The Place Where Ludington Talks
Answers to Interrogatories TR
The following Interrogatories were received 1-14-11 from the City Law Firm, duly answered by me.
1. Identify all persons answering or providing answers to these Interrogatories.
ANSWER: Tom Rotta, 137 E Dowland #1, Ludington, MI 49431
2. State with specificity the basis under which you claim the Defendant's
response to the FOIA request of Toni Swiger dated September 7, 2011 violated the
Michigan Freedom of Information Act.
ANSWER: The main points of contention are described in the complaint. Specifically:
a) Defendant did not comply with the duty imposed on public bodies by its response, as per sec. 5 (2) of FOIA, making it a denial by application of subsection 3.
b) Defendant's written reply, which was a denial by the previous application, did not include any of the five bases for doing so as per sec. 5(4) a-e.
3. State with specificity all discussions you had with Plaintiff Toni Swiger
regarding the e-mail FOIA request made of Defendant dated September 7 , 20ll.
ANSWER: Objection:
This Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving this objection, Plaintiffs have noted that the defendants restriction of allowing me the right to enter onto public property with their unconstitutional Letter of Trespass served to me on March 1, 2011 without any provocation or due process, has been the main reason I have asked another to make FOIA requests for me, as that policy has also violated sec 3(3) of the act which says: "A public body shall furnish a requesting person a reasonable opportunity for inspection and examination of its public records, and shall furnish reasonable facilities for making memoranda or abstracts from its public records during the usual business hours". Yet one more violation of my rights, and a violation of defendants duties under FOIA.
4. State with specificity all individuals who participated in drafting the email
FOIA request of September 7,2011, which is the subject of this litigation.
ANSWER: Objection.
This Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving this objection, the plaintiffs note that they both are engaged in the process of getting information from defendant for use in articles on a news blog, the Ludington Torch, and that both are members of this organization. Separately or together, they are persons as defined by FOIA (and this interrogatory), and either way they can make FOIA requests.
5. State with specificity any assistance you provided to Plaintiff Toni Swiger
in connection with her e-mail request of September 7,2011.
ANSWER: Objection.
This Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving this objection, plaintiffs refer to their two prior answers.
6. Attach to your response, copies of all documents from Plaintiff Toni
Swiger to you regarding the Michigan Freedom of Information Act requests she and/or
you have made to the Defendant City of Ludington.
ANSWER: Objection.
This Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving this objection, a review of such documents, which amount to E-mails, contains material that was prepared already by defendant as FOIA responses, and thus is already within their possession.
7. Attach to your response, copies of all documents from you to Plaintiff
Toni Swiger regarding the Michigan Freedom of Information Act requests you and/or
Plaintiff Toni Swiger have made to the Defendant City of Ludington.
ANSWER: Objection.
This Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving this objection, refer to the prior answer for #6.
8. Please attach copies of all documents from you to any other individual,
other than any communications covered by attorney/client privilege, regarding this
lawsuit.
ANSWER: Objection.
This interrogatory asks for the discovery of irrelevant information, and sets a limit for the assertion of only one of many privileges allowed by law.
9. Please state the dates that you or any one on your behalf, has made a
Freedom of Information request of the City of Ludington during the past eighteen (18) months.
ANSWER: Objection.
This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and seeking information that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or expensive.
Without waiving this objection, Defendants Exhibit 1 for its counterclaim has the totality of such information, and plaintiffs admit to the veracity of the senders and the dates, barring any clerical mistakes made in translation from those requests, pertinent to this case, should be in defendants' possession, as per a public body's duties for retention of records.
10. Please state with specificity all efforts you made to attend the City Council meeting of September 26,2017 to present your position on appeal on the claimed Freedom of Information Act appeal.
ANSWER: I sent 3 E-mails declaring our positions and asking for the right to attend a meeting held at a place I have been threatened, under color of law and without undergoing due process, by the defendant that I would be arrested if I entered onto the public property thereof. Those E-mails are attached for the court's benefit, as those three E-mails should be in possession of defendant.
The first dated 9-19-11, labelled a request to attend, was to seek the permission of City Manager John Shay to attend the meeting, was never answered. The Workplace Safety Policy, passed on Feb. 28, 2011 as seen in Exhibit E in Plaintiffs reply to counterclaim, requires such permission to enter the building. This permission was never given, the E-mail never answered. It was CC-ed to three other elected officials, two city councilors, other than Shay.
The second, dated, 9-21-11, sent to four city councilors, extensively explained the basis of the appeal. It also met no reply, although two of the councilors had been contacted prior with my request to attend.
The third, dated 9-25-11, sent to the City Clerk, said specifically: "I will not be able to attend this meeting, due to the Workplace Safety Policy's Letter of Trespass and lack of a requested invitation, but I am hoping you can read this defense for Ms. Swiger's position into the record at that meeting and attribute it to me. Thanks." That was followed by a statement.
The City Clerk sent an E-mail to me in reply on 9-26, but I did not see it until after the meeting it said: " I spoke with the City Manager, John Shay, and asked why you were not able to attend the City Council meeting this evening. He stated that if you were to send him an email asking to attend this meeting he would allow you to attend. ". I sent an E-mail that same day forwarding the E-mail I had sent on 9-19, doing just that one week prior (also attached).
Beyond that, a City Manager should not have the power to give a thumb up or down on anyone attending an Open Meeting at a public facility who has done nothing other than make FOIA requests in order to write blog posts which seem to make certain public officials nervous.
11. State with specificity your participation, if any, in the e-mails dated
September 13,2011 and September 15, 2017, attached to the Complaint in this matter.
ANSWER: Objection.
This Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving this objection, I have admitted to having Toni act as a proxy for FOIA requests in my reply to the counterclaim, due to the actions of the defendant in barring me, under color of law, from entering the City Hall to inspect documents. I am firm in my belief that such proxy action is legal and allows me to assert the rights given to me by the FOIA (not to mention the Bill of Rights of this country) and subsequently stripped from me by the defendants legislation and execution of unlawful policy on February 28, 2011, already admitted as Exhibit E.
Views: 303
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
