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.

[XLFD]

Larry,

If someone has made a FOIA request, it must be written, and it must be retained by the public body for at least a year.  None of the exemptions in section 13 or 13a of that law exempt your written request from becoming a public record, although the public body may redact some material from the request if it, for instance, requests something containing private information such as SSNs. 

The public body is not required to make any additional public records summarizing FOIA requests, however.