The Place Where Ludington Talks
Interrogatories TS
These Interrogatories were received by Toni on 1-14-2012.
1. Identify all persons answering or providing answers to these lnterrogatories.
ANSWER: Tom Rotta, 137 E Dowland #1, Ludington, MI 49431
Toni Swiger, 1123 Pineway, 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.
As stated in the other interrogatory.
3. State with specificity all discussions you had with Plaintiff Tom Rotta
regarding the e-mail FOIA request made of Defendant dated September 7 , 2011.
ANSWER: Objection:
This Interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving this objection, I made an oral agreement with Tom Rotta in November of 2010 to consent to being a proxy to get information allowed by rights of both plaintiffs under the FOIA that were being unreasonably denied to Rotta, especially in his October 2010 requests.
Since March 1, 2011, this relationship was strengthened with the passing of a discrete policy by the Ludington City Council that allows the City Manager to ban any person from any public property owned or operated by the city without any form of due process to the individual whose rights are thus abridged. That policy also assigns a duty to the law firm that the City contracts with to operate a hearing if the individual wishes to appeal such an indictment, something well beyond the duties allowable by law to someone who actually serves in the office of City Attorney.
I now exclusively and willingly make FOIA requests drafted by and on behalf of Plaintiff Rotta, since he cannot enter City Hall or the Police Station to inspect documents, pick up documents, or do a wide variety of other activities other citizens are able to do freely, without approval and special written permission by the City Manager.
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 have the right to make FOIA requests.
As stated in the other interrogatory.
5. Attach to your response, copies of all documents from Plaintiff Tom Rotta
to you regarding the Michigan Freedom of Information Act requests he 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.
As stated in the other interrogatory.
6. Attach to your response, copies of all documents from you to Plaintiff
Tom Rotta regarding the Michigan Freedom of Information Act requests you and/or
Plaintiff Tom Rotta 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 #5 and as stated in the other interrogatory.
7. Please attach copies of all documents from you to any other individual
other than any communications covered by attorney/client privilege in 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.
As stated in the other interrogatory.
8. Please state the dates that you, or any one on your behalf, has made a
Freedom of Information Act 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.
As stated in the other interrogatory.
9. Please state with specificity all efforts you made to attend the Ludington
City Council meeting of September 26, 2011 to present your position on appeal on the
claimed Freedom of Information Act appeal.
ANSWER: I would have went if Plaintiff Rotta was allowed to by the City Manager, who denied him permission by not responding to his request to be at the meeting made on 9-19-11. Unlawfully permitting him to come to that Open Meeting. I also felt threatened and intimidated by what had happened in the past and the Mayor's unexpected invitation, and what I have heard of him.
The City had a FOIA appeal in front of the City Council in November of 2010, wherein private, confidential, and false information on Rotta was given out to the public at large by the FOIA Coordinator/City Manager John Shay. This included his E-mail and an erroneous report of a traffic offense that happened in 2008 which had no bearing whatsoever to the matter at hand.
A FOIA denial, as Exhibit 2 is by the above reasoning in #2 of these interrogatories, was appealed for the reasons we explained in the September 13 and 15 E-mails to Shay (Exhibit 3), and Rotta's three follow-up E-mails further explained those reasons. These are included in his interrogatory.
Nowhere did we ever waive our right to that appeal, as afforded by the FOIA, contrarily, we pushed hard for it, much as we are doing here, and will continue to do until we see the information that we have exerted our right to see, and for the public at large to digest.
10. State with specificity your participation, if any, in the e-mails dated
September 13, 2011 and September 15, 2011, 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, Rotta and I, in order to publish content in a newsblog called The Ludington Torch, have been forced to utilize me as a proxy for FOIA requests. I am firm in my belief that such proxy action is legal and allows Rotta to assert the rights given to him by the FOIA (not to mention the Bill of Rights of this country) and subsequently stripped from him by the defendants legislation and execution of unlawful policy on February 28, 2011, already admitted as Exhibit E.
By color of law defendants have denied him the right to enter the place where he would need to inspect FOIA records without any regard to due process.
Views: 145
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
