I. PROCEDURAL MOTION: REQUEST FOR STAY / ABEYANCE

Complainant respectfully requests that the Board/Commission pause and hold these proceedings in abeyance until August 27, 2026.

Complainant will be filing a formal judicial action regarding public-record alterations and digital chain-of-custody violations involving an Iowa governmental body by August 27, 2026. A stamped copy of that filing will be served immediately upon the Board, Commission, and Respondent to inform the record in this matter.  This related case against another Iowa government body has evidence and legal theory that should be included in the formal record of these complaints to illustrate a statewide paradigm of disregard for statutory responsibility and alleged bad-faith intent to misrepresent the public’s understanding of what they have received.

II. EVIDENTIARY REBUTTAL & COUNTERARGUMENTS

1. Failure to Produce Native Electronic Records (.eml) Violates Iowa Code § 22.3A & § 22.2

• The Factual Dispute: Chief Jones asserts that a response to Record Request 1 was delivered, submitting a static PDF printout as evidence. Complainant has provided affirmative screenshot evidence of the recipient mailbox demonstrating that no such transmission was ever received.
• The Refusal of Native Forensic Data: To resolve this dispute objectively, Complainant formally requested the original, native electronic mail file (.eml or RFC 822 format), including its complete internet headers and Message-ID metadata. Associated server transmission or delivery logs are also now being requested. Chief Jones denied the original request.
• Testimony provided by the City of Marshalltown, IA, should not be reasonably accepted as fact given the evidence within Iowa court case CVCI012940, which reveals that both members of the City of Marshalltown, IA, City Council and officers within the Marshalltown Police Department have the capacity to deploy misrepresentations while requesting dismissal from the Iowa Court.  Entitlement may manifest an illusion within a leader that they have the right to unethically manipulate the historical record, but the Truth and the Light as revealed in a court of law will only manifest a reality where those very leaders have dismantled their own reputations, integrity, and trust with the people.
• Legal Grounding: Under Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a), public records explicitly include information “stored or preserved in any medium.” Under Iowa Code § 22.3A(2)(d), an electronic public record must be made available in the format in which it is readily accessible to the government body, provided that format is usable with commonly available data-processing or database-management software. A PDF export strips crucial transport metadata (e.g., SMTP delivery status, recipient mail exchange responses, transmission timestamps). The City’s refusal to produce the native .eml file prevents verification of whether transmission actually occurred.
• Judicial Authority on Openness and Government Compliance:  The Iowa Supreme Court made clear in Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461–63 (Iowa 2013), that Iowa Code Chapter 22 is designed to open the doors of government to public scrutiny and operates under a presumption of openness and disclosure. Horsfield further recognizes that governmental compliance must be measured against whether the purposes of Chapter 22 have actually been served. Consistent with that transparency mandate, Iowa Code § 22.3A(2)(d) requires an electronic public record to be made available in the format in which it is readily accessible to the governmental body when that format is usable with commonly available software. By refusing to produce the native .eml record and associated verifiable transmission metadata, the City of Marshalltown frustrates the ability to independently determine whether the disputed transmission actually occurred.

2. Substitution of Narrative Answers Does Not Satisfy Chapter 22 Obligations

• The Factual Dispute: In response to inquiries regarding the historical physical address of the Marshalltown Police Department in the 1980s, the Respondent offered narrative assertions rather than examining and producing archival records.
• Legal Grounding: Iowa Code Chapter 22 is the Examination of Public Records Act. Its statutory mandate requires custodians to make existing government records and archives available for examination and copying. Generating informal email summaries or narrative answers in lieu of producing the underlying public records fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of the Act.  Translation:  Iowa Code Chapter 22 is the State of Iowa’s “EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS (OPEN RECORDS)” law.  Not “22 ANSWERS TO 22 QUESTIONS IN AN EMAIL WITH CHIEF JONES OF THE MARSHALLTOWN, IA, POLICE DEPARTMENT.”

3. Disputed Testimony and Burden of Proof under Iowa Code § 22.10

• The Factual Dispute: Respondent contends that official testimony should be accepted at face value regarding the fulfillment of records requests.
• Legal Grounding: Under Iowa Code § 22.10(2), once a party seeking judicial enforcement demonstrates that the defendant is subject to Chapter 22, that the records at issue are government records, and that the defendant refused to make those records available for examination and copying, the burden of going forward shifts to the defendant to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 22.
• A records custodian acting under color of authority cannot unilaterally deem an open records matter finalized (“This concludes your open records request“) when an unresolved dispute of material fact remains regarding actual transmission and disclosure.
• Application of the Horsfield Materials Prompt-Production Standard:
  Under Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461–63 (Iowa 2013), Iowa Code Chapter 22 requires public records to be provided promptly unless the size or nature of the request makes prompt access infeasible. In assessing compliance, the Court considered the practical burden presented by the request, the governmental body’s efforts to locate and produce the records, and whether the circumstances adequately justified the failure to provide prompt access. Applying those principles here supports a finding of noncompliance:
  • First, the request concerns a single existing native .eml electronic record, rather than a large or unusually burdensome production;
  • Second, Respondent has refused to produce the native record and associated metadata capable of resolving the disputed question of transmission; and
  • Third, no burden arising from the size or nature of the request has been identified that would make production infeasible. Under Horsfield, the absence of a demonstrated practical justification weighs against a claim of compliance with Chapter 22.

III. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the City of Marshalltown properly produced and transmitted the requested records in the first request and failed to respond to the second, Complainant requests that the Board/Commission:

1. Grant a stay of all dismissal or administrative proceedings until August 27, 2026; and
2. Order the Respondent to produce the native .eml electronic file and complete server transmission metadata for Record Request 1 to objectively verify delivery, and produce an archival record showing the address of the Marshalltown, IA Police Department at the time of Thacker v. Eldred, 388 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986).

Further, the evidence supporting the City of Marshalltown’s ongoing failure or resistance to its responsibilities under Iowa Code Chapter 22 during two active complaints (IPIB/IOCR) not only provides evidence that there is still a live issue governed by Iowa Code Chapter 22, but also that the City of Marshalltown, IA, is still restricting access to public accommodations and services while possibly violating Iowa Code Chapter 216 (Iowa Civil Rights Act) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132).  Based upon the evidence of further resistance to statutory responsibilities by the City of Marshalltown, IA, additional complaints with both the Iowa Public Information Board and Iowa Office of Civil Rights will be filed in the next 16 hours.

Reference

1.  https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/court-of-appeals/1986/84-2004-0.html

Nobody puts the State of Iowa’s public records in a corner.

This state can either start producing evidence of adhering to the very laws I spent twenty years of my life defending or we can debate the merits of your vexatious argument while hell freezes over.

I will initiate a return to form regarding proper military etiquette and form while sending professional correspondence free of jokes and YouTube links on the very day the State of Iowa begins producing evidence of adhering to the very rule of law it claims to enforce. The rule of law and the evidence determine when Chief Jones has completed a public records request pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 22, not his alleged misuse of his authority in a closing sentence of an email. Under Iowa Code Chapter 216 (Iowa Civil Rights Act) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132), this state has absolutely zero legal authority to build prejudice against my eccentric communication style, which is manifested by my mental health disabilities. At the same time, this eccentric behavior is coupled with lawful purpose, intent, earned understanding, and a proper deployment of the rule of law within the State of Iowa. The leadership of this state may find my work as inconvenient as the very transparency that I lawfully fight to defend, but that inconvenience does not alter its lawful character.

When tax-funded officials produce evidence of failing to uphold the oath that they swore, it is the responsibility of the people to lawfully own the dance floor (see Iowa Const. art. I, § 2).

Respectfully submitted,

The Dirty Dancing Cipher Hunter