discovery by the state or by a defendant in a criminal prosecution or in collateral postconviction proceedings. This section may not be used by any inmate as the basis for failing to timely litigate any postconviction action.
History.--s. 7, ch. 67-125; s. 4, ch. 75-225; s. 2, ch. 77-60; s. 2, ch. 77-75; s. 2, ch. 77-94; s. 2, ch. 77-156; s. 2, ch. 78-81; ss. 2, 4, 6, ch. 79-187; s. 2, ch. 80-273; s. 1, ch. 81-245; s. 1, ch. 82-95; s. 36, ch. 82-243; s. 6, ch. 83-215; s. 2, ch. 83-269; s. 1, ch. 83-286; s. 5, ch. 84-298; s. 1, ch. 85-18; s. 1, ch. 85-45; s. 1, ch. 85-73; s. 1, ch. 85-86; s. 7, ch. 85-152; s. 1, ch. 85-177; s. 4, ch. 85-301; s. 2, ch. 86-11; s. 1, ch. 86-21; s. 1, ch. 86-109; s. 2, ch. 87-399; s. 2, ch. 88-188; s. 1, ch. 88-384; s. 1, ch. 89-29; s. 7, ch. 89-55; s. 1, ch. 89-80; s. 1, ch. 89-275; s. 2, ch. 89-283; s. 2, ch. 89-350; s. 1, ch. 89-531; s. 1, ch. 90-43; s. 63, ch. 90-136; s. 2, ch. 90-196; s. 4, ch. 90-211; s. 24, ch. 90-306; ss. 22, 26, ch. 90-344; s. 116, ch. 90-360; s. 78, ch. 91-45; s. 11, ch. 91-57; s. 1, ch. 91-71; s. 1, ch. 91-96; s. 1, ch. 91-130; s. 1, ch. 91-149; s. 1, ch. 91-219; s. 1, ch. 91-288; ss. 43, 45, ch. 92-58; s. 90, ch. 92-152; s. 59, ch. 92-289; s. 217, ch. 92-303; s. 1, ch. 93-87; s. 2, ch. 93-232; s. 3, ch. 93-404; s. 4, ch. 93-405; s. 4, ch. 94-73; s. 1, ch. 94-128; s. 3, ch. 94-130; s. 67, ch. 94-164; s. 1, ch. 94-176; s. 1419, ch. 95-147; ss. 1, 3, ch. 95-170; s. 4, ch. 95-207; s. 1, ch. 95-320; ss. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, ch. 95-398; s. 1, ch. 95-399; s. 121, ch. 95-418; s. 3, ch. 96-178; s. 1, ch. 96-230; s. 5, ch. 96-268; s. 4, ch. 96-290; s. 41, ch. 96-406; s. 18, ch. 96-410; s. 1, ch. 97-185; s. 1, ch. 98-9; s. 7, ch. 98-137; s. 1, ch. 98-255; s. 1, ch. 98-259; s. 128, ch. 98-403; s. 2, ch. 99-201; s. 27, ch. 2000-164; s. 54, ch. 2000-349; s. 1, ch. 2001-87; s. 1, ch. 2001-108; s. 1, ch. 2001-249; s. 29, ch. 2001-261; s. 33, ch. 2001-266; s. 1, ch. 2001-364; s. 1, ch. 2002-67; ss. 1, 3, ch. 2002-257; s. 2, ch. 2002-391; s. 11, ch. 2003-1; s. 1, ch. 2003-100; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2003-110; s. 1, ch. 2003-137; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2003-157; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2004-9; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2004-32; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2004-62; ss. 1, 3, ch. 2004-95; s. 7, ch. 2004-335; ss. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, ch. 2005-251; s. 74, ch. 2005-277; s. 1, ch. 2007-39; ss. 2, 4, ch. 2007-251.
Exemptions, Costs, Time Limitations
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS Chapter 119
PUBLIC RECORDS View Entire Chapter
119.07 Inspection and copying of records; photographing public records; fees; exemptions.--
(1)(a) Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records.
(b) A custodian of public records or a person having custody of public records may designate another officer or employee of the agency to permit the inspection and copying of public records, but must disclose the identity of the designee to the person requesting to inspect or copy public records.
(c) A custodian of public records and his or her designee must acknowledge requests to inspect or copy records promptly and respond to such requests in good faith. A good faith response includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be accessed.
(d) A person who has custody of a public record who asserts that an exemption applies to a part of such record shall redact that portion of the record to which an exemption has been asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainder of such record for inspection and copying.
(e) If the person who has custody of a public record contends that all or part of the record is exempt from inspection and copying, he or she shall state the basis of the exemption that he or she contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to an exemption created or afforded by statute.
(f) If requested by the person seeking to inspect or copy the record, the custodian of public records shall state in writing and with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that the record is exempt or confidential.
(g) In any civil action in which an exemption to this section is asserted, if the exemption is alleged to exist under or by virtue of s. 119.071(1)(d) or (f), (2)(d),(e), or (f), or (4)(c), the public record or part thereof in question shall be submitted to the court for an inspection in camera. If an exemption is alleged to exist under or by virtue of s. 119.071(2)(c), an inspection in camera is discretionary with the court. If the court finds that the asserted exemption is not applicable, it shall order the public record or part thereof in question to be immediately produced for inspection or copying as requested by the person seeking such access.
(h) Even if an assertion is made by the custodian of public records that a requested record is not a public record subject to public inspection or copying under this subsection, the requested record shall, nevertheless, not be disposed of for a period of 30 days after the date on which a written request to inspect or copy the record was served on or otherwise made to the custodian of public records by the person seeking access to the record. If a civil action is instituted within the 30-day period to enforce the provisions of this section with respect to the requested record, the custodian of public records may not dispose of the record except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction after notice to all affected parties.
(i) The absence of a civil action instituted for the purpose stated in paragraph (g) does not relieve the custodian of public records of the duty to maintain the record as a public record if the record is in fact a public record subject to public inspection and copying under this subsection and does not otherwise excuse or exonerate the custodian of public records from any unauthorized or unlawful disposition of such record.
(2)(a) As an additional means of inspecting or copying public records, a custodian of public records may provide access to public records by remote electronic means, provided exempt or confidential information is not disclosed.
(b) The custodian of public records shall provide safeguards to protect the contents of public records from unauthorized remote electronic access or alteration and to prevent the disclosure or modification of those portions of public records which are exempt or confidential from subsection (1) or s. 24, Art. I of the State Constitution.
(c) Unless otherwise required by law, the custodian of public records may charge a fee for remote electronic access, granted under a contractual arrangement with a user, which fee may include the direct and indirect costs of providing such access. Fees for remote electronic access provided to the general public shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(3)(a) Any person shall have the right of access to public records for the purpose of making photographs of the record while such record is in the possession, custody, and control of the custodian of public records.
(b) This subsection applies to the making of photographs in the conventional sense by use of a camera device to capture images of public records but excludes the duplication of microfilm in the possession of the clerk of the circuit court where a copy of the microfilm may be made available by the clerk.
(c) Photographing public records shall be done under the supervision of the custodian of public records, who may adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing the photographing of such records.
(d) Photographing of public records shall be done in the room where the public records are kept. If, in the judgment of the custodian of public records, this is impossible or impracticable, photographing shall be done in another room or place, as nearly adjacent as possible to the room where the public records are kept, to be determined by the custodian of public records. Where provision of another room or place for photographing is required, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public record pursuant to paragraph (4)(e).
(4) The custodian of public records shall furnish a copy or a certified copy of the record upon payment of the fee prescribed by law. If a fee is not prescribed by law, the following fees are authorized:
(a)1. Up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for duplicated copies of not more than 14 inches by 81/2 inches;
2. No more than an additional 5 cents for each two-sided copy; and
3. For all other copies, the actual cost of duplication of the public record.
(b) The charge for copies of county maps or aerial photographs supplied by county constitutional officers may also include a reasonable charge for the labor and overhead associated with their duplication.
(c) An agency may charge up to $1 per copy for a certified copy of a public record.
(d) If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected or copied pursuant to this subsection is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the personnel providing the service that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance required, or both.
(e)1. Where provision of another room or place is necessary to photograph public records, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public records.
2. The custodian of public records may charge the person making the photographs for supervision services at a rate of compensation to be agreed upon by the person desiring to make the photographs and the custodian of public records. If they fail to agree as to the appropriate charge, the charge shall be determined by the custodian of public records.
(5) When ballots are produced under this section for inspection or examination, no persons other than the supervisor of elections or the supervisor's employees shall touch the ballots. If the ballots are being examined before the end of the contest period in s. 102.168, the supervisor of elections shall make a reasonable effort to notify all candidates by telephone or otherwise of the time and place of the inspection or examination. All such candidates, or their representatives, shall be allowed to be present during the inspection or examination.
(6) An exemption contained in this chapter or in any other general or special law shall not limit the access of the Auditor General, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, or any state, county, municipal, university, board of community college, school district, or special district internal auditor to public records when such person states in writing that such records are needed for a properly authorized audit, examination, or investigation. Such person shall maintain the exempt or confidential status of that public record and shall be subject to the same penalties as the custodian of that record for public disclosure of such record.
(7) An exemption from this section does not imply an exemption from s. 286.011. The exemption from s. 286.011 must be expressly provided.
(8) The provisions of this section are not intended to expand or limit the provisions of Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding the right and extent of discovery by the state or by a defendant in a criminal prosecution or in collateral postconviction proceedings. This section may not be used by any inmate as the basis for failing to timely litigate any postconviction action.
History.--s. 7, ch. 67-125; s. 4, ch. 75-225; s. 2, ch. 77-60; s. 2, ch. 77-75; s. 2, ch. 77-94; s. 2, ch. 77-156; s. 2, ch. 78-81; ss. 2, 4, 6, ch. 79-187; s. 2, ch. 80-273; s. 1, ch. 81-245; s. 1, ch. 82-95; s. 36, ch. 82-243; s. 6, ch. 83-215; s. 2, ch. 83-269; s. 1, ch. 83-286; s. 5, ch. 84-298; s. 1, ch. 85-18; s. 1, ch. 85-45; s. 1, ch. 85-73; s. 1, ch. 85-86; s. 7, ch. 85-152; s. 1, ch. 85-177; s. 4, ch. 85-301; s. 2, ch. 86-11; s. 1, ch. 86-21; s. 1, ch. 86-109; s. 2, ch. 87-399; s. 2, ch. 88-188; s. 1, ch. 88-384; s. 1, ch. 89-29; s. 7, ch. 89-55; s. 1, ch. 89-80; s. 1, ch. 89-275; s. 2, ch. 89-283; s. 2, ch. 89-350; s. 1, ch. 89-531; s. 1, ch. 90-43; s. 63, ch. 90-136; s. 2, ch. 90-196; s. 4, ch. 90-211; s. 24, ch. 90-306; ss. 22, 26, ch. 90-344; s. 116, ch. 90-360; s. 78, ch. 91-45; s. 11, ch. 91-57; s. 1, ch. 91-71; s. 1, ch. 91-96; s. 1, ch. 91-130; s. 1, ch. 91-149; s. 1, ch. 91-219; s. 1, ch. 91-288; ss. 43, 45, ch. 92-58; s. 90, ch. 92-152; s. 59, ch. 92-289; s. 217, ch. 92-303; s. 1, ch. 93-87; s. 2, ch. 93-232; s. 3, ch. 93-404; s. 4, ch. 93-405; s. 4, ch. 94-73; s. 1, ch. 94-128; s. 3, ch. 94-130; s. 67, ch. 94-164; s. 1, ch. 94-176; s. 1419, ch. 95-147; ss. 1, 3, ch. 95-170; s. 4, ch. 95-207; s. 1, ch. 95-320; ss. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, ch. 95-398; s. 1, ch. 95-399; s. 121, ch. 95-418; s. 3, ch. 96-178; s. 1, ch. 96-230; s. 5, ch. 96-268; s. 4, ch. 96-290; s. 41, ch. 96-406; s. 18, ch. 96-410; s. 1, ch. 97-185; s. 1, ch. 98-9; s. 7, ch. 98-137; s. 1, ch. 98-255; s. 1, ch. 98-259; s. 128, ch. 98-403; s. 2, ch. 99-201; s. 27, ch. 2000-164; s. 54, ch. 2000-349; s. 1, ch. 2001-87; s. 1, ch. 2001-108; s. 1, ch. 2001-249; s. 29, ch. 2001-261; s. 33, ch. 2001-266; s. 1, ch. 2001-364; s. 1, ch. 2002-67; ss. 1, 3, ch. 2002-257; s. 2, ch. 2002-391; s. 11, ch. 2003-1; s. 1, ch. 2003-100; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2003-110; s. 1, ch. 2003-137; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2003-157; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2004-9; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2004-32; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2004-62; ss. 1, 3, ch. 2004-95; s. 7, ch. 2004-335; ss. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, ch. 2005-251; s. 74, ch. 2005-277; s. 1, ch. 2007-39; ss. 2, 4, ch. 2007-251.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
