Matthew Preuitt Seems Nice, But So Would Some More Fact Checking

Blast Zone No. 64
Set Up On: Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Category: Corrections, Probation and Parole
Current Office Location:
1000 SW Third Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Matt's Recommendation with Inaccuracies:
Matthew Preuitt Seems Nice, But So Would Some More Fact Checking
Matthew Preuitt seems like a nice guy in a tough spot. He inherited supervising me from Rene Worthey and she was an iceberg as I said on her Blast Zone. To be fair his taking of my case has done much more to get me to focus blame for problems with that office on higher ups at that office. Obviously if changing the probation officer does nothing to really improve on some key issues then the problem is probably not the individual officer, but somewhere higher up. I hope that he does not end up being a permanent feature on this site, but right now I have found some factual inaccuracies in his writing that I wish he would rectify before we go to court. I am uploading a document to illustrate this (above). In it he says that I made defamatory statements about IPPC and that I uninstalled their software in violation of my conditions of release.

The review I wrote about IPPC was negative, but to be defamatory it would also have to be false. Truth is always a defense to defamation, so I wish he would correct this in his report or if he disagrees, at least state the alleged defamation as an opinion (ex: "in my opinion his postings were defamatory" instead of "posted defamatory information"). I stand by my review (linked to above) and the comments posted after it. One thing I really enjoyed reading in his report was that I did in fact experience problems with the software. I liked reading that because I sent him a lot of evidence documenting problems with IPPC Impulse Control, so I think that adds credibility to my negative review. I also liked how he said that my conditions prohibit me from operating STDCarriers.com or websites offering reputation management services. This shows an understanding that running Cop Blaster would not be a violation because it does not involve content removal.

The statement that I uninstalled IPPC on December 30, 2016 is not correct. As I have stated in my reviews and in many communications with him as well as others, I used a program called Autoruns to tell Windows not to start IPPC automatically when Windows starts. The files are all still on the computer, but I am afraid to re-activate the software due to how it performs and the actions taken by the company.

Minor inaccuracies? Perhaps, but inaccuracies just the same. Correcting them would be nice.

Plus, I do not believe that disabling any software program would violate a condition that a specific software program be installed. That is because installation, un-installation, and disabling are three distinct things. I participated in the monitoring program as ordered for as long as it was reasonable to participate under the circumstances. The conditions did not establish a minimum or maximum amount of time that I must participate, just that I must participate, so under the circumstances saying that someone failed to participate while at the same time admitting that they participated is a bit of an oxymoron.

On another note he probably will not like it when learns that I have been continuing to use the internet despite his directive that I not use it anymore. That lack of internet use lasted about as long as it took for me to speak to my lead attorney. She told me that if my conditions do not say that I must disconnect my computer from the internet if directed by probation, then that would be a modification that would require a hearing. That same day another lawyer of mine responded to messages I sent him complaining about Matt's directive by telling me to check my email and download the brief that they were working on for the Ninth Circuit. So, I guess I chose to listen to my lawyers instead. Now I don't know if the directive was Matt's idea or if it was Eileen's idea, etc., but I do not believe it to be a lawful one, nor was his insistence that I agree to follow it after I asked to speak with my lawyers before giving him an answer appropriate. I think that the appropriate response by him would have been to let me get back to him after I talked to them because I believe I have the right to consult with lawyers regarding such matters. I handled the conversation by saying stuff like "mmhmm" or "uhuh" until it was over with because I was looking for anything to say except for the words "yes" or "no."

Finally, when I disabled IPPC I did it thinking that Matt's office had other programs to use in its stead. Now maybe I should have asked more questions to see if his comments about them having other programs were current, but it just blows me away that they would only have one program to use. People are going to have problems with programs, so they need options. Providing the options might not be Matt's job, but somebody need to do that job. My reviews of IPPC and this website are the product of years of frustration just trying to use computers in a practical way and I have to draw the line somewhere.
2/23/2017 - Went in for a UA and it turns out the entire office knows about Cop Blaster. My PO said several people have contacted him about it and I am not surprised. I pointed out that I am breaking no laws with this site and that by running a site that does not involve content removal for no money I am not violating my release conditions. He seemed concerned about the posting of addresses. I stated correctly that they are all publicly available and the government has always said in my case that aggregating public records is just fine. Have a meeting with him tomorrow, will keep my fingers crossed.

Use a local account to log in.


 
 

Register if you don't have a local account.

Use another service to log in.