Desperate Hall-Shysters, Episode 1: A Spurious Name-Calling Affair

[XLFD]

Where the Ludington City Law Firm from Manistee (Gockerman, Wilson, Saylor and Hesslin, [GWSH]) posing as the singular Ludington City Attorney go after a former City of Ludington employee looking for justice from South Ludington [XLFD] and his poor-as-dirt, loyal-as-a-dog, stalwart-as-a-rock fiance from the Ludington Projects [Eve Alone].  Their crime:  appealing a FOIA request that the City refused to handle. 

STARRING:

Plaintiff SWIGER:  FOIA Requester, Defendant Target.

Plaintiff ROTTA:  Non-Attorney Spokesman, Thread Author

Defendant Lawyer SAYLOR:  Tear-inducing, Sanction-Seeking Solicitor

Defendant Lawyer WILSON:  Jurisimprudent E-Mail Misdirector

and featuring,

FOIA Coordinator SHAY:  "Oath?!  I don't needs no stinkin' Oaths!"

 

Episode 1:  The Accusation

 

In the massive document dump of Valentine's Day, 2012, George Saylor III, senior partner of the law firm GWSH, engaged in a highly malicious act of name-calling when he accused Plaintiff ROTTA of being a practitioner of law.   "How can he say such a thing," ROTTA was heard saying, "Everyone knows the only difference between a catfish and most lawyers is that one is a slimy, bottom dwelling scum sucker, and the other is a fish.  Them are fightin' words."   [Editor's NOTE:  All the digs on lawyers here do not refer to attorneys that fight the good fight for the people denied justice.  They go double for public agency lawyers.]  The following is an actual motion from that case file that Manistee Lawyer SAYLOR drafted and included in those documents sent to both ROTTA and SWIGER.  My commentary and links are colored.  

 

 

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF' S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

Now comes the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys,
Gockerman, Wilson, Saylor & Hesslin, P.C., and for its Motion to show cause states as
follows:

1. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tom Rotta ("Rotta") has filed numerous
pleadings on behalf of both he and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Toni Swiger, which
filings include:
A. Plaintiffs/counter-Defendants Request to Admit to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff John Shay;
B. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant/counter-Plaintiff John Shay;

C. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant/counter-Plaintiff city Attorney Richard Merlin Wilson;
D. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Amended lnterrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff City Attorney Richard Merlin Wilson;
E. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Motion to Quash Subpoena;
F. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Supplement to Motion to Quash the Deposition of Plaintiff Swiger; and
G. Motion for Summary Judgment.

[NOTE:  We made a Pro Se complaint for an appeal of the City's FOIA non-decisions, Pro Se means without an attorney.  We presumed there was no dispute as to the facts of the City's denial, nor have we yet seen any come from the pens of GWSH.  The above motions have all been set in motion by the actions of the GWSH attorneys or in the very legal process of discovery.]

2. Rotta admitted under oath at his deposition of January 26, 2012 to
preparing legal pleadings for the exclusive signature of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Toni
Swiger ('Swiger";. Attached to this Motion and marked Exhibit 'A" are Swiger's
Answer to Request to Admit (Rotta dep, pp 85-86)'

[NOTE:  We are co-plaintiffs in this action, just as there are four attorneys at least acting for the City.  The pleadings he mentions were duplicative of my own, and I own the computer, LOL.]

3. Rotta admitted under oath at his deposition of January 26, 2012 to
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by advising Swiger that it was Rotta's legal
opinion that Swiger was not required to appear at her scheduled deposition (Rotta dep, p
5)
[NOTE:  The deposition paperwork went against court rules in requesting documents and leaving us only 12 days to retrieve them, instead of the required 14 days, a Motion to Quash was timely submitted and yet has to be acted on by the court.  This type of motion, if not denied, allows one to avoid a deposition of questionable merit.  If one who passes legal information they can get at several sources on the internet to another person who can barely understand legalese is guilty of practicing law, then I guess his points have merit.  But it's ridiculous, of course.] 

 

4. Rotta's actions in preparing legal pleadings for another party relative to
this proceeding and offering legal advice to an unrepresented party violates MCL600.916 by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

[NOTE:  Here is what that law says:  "600.916 Unauthorized practice of law.

(1) A person shall not practice law or engage in the law business, shall not in any manner whatsoever lead others to believe that he or she is authorized to practice law or to engage in the law business, and shall not in any manner whatsoever represent or designate himself or herself as an attorney and counselor, attorney at law, or lawyer, unless the person is regularly licensed and authorized to practice law in this state."   Let me say, I have never wanted to pass myself off as a lawyer, nor have I intimated that I am one, I've got too much respect for myself.  If I tell someone to fight their traffic ticket, will SAYLOR get on me for that as well?  Sounds like someone is a little insecure about their own capability of practicing law to me.  And in looking at the reasoning behind his briefs, I concur he should be.]

5. Attorneys licensed to practice law in this state have an affirmative duty to
not assist another individual in practicing law in this jurisdiction in violation of the
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. MRPC 5.5 (a).

[NOTE:  MRPC 5.5(a) says:  A lawyer shall not: (a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.  Is he thinking I'm a lawyer, or being assisted by lawyers?  I just don't get it.  If SAYLOR and WILSON are lawyers, I definitely don't want to be associated with that.]

 

6. Rotta's actions in engaging in the unauthorized practice of law with regard
to a pending matter in this Court are brought to this Court's attention as required by the
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.

[NOTE:  I repeat, I have never passed myself off as a lawyer, and  I swear I haven't chased any ambulances.  Why does this guy keep calling me bad names?]

 

WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, City of Ludington, requests that this
Court schedule a hearing requiring Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tom Rotta to appear and
show cause as to why he should not be found in contempt of court for engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law in contravention of MCL 600.916 and further grant any
other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and reasonable.

[NOTE:  Interesting scenario, and since I have been accused of impersonating a lawyer, the only thing I have to figure out is what lawyer I need to impersonate at such a hearing.  Should I appear as: 

1)  The Lincoln Lawyer:  Nah, I lack the cool wheels, is there a Schwinn Lawyer?

2) Vinnie (from "My Cousin Vinny") :  I'd have to practice the Brooklyn accent. 3) Fletcher Reede (Liar Liar):  I need more skill at slapstick and "the Claw".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4)  Perry Mason:  Don't think I can get CA Saylor to confess like this master lawyer would.

5.  Frank Galvin (The Verdict):  Down on his luck, check; Doing the right thing, check; blue eyes, check; drinking problem, no.  Almost found a match.

 

All non-seriousness aside, I can't believe how absurd this motion is until I read the other motions and proposed sanctions that came with it.  Those will be suitably ridiculed in the coming weeks, as this is, but what do you think-- is it as wacky as we think it is, and if you do, which attorney would you vote I go to court as?  You may go off the board, and supply one of your favorites you think I should go as.  Here are the actual documents, p.1  and  p.2.

[Willy]

X. Thanks for a good laugh. Again I can't believe the City of Ludington is using tax dollars to pay for this frivolous action. Of course the complaint they are trying to establish is pure nonsense because Ms. Swiger can ask for legal advise from anyone she pleases, even a drunken, de-barred ex lawyer which is what George the III is heading for if he keeps up this silly vindictive performance. You never represented yourself as an attorney in any of the documents you posted here on the forum. This entire episode with the City is snowballing out of control and this a very good example why most people have a very poor opinion of the legal profession and Government in general. I'm glad you have the intelligence to understand all the legalize that you must deal with because an attorney could bury someone not so inclined in court documents and legal mumbo jumbo. There should be a recall of every City Councilor and the Mayor because this unprofessional law firm is not doing this bullying without the direct permission and guidance from City officials.  Again I ask, where is Wanda and the other Councilors who represents Ludingtons citizens. They are allowing this injustice and deplorable actions initiated by Shay and the City's law firm to continue? Isn't there any good, descent, fair minded, non corrupt people on Ludingtons City Council. This entire situation would make a good story for 60 minutes. Wouldn't that be wonderful exposure for the City which  they could  use to promote a lot of tourism. The tourists would see a banner strung across the street that would declare "Welcome to Ludington, the biggest corrupt little town in America, on the Lake". Now that would be funny if it wasn't so true.

[AQUAMAN]

Methinks you more closely resemble Kevin Costner from the JFK film, picture optional. An investigator supreme that only wants and needs the truth, but the barriers put forth by opposing counsel is piling into a mountain of deplorable and deceitful paperwork, some what, 268 pages of new documents now per se, and the cost, oh boy, it has to have exceeded the $10,000 mark now for sure, perhaps over $15,000. And the COL says it has a tight budget to make all services available? And needs more new taxes and increased fees? Prime example of the vanity and egos with COL officials going way over the top to win a debate that they have consistently and steadfastly lost over and over again, but will never admit to.

[AQUAMAN]

The councilor supreme at his desk.

[XLFD]

Kevin Costner as the Big Easy's Jim Garrison on the trail of the truth of who killed JFK, I can deal with that.  I might even be able to handle the southern dialect, at least as good as Costner did, and the glasses. 

The most hilarious thing about their latest briefing is that they have stated they have fulfilled the request with their "Exhibit M", but their own records (gotten from prior FOIA requests) show they are guilty of more serious crimes, regarding either destruction of records or suppression of records, and are in more trouble than a simple FOIA appeal would ever get them.  Your estimate on costs is what my conservative estimates would put the City at, and we are just pretty much filing briefs so far.

[XLFD]

Great observations and questions, as usual, Willie.  Fair minded individuals need to ponder all those points you bring up (especially that remark about my intelligence, LOL). 

The best explanation I can think of about why no City Official ever tries to contact me (except SHAY for FOIAs) to settle any issues is that they believe the old adage coined by Franklin in revolutionary times about needing to all hang together or all hang separately.  That was meant for the colonial rebels not the powerful elite.

Their camaraderie should not be among themselves, but among them and the common people they serve.  If there is no quid pro quo, they are not interested IMHO.

[Dave]

They do realize that you and your accused accomplice are a couple?

Only natural that people in a relationship would talk between themselves, specially in regard to legal proceedings of any kind.

The motion makes them sound like they know they are screwed and now they are just grasping at straws trying to figure out a way to avoid the unavoidable. Sort of makes me think of the Baby Kate case that just got delayed again, I think the defense lawyer is trying to hope to god that Kate shows up or something. Supposedly the case was delayed because she had a conflict on the day/week it was suppose to start which I simply don't buy.. when they postponed the trial the last time she should of let them know she had a conflict then, not wait til days before to let them know. She had a case that should be her prime interest, specially a big news case.

[XLFD]

That reminds me that at about halfway through the break-less 161 minute deposition George and I had together, a meeting I hoped would bring us closer together, LOL, I did have a bit of levity.  George asked about some nefarious activity that Toni and I was "engaged" in, and I made a funny bit about our "engagement" status.  I think it's somewhere in that 132 page brief's Exhibits.  We are confidantes in just about everything we do, and I enjoy her full support, just as I support her as much as possible.

And let me add this, just in from the breaking newsers at WMOM:  "

What was the real reason why the Baby Kate trial was adjourned earlier this week?

A legal researcher has whispered some information to MOM News.  During the preliminary hearing last summer, there was talk of a "secret document" that would change the course of the case.  Now it appears that the Michigan Court of Appeal is reviewing a secret motion from the Sean Phillips defense team.  According to a docket inquiry posting on the Appeals website, the court is now asking for clarification.  It wants to know what items are under seal and why the entire matter should remain hidden.

According to the Appeals website, the legal wrangling began on January 3rd of this year.  That may explain why the trial of Sean Michael Phillips, the alleged kidnapper of Baby Kate, has already been delayed twice.  Originally, the media was told that the trial was delayed by a defense scheduling conflict."

[AQUAMAN]

Smoke, mirrors, fog, and of course, lies, do make delays, and more paperwork, and the Wilson team has a sad statement to make for not being able to defend the Nick Tokoski contracts from being revealed via legal FOIA requests. What's so secret? Create an Avalanche of paperwork to reply to again, and again. And if you can somehow, someway, defend it with legalize that warrants praise and acceptance in the courts for a layman, then attack it as illegal, and so forth. Since WHEN? do people that want to educate themselves in any career/profession, through reading, research, and help from friends, has to submit that he is practicing a profession illegally? Is this NOT one of our rights? To pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If this type of education to provide your own offense/defense is now illegal, then we may as well give in on ALL our other Liberties, as this is just nothing more than a Dodge for the Truth! And again, how come? What's so secret about Tykoski's Signage contracts with the COL? It Sure MUST BE BIG, if they can spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep it secret, or is it?

[XLFD]

Let us not forget, in politics it often is not the original offense that gets you in serious trouble, it's the cover-up.  This innocuous FOIA request, led to a response that did not follow FOIA law, then led to a FOIA administrative appeal to the City Council, where they aborted any discussion on it, which led to a Circuit Court FOIA appeal, where the actions of George Saylor, Richard Wilson and John Shay has now pushed them to the point where they are legally bound to their admission of "Exhibit M" as the FOIA response to my request. 

But they have failed to produce several documents that their records say exist.  This is BIG.

 

George, I don't and never have practiced law or tried to pass myself off as a lawyer.  You have-- but I'm having a hard time believing it nowadays.

[Willy]

X. After all of this turmoil did the attorney or anyone on the City's side of the fence explain or even hint at  why they are putting up this roadblock to deny you from obtaining information? Or has this not gone before a judge who will make a determination or at least give a reason why the FOIA request was/is denied? It seems to me that if they are not going to give you the documents you request, they have to tell you why they refuse to release the information. I'm loosing track of how this has evolved.

[AQUAMAN]

In a small sort of small town way, just imagine it akin to the JFK subject, it's a secret in the name of "national security", or is it "city security"? After all, we as normal tax paying citizens are just mindless children, we won't understand nor be able to handle that kind of stress, and don't have any right nor privilege to know these things, right? And just the knowing, may rock that political boat in a way that's not wanted nor desired, for the clarification and trust of the public. By all means, keep blocking that information and keep it secret to the grave, or bankruptcy of the city, if that is what it takes, right? Cause the City's mission and secrets MUST remain just that, SECRET!  

[XLFD]

They maintain that Shay's response is valid by the City's FOIA policy, and sets a fee.  But the only thing mentioned is his saying that it is duplicative of 4 previous requests which Shay had set fees for the disparate, unexplained fees that were each priced respectively at about $200, $360, $55, and $2.75 for those "exact duplicates".  This begs the question:  If they were all the same request, why were we charged so much differently each time? 

Up to now we have only filed briefs with the judge with no court time, and the only notice I've got back from the Judge is the notice that the defendant is wanting to go through the drawn out process of a hearing involving discovery, witnesses, counterclaims, etc., which I have found does not allow an expedited procedure as the FOIA encourages.