Ludington City Council 7-8-2013: You'll Go Down in His-to-ry

[XLFD]

Besides the vote on the Historic District Ordinance, the July 8th meeting only had one other point of business out of the mundane regularity of a meeting, that being to agree to continue listing the property of 428 East Dowland for sale.  Remember that address: it was a scrap yard for a while that moved; was acquired by the City to become the new fire station in 2007; was rejected for that purpose in 2008; was used by City contractors repaving Dowland in 2012, cross-contaminating six block of Dowland Street with its dangerous levels of organic compounds and metals in its topsoil.  But that is another topic that will be dealt with later.

 

Some could say I was on the wrong side of history by predicting that the Historic District Ordinance would pass, but I would say that I definitely ain't no Nostradamus, but I was on the right side of history by vigorously campaigning against it.  I would dare say 'winning' side of history, but that would no doubt be debated by Manager John Shay and Attorney Wilson.  As noted, the main topic this meeting was the Ludington HD Ordinance, which was unanimously rejected by the Ludington City Council.

 

 

The best line of the night was uttered by citizen Tom Tyron (15:30 into the video) speaking just after Sue Ann Schnitker (owner of Cartier Mansion, and 5th Ward Councilor runner-up from 2011) who questioned my words about motives as slanderous to the people behind this ordinance before launching into a pointless listing of the 77 communities with historic districts, saying that they made the right decision.  He said "That's a very impressive list-- but what she failed to mention is that there is over 8000 cities and villages in Michigan.  77 have historic districts, that is not overwhelming.  This is just some kind of elitist thing."  

 

 

The first part of my speech dealt with the recent 'victory' I had in Federal Court and John Shay's depictions of myself at the previous meeting.  Of course, even when I win, it comes into dispute with the City Manager and Attorney, John Shay and Richard Wilson (etc.).  This time, Wilson took the City's honor into the melee.  Less inclined to slander than John Shay (who said nothing during the meeting), Wilson looked at the records of the settlement and the English language to make his case that the City didn't lose.  His words uttered toward the end of the meeting are included right after.  Followed by my words on the historic district.  If you believe my interpretations of the sections of the drafted HD ordinance, you will realize that we all dodged a bullet here.

 

XLFD (5:15 into video): "Well over 2000 years ago, the Greek philosopher Socrates said "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."  At the end of the last city council meeting, when rules of this body would not allow me to speak in rebuttal, City Manager John Shay wielded the tool of slander against a private citizen at a public meeting meant to conduct the public's business.  Not only was he not chided for using third person hearsay and rumors to besmirch my name with reckless disregard for the truth, he was actively applauded and supported by this august body in those efforts. 

I am profoundly ashamed at the conduct of these officers, yet their actions are not surprising to me because of the legislation that they passed in 2011 once again based on public individuals slandering my reputation and violating my rights as a citizen.  This was the basis behind the federal civil lawsuit that was settled last month, and which the City Manager and the Councilors would like everyone to think they didn't lose. 

In the lawsuit, I claimed a variety of violations of my rights as a citizen, asked for a monetary award, as what you do in a civil lawsuit. The City answered my complaint with a plea to the court to dismiss the claim and enter a judgment in favor of them, together with an award to them of costs and attorney fees wrongfully incurred.  If they were confident in their position, would they have settled when they had the possibility of not only paying nothing, but also assuredly bankrupting myself? 

I think not.  But as this was a civil case, where success is generally determined by the one who receives money, rather than the one who pays out money, I prevailed in that regard.  The City's insurance carrier paid out over $31,000 to defend this suit, and I received $15,000 of that.  I won.

Mr. Shay's other assertions are similarly flawed in logic or facts, and are defamatory in character.  I have publicly invited him to amend those at this meeting, but expect only more slander, the tool of the debate's loser..."

 

 

 

RICHARD WILSON (37:40 into video):  "I just wanted to make sure that the City Council members and the people that are present here tonight are aware of the terms of the settlement that the City entered into with one of the speakers earlier in tonight's meeting.  Ah, Mr. Rotta has for the last couple of meetings um, has come to the city council, claimed victory over the City in his recent lawsuit, but it's curious that he doesn't cite from the documents that were executed by the parties in the settlement of that case.

 

And so, I have a copy of the document that was signed by Mr. Rotta and his attorney on June 4th of this year, and I would like to read from paragraph or page 2, from the first paragraph of page 2, where it states that "it is understood and agreed that this settlement is a compromie of a doubtful and disputed claim, and that the payment made is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of any party hereby released and that said releasee denies liability therefore and intends merely to avoid litigation. 

 

On the very next page there is a separate paragraph with a caption styled "no admission of liability" that says the parties hereby acknowledge that this agreement is made in settlement of a disputed claim, no admissions of liability are made by entering into this settlement and all allegations are expressly denied.  Specifically and without limiting the generality of denial, the defendant, which was the City of Ludington, expressly and without reservation, denies any and all allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint. 

 

Now lawyers are oftentimes accused of stretching words to not encompass meanings otherwise intended, but to stretch the meaning of those words to a victory, uh, would make any attorney, uh, cringe at what is happening to the English language here, as I don't know whether you can ever take words that says "the defendant expressly and without reservation, denies any and all allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint, and admits no liability" as a claim of victory, and so that is the actual wording of the agreement that Mr. Rotta has signed with the City, umm, and he can spin that however he wants, uh, but he can't deny the exact language that was used... and I think some clarification of that point needed to be made." 

 

Richard Merlin Wilson, you clarified it perfectly.  You let us know that the City of Ludington will never admit any liability even when its obviously liable or acknowledge that their law (which is still part of Ludington's policy) is highly unconstitutional and violates the rights of anybody it is used on.  To me it shows a disturbing lack of contrition, that should make anyone who gets a chance to see this 'hidden' law and realize its implications, worry about the morality of their public servants. 

 

XLFD (finishing):  "Last meeting, I said that anyone who is knowledgeable of and is for the historical district in the form envisioned is motivated by greed or power, and the proof is in the proposal.
Section 13:  the commission can deny an improvement okayed by the building inspector, they can charge the homeowner fees for processing the permit including architect, attorney, engineers, etc. costs. Power and Greed.
Section 15: the commission can review and act upon how a homeowner conducts interior improvements, as can the City Council. Power.
Section 18: if someone in the district does work without a special permit, the commission or its agents, after getting court approval can legally enter and modify your property. Power.
Section 19: if the commission subjectively finds someone neglectful of repairs, they can enter and modify your property as in section 18. Power.
Section 21: the city council may put a moratorium on work which you want done on your property if they feel it interferes with the district's character. City council Power.
Section 22: you can be fined up to $5000 for violating the act, plus the costs to get your building back to its subjective historical model. Power and Greed.
Section 23: the city council can accept state and federal grants and private donations for historic preservation. As she noted earlier.  City Council Greed.
Section 24: the city council, using public funds can acquire a 'resource' if it determines that public ownership is desirable to preserve it. City Council Power and greed.
Let's make no mistake about it. This ordinance will not only create a new level of bureaucracy that serves no purpose other than denying people their freedom of choice as to how to upkeep and manage their own property, but it will also give the City Council a lot of extra discretionary power it currently is without.
Even with the clear majority of homeowners against the district, how can the city council turn this down? This is greed and power at a pen stroke, this is pure sugar. And when was the last time your Ludington City Council voted against a chance to gain more power over the citizens of this town, or voted to reduce your taxes or fees? It's been a long, long time.
And frankly, I don't see them voting against their own venal interests here, even though they should because the people are overwhelmingly against it, once they see what it is.
In closing, I do hope our future mayor that takes office at the beginning of 2014...

 

MAYOR HENDERSON:  That's time, You've had enough time.  Sit down.  Five Minutes

[AQUAMAN]

Wilson the supreme agitator, liar, depositioner for 5 hours without a break artist, arbitrator, negotiator, and constrictor of freedoms of Americans in general. How disgusting and apathetic can a man be? Totally unapologetic, to the point of making one puke in disgust. He is the prime genius of spin-doctor moves himself. He had that agreement made specifically to induce a toxic positive belief that the COL is never in the wrong, how bodacious, and condescending. That the COL will "never ever admit to any wrongs". Afterall, he was hand picked by your Mayor and the City Manager, just for these type of trick-shot artist moves, if the case arrives. And it did, in the form of XLFD, another patsy they could put a corner, to ruin his reputation, his self-worth, his respect from fellow citizens, all so that the face of COL's honor was not soiled. What WIlson forgot to tell his sheeple audience, is that where government and other important officials are concerned, in such civil lawsuits, that it's standard operating procedure to include those statements of not being liable, so that in the future, when they settle out of court, the embarrassment is lessened, and the legal papers make it appear like they only settled for financial sakes. It's a total sham and deceit, but it's legal standard procedure, for quite some time now. Whether the plaintiff wants to sign or not isn't really the point, because there is no settlement with such defendants if you don't sign it. Now who's the guilty one Wilson? Look in the mirror, and you have your true, unvarnished answer.

[XLFD]

I doubt whether Dick Wilson made any converts to his position with his ham-handed presentation of the 'facts'. 

But if someone was sitting on the fence on the subject of 'who won?', I think they shouldn't look at the City of Ludington not admitting liability or any wrongdoing in the case but where the money went, and why the City decided to give up when they had unlimited funds to defend themselves and I am just an indigent renter from the south side of the City understandably upset by the City of Ludington assaulting my reputation and costing me my job.

Also, Richard Wilson was not the deposer on that day for the FOIA lawsuit we initiated, just the person who misdirected (?) an E-mail to me that day saying that his partner in crime (George Saylor) was planning on making one of us (the co-plaintiffs) cry that day.  He didn't, but Allan Vander Laan succeeded when I was similarly deposed in this federal suit for over 6 hours, with some questions about my deceased daughter.

[AQUAMAN]

These are the type of attorneys that give them all a bad name. Deceit and mayhem is all they know, and specialize in. Is this the type of person we want representing our fair city? Your Mayor and CM have hand-picked him, and his firm. This should stand out as an eyesore of misplaced trust at the highest levels of city government here.

[Willy]

Wilson was way out of line unless the Council directed him to speak. It sounds like he is taking this personally. When an attorney involves himself emotionally then it's time for a change. Wilson forgets that he not only works at the leisure of the Council but he also represents "all" of the citizens. The Council doesn't pay his fees, the citizens foot the bill for his work whether it be a good job he has performed or incompetent work of representing the taxpayers.

[AQUAMAN]

Very well said Willy, and quite astute to the germane of the subject matter. This is a very important and objective point imho.

[Willy]

I'm sure the City chose Wilson because he thinks and acts as they do.