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]

As you wish, Larry, you can wait for the documents to hopefully show up here with SCAO approval.  But let me ask you one question, since you have been asking plenty, which is usually the best way to learn things, and is why FOIA requests become useful to get to the bottom of things. 

In your quest to get the proper perspectives in the differences between myself and the City Hallers, are you trying as hard as you are here in getting the facts behind their side of the story, and are you concerned that they are mostly avoiding the "Rotta problem"?

[XLFD]

City officials are welcome to come on here any time and debate the issues, for them I would hope they did what Wanda Marrison did, and avoid the anonymity we extend to normal posters, fearful of what may happen if they say the wrong things and someone with power takes it personally.

Heather's application for a PPO included about 40 pages of "evidence" from the very pages of The Ludington Torch about why she felt threatened.  Innocent, civil posts questioning the acts of local government were taken as threatening to her and her buds at the Hall of Harrison Street. 

The very first referenced a comical post Aquaman made about giving John Shay swimming lessons in the Stearn's Park undertow.  Aquaman is a former lifeguard, and there was no malice in the post, just a desire to let Shay know the very real dangers of the area.  Maybe then, he, Mayor Henderson, and the City Council would not have held the lifeguard program under the water, and Anthony Goldsmith would still be alive today.  Such a realization must wear away at the conscience of an individual over time, until that conscience just eventually fades away to nothingness.

[Sweater Cows!]

we abbreviate names a lot especially long ones like yours or mine, no harm intended, just easier/quicker typing, I think mine has been called about 6 different things by six dif. people. just an fyi as you'll probably see some variations of your name when ppl are replying to you directly. for my typing skills I would skip anything with a (z) down in that lower corner pinky key LOL, so please don't be offended. If someone is being nasty you will know it and Ijust wanted to let you know that abbreviating is common.

[XLFD]

Fair question, R. Larry, I probably would have had the same question not too long ago.  Toni and I enjoined an action in Circuit Court to appeal a FOIA request dated 9-7-2011 that was denied by the City FOIA Coordinator John Shay and further ignored by the City Council in an appeal to that body prior.  The FOIA allows such action to gain records that are ilegitimately withheld from those that request them.  The City piggybacked on our case by filing a counterclaim, made several aspersions regarding our history of FOIA requests, and because it was not set up for an injunctive hearing (due to my inadvertent mistake) it went to a full civil trial.  In the discovery process of civil litigation, either side has the right to depose the opposing party(ies), by effectively meeting with them and asking questions that they are compelled to answer, unless adequately objected to. 

We (plaintiffs) waived that right to depose, because we believe the Exhibits of written documents show our point (and we are frankly creeped out by the presence of current FOIA Coordinator and CA Saylor III). 

They obviously didn't because they sat me down for 161 minutes (no breaks offered) and asked me a bunch of questions that had nothing to do with their premises.  I am not under threat of arrest for any illegal activity that I know of, but I hadn't known about a police report made regarding me about a year ago by the LPD on a complaint from CM Shay, or a PPO applied for and denied regarding me to the Court, except for the fact I made FOIA requests to the City and County that referred to them.  I am still at a loss as to what they refer to, other than Constitutionally protected activities.  Here's the police report, I am in process of seeing the PPO affidavit. LPD 11-870 p 1  LPD 11-870 p 2.  Does it look like disorderly conduct to you?  According to the report, posting a link to a publicly available City of Ludington webpage is the new standard for a crime, of which I and the City of Ludington are guilty of.

[AQUAMAN]

When anyone like Shay and Sailor have to grasp for such short straws as a person impersonating an attorney, not being able to give a friend some legal perspectives, via representing themselves in the best layman's way they can, you know those on the opposing side are in trouble, and sinking fast. What's the saying? If you represent yourself without an attorney, you have a fool for a client? Guess who made that saying up? Yup, the very attorneys themselves that feel no one but themselves can read and understand law books, case law, and why attorneys are worth such high fees for representation. I say, Bahhh, humbug, to that notion. Even Preston Tucker represented himself through part of his trial, and did just fine in the end, without the annoyance and high price of a mouthpiece with a Juris Doctorate.

[XLFD]

Unless they are extremely complicated, any FOIA appeal to the Circuit Court should be tried without an attorney.  The law is quite plain and the precedents are pro-disclosure, so even if you lose on your own legal malpractice, you should be able to get a competent shyster for an Appeals Court maneuver, if you and the lawyer are confident in the likely outcome.  Plus, it doesn't lose you a lot if the judge decides not to award attorney fees to you, and you gain a little legal knowledge-- which can be a dangerous thing in the worng hands, LOL. 

[XLFD]

Larry,

You are effectively ceding the point that the powers-that-be around here will take negative action if you start to look at public documents that the FOIA says verbatim that it is the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. The people shall be informed so that they may fully participate in the democratic process.

If you allow the government to shield themselves from public scrutiny, you invite corruption and permit tyranny to prosper, while allowing persecution to occur to those out to expose the truth.

[AQUAMAN]

Well said X, and now I guess I'm supposed to apologize for using the Fitz abbreviation for a newbie name that I have used for many decades with people of similar names; actually intended as a compliment, even JFK was referred in loving passing by that nickname. So, if it's that critical, what do we call you, R.? Lar? Larry? Gibbons? Your choice sir, but, why so uppity and snooty about such a mundane issue of really no consequence?  When you join here, as Willy stated in any talk forum, you should be able to ask questions, granted, and replies will be made in steadfast manner as appropriate. However, it's common sense and only reasonable, that you inform yourself of the happenings, issues and threads, that you take the necessary time to read, i.e., not be lazy to the point of making us all repeat what is easily read and available from past posts. Don't have time?, think you're the only one busy?, think you are special? Sorry, I don't impose myself like that on strangers, nor friends. And you can make more friends and understand a lot more if you take that time to investigate many past posts of articles you find interesting. Sometimes, days go by before I reenter the Torch Zone, not quite Twilight yet, but for many, pretty close. That may take me 30 minutes, or 2 hours, depends. I find it interesting, and make mental notes along the way. There are few if any on this forum that are needling newbies, unless and until they might become defensive and vulgar, then that goes against our Ning TOS, (terms of service). Methinks the issues and subjects presented on this forum make for in-depth reading and research, because many are too shocking to believe, esp. if you believe in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights granted us all as Americans. Many subject matters here would be believable if we lived in Cuba or Russia, but that just isn't the case, so we continue to do our parts as caring citizens, and, if that's too mundane and boring, time consuming for you, then perhaps you should be on your fav. type forum, and not participate here if it's too hard and upsetting for your ego.

[AQUAMAN]

YOU ASKED PLEASE DON'T CALL ME FRITZ, I resent that! or didn't you Mr. Utopia? Nothing about calling you by any name or object, which is probably more appropriate. I haven't picked on you, only answered questions with fact, pretty much, don'T CHA Think? And asked you to sober up with some needed reading, is that too much for the LAZY? :;;;You sound like an extreme LIB that pretends to know the score, when you don't even know the Players and Game here today! Nice TRY!

[XLFD]

To look at the court records of the PPO application, I just asked the County Clerk office to review them.  I had had a previous written communication about related documents, but according to Prosecutor Paul, anyone can go down to the Clerk's office and review those records. 

Whether they would require written permission from others, I don't know.  These are court records and don't have the same parameters for review and copying as FOIA requestable documents, as courts are not defined as public bodies in the FOIA.  It is not an active case, but it is very instructive as to the low threshold Ms. Venzke used to petition the court for relief.

As for trust, one should use that commodity wisely.  But again, do you trust a public body that intentionally withholds documents for five months, and then produces documents that do not satisfy the request, as shown by their records.  Then not once, not twice, but three times finds more documents that they had overlooked previously, thanks to records we already have pointing out their oversight.

While at the same time spends upwards of $15,000 in legal fees trying to intimidate a couple of poor people that filed a simple FOIA appeal who only wishes to see the request they had a right to make. 

Again, you can choose who to trust, but you should do so by their actions and words, or even by their inactions and unspoken posturings. 

I doubt that I would be able to earn such trust of yours Larry, because I question what exactly your anonymous perspective is or what your personal motives are, beyond the outlook you seem to indicate by your posts. 

[Sweater Cows!]

I have myself wondered whether that stuff would then bbe of public record as well. Interesting question and I am curious to see an answer if anyone here happens to know.

[XLFD]

I got a reply back from the County Clerk allowing me to get some copies of the PPO application.  I will be posting those tomorrow, so that you don't have to worry about it for this, at least. 

From what I am understanding, the standing rule for our county (which can differ in other counties) is for records of the court to be available for inspection if the case/decision is effectively closed.  This may differ if you are not a party of the case, I don't know.  I might suspect that if you go down to the court and ask to see records and they don't know you from Adam, they will ask for ID and you will likely have to wait if you want to copy, photograph or scan the records. 

When you make a FOIA request, it will be a public record for at least a year, MCL 15.233(2).  If your name rhymes with Rom Totta, it will be a public record forever, LOL.