Wednesday, October 2, 2013


Here is the thing, Allison is only taking orders - orders which tell her to delay and ignore the law.  In the end the accountability is with her, because she is willing to play.

In a request concerning police reports she played the same game, under orders, and the AG ordered the documents released. 

See AG Letter ordering release of documents

This morning I ran to the post office to pick up a certified letter from Allison Bastian.

The cover letter to me is I really need to be honest with my readers.  She claims she did in fact invoke TRE 503.  You note in her letter she actually says Federal Rule of Evidence 503.  The federal rules have no application here.

Nonetheless, I never said she failed to invoke TRE 503.  Here is what I said.

"Further from the AG opinion:

"The attorney-client privilege is properly asserted under section 552.107(1) of the Government Code, which excepts from required public disclosure a client governmental body's privileged communications, as defined in Texas Rule of Evidence 503. The exception will generally apply to an entire communication, except in the case of attorney fee bills."

The COB did not even assert section 552.107(1) of the Government Code.

See Original BV Post

Now look below and read the latest instalment from Allison Bastion - she still does not  even assert section 552.107(1) of the Government Code.

Click to see this morning's letter

She also complains I am not being honest with my readers about the address used in communicating with the AG.  I do not doubt that the clerks in the mail room of the AG's office can read her letters and know where to forward them.  But that was not my point.

Again here is what I said.

From the AG's page:

"Governmental bodies should send their requests for open records letter ruling to the OAG by US Mail to:

Office of the Attorney General
Open Records Division
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711"

Yes the mail clerks will forward her letter to the proper office - but what is the point of intentionally not using the address indicated by the AG?  You will note she insists on continuing to use the wrong address.

I do not doubt the AG will find some things in the billing to be subject to redaction.  The problem is Tony Martinez and Mark Sossi are forcing Allison Bastian to take the fall for redacting everything. 

There is no attorney client privilege to bar disclosure of the projects Diane Dillard was working on.  This has been redacted from the invoices.  The city is only to redact those parts which they in good faith believe are subject to the attorney-client exception, while leaving the rest for disclosure.

The BV has posted filings by Diane Dillard which are now public record.  How is disclosing the part of the invoice which shows she worked for the city in regards to the Surface Transportation Board subject to attorney client privilege?  Click to see document

The AG will rule there is absolutely no basis for this claim and in the process only make Diane Dillard and Judge Andrew Hanen look bad.  But this is Tony Martinez and this is the price Diane Dillard and the honorable Judge Andrew Hanen must pay for doing business with Tony Martinez.

But again, I fully expect there to be notations in the billing which the AG will find to be subject to the attorney client privilege.  The problem is, in violation of the law Allison Bastian claimed everything to be subject to attorney client privilege including the fact Diane Dillard did work for the city regarding the Surface Transportation Board - a document which is readily found on line  for all the world to see.

click here for online copy found through a simple google search


No comments: