Request to Admit John Shay

[XLFD]

PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
REOUEST TO ADMIT TO
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF JOHN SHAY

Now comes Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Swiger/Rotta, for their Request to Admit to
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, John Shay, pursuant to MCR 2.312, states as follows:

 

 

1)  Admit that on the September 13, 2011 response to Plaintiff Swiger's FOIA request there is no granting of the request or any mention of any fees associated with granting a request.

2)  Admit that the first FOIA response referred to on the September 13, 2011 response-- a FOIA request dated October 18, 2010-- was grouped together with three other separate FOIA requests, submitted at the same time, for purposes of fee calculation.

3)  Admit that the initial response to that grouped together FOIA response to the October 18, 2010 request was assigned a fee of $228.90 without any declaration of what the fee was for.

4)  Admit that issuing FOIA responses without an enumeration of fee to FOIA requests happened at other times to both Plaintiff Rotta and Plaintiff Swiger, most decidedly the response to Rotta's first such request on 8-24-2009 which enumerated an $889.40 cost for fees, which were finally described in a response dated 9-16-2009.

5)  Admit that when Plaintiff Rotta separated the four FOIA requests included in the October 18, 2010 letter (and mentioned in your 9-13-2011 response) into one separate FOIA request each, that you acting as FOIA Coordinator, grouped those all together with others submitted on the same day and charged $367.25. 

6)  Admit that the response to the 11-20-2010 FOIA request (mistakenly referred to as 11-29-2010 in your 9-13-2011 response), re-established a fee of $57.23 for the information you say is similar to the 9-13-2011 request.

7)  Admit that the requests dated 10-18-10 and 11-15-10 and 11-29-10 [11-20-2010, in truth] (the same requests you say are similar to the request of 9-13-2011)  had three totally different amounts assigned to for fees in order to see the information about the signage contracts with the DDA. 

8)  Admit that the three requests stated in #7 were completely identical as regards the signage contracts with the DDA. 

9)  Admit that you had decided the fee for the FOIA request dated 11-21-10 by dividing the fee calculated for the fee decided for the 10-18-10 request by four and assigned that to the other three FOIA requests originally submitted on 10-18-10 and resubmitted subsequently.

10)  Admit that the calculation of fees for FOIA requests,stated above in #9, as per the FOIA (MCL 15.231 et. seq.) does not recognize such a method for calculating fees.

11)  Admit that the 1-24-11 FOIA request by Swiger that was also referred to in the 9-13-2011 response as being similar to the 9-7-11 FOIA request was granted for $2.75.

12)  Admit that the fee for the 1-24-11 FOIA request was paid by plaintiffs. 

13)  Admit that this FOIA request was for information different than the prior three identical FOIA requests that were assigned to be granted to plaintiffs for $228.90, $367.25, and $57.23 respectively.

14)  Admit that the 9-07-11 FOIA request was seeking different information than the three identical 2010 requests and the 1-24-2011 request. 

15)  Admit that referring to previous, different FOIA requests and their responses is not a recognized legal response as noticed by the FOIA in MCL 15.235(2).

16)  Admit that the conclusion in the 9-15-2011 E-mail from the FOIA Coordinator was incorrect in that it had said that the FOIA Request dated 9-7-2011 was granted prior.

17)  Admit that the conclusion in the 9-15-2011 E-mail from the FOIA Coordinator was incorrect in that it had said an appeal was not in order, as the request had not been granted.

18)  Admit that the FOIA Coordinator did not send Swiger any of the options they have a duty to provide in MCL 15.235(4d) for either FOIA response dated 9-13-2011 or 9-15-2011.

19)  Admit that the Letter of Trespass issued to Plaintiff Rotta by the FOIA Coordinator/City Manager under the authority of the Workplace Safety Policy passed by the Ludington City Council on 2-28-2011 required him to get written permission from the FOIA Coordinator/City Manager in order for him to set foot on Ludington City Hall or Police Department property (without being threatened with arrest for the misdemeanor of trespassing).

20)  Admit that such a barrier imposed by above #19, was a violation of Defendant's/Counter-Plaintiff's duty to the rights of Plaintiff/Counter-defendant Rotta defined under MCL 15.233(3) namely, "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."

21)  Admit that Plaintiff Rotta made a request by E-mail on 9-19-2011 to enter onto the premises of City Hall on 9-26-2011 in order to help Plaintiff Swiger in her administrative appeal of the denial of the 9-07-2011 FOIA request.

22)  Admit that the FOIA Coordinator/City Manager did not directly, or even indirectly, reply to the request for permission to attend the meeting of 9-26-2011 in the E-mail of 9-19-2011 by Plaintiff Rotta.

23)  Admit that the FOIA appeal was placed on the agenda for the 9-26-2011 Ludington City Council meeting, but was removed at the meeting's beginning by Mayor Henderson for no publicly divulged reason.

24)  Admit that all of Plaintiffs Rotta and Swiger's communications to the Ludington City Council, City Manager, City Clerk and Mayor between 9-13-2011 and 9-26-2011 indicated that they were actively supporting the appeal..

25)  Admit that the Ludington City Council has conducted FOIA appeals without the presence of the party requesting the appeal in both 2010 and 2011. 

26)  Admit that there was no reason to come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs had vacated or abandoned the appeal, as stated in the defendant's/counter-plaintiff's replies and counterclaim.

27)  Admit that there was no written notice of decision sent to either Plaintiff ten business days after the 9-26-2011 meeting by any representative of the Defendant.

28)  Admit that the head of a public body, in this case the Ludington City Council, has a duty to send an appeal decision to a FOIA appellant under MCL 15.240(2). 

29)  Admit that the FOIA Coordinator/City Manager, not any City Council representative, has sent these decisions in the past FOIA administrative appeals to the plaintiffs.

30)  Admit that MCL 15.240(3) designates that the "head of the public body", designated by the latest revised Ludington FOIA Policy passed in December 2010 as the "Ludington City Council", have not replied to any administrative appeal made by either plaintiff beginning in April 2010.

31)  Admit that such replies on appeal decisions described in #27-30 made by the City Council on the question of whether FOIA Coordinator's/City Manager's legally responded to a FOIA request, whose decision is then drafted by the FOIA Coordinator/City Manager represents a dereliction of duties by the City Council or a usurpation of duties by the FOIA Coordinator/City Manager that is against the public interest and deleterious to the rights of those who appeal a FOIA response.

32)  Admit that the office of Ludington City Manager is a public office the duties of which requires the taking and filing of an Oath of Office by state law.

33)  Admit that, as per a FOIA response from FOIA Coordinator/City Manager John Shay dated 11-21-2011 to see his Oath of Office on file, that he had no such document.

34)  Admit that despite serving as City Manager/FOIA Coordinator since 2003, those offices have been vacated by the refusal of the appointee to take the Oath within 60 days of being hired.

35)  Admit that the City Manager/FOIA Coordinator continues serving as a de facto officer for the City of Ludington approximately two months after the lack of an Oath of Office was made public and also brought to the attention of the Ludington City Council.

36)  Admit that refusal to take the Oath of Office is a refusal to take the office, as per MCL 201.3, and a vacancy of the Ludington City Manager/FOIA Coordinator office occurs.

37)  Admit that you, John Shay, have been fraudulently serving in the capacity of Ludington FOIA Coordinator/City Manager, while asking for FOIA fees that are also not recognized by law (public extortion).