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.

 

 

[Lisa O'Brien]

To be honest I haven't looked back at all of XLFD's posts - but I have yet to see anything really derogatory regarding the judge. The closest I saw was this comment

 "I'm fairly sure you're an insider, but you did get the correct result.  I have generally respected and liked Judge Richard Cooper in the past, but let's be real; how can you let a FOIA appeal go on for five months with the knowledge that your son is qualified to act as City Attorney for the defendant and plead their case, without some disclosure of that fact immediately to the plaintiffs requesting expedient disclosure throughout the case?  It lends the plaintiffs to review the actions and inactions of the court up to March 7, 2012."

Which in my opinion is more of a question/statement of astonishment.

[AQUAMAN]

Good replies, both Willy and Lisa, some peoples out there are a gettin real nervous now, and will continue to get even more nervous, as time goes by. The egg shells are completely broken and you can't put them back in the shells, any more than you could put toothpaste back in the tube, right Dale......lol.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Dale,

You are right there is nothing wrong with encouraging someone to be cautious in their behavior. I must have misinterpreted your post (it happens). Generally XLFD does not call people names (Occasionally Troll, and I believe he suggested I was sounding like a conservative once {God forbid - still stings}).

[AQUAMAN]

Willy, after you get harped on and bickered with by Dale enough, you still said the very words I would have, that of, Judge Cooper holding up the judicial system with this "flimsy" excuse after many, some 6 months has passed, and denying X the relief and justice sought for long ago. It's not like Jr. just joined that law firm this very year, he's been there for 3 years, and papa sure well knew that well before he dropped his bomb on 3/7/12. Disciplinary action is undeniably warranted, but, will the authorities in charge just sweep this under the rug? Time will tell. Seems to me an obvious strategy, that of more delay, and working in collusion with the city, to the benefit of the city, hoping for X to just fade away, and possibly run out of funds and quit in frustration, not so hard for even layman to figure this warped legal entanglement. All to satisfy the huge ego of John Shyster Shay.

[Willy]

Dale

I'm just curious why it would be necessary for you to tell X or anyone else that you "urge caution". What exactly does that mean? What sort of caution are you discussing and caution against whom or what? You mentioned this several times so it would be nice to have some clarification about what you are concerned about.

[AQUAMAN]

I wouldn't mind some clarification on Dale's statement as well Willy. If I had to read between the lines I'd call it some type of warning, or jesture of intimidation, or just perhaps his paranoia/jealousy. Continuing to harp, bicker, bark, attack, it's all negative narcissism in character. Any other forum having this type of newbie member, would have banned him several days ago. Just goes to show how patient and conservative the Torch creator and it's members are. I would also hope that clarification isn't disguised again in spin doctoring talk, and more elusive excuses for facts. Facts that would lead a person to actually believe the aggressors statements, not just more spin of the truths requested.

[XLFD]

When someone you trust urges you to use caution, you generally consider their advice as being there to help you avoid danger and get through something safely.  They generally follow it up with reasoning, weighing in the benefits of using that prescribed caution.

When someone you don't trust urges you to use caution and to back off, particularly when they seem to be mouthpieces for your opposition, you either feel threatened as Aquaman suggests, or suppose their motives are to prevent you from going forth.  Dale/Larry decides that our side needs to use caution, how about the other side?  If they used more caution in their corruption, we might not be even talking here.

[Willy]

Dale
Again you use the word "caution" without explaining what you mean. Let's assume you are X's attorney and tell him "to use caution or not when talking about other people", and X asks you exactly what you mean about using caution. What would you tell him? You also claim that Heather has been threatened. How was she threatened and by whom?  Also are you contracting with, an employee of, working for,  involved with or in any way connected to the City of Ludington or Gockerman, Wilson, Saylor & Hesslin P.C. or their employees?

[XLFD]

Dale does not have to answer that last question Willy, as if he would truthfully anyway, and ignored in his latest post. 

I like that Dale uses the words:  "Everybody should know that it was not a threat against anybody" in his defense of his urging caution.  At the same time justifying Heather's obscure feeling of being threatened by "mob mentality" and me because links to City provided web resources are being used to show her public actions in a bad light. 

[AQUAMAN]

I still see no explanation with facts, again, just more spin in the wind. Harmony is like Love, it's in the eye of the beholder. Don't expect our faithful membership to stand by and be trash talked over and over again, esp. by newbies, that want to get their obvious jollies here at others expense. You people have to be working for the city, it's the same empty mentality, that of aloofness and condescension, followed by more lies and twists of spinning things to make yourselves look good, and feely good. Too bad, it doesn't work like that here. Many have tried, only to be seen through, and revealed for what they are. Many in Ludington that have read our forum can't believe the corruption that has been revealed, the further we go to get the truth, the more lies we unveil to cover it up. Just like Heathergate. Btw, she is a official of the city, as is to be held to a higher trust & standard in her work, than layman in the private sector, she better get used to it if she wants to last, it naturally goes with public service territory. 

[XLFD]

If Heather is afraid of some undefined and dubious "mob mentality", mayhaps Heather should be part of the tinfoil hat crowd, Dale?  Are you saying Probate Judge Mark Raven was wrong in denying the PPO on the grounds that there wasn't a scintilla of harassing behavior and only constitutionally protected speech involved?  I hope not, because we do not condone disagreeing with judge's decisions here at the Torch, LOL.

[Lisa O'Brien]

I believe it's human nature for people to be a little intolerant of views that differ from their own, even more so in a faceless entity like a forum.  As far as "caution" it's all in the context of how it was said - or in this case written which might lead some to believe it was meant as a veiled threat if they do not know the person writing it. As far as Heather she stated she was afraid of the "mob mentality" this site creates. Which getting a LOT does not shut down the site.