The
local Times Record ran this story today citing Joe as protesting a “state
facility”. No mention of violation of
Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution…formulated by former Gov.
Huckabee and now embraced by current governor Beebe. All Arkansas elected officials are complicit
in this crime, subverting U.S. law and betraying Arkansas citizens.
Log
on to www.arkansasfreedom.com for
details and documentation.
We
will respond shortly to the inaccuracies of the story and have implemented
litigation today against Ark. Rehabilitation Services & Robert P. Trevino
in his official capacity as Commissioner of Ark Dept of Workforce Commission…see
lawsuit below without exhibits A thru F…for failure to respond to two Freedom
of Information requests which will identify those citizens who signed an
agreement to subsidize the Mexican Consulate for up to six years.
New
Home For Mexican Consulate In Little Rock Set To Open
This
article was published on Sunday, April 22, 2007 6:57 PM CDT in News
By
Rob Moritz
The Morning News
LITTLE ROCK -- A grand opening is
planned for Arkansas' new Mexican Consulate this week amid fanfare by
supporters pushing economic prospects and protest by an opponent who warns of a
surge of illegal immigrants into the state.
Mexican food and entertainment will highlight the grand opening Wednesday at
the consulate office, housed in a former ice cream parlor across from the
University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
About 300 state and local dignitaries are expected to attend the festivities,
which also will include the signing of an official sister cities agreement
between Little Rock and Pachuca in the Mexican state of Hidalgo, event
coordinator Liliana Olea said.
Meanwhile, immigration opponent Joe McCutcheon of Fort Smith said he planned to
air radio advertisements opposing the consulate, beginning today.
Supporters say the consulate will help thousands of Mexican immigrants living
in Arkansas who now must travel to Dallas, Kansas City and Atlanta for
assistance. It is to house about a dozen employees.
Gov. Mike Beebe also emphasized the business contacts the consulate could
facilitate.
"Any time you have a foreign
government that chooses your city for a location, it's potentially an economic
boost, it's certainly a cultural boost and it certainly allows interaction
between people that have a kinship to whatever country that might be,"
Beebe said Friday.
Beebe said he would be out of town Wednesday and unable to attend the opening
ceremonies. Lt. Gov. Bill Halter is expected to attend.
The Mexican consul for Arkansas, Andres Chao, who formerly worked in the
consulate office in New York, did not return calls seeking comment.
Supporters say the consulate not only will provide Arkansas businesses with
access to Mexico and opportunities to expand their markets, but also will help
to ensure that immigrants from Mexico are in the state legally.
The idea of establishing a Mexican consulate in Arkansas was first discussed by
former Gov. Mike Huckabee after his trip to Mexico City in 2003.
Last year, Huckabee struck a deal with Mexican officials to house the consular
office in a state agency office for $1 a year while the consulate facilities
were being refurbished. At the time, some lawmakers complained the governor
made the deal without notifying the Legislature.
McCutcheon, whose anti-immigration activism has landed him on a civil rights
group's watch list, said Friday his radio ads opposing the consulate would run
through Wednesday on several Arkansas radio stations in Little Rock and western
Arkansas.
He contended the consulate would lead to relaxed immigration laws and open the
door to more illegal immigrants, an influx he said would hurt employment
opportunities for middle-class Arkansans.
Arkansas has one of the fastest-growing Hispanic populations in the country and
more than half of Hispanic immigrants live in the state illegally, according to
a recent study commissioned by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation.
Another study, by the Pew Hispanic Center, estimated that as many as 50,000
immigrants lived in Arkansas in 2005.
The Rockefeller study suggested cheap immigrant labor fuels the economic engine
for the state's poultry and meat processing industry and that production would
slide and costs would rise significantly without it.
McCutcheon said last week that he did not know if anti-immigration protesters
would demonstrate during the consulate grand opening, though several
anti-immigration Web sites posted announcements that protesters would attend
the event.
McCutcheon and his wife, Barbara, have in the past helped guard the
U.S.-Mexican border as part of the Minuteman Project.
Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center in Atlanta labeled McCutcheon a
"nativist," or one who thinks immigrants cannot be Americans. A
spokesman for the center recently characterized his views as "racist"
and "anti-Semitic."
McCutcheon said Friday he is not affiliated with any groups and was mounting
the radio advertising campaign on his own
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SEBASTIAN
COUNTY, ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DISTRICT
CIVIL DIVISION
JOE McCUTCHEN PLAINTIFF
V.
CASE NO. CV-2007-_556______
ARKANSAS REHABILITATION SERVICES
and ROBERT P. TREVIÑO, in his Official Capacity
as Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of
Workforce Education DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
COMES
NOW the Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, by and through his attorney, Sam Sexton, III,
and states as follows:
1. The
Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, is a citizen and resident of the Fort Smith
District in Sebastian County,
Arkansas.
2. This matter involves an appeal from
the denial of rights pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark.
Code Ann. § 25-19-101, et seq., in which documents requested pursuant to the
Arkansas Freedom of Information Act were not produced or made available as
required by law. This court has
jurisdiction over this matter and venue lies properly herein pursuant to Ark.
Code Ann. § 25-19-107.
3. On
the 14th day of March, 2007, the Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, served a request
pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act upon Robert P. Trevino,
Commissioner of Arkansas Rehabilitation Services. A copy of the Freedom of Information Act request
is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.
4. In
the Freedom of Information Act request attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” the
Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, requested copies of the following documents:
“Copies of all e-mails and correspondence discussing or concerning the
Mexican Consulate, the Mexican Government, any official of the Mexican
Government, or funding of a Mexican Consulate or Mexican governmental office in
Little Rock, Arkansas or anywhere in the State of Arkansas that was either sent
to, or from, Robert P. Treviño or by anyone employed by Arkansas Rehabilitation
Services. This request specifically includes a request for an unredacted
version of an e-mail previously supplied pursuant to a Freedom of Information
Act Request.”
Alternatively, the Plaintiff,
requested access to the identified public records and reasonable comforts and
facilities for the full exercise of the right to inspect and copy the
records. The Plaintiff also offered to
pay for the copy of records prior to the time that the records were supplied.
5. On the 21st day of July,
2007, the Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, received a letter attached hereto as
Exhibit “B”, from Robert P. Treviño, Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of
Workforce Education which essentially asserted an inability to produce the
records requested because the records were not appropriately identified. In the letter, Mr. Trevino stated:
“Your letter references specifically a request for an unredacted version
of an e-mail previously supplied. In
order to adequately consider your specific request, please identify precisely
the e-mail you reference. Once you are
able to provide that information we can confirm the date and time to access the
information requested.”
6. In reality, Mr. Treviño knew the
specific e-mail that was being requested because he had previously met in
person with the Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, and supplied a redacted version of
the e-mail. A copy of the redacted
document previously supplied to Plaintiff Joe McCutchen is attached hereto,
marked as Exhibit “C”.
7. Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, was
entitled to be provided with a version of the e-mail that was not
redacted. No exception exists under the
Freedom of Information Act to producing the requested e-mail.
8. The failure by Robert Treviño to
produce the requested documentation is nothing more than an attempt to delay
the production of the requested document. However, in a spirit of good faith,
the Plaintiff sent the document attached hereto as Exhibit “D” dated March 27,
2007 in response to the letter from Mr. Treviño that is attached hereto as
Exhibit “B.” In Exhibit “D,” the
Plaintiff said:
“I am specifically requesting an unredacted copy of the e-mail of July
21, 2006 from yourself to Alice Stewart and an unredacted copy of the e-mail of
August 8, 2006 from yourself to Brenda Turner that includes the reference July
21, 2006 e-mail.”
9. Exhibit
“D” was sent by certified mail with a return receipt requested. A copy of the certified mail receipt signed
on behalf of Robert Treviño is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “E,” and
reflects that Exhibit “D” was received by Mr. Treviño’s office on April 3,
2007.
10. On
April 6, 2007, Robert Treviño sent Plaintiff the letter attached hereto as
Exhibit “F.” In that letter, Mr. Treviño
stated that he was out of his office due to the sudden death of his father but
that he would return to work sometime toward the end of the week on April 13,
2007 and would attempt to locate the referenced e-mails.
11. April
13, 2007 was on a Friday. Therefore,
according to Mr. Treviño’s letter, he would have returned to work on April 13,
2007 at the latest.
12. It
has now been more than 10 days since April 13, 2007 and no attempt has been
made by the Defendants to comply with the Freedom of Information Act request
made by the Plaintiff. No communication
whatsoever has been forthcoming regarding the requested information. Defendants have not suggested that the
requested documentation is exempt from disclosure. The documentation has not been produced or
made available within the time specified by to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-205.
13. Although
Plaintiff has been patient in awaiting the documentation specified herein, it
has now been almost six weeks since the original documentation was
requested. The Defendants have willfully
failed to comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
14. Pursuant
to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-205, Plaintiff requests that the Court fix a date for
a hearing within seven days for this matter to be heard.
15. The
Court should order and direct the Defendants to promptly produce the requested
information and should assess both the costs of this action and a reasonable
attorney’s fee against the Defendants for their failure to comply with the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Plaintiff, Joe McCutchen, prays that the Court order and direct the Defendants
to produce the requested documentation pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of
Information Act, that the Court assess both costs and a reasonable attorney’s
fee against the Defendants, and for such other relief as is proper.
JOE
McCUTCHEN, PLAINTIFF
___________________________________
Sam
Sexton, III (ABA#87-157)
Attorney
at Law
1622
North “B” Street
P.O.
Box 1971
Fort
Smith, AR 72901
(479)
783-0036
Facsimile
(479) 783-5168
