Noticegate: Conspiracy, Cover-ups and Collusion in Ludington OMA Lawsuit - The Ludington Torch2024-03-28T18:49:13Zhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/noticegate-conspiracy-cover-ups-and-collusion-in-ludington-oma-la?feed=yes&xn_auth=noYou would think that City Cle…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-03:4689834:Comment:1546302014-04-03T12:26:14.934ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>You would think that City Clerk Luskin would have asserted that she posted the public notice at the May 20 meeting if she had been certain of it, she has a microphone at the meetings. You would have thought she might have included some assertion about it when a FOIA request was made to the City of Ludington on May 24 for the notices of that meeting. </p>
<p>Knowing the City of Ludington, if they actually thought the notice was posted and taken down, they would have had an officer, probably…</p>
<p>You would think that City Clerk Luskin would have asserted that she posted the public notice at the May 20 meeting if she had been certain of it, she has a microphone at the meetings. You would have thought she might have included some assertion about it when a FOIA request was made to the City of Ludington on May 24 for the notices of that meeting. </p>
<p>Knowing the City of Ludington, if they actually thought the notice was posted and taken down, they would have had an officer, probably Chief Barnett himself, go through the lobby video and extract Ms. Luskin posting the video, and whoever took it down unauthorized, hoping that it was me, so they could prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the law is not succinct about whether a meeting is properly posted, if at the time of the meeting, the notice is nowhere to be found at the main office, and a clerk can swear that she posted it several days prior. My interpretation of the rules, giving weight to the legislative intent of the framers of the Open Meetings Act, was that it wasn't, and there was no intent in the defendants' brief or testimony as to show it had been up for at least 18 hours, which is a requirement. </p>
<p>Without the video, and with only speculative inferences you can make because they did not preserve the video and violated the FOIA to withhold 'still' camera footage from the plaintiff, the judge made a ruling that presumed the city made 'enough' effort to try and properly post the notice. I will try to describe this a little bit more in a thread.</p> Remember what I've been harpi…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-03:4689834:Comment:1540912014-04-03T06:45:49.372ZAQUAMANhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/AQUAMAN
<p>Remember what I've been harping about for years on here about a "fixed agenda"? And that political correctness/bearing false witness, always wins the day, even if it's a technicality? X, maybe if there is a next time, you should seek the aid of 6-10 others to sign sworn affidavits for you, having witnessed the lack of posting, and be on camera to verify it. Seems the old trick of an surprise affidavit worked this time, and throwing another co-worker under the bus will be routine procedure…</p>
<p>Remember what I've been harping about for years on here about a "fixed agenda"? And that political correctness/bearing false witness, always wins the day, even if it's a technicality? X, maybe if there is a next time, you should seek the aid of 6-10 others to sign sworn affidavits for you, having witnessed the lack of posting, and be on camera to verify it. Seems the old trick of an surprise affidavit worked this time, and throwing another co-worker under the bus will be routine procedure for shyster Shay, and of course, slippery Dick, into the future. I hate to see Pete make these type of decisions nowadays, since his record for so long is a very true and honest one.</p> I don't totally understand it…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-03:4689834:Comment:1540592014-04-03T04:55:06.472ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>I don't totally understand it myself, but I will understand better if he throws his hat in the ring for the Circuit Court judgeship. When you have the two city managers in court (one the sister of Susan Sniegowski), it makes it difficult to rule against them and rule for public official enemy number one if you're sights are on getting backing from the connected folks around here. I am pleased more with the proceeding of the court rather than the final finding, and what the City will put in…</p>
<p>I don't totally understand it myself, but I will understand better if he throws his hat in the ring for the Circuit Court judgeship. When you have the two city managers in court (one the sister of Susan Sniegowski), it makes it difficult to rule against them and rule for public official enemy number one if you're sights are on getting backing from the connected folks around here. I am pleased more with the proceeding of the court rather than the final finding, and what the City will put in its news release to be printed by the COLDNews tomorrow. </p>
<p>They can't be very happy with this verdict, even though they did win the day.</p> What kind of ruling is that? …tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-03:4689834:Comment:1541682014-04-03T02:48:49.329ZWillyhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/willy
<p>What kind of ruling is that? The City almost complied? It's like saying a bank robber allmost complied with not robbing a bank therefore no law was broken. If a requirement is spelled out in the law and there is no misunderstanding what is required and an entity fails to follow those requirements as the law dictates then a violation of the law has been perpetrated. In his ruling Wadel admits that the City violated the OMA but he said it was OK for them to have done that because they put an…</p>
<p>What kind of ruling is that? The City almost complied? It's like saying a bank robber allmost complied with not robbing a bank therefore no law was broken. If a requirement is spelled out in the law and there is no misunderstanding what is required and an entity fails to follow those requirements as the law dictates then a violation of the law has been perpetrated. In his ruling Wadel admits that the City violated the OMA but he said it was OK for them to have done that because they put an effort towards following the law. I guess as long as we make an effort to obey the law, it's OK to break it. I wonder if the judge actually reads his own judgement because what you have described is total nonsense. His camera opinion is nonsensical.</p> I can, but to my current unde…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-02:4689834:Comment:1541672014-04-02T22:57:01.624ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>I can, but to my current understanding, the appellate court would be the 51st Circuit Court, the court I tried to avoid by restricting the scope of the lawsuit. Rob Alway didn't totally get the story wrong in his <a href="http://www.masoncountypress.com/2014/04/02/judge-dismisses-rottas-case-against-mayor-city-councilors/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=judge-dismisses-rottas-case-against-mayor-city-councilors" target="_blank">MCP write-up,</a> however, he said nothing…</p>
<p>I can, but to my current understanding, the appellate court would be the 51st Circuit Court, the court I tried to avoid by restricting the scope of the lawsuit. Rob Alway didn't totally get the story wrong in his <a href="http://www.masoncountypress.com/2014/04/02/judge-dismisses-rottas-case-against-mayor-city-councilors/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=judge-dismisses-rottas-case-against-mayor-city-councilors" target="_blank">MCP write-up,</a> however, he said nothing about any of the sidereal issues about why the City did not save the camera footage of the lobby as a bit of relevance that was considered by the court, but did not carry much weight into the decision. </p>
<p>The judge kind of threw me for a loop when he said that those cameras are put their for 'security reasons' they aren't necessarily put there for verifying their officer's affidavits. Yet, he conceded that he believed Ms. Luskin's affidavit and that I was correct that the notice was gone on the day of the meeting when I got there. Hello! A public notice is missing, making the City potentially liable for big bucks in OMA damages and criminally liable, and 'security' doesn't include seeing who removed the notice?! I don't buy this, and I wish my side had more influential people other than myself and my girl in her work duds.</p>
<p>The City has invested all that money of yours in cameras to spy on the people at their city hall and their public bathrooms, and yet the footage is somehow unavailable to the public, and flood gated by Chief Barnett, who is more worried about you seeing his camera angles, than seeing what city officials don't want you to see. And all those city officials that came with the attorney you paid for, who blocked FOIA requests (coordinated by another expensive attorney you pay for) to keep the 'still shots' away from me, knows that the footage would've been damning to them, as it would have proved their own collusion.</p> Judge Wadel found for the def…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-02:4689834:Comment:1540512014-04-02T18:58:39.627ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>Judge Wadel found for the defendants today at summary disposition, saying that they "substantially complied" (see defendant's brief) with the OMA statute. The defendants did not need to show that they had such notice up for one hour, let alone eighteen, they did not need to explain how why they did not preserve the evidence of a possible crime while they had Asst. City Manager Jackie Steckel notarizing Clerk Luskin's affidavit, the main point of the intentional act of non-compliance after…</p>
<p>Judge Wadel found for the defendants today at summary disposition, saying that they "substantially complied" (see defendant's brief) with the OMA statute. The defendants did not need to show that they had such notice up for one hour, let alone eighteen, they did not need to explain how why they did not preserve the evidence of a possible crime while they had Asst. City Manager Jackie Steckel notarizing Clerk Luskin's affidavit, the main point of the intentional act of non-compliance after notification was thus nullified. "Duly noted"</p>
<p>Judge Wadel was thoughtful in his deliberation, more well-versed on the OMA than one would think, but I think his overall decision left a little to be desired in terms of why this city was to put out conflicting information about meeting times, dodge FOIA requests, and willfully violate the OMA in spirit and by rule of law. Rulings like this only allow the OMA to be further eroded into meaningless legislation. Wouldn't it be nice to argue "substantial compliance" when you are caught speeding or the like?</p>
<p>The City Manager, Asst. City Manager, and City Clerk, all took an hour and a half off of their busy day to attend the summary disposition, along with two of the defendants, Les Johnson and Kaye Holman. </p> Maybe it's the white shirt va…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-01:4689834:Comment:1533872014-04-01T04:03:44.254ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>Maybe it's the white shirt variation of the "LAC 2nd Graders heart Mayor Henderson" left behind by the old mayor on a visit.</p>
<p>When you look at the picture, you can almost hear the chant: "Mmm, mmm, mmm, Mayor John Henderson; Mmm, mmm, mmm, Mayor John Henderson...."…</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1494156290?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1494156290?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721"></img></a></p>
<p>Maybe it's the white shirt variation of the "LAC 2nd Graders heart Mayor Henderson" left behind by the old mayor on a visit.</p>
<p>When you look at the picture, you can almost hear the chant: "Mmm, mmm, mmm, Mayor John Henderson; Mmm, mmm, mmm, Mayor John Henderson...."</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1494156290?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1494156290?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p> If you look closely, the shir…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-04-01:4689834:Comment:1531772014-04-01T02:48:23.388ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>If you look closely, the shirts/coats hanging in the second picture are not completely arranged in order from smallest to largest, though it does look like the job of someone who is very anal-retentive and has a lot of spare time in the winter when they're not applying for grants.</p>
<p>If you look closely, the shirts/coats hanging in the second picture are not completely arranged in order from smallest to largest, though it does look like the job of someone who is very anal-retentive and has a lot of spare time in the winter when they're not applying for grants.</p> Allow me to plagiarize (kind…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-03-31:4689834:Comment:1535152014-03-31T22:11:18.190ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>Allow me to plagiarize (kind of) a few words:</p>
<p>Seeing that we are going after public officials. I was a member of the <em>public</em> reserve for just about fifty years, actually a little over fifty years. I gave up holidays weekends, to go and help the community. I know that that don't mean nothing to Ludington officials, but I resent what they said about us. We are here to help the community. I wish we could get more <em>public</em> reserves to do that. </p>
<p>With their type…</p>
<p>Allow me to plagiarize (kind of) a few words:</p>
<p>Seeing that we are going after public officials. I was a member of the <em>public</em> reserve for just about fifty years, actually a little over fifty years. I gave up holidays weekends, to go and help the community. I know that that don't mean nothing to Ludington officials, but I resent what they said about us. We are here to help the community. I wish we could get more <em>public</em> reserves to do that. </p>
<p>With their type of attitude, and the way they cut people down, I don't know why anybody would volunteer for it, but... I did it for over fifty years and I never felt I was a vigilante, I thought I was helping people, and I commend you <em><strong>s. todd </strong></em>for what you said. I just wish they would figure out something to get out there and help the community instead of bashing everything that we try to do, but I really resent that for the fifty years that I gave the city up, the weekends, the holidays, for every year I gave up the Fourth of July, never gave one up for my family. I worked. And that's all I got to say; I don't know what else they are going to do.</p> Just think how much soda pops…tag:ludingtoncitizen.ning.com,2014-03-31:4689834:Comment:1534652014-03-31T16:23:53.883ZXLFDhttp://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/profile/TheLudingtonCitizen
<p>Just think how much soda pops it took for me to research and write it. All volunteer work, by the way, Chief Barnett and Funk.</p>
<p>Just think how much soda pops it took for me to research and write it. All volunteer work, by the way, Chief Barnett and Funk.</p>