Mysterious Letters

[XLFD]

My health has been pretty much like the weather recently, good some days, bad the next, and of course the next few weeks will be hectic for me as I try to go from citizen e-journalist to public servant.  I always liked the connotation of 'public servant' because it harkens back to a time when they actually were servants of the public, and not social engineers out to earn more money and attain more power at the expense of the public.  There are many more public masters, than servants nowadays.

 

I received an anonymous letter this morning.  Expecting the worse, I was mildly relieved to find out it was someone who claimed to have something on my opponent for the position I'm seeking.  It was intriguing enough for me to check on with an FOIA sent out to a state agency, but beyond that, and any more compelling evidence received to support the claim, I will leave it up to that person to report on it.  Part of this watchblog's high-faluting words that we live by here is that we have the right to speak freely, but we also have the duty to do so responsibly. 

 

I appreciate any leads to professional or political malfeasance, but unless they can be roundly verified,  vetted, and supported, I would rather see them in some other medium more versed in rumor and innuendo.

 

Speaking of such a medium, I caught Steve Baloney's editorial today on the FOIA.  After claiming I was "wrongly claiming he was being kept out despite repeated invitations to attend",  he then vacillated from that.  I had received an E-mail yesterday from him and I elaborated a bit more on the restriction.

He sent the following: 

 

"Tom, Sorry you chose not to take us up on the offer. You missed a good chance to have your views stated openly, publicly and in city hall for all to hear.
Question, why was written on the duct tape you stuck over your mouth?"

 

I replied, looking to set the record straight.  After this, I will just have to admit that he just doesn't get it.  Or at least, that he ever wants to get it.

 

"Sorry for not catching up with you sooner, I am still battling a recurrent flu that wasn't helped by my protest. 

On my green duct tape was "Freedom of Speech" on the top, with "Ludington-Style" underneath.

  

I did read your FOIA column in today's paper, so as such, I invite you to read either some of my battles for FOIA in threads from the Ludington Torch (by either me, XLFD, or my confed. Eve), and mull over why the local and the State FOIA laws are being first overlooked by Shay, and then rubber-stamped "no", by the City Council, after City Attorney Wilson puts the kibosh on them.  Please, do so objectively; you don't even have to pass judgment or comment, but realistically figure out what your paper would do with such FOIA replies if it had the bend to do so, and City Hall was as reluctant to you, as it is to I. 

  

I liked that you actually said that "The City has in place a letter of trespass" restriction banning Rotta from Work sites in City Hall, but we have been told that does not extend to such public gatherings as the forum in council chambers."  You have also been told repeatedly by me, and through the words of my attorney, that the restriction is absolute, and violative of my civil liberties. 

  

I have only been given the "Letter of Trespass" from the City, express written permission for the first April City Hall meeting, and some meaningless E-mail from John Shay sent to you, and CC-ed to me that says that noone can be excluded from an open meeting unless they create a disturbance at that very meeting.  The WSP, which the Letter comes from, states very clearly under definitions:  "Letter of Trespass:  A document that notifies the recipient that he/she is expressly prohibited entry to a specified work site without prior written permission from the City Manager under conditions to be specified by the City Manager."  No nod to the Open Meetings Act or any other civil liberty is provided in the WSP.

 

However, nor does anywhere in the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions or their amendments, say that someone (who is not even elected) can arbitrarily and capriciously ban someone from a public facility without any due process, and that a contracted City Attorney has the unheard-of power as a hearing officer in any appeal of such.  

  

You probably don't know what a "writ of attainder" is.  When a legislative body passes a law or policy that makes something punishable, and then that law is immediately enforced on someone who was operating well within the law before its passage, that is illegal and a violation of the State and US Constitution.  That was done here as well.  

  

And yet John Shay and his accomplices ignore pleas from me, other citizens, and my attorney to redact their unlawful policy which has weighed heavily on me for eight months, interfering with my rights as a citizen and a candidate for office, slandering my good name, and you spread their mantra in your paper.  This damn restriction could fall on anyone, without cause, without due process, and your ability to make light of it is very depressing to me."

 

[Willy]

Why is it that Begonche just doesn't get it. He seems to be an intelligent person but he always seems to be shrugging his shoulders and saying "Huh"? It's very clear what has been going on because you have provided documentation to back up your claims. The LDN and it's manager are like the first monkey in the saying "hear no evil". They will listen but when they repeat what they have heard it bears no resemblence to the truth.

[XLFD]

At times I have heard rumors about myself that make me wonder about why I bother to hang out with such a character of ill-repute.  From Begonia's viewpoint, I'm provoking Shay into making further restrictions on FOIAs.  He did respond:

 

I'm no legal expert when it comes to the city's action against you in its premises. I've asked several times and the answer is always the same — the restriction does not include attending public meeting or gatherings, just certain office areas. 

It troubles me, but it also troubled me you wouldn't take the opening that was clearly there and state your views. It was a pretty good forum. Some candidates leveled criticism you would have liked about city hall. There was some frank discussion from multiple points of view on several issues. You could have joined in and state concerns. 

As for FOIA, we use it as needed, but the MPA lawyer has always cautioned against a shotgun/fishing approach. Unfortunately, such approaches have helped governments make the case that it costs too much to provide information and increasingly the Legislature has sided with government allowing more fees, putting up more roadblocks to the free flow of information. It would be far better for you or the Torch to send someone to each public meeting than to paper the city with FOIAs after the fact. 

I fear the latter approach will just give the city more ammunition to try to convince lawmakers, generally inclined to reduce the scope of FOIA, to further weaken a law that protects citizens. 

As for the writ of attainder, it's a great world and I can look such things up and did. 

The reality of taking on any government body is one must be willing to take them to court to win or they win by bluff. Doing so can be costly. 

I do think you missed an opportunity Monday that we tried to present you and the community.

Steve Begnoche

[Marty Redman]

I liked the segue you did between explaining the integrity of your internet enterprise, and the integrity of the LDN.  That's what you really need to get out I think,  that nobody is safe from the WSP and the Letters.