OKLAHOMA CITY — A Granite man’s lawsuit against more than 40 defendants, including the Cleveland County Board of Commissioners, District Judge Tom Lucas, District Attorney Greg Mashburn, Sheriff DeWayne Beggs and a host of others has been dismissed by a federal district judge.
John Murray, 45, of Granite, claimed a loss of income, real estate losses, health problems resulting in surgery and “emotional, physical, mental and domestic distress,” in his lawsuit. Murray said the group’s actions “threatened his future and freedom, denied his civil rights and caused a general loss in quality of life.”
Murray’s claims stem from a July 4, 2006, incident.
In his suit, Murray said three women — Demea Guidice, Donna Guidice and Cathey Miller — initiated a campaign of harassment against Murray, “claiming dominion over the private road known as Running Deer Road.”
That harassment continued, Murray said, “when Demea Guidice made a complaint to Cleveland County Sheriff’s Department which resulted in Murray’s arrest and incarceration.”
Murray sought $30 million in damages and an “end to the pattern of harassment and persecution” along with “all remedies allowed by law including real and punitive damages, interest, cost, medical bills and other related expenses.”
Murray filed the suit pro se — meaning he represented himself in the proceeding without an attorney.
Dave Batton, assistant district attorney for Cleveland County, said Murray’s suit was originally dismissed at the state court level.
“He had his original suit dismissed in state court,” Batton said. “Then he turned around and filed in federal court.”
On several occasions, Batton said, he tried to speak with Murray, but Murray was “hard to get focused on what his problems are.”
Batton said Murray faces a trial for assault and battery in Cleveland County.
In his ruling, Federal District Judge Robin Cauthorn dismissed Murray’s complaint, saying none of Murray’s allegations “would support a plausible federal or constitutional claim for relief against these defendants.”
“It’s patently obvious that Plaintiff could not prevail on the facts he has alleged,” Cauthorn wrote. “Amendment would be futile and these claims shall be dismissed.”
Murray, Cauthorn said, “fails to include any discernible allegations regarding any federal claim against as-yet-unknown defendants, and therefore dismissal of these defendants is proper.”
Last week, Murray said the suit was dismissed “on a technicality.”
“I’ve muddled through the best way that I could,” he said. “I’ve made a couple of technical mistakes, but even knowning that the federal lawsuit had been dismissed I filed an appeal.”
Murray said he was seeking a dismissal of the criminal charges against him and had filed open records requests with the Cleveland County sheriff’s office and the Cleveland County district attorney’s office.
“The Cleveland County district attorney’s office has refused to answer my subpoena,” he said. “And they refused to produce a copy of a 911 call made May 22.”
Murray said he’s made an Open Records Act request for the tape and plans to continue his lawsuit.
“I think this is the beginning and not the end,” he said.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Supreme Court backs off secrecy rules
OKLAHOMA CITY — An order which would have restricted public access to electronic court records has been withdrawn, officials with the Oklahoma Supreme Court an-nounced Tuesday.
The rule, which was originally designed to help curb identity theft, was set to take effect June 10.
Tuesday, the court’s chief justice, Justice James R. Winchester, said he was “pulling the request to allow time for further study.”
“The Supreme Court of Oklahoma is very aware of privacy and identity theft concerns of individuals related to the personal data that may appear on the court’s Web site,” the court said in a statement provided to The Associated Press.
“We are cognizant that many businesses and individuals rely on the information court clerks have placed on our Web site. Personal privacy balanced with reliable public information is critical for a free society.
“Due to the very important issues for all concerned, the Supreme Court is hereby withdrawing its privacy and public access order … handed down March 11, 2008, to give the issue further study and consideration,” the statement concluded.
The court’s about face drew praise from open records advocates.
“We’re happy that they withdrew the order,” said Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association.
“We believe further study of the issue is very important and gladly will serve on any task force formed to discuss this further.”
The original order, Thomas said, was “too broad, and closed so much information that it basically rendered court records unusable to thousands of people that relied on that information.”
“I do believe, however, the public wants us to seriously address the issue of identity theft, and more specifically Social Security numbers, and we will do so in the very near future.”
The rule, which was originally designed to help curb identity theft, was set to take effect June 10.
Tuesday, the court’s chief justice, Justice James R. Winchester, said he was “pulling the request to allow time for further study.”
“The Supreme Court of Oklahoma is very aware of privacy and identity theft concerns of individuals related to the personal data that may appear on the court’s Web site,” the court said in a statement provided to The Associated Press.
“We are cognizant that many businesses and individuals rely on the information court clerks have placed on our Web site. Personal privacy balanced with reliable public information is critical for a free society.
“Due to the very important issues for all concerned, the Supreme Court is hereby withdrawing its privacy and public access order … handed down March 11, 2008, to give the issue further study and consideration,” the statement concluded.
The court’s about face drew praise from open records advocates.
“We’re happy that they withdrew the order,” said Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association.
“We believe further study of the issue is very important and gladly will serve on any task force formed to discuss this further.”
The original order, Thomas said, was “too broad, and closed so much information that it basically rendered court records unusable to thousands of people that relied on that information.”
“I do believe, however, the public wants us to seriously address the issue of identity theft, and more specifically Social Security numbers, and we will do so in the very near future.”
Monday, March 24, 2008
Campus gun bill awaits action in Senate
OKLAHOMA CITY — A controversial legislative proposal designed to allow guns on the campuses of state colleges and universities has cleared the Oklahoma House of Representatives and is awaiting action by the Oklahoma State Senate.
Under the terms of House Bill 2513 — authored by Guthrie Republican Jason Murphey — active-duty military personnel, honorably discharged veterans and others with firearms training could carry a concealed weapon on the campus of an Oklahoma college or university.
In a vote which fell pretty much along party lines, the bill passed the Oklahoma House 65-36; only eight of the House’s 44 Democrats voted for the measure.
Murphey told The Associated Press his bill was a “commonsense step” to expand Oklahoma’s concealed weapons law to combat campus violence.
“I don’t know what could be safer for the students than having our men and women in the military to defend them if something went down,” Murphey said Friday. “I wish there would have been someone that could have been armed in Illinois.”
It’s not sound public policy, he said, “to have a bubble around campuses, where criminals can penetrate.”
And while many officials have expressed concern over having students with concealed weapons, Murphey said the state’s concealed carry permitting procedure “has done very well in the past 12 years.”
“I think the success of that program speaks for itself,” he said.
In Cleveland County, the county’s three Republican House members — Scott Martin of Norman, Randy Terrill of Moore and Paul Wesselhoft of Moore — voted in favor of the bill. Norman Democrats Bill Nations and Wallace Collins voted “no.”
Nations said he hopes the bill will die in the Senate.
“I have hope that it won’t make it through the Senate,” he said. “I don’t know that for sure, but at least I hope it won’t.”
The idea, he said, is being driven “by the excitement of those who are very strongly pro-gun.”
“University presidents are almost unanimously against it,” Nations said. “And at almost all levels, university administrators are against it. Professors on campus are almost 99 percent against it. Municipal law enforcement officials in towns which have a college are against it.”
The bill, he said, is “anti-business.”
“I’ve heard from business people that say it’s embarrassing to the state. We’ve got people trying to put guns on campus, we’ve got hate speech about minorities and have leadership resigning in disgrace. It is embarrassing.”
State Rep. Scott Martin disagreed.
Martin, a former assistant to Norman’s city manager, said the question isn’t what the state Senate is going to do with the bill, but what Gov. Brad Henry will do.
“The bill received fairly overwhelming bipartisan support in the House,” he said. “And the bigger question is what the governor is going to do?”
Martin said the bill “closely defines” what the new exceptions would be for those with a concealed carry permit.
“Just because you’re active duty, a veteran or CLEET certified, you wouldn’t automatically be able to carry a concealed weapon,” he said. “You would still have to have a concealed carry permit and meet those three previous exceptions I’ve mentioned, then you would qualify to have a gun on campus.”
Martin said “not every student who comes along” would qualify for the permit
“The average age is 51,” he said. “For the most part, the vast majority of people who have permits are older folks, not typical college students.”
And those residents who have permits, he said, have “gone through vigorous background checks and training.”
“In the 12 years Oklahoma has allowed the concealed carry permit, we haven’t had one problem. And I wouldn’t anticipate that to happen in the future.”
Still, many university officials oppose the measure.
Last week, University of Oklahoma president David Boren — a former Oklahoma governor — issued a statement scolding lawmakers who supported the bill.
Legislators, Boren said, should “stick to the laws that have worked well in the past” and allow colleges to continue to improve campus safety.
“If it would help for me to get down on my knees to plead with the Legislature for the safety of our students, I would do so,” Boren said.
At Oklahoma State University, officials said allowing students to carry guns on campus was a dangerous idea.
“I think it creates a very unsafe environment,” Lee Bird, Oklahoma State University’s vice president of student affairs, told the OSU Daily O’Collegian. “Realistically that (shootings) is not our most major problem and I don’t think weapons are necessarily going to help us; I think it will endanger people.”
Martin said he, too, was concerned about public safety on state campuses.
“We’re not arming an army,” he said. “We’re trying to provide law-abiding citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. It (the bill) is really a sad commentary on today’s life.”
Nations countered, saying whole issue boils down to a single question.
“Ultimately, the question is this: Do you believe that students, faculty and staff are safer with more guns on campus or with fewer guns on campus?. That’s the question. And when you answer it you know how to vote.”
House Bill 2513 is on second reading in the Oklahoma State Senate.
Under the terms of House Bill 2513 — authored by Guthrie Republican Jason Murphey — active-duty military personnel, honorably discharged veterans and others with firearms training could carry a concealed weapon on the campus of an Oklahoma college or university.
In a vote which fell pretty much along party lines, the bill passed the Oklahoma House 65-36; only eight of the House’s 44 Democrats voted for the measure.
Murphey told The Associated Press his bill was a “commonsense step” to expand Oklahoma’s concealed weapons law to combat campus violence.
“I don’t know what could be safer for the students than having our men and women in the military to defend them if something went down,” Murphey said Friday. “I wish there would have been someone that could have been armed in Illinois.”
It’s not sound public policy, he said, “to have a bubble around campuses, where criminals can penetrate.”
And while many officials have expressed concern over having students with concealed weapons, Murphey said the state’s concealed carry permitting procedure “has done very well in the past 12 years.”
“I think the success of that program speaks for itself,” he said.
In Cleveland County, the county’s three Republican House members — Scott Martin of Norman, Randy Terrill of Moore and Paul Wesselhoft of Moore — voted in favor of the bill. Norman Democrats Bill Nations and Wallace Collins voted “no.”
Nations said he hopes the bill will die in the Senate.
“I have hope that it won’t make it through the Senate,” he said. “I don’t know that for sure, but at least I hope it won’t.”
The idea, he said, is being driven “by the excitement of those who are very strongly pro-gun.”
“University presidents are almost unanimously against it,” Nations said. “And at almost all levels, university administrators are against it. Professors on campus are almost 99 percent against it. Municipal law enforcement officials in towns which have a college are against it.”
The bill, he said, is “anti-business.”
“I’ve heard from business people that say it’s embarrassing to the state. We’ve got people trying to put guns on campus, we’ve got hate speech about minorities and have leadership resigning in disgrace. It is embarrassing.”
State Rep. Scott Martin disagreed.
Martin, a former assistant to Norman’s city manager, said the question isn’t what the state Senate is going to do with the bill, but what Gov. Brad Henry will do.
“The bill received fairly overwhelming bipartisan support in the House,” he said. “And the bigger question is what the governor is going to do?”
Martin said the bill “closely defines” what the new exceptions would be for those with a concealed carry permit.
“Just because you’re active duty, a veteran or CLEET certified, you wouldn’t automatically be able to carry a concealed weapon,” he said. “You would still have to have a concealed carry permit and meet those three previous exceptions I’ve mentioned, then you would qualify to have a gun on campus.”
Martin said “not every student who comes along” would qualify for the permit
“The average age is 51,” he said. “For the most part, the vast majority of people who have permits are older folks, not typical college students.”
And those residents who have permits, he said, have “gone through vigorous background checks and training.”
“In the 12 years Oklahoma has allowed the concealed carry permit, we haven’t had one problem. And I wouldn’t anticipate that to happen in the future.”
Still, many university officials oppose the measure.
Last week, University of Oklahoma president David Boren — a former Oklahoma governor — issued a statement scolding lawmakers who supported the bill.
Legislators, Boren said, should “stick to the laws that have worked well in the past” and allow colleges to continue to improve campus safety.
“If it would help for me to get down on my knees to plead with the Legislature for the safety of our students, I would do so,” Boren said.
At Oklahoma State University, officials said allowing students to carry guns on campus was a dangerous idea.
“I think it creates a very unsafe environment,” Lee Bird, Oklahoma State University’s vice president of student affairs, told the OSU Daily O’Collegian. “Realistically that (shootings) is not our most major problem and I don’t think weapons are necessarily going to help us; I think it will endanger people.”
Martin said he, too, was concerned about public safety on state campuses.
“We’re not arming an army,” he said. “We’re trying to provide law-abiding citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. It (the bill) is really a sad commentary on today’s life.”
Nations countered, saying whole issue boils down to a single question.
“Ultimately, the question is this: Do you believe that students, faculty and staff are safer with more guns on campus or with fewer guns on campus?. That’s the question. And when you answer it you know how to vote.”
House Bill 2513 is on second reading in the Oklahoma State Senate.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Court's proposed record policy could affect prescreening companies
OKLAHOMA CITY — New public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court would make it more difficult for companies that do prehiring background checks, officials with those companies said this week.
The rules, set to take effect June 10, require removal of personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and other data from court filings. The rules also limit the number of documents available through the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (OSCN) Web site.
Companies that perform background checks said the court’s rules will “severely limit” their ability to serve their clients.
“Although a person’s date of birth may be safe from the public, that same person may very likely be put at risk in the workplace because their employer will no longer be able to obtain adequate background checks on new hires,” said David Blanton, owner of PreHire Screening Service in Oklahoma City.
Blanton, who says his company performs about 10,000 background checks a year, told The Associated Press “the new rules could have an unintended negative effect, because companies may put workers in jeopardy by hiring applicants with violent criminal backgrounds.”
He said his company could face increased liability if it supplied incomplete information as a result of erroneous reports.
Norman private investigator Frank Gaynor agreed.
Gaynor, president of Norman-based Lighthouse Investigators, said the change would affect his business.
“It’s going to affect me because I do a lot of work on the Internet,” he said. “But it won’t affect me in Norman, because I can still go to the courthouse.”
And though Gaynor acknowledged the rule change would “cause a problem” for private investigators, he said he didn’t necessarily disagree with the court’s action.
“I do think that some public access is abused,” he said. “From a stalker standpoint.”
Tracy Seabrook, executive director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, said no other state has in place a records policy as restrictive as the new Oklahoma court rule.
She said others have tried such policies, but later backtracked after many who use court records pointed out problems. Seabrook said that includes North Carolina, where her association has its headquarters.
“We all understand, no one wants their identity stolen,” Seabrook said. “However, if I tell you my birthday right now, you can’t steal my identity with my birthday.”
Gaynor said he was aware of identity theft problems, but said he “hadn’t dealt with it here” in Oklahoma.
“I have dealt with identity issues in other states,” he said. “I’ve heard of it and it is a huge issue. But here, I think the problem is small, less than 5 percent.”
Several open government advocates have criticized the new rules.
Oklahoma Press Association executive director Mark Thomas said some disclosure is necessary when public institutions are used.
“If people want privacy they should settle their affairs in private,” Thomas said. “If they must use the public courts, paid for by taxpayers, they should expect much of their information to be public.”
There are a few sensitive issues such as Social Security numbers, he said, “but the list of items this new rule requires to be redacted, both in paper copies and any online documents is much too broad. Marking out all of that information will, in effect, give us secret courts.”
Oklahoma State University professor Joey Senat said the court should have listened to other parties interested in open government.
“I think there needs to be a more public process than letters sent to an administrator,” Senat, a former president of FOI Oklahoma Inc., said. “I’d like to see hearings, at the very least.”
Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice James Winchester said the new rules may be revisited before they take effect in June.
Winchester and Justices Tom Colbert, Rudolph Hargrave, Joseph Watt, John Reif voted for the rules. Justice Steven Taylor opposed the rules. Vice Chief Justice James Edmondson and Justice Yvonne Kauger agreed with some of the rules and disagreed with others. Justice Marian Opala did not vote.
The rules, set to take effect June 10, require removal of personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and other data from court filings. The rules also limit the number of documents available through the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (OSCN) Web site.
Companies that perform background checks said the court’s rules will “severely limit” their ability to serve their clients.
“Although a person’s date of birth may be safe from the public, that same person may very likely be put at risk in the workplace because their employer will no longer be able to obtain adequate background checks on new hires,” said David Blanton, owner of PreHire Screening Service in Oklahoma City.
Blanton, who says his company performs about 10,000 background checks a year, told The Associated Press “the new rules could have an unintended negative effect, because companies may put workers in jeopardy by hiring applicants with violent criminal backgrounds.”
He said his company could face increased liability if it supplied incomplete information as a result of erroneous reports.
Norman private investigator Frank Gaynor agreed.
Gaynor, president of Norman-based Lighthouse Investigators, said the change would affect his business.
“It’s going to affect me because I do a lot of work on the Internet,” he said. “But it won’t affect me in Norman, because I can still go to the courthouse.”
And though Gaynor acknowledged the rule change would “cause a problem” for private investigators, he said he didn’t necessarily disagree with the court’s action.
“I do think that some public access is abused,” he said. “From a stalker standpoint.”
Tracy Seabrook, executive director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, said no other state has in place a records policy as restrictive as the new Oklahoma court rule.
She said others have tried such policies, but later backtracked after many who use court records pointed out problems. Seabrook said that includes North Carolina, where her association has its headquarters.
“We all understand, no one wants their identity stolen,” Seabrook said. “However, if I tell you my birthday right now, you can’t steal my identity with my birthday.”
Gaynor said he was aware of identity theft problems, but said he “hadn’t dealt with it here” in Oklahoma.
“I have dealt with identity issues in other states,” he said. “I’ve heard of it and it is a huge issue. But here, I think the problem is small, less than 5 percent.”
Several open government advocates have criticized the new rules.
Oklahoma Press Association executive director Mark Thomas said some disclosure is necessary when public institutions are used.
“If people want privacy they should settle their affairs in private,” Thomas said. “If they must use the public courts, paid for by taxpayers, they should expect much of their information to be public.”
There are a few sensitive issues such as Social Security numbers, he said, “but the list of items this new rule requires to be redacted, both in paper copies and any online documents is much too broad. Marking out all of that information will, in effect, give us secret courts.”
Oklahoma State University professor Joey Senat said the court should have listened to other parties interested in open government.
“I think there needs to be a more public process than letters sent to an administrator,” Senat, a former president of FOI Oklahoma Inc., said. “I’d like to see hearings, at the very least.”
Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice James Winchester said the new rules may be revisited before they take effect in June.
Winchester and Justices Tom Colbert, Rudolph Hargrave, Joseph Watt, John Reif voted for the rules. Justice Steven Taylor opposed the rules. Vice Chief Justice James Edmondson and Justice Yvonne Kauger agreed with some of the rules and disagreed with others. Justice Marian Opala did not vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
