Candidate Forum Follies w/ Steve and Dick

[XLFD]

Over the last two weeks, the Ludington Daily News Chief Editor, Steve Begnoche, has been bantering with me via the E-mail route about the upcoming LDN candidate forum.  His eleven E-mails to me included about five trying to find out the answer to a simple question:  Are you coming?

 

Each time I have deferred to the person who holds my fate in his hands, John Shay.  I cannot say I am coming to the City Hall if I don't have his express written approval.  It's written in black and white on a letter he sent me via LPD.  If I am to be arrested on sight by a police officer for trespass on a piece of public property, unless I have express written permission I am not going to go there without obvious permission unless I want to be arrested.  I don't.

 

I made that official today, when John Shay missed an extended deadline to revoke his letter.  In a letter to Steve and my opponent, Kaye Holman, I let her know:

"Kaye, as you and your six cohorts could have repealed the current Workplace Safety Policy at any point in the last seven months, or instructed John Shay to terminate the current, baseless Letter of Trespass to facilitate my participation, I will presume you are OK with the ethics of having a 'debate' where your opponent cannot lawfully participate.  I guess you can rationalize it as doing what is best for Ludington and it's citizens.  To borrow a catchphrase.  If you ever want to debate on local radio, my blog, or a truly neutral site, please send me a message.  I give you plenty of material below to debate me on."

 

Where followed the questions Steve had asked me, all of which I am sure I answered totally different than Kaye would.  Enjoy your one-sided, banal, infomercial next Monday, Kaye.

 

In the background, my attorney continues to battle the forces of evil that inhabit our City Hall (at least twice a month).  His last letter I shown was poignant and struck at the legality of the City's policy that keeps me from the LDN forum  JNB 10-1-11.jpg.

 

The City replied with their contracted City Attorney Dick Wilson in this letter on 10-10-11:

 

 

 

How very dismissive.  If you live in Ludington, you paid over $48,000 (including that 70% raise of last year) to retain this attorney, and I am sure he is charging the City extra for responding callously to a citizen's concerns through counsel.  This callousness was not wasted on my mouthpiece.

 

 

[XLFD]

 

And just in case you think Richard Wilson is on the ball, just take a look at the police report this Letter of Trespass was issued on.  Looks like the City of Ludington issued two letters of trespass to me, one being the 201 N Washington residence.

[Willy]

It appears that your attorney knows how to properly phrase a letter regarding your situation. The Ciy's attorney does not appear to be doing a satisfactory job. If you get elected it wouldn't be a bad idea to help the City find a new City attorney.

[XLFD]

City Hall is doing the City a disservice by not having a true City Attorney.  It was bad enough when we used to have Anderson retained for civil issues and another for criminal issues, but now we have  Bruce Gockerman, Dick Wilson, George Saylor, Daniel Hesslin, Kathryn Glancy, Craig Cooper and Susan Sniegowski all contracted and acting as City Attorney which is a state law defined official post.  Would you think it good if we had seven City Managers, all capable of doing what that post can do? 

Unfortunately, if I get the job it will be harder to gut six of those lawyers, because it will be a 'conflict of interest' for me to do so (since it looks like I will have a battle royale with the City over the violations of my rights).  I encourage initiatives and petitions to do the same, however, whether I win or lose.

 

[Sweater Cows!]

She is afraid people will see the backroom deals between her and her fiance' and the city.

 

So, she made a complaint because she was "afraid" of being 'found out'!!! LOLOLOLOLOL

[XLFD]

Careful, you are exhibiting some of that 'mob mentality' she talks about. 

Sounds more to me like reasonable conclusions after looking at the facts, and the lack of counterfacts and actions of those involved, including the ringleader. 

If you were City Manager and discovered that:  a citizen has found out about a $15,000.75 unbid contract the DDA chair granted her fiance and fellow DDA officer, before he was granted the Full Monty of the $150,000 signage project in a totally bid-rigged process a half year later.  Who would you go after, the citizen that pointed that out or the two corrupt public officers that did actions totally against state and local laws?

 

John Shay showed that, as City Manager, he would conspire with the DDA chair to ruin the citizen's life, and use the free bank of city attorneys to thwart doing what's right.  Nice guy.

[Dave]

I could understand her maybe, and I say maybe, getting a PPO keeping X a certain distance from her home... but barring him from City Hall or the police station is quite a stretch and as X has noted numerous times, simply illegal.

[AQUAMAN]

It should be obvious that Shay, and the COL, want to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, they issue written complaints and LOT's, then tell you later you misunderstood, and that it's a mistake. Don't worry cause we didn't mean it that way, etc.. That's just another excuse to evade the obvious again, and that would be to terminate the LOT's and apologize. That is never going to happen without someone getting the ax and losing face. And after all, we all know the COL, and esp. Shay, never make errors in judgement nor deeds, right? The public eye must recognize them as flawless and perfect in all ways and manner. Pappy said long ago, "arrogance goeth before the fall".

[XLFD]

Getting a PPO is a lot more trouble than just telling a friendly ear that a neighbor saw Tom Rotta wandering around her house and 'insighting' mob mentalities.  The City Manager will then have a police report made and a policeman serve a letter of trespass, followed up by a two column news article on page 3 the same week telling the negative recent life history of the perp. 

Here's the route all others must go, it takes into account some of the rights of the accused, and the option to go ex parte if there is real danger involved.  If you know someone who needs a PPO this is an excellent resource:  http://courts.mi.gov/scao/selfhelp/protection/ppo_help.htm