00.05secs -  Micheal Kiko – Chief of police – that you where requesting maintenance work orders by the Principle or Designee and shown the date of completion of the repairs. We got a time stamp showing the job completion, is that correct?
WG: That’s correct
MF: The documents speak for themselves!
00.30  - Ok and did you ever receive copies of signed work orders signed by the principle or designee showing the date of completion of the repairs, together with a time showing the jobs completion?
WG: I have not
Ok, did you receive any work orders at all from Newtown?
WG: I received work orders yesterday at a meeting with MF in which he supplied us work orders
OK Hands original to commissioner
MF tells lawyer to wait as she begins to question WG – then audio goes off MF speaking but no audio
2.00  - Attorney stating that none of the documents where signed. The request asks for Signed Copies of work orders… audio loss
2.53 audio resumes MF speaking: As we informed council the documents that they seek are signed off by the principle or designee DON’T EXIST!
Commissioner: So do you have a copy of what you turned over to them?
MF: I have everything that has been turned over to them . would you want this on the record or Commissioner: would you rather have full representation and turn over for the record??
MF: For purposes of the examination?? identifying that this is ?????
Attorney gathering more papers and handing them over at 4.00  speaking to commissioners about documents being inspected I think? Hands MF these documents.
Attorney: So Mr Halbig – You’ve had an opportunity to review the complainants ??
WG: We only received them yesterday not had much time, I requested these for over a year and yesterday was the 1st time allowed to see the documents. There should have been no reason for those documents…. (OBJECTION none responsive)  I reviewed the documents since I got them yesterday yes
Attorney: looking at complainants exibit B .. mr Habig do you see any signature by principle or assistant principle or designee showing the date of completion of the repairs?
WG: If you look at the document at the bottom it’s just the technicians name and it should be signed dated (OBJECTION) Im just reading what the document says… they have not signed it sir
6.10:  Attorney: OK  Mr Halbig did you also request by virtue of the FOIA request dated October 29th 2014 – Copies of all emails and correspondence by the school principle Dawn Hochsprung or her assistants from may 1st 2012 December 13th 2012 – filling district departments, FEMA resources, fire department?  maintenance department,  staff development,  assistant school super attendant, services provider?? School district transportation provider and environmental department?
WG Yes I did
Att: Did you ever receive any copies of any emails from School principle DH&Ass for that time period?
WG: Not as of this date
Att: OK.. Commissioner I’m turning my attention to file FIC2014461 and this is basically the same drill as before (for the record??) and we need the FOIA request Dated April 25th 2014 marked as complainant Exhibit A
Pause for drinks 7.40 and looking through papers
9.00 Ok excuse me commissioner.. OK Mr Halbig in this request Dated April 25th 2014 now marked as Complainant Exhibit A..  did you request Information regarding the Sandy Hook Newly Installed Security System asking for the name and address of who installed the security system in operation at the school before December 2012
WG: yes I did
Att: Did you ever receive any of that information from the School Board?
WG: I received it from my attorney, I received a document a purchase order of a system installed in 2007/8 showing the installation of a security system that at SHE and that was not what I was looking for!
10.00 – Att: And is there any reason to believe there was a new Security system installed at SHE?
WG: Yes mam, the national news media on all major channels carried the story that (OBJECTION : Hearsay) ***** IMPORTANT MF: Newscasts are hearsay!
1A and 1c a further C4 copies of the contracts installation etc..
MF: and that was provided (another OBJECTION regarding any question about the NEW system due to hearsay! MF: The question presumes there was a new security system installed and that fact as not been established. (so the news made it up basically)
Att: A republication of an article (tries to show Commission but again is OBJECTED even though is is purportedly the words of DH!! In the Fall of 2012 the article was published OBJECTION upholded I think the commission says?!
14.00: Att: Im going to divert your attention to an unmarked exhibit Mr Halbig (something about not looking to put this into the record?)  Att: Not yet OK Mr Halbig are you looking at what I have just handed you? WG: Yes I am Att: and did it give you any information or believes that of a new security system?
WG: Well as I introduced myself as a National School Safety Consultant – some more objections, WG: It gave me concerns cos because DH said she installed a brand new security system OBJECTION HEARSAY!
Att: So are you denying there was a new security system installed?
MF: Im not a rapist??!! (did he say that) your under the assumption that I didn’t supply the documents when I supplied the documents… blab la bla about conspiracy theorys?!! (I think)
16.00 Att: Back to you Mr Halbig as part of your request FIC2014461 marked exhibit A point number 2 in that FOIA request did you ask for a copy of the consent agenda and all supporting documents agenda for the school town meeting Jan 23rd WG: I did  Att: did you receive the supporting documents in relation to this request?
WG: I did not  Att: what would make you believe there were any official documents supporting you should have received?  WG: because at a board meeting it should have shown that (??) New Orleans Super Bowl because they were before me on Feb 3rd 2013
Att: Ok and did you see any marked amendments in the agenda or consent agenda that newtown school board meeting in Jan 23rd 2013?
17.25: WG: No I did not
Att: Ok I want to draw your attention to the same FOIA request dated April 25th 2014 item 3 – Did you ask the Newtown police department to provide copies of the Newtown co lodger dispatch sheet Dec 14th 2012 from 6am – 6pm
WG: I did
Att: And did you also ask for all communications from Dec 12th 2012 6am – 6pm about Connecticut state trooper and Helicopter  WG: I did Att Did you receive those? WG: No I did not
Att: Also Item 4 regarding Dash Cam video footage Newtown Police  Dec 14th 2012 6am – 6pm WG: I did  Att: did you receive? WG: I got to view for the 1st time yesterday but no timestamp and no actual running time!! Which I never seen before
Att: Also another dashcam from another officer?? (cant hear exact name) 6 -6  -   WG: Yes I did  Att:  Did you receive that?
WG: They said the document doesn’t exist!!
Att: Ok can I divert your attention to same FOIA request regarding BIO Hazard removal (etc) did you receive the info? WG: I made request to Newtown School Board because they would have been responsible for hiring that company Att: Also did you ask for a contract in connection…. WG: I did
Att: Did you ever receive that?  WG: Not as to this date
Att: Same request Sub Paragraph 8    did you request the sign in log referring to the traffic sign post outside SHE….?  WG: I requested that to the Police Chief cos hes in charge of that   Att: Did you receive? I did not
20.50 :  Sound goes muffled so cant hear…
21.00 – Att: Who ordered the porta potties? Ordered Dec 14th 2012 WG: did not receive that as of today
MF: Mr halbig – before today did you receive copies of documents? WG: I have not  MF: Before yesterday did you make any effort to go to the Police dept to view the dash cam vids WG: I did not
MF: Trying to make out that WG had been informed about these documents did not exist! WG: I was informed by you (MF) that the town was not in possession of those documents  MF: You was told that the town either the docs don’t exist or they don’t possess them. WG: I did not ask the town for those documents!! Simple answer! MF: Who did you ask? WG: The School Board
OK argument about MF representing the School Board etc… and WG says he did not write that in the letter. MF saying the documents simply do not exist basically!!
24.00: MF finds the letter and gives copies (for the record) Showing WG respondents Exhibit 1 -  a letter from MF to old Att Paul Spinela… date in 2014 couldn’t hear June 9th??? This firm (MF) represents the Newtown Police Department , Board of Education and something else collectively of the town in connection with the request blab la April 28th 2014 all 3 received the request. “The Town” is defined as the 3 agencies   basically saying “the town” does not have the documents!
28.00 – WG: I don’t believe it!! (yayy)
29.00 – WG – I don’t trust you (yayyyyy) Applause WG: don’t do this guys (hehe)
WG: Telling MF that he believes the School board should have the records because of the School Board Policies state they need to keep expenditure documents
MF: That’s outside of the FOIA (idiot)
MF: Do you have any reason to believe I am not representing….. WG: I do not believe!!!
31.00 MF: Did you respond to the objection?  (wtf) WG: My att (old) should have responded but did not. That’s why I fired him!
MF: Do you know whether or not the SHE had an Assistant Principle? WG: I don’t know but if you call it I will tell you who it was? (MF SMUG) So your asking for documents without even knowing if the school had a Assistant Principle (NOTE* it was an OR question originally) WG: The lady who was shot was supposedly the Assistant Principle (said in the news) OBJECTION (lol)
Att: Commissioner may I address that? Asking to allow the question due to WG being led to believe there was a Dep Principle.
MF: Now asking WG if he was ever given opportunity 6 months ago to see copies, and goes on about a cheque for $22.50 that would have released these documents.. turns out 6 months ago they were  approx. 40 pages of info and the day before the hearing they are now over 100 pages!! MF saying that WG could in September 2014 have come to NewTown to inspect these documents!!
40.00:  MF: Regarding copies of all emails …. Item number 2 something about an Objection due to old attorney or something???! An objection WG testified to earlier today??!! And that your attorney never responded, correct? WG: NO You’ve never responded!!!!
MF: Let me break this up… this letter is dated Sep 3rd 2014 in response to Item number 2 there is an objection…. Now neither you or your attorney never responded.. WG: that’s why there is an appeal!!  We never got an answer from you (MF) MF presing his point of view, WG: My attorney handled it!! (So basically WG old attorney did him over!!!)
42.00: Att:  Im referring now to respondent incident 2, Mr Halbig I’m gunna direct your attention to the response sub secion 1 of that letter dated Dec 3rd 2014 that MF said no documents would be produced unless a cheque was given for $22.50 would that be 45 pages? WG: Absolutely Att: OK so now When you went to view those documents yesterday how many pages where there? WG: Over 100. Att: Why did you want to inspect those documents rather than have them mailed? WG: The last time they sent me documents they were not relevant to the request and I had to pay for them. (waste of money) Something about Violating FOAI laws due to not actually needing payment?!?!
44.00: Att Now Mr Halbig – Why do you believe the porta potties documents exist? WG: Because those potties where delivered to the school board property something about an advanced stage on school board properties therefor the director of facility has to acknowledge or even he had to order them. School boards don’t allow anything on their property unless they order them or are in control.
(darth vader in the crowd lol)
Att OK…
Lady Commissioner: Yes.. would you please sit down. Something about the potties would be ordered on the date of the incident WG: Yes mam within 3 hours of the incident
Att: No further questions for WG
MF: One quick question!! I believe that you testified you never received documents?? WG: If I remember correctly I got a message from you (MF) saying that I never paid for documents that you prepared. MF: Something about a cheque for $19, and it was received and WG old attorney did receive the packages? WG: My attorney has $9000 to take care of all this
47.00 something about not objecting to this?!! WG: No we don’t object to this
MF: Letter June 9th 2014 (old attorney) should have received a document??!! Sound a bit muffled but MF hands paper work over to WG
49.00  WG: Documents that are not relevant was received. Something relating to a security system (2007/8 versions) Jan 23rd 2013, Jan 24th should have been??? What explained what’s on the Agenda, every board member gets attachments containing issues.. WG: NO these are Jan 8th (so the wrong date Minutes????)  Not to my understanding, (they are not relevant and not what WG asked for)  MF: Still pressing…. Dec 17th Minutes 2012.   Documents revised board of education agenda for Jan 23rd WG wanted but did not get.
MF: Bear with me let me take you through it….
Item No. 1 Bullet points says minutes of Dec 17th 2012
WG: That’s not what I asked for!
MF: The next item.. WG: Jan 8th  MF: And if you turn 2 pages.   WG: I didn’t ask for Jan 8th but you made me pay for it… next page is what?!
MF: You asked for all supporting documents?! WG: No he doesn’t understand how a Consent agenda works in a public school. I’ve been a school administrator if there’s one thing I know it’s how we compose  Consent agenda’s  and I’m looking for this date?!! (sound a bit muffled)
Somebody Whispers “cos they don’t have it”
Commissioner asks WG what he expected to get?
WG: I was looking for Jan 23rd minutes of the Consent Agenda (explains about how the board approves  the field trips for 26 children to the Superbowl) and this information is not been made available! Principle, Super Intendant.. should be a signed and approved consent agenda… also you can see a field trip being approved on the 8th in these documents he now has! So the last possible day to get this form signed etc would have been Jan 23rd so this is why he’s asking for this date..
Att: I want to raise one last point…. Gives MF a paper copy of something… WG: a document that purports to be a school board policy that I guess the town oversees. School Board Policy 8-407 which is a describes that Any performance by has to follow these procedures in order to be authorised by the School board for the field trip. The procedure is: it has to be approved by the School Priniciple and the principle has to recommend that these 26 children from Sandy hook. The SHE choir are allowed to travel on this field trip to New Orleans and participate at the SuperBowl. The superintendent has to approve it with the school board and it must be placed on the Agenda, and send the Agenda to be approved.
MF: OBJECT (again)
56.20 WG: (to MF)  Would you read it for the record?   MF No!
Att: I would like to submit this to the commissioner (to read)
MF: 2 OBJECTIONS!! It refers to a date when it was adopted and a picture of the choir or something???!! In 2013.? And something about ID purposes???!!
58.00 Att: Gives the copy to the Commission members   No further questions for Mr Halbig