March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Meet Mitch | Main | Isn't that special »

Feb 23, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fec Stench

Is it just me or does her explanation not satisfy questions of legality?

Roch101

More later, but it does seem to me as if Carmany's answer distills the release of information down to having the SBI's permission -- the logical conclusion being that once the SBI investigation is complete, there should be no further delay in releasing all of the RMA information.

The CA

The SBI is not a Court of law, nor the decider of how a statute is to be enforced or whether it should be enforced. They can give City council permission to publishi something all day long, but unless they can grant immunity, it won't stand up legally. They can't waive Brady's right to sue, only Brady can. The whole "SBI said we could" might explain why they felt better about releasing the information without compromising the SBI investigation, but does not address the legal issue at all.

Further, if Carmany's stand is to rely on Garrity, why not release all of the Garrity evidence obtained in the Wray matter because it can't be used in a criminal action either? I just can't follow the rationale that has been offered nor can I reconcile it with previous positions taken by the City with regard to the release of information.

The comments to this entry are closed.