Cockroaches in the Manistee Courthouse Library

[XLFD]

Don't take the title literally, there wasn't actually any kind of insect infestation in the Manistee County Courthouse Law Library.  Just some officials and those they would employ acting like cockroaches.  

On Monday, May 21, 2018, I went up to that library in Manistee in order to attend a scheduling conference with the 19th Circuit Court and the City of Manistee's hired attorney, Gretchen Olsen.  This wasn't my first scheduling conference rodeo in that very same law library, as related in Manistee's 19th Circuit Court Holds Judicial Processes in Contempt, here's what happened my first time there for a different FOIA lawsuit I had initiated on the corrupted city government of Manistee, as related in my complaint filed with the Judicial Tenure Commission:

"The defendant had no representative at this "scheduling conference", furthermore the court was represented not by Judge THOMPSON as it declares in its scheduling order (Attachment 2), but by the court administrator [Patricia Heins]. By MCR 2.401(B)(1), such scheduling conferences involve judicial decisions of the twelve issues under MCR 2.401(C)(1) and four issues under MCR 2.401(B)(1) to be addressed by 'the court', i.e. the assigned judge.
The attendant administrator would not consider any of these issues and did nothing but force me to adhere to the numbers entered by the other party found on that document as if she was acting as their attorney. She could not give me any reason supported by court rules that said she had the authority to conduct this conference ex parte [i.e. with one party missing], or any reason why Judge THOMPSON was not part of the process, nor were any of these other issues addressed at that conference or appear in the scheduling order and of which I wanted addressed as per my right (by MCR 2.401(C)(1)) at the conference: MCR 2.401(B)(1) b, c, d and MCR 2.401(C)(1) a, c, d, f, g, h.
The court administrator was deaf to my concerns about the absence of the judge, why the absence of the defendant at the last minute was allowed without sanction when I was punished for doing the same a week before the previous conference [when I called a week in advance to say I could not make it, and was denied rescheduling], and why it was a fair process to have only one party there (me) while the court administrator boldly and uncompromisingly advocated for the opposite side. I would not sign the order willingly."

That FOIA lawsuit had so many laws and rules broken by the court, and such an odd judgment made by a retired judge who was never properly assigned to the case by Judge David Thompson, that I just had to go through the process again when the City of Manisfee continued to block my request with a novel scheme:  assign an outrageous value to FOIA responses, then refuse to sign a receipt that explains exactly what the requestor is being charged for when the money is offered.  See the beginning of that story and the second lawsuit here.

What about the cockroaches?  A cockroach is a slang term I use to describe public officials/employees that dramatically scurry about in panic when you shine the light on them and what they are doing in the dark corruption they flourish in.   Three of those were at the courthouse this day, two were in the law library trying to justify why they weren't going to go by the rules, the other was hiding in a courtroom deciding on the fate of non-officials alleged of breaking the law.  

The scheduling conference/preliminary hearing was to be held at 11:00 AM, I arrived twenty minutes early.  After notifying the junior clerk I was there, I asked for a media coverage request form for the hearing as I wanted to audiotape the proceedings.  The previous conference, as noted, devolved into a pointless exercise where the Court Administrator Patricia Heins bullied me with the court's authority into agreeing to all of the absent defense attorney's, Gretchen Olsen's, dates and numbers on a scheduling order and signing it. 

Those two would confirm by their cockroach actions this day that even they thought that was not worthy of being shared beyond the confines of the law library.  Even when their words were claiming otherwise.  

The clerk asked some others about the form and wasn't able to give me an answer as I sat down on the bench with some others who had some business with the court.  Olsen (pictured below, left) arrived within five minutes of the hearing in proper lawyer attire and demeanor.

Gretchen didn't want to be there.  On May 16, she sent me an E-mail:  "In lieu of appearing for the scheduling conference on May 21, are you willing to attempt to agree to a stipulated scheduling order? If so, please propose dates and let’s see if we can agree.  Thank you."  

I replied frankly:  "Nope. Advise the court I would appreciate the judge and opposing counsel to attend this scheduling conference too.  I, and the rules of professional conduct, did not appreciate the 19th circuit court administrator acting as your client's attorney and your law partner at the last scheduling conference you didn't attend."

To which she replied:  "Thanks but I have no obligation to advise the court or judge to do anything, nor do they have any obligation to listen to me. And, I have no knowledge of what you are talking about. As I recall I attended the scheduling conference and you failed to.  See you on Monday then."

And rather than correct her revisionist history with another E-mail, I decided to sublimate the issue until the hearing came around.  It should be noted that in the 51st Circuit Court, a court I have been critical of at times, I and the city's attorney of record have attended three FOIA lawsuit scheduling conferences over the last three years in the courtroom with Judge Peter J. Wadel presiding over a hearing that lasted on average over an hour.

At these meetings, Judge Wadel would go over a three page 'scheduling order' that had a lot more than deadlines and dates.  The judge would listen to the parties, refer to the complaint, and decide what the issues of fact and the issues of law were for the particular case.  He would cover the defenses proposed, and lead the discussion on a host of other topics covered by the Michigan Court Rules (see MCR 2.401(B) and (C)).  These include numerous things that is best (or can only be) decided by the judge of record.

Olsen was still a might upset about having to travel from Petoskey to be there rather than just fill in a bunch of dates on a stipulated schedule and be done with it.  I was still holding out for a real hearing like we have had in Mason County.  I would spend a lot of that day defending how the courts operate under court rules in Mason County and how almost-equally-populated Manistee County should be more like them. 

She noted and was okay with the fact that every court had its own ways of running things; I wasn't and will never be.  Courts everywhere in Michigan should operate under the same rules whenever possible, and should especially follow the rules they supposedly need to operate under for a scheduling conference. 

As the court administrator noticed both our presences, she ushered us into the law library to begin the hearing, I announced I was wanting to record the proceedings, and that's when these demure older ladies shed their scales and became cockroaches.  Concern etched itself in each of their faces, and they became rather animated otherwise.

Olsen indicated she would not allow it under any circumstances, Heins said I could not do it, and then modified her position to say I needed to get the form I had asked for twenty minutes previously.  I was insistent that if the court was not making a record of this proceeding that I should, so that if there was a dispute in what happened at this conference, there would be a record. 

As both denied the reality of what happened at the prior conference, it was a reasonable safeguard so as to let everybody know what happened at this one.  I was amenable to having other recordings made, as Olsen had her smart phone present, and the court had their recording resources.

Heins eventually directed me to go to the county clerk's office to get a media form, I immediately went to do so.  In my absence, I don't know what these two discussed, but when I got back I was told that I needed to supply the form to the court at least three days before the court proceeding.  I asked for that rule, since I had previously did that at Mason County on the same day.  I was shown an administrative order that had no such timetable, though outside of the order, it was recommended to be submitted to the court early.

Heins went to see the judge who was reportedly in court at the time (while he should have been at the conference his screwy administrator scheduled), while I sat with Olsen and she tried to use various tactics in order for me to fill out the dates and stay off recordings.  The talks finally broke down after she got exasperated and said I knew nothing of the law regarding this, to which I calmly retorted that it was she who knows what the rules say about such conferences, allow the courts of different counties to break those rules when its expedient for her, and somehow manage to sleep at night knowing that laws and rules are not being followed in the justice system.

She left the room in frustration, I took advantage of the law library, finding a copy of the court rules and finding the appropriate chapters pertaining to the conference/hearing.  When the court administrator came back with an unsigned form, and the two cockroaches were still reluctant to allow me to record the proceedings, they began using any tactic to try and get me to fill out the dates without recording the process. 

Had Heins given me the signed form where I was officially denied the right to record the hearing, I would have proceeded, but she knew that such a document would likely evoke questions later on from the ongoing Judicial Tenure Commission's investigation into the court, so she began proposing holding the conference at a later date, after the recommended three days had passed.  Olsen didn't like the prospect of coming back down to Manistee for another hearing, but she was still unwilling to budge on having it recorded on this day.  

If everything is being handled as they are supposed to, why were these ladies/cockroaches so reticent on having the court proceeding recorded in some way?  Why wasn't the court recording it, and why wasn't the judge present, as they are in Mason County's courts for such proceedings, and is indicated as the rule under MCR 2.401.  

A court administrator cannot represent the court in such a hearing.  They are:  "An officer of the judicial system who performs administrative and clerical duties essential to the proper operation of the business of a court, such as tracking trial dates, keeping records, entering judgments, and issuing process."  They have no adjudicating powers, and have no business being the moderator between parties at a preliminary conference.  Even when only one is present, as they were the previous time.  

After quite a few minutes more of haggling, dangling the carrot in front of me about getting the matter settled quicker, both finally concluded that I was not going to leave that meeting without either recording the sausage being made, or getting a form showing that I was denied the right to record that court proceeding.  Heins indicated we would be sent an alternate meeting time and a formal decision would be made regarding my media coverage. 

I left shortly thereafter, not wanting to interrupt the meals of corruption they undoubtedly had in their future in trying to figure out how to adapt dark corners into this future hearing so that they could shrink from the light of court rules and truth.  

[Willy]

As you stated, why the big deal over recording this meeting. Something's wrong here. Amazing what you have to go thru to get at the truth. I would not have the patience for this type of confrontation. Especially dealing with 2 Nancy  Polosi wannabees.  I admire your stamina and persistence X.

[XLFD]

There's no better motivation for dealing with this crap than the opposing counsel and court administrator lying about what happened last time and lying about how a scheduling conference is to be ran, when the reality and rules are 'what they are'.  I showed weakness last time by believing that both ladies had some scruples even when they had not deserved such a level of trust; I know better now, and I know their corrupt modus operandi better