79th District Court: Defiantly Against Due Process

[XLFD]

Today, I received a call from the 79th District Court concerning process serving for the Open Meetings Act lawsuit I filed last week.  It seems that they sent the summons and complaint to all seven city officials at the Ludington City Hall, but they were all refused, put back in the mailbox, and are now back at the courthouse.  The district court called me and recommended I have each of these councilors personally served at their home address by process servers.  And whereas, I knew this would be costly, I agreed to look for their addresses and get that information back to them at the court.

 

But then I realized this ploy by Ludington city officials was not only an unnecessary action, but it was unlawful, and the clerks at the 79th District Court should have known that.  Michigan courts are governed by Michigan Court Rules, and they include how process is served, including process serving on public officials.  Rule 2.105 (G) covers how to serve government bodies and governmental officials:

 

 

So I am sure the clerks at Ludington City Hall accepts letters to the mayor and the city councilors arriving there, and passes it to them, but for some reason, they believe they have the ability to refuse these summonses.  Interesting, it speaks volumes to how little they think of following the rules.

 

But this refusal bespeaks the work of Manistee City Attorney Richard Wilson, who on one hand wants the public body as the defendant in this lawsuit (which would make the above rule definitely apply for service) or as seven individuals (who arguably might need individual service, if we divorce them from their office-- and any hope from legal public assistance from the taxpayers for them). 

 

Still, the only remedy offered by the District Court was not to remind the city official who sent these back that the summonses should have been accepted and distributed, but to get back to me and insist on personal service.  This doesn't surprise me, the 79th District Court has not been an entity much concerned with procedural due process, as this letter I sent to them on Friday reminded them, where I returned two documents they passed back to me when they originally denied me the right to file in their court. 

 

Much of these prior problems with the district court were in this thread: Justice Delayed....  The first of three records below represent the amount I paid to the court for filing and service and was dated for the next day.  Service included seven registered letters sent to the defendants' corporate address (City Hall) at $12 a pop, that someone who believes they represent the City refused.

  

The two pages below, which have been edited to protect the personal information thereon, were given to me by the district court.  Conceivably, my stack of papers was put on a countertop or desk on other papers and those were picked up and given to me.   That's pretty sloppy protocol when they are dealing with all the matters of confidentiality that pass through that court office. 

It is really shocking how many times I have caught these professional clerks of the 79th District Court administration messing my own affairs up.  One can only imagine how many times they have done similar errors and more to other people, as many 'clients' of district courts accept their decisions, mandates, and protocol as the law. 

[XLFD]

Yes, the summonses came from the court with return receipt requested.  One has to ask why someone at Ludington City Hall would not accept them for their highest officers?  This is just even more outrageous conduct, courtesy of the current regime.

[XLFD]

They want the taxpayers to pay their legal bill, but they also want to be treated as individuals disjoint from the public entity they serve.  Can they have it both ways? 

It doesn't seem right, but they will be served, and I am going to try to get these summonses from the court tomorrow, so that I can get my own process server(s) to give them out.  Seventy-nine degrees of incompetency. 

 

[XLFD]

The attorneys aren't generally too concerned with politics, but with law.  I believe an objective local press would have a field day with City Hall refusing seven legal summonses served from the 79th District Court about an Open Meetings Act violation. 

But no-- they are interested only in purveying legal theories of Manistee attorney Richard Wilson, and the latest fib from City Manager John Shay to be interested in facts. 

[XLFD]

My hunch also is that the 79th District Court, who already leaked the complaint to the COLDNews before any defendant has been actually served, leaked the same info to the City, and it wouldn't surprise me if they talked over the Michigan Court rules and how it would apply. 

This is not just a simple open-and-shut case that I can go to an objective court and get relief from our city officials' poor decisions, though it should be.

[Willy]

My question is how did the clerk know what was contained in the letters to make the decision to send them back? Did the clerk make the decision to send them back or was the clerk instructed to send them back, if so who made that decision? This sounds like a serious breach of ethics at the least and a criminal offense at the worst.  If this doesn't demonsrate that there is a problem with local government I don't know what does.

[XLFD]

Haven't you noticed that prosecutors take their case to the public all the time, EyE?  Around here, they often make statements that turn out to be indeterminable at the time or false as witnessed most recently by the Todd Johnson character assassination/witch hunt. 

I would have hoped that the 79th District Clerks could figure out the proper service for these summonses, I myself would have hand-addressed them to the seven home addresses of the councilors and mayor, but the court took that task out of my hands.  I believe they don't have the exclusive right to serve my summons, as they intimated:  MCL 600.8321 (2). 

No big surprise there.  I'm going to get these summonses and have my own choice of service employed.

[XLFD]

Willy, I was told on the phone by the 79th that the City refused the certified letters, which they may have the right to do, but I believe the City invalidates any claim therefrom that these rogue officials deserve any public money from city taxpayers to defend themselves.  They can't seek shelter of being part of a public body only when it benefits their cause.