Julia Pierce | August 28, 2026

On August 19, 2026, I submitted a request for a refund of $8.50, in which my client paid in good faith, that we would be receiving a list of surveillance cameras maintained by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, but were instead provided with a typed letter by Linda Smith, jailer, for Marion County Sheriff’s Office. When I sent the refund request, I was required to send it to Niven Posey, since she indicated to me that she was NOW the only open records clerk at the Marion County Sheriff’s Office.

Disclaimer: I have said that Niven is NOW the only open records clerk, because I was told that Linda Smith was the open records clerk who would and did handle my initial open records request, but by Linda’s own words, I would have to open a request through a generalized email for open records which I contend was created after my initial request. This is because when I was provided an email address for my open records request, I was given Linda Smith’s email address; not Niven Posey’s email address or a generalized open records email address.

In my request for a refund, I included the county attorney, Wayne Jernigan, Linda Smith, the jailer who handled this request, and the main email to the sheriff, Derrell Neal, which I have seen that no one seems to be monitoring as of late – or Derrell just isn’t opening emails specifically sent by me just like the phone calls I make to him.

I indicated that in lieu of the refund, I was agreeable to having this amount applied to my newest request, which Niven Posey quoted as also costing $8.50.

Niven responded 2 days later, on August 21, 2026, citing the substantiations for why the Marion County Sheriff’s office can charge a fee for production. She cited specifically: (1) Labor – Search, Retrieval, and Redaction; (2) Physical Materials for printing, paper, or external storage hardware; and (3) Postage.

What’s interesting about Niven’s response, is that I included the attachments for her review that evidenced why I was entitled to a refund, but I question if she even reviewed them. She cited labor costs as why she didn’t have to refund my money but they did no search for information; they did not retrieval for information; and they paid no postage, because I went up to the office to retrieve the document myself.

So, I responded back to Niven indicating that I understood what the reasons were for charging for open records requests, but that they did not apply to the request for which I was entitled to a refund. Again, I mentioned that I was requesting a refund or that the amount be credited toward my outstanding request. I reminded her that she had an obligation to handle the open records process in compliance with Georgia law.

Do you think reason struck Ms. Posey over the head? Not…at…all. Niven decided to indicate that my request was denied and that my open records request was processed AND picked up on July 10, 2026.

Tsk Tsk Tsk, Ms. Posey. Not only did she reveal that she did NOT in fact review my supporting documentation, but she didn’t review their own documentation. So let’s break it down.

• The open records request for surveillance cameras was processed on July 10, 2026 – Niven, No, it wasn’t. I was promised a list of surveillance cameras; not a typed letter by Linda Smith with farm water exemptions that have no reasonable bearing on why she didn’t have to produce that list, even though the county attorney, gave instructions to prepare and produce the list.
• It was picked up on July 10, 2026 – Niven, wrong again. I picked up the document which was sealed in an envelope prepared by Linda Smith on July 24, 2026, and I included the receipt that showed that had Niven reviewed it.
• The codes were cited as to why she didn’t have to issue the refund – Niven, you don’t read too well. As indicated in email to her and by the attachments I provided, she has already shown that her office did neither of the things she cited as reasons for the cost and sounds more like a parrot or broken record than an open records clerk or jailer.

So, by Niven’s own words, she has shown that she may be procedurally inept at her job as an open records clerk, which indicates she might have paid attention in her “Open Records Law” training, but she doesn’t do so well at applying the law.

I performed an Open Records Request with Georgia POST for Niven’s training, employment, award and disciplinary history.

Aside from Niven having significant hours of training in handling the sex offender registry and some training regarding persons with disabilities, I noticed that as a jailer, Niven has no training in firearms, deadly force, communications, community policing, or gang awareness, which would be necessary when dealing with those persons who are incarcerated in the jail for which she serves as jailer.

I also noticed that Niven has some training in “The Realities of Organized Crime.”

Let’s define what “Organized Crime” is for those in the back. “Organized crime refers to groups of centralized enterprises that engage in, and aim to profit from, illegal activities,” according to wikipedia.

Has Niven made herself part of organized crime, along with Linda Smith and Derrell Neal, via the Marion County Sheriff’s office, by keeping money that was received through deception? I believe that’s called Theft by Deception, which is a felony, but I digress.

What are your thoughts? What do you see?If you have a story, feedback, or questions, please feel free to contact me at Plumblyne Productions by email at plumblyneproductions@gmail.com or call me at 229-329-2179. Don’t forget to subscribe, share, and follow to stay up to date.