The Lawbreakers: Episode 2: The Chief Complaint

[XLFD]

(at episode 1's end, XLFD is called into an LFD officer's meeting a few days after he requests a hearing to argue his innocence of crossing a clear stop intersection on his bicycle.)

I entered the LFD chief's office nervously, since I had been singled out and ushered into an area where the faces I knew and respected looked concerned about something. Seems that LPD Chief Barnett had related some untrue second-hand information to my chief about my traffic stop. Apparently, the citing officer had also talked to an LFD Lieutenant about it too. Anyhow, I learned that among other factual things and minor exaggerations: 1) the officer was only going to give me a warning, until I 'argued' that cyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. 2) that the officer came close to hitting my bike. 3) that I had said there was not a stop sign present at the intersection.

Being that all these assertions were false and contradicted by the officer's testimony at the eventual hearing, I was a bit upset. But before I had the opportunity to be upset over that, I was stunned by the disclosure of this personal information by LPD Chief Barnett and his officer. As a firefighter is a public servant, one of the first things we learn is the concept of confidentiality, even before we learn anything about quenching fires. This is of even more importance to a LEO, who deals with confidential stuff all day.

Before I had even got a notice for my hearing (which arrived ten days later, 21 days after my request), these two LEOs had gotten wind that I was boldly denying the ticket from the 79th District Court. Wanting to not have to go to court, they told my superiors that I needed to drop the case, and exaggerated their story accordingly. The meeting notes I received recently through FOIA, plainly state that Chief Barnett specifically brought it to the fire officer's attention, and all but one figured they had an obligation to address the matter accordingly. That lone dissenter had figure it was a private matter between me and the LPD. He was right.

I was threatened with receiving a written reprimand if I did not accept responsibility and drop the hearing I had requested, as is any citizen's right. What really stunned me was that the same officers who had drilled the concept of confidentiality into me, were now the same ones using what should have been private against me. Before they had even heard from me, they discussed the option of dismissal.

I stammered, my knees got weak, and I got sick within moments of hearing my Chief divulge the false, private, one-sided story I had experienced, and remembered so differently. I weakly affirmed I was going to go to court, and blandly denied some of the assertions that were made. I was to receive a written reprimand, and would be monitored over the next year for any further problems, because I would not give up my right to go to court. I was so sickened by the whole ordeal, that I was ready to resign that very night-- even though I had invested so much into the department and my training over eight years and loved the work and the people I worked with so much.

I resigned a dozen days later, citing an inability to adapt my safe bike riding habits into what was expected, and pledged to lead a crusade for the rights of bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. But frankly, and this was implied in the letter, I resigned because the 79th District Court and the LPD had not respected my right to privacy. Here is the law, I've discovered along the way, as it pertains to this episode.

MCL 15.342(1): "A public officer or employee shall not divulge to an unauthorized person, confidential information acquired in the course of employment in advance of the time prescribed for its authorized release to the public" (1st attachment) Isn't that clear enough?

Section 2-120(a) under subdivision 4 of article III of the Ludington City Charter states that the general protections under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act which would have covered this instance, as I had already reported to the court suspected violations of the law by the LPD, and had been threatened with disciplinary action afterwards by another city official, upon the release of bogus information. (2nd Attach)

Continuing on that vein, section 2-120(b) states "This section shall not be construed as prohibiting disciplinary action if an officer or employee of the city or any city agency discloses information which he or she knows: 1) To be false or which he or she discloses with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. 2) To be exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act [in the FOIA, MCL 15.243(1)(b-ii and b-iii) states records compiled for law enforcement purposes whose diclosure would: (ii) deprive a person of the right to a fair trial and (iii) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy are both exempt from disclosure] and 3) is confidential under any other provision of the law.

At the time, 3) would be satisfied by the violation of MCL 15.342(1); 2) would be violated due to its interference with my hearing, and its invasion of my privacy, and 1) was broken eventually after court testimony established the three facts which were misrepresented. Chief Barnett's reckless disregard of establishing its truthfulness notwithstanding. The 79th DC official(s) who leaked my private info would be in violation of 15.324(1) and the state's Whistleblower Act as well.

Still, at the time, I and those closest to me, knew only that something at least unethical had happened to me. The next weekend I composed a letter that I sent to Chief Barnett and sent copies to the Daily News, the City Manager John Shay, and my former chief. Would any of these entities see any problems? (end of episode 2)

Questions for discussion:

1) In the same situation, how would you feel and what would you do, if you sought to fight a minor traffic violation you thought unfair or misused and had a non-witness police chief bad-mouth you to your bosses using confidential info that happens to be false also?

2) The city had just settled the Jack Byers lawsuit for $250,000 because they had violated the Whistleblowers Act and the Open meetings Act (OMA) to his detriment (according to Mr. Byers). The LFD officer's meeting, which is itself governed by the OMA, violated this act in a couple of ways, and the Whistleblower violations that were already noted. You would think the city officials would have learned from their mistakes, but none of the people who violated the law prior (in Byers suit) had to pay for their mistakes-- it was from the taxpayers and the insurance we pay for. Most of the violators got raises shortly after that, in the midst of a recession. Is this fair to you, the people who elect the people who appoint our unelected leader (CM John Shay)?

[Victoria George Cook]

Word!!!

[XLFD]

Disarm: Furthermore, all of the main points regarding the legality of the bicycle infraction have been logically refuted here and elsewhere .. including the rule about bicycles needing to obey stop signs and the legality of the substitute judge.

Don't remember either of these refutations. Please explain-- start another thread if needed. Also, if VG is Aquaman, then he must be a master of disguise : )

Aquaman is a highly principled individual. He, and others, may rub you the wrong way, but I see a lot of your posts being little more than provocative in nature. Do you have a cause other than to belittle others, and question those who question authority?

[XLFD]

Nobody is denying that you have a thick skin, some of us are just wondering whether you have a skull to match ; )

Make sure the bicycle-stop sign refutation is not your own personal 'interpretation' of law, but solid legislative wording and intent. If you can't, don't become a judge yourself.

Also don't forget the refutation on Probate Judge Raven's juridictional ability to decide civil infractions in District Court for cases where he has not been given special approval by the SCAO or the MI Supreme Court.

[AQUAMAN]

It's too bad Diszzy, that you pretend to uphold justice, and dicidedly override that principle every time you post here and elsewhere about it's perfectness. It's just not so sir! And that's the main point to debate with you. You believe that ALL Gov't. decisions are and always have been perfect and absolute, beyond question, and now, beyond legality! X has shown there is not only suspicion in that warped theory locally, but prooooooooofs, beyond question. Why keep arguing and debating that which has been disproven time and again? Cause you are an LEO or a dependent on those taxpayer funds in my claim to clarity and justice! And I do suppose you, as stubborn and moronic as you continue to expose yourself to be, are going to take this to an unending mat of confusion and discourse. So be it! You still cannot win a war of minds and hearts here imho. You will continue to confuse and spin the truth to no avail., and hope to keep the masses brainwashed. That is not a positive nor incentive to what our forefathers fought for, for hundreds of years, just British tierenney, and apathy against the minds of fairness and independence.

[AQUAMAN]

Btw, some SKULLS, as could be exposed, are not so thick, they are full of MUSH!

[Sweater Cows!]

Disarm,

I think the point you aren't getting about X quiting the LFD is because he can be in some very dangerous situations where his life and others are on the line and he doesn't want to put his life or others in jeopardy when the people calling the shots have a grudge against him.

For ex. if the person calling the shots at a fire was po'd at X over this and he was in a burning home or on a car crash call where someones life was in his hands and he was taking orders from the grudge holding individuals in his dept or the LPD then he could be considered second string player even if the good ol' boy player wasn't in need of assistance or direction (like X in this situ) the shot callers could play favorites and sacrifice X or those he is trying to help.

I definitely would not want someone trying to save my family who's bosses or co workers (or cross agency workers->LPD) have it in for them.

It is better that he quit as that shows more caring for the public and character and dedication to the purpose of the job than staying.

AS the LPD, LFD and others have shown they have a godd(typo turned pun.lol) ol boys network that has no respect for the employee and it would only have compromised the job safety for him to stay. JMO

[XLFD]

Disarm, I realize that most people who overlook corruption also overlook Whistleblower Laws. If you are so unconcerned about confidentiality why don't you place all your personal information out here on the Torch or at Ludington Talks? Then let Police Chief Barnett lie about what you have done to your boss(es). Get the point through that thick skin of yours?

[XLFD]

One of the Torch members recently sent me an E-mail relating a story regarding them, and a story that happened to a friend of theirs. One was about rather flagrant sexual harassment from an employer which forced them out due to the stress of being around the boss, and the 'looking the other way' of the rest of the company. The other involved repeated harassment by superiors regarding their out-of-work activities which had nothing to do with the job they did.

All I can say is eight years of confidence and trust in my superiors and the professionalism of the LPD were essentially lost in that one meeting, and it made me a nervous wreck until I resigned nearly two weeks later. Call me weak-willed if you will, but I felt and still feel very violated.

[XLFD]

I would have had to divulge untrue confidential information? I would have had to have a makeshift tribunal before I had even got the court date for the hearing I requested?

I feel sorry for you... and your soul.

[AQUAMAN]

If I'm a source of sound thinking and trying to shine a TORCH LITE on the Truth, I stand guilty as accused. Better that, then to be an Extinguisher of Torch Truth, and cynical to the point of boredom.

[AQUAMAN]

Disarm, it's obvious this is your one and only past-time. Suggest you get a real hobby, one that gets sweat on the brow, takes some aggression out on yourself, and cleanses the body of impure thoughts and actions etc.. I highly recommend fishing, followed by reading the bible or your fav.magazines. Could be an improvement over here, and at your household environment. Or you could just buddy up with your pals like Blindeye and Tueboring over at the Stew, and continue your tirades on those folks.

[XLFD]

Don't scare him off too early, Aq, I'm still waiting for a couple of refutations.
Here's an idea, Disarm, unlike the LPD and other local government entities, try reading some law books instead of thinking you know what the law says.