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. 

[XLFD]

EyE is either fooling himself or naïve if he actually believes there are not repercussions for taking a stand against our local officials.  EyE should envision, if he can, what would happen to him, his employment, his relations, if he should direct his zeal the way I have.

[Willy]

Eye

what would you propose be done to prevent any more violations of the OMA by the Council?

[XLFD]

And that's why I don't respect your stance, EyE.  This is not a minor matter.  If I never warned these individuals that the meeting was not properly posted, then I could see it as a 'minor' or 'technical' matter.

It rises to the level of significance when the warning was issued, and the warning was ignored.  I, a member of the public, effectively notified them not to go through with any deliberation or decision making for that meeting, because the public had not been given proper notice as required by law.

Consider what may have happened if I had set foot in City Hall during the time I had the Workplace Safety Policy placed on me.  It is obvious to anyone familiar with law, that the WSP is unconstitutional and unsound law that prohibited me from stepping foot on public property, and actually enforcing it would have led to serious legal consequences for the City. 

But I abided by it, even when it disenfranchised me from voting and participating in 'so-called' open meetings-- rights I should have possessed automatically from being a citizen. 

The City Council had absolutely no power to hold a decision making meeting that day, the City Officials named had no right to make those decisions, however,the citizens of Ludington had a right to attend these meetings and have them properly posted so they can know when they are being held. 

You can respect these citizens all you want, EyE, but permit me the opportunity to try and make them respectable in my eyes by holding them accountable to the law.

[XLFD]

That is rather presumptive of him, however, I can assure EyE that a significant portion of any free and clear winnings will go to charitable causes and to further efforts to clean out the corruption floating at the top of our Ludington on the lake.

[XLFD]

EyE,

If our prosecuting attorney took on this lawsuit against these OMA violators, which our current Paul Spaniola never would, do you also believe he would be obligated to share it with Ludington residents? 

The other side brazenly says they are entitled to legal representation supplied by the Ludington residents, money that will likely eclipse the maximum award, because of a clear violation by them of the OMA caught on camera, a violation against the people. 

They violated the law at the public's expense, they will violate the people's pocketbook to defend their unlawful actions.  I reported a violation of the law that I EyEwitnessed, I have used my own money and time to prosecute and will suffer the burdens of the City Hall's political machine against me. 

Makes for a compelling story, but the local news media's 'loyalty to the public' will swing to the City's defense because quite frankly, they have a lot more to lose if they back the public.

[AQUAMAN]

EyE, there you go again, making presumptions and assumptions that just aren't factual. Remember, the word assume broken up = ass/u/me, get it? I support X on many, but NOT ALL his pursuits. I support "Anyone with the dedication and persistence" to achieve a more legal and fair government, esp. Ludington. I am involved daily in a rigorous schedule of many multitudes of pursuits in business, and family, that don't concern anyone but me, not a blog. Therefore, the time I would like to dedicate to attending every CC mtg. and making many investigations into records, law, etc., just doesn't exist much these days now. In spite of that, I attended three CC mtgs. this year, and two Hamlin mtgs., how many did you attend? The spirit of the individualist in believing in freedom, fair governing, acting legally and for the best interests of the voters, seems to me at least, a very important and patriotic act. One a sheeple will never understand. There are literally hundreds more like X, some that post, and all too many that don't, for privacy's sake. If I'm not participating with X in spirit, I try to give advice and assistance any way possible. Some here come to disagree for the sake of disharmony and cheap thrills, so be it, they are who they are, and we can't fix stupid.

[AQUAMAN]

And fix it you never will either, because you assume, and posture with the same arrogance and aloofness of many which we refer to here from thread to thread.  Listen to the arrogance of referring to any claims and lawsuit findings as "the citizens monies"! And further the statements of where to donate those proceeds! That is just vain in every respect, not to mention condescending. What right has anyone to tell another where to deposit and give any donations, when that money is earned and rightfully the property of the individual that has worked for it? You again make very lofty social type suggestions, that only tell what your heart and soul is made from, that of the socialistic mass mentality, one that says only you and you alone know what's best for X, just like Obama is with socialized medicine right now. EyE, your views are yours for the masses, don't confuse them with the temperament and demeanor of the Torch membership. We are not cut and dried from your tent of convoluted socialism, we are Americans in patriotic symphony, and harmonize here in posting for the good of what is right, not what is perceived as right by the minority. Do your homework on the archives too, you might just learn something in fact, not fiction.

[Willy]

Eye

You certainly have this all twisted around. Your statement "What right does XLFD have to sue the city over and over again and keep the money as his own" says much of your lack of understanding about the Constitution and laws regarding his and your rights as a citizen of this Country. It's hard for me to understand why you even consider the question of X's right to challenge illegal behavior by elected and appointed officials. I challenge you to show that evidence and facts presented by X regarding his law suits is  incorrect or contrary to his right to initiate legal action against public officials. X is doing exactly what every citizen should do when potentially corrupt behavior is uncovered but most people are to intimidated to do the right thing.

[XLFD]

Tonight's Ludington City Council meeting, showed precisely what is wrong with our current leadership.  I get up and make points about the city's abysmal record of following the Open Meetings Act with five examples starting with Jack Byers, discuss the unethical property acquisition scheme of 808 East Danaher by the City, and the latest wrinkle in the Brye Road Water Tank maintenance contract scandal (which I wasn't allowed to finish.  A city official then comes up and spends his minutes criticizing a private individual (three guesses who that was).

After he's done, a round of applause by the apologists of our fair city, well-represented throughout the audience, punctuate it.  This is what awaits those who want to get involved, but do not appreciate the frequent unethical bungling and non-transparency of our City. 

All seven violaters of the OMA were served tonight, however, and the City's tactics only strengthen my resolve to go forth.

[Willy]

Eye

Your quote "What right does XLFD have to sue the city over and over again and keep the money as his own". From my English studies I consider that a Question and it definitely is referring to his right to "initiate legal action against public officials". Now your trying to twist your own words. 

My comments are regarding your opinion about  the right of a citizen to file suit against public officials who do not see fit to follow the law. Also a law suit settlement is not "charity".

Your statement, "I fully believe that X and I could have (and would have) more courteous and insightful discussions if not for the noise & interference from folks like you who are way too quick to criticize". I suggest you e-mail X so your conversation can remain private and you can avoid others from reading your insightful discussions with X. Also, I was commenting on your remarks to Aquaman not X. You do realize that this is a forum and as such we all comment about what topics we are interested in no matter who posted it.

You have no idea if I have involved myself with Ludingtons politics, how could you? You don't know who I am. You assume to much. 

[easymoney]

what would still be going on with the good ol boys club, if some one ( xlfd) hadn't started standing up for individual rights, starting with his own? Some of us have similar problems with our local government in different area's. of the country. I have where I live, namely law enforcement, most are young, and simply follow orders, as if they have no mind of their own. I've found that you had better know your rights, because they sure don't. Altho, at my age, I don't have the problems with them that I used to. Once they realize that you won't be pushed, or bullied, they tend to leave you alone. But, it does cost money, and an out of  area lawyer to win.

[Willy]

My lack of reading comprehension is only exceeded by your lack of communication skills. Twice I quoted your statement about X's right to file a law suit on Government officials and twice you skated around that statement. A statement, I might add, that was not taken out of context. You seem to think that your posts are a private conversation between you and the person your posting to. And why would I divulge any facts or information about any lawsuits I may have with the Authorities? If that were to happen I would no longer be anonymous. X has taken his claims against the City to the public so that all citizens can see what the City is doing to everyone's rights and freedoms and he has been persecuted for it. If I had to compare X's integrity to yours I'm afraid you couldn't come close to matching up with his. Every question posed to X on this forum has been thoroughly answered and backed up with facts by X. If anyone needs to brush up on reading comprehension it would be you, in my humble opinion. And no one is bashing you so please spare us from your martyr complex.