Ludington City Council 7-22-2013: Cheap Theatrics

[XLFD]

The agenda didn't have a lot of meat on it, but there was still a lot of calories in what little there was.  The City approved the standard sign variances for an event (with Kaye Holman's dissent), approved a sewer cooperative agreement with Pentwater (of which I'd like to know more about), and emphatically agreed to allow a portable veteran's wall to appear in Ludington in 2014.  They agreed on a liquor license for a FNL garden party, even though they did not fill out the application properly. 

 

They also brought out more details of their proposed purchase of 808 E Danaher, which was approved unanimously even without any real public use being noted for doing so.  This will be further touched on in another thread, as there is some serious taint I see by the County and City when I read the laws on such privileged purchases. 

 

But a couple of things I was involved in needs special notice.  I had a FOIA appeal, which once again was decided on without any public input by the appealer.  The City has made this a new policy, so as to limit the airtime of dissenting opinions from their favorite concerned citizen.  The FOIA appeal involved the interrogation tapes of Ariel Courtland taken by law enforcement on the day Baby Kate went missing.  This will be further explored in the group, "The Trail of Baby Kate".

 

The interesting parts of the meeting could only be called 'cheap theatrics'-- at least by those who have an opposing viewpoint to the appropriate speaker.  I started out by using some props, that were fairly cheap.  I brought two poster boards at the Dollar Tree for $1 total, cut them in half and made four fake and oversized checks that corresponded to three settled cases and one case being discussed in closed session that very night by the attorney who helped bring resolution for the City Hallers in the prior lawsuits.  My presentation starts about 2:40 into the video, is transcribed below the video and is five minutes long. 

 

Mayor Henderson, who figured he could do better than John Shay and Attorney Wilson at the previous two meetings, did rather worse.  But his theatrics beat me to the cheap, he did not spend a dollar on posterboard.  I have transcribed and annotated his remarks with brackets, immediately after my words, because I am if anything a stickler for accuracy and fairness.  In the video, his remarks start at the 30:00 mark.

 

 

 

"At the end of the last two meetings, I have been personally slandered by the City Manager in this public forum and then cruelly perplexed by City Attorney Wilson who went to great length and subterfuge to try and prove that the City did not lose a federal court case whereupon I received a fair-sized lump of money. 

 

Now I hate to be a killjoy for the mutual admiration society of people that I see before me now, but this City Government is a tainted entity when you look at how it has been conducting itself at the expense of its citizens.  I can perhaps illustrate this best for those who are not privy to all the behind-the-scenes news with some visual aids that show what has been happening just this year as far as the City settling issues with resources provided by the taxpayers that pertain to our City Officials acting badly. 

 

Starting in February, the City admitted that yes they did deliberate and make decisions outside of an Open Meeting concerning a no-bid contract worth nearly $100,000.  This was impossible to deny, because of the E-mail trail received by an intrepid citizen through a FOIA request.  Naturally, the City claimed it was an emergency situation, even though the work began five weeks after the E-mail vote.  This concerted scheme perpetrated by the council of 2011 and our administrators, netted me {Check} this check for $4650, $4500 of which went to my attorney, the other $150 used to pay for court costs.  

 

In April, it was learned that the City had settled once again in a lawsuit directed against them by Shelly Jo Burns who was allegedly pushed to the ground hard, by LPD's Aaron Sailor, a repeat police brutality offender back when he was on the Pontiac Police Department, Chief Barnett's old bailiwick.  Sailor had apparently entered Burns' sister's house without showing a warrant and found her in the way, even though her back was to him.  The City wisely sidestepped this going to trial by settling for an undisclosed amount of money to the plaintiff.  {check} As there were medical bills and constitutional violations I put the amount of $50,000 on this paycheck, and welcome anybody on the City or our visiting attorney to supply the correct amount if they would be so transparent. 

 

In June, I once again became the beneficiary of some money due to the City' improper actions.  In 2011, the City adopted a policy (it should have been at least an ordinance, but then it would have to be publicly published) that gave certain officials, the City Manager and Attorney,  new powers to greatly diminish the rights of any citizen, and used that policy against me.  I suffered much harm due to this policy, and went to federal court to seek justice.  And the City chose a good bargain when they settled with me for $15,000 {check} because my point wasn't to make tons of money, but to win.  And if I didn't win, would I be having one of these oversized fake checks to display, while the City has only their slander and hare-brained excuses?

 

In a month or two, the City will once again be tempted to settle another federal suit involving police brutality by one of their own.  I have read all of the relevant deposition transcripts in this case, and it appears that one of our officers, now a county deputy, and two other county deputies tackled and repeatedly tasered a Ludington citizen down at the beach, when the citizen had done nothing to deserve such treatment.  He was then taken to a hospital where he was further tasered while being generally cooperative and chained to a hospital bed.  Fearing repercussions, the county maliciously prosecuted the citizen, just like the Pontiac Police Department did during one of Aaron Sailor's police brutality cases.  

 

The City will be going into closed session with their risk management attorney to decide how best to settle the mess, but I challenge any member of this city council and all city officials to look at the record, and stand up for the citizen who could have been killed by the goonish behavior of three rogue cops, instead of trying to figure how they can best sweep the incident under the rug, and allow these ruffians to continue patrolling our county with a license to hurt.  {check}  I estimated the cost of this lawsuit at $75,000+, but the County will help pay this one.

 

There are other actions being considered to address the untamed corruption our City leaders are involved in, some of which may be settled by the year's end..."

 

Mayor Henderson:  "Mr. Rotta commented earlier that basically, in my opinion, he is calling out our law enforcement officers, both here and in the county, 'thug' is a comment I believe he had used [No call outs, and I never used 'thug', but I like the way you think here, John] .  I cannot strongly disagree with that comment [A double negative, meaning "I can strongly agree with that comment"], we have great officers who recently put their life in danger to defend our community [Yes, and we also have bad officers who do not follow their oath of office in their duties].  They're stand up individuals and I'll challenge those who say they are not [which is what you're doing, but you're ignoring the rights of your constituents and the law in doing so].

 

Mr. Rotta you have FOIAed enough of these things [and been groundlessly denied such data], you understand but you continue to want to leave half-truths [supply the other half then instead of demagoguing and attacking a citizen intent on the full truth], we've discussed this in the past [but not with the public] of what went on, and all these checks you presented.  Aaron Sawyer [Sailor] had every right to do what he did [unknowingly, the mayor confuses rights and powers.  No one has the right to force themselves into your house and push you to the ground and injure you and keep away medical care from you], what happened there unfortunately it was an argumentative case, the City had to look at it and deal with it according what it was going to be sued and how we settled those things [This is drivel.  They would fight it if they had any chance in front of a jury] . 

 

To say that these guys are openly breaking the law or challenging or running above those laws is so wrong, and to make those [The allegations of Burns and McAdam seem to be corroborated by fact and depositional evidence, in my two suits the facts and laws are practically incontrovertible] ... you really got to apologize to each and every one of those officers [if the allegations are ever shown to be false, I will, but I don't think they will.].  They're out there day in and day out, Tom, you need to figure that out [so is everyone else in this world, John].  They are there to protect you, even though you may be ragging on them they will be there for when you call if you ever need them so you need to think about that [accountability is important for the officers and your own conduct, so why am I and other citizens scared of these so-called protectors that go bad and public servants serving as heartless masters]. 

 

As far as the lawsuits, we continue to have to battle to settling these cases, because simply, it isn't fair as I said the last time these lawyer fees run these way past the settlement amounts [bullcrap, if they're nuisance suits, they cost you nothing when you prevail], we're going to talk about that again today [again, in closed session away from the public], it depends on what action Allen [Vander Laan] is going to move forward.  Unfortunately we'd like to argue these because we believe we would win [argue away then at these meetings and let the public decide].  But winning doesn't necessarily get you, is the best business decision because guess what, you'll just sue us again the very next day.  It's not like this game is over it just happens again and again, so you gotta look at what's best when you have these cases, is to keep the cost under hand [if you'd stop breaking the law and respect the rights of individuals there would be no suit period]. 

 

And that's what we're doing, we're not trying to pick winners and losers, we try to manage the costs [I bet that even Attorney Vander Laan was groaning behind me with all these lame defenses].  I'm glad that you think it's funny, you got a windfall [I laughed to myself nervously at this point because he kept repeating his cost management rationale and it never made any sense].  The rest of us don't think it's funny, this community doesn't think it's funny [police brutality, slander and infringing rights are not amusing], but these guys [the veteran wall representatives] are gonna go get this wall give you the right to stand up here every meeting for five minutes [I bet they'd give me more time, and I believe, given the facts, they would agree with me more than your corrupt City Hall] and say your piece.  You ought to turn around and thank those guys [I did, before I left.  It was Henderson's only good idea I heard].  Those are the guys that stood in front, and those guys on the wall lost their lives for you to be able to do that [I admire them greatly, but I would still confront tyranny even without their sacrifice.  It is after all what they fought for, not your cheap theatrics.].  So you think of that.  With that we move on, B. 

 

And so saying they went into closed session, where they decided on binding arbitration for the McAdams lawsuit.

[Willy]

The mayor just doesn't get it. He, along with Shay and the Council have created this situation and the atmosphere of distrust with potentially corrupt and deliberate decisions to side step the laws that govern their actions. If it wasn't for X we would never know about the incompetence and bad behavior of City officials because there is no where else that the citizens can be informed about what is going on. Not the Mayors office not the City Council not the City Manager and especially not the Ludington Daily News. We should all be grateful for what X has done for all citizens.

[AQUAMAN]

""

[AQUAMAN]

Cheap theatrics indeed, over and over again. Here's some notable facts I saw during this session of the trick-shot city council mtg.. A) Our City Attorney, during the invocation by our Chief, again refuses to fold his hands and bow his head in prayer. Agnostic, or atheist? Either way, no respect for the Lord, nor religion. No wonder why he was chosen for CA, no scruples, no shame, and no ethics. B) Bob Williams' presentation, while noble and patriotic, went into the exact 10 minute mark, from 16:35-26:35, not the stern 5 minute allotted time limit. Funny how some stringent rules apply to some, but not others, hypocrisy at it's finest. C) Les Johnson, put's his foot in his mouth. DID you do your homework, "Before" you made remarks about the financial status of a fellow citizen? NO! And MOUTHY Holman also kicks in her "SCORE" comment to inflict more assault, not lady-like, nor even councilwoman-like, but that's to be expected from this "female sasquatch", imho. Since X's status for indigent has already been denied by Shay, how come Les doesn't have any knowledge of it? Most likely because he wanted to grasp a straw of revenge and punishment, but, it backfired, even Shay admitted it. D) Now comes his Honor, the lame-duck Mayor, with more assaults on X to lie and detract attention from the issues at hand, per his usual trickster behavior. X specifically identified several "individual officers" from the LPD and MCSO as being roughians, and rogues to their duties and actions that are detrimental and illegal, per the court cases mentioned. These legal cases against the COL have been, or are still being settled out of court for large amounts of taxpayers monies. His remarks included LPD officer Sailor, not Sawyer, as the Mayor incorrectly stated. X's remarks were targeted on the few that have bad records for new, and previous illegal assaults on the public, he never said the entire law enforcement body as a whole was corrupt, nor even inferred it. Perhaps our Mayor needs lessons in understanding the English language. No, his attempt at fueling a fire for pure revenge and spinning the truth, as usual, is his forte. That's why he's fooled so many, for so long. E) Shay again has that fixed psycho stare at X at the 30:15 mark, for intimidation, and because this is his usual reflex and look when he's been cornered in more lies. Look again John Q. Public, you may just find more unnecessary and immature behavior in this meeting, it sure aint Rocket Science to see through these phonies.

[XLFD]

Interesting analysis, Aquaman.  I will make no assumptions about Barrister Wilson's lack of religious values because I believe he has shown that he may devoutly worship Mammon along with the patron saint of incompetent lawyers. 

As for (B), the Mayor and Bob discussed the five minute barrier before the meeting and that it may be breeched, and technically it was more of a presentation, rather than a public comment, and Bob was not soliloquying the whole time.  So I'll give both a pass there, but note the five minutes has only been enforced on one individual in the last 16 months, though many others have spoken longer.

Les, in (C), states something I haven't qualified for since the City changed the FOIA policy in March to effectively require that you own a house to qualify for indigence, and the need to submit proof of indigence quarterly.  Both will be challenged on the FOIA 2 lawsuit, along with plenty of other minutia, coming soon.  Les' statement is actually an acknowledgment of my winning, but the funny thing is, if I get a lump sum in the second quarter of this year, the new FOIA policy is set up so that if I am indigent in the third quarter, I would qualify for indigence-- if I owned a house.

Unfortunately, Les doesn't make any comment about who is supplying the liquor for the FNL event they voted the liquor license for that day.  Could it be the usual provider, AJ's Party Port, ran by Councilor Les?

Mayor Henderson (D) effectively takes it from a "why is this happening?" approach I take, to a "you are not for us in all of our actions, so you XLFD, or any others, must be against us."  He makes nothing clearer in his words, just points out how he and his brethren City Hallers are taking it personally. 

And (E) the fixed stare is there for about 25 seconds as I recall, and would have been there more if he had not realized the camera was on him, and it was creepy the first time when he did it for two minutes longer.  This was the same guy who said that some parents or teachers came up to his wife and said I was staring at her and Shay's kid at her school.  I say, look in the mirror, John Shay and John Henderson.  Do you like what you see?  Do you honestly believe the public is buying all of your malarkey?

[Willy]

Good observations Aquaman. As far as [E] is concerned, the advice I would give X when Shay levels his beady eyes at him would be to give him a big wink and if he continues to stare then pucker up and show him a big kiss. The only problem would be is if he blushes and winks back.

[Willy]

Eye

Should X pay for attorney fees because that's were most of the money went?

[AQUAMAN]

He shared that at the meeting right up front, did you not listen to the transcript? You have some "growing up to do" EyE!

[Willy]

Eye

Most attorneys charge 33% plus expenses so it is very possible that in most cases the defendant can end up with only 50% or even less. I have heard of cases where the attorneys have gotten almost 90% of settlements.

[XLFD]

My attorney for the Letter of Trespass lawsuit charged a flat fee for his hourly rate, and was averse to me openly discussing the amount he charged, and so I will observe that wish.  I can say what my attorney charged for prosecuting this case against John Shay and the City of Ludington was notably less than the $16,000+ the Risk Management attorney Allan Vander Laan charged for defending it.

[XLFD]

EyE,

Frankly, I dismiss the validity of your survey, one of many reasons why is because of the way you have presented it "Others think you never should have taken it in the first place.", as if I have somehow stole this money from someone.  As Willy mentioned, I got a lawyer's family to feed, and I have dedicated this money to go into my continued effort to rid my city of corruption.  What better community purpose is that? 

Believe me, I have talked with plenty of people about this in the last few weeks, and exactly none of them have told me it is wrong to keep the money.  A couple of the area's useful idiots have said so at MCP's Facebook page in positions of ignorance, but what I keep hearing when I talk with regular folks is that I should have got more out of those (various expletives), and to keep doing what I'm doing. 

And I think I could claim 100% I've chatted with think that way, but it is in no means a scientific poll, since I could go into a city council meeting and get almost a reverse result.  Kind of like Romney polling at 0% in the black community, but having about 100% in other constituencies.  I don't poll well with those that believe everything they read in the local paper or out of local officials mouths.

[AQUAMAN]

EyE, your so called poll isn't worth the effort to even comment about it, except to say it's probably as flawed as your bigoted and sexist attitude about the Zimmerman case. Those are about the type of people you get your poll and ideas from, birds of a feather. Yes, I have shortcomings and am a sinner, just the same as any other human being on this planet. Wilson, obviously, doesn't believe in prayer, nor even bowing his head, out of respect, like everyone else in the room did. I stand by what I say and do in life, without much worries about it coming back to bite me in the end. How do you sleep EyE? Probably with one EyE open I imagine, lol.

[AQUAMAN]

To be simple and blunt, Les Johnson is just another hand-picked cronie that is a part of the good ole boy network running the COL. The same as several others, or the majority that always vote in unison. If Les was honest and ethical, he would have declined any conflict of interest in providing FNL adult beverages, since there are others not in conflict also capable of providing that service. And the entire council should have disqualified AJ's to begin with, since this is totally unethical, and possibly, illegal in nature. If we lived in Custer, and there was only one supplier available, the council's decision would still appear unethical, as there are other worthy suppliers nearby in the county to match that service. But, this isn't what transpired, nor what will change into the future. It's in all the publics' face, and nobody says or does a damn thing to correct or point it out as cronie governing, except of course our X.