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.

[AQUAMAN]

True Willy, but that is a totally separate project that is private/non-profit/from donations. That's a disabled walkway project if I'm not mistaken, names of donors on stones, and I did contribute to it generously already last fall. From what I've heard, this is in a different southerly section, from the pierhead to Lud. Ave.. And that part of the mostly unknown beach to most tourists, is a prime section that is mostly used by locals, and it is a strip that is narrow and mostly a gem for the locals thus far. If this goes through, it won't be very small and private anymore at all.

[XLFD]

Aquaman's impression is the impression I have gotten, the two projects are similar, but in different areas and different objectives.  I can support the movable boardwalk being installed to the north, as that can help actual beach access to wheelchair bound people, and I hope they have those sand-travelling chairs available as well, at the south concession.  Might also help those wheely-coolers get to the beach quicker.

But if they try to install a permanent boardwalk to the far south as envisioned, I would like to see them put such a decision up to the people of Ludington, as this would greatly affect the waterfront, and its construction might also be from public funds.  The City Charter says such changes to City parks should be voted on by the people.  What's the harm?  It's an election year anyway.

[AQUAMAN]

The "harm" is that, and I've been told this by some insiders as well as former City Councilors, is that if the public is sought for any input in many of the decisions by the COL, it may be nixed/canceled, and/or take too much time and money to get the votes to approve, or just be a point of controversy for the public if they have the knowledge and ability to make things different, i.e., rock their boat. These are the types of inactions/secrecy/in your face projects I personally cannot approve. Not because of the projects they propose, as much as the fact we, the public, have no choices in their implementation, nor financing. To me, it's rule by iron fist, not democracy, and that just stinks to me. But, that apparently is what Ludington voters have approved in the ballot boxes, and from the last election, what they seem to want for the future.

[XLFD]

That sounds like a reasonable conclusion from what I've experienced with my limited exposure to these people, Aquaman.  Those who believe that the House of Flavors would never be able to expand westward through the park because the people wouldn't vote for it, need to realize that the City Council has set the precedent with the "Central Bark Dog Park" and the "Plaza Skate Park" that they have the ultimate authority to decide what to do to/with our City-owned parks. 

With the esteemed fellows we got in there now, you might as well just get a new "rubber stamp" that has all the councilor's names on it, ready to cover up the words of the City Charter, and the State and Federal Constitutions. 

[AQUAMAN]

Fitz, reread the entire thread and posts, you can decide for yourself. In the old days most depos. were made to discover the truth, or which sides of the story were valid. Today, and esp. in these recent depos. of X and Eve, the purpose was to put so much undue and unwarranted pressure to bear on the individuals by stress and grief, repeated over and over for almost 3 hours without so much as a pause or break for the legs to stretch or go to the bathroom, that they could force untrue statements into the records for the sake of winning the city's mission to throw out the court case. Creepy, inept, unethical, deceitful, and ruthless Lawyers at their best is what I say. Courtesy of your local Mayor and City Manager.

[XLFD]

Aquaman, while we were both composing our two posts simultaneously, you used the word "creepy" and I used the word "creeped" in relation to feelings about the Ludington City Manager and Attorneys presence and tactics.  That's creepy. 

The internet is full of stories where government agencies and entities use the power entrusted to them and their deep pockets in order to steamroll over the rights and property of innocent people who pay their salaries.  The people may have laws and precedent in their favor, may even win their battles, but it is at great cost almost exclusively.

[XLFD]

I invite you then to do what I did yesterday, Larry, if you want to get the other side.  Go to the County Clerk's office at the Mason County Courthouse.  Ask for the records that concern a Personal Protection Order that was applied for (petitioned) by Heather Venzke on February 22, 2011 with me, Tom Rotta, as the respondent.  Objectively view the material that Ms. Venzke presented to a judge that I have previously (in 2009) filed a complaint with the Judicial Tenure Commission for breaking the law, before he, later that year, found me guilty of civil contempt for pointing that out to him in a court hearing to show cause why I didn't comply with his unlawful court order. 

Maybe you will make the same decision that he did, that there was no indication of any harassing or stalking behaviors on my part and that everything that was brought before the court was constitutionally protected.  I would love to show those records myself, but a local dictum prohibits the copying or scanning of such court material without approval by the State Court Administrative Office. 

Once I get that approval I will post it for all to see, and we will all see without having to bother the County Clerk, the extent that Ms. Venzke (and her allies, Chief Barnett and John Shay) went to in order to try and cover her own unethical activities.  If you wish to think otherwise at that point, this is a free country.

[Willy]

Larry

X wasn't banned because of FOIA requests, he was banned because a City employee said she felt threatened by X. The City emplyoyee's fear of X was a smoke screen used to ban X from City Hall thus, making it difficult for him to gather information about shady dealings by Government officials. In order to understand and make rational statements about the FOIA situation and X's banishment you must  go back and read postings about X's situation so you will understand what has transpired. This is an open forum where anyone can post their opinions / information. A while back a Ludington City Councilor posted on this form, so, it's not as if the Ludington Torch is a secret. That Councilor has / had every oppurtunity to counter all of X's claims but has chosen not to. If X's claims are false or unjustified she could have set the record straight a long time ago.

[Willy]

Larry

Are you new to internet forums? Don't you realize that your not carrying on a private conversation and that all opinions can be and are expressed in this type of communication. I frankly don't care if you adressed your question to X. You posted on a public forum and opinions will be given. If you didn't act like such a spoiled, whiny brat you might get some respect, but as long as you have this attitude your going to get bit in the arse.  Also, spend a little time as others have suggested, reading past posts to get a better understanding regarding some of the topics. One thing good is that I haven't used the "ignorant" word yet.

[Willy]

Larry

["I realize that I am not carrying out a private conversation. But when I specifically ask XLFD questions about his actions and his situation, it seems to me that other members would allow XLFD to answer for himself.]  Larry. I don't recall at any time, on this forum, of anyone stopping X or anyone else from answering a question. I do recall many opinions voiced by members of this forum on questions raised, no matter who asked or to whom it was addressed.What you essentially are requiring other forum members to do is stay out of posts you want to participate in. Guess what , it aint going to happen, so get used to it if you want to have positive experience on this forum. If you want a comment from one person then send them an email but don't  lose your wig when others join in on topics you post on.

["who really is acting like a "spoiled whiny brat"? I will let you be the answer of that."] I have acted like a spoiled brat on some occasions and have been chastised for it and I was able to see that my attitude brought on the comments. This is what happened in your case only you don't see it.

["In case you must know, I have been reading many of the archived topics here on this internet site. Do you and others here seriously think that can be accomplished in a couple hours? That would be foolish on your part."]

Good! Glad to hear it.

No! No-one ever implied that. We only suggested you read past post before making comments when you did not know the details of the topic.

Foolish is as foolish see's others acting in like manner.

["I apologize for not realizing how sensitive might be. You might be able to dish it out but have difficulty taking it in. It would be my fault for not taking your sensitivity into consideration. In the future, you may choose to ignore my comments or not take them so critically"]

You misunderstand the situation. I'm not sensitive about your comments but I am critical about your thinking and attitude as it applies to your getting along with others on this forum and your lack of Knowledge regarding past posts and their details. 

["you may choose to ignore my comments or not take them so critically"]

I dont' have or desire to have an ignore button but if I did,  your name would definately be on it.

["Being a new member here it is natural to discover my own 'pecking' order among other outspoken members and the best I can hope for is for others to not erroneously label me as Socialistic or Keynesian or even an official spokesperson for the ignorant. If my speaking out against errouneous labeling accomplishes that goal then please find it in your soul to understand the need."]

If someone considers you a socialist or any other kind of "ist", wouldn't it be better to say "I'm not a socialist and I'll explain why" instead of complaining  about the fact that someone considers you a socialist. In life, your going to get labeled because part of human nature is to categorize and compartmentalize our opinions and thoughts.

[XLFD]

Brilliant points Willy, I've read Larry's types of posts before on a site called "Eye on Ludington".   Being from Walhalla he should be happy with the Torch and me for catapulting Walhallans well ahead of Ludington on the 2nd Reader's Digest Cheer for America contest.  But he seems a tad bitter and somewhat contentious... except at anything involving public officials.

[Willy]

X

I take that as a compliment coming from Ludingtons newest practitioner of law lacking a license person.