An Invitation from the King of Ludington

[XLFD]

Last week, I received an E - Mail from someone I hadn't heard from in a while.  Ludington City Manager John Shay. 

 

Wednesday, January 4, 2012 10:39 AM

Tom: 

The City will seek bids to reconstruct Dowland Street between South Washington Avenue and South Rath Avenue this spring.  This project will entail replacing the water main, water service lines, valves, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, curb, gutter and the road itself.  The City has scheduled a meeting on Thursday, January 12 at 11:00 a.m. in the downstairs Community Room at City Hall for the property owners/businesses/residents on Dowland Street to meet with the City’s engineer on this project.  The engineer will explain the scope of the project and address any questions or concerns that the property owners/businesses/residents may have.

 

The Department of Public Works will be handing out notices to the residents about this meeting.  While I know you disagree with the Letter of Trespass issued against you, the purpose of this e-mail is to confirm that you are invited to attend this meeting without being in violation of the Letter of Trespass. 

Please contact me if you have any questions.

 

John Shay

City Manager

 

This marked quite a departure from the last eight months where I haven't received anything other than a "CC:" E-mail sent to LDN that was irrelevant.  Through these last 8 months and the two months before, I have been banned from Ludington City Hall and Police Station, threatened with arrest for misdemeanor trespassing if I set foot on this public property.  All because some at City Hall feared what I was uncovering with FOIA requests.  John Shay last replied to me when I asked to enter City Hall for purposes of turning in my nominating petition that allowed me to run for City Council in 2011.  That was May 2nd. 

 

Since then, and before the correspondence above, I wrote him three times-- three times I received no answer, even though I asked him about rescinding and/or reconsidering the City Hall ban.

 

On June 13, 2011 I wrote to him:  "The fifth amendment to the Constitution says that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Under your letter of trespass, my liberty of being able to set foot on public property (to whit, the City Hall and Police Department) was denied, and yet my due process amounted to me being served the Letter without having any offense, real or imagined, leveled against me. In your one-sided newspaper article three days later, you mentioned me making numerous FOIA requests, and having run a stop sign three years earlier. You failed to mention I was on my bicycle and the stop sign was illegally placed as well as not being backed by a traffic control order, but those are technicalities from your vantage point, I'm sure.

So as a citizen, and as a candidate for the At-large City Councilor position, I beseech you to retract this onerous restraint on my liberties, and allow me the ability to use the city services and participate in the Open Meetings held at these places at my pleasure, as all other law-abiding citizens are able to do."

 

On September 9, 2011 I wrote to him concerning an invite to my associate to a meeting:  "... If His Honor {the Mayor} wants to extend the same courtesy to me, it will need to be contingent with a public retraction of the baseless Letter of Trespasses against me by yourself..."

 

On October 7, 2011 I wrote to him:  "... OK, the balls in your court, John. Drop the baseless Letter of Trespass for me, as per my attorney's request to the City to mitigate some of the damage already caused to my reputation and my election chances (attached), or face some more litigation due to preventing me from attending a so-called open candidate forum on equal terms."

 

My distinguished attorney had wrote three very sensible letters to the City Attorney seeking to have that onerous policy retracted in October.  No permission from the City Manager, recognized by the new City policy, was forthcoming and I was pilloried repeatedly by the "blind, deaf and especially dumb" local newspaper for having 'declined' my invitation to the above mentioned 'open forum'.  While the City was violating the City's own sign policy by picking up my legally placed campaign signs, I had to send surrogates to City Hall to get them back. 

 

Election day came, and even though my residency of the Third Ward was well-known to all City Hallers, as I had applied to be appointed to fill that open position in April, interviewing in front of most of them, they apparently forgot I would need to vote at the very City Hall I was banned from.  Even though I had discussed this at my interview for Third Ward, talked to the City Clerk about this very issue, and other City Officials about ramifications of the policy, I received no invitation at all to vote. 

 

I have since had that investigated by the County Prosecutor, and will soon have the FBI involved in checking out that serious breach of Federal Election Law.  I have heard nothing from any Ludington official changing the policy or the letter of trespass I received, but apparently John Shay has finally decided-- after prohibiting me from going to an open forum and from voting-- to allow me to go to City Hall for an informational meeting on a street project.  Yippee, I'm glad you think you have that power as well, Mr. Shay, as you continue to function without an Oath of Office. 

[snide]

My question , and forgive me if you have answered this before, is since you do have a lawyer why no monster lawsuit against the city for not only banning you from city hall but taking away your right to vote....... That should be airtight especially considering the lie-filled letter that Venske wrote being the ONLY "cause" for said ban......It seems that court will be the only way to sway public opinion and get those two nimrods out of their jobs......by the way, last night I rode my bike around the corner of Washington and Court----no word as yet if I'm banned from City Hall......

[XLFD]

We do have a solid timetable worked out for bringing this stuff out.  I am currently in a FOIA appeal I am handling myself, which has turned weird with a very odd counterclaim by the City.  I am confident in my case, but not so confident in my lawyer. 

Shortly, two civil suits will be filed by my attorney, one concerning the topic of the City Hall ban, complete with the consequences therefrom.  I also have some possible action coming from the MI Attorney General on two fronts.

If the FBI's investigation happens and if they find the Voting Rights Act violations prosecutable, the City Manager and others may be facing some serious criminal violations in the coming year. 

I will be vague on some of these things at times so as not to give the defendants any undue advantage.

[snide]

Dude ! Don't wait ! Sue the pants off these fools ASAP . !  By having your vote taken away, you have an airtight case. As soon as the summons comes across their desk their attorneys and insurance (that they have for just these reasons) company will advise them to settle. Then and only then will the LDN pay a lick of attention. When they populace sees that their city "manager" is coughing up public dollars by committing illegal acts ---heads will roll. But none of it will happen until you act......Why else do you think that Shay is backpeddelling now.....?  He knows he was wrong.... don't  go-  Stay banned it will help your case.

[XLFD]

Action is taking place... the attorney's firm has had a full docket of late thanks to a bunch of police misconduct cases he has been handling (probably due in part to the various Occupy movements), and because the ban imposed by the City had quite a few new twists that he had never seen before.  I want him to present a solid case, but we do have some deadlines we plan on meeting which will be soon. 

Much more satisfying to me will be the criminal cases if the MI and/or US Attorney General's Office take up the other.  I would rather see the guilty parties serve a sentence, lose their jobs, and pay fines with their own money than see them pay off civil fines to me and my lawyer with taxpayer money. 

And when those start, you will see most of it here, at the Ludington Torch, and likely some other news outlets in the area.  The Ludington paper shows Daily that it is not interested in News.

[Willy]

Snide

You have to remember that Shay only acts on orders of the City Council. The Council passed the work safety ordinance that was the basis for X's banishment and directed Shay to implement that ordinance. Shayster was only following orders. The City Council will then show that they passed the ordinance because they were concerned for the safety of City workers and that this type of ordinance is common in many cities. X must show that the ordinance is unconstitutional by the fact that it lacks  due process and the fact that the ordinance denied him his Constitutional rights. He must also show that the ordinance  was enforced and applied unfairly. It may appear to be a slam dunk for X but City officials are going to be twisting the truth to protect themselves. My advice would be for him to contact the Civil Liberties Union because this is the type of issue that  they get involved with.

[snide]

Forgive me, Willie and X  , but to see you two diehard GOPers advocating the ACLU is rather amusing.....

[Willy]

snide

I'm not advocating them, just suggesting that since upholding the Constitution is one of their expertise's it would seem logical to tap their experience in such matters. I understand the ACLU has seemed to support unpopular causes but their basis for that support has been Constitutionally motivated. And I'm not a GOPer, I am a Constitutionalist. I don't like either party but a lot of the GOP platform is geared more to my beliefs.

[Willy]

Something sounds fishy here. Why now would he issue a written invite after ignoring you for so long? I would send an Email to Mr. Shayster and ask if the banishment has been totally lifted and ask why he wants you at the meeting  just to see his reply. Remember, if you go, don't sit with your back to the door. And just the fact that he takes the superior road and grants you permission as though  he is some sort of Monarch is just  so patently condescending. Shayster is the kind of person you would like to see in one of those dunk tanks at a carnival. He already acts like a clown so it would be a natural progression toward his ultimate goal to of being King of Ludington.

[Marty Redman]

If John Shay sent you that Email without CC-ing anyone else, I agree with Willy.  DON'T GO! 

You have already amply shown that he don't think laws apply to him and his friends at the hall, you may go there and find yourself manhandled by Ludingtons boys in blue.  Shay will conveneintly be unavailable as you get processed and the Daily News will be notified of your breaking the law.  Even if you take a copy of the Email it doesn't prove your case.  Anyone can print out a fake Email.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Do you by chance live on Dowland st? 

[XLFD]

Yes, and I was visited by the DPW and given a regular invite.  I am not going; primarily I am too fearful of what Marty forecasted or worse.  They have shown numerous times they have no respect for the laws, as it applies to them.  Or honor their words.

But the Ludington Torch has inquired via FOIA on the competitive bids for the engineering contract service, and will rally for the City's Complete Street's Resolution to have some application on the City's only owned parcel on Dowland Street. 

I have no personal concerns about traffic or other stuff, my driveway opens on the side street, and my main transport will be my bicycle during that time.

[Willy]

I wonder if they visited and personally invited all of the residents on Dowland?