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.

[Newbi!!]

X,

Can you explain to me exactly how not having the "assignment order" affected your case? Or would have affected it, had it been done. I don't see any difference. At that point the main focus should have been on the merits of the case. If Wadel had signed it, would Raven have ruled different?

An order like that is usually sent to the parties so they have knowledge of the change. Like "service", if you go to Court and the other party can show you weren't served but actually knew of it. They can commence. Did you know Raven had taken over?

[XLFD]

Raven would not have ruled different, assignment order or not, but the Magistrate of the District Court, like Judge Raven in the court room, could not accept that they had made mistakes over process and they both should have been held accountable for setting those mistakes aright. 

Magistrate Baker after the original hearing sent me a letter saying Raven had jurisdiction and flusteredly maintained that throughout our in person and phone conversations, and handed me incomplete records when Raven said he would prove that he had jurisdiction, she sent the cross assignment record eventually to my lawyer, eventually gave him the court docketing statement which showed several procedural mistakes that were not made by me, but by the court including the lack of a written assignment. 

I think that Judge Wadel would have taken the radically improper placement of the stop sign into consideration and ruled in my favor.  I am more doubtful that he would have accepted my stop signs applicability to bicycles traveling on the shoulder argument, but he would at least have considered it without the prejudice which I think Judge Raven still had at that point from our earlier meeting in Probate Court.  

[Newbi!!]

X,

All the things you mention in the first two paragraphs still fall under Judge Wadels authority, he's the Chief.

As for the third. Had you known how to appeal it to Judge Wadel, Judge Ravens order and sentence wouldn't have mattered anyhow, Correct? You wouldn't have been obligated to pay nothing until after Judge Wadel ruled? Seems to me, you should be more disgruntled with Judge Wadel and yourself than Judge Raven.

A Judge is just another man with his opinion, which is swayed by case laws, laws and court rules the parties put before him, and of course facts of the case. If you felt Judge Raven was so prejudiced against you, you should have followed the rules, objected and motioned the Court for removal. You can physically do that IN Court. He may not have recused himself but it would have helped with your appeal. You did none of that, did you? No, why? Because you didn't know. Hindsight is 20/20

Good night and good luck.

[XLFD]

The "Hindsight is 20/20" is too true, but I still believe Judge Wadel was not kept apprised of what was happening in his court during his illness, nor do I think he acted with malice and/or negligence, as I perceived Patty Baker and Mark Raven did.  I had some faith in the system at that point, I had used it as an apartment manager for small claims and evictions, with little problems until I laughed at them enforcing bicycle stop sign violations. 

Thanks for being straight; your points and criticisms are well taken.

[AQUAMAN]

In all fairness to ALL the parties involved, I must state my opinion here now and for the record. I truly believe the Judges, both Wadel and Raven have their own reasons for being right, but in reality and objectivity, are they? The "time for illness" factors remain a mystery and a very contentious reason for questions, for fairness/justice, do they not? So, now we have the Judges in question, more so than the plaintiff, imho. Is that not FAIR and Equitable? Is TRUE JUSTICE served when one Judge says he is not available due to illness for several months in a row for a particular hearing, unless of course he had MAJOR SURGERY, and needed several months to recuperate? Maybe that's the case, does anyone else know? The ONLY Other scenario would be that Wadel was told to "stand-down so Raven could prevail as substitute". Why? Cause one Judge might be "more inclined to be Pro-City" on the case!!! And of course, that would make the ending "result of the final decision" more palatable and acceptable for the City and of course, the Establishment in the end. Of course, I could be wrong, LOL.

[XLFD]

That likelihood was what I thought then, and there has been nothing to disprove it since.  The City's constant vendetta to make this charge stick, despite the various "technical" mishaps the District Court made (where have I heard that "technical" excuse before?), and even the City made, with 1) issuing a FOIA response to my lawyer that the stop sign in question had no traffic control order behind it, then later finding one (that "technically" was no longer valid) over a year later, 2) having their officer mark my offense as a state violation.  3) utilized a law that did not even apply to bicycles (which are not vehicles)   4) Having multiple stop signs throughout the town out of their lawful place, including the one I supposedly "disobeyed", etc.

Government agencies can make all the mistakes they want, but ride a bicycle through a clear intersection past a stop sign with no valid TCO behind it, erected in the wrong place, with no direct law saying it is illegal even if the sign was legit, and you're messed up for life.  Izzat fair?

This was not a pressing issue, and I verbally inquired about the usage of Raven in District Court to several people before the hearing.  I believe the City knew it may lose the case with Wadel, and took it to Raven, as several people in the City knew about the 2006 guardianship hearing to know that I was trying to root out the 'bad' guardian and her son, who coincidentally lives across the street from the City Manager and Mayor.