At the top of today's local newspaper, you may have read about the latest court battle between my alter ego and two Scottville commissioners, if not it looks like this:
Page 3's addition wasn't that much extra, it stated:
[Sniegowski also stated] Rotta’s complaint regarding Spencer was not filed until after the 30-day window for such a complaint had ended.
Alway and Spencer were both served with summons by Eric Thue, acting on Rotta’s behalf, during the Jan. 24 commission meeting.
Rotta said he doesn’t plan to let the issue go.
“I will not be letting that decision stand, on principle,” he stated in an email to the Daily News, adding that he not comment on any potential appeals until “such actions are filed and underway.”
Since the article wasn't totally factual, I was a bit disappointed until I realized that the author, Riley Kelley, whom I communicated with, had to mesh two different perspectives (mine and the judge's Opinion) and this would necessarily make it difficult to follow since Judge Sniegowski failed to read or understand the complaint in rendering her 'opinion an order'.
My complaint is found here in its entirety, it's rather straightforward in explaining why there were two commission vacancies occurring a week after city elections on Nov. 14, 2022 due to Alway's resignation and a term's expiration with nobody running for it. It points out laws that state these must be filled within 30 days by the commission, and if not, a special election must be held to fill the vacancies. It explains why Alway's "unresignation" and Spencer's appointment after 43 days were unlawful and the only way left to fill those vacancies were by special election.
The judge's 'opinion an order' is littered with misrepresentations and worse starting at the second sentence. She writes: "The application alleges impropriety in the election" of the defendants, but I had claimed no such thing. The election, where a political novice beat out 3 incumbents is proper enough and I never claim otherwise. The third sentence goes way off the reservation when she says: "The application alleges election fraud...", which is totally false again.
This latter false allegation by the judge got into Mr. Kelley's article as a claim made by me in my complaint; her misrepresentation makes me look like the fool, when it's her playing that part. The appointment of Spencer was improper, the assumption of Alway's vacated seat in a manner not recognized by law was improper by him. No election fraud, no election impropriety.
Next sentence, Judge Sniegowski goes deeper into the fiction and claims that MCL 600.4545 gives me only 30 days after an election to file a quo warranto complaint. The judge fails to understand that the statute mentioned is only applicable to ballot proposals when material fraud or error is alleged. Sound familiar? This is the statute I used to challenge the Ludington charter revision ballot question successfully, it cannot be used to challenge a person occupying an office, like the judge tries to make it about.
She then claims due to the same section that I need to bring it against the municipality. Sorry Susan, when claiming two actors are intruding into office, you challenge the intruders, as you would know if you read my complaint and checked out the relevant laws supplied rather than applying irrelevant laws.
After taking a short paragraph to formally dismiss my action on Alway due to timeliness not found in the relevant laws I gave her, she quotes five different precedents which have one thing in common: they are all at least 91 years old and do not support her eventual point: I had no claim to either office, so I was not a proper plaintiff. The court rule I supplied in my leave to file says she's wrong again:
Someone needs to let her know that there have been many quo warranto lawsuits filed in Michigan since her ancient precedents (that truly do not support her final claim) by folks that were not entitled to the office under question. In the lawsuit, my intention is not to get onto the Scottville commission, but to see to it that the law is followed by the two scofflaws.
As noted at Kelley's article's end, the court will see me filing a complaint for superintending control and a motion for immediate consideration in the appeals court to reverse this travesty of justice by Judge Susan Sniegowski.
A nice thing about the appeals court is that you have three judges reviewing your appeals and because of that, they usually do not go outside of the law in making their decisions, particularly since they are often published and/or available for attorneys and other judges to use as guidance and precedent. If the law has been subverted or misinterpreted, they will generally address it in a more logical manner than this was.
Well done X. The judge seems to have her cases mixed up. She is correct in that only the Attorney General or Prosecutor may bring the case but that's only for State offices and that is done before the Court of Appeals.
(1) An action for quo warranto against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a state office, or against a state officer who does or suffers an act that by law works a forfeiture of the office, must be brought in the Court of Appeals.
(2) All other actions for quo warranto must be brought in the circuit court.
(2) Actions by Prosecutor or Citizen. Other actions for quo warranto may be brought by the prosecuting attorney of the proper county, without leave of court, or by a citizen of the county by special leave of the court.
I hope you win this case. You certainly have done your homework. I agree with FS. What other mistakes has the judge erred on. I don't think she is a bad judge. Maybe there are just to many cases to deal with. If so she may need help to make sure her legal opinions are based on the correct research.
Thanks for doing your research, I wish she had. This is not an isolated case with this judge. When I had three FOIA responses blocked by the sheriff's office back in 2015, her Honor reviewed the records in camera and agreed that an accident crash report was totally exempt from disclosure to me when I asked for it three weeks after the crash happened.
Over the course of the hearings, the sheriff revealed that record and another incident report and they were objectively completely non-exempt records (other than addresses and phone numbers or about 1% of the reports). In my earlier complaint against Scottville, several opinions missed the points of law; even when the COS attorney conceded one count that said Jimmy Newkirk never responded to my FOIA request for over a year rather than give a response within 5 business days, Sniegowski ruled against me, and don't ask me her line of reasoning.
A judge's forte is interpreting the law, not bending over backwards to support corrupt public officials, so she has failed in her job, in my opinion and is just system, not justice.
Filed an electronic complaint for a writ of superintending control on Judge Sniegowski in the appeals court this morning. Will be posting that once the court formally accepts it.
Good luck X!