79th District Court Refuses to File Open Meetings Act Lawsuit!

[XLFD]

Background

 

On November 11, I went in front of the Ludington City Council to tell them of an Open Meetings Act violation from May (of which I indicated), and of a lawsuit I had hinted at then.  I had my 8 copies of the complaint with me, but couldn't serve it if I had wanted to because I hadn't filed yet for failing to anticipate the courts had the day off due to Veteran's Day. 

I had listed the 79th District Court as the venue (place for lawful  judgment) of this claim, and put it as such in the summons and complaint, because everything I read had that as being proper venue.  The fourth statement on my complaint says (links to the laws provided here):  

 

" This court has jurisdiction by statute pursuant to MCL 600.8301(1) in that it is a civil suit for less than $25,000, as violation of MCL 15.273(1) limits awards to $500 per defendant and plaintiff does not seek invalidation of policy or injunctive damages."

 

Even though the Open Meetings Act limits certain judicial remedies to the Circuit Court, there is nothing that says it has jurisdiction over all Open Meetings Act civil suits.  It has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints to challenge the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of this act (MCL 15.270), or in a civil action for injunctive relief against a local public body (MCL 15.271).  My action went for neither of those objectives, and hence fell outside the Circuit Court range, since I was seeking less than $25,000-- up to $500 from seven city officials.

 

Filing Denied in District Court

 

So today I went to the local courthouse to file my suit with the district court.  If you haven't been to the Mason County Courthouse recently, they have a glass and wood enclosed room outside the old entrances to the 79th District Court and the 51st Circuit Court.  You ring a bell and a clerk from either one appears after a little while if you're lucky.  You then need to yell to make yourself heard through the glass, so if the hallway is crowded, just about everyone knows your business.

 

I was lucky and got someone quick, they took my summons first and went back into their room, then another clerk came back shortly and asked for a copy of my complaint.  I waited about ten minutes, before this lady once again came out and explained to me that I would need to file this in circuit court.  I pointed out the sections of law that I believed showed it to be a district court case in my application.  I asked for some form of proof that I needed to file in circuit court.  She went back for another five minutes.

 

You may wonder what is the difference between the courts, and why I would balk at just taking their word for it.  Circuit court has steeper filing fees, more procedural hurdles for a simple community activist like me, and two judges, Cooper and Wickens, that have not acted very judge-like in my encounters with them in my FOIA case with the City of Ludington. 

I can at least depend on Judge Peter Wadel in the 79th District Court to actually put out a reasonable and reasoned opinion, whether I win or lose in his court.  I believe he wouldn't put up with the shenanigans that the City Attorneys of Ludington dealt out in that aforementioned FOIA case.  My druthers would always fall to the 79th District, unless I was dependent on the current Magistrate making the ruling, who seems to have very little knowledge of laws from my past run in with the district court in 2008 and 2009 over a simple bicycle infraction.

 

Well, my district court clerk came out once again and she had a printout of section 10 of the OMA with the following portions highlighted as her proof:

 

 

As stated before, this section only applies if you are trying to invalidate a decision made in an improper meeting, and limits the period to file suit within 60 days.  When I explained this to her she said that she had talked with Prosecutor Spaniola about which court had proper venue, and he apparently pointed to this section and said that I definitely had to file it in circuit court.  Was the prosecutor's office running the district court?  I said laughingly that the prosecutor is just a lawyer, what sort of part should he have in this decision, when the law says otherwise. 

 

The lady refused to show me any reason or law about why the circuit court was proper venue, and wouldn't let me even attempt to file in district court.  I left, pretty disgusted over the district court officials who once again affirmed that they have little regard for the laws on the books, they would rather depend on the advice of a lawyer that frequently appears in their court seeking to prosecute individuals.  A lawyer who is very shaky on following the law, and bears a poor preconceived notion of me, and against transparency.

 

Counter-examples (Court-erexamples?)

 

After being once again disillusioned over the competency of our local district court staff, I left for home to prove the arbitrary and capricious ruling that day made by the 79th District Courtiers with help from Prosecutor Paul was absurd.  A simple Google search took me quickly to five times where Michigan Open Meeting Act violations were tried in the State's District Courts.  Number one, nearby Newaygo in 2010:

 

 

Number two, an Ann Arbor case in 2010, which started in district, appealed to circuit:

 

 

Number three, a 2003 case starting at Oakland University, where John Shay and Mark Barnett are alumni:

 

 

Number four, a 2011 case coming from Holland Township:

 

 

Number five, appropriately a mayor and six councilors are charged in the claim, while one of the councilors is absolved of blame-- the same type of defendants I have, but I have not sought criminal charges, only exemplary damages.

 

 

This link is getting sent out to the district court by E-mail tonight to hopefully pave the way so that I will not be disenfranchised by the local judicial system once again, five years after they made so many due process violations in an alleged bicycle violation.  If they once again try to put me into the circuit court, which would be improper venue, they effectively lock me into losing my case, when the defendants eventually claim improper venue (like I am now) and possibly nullify my complaint due to time limits for filing back in the proper venue. 

[Willy]

You are absolutely correct. Even a non legal mind can see that the section of the law given to you by the clerk only pertains to "decisions" made during a meeting which was in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Anyone can see that the violation you are addressing happened before the meeting, that being a lack of proper notice that the meeting would be taking place. It's an up hill battle you have with these incompetent Court personal. This is going to be an interesting challenge to set this straight. This decision by the Court could be grounds for another lawsuit. Imagine having to sue the court who is preventing you from suing the Council members. Talk about a tangled web.

[XLFD]

Hopefully, I can get this straightened out this afternoon in person.  I haven't found any way to contact the court via E-mail, but I did petition Prosecutor Spaniola so that he could grant his approval and allow the 79th District Court to file my case today. 

I hope this affair gives those people that are arraigned and/or brought to trial by the Prosecutor in the 79th District Court confidence in the Mason County justice system.  Just think, the same person who is trying his damnedest to get you found guilty is overseeing the decision-making of the court. 

As Yakov Smirnoff would say:  "What a country!!!"

[Willy]

I also noticed that several of the cases you sited were brought to the courts by local prosecutors. Wouldn't that be a hoot if our Prosecutor really did his job instead of making a private citizens compel the Council to obey the law. The good old boy system is extremely entrenched in Ludingtons politics. I hope the new Mayor will be the start of the end to this nonsense. 

[XLFD]

Thanks for noticing that Willy, I was wistfully thinking after reading these articles the same thing.  Prosecutor Spaniola, however, rides interference for keeping information secret and his fellow officials protected by the system, and appears proficient at not using laws or legal authorities to accomplish his ends, which seem quite often to be contrary to what his office is supposed to be doing.

If you want to get an innocent citizen prosecuted, he's your man.  If you want to get a guilty official prosecuted, forget it. 

[FLudington]

Hes a criminal mastermind, dedicated to corruption, shielding the guilty, lying and altering the facts to suit his pretty little ideas. 

[XLFD]

I had to wait about an hour this afternoon, stand my ground by insisting on the laws of proper venue be followed, but the lawsuit against the six city councilors and one mayor that willfully violated the Open Meetings Act after being warned not to, has been filed in DISTRICT court.  The file below may or may not work for your computer; it's a WAV file, one minute long, beginning after I was told I would need to file it with the County Clerk (as per Circuit Court rules)

 

[XLFD]

As Mayor John Henderson would say before leading the charge into May's meeting:  "Comment Duly Noted." 

As unreported in the COLDNews, by nature of the lawsuit, I am forced by the OMA law to sue the individual officials of the Ludington City Council.  And that's probably the best way to get their attention, so that they will try to make an effort to follow the laws in the future, particularly the Gang of Five who participated in the previous OMA violation.

And there is no doubt in my mind that their actions on May 20, 2013 were in violation of the law.  The fun begins when/if they or their attorneys try to spin it as something other. 

[Willy]

Eye

I consider X a patriot and a good citizen and I am extremely glad he has taken on this crusade. If he had not, Ludington residents would still be sitting in ignorant bliss thinking how well the City is being ran. My hats off to X.

[XLFD]

Thanks, Willy, I know you don't easily throw out complimentary terms like 'patriot' or 'hero' casually, even though I may never get to rise to the latter, and also

Thanks, EyE, because I know just a year or so ago we were going in totally opposite ways on the axis of ideas, and today we can air some agreements, and civilly discuss our differences on these pages, despite my unmatchable zealotry.   

[XLFD]

While I can't unbiasedly argue for or against points of your analysis on myself, EyE (so I won't even try), I do believe you misjudge the courage and convictions of Aquaman and Willy.  You definitely underestimate their intelligence, as they don't continually paint themselves into a corner like yours truly, LOL. 

But of course, you have me at a disadvantage, as you know my identity.  If you ever decide to confide yours with me, so that we can compare and contrast zeals, it will be in total confidence. 

[XLFD]

Consider it analogous to the Council-Manager form of local government.  The City Manager does the paperwork and footwork and takes any heat for unpopular policy, while the councilors and mayor are free to work on their re-election bids after rubber-stamping the unpopular policy, while touting how they diligently worked for the people in their transparent democracy.  But they often are kept in the dark unless they are in the loop.  I'm the John Shay of the Ludington Torch-- ewww, LOL.

But Aquaman and Willy aren't on the same level as city councilors; Aquaman's identity is known by many, so when he posts anything here, he effectively signs his John Hancock on the document.  Willy is more mysterious, but he has given me great insight at times due to his comments, both public and private. 

There is a great cost you bear when you speak out against a government propped up by the local newspaper and business interests, a government working against the public interest in many ways.  Potential energy of those that have yet to act, is as valuable as the kinetic energy I have supplied over the last few years. 

You used a football reference, permit me a poker reference.  You could have some real bad cards on the table in stud poker; your opponents may have you beat soundly by the cards you both show.  But perhaps the cards you have face-down complete a flush or straight. 

Fortunately, I have had the better hand on the table in all the legal challenges I have dealt the City, and the City has had to use some 'trump cards' in the past to help their situation.  I still have the Rulebook (State law) and my face-down cards in my favor.  

[Willy]

Eye

I support X because he is right. The reason I don't let  myself be known is not for myself but for family members who are vulnerable and would be open to the wrath of Local authorities. Some of them have already suffered due to the industrial turbine controversy. I appreciate your support of X's "right" to challenge the status quo even tho you disagree with many of his ideas but that only shows just how much division there is for how local government and the courts are performing their jobs contrary to the law and Constitution.