Dianne Bellamy-Small is not the N&R LEAK
Dianne Bellamy-Small did not give the copy of the RMA report to the news and record as per JR at his site. here
JR says---"Meanwhile, Bellamy-Small continues to say that the News & Record can "clear" her of being the source. "
Meblogin asks JR--- "Logic would indicate that DBS did not provide the information to the N&R. Why? She gave them permission to clear her name. If she had demanded their confidentiality months ago..then she has now released them from their obligation and JR would have no reason to not tell the world that it was not her.
Can JR's copy be taken legally and he still maintain his silence about who the source was?
Jaycee thinks-- "Catch 22. Bellamy-Small knows that JR will not release the source, no matter what. Jr does not want to release the source, even with permission, because it will look like he's caving in to the public who thinks he should release the name. To do so would violate JR's principles. So Bellamy-Small is free to "give him permission" knowing he won't do it. This protects him and her.
Just a theory, anyway, but very possible."
JR answers--- "jaycee, if our source releases us from our commitment, I have no problem saying who gave it to us.
I guess that answers one part of this mystery with a special thanks to JR and Jaycee.
thanks
JR says---"Meanwhile, Bellamy-Small continues to say that the News & Record can "clear" her of being the source. "
Meblogin asks JR--- "Logic would indicate that DBS did not provide the information to the N&R. Why? She gave them permission to clear her name. If she had demanded their confidentiality months ago..then she has now released them from their obligation and JR would have no reason to not tell the world that it was not her.
Can JR's copy be taken legally and he still maintain his silence about who the source was?
Jaycee thinks-- "Catch 22. Bellamy-Small knows that JR will not release the source, no matter what. Jr does not want to release the source, even with permission, because it will look like he's caving in to the public who thinks he should release the name. To do so would violate JR's principles. So Bellamy-Small is free to "give him permission" knowing he won't do it. This protects him and her.
Just a theory, anyway, but very possible."
JR answers--- "jaycee, if our source releases us from our commitment, I have no problem saying who gave it to us.
I guess that answers one part of this mystery with a special thanks to JR and Jaycee.
thanks
posted by meblogin at 9:29 AM
16 Comments:
DBS may have or may have not given the report to the News and Record. That doesn't matter. She is accused of giving it to the person who posted it on GSO 101. So...you just wasted your time writing this little bit of info because it is pointless...
It doesn't matter....hmmm..
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I disagree with yours.
You have a flaw in your logic.
Technically, perhaps DBS didn't provide the copy. But if you follow the logic of the argument, DBS knows who did and either turned a blind eye or provided the copy.
So by semantics, sure she didn't provide N&R. Someone else did.
Why else would she be the only person that wouldn't take a polygraph? Unless she was framed. But why would anyone frame her of all people?
Your argument doesn't take into account semantics.
In case you don't follow since I re-read my comment and it can be misconstrued:
My logic is by semantics:
DBS -> (middleman) -> N&R or whomever
Thus DBS can say that she didn't provide the copy to N&R.
Yes...I see what you are saying and agree that it is possible that DBS permitted someone else to deliver her copy.
It is equally plausible that she is innocent and a staff member gave her copy to someone.
I believe it is a step..though maybe a little one in the right direction. JR did not stay silent in other words. We know more now than we did...maybe.
True. All of this is hypothetical. But then the question remains that if you had nothing to hide, or you didn't know anything, then why would DBS be the ONLY council member refusing the polygraph? It was already paid for so it's not the fee. I suppose you could quote ethics of it, but then I find it very questionable.
Unfortunately, as a politician, there has to be transparency.
Amusingly enough, I have to say that from what I know of the back story of some of the leaks, the semantics deal that I've actually mentioned happens in a lot more places than one. Thus, it would lead me to believe that DBS had something to do with it. Just my two cents though. Truthfully, if people don't want to play ethically, that's their perogative.
Doesn't effect me either way since I know where my councilwoman stands.
So what if she did leak it?
Council cannot get rid of her.
Is it criminal?
Yes, a misdemeanor if it's prosecuted under the same law that Roch looked at for state. There is actually a couple of federal laws that this would technical also be under, but that's a whole other ballgame if that was done (which I doubt anyone would bother, but who knows).
As a person that comes across many confidential documents, I wouldn't be sharing them with her. And I would imagine that City Council would be cautious with similar documents.
Also, if she did or was a part of it, then that loses trust with constituents.
I look at leaking such documents similar to breaking NDAs. You can't do business with such corporations. Similar stance here. But it's my stance.
"Also, if she did or was a part of it, then that loses trust with constituents."
It may not matter if her constituents view the report as something that exposes racist evil in the GPD.
The semantics explanation is almost bound to be the right one, assuming that DBS is not lying.
Sandy had helped answer some of our questions earlier with----
Sandy Carmany said...
meblogin,
I have not heard anything from Dianne Bellamy-Small so do not know what her plans might be.
I need to reiterate what the forensic investigator stressed several times last night -- his report does NOT point to a PERSON, it points to a DOCUMENT. There is strong evidence that the copy in the possession of Dianne Bellamy-Small was the "source document" for the copy that appeared on the Internet, but it does not prove that she actually leaked it or allowed it to be copied (although I sure hope she will step forward and offer an explanation).
Your second question, basically "where do we go from here?" is a difficult one to answer. There will have to an attempt to go through a trust-rebuilding process with ALL councilmembers participating to repair the damaged relationships -- sometimes those efforts are successful, sometimes they aren't.
The city council does not have the authority to remove a fellow councilmember. Only the voters have that power, either by not re-electing someone, or by using the recall method that requires "X" number of registered voters' signatures on a petition calling for a special election.
I will have to leave it up to the legal experts to answer whether or not a law has been broken since I do not know for sure. A more likely scenario would be for one of the persons whose confidential personnel information was made public to file a civil libel suit for damages.
Of course the FDE would point to the document. In all technicality it points to the document, not the person. But anyone with one single ounce of common sense would ask:
1) if the document was out of the possession of the person, would the person not have reported it?
2) why would the said person not take the polygraph when every other council person did?
Like I said. While science just proves that the document was the source, you also account for logic to direct where the source is. None of the questions above are answered. I have yet to see DBS answer them also. She answers semantically that she didn't provide N&R. I would expect her to come out saying her she didn't provide the document to anyone else.
Until she actually denies providing "anyone" a copy of her RMA, these questions hang over her head with an accusing finger like a bad cloud.
"There is actually a couple of federal laws that this would technical also be under..."
There are? Like what?
Roch, as I understand the Supreme Court decision Gardner-Garity, the police officers identified in (and interviewed for) the RMA report waived their Fifth Amendment rights to talk (under the threat of losing their jobs if they did not cooperate). That's coercion. They relied upon the assurance that what they said could be not be used in Court or publicized. Also under consideration is how what they said may have played into a Federal criminal investigation (i.e. the US Attorney's look-see into local drug-running).
Nobody apparently gave that much thought when they started (1) leaking or (2) publishing the RMA report.
Now, I am not a lawyer and cannot recite chapter and verse, but I'd say all of this would qualify as some kind of civil rights violation (especially if one could prove anyone employed or representing the City was involved) . . . and possibly even obstruction.
Then there is the little matter of civil liability.
I'm sure the lawyers and prosecutors could get real creative if they wanted to.
"Until she actually denies providing "anyone" a copy of her RMA, these questions hang over her head with an accusing finger like a bad cloud."
But she won't do that. She's trying to obfuscate the issue.
She ain't alone.
I still find this interesting---
either by not re-electing someone, or by using the recall method that requires "X" number of registered voters' signatures on a petition calling for a special election.
I hope that the GPD is able to clean up the mess.
Post a Comment
<< Home