laurarichardson said:

babynoz said:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13.83

Subd. 5.Other data on deceased individuals.

All other medical examiner data on deceased individuals are nonpublic and shall not be disclosed except:

(1) pursuant to the provisions of chapter 390, or any other general or local law on county coroners or medical examiners;

(2) to a state or federal agency charged by law with investigating the death of the deceased individual about whom the medical examiner or coroner has medical examiner data; or

(3) pursuant to a valid court order.

---- So if I understand this correctly the only way all of the info gets out as with a court order or criminal investigation.

There's a lot of information that the authorities can decide to release but if interested parties still want more they can always file a request. A court can still decide not to release everything they want access to though.

babynoz said:

BanishedBrian said:

Yes, I will admit that my original post was mostly for the purpose of being a smartass... I've actually represented the government in FOIA litigation. In MN, you do not make a "FOIA" request - the statute in question never uses that term, and is drafted completely different than the federal FOIA statute (and state copies thereof). I don't what heading you are copy and pasting, but it's not from the State of MN.

In any event, to the substance, the MN Data Practices Act provides that certain death-related info is public. The rest is classified as private information, which you can only obtain via obtaining a court order on the basis of disclosure being in the public interest. That's a completely different process than what you do under FOIA (or state equivalents), where you request public records directly from agencies, and then only go to court if the agency fails to provide information that they are compelled to disclose. In addition, the legal standard is completely different (FOIA requires the government to disclose all records unless they fit under one of nine specific exemptions - the default is disclosure unless the government finds a relevant exception. By contrast, the MN statute defines certain information as private and there is no pathway to getting it directly from the agency - the default is non-disclosure (which default only changes when you seek court disclosure).

I will cease with further smartassery on the subject.

I'm generally familiar with the procedures from state to state and was using the term broadly, not in reference to the federal laws but in a casual conversation on a message board. I'm sure you knew that though.

Is your real agenda just having an excuse to tell everybody that you represented the gov't in FOIA litigation? If so that's peachy except the thread isn't about you.


Not sure why you'd rather use people to grandstand then have a civil discussion but next time you might want to check your ego at the door.

Better yet, try replying on the article that was posted instead of looking for opportunities to show off.

The term "FOIA" references obtaining information (usually at no cost) from federal or state agencies. You seemed to be referencing someone going and petitioning a state court to unseal a private record. The two things are completely different substantively, which is why it would be a curious move for someone to make a FOIA request (even using the term broadly).

I take no pride in having worked on FOIA matters many years ago... it is about the last thing I'd brag about or wish on anyone else.

[Edited 5/31/16 16:01pm]

BanishedBrian said:

babynoz said:

I'm generally familiar with the procedures from state to state and was using the term broadly, not in reference to the federal laws but in a casual conversation on a message board. I'm sure you knew that though.

Is your real agenda just having an excuse to tell everybody that you represented the gov't in FOIA litigation? If so that's peachy except the thread isn't about you.


Not sure why you'd rather use people to grandstand then have a civil discussion but next time you might want to check your ego at the door.

Better yet, try replying on the article that was posted instead of looking for opportunities to show off.

The term "FOIA" references obtaining information (usually at no cost) from federal or state agencies. You seemed to be referencing someone going and petitioning a state court to unseal a private record. The two things are completely different substantively, which is why it would be a curious move for someone to make a FOIA request (even using the term broadly).

I take no pride in having worked on FOIA matters many years ago... it is about the last thing I'd brag about or wish on anyone else.

I have no idea what "article" you are talking about - I don't think there was any such "article" when I posted. In any event, given your 25 years of making MN "FOIA" requests, I defer to your expertise.

The link to the article with audio imbedded is in the OP.....always was. I guess you missed it in your haste to show off.

No need to come back after the fact and try to determine what I "seemed to be referencing" when you could have simply asked in the first place instead of trying to clown me.

In Florida, FOI laws are called Sunshine Laws, in California calls it the Public Records Act. Whether Federal, State or Local, they are broadly and informally referred to as Freedom Of Information laws. My experience is that there is a cost involved in most jurisdictions.

I would think that under the circumstances people would take a break from the usual org fuckery but congratulations on getting the attention you wanted.

There is no reason for anyone to defer to either of us, this is a casual message board discussion. You're the one who admitted coming at me for the sole purpose of being a smartass. You have yet to read the OP and reply on topic so try that and you'll be fine.

Moving on, the article that was posted is far more interesting than the pissing contest that was initiated for no good reason. My apologies to Genesia. It wasn't my intention to disrupt your thread.

Here it is again....

http://www.mprnews.org/st...-be-public

babynoz said:

BanishedBrian said:

The term "FOIA" references obtaining information (usually at no cost) from federal or state agencies. You seemed to be referencing someone going and petitioning a state court to unseal a private record. The two things are completely different substantively, which is why it would be a curious move for someone to make a FOIA request (even using the term broadly).

I take no pride in having worked on FOIA matters many years ago... it is about the last thing I'd brag about or wish on anyone else.

I have no idea what "article" you are talking about - I don't think there was any such "article" when I posted. In any event, given your 25 years of making MN "FOIA" requests, I defer to your expertise.

The link to the article with audio imbedded is in the OP.....always was. I guess you missed it in your haste to show off.

No need to come back after the fact and try to determine what I "seemed to be referencing" when you could have simply asked in the first place instead of trying to clown me.

In Florida, FOI laws are called Sunshine Laws, in California calls it the Public Records Act. Whether Federal, State or Local, they are broadly and informally referred to as Freedom Of Information laws. My experience is that there is a cost involved in most jurisdictions.

I would think that under the circumstances people would take a break from the usual org fuckery but congratulations on getting the attention you wanted.

There is no reason for anyone to defer to either of us, this is a casual message board discussion. You're the one who admitted coming at me for the sole purpose of being a smartass. You have yet to read the OP and reply on topic so try that and you'll be fine.

When you referenced "article," I thought you were referencing something you had posted about MN record laws (like the copy and paste that references "Minnesota Freedom of Information") - I realized later you meant the MPR audio link, which is why I deleted. In any event, does the MPR link reference media organizations making FOIA requests?

As for the usual org f'ery... these types of technical details are important. They govern the legal standard of what will and will not be released, which is the whole point of the thread. The day we start conflating these technical distinctions is the day that there's no longer any difference between NATO and OTAN.

Edit: With regards to your FL and CA comparisons... in each case you are talking about laws governing the release of "public records." Go back and re-read the links that you pasted earlier in the thread - those pertain to non-public records. You may call it semantics, but the critical difference is that public records are available for public inspection/release, while non-public records are not (hence why you need to petition a court to overrule the default rule). Whether you call it FOIA or something else, the type of request you're referencing will not get you any such records.

[Edited 5/31/16 16:41pm]

BanishedBrian said:

babynoz said:

The link to the article with audio imbedded is in the OP.....always was. I guess you missed it in your haste to show off.

No need to come back after the fact and try to determine what I "seemed to be referencing" when you could have simply asked in the first place instead of trying to clown me.

In Florida, FOI laws are called Sunshine Laws, in California calls it the Public Records Act. Whether Federal, State or Local, they are broadly and informally referred to as Freedom Of Information laws. My experience is that there is a cost involved in most jurisdictions.

I would think that under the circumstances people would take a break from the usual org fuckery but congratulations on getting the attention you wanted.

There is no reason for anyone to defer to either of us, this is a casual message board discussion. You're the one who admitted coming at me for the sole purpose of being a smartass. You have yet to read the OP and reply on topic so try that and you'll be fine.

When you referenced "article," I thought you were referencing something you had posted about MN record laws (like the copy and paste that references "Minnesota Freedom of Information") - I realized later you meant the MPR audio link, which is why I deleted. In any event, does the MPR link reference media organizations making FOIA requests?

As for the usual org f'ery... these types of technical details are important. They govern the legal standard of what will and will not be released, which is the whole point of the thread. The day we start conflating these technical distinctions is the day that there's no longer any difference between NATO and OTAN.

Again, FYI......

http://www.mprnews.org/st...-be-public

It was an interesting audio, and it caused me to have three thoughts.

*

One, I don't personally need to know what caused Prince's death, per se, unless it is related to flawed (negligent or malicious) medical practices. And, even then, we would learn that information if charges are ever filed against one or more doctors. Even more, the bigger story for me, as a teaching moment, would be, if Prince died from flawed medical practices, how much of that was related to doctors taking advantage of a situation, and how much of that was caused by Prince using his celebrity status to obtain medication illegally? Ultimately, of course, doctors must be held to a higher ethical/legal level when it comes to how people obtain prescription drugs, but I'm not certain how much responsibility a person/patient has with realizing that one has a problem and getting the proper help, which, again, can be made cloudy/difficult if one or more of one's doctors and friends are enabling one to remain addicted to meds. If there is ever a reason to ensure that one has healthy, long-lasting friendships, it is for times like this when one isn't thinking clearly.

*

Two, the only reason I think it would be a good idea for the Administer of the Estate to release the findings would be to end rumors. Again, I don't particularly care how Prince died, but, as we all know, there are media/people just waiting to crap on Prince's name/legacy. Thus, I only say it would be a good idea to make all the findings public to limit the misinformation or lies that people/media would spread just to soil Prince's name/legacy.

*

Finally, I've never understood the far-reaching power that we have given the whole "public's right to know" notion/law. To be clear, I'm not arguing whether or not these laws should exist; I'm questioning how much reach/power we (society) have given these laws. Unless information impacts the direct health of society or various members of society, I don't think people have a right to know that information, regardless of whether or not someone is a public figure. But, then, again, I don't watch reality tv, and I've never cared about the "private" life of my favorite artists, especially in regards to whom they date/marry or what parties they attend, but that's just me. (I'm a member of Prince.org and Housequake.com because those are the best ways to learn of new Prince music and concerts, especially during those years when Prince was completely shunned by mainstream media.) If someone isn't murdered or someone is breaking a law, I don't think the public has a right to know what a person is doing. As such, if Prince wasn't murdered, all the Administer of the Estate should have to say is "Prince was not murdered...We'll be releasing music from the vault shortly." (Ironically, I have just about everything I desire to have from the vault so I'm not anxiously waiting for the vault's floodgates to open. My hope was for Prince to release things that I have in great quality so that I could pay for them properly. But, that's another topic.) I just don't understand why people feel a need to know where their favorite artist ate lunch or partied or with whom they slept. And, I don't think that people who want to crap on Prince's legacy should know intimate details of his life and death that don't impact public safety. So, if Prince died of cancer or a heart condition or by some way that's not caused by a crime, I don't know how that's public knowledge, and the only reason I can see the Estate releasing that information would be to stop rumors of other causes of death. The man gave the world a lifetime full of music, what else do I/we need from him?

babynoz said:

PeteSilas said:

laurarichardson said:

babynoz said: ---- So if I understand this correctly the only way all of the info gets out as with a court order or criminal investigation.

even if it doesn't come out soon, it eventually will. The one thing people need is an answer, if for nothing else, just to quell the rumors which are going every which a way and will never die without a definitive answer. I mentioned Bruce Lee and to this day, rumors of a death curse, a fight, murder, hard drugs are all believed to have caused his death, partly because the coroners weren't totally honest te first time.

I fear that with the scant amount of info that they are required to release, that it will raise more questions than it answers, leading to more rumors.