Request to Admit Response

[XLFD]

The Request to Admit was sent to Toni on 1-14-11, in regards to our appeal of the City denying us a FOIA request.

 

1. Admit that in response to Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Toni Swiger's
Freedom of Information Act request, which is the subject of this litigation,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff timely responded.

 

Response:  Not true.  Although an E-mail was sent by Swiger on September 7th, legally received by FOIAC Shay on Thursday the 8th, and an E-mail was sent from Shay to Swiger on Tuesday the 13th, within the time period for a FOIA response, Shay's E-mail lacked a lawfully FOIA-recognized format.  That is, it failed to do any of the four necessary actions that MCL 15.235(2) mandates. 

Shay's secondary response dated the 15th stated it "was not denied but was in fact granted", was erroneous in that the requested public records were not included nor was there any manner to get them.  It had also asked for a payment of fees, but, like the first reply, had no fees enumerated-- lawfully applicable or not.  Thus it failed once again to fulfill one of the four MCL 15.235(2) mandates.

Therefore, the documents were not granted, nor were any means given to Swiger to get these records in FOIAC Shay's two replies before the 'timely-response' period set by FOIA ended.  Ergo, by MCL 15.235(3), the public records were denied, and that section of  the FOIA plainly gives plaintiff the right to compel disclosure and assess damages through the Circuit Court.  And there it does not mention anything about a hearing being necessary if the evidence clearly shows this.

2. Admit that in response to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Toni Swiger's
Freedom of Information Act request, which is the subject of this litigation,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff quoted to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Toni Swiger the fees
which were necessary to process the request.

 

Response:  Not true.  As noted, there is no request for fees, just a referral to four prior FOIA responses to requests with much different fees charged and whose documents were significantly different from the 9-7-11 request and sent more than 180 days (the FOIA statute of limitations) before this request.  This is not an acceptable reply, as previously noted.  Those four prior requests/replies are in Exhibit A of our reply to the Counterclaim, and speak for themselves. 

 

3. Admit that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff complied with the Michigan
Freedom of Information Act with respect to the request, which is the subject of this
litigation.

Response:  Not true.  As summarized by our original motions in this appeal.

 

4. Admit that neither Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants paid any portion of the
fees quoted by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff to process the Freedom of Information Act
request, which is the subject of this litigation.

Response:  Not true.  Again, no fees were ever quoted to the 9-7-11 FOIA request, as the exhibits clearly show

.

5. Admit that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff did not deny Plaintiffs/Counter-
Defendants' Freedom of Information act request, which is the subject of this litigation,
but indicated the costs which were necessary to be paid in order to process the request.

Response:  Not true.  By application of MCL 15.235(3), the request was clearly denied, and no costs or explanation of any cost were ever indicated for this request.   

 

6. Admit that the Freedom of Information Act request, which is the subject
of this litigation, were all made in the name of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Toni Swiger.

Response:  I do not understand.  You use the singular noun "request" with "were all".  As I understand your statement, the 9-7-11 request was made in the name of Toni Swiger, as the E-mail shows. 

 

7. Admit that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tom Rotta is not a proper party in
the Complaint filed in this matter.

 

Response:  Not true.  A proper party is legally defined as "A person or entity who has an interest in the subject matter of a lawsuit and, therefore, can join in the lawsuit or may be brought into the suit by one of the parties to the legal action."   Even if I wasn't acting as a proxy for Rotta due to the illegal legislation  FOIAC/City Manager Shay enforced on him, Shay made him a proper party by referring to two prior requests made by Rotta a year earlier, where Shay had enumerated fees that were unrecognized by the FOIA. 

 

8. Admit that all Freedom of Information Act requests, which are the subject
of this litigation and were filed in the name of Toni Swiger, were drafted by
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tom Rotta.

 

Response:  This is true.  Toni Swiger is dyslexic and has a much more limited education and vocabulary than Mr. Rotta has.  She has learned a lot about the FOIA over the last year and even though Mr. Rotta has collaborated with her on many requests and appeals, he writes the final draft.  She willingly serves as Rotta's proxy and soundboard, and fully supports his right and her own right to request information and expect any governing body to reply as required by law, as well as our duty to report to the public about the findings of our inquiries as a valued member of the alternative media.