Interrogatories for Richard Merlin Wilson

[XLFD]

PLAINTIFF' S/COUNTER-DEFENDANT INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD MERLIN WILSON

NOW COMES Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Swiger and Rotta, pursuant to
Michigan Court Rules 2.309 and 2.310 demands that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff City Attorney Richard Merlin Wilson answers the following Interrogatories in writing and under oath and requests the
production of certain documents. It is expected that said lnterrogatories and Request for
Production will be answered within twenty-eight (28) days from the date received.
The information sought must be supplied regardless of whether the information is
within your immediate possession and/or control or whether the information is within the
immediate possession and/or control of your agent, your representative or attorney, or
any other person who has made this knowledge known to you or from whom you can
attain said information and who is competent to testifly as to the facts stated.

INSTRUCTIONS
A. "You", "your" and "yourself' shall mean Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Richard Merlin Wilson

B. "Person" or "persons" shall mean any natural person, partnership, firm,
association, joint venture, corporation, government agency or other organization or entity.

C. "Document" shall mean any written, recorded or graphic information or
representation either produced or reproduced and any copy thereof, whether or not
privileged or work product, now or formerly in your actual or constructive possession,
custody or control.
D. "Communication" shall mean any verbal, non-verbal or written statements by
one person to or in the presence of one or more other persons, including discussions,
letters, conversations, consultations, meetings, conferences, telephone calls, or any
transfer of information from one person to another as well as the transfer of documents
from one person to another.
E. "Fact" shall mean an event, condition, data, observation or state of affairs
including subsidiary facts, ultimate facts, facts mixed with law or which involve the
application of legal principals.
F. "Reason" shall mean an explanation of a belief, conclusion or assertion. It
includes opinions, conclusions and contentions including those involving ultimate facts,
facts mixed with law with the application of legal principals.
G. "Identify" when used with respect to a document shall mean to state:
1. The author of the document,
2. The recipient of the document, including all copes thereof,
3. The date on which the document was written,
4. A description of the general subject matter of the document.
H. "Identify" when used with respect to a person shall mean to state the name,
address and business title, if applicable, of such person.
I. "Identify" when used with respect to a communication shall mean to state,
1. The nature of the statement, i.e. whether verbal,
non-verbal or written,
2. Identify the person making the statement,
3. Identify the person to whom the statement was made,
4. Identify all persons in whose presence the statements
were made.
Please state all facts or reasons in support ofthis allegatlon, and for each fact or
reason:
a. Identify all persons having knowledge thereof;
b. State the substance of the knowledge of each person identified;
c. Identify all documents relating thereto;
d. Attach copies of each document identified in your answer to this
interrogatory.

INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify all persons answering or providing answers to these
Interrogatories.
ANSWER:

 

2.  State with specificity your roll and your input in amending the City of Ludington's previous FOIA policy into the amended FOIA policy that was approved by the Ludington City Council in 12-2010 and which was utilized by Defendant SHAY in his 9-13-2011 response.

ANSWER:

 

3.  State with specificity the basis for why the new policy allowed the FOIA Coordinator discretionary powers that are not allowed by the prior policy or by Michigan FOIA law, namely being the last sentence in section 3 of that amended policy.  In particular, address the rationale concerning the judgment the FOIAC can make on a FOIA requester's unstated motives and the ability to take actions which may not be consistent with the state FOIA law (MCL 15.231, et.seq.).

ANSWER:

 

4.  State with specificity the legal basis by which the following power in section 4 of that current policy, that you helped draft, is granted:  "the FOIAC may require that copies of the records be made available for inspection, rather than the originals, and may charge the requesting person standard rate for the copies.".  Include how this relates to the fee calculations in the Michigan FOIA law, and any court precedent that strengthens your argument.  Include also why such copies would need to be made if there were no exempted material therein or security issues, as FOIAC SHAY has done with this discretion in the past.

ANSWER:

 

5.  State with specificity the legal basis by which the City's current FOIA policy leaves out basic Michigan FOIA rights given to the persons requesting FOIA, namely:  the ability to inspect records rather than copy them, any mention of an Affidavit of Indigency, any statement that fees shall be uniform and not dependent on the requesting person, that fees shall utilize the most economical means possible, or that copies may be provided if it primarily benefits the general public.

ANSWER:

 

6.  State with specificity the legal basis behind why you believe you and any of your law partners can serve as City Attorney for the City of Ludington with all attendant powers without taking an Oath of Office for that position, which State law requires for all public servants who hold office.

ANSWER:

 

7.  State with specificity the basis behind which you claim to be an independent contractor for the City of Ludington, as tax records and your previous comments claim, as you and other members of your law firm hold the powers of the office of City Attorney of Ludington and have signed agreements between that body and your law firm affirming those powers confirmed.

ANSWER:

 

8)  State with specificity the basis for which the City of Ludington denies FOIA administrative appeals strictly on the grounds that the appellant's argument is based on what they believe is a dispute about assigned fees.

ANSWER:

 

9)  State with specificity any legal basis affirming Defendant SHAY's retraction of the rights afforded to Plaintiff SWIGER through her sworn Affidavit of Indigency submitted and accepted by the City of Ludington in 1-2011 and Defendant Shay's elimination of that right in 10-2011.

ANSWER: 

 

10)  State with specificity any legal basis for your belief that one person cannot petition a public body for information that they share with other persons and the public without being stripped of basic rights, as what happened to Plaintiff ROTTA by actions of the Defendant in drafting legislation known as the Workplace Safety Policy.

ANSWER:

 

11)  State with specificity any legal basis affirming that a person cannot petition a public body for information that they share with other persons and the public without being harassed by that public body with baseless and false charges of fraud, being delinquent on payment of charges, and reneging on promises to pay as the Defendant has brought forth in their filings of this civil action in respect to both Plaintiffs.

ANSWER:

 

12)  The Letter of Trespass issued to Plaintiff ROTTA has restricted his access to FOIA records, as previously detailed.  State with specificity any legal basis for a City Attorney to function as a hearing officer in a judicial procedure of appealing a Letter of Trespass, complete with having judicial powers, as the Workplace Safety Policy (Exhibit E) details on page 4.

ANSWER: