https://lilburnga.justfoia.com/Attachments/Download/bd23fbc6-de4e-40a8-a5e1-e85c2e3a5733

Roswell December 19 & 20, 2019.

Re: Open Records Request #CC2019-1118 is complete    (Note, I hope I corrected all typos here in email to Ms. Press)

Ms. Press,

Thank you very much for your quick response. I understand that the documents do not exist. And it is correct that the law was changed in SB 160 in 2013. But the collection of the essential information is still part of the law. The original application (8 January 2018) for an occupational tax certificate reflects that Super Mercado employed ten or less employees. But is also appears to have included an E-Verify user number, which is redacted.

It is true that an entire affidavit is not mandated by state law for renewals, but the law does require submission of either the E-Verify user number or assertion from the business owner that he is exempt from the requiremnt to register and use the federal E-Verify system in the renewal process. The goal of the law is the ability to insure exemption or continuous usage of E-Verify by comparison on the E-Verify user number from one year to the next. The documents sent to me do not show any information submitted from the business owner that reflects the E-Verify user number for the 2019 renewal – or the assertion that he is exempt from the E-Verify requirement due to number of employees as required by OCGA 36-60-6 (d) 2. FYI, some authorities collect the entire affidavit each year to insure compliance. The state law is the minimum required.

The 2019 occupational tax renewal form sent to me for Super Mercado Jalisco Inc #6 is blank except for the business name and address boxes. There is no entry – or designated space – for entry of the E-Veify user number or business owner’s assertion that he is still employing ten or less workers and is thereby exempt from the E-Verify requirement. I paste the relevant part ( (d) – 2) of the law below:

(d)
(1) Before any county or municipal corporation issues a business license, occupational tax certificate, or other document required to operate a business to any person, the person shall provide evidence that he or she is authorized to use the federal work authorization program or evidence that the provisions of this Code section do not apply. Evidence of such use shall be in the form of an affidavit as provided by the Attorney General in subsection (f) of this Code section attesting that he or she utilizes the federal work authorization program in accordance with federal regulations or that he or she employs fewer than 11 employees or otherwise does not fall within the requirements of this Code section. Whether an employer is exempt from using the federal work authorization program as required by this Code section shall be determined by the number of employees employed by such employer on January 1 of the year during which the affidavit is submitted. The affidavit shall include the employer’s federally assigned employment eligibility verification system user number and the date of authority for use. The requirements of this subsection shall be effective on January 1, 2012, as to employers with 500 or more employees, on July 1, 2012, as to employers with 100 or more employees but fewer than 500 employees, and on July 1, 2013, as to employers with more than ten employees but fewer than 100 employees.

(2) Upon satisfying the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection, for all subsequent renewals of a business license, occupation tax certificate, or other document, the person shall submit to the county or municipality his or her federal work authorization user number or assert that he or she is exempt from this requirement, provided that the federal work authorization user number provided for the renewal is the same federal work authorization user number as provided in the affidavit under paragraph (1) of this subsection. If the federal work authorization user number is different than the federal work authorization user number provided in the affidavit under paragraph (1) of this subsection, then the person shall be subject to the requirements of subsection (g) of this Code section.

Again, thank you for your quick response.

D.A. King
Cc: Melanie Foresburg

On Dec 19, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Marlee Press (Roswell, GA) wrote:

Mr. King:

Your open records request is complete. I sent your request back to the Business Registration office.

Here is the exact response from them – “The documents provided on the original request is all that we are required to collect. The affidavits are not needed to be collected annually per law; this change took effect in 2013. We have not received any additional documentation regarding change of ownership which would require us to collect new, updated affidavits.”

I did leave you a voicemail yesterday and mentioned that if you have any questions regarding business licensing, the renewal or the affidavits, please contact the Business Registration directly – BusinessRegistration@roswellgov.com or call directly to Melanie Forsberg in the Business Registration office at 770-641-3703.

Therefore, per the referenced documents in this request, no such records exist.

For questions related to open records, please contact us at cityclerkoffice@roswellgov.com.

Thank you,

Marlee Press, City Clerk
City of Roswell

__________________________________________________________________

Link to Public Records Request Tracking Portal: Request Number: CC2019-1118

Your Security Key

The request was forwarded to the appropriate departments but no records were found. : 705484

NORCROSS, Ga. – Federal agents raided a series of popular Hispanic supermarkets in metro Atlanta Thursday. They left with scores of evidence and made a handful of immigration-related arrests.

“It was a coordinated effort among federal agents and local police which shut down the Super Mercado Jalisco No. 4 store on Buford Highway in Norcross and other stores in the chain across metro Atlanta.

The IRS agents who were removing evidence from the Norcross store said “No Comment” when asked by FOX 5 News reporter George Franco if they could talk about what they were doing.

According to the Atlanta office of ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the IRS agents, Gwinnett County Police and Homeland Security Investigations agents, were part of a joint federal search warrant operation that covered six Super Mercado Jalisco stores in metro Atlanta.

“It’s an IRS led investigation and they are looking for whatever their investigation entails but we are assisting,” said Lindsay Williams, the spokesman for ICE in Atlanta.

FOX 5 News reached out to the IRS but did not get a response about what it’s agents were searching for at the six Jalisco stores in Marietta, Lawrenceville, Norcross and other locations.

ICE spokesman Lindsay Williams said Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE, encountered and took into custody three people in the US illegally during the operation. He said the individuals were a Mexican national and two Guatemalan nationals. He did not indicate their age or sex.

Jasmine DeLaRosa, the manager of the Norcross store, said throughout the day customers were turned away at her store and others by the federal agents.

“They came around ten o’clock, about ten, fifteen cops and…we have a warrant, we’re closing down the store, they didn’t let me talk to anybody,” said DeLaRosa.

She said employees were heavily scrutinized in what she believes was an over reach of authority.

“They got all their information down. They took a picture of them so they have all their information now,” said DeLaRosa.

She said the heavy handed approach has tainted the reputation of the stores which cater to Hispanics.

“We’re hard working honest people and they are just giving us a bad rap right now,” said DeLaRosa.

On social media, a representative of the SuperMercado Jalisco chain said normal operations will resume Friday, adding no comment will he made about the investigation until the federal agencies involved release more information.” Here.

             Note: My computer/Word has gone crazy…       

                      BEFORE THE GWINNETT COUNTY ETHICS BOARD

                                                            STATE OF GEORGIA

December 10, 2019

D.A. King

PETITONER

vs

Marlene Fosque

RESPONDENT

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT SUBPOENA LIST FOR WITNESSES

Plaintiff was presented with a list of witnesses at the Monday, December 9, 2019 preliminary hearing that he had not seen before or knew existed. Until that time, Plaintiff was working under the mistaken belief that Respondent had submitted exhibits, but no request for subpoenas for witnesses.

Plaintiff received exhibits and Answer to Complaint via FedEx delivery on November 29, 2019 but has no knowledge or record of receipt of List of Witnesses until being notified and handed said list in preliminary hearing. Plaintiff can offer no explanation for this fact but does ask for remedy in disparity and believes he has good cause for approval.

Plaintiff would have requested subpoenas for witnesses if he were armed with knowledge of Respondent having requested witnesses and asks the Board to allow submission of list of the below names and seeks and requests subpoenas for following witnesses for Plaintiff:

1) Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque

Gwinnett County Commission offices

75 Langley Drive

Lawrenceville, Ga. 30046

2) Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway

Gwinnett County Sheriff offices/jail

2900 University Parkway NE

Lawrenceville, GA. 30043

3) Mr. Everett Robinson

102 Valdosta Avenue

Canton GA 30114

Each of the foregoing would be called to give testimony as to their knowledge of Plaintiff’s activities and reputation as a pro-enforcement immigration activist and the mission of the Dustin Inman Society. In addition, Plaintiff will examine these parties as witnesses to the allegations in the complaint, the publicly stated mission of Respondent’s witnesses and reputation of sources cited by Respondent in her August 6, 2019 speech regarding Plaintiff.

BEFORE THE GWINNETT COUNTY ETHICS BOARD
STATE OF GEORGIA
December 11, 2019

Petitioner requests consideration to add to already submitted list of exhibits several supplemental exhibits with the intention of illustrating motives and agenda of witnesses called by Respondent.
Petitioner was unaware of any witnesses to be called by Respondent until Monday, December 9, 2019 and thereby not aware of need to create exhibits pertaining to Respondent’s witnesses. With apologies, Plaintiff believes this represents good cause for Board to accept additional exhibits.

It is taking time to amass and print these additional exhibits, which are critical to Plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff prays for the Board to accept additional exhibits which are being assembled and printed and will be sent UPS overnight with proof of delivery (as were all other exhibits) as soon as possible with a target date of December 12, 2019 for use in January 23/24 2020 evidentiary hearing.

##

Note, my computer is going crazy. This is contents of motion filed, but not well-posted. dak

BEFORE THE GWINNETT COUNTY ETHICS BOARD

                         STATE OF GEORGIA

D.A. KING, Petitioner
vs
MARLENE FOSQUE, Respondent

December 3, 2019

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT LIST

Petitioner requests consideration to add to already submitted list of exhibits several supplemental exhibits that with explanation, will show Marlene Fosque knew or should have known the second-hand slander/defamation against me she broadcast in the August 6, 2019 Gwinnett County Commission meeting was not true or accurate and that the original source was – and is – well known by multiple reasonable, neutral people and easily accessed publications, to be unreliable, suspect and politically and financially motivated.

The voluminous response to Petitioners complaint was delivered to his home address sometime in the AM on Friday, November 29, 2019 after he had departed for the holiday weekend. Petitioner was only able to peruse the material on Monday, December 2, 2019 to learn that Respondent has taken the defense that Petitioner is a “limited purpose public figure.” Petitiner had no way of preparing for that part of the last-minute delivered response.

In the event that the Board were to agree with that classification, there seems to be an added legal burden for Petitioner to illustrate intentional malice and that Respondent knew or should have known the accusations she made in her official capacity were false.

Petitioner inquired about this exact possible scenario involving dates of delivery of response and ability to address any unforeseen defense in response and was denied a delay in December 9 hearing when it was requested. Petitioner was told that supplemental exhibits would be considered and believes there is Good Cause for acceptance of supplemental exhibits and granting of this request.

Those exhibits will be sent overnight delivery today, December 3, 2019 to Respondent’s attorney, and the Board.