News-Record.com

This is no way resolves any questions about what you did, why you did it, and when you did it.
To think that current events somehow justify or legitimize your past actions is disingenuous.
So now that it's all "out in the open" can we expect you to name the "rotten apple" who illegally leaked the report to the N&R in the first place? You've just admitted that there's no reason to keep anything hidden anymore, so will you come clean now?

Or do we have to wait for The Rhino Times and Jerry Bledsoe to publish the facts behind YOUR actions?

My God, John, what were you smoking at "Converge"? The concerns about the leak and the law are most certainly NOT gone.

As I told Ed, this morning, "the biggest "clique' of all (now) appears to be the Greensboro blogosphere one day after Converge South . . . now dancing furiously to the tune of someone in City government or City employ who circumvented the law to serve their own purposes."

Who did the "splashing" John?

Well, you're right, jaycee. I should have said the questions were dispersed rather than gone, given that half a dozen or so others now can be questioned as to who leaked the report. To say nothing of those investigation notes the Rhino has. I'd say go for it.

And "dispersing" seems to have been the motive behind getting this report "splashed" over everywhere in the blogosphere (and USING this weekend/Converge South to do it). If the report is everywhere, then the question of who put it out there (singular or plural) gets lost in the muddle (nice for the original leaker) . Everything is much harder to investigate and/or prosecute.

"The city should release the report and let the public decide". No argument there. The question was always when . . . and that depended on all investigations being properly conducted first . . . as well as the City's elected leaders making the tough decisions they are charged to make (even if some of what was uncovered did not reflect well on them).

But the N&R had to crucify Wray in the meantime (while he wore a muzzle). Well, the muzzle is off and he's talking to Bledsoe/The Rhino. Must burn.

In reading about the disgusting/filthy/amoral/nasty things that were going on the the GSO police department, I must say I've lost confidence in the City to enforce baisc standards of conduct (which is what Wray was apparently contending with) and the law.

If there really "IS" an investigation going on - by either the US Attorney or State Attorney Office's (FBI/SBI whatever), and I were conducting it, I would indeed "go for it". And I'd slap the first subpoena on the first news outlet that had the report and pontificated on it . . . the Greesnboro News & Record.

Your position is not-at-all suprising in that you've made it crystal clear in the past that I don't run the world and that I have no right to demand that basic standards of ethical conduct be met . . . or that the law, as it stands, be enforced. Why should any other citizen expect the same in this mess?

As the last-living non-reader of the report, but as a hosting company for many Greensboro bloggers, I was concerned about any of our clients possibly putting the report online. We have an AUP that states nothing illegal can be posted on our servers.

I can't seem to find out if it is illegal to post the report. But in bigger terms, I've learned that it would be dangerous and ill-considered to post it unredacted. I've always trusted Sandy Carmany, even when it's frustrating to do so. She seems to have been right all along, so let's remember that, shall we?

What I can't figure is how Bledsoe's articles can come to one seemingly apparent conclusion (caveat: it's not finished serializing, so it may not be prudent to conclude just yet), but those who've discussed the report have come to an opposite conclusion.

If the report had been shared from the get-go, Bledsoe might not have written the articles and everyone will have to consider whether that would have been better - or worse - a happening.

Sue, in the press conference last week Mitch Johnson cited case law involving the US Supremes (i.e. "Gardner-Garrity"). Nursing a stuffy nose, I stayed home from the State Fair and did not "converge", so I did some minor Googling and found the cases. Then, as a good member of this blogging "community", I put up a post on the issue.

By my reading of the case law, the RMA report could not be shared with the public - at least in its intact form. And whether or not it was shared is supposed to be a decision made by a vote of the City Council after looking at all the pros and cons - and making sure any investigations were complete.

I am no lawyer, but these decisions essentially impose the same kinds of restrictions on upon city officials conducting an internal investigation that were imposed upon me (HCQIA 1986) in Asheboro with medical peer review. And, as was the case in Asheboro, records have been plundered and confidenitality has been mutilated, and lying & subterfuge are the order of the day.

No one does anything about it.

You cannot mount a defense if you are muzzled and publicly humiliated . . . while the people you are fighting can lie and cheat and steal . . . and then circumvent the intent of the law by hiding behind "confidentiality". Now I got shot as the messenger . . . someone who cleaned up a mess that others wanted covered up. Wray may not be as "clean", but I have empathized with him from the beginning because he was in this kind of "Catch-22" situation.

Everybody in this country has a right to due process.

I wasn't at "The Converging", so I don't have the report either. But I'd say that the fact it was shared at the conference you helped organize (with those who were connected - wanna talk about "cliques" now?) and openly discussed . . . even to the point of whether or not one of your "clients" should post it online, poses a little bit of a legal quandary for you.

But that's only if someone decides to pursue/prosecute the leak . . . or sue. Releasing the report now doesn't solve any problems. If the law is enforced at all (civilly or criminally) it will compound them.

On the other hand, you probably don't need to be worried on that point as I sincerely doubt state & Federal law enforcement actually has the cahoones to buck the ruling "cabals" and enforce the law by chasing the original leak to the N&R.

But if they do, this mess might ulitimately make my quagmire (which at this point boils down to "non-profiteers" committing perjury and contempt) look like a walk in the park (not that any of that is "relvant" to the mighty "truth & justice-seeking" N&R).

So, Mr. Robinson, you're saying that the person who leaked the RMA report to the N&R should be pursued as vigorously as the one(s) who leaked investigative notes to Mr. Bledsoe?
Can we expect an editorial column statement to that effect? And will you cooperate with authorities in revealing who your source was? I'm sure you anxiously await The Rhino Time being forced to cooperate, will you be as forthcoming?

hahahahaha...

jaycee, good luck getting an answer...

I would really love to know if the N&R ran any story about Studds dying over the weekend -- and if so, if they published his party affiliation.

I'd bet anyone a dollar to a nickle that they did not include the party affiliation -- and, if they did, it was only in the AP's way of making the reader figure it out. (in the 10th paragraph)

In fact, Foley's affiliation was made more clear in the AP story than Studds' -- and Foley didn't even have sex with a 17 year old!!

It was in Sunday's A-section, Jim, and the fourth sentence of the article mentions that he was a ranking member of the House Democratic leadership.

Thanks Mel.

For once, I'm glad I was wrong!

Now, who do I pay my $1 to?