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. 

[easymoney]

Willy, you can do, as a lot of us have, choose to read open minded comments, and ignore the others. That's what I do.

[AQUAMAN]

Yes Willy, easy, and X, one has to only ask oneself, how does an immature female psychologist, in fact, get so warped in her concept of fairness, and objectivity? Dunno! But, now that most of the smelly smoke has cleared, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate X on this new conquest to point out to the MC Prosecutor's office the exact law with regards to OMA rules. One can only ask, why didn't they in fact know the law, and it's concepts before X had to clear that up for them? Afterall, this is their job and duty by law! It would seem some would rather block the entire episode, by just stonewalling it as per the usual response. Thanks X, for being persuasive, persistent, and vigilant, in your pursuits of justice.

[XLFD]

Your welcome, Aquaman.  Sometimes you need to wear the iron gauntlets and other times the velvet gloves to fight the layers of bureaucratic bluster that our system has put in the way for governments to be held accountable by the citizenry. 

Our prosecutor, and to be fair, many prosecutors nowadays, seem to be more obsessed with making criminals from the civilian population and blocking action on misdeeds from their fellow public officials.  Prosecutor Paul in this case tried to make it more difficult to file a complaint in our court system, something he shouldn't have even been involved with.  That milquetoast should be prosecuting this.