Creating a Monster pt 3: Deconstruction, A PPO without POP

[XLFD]

In the thread Creating a monster pt 1, a process was described that started as early as 2-21-2011, with a letter from Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett to City Manager John Shay about a reworking of a Letter of Trespass form that was made originally for private establishments.  The next day there was a bit of E-mail traffic between those two and the City Attorney, but there was also something else afoot.  A Personal Protection Order (PPO) was being applied for by Community Development Director Heather Venzke against a certain individual who not only happens to be the creator of this watchblog, but happens to be little ol' me.

I only found out about this because I had asked the prosecutor for an investigation to be conducted into why I was not permitted to vote in the November 8, 2011 City election without threat of arrest.  When the State Police told me the investigation was closed in December, and that they would not pursue any criminal charges in the matter due to the difficulty in showing an actual intent by the City Hallers to deprive me of the right to vote, I was mildly disappointed.  Particularly since I hadn't been asked for any input after my brief E-mail asking Prosecutor Paul for an investigation. 

But when I asked Mason County Prosecutor Paul Spaniola with a FOIA to see the investigation records, I got this bombshell 2012 1-28 FOIA Reply PA PS  where I learned:

1)   "... after numerous non-consenting acts of a stalking nature by the complainant [me] against a City Hall employee"

2)  "Furthermore a personal protection order was entered against the complainant upon application of a City Hall employee due to his actions."

3)  "Complainant subsequently moved to another location..."

4)  "Complainant has furthermore failed to request relief from the no trespass letter for purposes of voting on 11-1-2011.  On four previous occasions he had asked for relief and it was granted to him."

 

All, and more, of which are factually inaccurate.  So I then fired back a FOIA request to inspect the PPO and to view E-mails exchanged between County and City Officials that had my name in them.  This request went ignored for over 5 business days, so I filed an FOIA appeal to the Circuit Court regarding the County's denial to respond to get these records I considered vital.  I wound up being successful in my endeavor-- but more on this later. 

I went with trepidation to see how bad of a monster I was at my appointment to review the PPO application (I had found out incidentally that it had been denied to CDD Venzke).  Here was the Petition for a PPO Against Staking (Non-domestic) signed by her on 2-22-2011, while her fellow City Hall officials were busy with the second prong of this very personal attack, producing the Workplace Safety Policy.  The affidavit she attached was a sworn statement:

 

 

In order, some critiques: 

1) "Malicious" and "anti-government" is assigning evil intent to my website and the people who post here.  Such is not my intent, or any others here-- our intentions are good and we want government to be the same. 

2)  The links she speaks of are links to the City Assessor site, accessible by anyone for free, provided by the very government she works for.  If you own property in Ludington, you can find maps, deeds, specifications of your property, and anyone else's.  If you don't like it, like Ms. Venzke didn't, are you "anti-government"?

3)  Information was posted concerning her relationship to Nick Tykoski, in the context that she was providing unbid, non-contracted payments to him with public funds, while being affianced to him while buying a house together at a great price.  This is public corruption no matter how you look at it, and a violation of several ethics laws, discussed previously.

4)  The rest is more of an indictment of our educational system, with her massacre of the words "insight", when she meant "incite"; "residents", when she meant "residence"; "directly" when she meant "directing", and some other grammatical and spelling gaffes. 

 

Nor am I clear as to me being "the author of the above statements." as I would not make such errors, LOL.  But the application continued with this three page "PPO Questionairre, Stalking"

PPO_QS p1

PPO_QS p2

PPO_QS p3

 

Let's sum it up thusly:  Never spoken to me, only knows me as a past employee of the City, one admitted contact with me involving a request for information [made by me and addressed to her and Shay about DDA Administrative costs jumping from $10,000 to $30,000 without any new programs or rationale], and I only communicate on my website. 

She intimates that she was perhaps targeted by me, but the DDA series I had made up to that point, prior to the fifth episode, was targeted on the use of public resources by public officials to the advantage of private interests, many of which were other members of the DDA.  Furthermore, the fifth episode indicted the full DDA for not recognizing the ethics violations or properly stopping it and/or reporting it.  But the DDA is her livelihood, so I can see her uneasiness.

 

She then included about 40 pages of 'supporting documents', which included the Ludington City Assessor's total website on her property address, part 5 of the above series, and various other entries by me and others that was supposed to display the mob mentality that was insighted {sic}, beginning with this entry by Aquaman where she highlighted the last two sentences, and put in the margin:  "threats they are capable of".  Pretty tame to what I see on Facebook, and not a threat, as I see it.  But the rest of the attachments were even less harmless, and made her point a bit absurd, by the end.

But I wasn't the only one who thought so.  The judge who received her PPO was one I have had a history with, that isn't good.  He sat in judgment at my bicycle/ stop sign hearing back in 2008 that I requested and promptly lost even though I had shown several points of fact that invalidated the legitimacy of the sign. 

I had requested the district court to show that this probate judge had jurisdiction over the hearing, and they failed to do so, and I was found in civil contempt of the court when I defied his court order, which was effectively illegitimate.  I had reported him to the Judicial Tenure Commission, an act which didn't endear me to him, a fact he made known in the next hearing.  All in all, we have had some differences.  But in spite of that he denied the PPO the next day, citing:  "Respondent has not engaged in conduct that falls within the statutory definition of stalking and/or is Constitutionally protected activity."

 And so Plan A was denied, thus Plan B ( the WSP) needed to be applied.  And even if you, I, or a Judge that has ill-feelings towards me can see that there was not any problems with what content was placed on the Ludington Torch by me and others, the full choir of City Hallers were all for calling my behavior "threatening and intimidating" and having the local paper publish that "fact", they also maintained to a person that it was necessary to do so, and not worth reconsidering.

 

 

This is how the City of Ludington operates; which is why I think the PPO placed on a Grand Rapids native in January who had the audacity to lead a protest against the way the Ludington Police Department conducted their investigation into the Baby Kate case in October, was created to discredit her  (in Re: April Reynolds). 

It worked darn well for me for a year, but I will snatch my good name back from these tyrants if I have to spend all the time, spirit, and money I've got.  And that fact alone, makes me the Most Dangerous Man in Ludington to those who wish to violate their Oath of Office as a public servant, if they even bother to take one, in Ludington.

 

 

[Willy]

Larry

Who, beside you and Dale said Dale's use of the word "caution" was some kind of a threat. I must have missed that.

The problem with people agreeing with Heather is because it has been shown here that she aided and abetted in perpetrating an injustice against  the citizens of Ludington. But you won't consider the truth. And that's another question. Why? Are you saying the people on this forum are metally challenged? Isn't that considered a  disparaging remark. Isn't that what you are claiming people here are doing to you? How can a situation be a conspiracy when there are facts to back it up?

You don't agree with much of what is said here but you still post but now you want to leave because folks don't agree with you. Again, aren't you acting  like those folks you claim are acting contrary to how you think they should act?

[Willy]

Dale

Why would you call this a game of semantics because 4 times recently you have given advice to others that they should watch what they say. The statements are as follows:

"All I suggested is that you might want to be careful what you say about the Honorable Judge. Your choice. Enjoy."

"It might be in your own best interests to seriously consider your own published comments more than mine."

"A word to the wise would be to refrain from publishing comments against an Honorable Judge without knowing all the facts. Take it or leave it."

"Nothing wrong with encouraging someone to be cautious in their choice of words."

So I'm questioning  you about the reason behind these remarks and noone has said your statements were a threat. Curiosity requires some explanation. If you don't want to give a reason, that's your business. We'll just say you are a very caring person who is worried about X. As far as your statement that I said Heather was being threatened , I'm  afraid I never said that but you did in the following statement.

"It is odd how you all take the word caution and turn it into a threat but when Heather felt threatened you all shrug it off."

I know of no one who has said your questions were a threat. I posted this to clarify what was said.

[AQUAMAN]

Willy, finely said again, and to think, some would have us believe that it's the "take it or leave it" mentality that should prevail. Well, it just might at some far left liberal forum, (go there, be happy), but, I think we have higher intellect than that here, or at least we did, for some time, until recently.....lol. I know of NO public official that has made such a motion for a PPO order, just because someone asked about their personal affiliations & funding with a No-BId contractor either in this town, nor in history of Mason County, has anyone else....oooooooooooo, public officials don't have to answer to the public in these people's minds and ethics........lol.

[XLFD]

They are all good, if not somewhat stale, questions and topics.  They are relevant to this day since we still allow and permit these same two officers to control the direction of this city's present and future-- and since they have only compounded their infamy in the years since.  

I admire your dedication to seeking out information and not accepting the 'official line lie' that our other media often do, even when public records clearly show the misdeeds and corruption, Verdad.  It's often hard to revisit these old topics because new ones come up all the time to replace them.  

I believe Remington and any other new members that come on here to address the Walkley issue by saying we were in the wrong, will not be all that interested in other officials acting badly.

[Freedom Seeker]

Wow!  No wonder Heather was afraid of your blog and the mob mentality and filed a protection order without merit.  This article has nearly 2300 reads.  I can't see how these ethical lapses of the Tykoski's can be rectified without their giving the money back to the city.  Well I suppose that can't happen.  We have these signs that we can't read well.  Product delivered with no competitive bids and actually given to her fiance before a notice made?  Ha ha!   No wonder city hall hates freedom of information.  It seems she should have been asked to resign.  And this is a department head the city entrusts money to?  to

  Sorry, I hadn't read all of these comments before.  What a sad state of city government Ludington has, of corruption and greed and the sheep mentality of the councilors burying their heads in the sand.  That's what we get when we start hiring people from the bigger cities who are accustomed to the corruption, greed and climbing on the backs of the taxpayer to get ahead yourself.  They bring it to Ludington.  

[Freedom Seeker]

There is nothing wrong with gaining fine house, fancy cars, clickity clack and bling bling in fair trade and dealings, but if there has been impropriety in ethics of contracts paid by the taxpayer, then here should be a fair accounting to the taxpayer.  That's why there are laws at city, state and federal levels on contract bidding and awarding.  When X started requesting Freedom of Information (FOIA), I think that's when he was labelled the biggest pain in the ass the city hall and a has ever seen.  I just can't understand why so many people in city hall covered up for it.  A haunting shame in city hall, still a recent memory after seven years and X is still the demonized one.