Tomorrow the agenda of the Ludington City Council not only has the usual FOIA appeal of an improperly denied FOIA request by yours truly, but they should be going into closed session to discuss the status of what is called the McAdam's Lawsuit with the City of Ludington with their non-City Attorney Allan Vander Laan  (Item 9b). 


What is the McAdam's lawsuit?  At this point I can only make an educated guess, but I believe it more than likely involves the owner of Michael's on the Avenue Sue McAdams and what happened early in the summer of 2010 when the "Girls Gone Wild" bus came into Ludington, and the local officials, in particular, LPD Police Chief Mark Barnett, went... wild. 


Here is an article from the local newspaper that is so friendly to the Ludington City Hallers that it is now affectionately called the City of Ludington Daily News or COLDNews by those in the know. 


"...an appearance Thursday by the Girls Gone Wild bus drew many viewers, at least a few protesters and prompted what appears to have been a parking blockade that limited where the bus could park.

The visit, part of a promotion at Michael’s Bar and Grille in downtown Ludington, also prompted city officials to gather and review with its attorney, Richard Wilson of Gockerman, Wilson, Saylor and Hesslund of Manistee, what, if anything, could or should be done about what was billed as a “bikini party.” ... Michael’s owner Sue McAdam Thurday afternoon told the Daily News, “My intentions are good. I have no intentions of demoralizing our community. I don’t feel there’s anything wrong with it.”

Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett met with the bus crew prior to the show while it was parked at the Holiday Inn, where the crew stayed overnight,

He said he told them, “I would like to see an event where no girls were being filmed in the bus and no girls were taken to the bus and they lived up to that, and kept their promise that they wouldn’t take any girls to the bus and they wouldn’t film on the bus,” he said....

“I am not condoning what Girls Gone Wild does and I’m not promoting that,”  she (McAdam) said.

“I didn’t realize it was that big of a deal,” she continued. She said it was a business decision following a financially difficult winter. She said the establishment is behind on its taxes and is trying to get back to even.

“We won’t have them back. I apologize, but it was a business decision. What’s the big deal?”


Reader's comment at the bottom of the article go both ways, but one of the poster's "Sherry" says something that may have become reality:  "The people on the ggw bus did NOT break the law. The people at the bar did NOT break the law. The people from the churches, they DID break the law. The chief of police, He DID break the law. The article in the paper said the leaders of this town conferred with their lawyer before taking action. I think the bar owners should confer with their lawyers cause they have a lawsuit against the city. And they will win..." 


With a variety of actions done by the City of Ludington to suppress the expression of free speech, started by Chief Barnett supported by the Manistee-based City Attorneys and other City Hallers who should know better (where have I heard this story before?) their questionable actions bespeak a germination of a lawsuit by Sue McAdams on this aspect alone.  I will do some more research, and get back to this thread on the specifics I uncover, and would appreciate any more factual information supplied by anyone who knows anything about this lawsuit to be disseminated to the public at large on this website.  As far as the COLDNews, they have reported nothing to the public as of yet, not even in discussing what is scheduled to happen at the City Council meeting tomorrow when this is scheduled to go into closed session. 

Views: 2520

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Chuck, I have to confess, YOU are the one sounding Indigent right now.....lol. Wth does money have to do with a case where tazing in 2009 and a lawsuit filed over 1-1/2 years ago, and is just being found out about now, all have to do with more money? If you mean answering another FOIA request, and you don't want or need to know the results/settlement of our taxpayer monies, then stop complaining about wasting money, cause that appears what the City/County coffers are about to do sometime soon "to settle out of court" it would appear. And I would guess that's going to cost 10's of thousands to settle, not less than $20 to answer another FOIA. You confuse and undermine critical local issues that most citizens would want to know about, it's all our monies, not just yours that will be spent here. When and/or if this settlement is made sometime soon, you can bet your sweet bippy that a prepared statement from Shay/Henderson will tell all of us that it's less expensive to settle, than to keep attorneys fighting it, but in the end, the city's employee was right and the city is always right too, so don't worry, the COLDNews will do it's part in this play too. Just like the Byers case, that too, is in the archives for your perusal to READ UP ON! Meanwhile, the public will be kept in the dark, cause that's the way they always handle delicate issues of "real wastes of money".

Lol I was meaning the retraining for the tazer. From my earlier readings statements were made about the current policemens not getting training that they need. So is this lack of training because they didn't want to spend monies on them are now going to cost me money to make up for their thriftiness

yes it costs money to hold retraining sessions every year like they are suppose to  - the county didn't hold retraining for a few years (according to my sources) and they finally did retraining late last year or earlier this year after this lawsuit came to light...........

I think this is from the same or related case:


 Thanks for posting these records Brian. After reading them I can only conclude that this will cost the taxpayers a lot of money. Here we have a citizen who, according to the case files, has never been in trouble with the law. Does anyone think law enforcement created a new friend on that evening. I understand why Mrs. Mcadams was stopped, I understand how her son would be concerned, I understand the officers request that Mcadams stay in the car or at least back off, but I don't understand tazering a person 4 times in one evening. In my opinion the police over reacted and made what should have been a routine stop into an avoidable lawsuit. I believe it's time for the police to receive some more training on how to handle the citizens they encounter and I don't mean more tazer training sessions. It sure is a bad reflection on the City when they withhold information about a lawsuit that will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars. It makes you wonder what other secrets they are hiding from the citizens who hired them and who trusted them.

Yes the use of a tazer 4 times seems a bit over-the-top. 

yes !! and there is a BIG difference in getting "dry" tazed and having the prongs shot into your back like Davilia did...........Oscar knows better, shame on him - he is the one who did the initial training for the officers at the Sheriff's office when I worked there

Answer to Complaint 1:


Amended Complaint:


awesome Brian!!! where do u get this information?  I would love to know!!! I only have what my "supplier" has told me, and it seems as though that person was correct - HUM JOHANNA u wanna run your mouth now???? So I wonder what the county is going to do on their end of the lawsuit????  Do you see that the Tazer company, Tazer Int. is not named in lawsuit --- that is because they cannot be sued due to the fact that the county and the city DID NOT follow Tazer Int protocol and train their employees every year like they are suppose to!!! Now if they would of been trained according to Tazer Int policy, Tazer Int might be named in the lawsuit also because use of the Tazer, how/when/who, is part of the training - I know because I went thru it!!!

So its nice how our wonderfule Sheriff and Mayor has kept this from the taxpayers.............u still support Jeff??? LOL I sure wouldn't!! esp after I asked him numerous times about this lawsuit yet he failed to answer my questions AT ALL!!!! he could of at least said, that is something that cannot be discussed at this time etc.... but nope he kept his mouth shut and made the torch bearers going on a fishing trip!!! Good catch Brian!!! :)

The information is from PACER Public Access To Court Electronic Records. They charge about 10 cents a page. http://www.pacer.gov/

Thanks a lot Brian, you saved me some money, and provided a great service to the community.  I was hot on this trail myself.


© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service