Rebane's Ruminations
April 2011
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my KVMR-FM bi-weekly commentary recorded on 21 April 2011.  I have added a relevant addendum about information from a subsequent conversation I had with a Nevada County staffer.]

Not many people have been paying attention to a complicated lawsuit whose defendants include Nevada County, Mr Greg Diaz, its initially appointed then elected Clerk-Recorder, and Aptitude, a Florida software company.  The whole thing would be forgettable, except for two things – the legal bills the county is running up, and the pile of unanswered questions that just seem to be getting more curioser by the week.

Let’s back up.  ATPac, a software company located in Auburn, provided software and services to our county’s Clerk-Recorder office for about ten years before Mr Diaz arrived.  The software was used to handle, store, and retrieve county records.  In 2008 Mr Diaz decided that it was time to re-select the county’s record-keeping software vendor, and the county issued an RFP, request for proposal, and thereby opened up a bidding process which culminated with Aptitude replacing ATPac.  During the migration from ATPac’s software to Aptitude’s software, some irregularities occurred.  As a result ATPac sued, alleging that its intellectual property had been compromised by the county and Mr Diaz by allowing Aptitude to have access to its proprietary computer programs.

The county and Mr Diaz denied doing anything improper, and under advice from county counsel, the Board of Supervisors authorized legal fees for a strong defense as both sides began pre-trial preparations to gather evidence and take depositions from involved parties.  A complication surfaced almost immediately when attorney Barry Pruett decided to oppose the incumbent Mr Diaz in the November 2008 election.  While not involved in the lawsuit, Mr Pruett had worked for the law firm representing ATPac in the lawsuit, he was familiar with the case, and made its already apparent irregularities an issue in the campaign.  Conservative bloggers Russ Steele of NC Media Watch and my Rebane’s Ruminations supported Mr Pruett, and liberal bloggers along with the county establishment supported Mr Diaz.


Mr Diaz handily defeated Mr Pruett, and became the elected Clerk-Recorder.  Meanwhile, the pre-trial activities kept turning up more and more questionable aspects about the conduct of the county’s IT staff and Mr Diaz during the transfer of county data and installation of Aptitude’s software system.  Finally, on 26 February 2010 The Union published a comprehensive look at the lawsuit, and then promptly went silent again.  Meanwhile local bloggers kept up coverage of the case as more and more material was made public.

The main issues alleged in the suit include the county and Mr Diaz giving Aptitude unfettered access to ATPac’s software, the county’s destruction of evidence in the ‘scrubbing’ of its records server, and the mysterious loss of the archive of emails that covered the communications between the county and Aptitude during the critical interval of system conversion.

As a computer professional, it is hard for me to understand how a government server containing evidentiary material to an ongoing lawsuit came to be completely erased, without so much as an archival copy of its contents being made.  And it all happened under an accountability chain that is still shrouded in mystery.  The bottom line here is that the county failed to provide federal court ordered evidence needed by ATPac.  After months of county stonewalling, the court sanctioned the county to the tune of $20,000, and will now instruct the jury that the county has destroyed evidence relevant to the case.  In spite of the internally ordered scrubbing of the server, the county continues to deny any and all culpability.

The assessed $20K fine is chump change compared to the legal bills the county has coughed up and continues to authorize as this tale unwinds.  To date the county has paid over $350,000, and estimates put the total legal costs well north of half a million that could even approach a million dollars.  And the big question that goes begging here is – for what?  Why does the county not settle with the plaintiff ATPac and be done with it?  There is even a rumor that Aptitude is quietly seeking such an out of court settlement.  For timely coverage of these developments, please visit NC Media Watch.

So now the county is telling the court that it withheld no evidence.  But after months of stonewalling and with a ‘scrubbed’ server on their hands that was not backed up, it strains credulity to accept the county’s denial.  Moreover, throughout the time in question the county has employed very astute and capable IT management and staff; therefore it is hard to lay these mysterious mistakes and omissions on their doorstep. 

To many of us it is clear that the longer this case festers and racks up lawyer bills during a cash strapped recession, the more it begins to smell that somewhere here there is a political connection that must not see the light of day.

Maybe some answers will be forthcoming when the Supervisors again meet next Tuesday at the Rood Center.  Somebody might even go there and ask them why we continue to spend all this money.

My name is Rebane and I also expand on these and other themes in my Union columns, on NCTV, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

[Addendum]  Since recording this commentary on 21 April, I had a conversation with a very professional and competent sounding county staffer involved with the case who was referred to me by CEO Rick Haffey.   I asked a number of questions about the county’s risk management policy and resources in cases like this, especially as they involved errors and omissions insurance.

It turns out that the county does have an E&O policy that covers such lawsuits, and the county has begun the process to tender a claim.  However, the overall procedure to recover any costs is a complex one, and its details are privileged information at this point.  My interest in the aspect of E&O insurance arose from a separate discussion in which I asked ‘Under what conditions, if any, would the insurance company refuse to honor claims that the county would file pursuant to this lawsuit?’

Posted in , ,

113 responses to “The Diaz Case Continues”

  1. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    Paul, I’m also a bit confused about your accusation of “a new low” and “background checks”.
    If I follw this discussion correctly, Mr Keachie has been very dismissive of the alleged intellectual property violations in this case, as if they mattered not a whit regardless of how the court winds up ruling.
    He has successfully resisted what to me appear as very reasoned and valid arguments pointing out to him how IP does matter, how IP theft can be damaging, and, if the Aptitude contract award was above board, then how the county could have satisfied all of its concerns without the alleged violations of the law.
    Mr Reardon’s citing of the public record (he did not have to do any midnight gum shoeing for this information) re Mr Keachie reveals a factor that may explain away his resistance to viewing the ownership of IP as sacrosanct in our country. (Empires have been built on such legal holy of holies, Microsoft comes to mind.)
    So I am puzzled as to how this relevant revelation of an apparent long-held value of Mr Keachie’s is in any sense a “low”, new or old. Indeed it may have resolved a conundrum and successfully terminated a fruitless debate with him.

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    So George if I read you right it’s ok to do background checks of contributors to your blog and reveal informations that discredits an individuals character therefore his opinion on the subject if it’s one that you disagree with. Mr. Keachie’s alleged history has nothing top do with the subject at hand or the merits of his arguments. Why don’t you not consider that going after the messenger?

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    Had Mr Reardon brought up that some commenter in this thread was once arrested for public drunkedness or marital cruelty, then yes, that would be a gratuitous attempt to discredit the commenter on the basis that has nothing to do with the Diaz case.
    However, since the case directly revolves around the disposition of intellectual property, then anything in a commenter’s past – especially in the public record – that would shed light on how that commenter is disposed toward the notion of intellectual property, then according to my lights introducing that matter of unembellished fact into this forum is NOT “going after the messenger”. It informs and illuminates the debate.

    Like

  4. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    But George it did involve somebody taking the time to search into his background to find this. Does that mean then it’s fair game to research into the background of anyone who writes in this blog to search for information that may discredit an individual therefore his opinion. I recall a recent thread where the credibility of one of your regulars was questioned when it came to taking advantage of government bailouts of failed real estate ventures. These are your very words.
    “SteveE – I believe it is possible to critically discuss the ideas and proposals of an alleged hypocrite without being diverted to continually indicting and prosecuting the so accused. Todd’s views of government involvement in our lives stand on their own, and their merit can be debated without bringing in any iniquities with which you judge him to be still burdened. This would push the peanut along a bit more than the constant recounting of your past charges – unless, of course, you have nothing to contribute to the idea itself…………”
    I don’t get your differentiation.

    Like

  5. George Rebane Avatar
    George Rebane

    OK, try this. SteveE did relate an aspect of Todd’s past that he considered was relevant to Todd’s arguments. Nobody took SteveE to task on that allegation. But then SteveE, as he has done on numerous other occasions, repeated the same retort again, and again, and again, and again, … . This gave rise to my response to him. And if Mr Reardon were to now fasten on interminably recalling Mr Keachies brush with the law on intellectual property theft without building on any argument in the debate, then I would have the same reservation about such tactic as I did with SteveE.
    BTW, the two cases are also materially different since Todd Juvenall did nothing illegal, nor did SteveE accuse him of that. It was SteveE’s continuing imposition of his own interpretation of the ethics involved in his allegations of Mr Jubenall’s actions. In the case of Mr Keachie, his transgression was a matter violating a law that was witnessed and for which he was sanctioned by local authorities.
    If you still don’t get the differentiation, then it may be a matter of the way our two brains are hardwired as I discussed in a recent post.

    Like

  6. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I find it interesting but not unusual for Paul, a liberal, to use a totally unrelated example as a defense of Keachie. There is no record of me breaking the law or being arrested yet he uses keachies arrest as an equal treatment. Amazing!

    Like

  7. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    As a teacher I was under the impression that Fair Usage (a section of the Copyright Code), of materials that are copyrighted for classroom use only, was an acceptable practice. Turns out the MPAA got a law passed that says the theater owner himself can object to the use of cameras in the theater. That’s what I was arrested for, NOT a copyright violation. I did not know this aspect of the law was in existence at that time. Neither did the Grass Valley police. I believe that it has since been resinded. I was never tried, never convicted, and most importantly, my camera was returned to me with the images intact.
    The intention of the MPAA was to catch someone trying to make a video copy of of the film for resale. The Sony 717 STILL camera had limited video capabilities, and I had neither batteries sufficient nor chip storage sufficient, on me, to do the job. In fact I have never owned enough chips and batteries to do the job.* I was taking stills, experimentally, and most did not come out very well. I have never shot video or stills in a motion picture theater before, and was curious to see what I could get.
    The MPAA had offered bounties to the theater owners and their employees to catch folks making professional illegal copies. The were also very anxious to get it out on the wires, ASAP. A reporter was sent up from the Bay Area immediately, and scooped The Union. So instead of genuine video pirates, they wound up with me, an old semi retired computer and photography teacher, but it did give me my 15 seconds of fame, and that’s kinda nice. As for disrepecting copyrights for commercial purposes, not so. I’ve figured that the reward that went to the ushers involved may have helped pay for college books, and that Getz, th theater owner, used his share to paint the mural.
    Please check out http://www.flickr.com/photos/keachie to get some idea of the range of imaging that I do, and note, that I do mark my own stuff copyrighted, for commercial uses. For private Tuse I pretty much give it away. I shot twelve hundred motorcyclists at the Christmas Toy Run, and only three people were interested enough to contact me for original files, yet many, many of those images are in circulation on Facebook and elsewhere, making people smile.
    In this situation, AtPAC is not smiling. They’ll get over it, and rethink their pricing structures, and software improvments, and maybe they won’t be losing customers, including Placer County, who apparently bailed ahead of Nevada County.

    And if I were to plan to pirate such a video, I would have had a team, including a midget with a Darth Vader helmet on his head, and twin video cameras for eyes, and at least 5 people, surrounding the midget, each with a mic, picking up sound, to get it right. With everyone in costume, nobody would have been the wiser, but I disgress, and only dreamed this scheme up after the most bizaar afternoon of my life. BTW, within 3 weeks, Flickr was listing over 70,000 StarWars stills, none of them got busted, AFAIK.

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    The conversation is about the standards that George allows for participants in his blog and has nothing to do with either argument in the subject of this thread which I have no opinion on. It seems that George condones and rewards background checks into the personal histories of those who participate if they come up with favorable information to discredit someone who has a contrary opinion to his. Did anyone check to see if Mr Keachie was ever convicted? Gee, I thought you’re innocent until proven guilty. That should have at least been checked out by the inquisitor before being used. Todd, ypu might recall I was opposed to the Enos diggs into your past which I thought were inappropriate.
    So I must say to those who offer contrary opinions in this place beware, you’re being checked out and it’s not big brother.

    Like

  9. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Oh, and I’ve never lost money in Real Estate, and especially not someone else’s money, and especially not money up the Wazuli.

    Like

  10. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Me either, you have a wazuli? I say I have never been arrested for stealing a movie (or anything) from our local theater so you have now been exposed for a crook apparently. You should shut up while you are behind.

    Like

  11. John Galt Avatar

    A long time ago there was a saying…If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
    I must say that in reading Kreachie’s comments above, he’s certainly been dishing the rhetoric about.
    e.g. “Well George…. how’s payback feel?” at 10:30am last Monday
    e.g. “…you are an unelectable person. Try moving down to Placer County” at 10:13 am Easter Sunday.
    IMHO for someone to post remarks like these and then cry foul over a factual and relevant news report seems ridiculous.
    Furthermore, it’s hardly a “background check” to refer to news item that’s only 6 years old and and widely read at the time.

    Like

  12. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    If that is a background check according to Paul, then I suppose any reference to anything posted in a newspaper about anyone would be considered a background check. I would suggest Paul’s radio program would become irrelevant to the listeners if he only allowed tales of the future.

    Like

  13. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    John Galt, you will notice that Pruett called me a fool, which is false, and I merely called him an unelectable person, which is true, so far. Likewise with George, my responses are mild in comparison to the attacks that provoked them. And no, Todd, I have no Wazuli, and you have no Lazuli Lane, and the bank has no money. You want to go out on that?
    Also Johnny, do you have a real name of John Galt, or are you just too wrapped up in Ayn Rand to come out from under her skirts?
    I did not cry foul over the news reports. In fact I expanded on what little the paper printed, quite significantly IMHO. I see you failed to find evidence that I was tried and convicted of anything. Do you need more time? I am a very patient person.
    Back to business. So far the encouragement of the suit against the County by the Tea Party members here has cost this County how much money? Are Tea Party members exempt from paying taxes on issues stemming from suits against the government? Don’t the rest of us wind up paying for it anyway?

    Like

  14. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “Furthermore, it’s hardly a “background check” to refer to news item that’s only 6 years old and and widely read at the time.”
    Which means of course the money Bush spent and deferred paying for until Obama was elected is still a hot ticket item and worthy of public discussion, as are the actions of bankers and brokers of the time, who fueled that housing bubble, and led perfectly honest men like Juvinall to the slaughter. That is all very current and timely, no?

    Like

  15. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    At the time, Lucas had mentioned that a Creative Commons license should exist for the material, which would have left only Getz as the bad guy, preventing fans from going ahead with the capture process, and he has since expanded on that concept as follows, which has resulted in some amazing parodies:
    George Lucas Lets Fans Edit Star Wars… Sorta
    In honor of the 30th anniversary of the first Star Wars film, Lucasfilm has launched a mash-up service allowing fans to take images and clips from all six Star Wars movies and combine them with their own content. Hosted by StarWars.com, the service also lets you post your mash-ups to the site YouTube-style and comment on other people’s mash-ups. All very Web 2.0, George Lucas, and we are almost impressed with your willingness to allow the masses to express their creativity through parody.
    However, before you go out and start ripping your copy of Return of the Jedi to do some “creative” editing with Princess Leia in that slave girl outfit (you naughty reader, you), there are some rather severe caveats. Lucasfilm isn’t really actually licensing its content. Instead, they are allowing you to license your content to them, and then letting you use its content on its site. According to the Star Wars MashUps terms of service, users must give Lucas “perpetual and irrevocable, exclusive, royalty free, worldwide license in all rights, titles and interests of every kind and nature now or hereafter known in the Star Wars Mashup Film”. In return, subscribers get “a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable, limited right and license to access and use the Star Wars Supplied Materials solely for the purpose of mixing the Star Wars Supplied Materials with Your Posted Material (as such term is defined below) in order to create a Star Wars Mashup Film solely for the purpose of posting your submitted Star Wars Mashup Film on the Site.” Not a very equitable deal, but far more than many other film companies are willing to offer.
    This kind of thing has been going on informally for years, and this merely set up a formal structure and a nice platform to have your work recognized on. Still haven’t found tried and convicted, have you, and Juvinall carefully put in “apparently” when almost calling me Richard Nixon. Obviously Todd does not have the courage of his convictions to go out on a limb and spend yet more time in court.

    Like

  16. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Keachie the movie taker doth protest too much. Still, neither Galt nor I can compete with your arrest record. LOL.

    Like

  17. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “Me either” If you had meant to say, “me neither,” which would be apparently false AFAIOGK, why didn’t you do so?
    I’m so glad to see that George has a new system that automatically shifts one into preview mode, when one hits “post” without doing a preview. Of course it also deletes an entire post, if one is not careful.
    I’m also glad that what happened six years ago is considered current and relevant, and I’m sure we can extend that all the way back to Gramm shepherding through Congress the bill that set up the mortgage debacle that trapped poor innocent and honest men like Todd Juvinall. It also means that Bush’s delayed funding of his Whack-a-Terrorist activities is also newsworthy today.

    Like

  18. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Gramm has nothing to do with anything you are simply a desperate arrested liberal in denial. George has no mechanism to deny a post, you are simply a leftwingnut whiner caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Accept the fact you were caught doing an illegal act, fess up, man up ans top trying to divert to another. But, I must say, your denials do give us all a good laugh.

    Like

  19. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    This whole thing started when I noted that this was an example of going after the messenger rather than the message, something George said he was opposed to. Now apparently the messengers are the message so have at it guys. It’s ok to look back just don’t stare.

    Like

  20. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Paul, from your posts here it appears to me you are looking for a way to get George off your station. I had hoped you were not going to be intimidated by the leftwingnuts. BTW, when you use a specific person in your example to criticize, what do you think you are doing? You are too smart to think we are that dumb.

    Like

  21. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    I haven’t ever walked away from a property I owned in bankruptcy. Would you like a full photographic spread, aerials and land panoramas, and complete documentation? Keep it up Gramm denier. http://www.wazulilazuli.com is merely $10 away, and you’d better buy up all variations, quick!

    Like

  22. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I have never walked away on a bankruptcy either. You? You need to travel down to the Grass Valley Police Station and check out your old room. Nostalgia.

    Like

  23. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “I have never walked away on a bankruptcy either. You?”
    Nope, never been in one either, and never had any debts cancelled that way. And you?”

    Like

  24. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    No, and have you ever been arrested?

    Like

  25. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Once, and how’s your driving these days?

    Like

  26. John Galt Avatar

    Mr. Kreachie, I read your summary of your star wars episode. I accept your declaration that you were NOT “tried or convicted” for that offense. I don’t really know or care to know whether you plea bargained out of this, or any other details of your arrest.
    And I accept that you were not trying to film the entire movie.
    Still your episode is illustrative of the different mind-sets between the LEFT and the RIGHT. Out of those 70,000 images you reported were on the web, I doubt any were taken by 60 year-old conservatives.
    As far as I’m concerned, your “star wars” experience only matters in the context of this debate on the importance of Intellectual Property rights. Clearly you have strong views on this…which are quite opposite from the conservatives who have commented on this blog thread.
    At any rate, within 7 months we’ll all be able to watch the trial of The Diaz Debacle and see how well the County’s $350,000+ was spent….and marvel at how much Greg Diaz saved the citizens by switching from AtPac to Aptitude.

    Like

  27. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I find this forum occasionally stimulating and was only offering my observation of the rules of behavior that I thought did not include going after the personal history of those providing information or participating . I stood corrected after George corresponded to me when I questioned his using the opinion of Donald Feith as a talking point, Here’s George’s response.
    “The usual tack of going after someone as a persona that bears little on what is now being said is a staid approach which I have addressed just recently in these comment threads.”
    With that clarification stated what difference does does DK’s movie bust make in the argument ?
    I thought I was serving as an alerter in this situation.

    Like

  28. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Juvinall: “I have never walked away on a bankruptcy either. You?”
    Keachie: “Nope, never been in one either, and never had any debts cancelled that way. And you?”
    Juvinall: “No, and have you ever been arrested?”

    Now Keachie’s question is, what is Juvinall saying “no” to here?
    Is he saying he has never been involved in what most people consider bankruptcy?
    Is he saying he had never had any debts cancelled as a result of such a bankruptcy involvement?
    Oh was he answering his dogs request for a walk, and accidentally typed it as well? We’ll never know until he makes a complete statement to the subject at hand, instead of a one word response, now will we?

    Like

  29. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “I doubt any were taken by 60 year-old conservatives. ”
    And I rather doubt there were very many 60 year old conservatives around then who went to the movies, or even knew how to use a digital camera, or who would find such an exercise of Fair Usage rights of any interest. If you wish to keep this up, I will be happy to give a complete lecture on Copyrights and the Fair Usage Clauses, and Creative Commons licensing. How about returning to AtPAC’s wardrobe malfunction?

    Like

  30. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Or someone else researches the question. It has been established that the personal history of anyone that posts on this blog is fair game since the integrity of the writer is integral with the message.

    Like

  31. John Galt Avatar

    Fair enough Doug, I concede that your age is an irrelevant reference of mine.
    Your digital / photography prowess is not disputed.
    I guess the point is that even if there is some loophole that permits/permitted recording a movie in a theatre, you’re the only person that I know (until perhaps now) that “feels” it was okay to do so. I don’t think it’s all that BIG of a deal, but it’s illustrative. I doubt one in thousand conservatives would “perceive” that it was okay to do that.
    It’s okay to disagree on IP rights. Clearly you have a strong and uncommon view about it. (Uncommon on this blog anyway.)

    Like

  32. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I think Keachie has got it finally. I have never had a bankruptcy. Amazing how someone with self importance in the educational field can be so dense. Regarding a comment about driving, perhaps Keachie can tell us all what he thinks he knows? I am all ears. Paul seems to be stuck on an old LP track, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over regarding someones history. George left Steve E’s relentless comments on me on the threads and I never complained. It is quite different now Paul? You are defensing a person arrested for a crime the Movie Industry says is fine-able for $250,000 and arrest by the FBI! So defend the once stated post of a news story and give it equal weight to the many posts by Enos, but remember, it is a foolish position.

    Like

  33. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    You entirely miss the point Todd but whatever. So then for the purposes of this comment thread I suggest that everyone who has ever ripped a CD or DVD or used unauthorized or second hand software recuse themselves from further discussion on this matter. It is only consistent with the rules stated that negate D. Keachie’s opinion.

    Like

  34. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    OK Todd, I’ll just go look that up again in the County Recorder’s Office, and see just exactly it was that I was looking at that had your name, a Lazuli Lane address, and a lot of stuff about a bank. Could it possibly be that not you, but rather a legal entity that you or friends created and controlled, is mentioned in those papers?
    Are you willing to completely deny any connection with any bankruptcy proceedings involving a house on Lazuli Lane? Maybe I have mispelled that (Zazuli Lane)? If so, I do apologize.

    Like

  35. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Oh bother!
    The link doesn’t work, so you’ll just have to do the search in Google manually:
    “Todd Juvinall” “Lazuli Lane”

    Like

  36. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “I guess the point is that even if there is some loophole that permits/permitted recording a movie in a theatre, you’re the only person that I know (until perhaps now) that “feels” it was okay to do so. I don’t think it’s all that BIG of a deal, but it’s illustrative. I doubt one in thousand conservatives would “perceive” that it was okay to do that. ”
    Is that why there are so few rtwing caricatures of Obama using copyrighted news photos?
    The “Fair Usage Doctrine” allows teachers and professors of all stripes across the country to use commercial materials, in limited ways. Look it up sometime, it’s very educational.

    Like

  37. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Don’t forget the little old lady in Orange County and her composite image of the chimps and Obama. Do you think she really took either picture?

    Like

  38. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Just admit you were arrested for doing a crime and stop trying to justify. There is a MPAA task force as we speak in China rooting out scofflaws like you filming Hollywood movies in theaters and then trying to make money. What is so hard about admitting your crime? The ATPAC suit stuff is something I am not really following. If you, a person arrested for the same kind of crime, tries to defend the County position,you have to expect what you get just as you have. You have insulted Barry Pruett for doing due diligence in trying to protect the taxpayer and you insult him on his like minded friends turf. Then you claim I have a bankruptcy and something about a car trying to impugn my integrity. Well, you have failed on every count except for your own arrest. I have lived here all my life and I have friends and foes. You have decided to be my foe. That is your loss.

    Like

  39. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Well Todd, you have failed to educate yourself about legal usage by educators of copyrighted materials, and I doubt you have any interest in doing so, as it would trash the point you are trying so desperately to make…why is that so hard for you to admit?
    I really don’t have to spend any time impugning your integrity. You do that well enough on your own.

    Like

  40. John Galt Avatar

    Mr. Kreachie, you have communicated your point. It’s very evident.
    And it’s quite clear that your perspective (I’ll even call it legal for the sake of argument) holds a much different value for Intellectual Property than most of the other readers here.
    Also if you had hope to persuade these readers that recanting a published news report in our local paper is equivalent to your attempt to reveal some arcane personal information from the county records…you are mistaken.
    Though I refuse to follow your google link, in a way I’m glad you sent it. It’s a monument to a way of thinking that I find contorted, irrational, extremist.
    And any potential reader that had even a hint of sympathy for your perspective, will now arrive at the proper conclusion.

    Like

  41. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    Barry Pruett has done a fine job of aiding and abetting a company that is trying to fleece the County of $350,000 dollars. Now that’s very Tea Party Patriot Special of him, and you for encouraging him.

    Like

  42. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Keachie, go away to your ilk over at the liars blog.

    Like

  43. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Personally I could give a rats ass about somebody takeing pictures in a theater, nor about a foreclosure – so both of you just STFU – its fricken boring.
    Paul – Georges point was well made about the IP stance and it was revelent and on topic but minor at best – you tried and did made it a big deal – as all the FUE and Enos stuff speaks for itself
    Can we get back on topic – I just wasted 10 fricken minutes on this crap and I WANT IT BACK

    Like

  44. John Galt Avatar

    Mr. Kreachie, If you had hired a local attorney to defend you in you in the matter that you were arrested for, I would not consider that attorney to necessarily share your love of illegally recording movies in Theatres.
    You see, attorneys are professionals who are hired for legal matters. Mr. Pruett was engaged by a local business (AtPac) to prevent Aptitude from destroying AtPac’s business (and the jobs of their employees) by illegally utilizing AtPac intellectual assets. Mr. Pruett was defending a local tax paying business and their tax paying employees.
    New readers should know that Mr. Pruett left AtPac’s engagement in early 2010 (I did a “backgound check” on this using The Union online–hope that’s okay with you.) Long before the County incurred even the first $100,000 in legal fees.
    Having now been fully educated on your tortured views on intellectual property rights, I can well imagine your views on a citizen’s right to seek redress of grievances upon our esteemed government (i.e. Greg Diaz).
    For new readers, let me explain that the principal defendant in this case would have been Aptitude — NOT US (the citizens of nevada county) had Greg Diaz not conspired with Aptitude to deceive the Stupifiers into granting IMMUNITY (via indemnification) to the vendor FROM FLORIDA (Aptitude).
    This legal cost falls principally on Greg Diaz, and secondarily on the county staff and the county Stupifiers that ratified Diaz’s proposal.

    Like

  45. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    I see, Hiding Behind the Behind of Ayn Rand, the newspaper’s casual article is more to believed than data stored at the County Recorder’s Office. How much of the National Enquirer do rate as highly? Is that a Monument to Your Highly Sought After Way of Thinking? Good Luck, Rosebud! Happy slip-sliding away in 2012!

    Like

  46. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Galt, excellent synopsis! I would say that Keachie will never get it though. He has an ax to grind.
    Paul, you are a smart guy, what do you think of Galt’s analysis?

    Like

  47. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    There are several things in John Gaults discourse I have questions about
    1, “Mr. Pruett was engaged by a local business (AtPac) to prevent Aptitude from destroying AtPac’s business (and the jobs of their employees) by illegally utilizing AtPac intellectual assets. Mr. Pruett was defending a local tax paying business and their tax paying employees.
    I don’t know this to be specifically true that Mr Pruett was employed specifically for that purpose or whether he was hired as general council. Perhaps he can verify that himself.
    2. “For new readers, let me explain that the principal defendant in this case would have been Aptitude — NOT US (the citizens of nevada county) had Greg Diaz not conspired with Aptitude to deceive the Stupifiers into granting IMMUNITY (via indemnification) to the vendor FROM FLORIDA (Aptitude).”
    This implies a conclusion that is speculative at least and possibly libelous. This concludes that an illegal act was done. As of today Mr Diaz has not been charged or accused by any legal authority of committing an illegal act (deceiving implies lying for a purpose which is illegal when it affects public policy). This lawsuit is a civil action and does not make criminal accusations. There may be determinations however that neglect or incompetence led to damages. Remember, OJ was found guilty in a civil suit of wrongful death but was innocent of criminal accusations. That’s just the way it is.
    3. Assigning legal costs is useless because they are paid by the general fund and not an individual office.
    You need to be careful when you make accusations of an illegal conspiracy by a public official without there being criminal charges or an investigation.
    I have no opinion personally about this case. This is why we have a legal system

    Like

  48. John Galt Avatar

    Paul, your points are good and fair.
    I used “illegal” because the complaint, alleges a violation of the law. I don’t mean to imply that it’s a criminal…only that it’s an illegal act.
    You’re corrected, that the these are alleged acts…to be proven in court (or mediated in advance.)
    I agree that “Conspired” is probably too strong a word. But the depositions do indicate a coordination. In addition, since it was Aptitude’s proposal (to extract the AtPac data in exchange for immunity) was carried by Diaz to the BOS with his (Diaz’s) recommendation for approval…that is defacto coordination. It is possible that Diaz felt some misplaced “sense of duty” to this Florida based vendor to stick his neck out (and collectively ours) to carry this proposal with his endorsement to the Stupifiers. (If that’s the case Diaz could only be guilty of having EXTREMELY POOR JUDGEMENT and nothing more.) Since that’s a possibility, I’ll replace “conspired” with “coordinated” for the time being.
    The depositions allege (under penalty of perjury) that Aptitude accessed the AtPac data (with the help of Diaz) BEFORE DIAZ obtained the immunity from the BOS. If that “alleged” act is true, then the proposal that Diaz presented to the BOS would have been “deceiptful” and both Diaz and Aptitude would have known that to be the case by the respective date of event.
    To be sure, Diaz and Aptitude must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise….always a good policy. I’ll be a bit more careful and precise in the future.

    Like

Leave a comment