More from the District's legal team.

There are still a number of allegations floating around from the District's legal team and they need to be flushed. (The allegations, not the team. I have actually started to enjoy my exchanges with Duncan. Thank you.)

Second, while an employee of the District, Mr. Zandberg and his supervisor met with a Jaswinder Singh who was interested in buying property adjacent to Brier Terrace Middle School. Working with Perkins Coie, Mr. Zandberg and his supervisor informed Mr. Singh that the District would not grant his request for an easement to access his property using the driveway of Brier Terrace Middle School. After he resigned, Mr. Zandberg then took on Mr. Singh as his "client" using information he had gained as an employee to represent Mr. Singh's adverse interests.

I would think this matter would also fall well within whistleblower protection, if one sought to include it as such. In this case, the District possesses a document that grants perpetual access for one, single family residence. Mr. Singh acknowledges the existence of this document and may or may not have seen this document first hand. The reason why Mr. Singh met with me and my supervisor was to negotiate the possibility of obtaining a second access point when and if Mr. Singh sought to subdivide. The District was dismissive in granting such access and I support my former supervisor in taking this position. The District currently seeks to exclude Mr. Singh from accessing his primary residence, despite a letter from the District granting such permission. This is the same letter that both Marla Miller and Brian Harding told me to "bury".

With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of King County computer resources to send e-mails to District employees, the District has, at various times, received e-mails from Mark Zandberg, Kirsten and Rachel Brisbane, which have been traced through the District's IT Department as originating from the same IP address, and having been routed through the King County computer server.

I find your faith in the District's IT Department to be laughable and without a morsel of credibility. The fact that individuals may have emailed me at an address that I access from work, once in a while, and that their concerns may have been forwarded to District employees for comment or informative purposes, does not even come close to a level suggesting anything other than normal conduct. Again, as I have said before, the District's legal team would be better advised to counsel their client on the appropriate use of public funds.

With respect to Mr. Zandberg's use of District e-mail under a false name, Gary Noble received an e-mail allegedly from Debbie Jakala on September 27, 2007 at 9:40 p.m. That message encouraged Mr. Noble to visit a posting on Mark Zandberg's blog, containing malicious statements about Mr. Noble's wife. Ms. Jakala did not send that e-mail, and it has been traced to an IP address outside of the District. Likewise, Clint Goodison allegedly received an e-mail from himself, inviting him to visit a posting on Mark Zandberg's blog, containing disparaging remarks about the District's administrator's salaries. Mr. Goodison did not send that e-mail, and it has also been traced to an IP address outside of the District.

I suspect you intend to suggest that the name "Debbie Jakala" is not false but the pretense under which it was used may be false. I am flattered that the District thinks such an email came from me, but then since the District's crack IT Department only narrowed it down to somewhere outside of the District, how could you possibly conclude it was sent by me? To clarify, are you suggesting the email came from outside of the geographic boundaries of the District or outside of their server parameters? This would narrow your search from 6.8 billion persons to something closer to one million.

With respect to Mr. Zandberg's contact with a District consultant after he had resigned, on or about September 26, 2007, Mr. Zandberg contacted District consultants Al Morgan, at Reid Middleton, and Deb Ladd at AMEC, asking about a meeting that had occurred on May 10, 2005, and particularly inquiring about which District board members had attended the meeting. In response, Deb Ladd forwarded a page from a proposal she had prepared documenting that meeting. Mr. Zandberg responded by asking her questions she felt were inappropriate, and she attempted to contact him by telephone at the District, whereupon she learned that he was no longer a District employee. Ms. Ladd then informed the District of his inquiries and stated that because Mr. Zandberg had been using the esd15.org e-mail address, she thought he still worked for the District. She has prepared a declaration citing these facts.

Wow, Duncan, thank you for authenticating my earlier statements about the mysterious meeting that Marla claimed resulted in her being directed to start negotiating for the contaminated swamp - if you can call that a negotiation. Marla has been claiming that a lot more happened at that meeting than actually did and I am honored that you have taken the time to verify that I did get my information from a very reliable source. It is a shame, however, that people are so easily confused by the use of a dot org domain. The District is still in education, right?

On a grammatical note, your sentences are rather long-winded and your inclination toward commas is a test of tolerance. I don't need to take so many breaths of air when I am reading to myself.

Finally, with respect to the destruction of public records, at the time the District denied Mr. Zandberg's claim, the District was relying on a forensic computer analysis suggesting that files had been intentionally wiped from Mr. Zandberg's former hard drive using wiping software, or that files had been encrypted prior to deleting them. However, upon further investigation by the District, no evidence of such action has been uncovered.

Remember what I said about your faith in the District's IT Department? They have left me laughing on more than several occasions.