As soon as I hit send on an email earlier this morning, I realized that I miscounted by a month in portraying a time frame to public servants in the closing paragraph. As a six months wait for simple answers is just as ridiculous as a seven months wait, I’m hoping that my error will be ignored and the awaited answers provided, but I suspect the opposite will happen … that my mistake will be pounced on, and the stonewalling continued.
I’ll spare readers the paper trail … it’s almost six (not seven) months long, and I’ll spare myself the time-consuming hassle of furnishing documents and the audio file (if you’d like them, please request them via comment). I prefer to spend my time on the legal matters of the incarcerated, not my own, as the too-frequent impossibility of surviving even a short sentence in a Florida prison isn’t anything that legislators in Florida’s house care to concern themselves with in a bill they’re holding a hearing on tomorrow.
From: Susan Chandler
Date: April 6, 2015 7:02:40 AM EDT
To: Scott Ellis <email@example.com>, Ed Schneider <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Conflicted records, 05-2004-DR-006668 – request for partial relief and redress
Dear Mr. Schneider and Mr. Ellis,
I am writing to acknowledge your response to my email (below) on the same date, 3/8/15, Mr. Ellis. Your response stated, “Yes, I saw both the paper and heard the audio, Ms. Chandler. The Civil Clerks can re-review the re-open fees. If the paper you have attached is in the case file, we cannot remove it.” My acknowledgement is made in this manner (yet again) because once again the audio file I’d sent to you had been removed from your response. As that audio file substantiates my request for partial relief and redress, it must remain a part of this paper trail. As there is no logical reason to repeatedly eliminate that audio file other than to bury its existence, I now see a point in my taking the time to address Wayne County courthouse record keeping, and record keeping in general, from the perspective of a former CEO whose [company] sold and serviced industrial equipment, and gave free consultations on streamlining every aspect of materials handling (including storage) that would have driven me out of business if they weren’t spot on.
Mr. Ellis, document storage has not posed a significant space problem for government operations since the invention of the microfiche. I used to borrow my business neighbor’s microfiche when I received request for quotations from the military that were only readable by machine. That neighbor was Bresser’s Cross index Directory, now known as Bresser’s Information Services [www.bressers.com]. They know a thing or two about data storage; so did many of my customers – including GM. Records storage space is now no problem at all: the roomful of file cabinets it took to run my business would be made unnecessary by a laptop, scanner and a compact source for redundant data backup. I could have handled the scanning/storing of those old records while processing my customers’ ongoing purchases – by myself – in the time freed up by automating my accounting. It is therefore my rusty but still firm professional opinion that scanning/storing all Brevard court documents would have used up fewer man hours than notifying parties of Intent to Dispose of Evidence and awaiting their responses, opening up the potential to bury the nefarious trial misconduct that Brevard is undeniably notorious for … misconduct that has resulted in false imprisonment, wrongful execution, and countless millions of misspent taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Schneider, you have always been polite and prompt in corresponding with me. As I deserve an explanation of how it was you got the Notice of Intent to Destroy Evidence so completely wrong, misspelling Terence and misidentifying me not only by surname but by status of counsel (which denied me any notification of Intent), I now ask you directly: why did you do this to me?
Mr. Ellis, I have asked for an explanation of exactly what remains of the case file for 05-2004-DR-006668, and requested reasonable relief and redress in cancellation of fees and destruction of defamatory, phony evidence. Over the course of many months, you have only given me a partial answer: that you will retain the phony, defamatory evidence, despite the audio file I forwarded that contradicted it. I have read the list of your Duties and Responsibilities (link below), and I believe a full answer is consistent with its content. You were personally aware, sir, that I was paying far more attention to intact Brevard frame-ups than I was my own Brevard matter, yet at no time did you offer an apology for your predecessor, through Mr. Schneider, denying me the right to preserve the paper trail of exactly what was done to me in the name of justice in 05-2004-DR-006668.
I’ve gotten no legitimate answers to very simple questions since October 14, 2014 … nearly seven months. Please provide all of them now, gentlemen, including an understandable and accurate description of exactly what remains on file in 05-2004-DR-006668. Thank you.