Board Logo
« Jeffrey Alan Lash »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 29th, 2017, 08:22am



« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Jeffrey Alan Lash  (Read 5462 times)
cpeacock
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 38
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #30 on: Feb 26th, 2016, 4:32pm »

I am pretty sure the wait will be worthwhile. grin
User IP Logged

jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #31 on: Feb 27th, 2016, 09:58am »

on Feb 26th, 2016, 2:01pm, SysConfig wrote:
on the FOIA phony proxy names....I will wager the darkest secrets in ufologyy were hidden in just that way..


I wouldn't bet against you. Even if the researcher knew the aliases used on cables or in emails, and even if the FOIA officer knew and/or was willing to conduct an applicable search, there would still be many problematic aspects to a message in which "Clark Gable" tells "Jane Fonda" the pearl's in the river. No doubt.
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #32 on: Mar 7th, 2016, 8:23pm »

LAPD denied my request for Lash files available for release - all of 'em. They didn't so much as give me an initial report.

The response, received today, stated, "Your request seeks records that are either investigatory records or properly part of an investigative file. In accordance with Section 62540, records of investigations conducted by, or investigatory files compiled by, any local police agency for law enforcement purposes, are exempt from disclosure. Therefore, I am denying your request."

Read my related blog post at:

http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2016/03/lapd-denies-request-for-lash-files.html
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
cpeacock
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 38
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #33 on: Mar 7th, 2016, 8:25pm »

This so-called investigation could be never ending.

Thanks for your efforts JJ.
User IP Logged

Sys_Config
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Amigos


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4975
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #34 on: Mar 7th, 2016, 8:46pm »

on Mar 7th, 2016, 8:23pm, jjflash wrote:
LAPD denied my request for Lash files available for release - all of 'em. They didn't so much as give me an initial report.

The response, received today, stated, "Your request seeks records that are either investigatory records or properly part of an investigative file. In accordance with Section 62540, records of investigations conducted by, or investigatory files compiled by, any local police agency for law enforcement purposes, are exempt from disclosure. Therefore, I am denying your request."

Read my related blog post at:

http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2016/03/lapd-denies-request-for-lash-files.html


bastards angry
It was a hoax...perpetrated to draw attention to the problem of guns and the mentally ill
and they don't want to manup..
But whelma was never a part of the investigation..she lived there.try finding a ppic of her anywhere..they buried her...and no way that smart lady, and she is smart..would not notice anything and conveniently allow the guns and money to be counted there...probably all LA property of previously confiscated guns. Palisades is a hotbed of democrat fanatics and political donors..

Definitely not a sting..but perception control to whip up public support for what seems a never ending campaign that is failing.

@cp...this is not going away..what happened there is the same crap they do in ufology..
« Last Edit: Mar 7th, 2016, 9:24pm by Sys_Config » User IP Logged

Breaking the Matrix ..More than UFO related..Its Life Related
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/
Reasoner
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 998
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #35 on: Mar 7th, 2016, 10:31pm »

I went to your link, Senor Flash, and read up on the denial. I think you have a reasonable take on it (ongoing investigation and releasing files too early would compromise it), but it's interesting the way they phrased it.

I looked up the exemption noted... on the main FTC section, the exemption is bland and all-encompassing
"Exemptions
All agency records must be made available to the public under the FOIA, except for records that are...
7. Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes (b)(7)."

But the more in-depth explanation provides more clues...
(from https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-exemption-7)
Exemption 7 of the FOIA, as amended, protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

The response from the LAPD specifically notes the right to privacy, one of the line items that would limit a FOIA request. However, they categorically refused all records. I highly doubt that the results of their entire investigation involved some sensitive personal information. And does the right to privacy extend into death? How much? We're talking about a case where someone died, and no details if the death was natural, suicide, or homocide? That's a lot of privacy right there.

I can only assume that either there is an ongoing investigation, or this was an improper refusal of records.
« Last Edit: Mar 7th, 2016, 10:33pm by Reasoner » User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Sys_Config
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Amigos


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4975
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #36 on: Mar 7th, 2016, 11:18pm »

...I don't believe the characters as given even exist..a real estate agent with no advertising references on the net..Catherine..evrything was limited and scrubbed..except harlan brauns..just enough to find the names..brief bland conversations..they said themselves..no crime or foul play..what is the basis of investigation when they cleared from jump street? everything read contrived.. And the guns/ Poof..gone..
Seems to me..the best way to reduce gun sales is not laws but remove whatever is causing the fear factor..Democrats

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/atf-gun-production-surging-during/
« Last Edit: Mar 7th, 2016, 11:26pm by Sys_Config » User IP Logged

Breaking the Matrix ..More than UFO related..Its Life Related
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/
INT21
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 2939
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #37 on: Mar 8th, 2016, 11:17am »

Sys,

Only loosely related to the thread; but..

No doubt you are aware of the new 'no permit required' gun rule due to start in West Virginia soon.

Here is a chance to carry out a unique experiment.

First, your predictions.

Will gun related homicides and robbery increase or decrease over the next 12 months ?

As the figures for West Virginia covering the last six years are readily available it will be easy to look back in a years time and see once and for all.

HAL
INT21
User IP Logged

Isn't it midnight, on the other side of the world.
Do you remember
the face of a pretty girl ?
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #38 on: Mar 8th, 2016, 1:29pm »

Thanks, all, and thanks to Reasoner for finding and posting the exemption. I'd agree with Reasoner that LAPD is suggesting they're still involved with the case, and therefore opting to withhold records at this time. Maybe I'll try again at some point.

When I first requested files from Loveland (Colorado) Police Department on Stan Romanek's claims he was assaulted, I was initially informed the files were not yet available. However, in just a couple of days I was contacted and alerted that the lead detective chose to suspend the case, and the reports were provided to me (due to my request, I'd suspect). I wrote about it at 'Police detective: Evidence not consistent of a fight in Romanek assault case'. So I think sometimes it's also a matter of whether the personnel involved feel like completing their reports, whether or not they view it as advantageous to publish the data and so on. Lots of possible factors, I think.

I'd agree with Sys that there are some smart people in this saga. I think some of them may be employed on police forces and at intel agencies, and I think some of them may be dead, too.

INT21, I'm not sure how much difference can conclusively be assigned to permit-laws. I'd agree with your general point, though, that the debate is rarely about factual data as compared to profits.
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #39 on: Mar 15th, 2016, 12:57pm »

LAPD: Lash Files Will Not Be Releasable

The UFO Trail

March 15, 2016

I spoke by phone today with Jennifer Trinidad of the Los Angeles Police Department Discovery Section. She was identified as a point of contact in my recently received letter denying my request for the files on Jeffrey Alan Lash.

I called to inquire if there was some type of process, such as a waiting list of sorts, whereby I could be informed when the files, currently not releasable, might become available for release. I was hopeful that might help both LAPD and me save time and effort from dealing with my possible future requests for the files.

Trinidad informed me that the classification of the Lash files, "investigatory," means they will not be made releasable in the future. I clarified that covered all files and reports, including even initial documentation of the circumstances, which she confirmed was indeed the case. I was free to make future requests if I so chose, Trinidad explained, but the files would not be releasable. An option would be to attempt to subpoena the files, but it was clear we should not anticipate the information becoming releasable by the LAPD.
« Last Edit: Mar 15th, 2016, 1:23pm by jjflash » User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
Reasoner
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 998
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #40 on: Mar 15th, 2016, 3:14pm »

Well there's definitely something stinky-ish going on here.

From what I listed above, there are 6 criteria for that exemption, one or more of which the LAPD feels is viable.

But the thing is... the exemption doesn't preclude all records, only those where the exemption could be triggered. Somehow ALL the investigatory records are exemption based? Is it that they can't be troubled to redact the troubling information? Or is it more that they refuse these requests as a matter of course?

I believe you mentioned something about the privacy part. What part of this investigation would be an invasion of privacy? All the records would be an invasion of privacy? What are the privacy rights of deceased people? I wonder if there's a way to go up the food chain to make something happen.
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #41 on: Mar 15th, 2016, 4:39pm »

on Mar 15th, 2016, 3:14pm, Reasoner wrote:
Somehow ALL the investigatory records are exemption based?


Yes. Trinidad was extremely clear on that and helpfully emphasized it to be the case, that I was free to continue to submit requests, but files designated "investigatory" or "investigative," which includes all of the Lash records, will not be made releasable. She was very clear on that. She added that options would include pursuing a subpoena.
User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
Reasoner
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 998
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #42 on: Mar 15th, 2016, 5:45pm »

What's your take? I would have to dig where I found it, but I saw one legal discussion about how the courts deemed that "investigatory" is not a blanket catch-all. But I also saw how over time, the courts have bolstered the exemption protection for police.

I just find it to be daunting when the police say, "our files are secret because the content is protected by the exemption, but we can't show you how that is because it's a secret".

There's no one above to review that it does indeed fit within the parameters without suing I guess. But what can you even sue for? This is carte blanche.
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 998
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #43 on: Mar 15th, 2016, 6:14pm »

http://www.lapdonline.org/i_want_to_know/content_basic_view/36329

http://brechner.org/sunshine/openrecords.htm

Both of these are more nuts and bolts explanations of open records laws. One is Florida, which I'm sure jjflash is aware of, and the other is SPECIFICALLY from the LAPD website.

In both, the mention that records of CURRENT investigations is off-limits. In particular, the LAPD page also discloses (which is true) that records that illustrate investigative techniques and personnel analysis of a case are off limits.

The problem is, she says they wouldn't be releasable in the future because they are "investigatory". This is a quibbling word. The police are using a blanket word that shows general protection without defining what's its parameters are. It encapsulates both current investigations, but it also covers analysis and investigative techniques. Some of those would be viable for future availability and others wouldn't.

Throwing them all under the same umbrella means that they are broadening protections of information from review that ought not be afforded that protection.

Long and short: they are saying the information is off limits both now and in the future. You wouldn't be able to challenge that if the investigation is still active, and could possibly challenge it when it's not active, but that would require probably a legal team. Or at the least, get a court order somehow to review the application of the exemption:

To facilitate prompt public access to public records, court orders either directing disclosure of public records or supporting an agency's decision of nondisclosure are immediately reviewable by an appellate court by way of an emergency petition seeking issuance of an extraordinary writ. In 1991, the California Supreme Court made clear that under this writ procedure, trial court orders are reviewable on their merits. Thus, when a trial court order under the CPRA is reviewed by an appellate court, the independent review standard is employed for legal issues and factual findings made by the trial court will be upheld if they are based on substantial evidence.

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Public_Records_Act)
« Last Edit: Mar 15th, 2016, 6:14pm by Reasoner » User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
cpeacock
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 38
xx Re: Jeffrey Alan Lash
« Reply #44 on: Mar 15th, 2016, 9:22pm »

Thanks to the folks who continue to try to get answers. Looks like we are up against a brick wall. And I am gonna be peddling daisies before the JAL "investigation" is over. Sigh...
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls