Desperate Hall-Shysters, Episode 1: A Spurious Name-Calling Affair

[XLFD]

Where the Ludington City Law Firm from Manistee (Gockerman, Wilson, Saylor and Hesslin, [GWSH]) posing as the singular Ludington City Attorney go after a former City of Ludington employee looking for justice from South Ludington [XLFD] and his poor-as-dirt, loyal-as-a-dog, stalwart-as-a-rock fiance from the Ludington Projects [Eve Alone].  Their crime:  appealing a FOIA request that the City refused to handle. 

STARRING:

Plaintiff SWIGER:  FOIA Requester, Defendant Target.

Plaintiff ROTTA:  Non-Attorney Spokesman, Thread Author

Defendant Lawyer SAYLOR:  Tear-inducing, Sanction-Seeking Solicitor

Defendant Lawyer WILSON:  Jurisimprudent E-Mail Misdirector

and featuring,

FOIA Coordinator SHAY:  "Oath?!  I don't needs no stinkin' Oaths!"

 

Episode 1:  The Accusation

 

In the massive document dump of Valentine's Day, 2012, George Saylor III, senior partner of the law firm GWSH, engaged in a highly malicious act of name-calling when he accused Plaintiff ROTTA of being a practitioner of law.   "How can he say such a thing," ROTTA was heard saying, "Everyone knows the only difference between a catfish and most lawyers is that one is a slimy, bottom dwelling scum sucker, and the other is a fish.  Them are fightin' words."   [Editor's NOTE:  All the digs on lawyers here do not refer to attorneys that fight the good fight for the people denied justice.  They go double for public agency lawyers.]  The following is an actual motion from that case file that Manistee Lawyer SAYLOR drafted and included in those documents sent to both ROTTA and SWIGER.  My commentary and links are colored.  

 

 

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF' S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

Now comes the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys,
Gockerman, Wilson, Saylor & Hesslin, P.C., and for its Motion to show cause states as
follows:

1. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tom Rotta ("Rotta") has filed numerous
pleadings on behalf of both he and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Toni Swiger, which
filings include:
A. Plaintiffs/counter-Defendants Request to Admit to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff John Shay;
B. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant/counter-Plaintiff John Shay;

C. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant/counter-Plaintiff city Attorney Richard Merlin Wilson;
D. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Amended lnterrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff City Attorney Richard Merlin Wilson;
E. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Motion to Quash Subpoena;
F. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Supplement to Motion to Quash the Deposition of Plaintiff Swiger; and
G. Motion for Summary Judgment.

[NOTE:  We made a Pro Se complaint for an appeal of the City's FOIA non-decisions, Pro Se means without an attorney.  We presumed there was no dispute as to the facts of the City's denial, nor have we yet seen any come from the pens of GWSH.  The above motions have all been set in motion by the actions of the GWSH attorneys or in the very legal process of discovery.]

2. Rotta admitted under oath at his deposition of January 26, 2012 to
preparing legal pleadings for the exclusive signature of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Toni
Swiger ('Swiger";. Attached to this Motion and marked Exhibit 'A" are Swiger's
Answer to Request to Admit (Rotta dep, pp 85-86)'

[NOTE:  We are co-plaintiffs in this action, just as there are four attorneys at least acting for the City.  The pleadings he mentions were duplicative of my own, and I own the computer, LOL.]

3. Rotta admitted under oath at his deposition of January 26, 2012 to
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by advising Swiger that it was Rotta's legal
opinion that Swiger was not required to appear at her scheduled deposition (Rotta dep, p
5)
[NOTE:  The deposition paperwork went against court rules in requesting documents and leaving us only 12 days to retrieve them, instead of the required 14 days, a Motion to Quash was timely submitted and yet has to be acted on by the court.  This type of motion, if not denied, allows one to avoid a deposition of questionable merit.  If one who passes legal information they can get at several sources on the internet to another person who can barely understand legalese is guilty of practicing law, then I guess his points have merit.  But it's ridiculous, of course.] 

 

4. Rotta's actions in preparing legal pleadings for another party relative to
this proceeding and offering legal advice to an unrepresented party violates MCL600.916 by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

[NOTE:  Here is what that law says:  "600.916 Unauthorized practice of law.

(1) A person shall not practice law or engage in the law business, shall not in any manner whatsoever lead others to believe that he or she is authorized to practice law or to engage in the law business, and shall not in any manner whatsoever represent or designate himself or herself as an attorney and counselor, attorney at law, or lawyer, unless the person is regularly licensed and authorized to practice law in this state."   Let me say, I have never wanted to pass myself off as a lawyer, nor have I intimated that I am one, I've got too much respect for myself.  If I tell someone to fight their traffic ticket, will SAYLOR get on me for that as well?  Sounds like someone is a little insecure about their own capability of practicing law to me.  And in looking at the reasoning behind his briefs, I concur he should be.]

5. Attorneys licensed to practice law in this state have an affirmative duty to
not assist another individual in practicing law in this jurisdiction in violation of the
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. MRPC 5.5 (a).

[NOTE:  MRPC 5.5(a) says:  A lawyer shall not: (a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.  Is he thinking I'm a lawyer, or being assisted by lawyers?  I just don't get it.  If SAYLOR and WILSON are lawyers, I definitely don't want to be associated with that.]

 

6. Rotta's actions in engaging in the unauthorized practice of law with regard
to a pending matter in this Court are brought to this Court's attention as required by the
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.

[NOTE:  I repeat, I have never passed myself off as a lawyer, and  I swear I haven't chased any ambulances.  Why does this guy keep calling me bad names?]

 

WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, City of Ludington, requests that this
Court schedule a hearing requiring Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Tom Rotta to appear and
show cause as to why he should not be found in contempt of court for engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law in contravention of MCL 600.916 and further grant any
other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and reasonable.

[NOTE:  Interesting scenario, and since I have been accused of impersonating a lawyer, the only thing I have to figure out is what lawyer I need to impersonate at such a hearing.  Should I appear as: 

1)  The Lincoln Lawyer:  Nah, I lack the cool wheels, is there a Schwinn Lawyer?

2) Vinnie (from "My Cousin Vinny") :  I'd have to practice the Brooklyn accent. 3) Fletcher Reede (Liar Liar):  I need more skill at slapstick and "the Claw".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4)  Perry Mason:  Don't think I can get CA Saylor to confess like this master lawyer would.

5.  Frank Galvin (The Verdict):  Down on his luck, check; Doing the right thing, check; blue eyes, check; drinking problem, no.  Almost found a match.

 

All non-seriousness aside, I can't believe how absurd this motion is until I read the other motions and proposed sanctions that came with it.  Those will be suitably ridiculed in the coming weeks, as this is, but what do you think-- is it as wacky as we think it is, and if you do, which attorney would you vote I go to court as?  You may go off the board, and supply one of your favorites you think I should go as.  Here are the actual documents, p.1  and  p.2.

[Willy]

That brings up the question of the judges sanity. If I were the judge I would ask myself and the City's attorney "what possible benefit would be had from putting the plaintiffs through a deposition in this case since this is about a citizen gathering public information"? Again something fishy is going on. The decision to allow this useless, irrelevant, expensive, waste of resources and time and the senseless  dispensing of tax dollars to pay for it seems almost to border on the perversion of the court system. The judge has got to know this and realize how this entire process appears to reek of corruption. Yet he's allowing this insanity to continue. If there ever was mountain created from a molehill, this is it.

[Marty Redman]

If the judge hasn't stepped up yet, the guy must be more than crazy he must be corrupt and complicit with such behavior.  Unless he decides not to do anything until the hearing begins and comes out strongly for the plaintiffs you'll know X and the citizens behind c.a.r.r.e. are just going to be stalled.  Judge Cooper help out the people of Mason county they need you now more than ever, and do it fairly.  I see only fairness and sincere concern from both plaintiffs.

[Sweater Cows!]

The way they are saying it I would be accused of practicing medicine illegally for helping a friend care for and re-bandage her dogs injured leg and suggesting a product i used as an antibiotic cream from tractor supply!

So now they are trying to say you hung a shingle over the bedroom door with the words "attorney" on it! LOL. they really are grasping at straws.

[XLFD]

My last name of "Rotta" when read backwards is the first five letters of "Attorney".  All I need to do now is change my first name to "yen" and hold my name up to a mirror to 'represent' myself as an attorney. 

I had a similar medical analogy in my head when I wrote this piece, but I have recently advised someone to fight a traffic ticket that they should have won in a fair court-- but they didn't follow my friendly advice-- maybe because they see what's happened to me for doing so.

[Marty Redman]

I'm glad you can still see the humor in this totally humorless way the city of Lud is treating you.  Your fellow citizens need to get some backbone and you need to get some more of your situation out.  But the Torch is a great thing to have, a lot of people are starting to notice. 

 

Go with the Fletcher lawyer, but don't let any kids make any birthday wishes for that day.

[XLFD]

Here is the accompanying paperwork they presented as to the ends of this motion, an order to show cause.  It has no effect unless acted on by the judge.  Oh, drat, I dispensed more legal advice in saying that, according to George.

[Willy]

I would think that a show cause would be more appropriate for King George III as to his impersonating a human acting as a lawyer and for Shay for engaging in Constitutional shredding while impersonating a weasel in heat.

[AQUAMAN]

You're funny Willy, but all too accurate.....lol. This Tykoski and accomplice Venzke sure do have the pull around town right now, and to think, they are just getting started in the politico biz.. By all means Nick, don't hold back, you can probably now run for Mayor next election, then Governor, and soon, by gosh, you can be our Senator too. A healthy and prosperous future from UPS driver/sign maker to Michigan elite politician? OMG.............what are we coming to.

[XLFD]

They are the power couple of note on the Ludington political scene currently, but they have got there through what appears to be a lot of self-serving acts, something that should be discouraged in public servants.  Community Director Venzke has not yet ever met a grant prospect she didn't apply for from what I've seen, and at the latest CC meeting she seems awfully impressed with what she has done in her presentation. 

The way-finding signs is finished, according to her report at about 30 minutes in, so it would be interesting to see how close to the proposed $150,000 for signage they came in its completion.  That amount of money could easily pay for a nice new house with enough left over to put up a 'discount' privacy fence totally in non-compliance with the City zoning code.

If you continue listening to her presentation, and look at her presentation on the facade and rental rehab projects, you will see what hundreds of thousands of public dollars are doing to help fix up private property, and their owners aren't destitute.  Of course, her department gets a significant proportion of that for administrative duties.  It's worth listening to, to see the total disconnect of these 'progressive' policies to any semblance of fiscal conservatism. 

 

120213LCC from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

[AQUAMAN]

It would appear that your observations according to record, are quite true in that literally Millions of dollars have been granted to the DDA for many private building improvements. While that may help with more renters paying and leasing apartments, I don't see where the moneys spent will attract more business and investments of a private nature in the downtown bus. district, and no figures substantiate that cause thus far. Additionally, I see where the West Ludington Ave. will have a new 10' wide boardwalk extending from the north breakwall to the end of the avenue. I can't see that as beneficial either. What we have now is a narrow strip of beach, that many users take advantage of to get away from the main overcrowded beach on many summer days, both to fish and sunbath and swim at. This cement boardwalk would take away a greater portion of that private setting in place of more walkers, skateboarders, etc. with new benches and picnic areas not really adding value to that portion of the beach. Unless it means it will be placed somewhat further easterly, where all I see is several larger 20' high dunes, which I expect will be preserved, or will it?

[XLFD]

I'm in the dark about this West Ludington Avenue project, even though I've seen it mentioned in passing in the DDA minutes.  If this is a boardwalk parallelling the beach between the end of Ludington Ave. and extending to the breakwall, it's nothing but a detraction to what we have there right now.  Developing parkland is more often a nuisance than an improvement, IMHO.

Facade projects seem to go for about $25,000 for each storefront, while each housing unit created by rental rehab is usually $35,000 each.  We have asked for a summary of the amounts of money spent on Facade and the RR projects over the last few years in two separate FOIAs and were given an unreasonable response of around $100 to produce.

  What should amount to a couple pages spat out on a computer database for either, instead is given an unrealistic price and justified as taking a couple of hours of the Community Developer's time.  Apparently she's too busy spending taxpayer money of the locals and other Michiganders.

[Willy]

Isn't that boardwalk supposed to be installed at the north end of the beach from the parking lot and concession stand to the water?