An Elegy for Justice Starring Former Judge Mark Raven

[XLFD]

Today is the day that the life of Martin Luther King is celebrated, a rabble rouser much like our original founding fathers were.  Against the odds, he fought against an unjust system and showed through his resilience and peaceful civil disobedience that the system had to change to keep pace with this country's long standing ideals.

I never appreciated how important his contributions were, until I walked in his shoes back in 2008 and 2009.  Now, I look to him, Gandhi, Thoreau, the original American rebels of 1776, and all who receive injustice anywhere for inspiration in restoring what our own government and our own apathy is taking from us.  But a brief recap is in order before we get to my story.

I was not sure I was legally right when I was stopped by a policeman in 2008 for not coming to a stop at a stop sign while riding my bicycle, and declared I don't stop if it's not necessary due to safety issues.  But never did I find it stated that I have to in Michigan law since then.  When I challenged the traffic citation, I had the police chief tell my boss, the fire chief, a bunch of untruths about the incident he wasn't even at.  I knew that was against the law, and common ethics of the profession.

I was given the hearing I requested, but not given the traffic court judge, but Judge Raven, the Probate Judge to hear my issue.  I had dealt with Judge Raven before in an issue of probate.  In 2006, I moved to get guardianship of a person who was undeniably getting mistreated by his current guardian and her son, and the records seemed to show a severe mishandling of the finances.  When I got in front of Judge Raven at a hearing, I was repeatedly interrupted, and not allowed to introduce my case into the record.

Fortunately for the person, there were past records of problems, and another party who could assume guardianship at the hearing whom I felt would be even better at the job.  I was disturbed by Judge Raven's reluctance to allow for a true hearing that would allow the previous guardian's malfeasance to be entertained.  But he sure defended her otherwise in a very unbiased manner, and put his defense on record.

Back to 2008, I was never given anything beyond a notice to appear, then a phone call coming the morning of the trial saying that it would be moved to a new date, and a new notice, both with Judge Raven's name on it.  I was never told why the Probate Judge I had ticked off for filing a change of guardian form claiming conflicts two years prior was hearing the case, but I was disappointed I did not get the much fairer (in my opinion) Judge Wadel, who was the Traffic Court judge after all.

The court hearing happened, the City presented their case, I presented a defense based on the unlawfully erected stop sign, and the lack of any state law(s) saying stop signs apply to bicycles.  Judge Raven found both arguments faulty without expressing any reason why, and decided against me.  Over the next few months, I repeatedly asked the court about whether Raven had jurisdiction in traffic court, they replied that he did without any proof or legal argument.  The laws I read said he didn't and that many different procedural due processes were not given to me.  The court sent me a motion to show cause for not paying the order the next fall.

I went into the court that day lined up with legal arguments showing he lacked jurisdiction, and that there were numerous instances of the court failing procedurally to give me a fair trial in front of a judge who had qualifications to listen to traffic court civil infraction cases.  Yet it was not proven in court until this last year (2012) that Judge Raven, who declares throughout this transcript that he had jurisdiction over this case-- case closed-- that he, in fact, had no such power.  Something the 79th District Court should have known from the beginning.

Here is the transcript of that show cause hearing, with minor footnoting.  The times when it seems like we are interrupting each other, were times when I was trying to complete a statement.  Judge Raven's ("the court") face turned really red when he was discussing the Judicial Tenure Comission, and stayed that way for most of the rest of the hearing.  I only tried to speak my complete thought without deferring to the judge's frequent interruptions on the bottom of page 19.

Contrary to Judge Raven's edict on lines 13 and 14, he gives the fine and penalty for criminal contempt charges.  Civil contempt charges are dependent on the amount owed.  That last link is the same law quoted on the next page's line 14.

MCL 24.271, this along with a couple more laws from the Administrative Procedures Act, and the court's own documents were never allowed into the record, as will be seen, because the judge would not allow me to do so.  The District Court violated at least four laws of this act, and they were not held accountable.  As if to say: "We are the law, XLFD, we enforce it on others, not ourselves."

MCL 600.401 ,this was the first of three linked laws that effectively say probate judges in Mason County cannot try civil infraction actions, which my bicycle ticket was.  Interestingly, MCL 600.841, which originally said district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over small claim and civil infraction actions, was recently amended to take that portion out in 2012, another law MCL 600.411 got repealed in 2012 which is brought up on p 18.  Probably because of similar conflicts that arose in this situation.  I have printouts of the old laws that say directly that Judge Raven couldn't sit in judgment here, plainly stated, according to statute.

"I've already ruled that this court has jurisdiction"-- even though I, Judge Raven, agree the law stated contradicts the assertion, and says that a district court judge has exclusive jurisdiction over civil infraction actions.  I still don't get it, doesn't the law apply here?

The jurisdictional argument is relevant, I don't want a judge elected for family court issues deciding issues he is not qualified to handle in traffic court, nor do I want the reverse.  Would you like a dentist doing your brain surgery, or vice versa?  It is an issue of competency and fairness to the litigants.

(Line 7) I was given almost no opportunity to make my arguments, which even unheard, are declared erroneous.  This goes for legitimate jurisprudence in Judge Raven's courtroom.  Talk over the defendant, accept the premise that he has no jurisdiction over civil infraction actions before saying he has such jurisdiction and effectively claims the law is erroneous.

The judge threatens to unlawfully put me in jail for 15 days for civil contempt, once again treating my reluctance to pay a fine without a valid court order as criminal contempt.  If I owe $158, I can only be held in jail for 6 days maximum, anytime after that I would be illegally held.  There seems to be a lot of laws that Judge Raven wasn't acquainted with very familiarly.  That's what happens when you have thousands upon thousands of laws and expect judges to be able to go to any court to practice with what they know.  Judge Raven rules more by instinct than by law, which can be nice if you have violated the law, but is bad if you have violated what he feels the law should say.  The main problem with concurrent jurisdiction is that not even Solomon can be familiar with all aspects of a constantly changing set of laws.

And I never got the proof of Judge Raven's jurisdiction as stated, just two records that showed he had the ability to sit in for Judge Wadel if he was disqualified due to various conflicts of interest.  I did receive an order that called for me to be imprisoned for 15 days if I failed to pay the fine, shown here, complete with Judge Wadel being present.  I honestly think Judge Wadel would have been embarassed at his court being held in such contempt by Judge Raven that day if he were actually present.

Without proof, I served three days in jail, being bailed out by a friend.  I received an amended order a bit different than the one drawn up before, shown here, which reflects that Raven judged the case and noted the proper civil penalty.  Such an experience does not give one a very rosy picture of Mason County justice, but it can give you a lifetime's inspiration to set things aright in your community.

I hired a lawyer that drew up a complaint about some of the various irregularities of the case, he also found out that there were no properly issued assignments that would allow Judge Raven to try my case, as required by law.  Judge Raven, therefore, had not only violated Michigan Court Rules by trying a case outside his jurisdiction, his orders and judgments put a man guilty of trying to follow the law into jail for three days and be indebted to others for having to pay an unlawfully adjudicated fine.

If you don't believe me when I say that, believe what Judge Wadel himself ruled on this summer, where he says that Judge Raven did not have proper jurisdiction over the case.  Look at note 2 on the bottom of this page

And read the whole decision here:  DisDis.pdf

I lost effectively on the technicality that it took too long to get everything from and through the various foot-dragging agencies; but in this losing decision, it did show I sufferd an injustice at the hands of the district court and Judge Raven by their failure to follow the rules, and also in the process that John Shay improperly denied my attorney FOIA records he should have.

So because the local courts could not follow the law, I am personally out of $158 in court costs, a lot in attorney fees, and three days of my life behind bars, and all I got to show for it is the knowledge that the real District Judge, Peter Wadel, admitted his court erred in letting Judge Raven rule on my bicycle ticket.  It seems about to be the best justice you can hope for in Mason County, where you can't even get an "I'm sorry" from the district court magistrate or from the now-retired Judge Raven.  Whose retirement allows me to write this piece without too much fear of extra-legal judicial retribution.

[Jane]

Wow, he sure did interrupt you a lot. It is very scary that if a person goes into court here in mason county they are unable to say there piece if the judge disagrees with what they have to say.

[XLFD]

When I went to the hearing in 2006 to discuss reasons and put forth paperwork that showed a variety of different transgressions made by one of our most prolific guardians in the area and her son, I was badgered a heck of a lot worse than I was here, and not allowed to put anything in the record spoken or documentation.  It was a true kangaroo court, not that the one above was any better. 

Judge Raven, in my dealings with him, and as was seen last year in his endorsements, involves himself politically in defiance of his judicial canons of behavior.  Politics and judging do not mix well for justice. 

[Newbi!!]

X, I think you're confusing the "Judge" with the "Court" in your "jurisdiction" part. Can you post the repealed law you spoke of? You say DISTRICT COURT JUDGE and I would presume it says -only- DISTRICT COURT. Judges are separate from Courts, Judges can get removed, disbarred and so on, COURTS in themselves cannot. Even retired Judges are asked sometimes to settle disputes as long as the meet the requirements. I would like to see where it states specifically that a probate JUDGE cannot sit in for a district JUDGE. Not the Jurisdictions of the Courts. If everyone at the Courthouse was out with the flu, should justice stop? No, they would bring in other Judges(quite possibly not even from this county) OR hopefully qualified attorneys, if needed.

I also think you have the impression that sending letters to the Court is somehow the same as Motioning the Court. The Courts don't act until they're MOTIONED to. I think most of the delays were due to You not properly addressing the Court. The technicality (as you put it) was because you didn't know what you were doing.

Judge Raven had no obligation to file an order in accordance to MCR 8.111(C), that solely rests upon Judge Wadel. He is the Chief Judge in the District Court. Read the rule and you will see it specifically states the Chief Judge does this. The UNDERSIGNED was Judge Wadel, he was the one NOT aware of the requirement.

Had Judge Wadel thought the delays and "technicalities" were due to the Court or Judge Raven, don't you think he would have mentioned it? If he had, I would think it would have gone more in your favor, he seems fair enough.

[Newbi!!]

Also, are you sure it was only repealed? Are you sure it wasn't moved to a more proper place? Like, here? 600.8803 State civil infraction; commencement of action; state as plaintiff; jurisdiction; time; place; venue; rights of minor.

(2) The district court and any municipal court have exclusive jurisdiction over state civil infraction actions.

As you can see, it relates to the COURTS JURISDICTION not the authority of the Judges, I think that was pretty much covered in the "blanket assignment".

[AQUAMAN]

Couple of questions for our Newbi!! First off, are you an attorney? If so, what's your particular expertise in this area of legal interpretation? In other words, are you in a position with the State Appeals Court system? Or another division of higher authority that deals with these particular interpretations of code law? You seem to have a higher acumen for the State laws and codes, thus my inquiries. And lastly, why does your Newbi!! name have two exclamation marks behind it? Just curious about your background, knowledge,  field of expertise, as it appears you do have a great degree of intelligence, beyond what most Newbi's we see here. Thanks, and welcome to the Torch, where truth is abundant and facts remain important to gain knowledge.

[Newbi!!]

Aquaman,

Thanks for the welcome. To begin, if I was an attorney, I would not offer this up. Lets leave it at, I read a lot. As with the courts, these are only opinions. The higher up the opinion the more it matters. The face of a law is of the most vital importance. Laws should be written so the common man/woman can understand them. If a law states JUDGE it is easily understood that it refers to a JUDGE. If a law states COURT it means COURT. The meaning in the previous post is that certain Courts handle certain cases. Example; a murder case will not be handled in the Probate or District court. Nor will a bicycle infraction be handled in the Circuit or Probate Court. None of that refers to the JUDGE that will be handling the case.Just because a Judge comes from the Probate Court doesn't mean he can ONLY represent the Probate Court.

Judges can be removed from cases in certain instances in accordance with the Michigan Court Rules. Judge Wadel was the one who didn't file the order for Judge Raven, which is a completely different subject than Judge Ravens ruling. Had Judge Wadel filed this order, X would still have needed to appeal Ravens order. This is where Court Rules and whatnot come in, time limits and everything. I don't see (just in Wadels written opinion) where X followed the rules where it came to motions or time limits. I think THATS the point to be taken from Wadels opinion. Reread it, I think you may come to the same conclusion. Many times he refers to letters vs motions and time. Plus it appears to myself that X was all over the spectrum.

If X should be going after someone, why not Judge Wadel? He appointed Raven, he didn't file the Order and he had the final say in the matter. Like I said, had Judge Wadel filed that one specific order, would X have blamed Raven as much? I don't see any place the law states that if that order isn't filed that a person gets to walk. Myself, I think that order is irrelevant if a Judge has a blanket assignment anyhow. It just states the obvious.

Newbi!! because I figured I would be called one sooner or later. Lol

[Willy]

Newbi

I must disagree with you regarding the Judge and Court seperation. When the Judge is on the bench he / she is the Court. The Judge is like the engine of a car. When a Judge hands down a ruling it is considered a "ruling of the Court".

[Newbi!!]

Willy,

Is the car not also made up of other parts?

[Willy]

Newbi

Of course but without the engine there is no power, no movement and no reason for the car to exist.

[AQUAMAN]

Ok I'm beginning to see where X made errors on the time limits, cross-assignments, chief judge duties, some technicalities of law interpretation, and letters/emails to the court that are not considered motions. I can even understand the COL not wanting to take responsibility for improperly placed signage and no information available for a FOIA, trying to claim it's the State's responsibility, but that is lame imho. Here's the part I don't get: how can Judge Wadel reassign a case due to illness in such advance timing of the court dates? How is it before the clarification of a certain court date of 10/22/08 that probate judge gives this notice on 10/3/08? Judge Wadel knows 19+ days in advance he is going to be ILL? Then it happens again, when the probate judge again notifies the defendant on 10/21/08 that the hearing is again delayed to 11/7/08? This again says Judge Wadel knows 17+  days in advance that he'll be unable to attend due to illness? If I missed something, let me know, cause by common sense alone, this cannot be. But, I've been wrong before...lol. Something sure stinks yet like Spoiled Fish to me anyhow. Your turn Newbi, thanks.

[Newbi!!]

Aquaman,

That's a question you would have to ask Judge Wadel. The sign deal is probably a crock, but did X get that admitted in a proper manner too? Proper time? He may very well have won this if he hadn't represented himself. Sad to say, but winning a case isn't only about being right or innocent.

[XLFD]

Working with the court was a learning experience, Newbi!!, and I am sure I done several things wrong in the extent of this legal process, but the amount of errors made by the court via the court rules are less excusable to me.  I was a simple person contesting a law regarding bicycles and stop signs and the legality of a stop sign that did not, does not, have a valid traffic control order behind it.  Plus it was misplaced 25 feet from where it should have been posted at, behind the crosswalk. 

I wasn't a lawyer, and I'm still not and I'll make plenty of mistakes to add on to old ones, but I do know how to surf the net, and read the plain language of laws and rules.  I was shocked by the amount of procedural due process issues were denied me here, how they were able to get away with it throughout, and I will go deep into my records and try to find those old laws I based my case on at the show cause hearing.

Also, I hold Wadel to less fault in the case, not because he was lax in his reassignment, he was sick after all, but because he was willing to admit it was his fault.  Raven did not go back before the show cause to make sure he was properly assigned and could legally sit in judgment, nor will he ever admit his faults.  My only praise for Raven is that he did not bend to the wiles of Heather Venzke in early 2011 and issue a PPO without any conceivable basis other than "insighting a mob mentality".