Boudin/Radley Balko article records - Immediate disclosure request

To Whom It May Concern:

This is regarding https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/14/bogus-backlash-against-progressive-prosecutors/ by Radley Balko

Pursuant to the SF Sunshine Ordinance and California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

1. Provide exact copies of any communications (of any form, in any or no app, on govt or personal property, with all attachments) between Boudin and Radley Balko or Dion Lim in 2021
2. Provide exact copies of any communications (of any form, in any or no app, on govt or personal property, with all attachments) between other DA employees and Radley Balko or Dion Lim in 2021
3. Provide evidence of the following: "But in phone interviews, both the victim and Mulholland tell me they were informed by Boudin’s office that Lim’s story is inaccurate, that the juvenile not only still faces charges but that she also had a court date last week." Such evidence includes: (a) communications between your office and the alleged victim or Mulholland, (b) all filings by your office in the juvenile's case, (c) all communications between Boudin or other DA employees and the judge or clerk in the juvenile's case, (d) all communications between Boudin or other DA employees and the juvenile's attorneys. Obviously you may redact any info identifying persons IF an appropriate citation is provided for each such redaction.
4. Any calendar events showing Boudin or other DA employees meeting with any of the alleged victim, Mulholland, the charged juvenile, or any of their attorneys. As you know, all (physical or virtual/telephonic) meetings of Boudin must be recorded pursuant to SFAC 67.29-5.

Preserve all responsive records. All withholdings or violations may be appealed. Provide rolling responses - this means pursuant to SFAC 67.25(d) you must provide records no later than the end of business day those records are reviewed, without waiting for the other records to be ready.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

twitter.com/journo_anon

Good evening District Attorney's Office:

1. The original records you provided are already exhibits submitted within my complaints to the SOTF and Supervisor of Records (the complaints were not related to this now purported retraction, but numerous other alleged violations). If you believe you have the authority to somehow redact formal complaint filings you will need to take that up with SOTF and SoR directly. While I had already cited Gov Code 6254.21 in the complaint that applies to even more info now that some info you voluntarily disclosed to non-City-employee journalist Balko has been purportedly retracted from me.

2. I have voluntarily, and without conceding you have any authority to forcibly retract any records, put the original document in a less visible mode on this MuckRock thread. But that is not the same as deletion and someone could still find it. MuckRock email addresses are not like normal inboxes - they are completely public to the world. When you send a record to a muckrock request, it's instantly available online, and is often mirrored, sometimes permanently, by various archives. If you want MuckRock or some other mirror to takedown a record, that is between you and them. And as with past attempts by the City to takedown their own released public records, I will then issue further requests monitoring your chilling effects on free speech and free press and examine all communications re: your office (or your DCAs) attempts to take down the info. The last time the City attempted to retract text messages released to me, they were the allegedly incriminating texts between Harlan Kelly and Walter Wong, so I am highly skeptical of the City's efforts to cover up releases (see: https://www.kqed.org/news/11863771/sf-corruption-saga-newly-released-messages-between-former-sfpuc-chief-and-city-contractor-suggest-cozy-relationship ).

-- @journo_anon

Typo: 6254.21 -> 6254.5