309 N. Jefferson, Suite 220

Springfield, Mo.

Thank you for your response dated September 22, 1999. I would like to further note that new information is available and should in the humble opinion of the Plaintiff shed new light on the issues before the court. On the 20^th day of September 1999 Police Chief Lynn Rowe announced at a public hearing before the counsel members of the City of Springfield that within 60 days the Public Governmental Records in question will be made available on the Internet. The American Civil Liberties Chapter for the Ozarks has requested access to the same information, the 9^th day of September 1999. The American Civil Liberties Union Chapter for the Ozarks on the web page, http://www.acluozarks.org/, states:

The continuing revision of cost for these public records from one entity to another begs the question: "Does the City of Springfield by and through its agencies price public documents indiscriminately?" The statutes of the State of Missouri, RSMo 610.023, should set the price for public documents; As the Honorable Judge has already noted his awareness of. The unethical pricing practices of the City of Springfield in the public documents bring to question the value or need for any such redaction. The history of 610.100.3 begins in 1973 as the Missouri Arrest Record law. The rulings of the Missouri Courts in Degraffenried v. Keet, 619 S.W.2d 873, in 1981 explicitly states that 610.100 deals only with Arrest records. The Missouri Court further upheld this opinion in Colombo v Buford 935 S.W.2d 690, 1996. The City would ask the Court to allow that some how the revisions of H.B. 1095, 1998, enlarged the provisions of the Missouri Arrest Record law to include "techniques, procedures or guidelines for law enforcement;" however, the statute actual reads: "disclose techniques, procedures or guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions." The plaintiff would suggest that the wording of 610.100.3 specifically mentions investigations or prosecutions. The specific investigatory procedure or guideline may be held closed, but not the everyday standard operating guidelines for the police department. The Heading of Arrest Record is a truly agreed point by all parties, and the simple unsubstantiated argument that these heading are provided by the reviser of statutes hold no authority on the content of said section in no ways refutes plaintiff. RSMo 610.100.3 is specifically and narrowly interpreted as dealing only with arrest records. As to the honorable courts point that the city must redact has a suspicious meaning in light of this very language being examined in Jennings v. Director of Revenue, case number 55918, 1999 MO 42290, where the Missouri Court ruled that the use of shall in 302.010 was not binding on the state. Shall did not mean must in Jennings and the plaintiff questions whether it means must in the usage in Chapter 610 of the RSMo.

The Court has found that a redaction charge is called for in the amount of $1,127.00 instead the originally requested $2,254.00. The plaintiff would suggest that pursuant to the Sunshine law RSMo 610.023 anyone who is a citizen of the State of Missouri have a right to view public documents. Since there is approximately 3,000,000 citizens of this great state and it would be unfair to make an indigent citizen pay a fellow citizen's bill The court should order that Plaintiff should only pay one 3 millionth of the redaction cost. RSMo 610.024 calls for separation of exempt and nonexempt material and calls for a description of the exempt material. The honorable court has left the plaintiff at the mercy of the wolves.

As to cost the plaintiff asserts that the reason the statute give no direction as to cost of redaction is because none is allowed. To read more into the statutes of the state of Missouri is to abuse the court's discretion. The language of 610.026 is explicit: " Fees for copying public records shall not exceed the actual cost of document search and duplication." Plaintiff would direct the courts attention to the usage of the word shall in the language provided in the 610.026. The wording is unambiguous search and duplication. Redaction is not a synonym of search or duplication in Roget's Thesaurus under search is frisk, inspect, shake down or give the once over, and duplication copies or doubles but no where is redaction. The statutes of the state of Missouri do not authorize a redaction cost, and the legislature has been vehement about this point.

The plaintiff believes he has notified all concerned parties including the honorable court of his intentions. To put the SOG"S on the Internet and did request that the documents be provided for free because of the extraordinary value that this information would have on the public. The honorable court goes to grant 1-hour free redaction time for an undisclosed individual to redact pertinent records. Plaintiff submits that it does not take an hour to black out all material and relevant information. Further, Plaintiff sees a quagmire coming in that if the city employee redacts something that some court would later find open would the public employee be guilty of violations of the sunshine law. The intent of 610.021 was that the public would, should, or even, shall have access to public records.

Finally, as to the method of production of documents, the plaintiff renews his request that these documents be provided in electronic format. Plaintiff believes that the Springfield police department already has a method to electronically redact said records. I believe the court is aware how easy it is to use style in word processing to print black on black. The police department does. The plaintiff will concede that if the SOG's are available via the Internet he then does have access to the documents via electronic format. It should be noted that the Police department does not at present have these available on the Internet. Rumor has it that they are 60%-70% complete. Plaintiff would note to the court that the Secretary of State for the State of Missouri when putting the Missouri Code of State Regulations on line they first put what they had and as more files became available the put links to it. The City of Springfield in the production of the City Code has followed the same procedure. However, the Springfield Police Department has failed to give the public access to any information as of yet. If the Canine Procedures are available please let me have the file and I will make sure it is on the Internet for free. I won't even charge the City of Springfield 13,000.00 dollars. In light of plaintiff's reply I would ask that the court set a hearing before signing any order written by my adversary.