People of the State of Michigan v. John Shay?

[XLFD]

On November 15, 2011 I wrote the following to the Mason County Prosecutor's Office.

 

"I am alleging a serious violation of the Michigan election law stated above.  That law states:  "A person who violates 1 or more of the following subdivisions is guilty of a felony:

(a) A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state."

 

Emphasis added by boldface on the type of injury I am claiming.  I am asserting that John Shay by an unconstitutional policy that was passed by the Ludington City Council on Feb. 28, 2011 and whose effects were forced upon me by him the following day, has effectively prevented me from voting at my polling place, even with recurring pleas to him to allow my entrance.  The evidence for this accusation is published, not in its entirety in this link which has many hyperlinks within that further fleshes out the specifics of this claim:  http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/the-candidate-who-couldn-t-vote

 

Further evidence of the allegation is available on request.  I realize that John Shay serves the County Government by currently serving on the Mason County Board of Public Works and the Solid Waste Management Planning Committee, and hope that if this law's prosecution would pose a conflict of interest in the prosecutor's office of Mason County, that the prosecution of the same would be transferred to another agency with that power.

 

Please respond with a decision on this serious matter at your earliest convenience.  Thank you.

 

Tom Rotta"

------------------------------------------------

I had waited a little over a week, and received the following letter just before Thanksgiving:

 

I will keep everyone up to date, but will reserve the right to hold back some information so as not to give Mr. Shay or any other parties that comes under the MSP's scrutiny an undue advantage.  This Tuesday, Ludington's own WMOM broadcast on their news this information, and I have yet to hear from the LDN.  But not too surprisingly, the day after the I got the letter from the prosecutor, the Drily News did run an extremely nice human interest story about Shay on p1 and continued  on p3. 

I look at the poor job John Shay has done as City Manager over the last few years, seen the complete disregard he has for the FOIA as an FOIA Coordinator, seen his complete disregard of ethical codes of conduct and experienced his disrespect for the rights of individuals, and believe he would best serve society as a football referee-- after he serves any time for his actions, of course.

[Willy]

I'm glad it's being handled by the State Police. At least they will be impartial, I hope. Can you imagine having the Ludington  police or the County Sheriffs office investigating the complaint. Good luck.

[XLFD]

Seeing that the MSP were handling it, was a great shot in the arm.  I am not loved by the local gendarmes, but they seem to be enthralled by each other.  I just hope they weigh the evidence fairly.  I look forward to talking to them, and reviewing their report at a later date.

[masonco]

You waited a week so Mr Shay could inform the prosecutor how to respond.

[XLFD]

I did put the "Candidate Who Couldn't Vote" on a couple of hours after the City elections (and a week before the PA was notified), so the local officials (City and County) who have The Ludington Torch on their Favorites menu (or even on their Least-Favorites menu, LOL) knew the basics of what I was asserting. 

And the general documentation by me and by the City are at the least, provocative and mostly indisputable as to the facts.   I like to think that putting most stuff out in the open, then allowing the various public entities do whatever collusion they might want to do, probably proves a lot of the points that I wish to show here at the Torch in the first place.  That there are some things seriously wrong going on in the halls of our local government, and the mechanisms generally work against the common citizen.

[Eve Alone]

I voted, but I was with XLFD most of that day, and he frequently checked his E-mail and made himself otherwise available if they had wanted to let him vote.  But Shay wouldn't even let him go to the candidates forum without making X break the law that Shay helped craft.

A funny anecdote for those who believe that X does not take this seriously.  I was driving down South Harrison with X as a passenger in October, when he suddenly got frantic and insistently told me to turn right on the street before we passed City Hall.  He explained that he did not want to be nabbed for going by City Hall's side of the street, which is part of the lot for City Hall's address, and would put him in violation of the LOT.  When I told him that was public property he reminded me that so was City Hall! 

[Lisa O'Brien]

Personally I do not think this is going to go anywhere - if memory serves according to the LOT if you want or need admittance to city hall - you needed to contact MR. Shay so that it could be arranged. Since you did not contact him requesting arrangements to vote, in my opinion he did not violate the law.

[Willy]

I beg to differ with you Lisa. Your assuming the ordinance is legal and therefore it is OK to ban citizens at the whim of the City Manager. The ordinance itself is unconstitutional because the ordinance lacks any type of due process. By due process I mean that anyone can be banned and denied their rights protected by the constitution without a hearing prior to the banishment. In essence X has been found guilty of violating an ordinance and has been sentenced to banishment and he has not had a say in the matter. His only recourse is to ask for a hearing with another contract city employee [city attorney] which in itself is a questionable part of the ordinance. Why would X have to ask permission to enter city hall if the person who he was supposed to have "scared" is not there? Why didn't the letter delivered to him grant that permission? This notice he received  had the intent of restricting X completely from using public facilities. It's hard to believe that non elected contract employees can yield such power over the citizens of Ludington.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Well we will have to see how this plays out. I personally feel the ban was wrong - since she stated in the complaint that he never threatened her - just that she was worried about the mob mentality she felt his forum created - of which the letter of trespass did not stop. The questioning of her effectiveness and character are still in question maybe more so since the letter of trespass. To me a letter of trespass is perfectly reasonable if someone threatens an employee with physical harm, but questioning improprieties is not. But since it was in effect legally or not - if XLFD wanted to vote he should have asked permission, not expect them to contact him. Right now the only game in town is theirs' until a court rules on the validity of the LOT.

[XLFD]

Au contraire, Lisa.  The record will show four times I asked Faux City Manager Shay for accomodation to the City Hall without any reply from him in the period from May to October.  The record also shows three communications between my attorney and the City Attorney questioning the validity of the LOT and to have it retracted.  City Hall was well aware of the problem, as I had discussed this back orally in early May with the City Clerk.

 

Willy offers an excellent defense not only of my oppression, but of each Ludington citizens' potential oppression.  The LOT as presented in my case, would be found to be threatening and intimidating to any citizen whose only "crime" was to be outspoken on social media.   I agree with your point that this would be a slam-dunk case if I had pleaded over and over again to be given the right to vote, but I find it a solid case even without such extra efforts on my part. 

 

You know, less than a hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote even though they made up half of the population.  Our oppressive patriarchy up to that time just wouldn't let them vote, and had unfair laws to prevent them from doing so.  An oppressive patriarchy here in Ludington is trying to do the same to dissidents to their regime, so we will see how it plays out over time. 

 

Did you notice the Red Wings are playing over in your neck of the woods tonight, Lisa?  They play at Buffalo at 7:30.

[AQUAMAN]

I looked at the PA Spaniola's letter again and just noticed the editorial ending, "if ANY". Does that bespeak of a likely outcome/prediction or what?  Or at least that of one that mis-spoke and gave their bias away? Just wondering about that too, and good luck, you'll need it more and more as time goes on obviously.

[XLFD]

One could read that into the letter, Aquaman, but the local PA is not the only fish in the lake to prosecute this, once the MSP concludes their investigation.  If Paul passes, that investigation will then be available from the MSP via the FOIA, and we will see what he passed on. 

[Sweater Cows!]

Sorry if i bum ya out X, but to me that letter from Prosc. S was a total blow off. All the MSP has to do is dig through there inches thick "inbox" of this sort of thing and stack it at the bottom never to be seen. The referral does not mean they will or must investigate.... sadly!