Lawson Lamar .com

DISCLAIMER:  THIS IS A POLITICAL WEB SITE TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC REGARDING OPINIONS ABOUT  LAWSON LAMAR. IT IS NOT THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE OF LAWSON LAMAR, STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

ATTITUDES

Office emails are PUBLIC RECORDS subject to inspection under Florida law:

Email from Vose to office attorneys dated 13 Mar 1996 reference an expert witness):  "HAVE ANY OF YOU COME ACROSS A SLIMOLE PSYCHOLOGIST BY THE ABOVE NAME IN YOU CASES.  HE GENEARALLY IS A DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESS, GENEARALLY REFERENCE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND CHILD WITNESS TESTIMONY.  THIS INFO IS NEEDED TO ASSIST OUR UNDERFUNDED SISTEREN AND BRETHEREN IN THE 11^TH CIRCUIT AND I AM SURE THAT THEY WILL REWARD YOU WITH TICKETS TO DON SHULAS RETIREMENT PARTY OR THE OVERTOWN ART FESTIVAL."Vose qualified his remarks at deposition by saying he was actually referring to the expert's affiliation with Florida State University, in an attempt at humor.

Vose, in his deposition, identified an email he received from a division chief, complaining about Judge (name deleted)'s "crappola."  Vose stated, And I have a file I keep all the stuff that the judges do that's a pain in the neck." "We ask the attorneys to always tell us the don't think I've ever used the term judicial crappola.  That's as good a term as any.  Because some of our judges do judicial crappola."  When asked if he thought that language was disrespectful to the circuit court judge involved: Yeah, but it's an internal communication between one of her attorneys and myself, so it doesn't bother me."  Asked if he was concerned the judge could read the email (which was public record) and be offended? If the judge is offended, then the judge can take it up with (name deleted).  She's an attorney and he's a judge, and he's got contempt power and he can file a grievance."

Another email from the same division chief to Vose dated 17-Oct-1994: "Please be advised that this morning I had still another snotty come to the bench [name deleted] tete-a-tetes with Judge [name deleted]. Please pass this along to Lawson."

Vose referred to Florida legislators, in an email sent to 92 addressees in his office, as inmates of the asylum that decide the number of positions that we get."

Despite the fact state attorney emails were public records maintained by the Court Administrator's office, Lindamood tried for 3 1/2 years before she finally got access to them, and then only as a result of a suit (Orange County Circuit Court, Case CI 96-9029) Lindamood filed against the Court Administrator who administered the computer network that served the courts, State Attorney and Public Defender offices. The taxpayers of the State of Florida paid a judgment to Lindamood of $12,520.28 for the expenses she incurred in obtaining these public records, which figured into the federal trial.

In the spring of 1996, Lindamood discussed with the then Chief Judge her intention to make a public records request for the emails of Chief Assistant Vose and her former supervisor, Les Hess. He suggested she wait until an Administrative Order was in place to afford "greater protection" against the purging of these documents. In fact, the Administrative Order entered in May 1996 dealing with emails, called for them to be purged after 90 days. Had that order been followed, she would never have received copies of those emails that were at this point a year old. The Chief Judge had an attempt to break into his emails that he reported to the Florida Department of  Law Enforcement, which later dropped the investigation at the judge's request. The story was reported on by the local ABC TV affiliate. The Chief Assistant and Press Information Officer accused Lindamood of making a false police report to FDLE of the PIO attempting to break into the judge's emails. The FDLE investigation (which is public record) focused on another suspect altogether.

The Court Administrator's chief computer expert responded to her request for the Chief Assistant's emails not directly to Lindamood, but to the Chief Assistant, who advised Lindamood by letter (filed in the court file) of "technical difficulties" that could discourage the request. Lindamood was told they moved the data, forgot what they called it, lost the program to call it up, somehow "lost" a roughly $30,000 tape player to play the backup tape (to her knowledge, no police report was ever filed), and that they lacked the expertise to produce the emails. She was told she would have to hire a consultant from Digital and pay him $250 per hour plus pay the airfare to fly the individual in. Ultimately, Lindamood obtained the emails from an expert who had an established vendor account with Orange County and had performed such restorations before. A circuit court judge found these records had been unlawfully withheld from Lindamood and awarded Lindamood the $12,520.28 in fees and costs charged against the Court Administrator.

For seven years, Lindamood served as an intake attorney, much of that time  in a supervisory capacity. She reviewed literally thousands of cases, as attested to by the archived court files. Lindamood performed at least twice the work of her male colleague as documented by computer printouts used as evidence in the federal trial (possibly four times as many cases--he also received more frequent and larger pay raises than she). He was assigned to Intake in July 1994. Case review fell so far behind while he reviewed the Alzo Reddick case, that following an automobile accident two days after Christmas 1994, she generated a computer report on all open cases, and conducted a physical inventory of those cases. What Lindamood found was a backlog of 1100 open 1994 "at large" (non-arrest) cases, some dating from the beginning of the year. She was unable to locate 349 felony cases in the various (logical) locations she looked in the office, including the closed file room. Lindamood summarized her findings in an internal memorandum sent as an email to Les Hess, her then supervisor, and the other intake attorneys, paralegals, and investigators. She called this email her "New Years Resolutions" email since it was done January 2, 1995. While her next regularly scheduled performance evaluation in May, 1995 was above satisfactory, Hess commented that she "had a bitter and resentful attitude from having too much work to do." In June 1995, Lindamood was told she was being transferred to a felony trial division in Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida.

This email on the backlog of cases led to other emails:

An email from Vose to the division chiefs dated 08-Feb-1995: " Subject: CASE BACKLOG IN INTAKE. MOST OF YOU WILL BE CONTACTED BY LES HESS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO ASSIST IN A TEMPORARY PROBLEM IN INTAKE. WE HAVE A 4+ MONTH BACKLOG ON SOME AT LARGE CASES AND THEY ARE A [sic] ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE ALL CHIP IN AND TAKE A PORTION OF THE LOAD AND TAKE SOME QUALITY TIME TO LOOK OVER AND EVALUATE THESE SUBMISSIONS AND GET THEM BACK TO LES NO LATER THAN END OF BUSINESS ON MARCH 4TH 1995. (REMEMBER THE LAST TIME WE HAD TO DO THIS SOME OF US TOOK 9 MONTHS TO PROCESS THE CASES AND DIDN'T EVEN GET TO SEE THE BABY. GOOD LUCK"

Excerpt from an email from a division chief to an assistant state attorney in the division, dated 21-Feb-1995: "...I was recently ordered to take 30 at large Felony Intake cases to work up and make charge decision on. (most all of the div. chiefs were given this task). I lost it with Les Hess and gave him a loud piece of her mind. MOre [sic] long story to that--too long to go into here."

Excerpt from an email from a division chief to Les Hess, dated 12-Mar-1995: "Les--I am sorry to to [sic] advise you that I have not yet had time to look at a single one of the Intake cases given to me. I hope that there were no statute of limitations problems in that batch before they were given to me as when you gave them to me I told you that I was not promising to get them done in the time frame requested. I have been working very long and hard hours for many months now and it has been extraordinarily grueling this year with out new Judge. I will stop there as this is "public record."

An email from Les Hess to the Intake Administrative Secretary, dated 22-Mar-1995: "The 1993 cases which are not closed out in the computer must be closed out. We will never have enough time to do it, so we must do it as we go. We also need to do the first half of 1994. Give me a progress report April 28th. Thanks." Hess testified in the federal trial that the missing cases were found and properly closed.

An excerpt from an email regarding office changes and reorganization from a female division chief to Vose, dated 15-Jun-1995: "...Quit hiring women unless they are either gay or 55 years old and will not be having any babies."

A local defense attorney was also quoted in previously mentioned Orlando Weekly article as saying:  I would sooner deal with Bill Clinton as a politician than I would Lawson Lamar.  You go to war with him.  On political terms, he's going to use all the resources available to him to succeed."

Here are emails encouraging assistant state attorneys to join the Orange County Bar association and support Lamar's candidacy for a position on the Executive Board:

(Note: The actual documents below are available via hyper linked Adobe PDF documents. To view the documents, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer. If you don't have it, click here to download it.)

Click here to view the pre-election email.

Click here to see the post-election email.

Lindamood's personnel file contains an email from Lindamood to Vose, dated 08-Jan-1997, occasioned by her involuntary transfer from Kissimmee back to Orlando. Paid parking was provided at that time for all employees, but no provisions were made for her parking upon her return to Orlando. Parking fees in downtown Orlando ranged from $45 to $60 per month at the time. Excerpt from the email: "I have not been notified of what arrangements have been made for her parking. I parked in the upper garage when I came for pre-trials on Tuesday and I told Rocky I would do the same when I reported Monday unless I heard otherwise. I was parked in the lower garage when I was a felony intake supervisor, until renovation started on the garage, at which time I was moved to the Gertrude Street lot. Failure to make appropriate parking arrangements would, in her mind, equate with retaliation for filing the EEOC complaint...or all of the above."

A more detailed email on the same subject from Lindamood to Vose, dated 14-Jan-1997 (excerpts):

"Your reputation for truth and veracity with me is poor: You told me the local FDLE (former) supervisor claimed to have fired me, knowing this would enrage me due to its falsity, and you used this to further your own objectives. You did this after first assuring that I did not know the FDLE legal counsel, Mike Ramage, and would be unlikely to contact him or Mike Brick (the former supervisor) to ascertain the falsity of the information. I have snce [sic] done so. Because I do not believe you to be truthful in  your dealings with me, I have sought verification of the contents of her personnel file from [name deleted]. I have also sought to ascertain the salary for [name deleted] since his promotion to Deputy Division Chief, which despite its nomer, is an Intake Position.  I went to [name deleted] yesterday in person to obtain the requested information. If [name deleted] took a "promotion" without a pay raise, he is truly stupid. I have already lodged a formal complaint with you concerning his unsubstantiated and uncalled for "trashing" of [name deleted], which the aggrieved party is aware of. This is not conduct becoming a supervisor--I certainly never engaged in such unfounded activity. In the analysis I have performed of the salary and promotion information I have received via Public Records Request, I have, I believe, ample evidence--not rumors--of a clear pattern of sex, age, and race discrimination. For that reason, I have chosen to confront you on the issue and intend to pursue that course of conduct until you cease the unlawful activity."

Email from the then Chief Investigator to 279 addresses, dated 02-Oct-1997: "I am being bombarded with E-mails of complaints about swipe cards, garage passes, location of garages, keys, sick pets at home, sick spouses and children, the State of the Union and who is going to win the World Series. Answer: I know some swipe do not work on every door, I have been assured there will be no complete lock down until everyone has access to each floor in this building; I have no control over where someone may be parking; I have no control over some streets being one way south and others one way north; I am not a Vet nor am I an MD; I voted for no incumbent and I do not even like baseball, (I know that is Un-American). I am working on everything that I have some control over. Sorry, I forgot about the keys. Someday, hopefully this century everyone will have a key to lock his or her office. However, it is almost 1998 and the year 2000 quickly approaches, maybe not."

This is the text of the email that Vose testified was the "last straw" leading to her termination, dated 08-Jan-1998, to Randy Means:

"Actually, Randy, I would like to take the opportunity to seek clarification on the new security measures, since several of the emails I reviewed today deal with the issue (I've been out with the flu).

Wendell and you have referred to a "lock down" of this facility. Who exactly are you afraid of? It is difficult enough to get to closed files with only the one elevator in operation. Maybe the concern is because of the tunnel that was built so that our boss could pass unmolested by the huddled masses (I've seen him going in and out the front door) that nobody else is authorized to use.

As to the 5th floor, what is the likelihood of moving the library so we don't have the annoyance of removing the clips and necklaces from the swipe cards so that we can access the Hallowed Sanctum?

As to pressing on the doors in the case of a fire emergency, I don't understand at all. Do you mean in order to get "out" of the building we have to push and wait. Why would anybody in their right mind be rushing to get "into" a burning building? It would seem to me that the lack of clearly posted evacuation plans in event of a fire is a safety violation.

What about leaving people in the lobbies of the various floors? It seems the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors all have lobby areas. Does this mean with the "lock down" that visitors will be directed through the first floor portal to a specific floor where they will see a "secretary under glass" (kind of like SeaWorld but without the water) and can be permitted to sit there, or is it still necessary to go and retrieve the person and escort them out? What do you do when you have the situation I did a couple of weeks ago where 2 juveniles were being deposed in the "kiddy room" with one parent? Do you leave a minor child in the lobby? Do you leave somebody in the hitherto forbidden waiting room?

If it's verboten to allow somebody in the side door by the snack bar, shouldn't we also not allow people to follow us through doorways even thought we've known them for 12 1/2 years (in her case) or make them swipe their own card?

These are issues that I'm sure confuse and confound many,. Being a paramilitary organization with heavy emphasis on rules and regulations I'm sure most of us wouldn't want to run afoul or trip alarms. I'm to the point where I'm afraid to to through the doors on the north side of the building. I don't trust getting stuck in the stairwell in the event of a fire alarm.

By the way, on the last re-announcement of a promotional opportunity, I noticed for the first time the notation that we were an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Did we just recently become one?"