Grissom the nations private white collar crime fighter say's How is a citizen supposed to know whether the unidentified documents Department of Corporations claim to be exempt are protecting some individual's right to some unidentified right?
Lack of a Privilege Log. As you know, pursuant to Government Code Â§6255 (a), the DOC has the burden of demonstrating that any records not produced are exempt. Furthermore, exemptions are construed narrowly and the burden is on the DOC to demonstrate that the public interest served by not making the records public would "clearly outweigh" the public interest served by the disclosure. New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (App. 2 Dist 1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1579. By asserting a laundry list of boilerplate objections and without producing any "privilege log," the DOC is further stonewalling and preventing plaintiff from ascertaining whether any of the exemptions claimed has any merit. For example, your citation to the California Constitution, Article I, Â§1, without anything further, is meaningless. That section reads as follows:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
How is a citizen supposed to know whether the unidentified documents you claim to be exempt are protecting some individual's right to some unidentified right? Without more, your decision to withhold documents without providing a privilege log and explaining the basis for the claimed exemption, appears to us to be nothing more than a continuing abuse of power.
"¢ Judgment Against DSC for Conversion. Although we believe that DOC's withholding of documents hampered our ability to prosecute a conversion claim against DSC, DSC has been found liable for conversion. One would hope that a governmental agency which granted a license to a Corporation to loan money to consumers would have some questions for that Corporation after a Superior Court has found that Corporation to have converted five vehicles from innocent consumers. This is especially true where DSC claimed throughout the trial that the basis for its right to steal the cars was its lending activities, which the DOC has apparently found were completely appropriate (or didn't care whether they were or not). These conversions included creating counterfeit titles through the state of Indiana for the purpose of stealing cars in the state of California. Far from failing to "please everyone," as you characterize it, the DOC is condoning DSC's flagrant and repeated commission of criminal acts in the state of California.