Probate Judge Mark Raven Hanging up the Gavel

[XLFD]

The Daily News reported yesterday that Honorable Judge Mark Raven will not be seeking re-election this year.

According to this article Raven states:  "It’s something I mulled over for a fairly long period of time.  A lot of things go through your head ... but I couldn’t commit to serving another six-year-term. Citizens expect the opportunity to elect someone willing to serve the entire term. I’ve spent 18 years, it’s gone by so fast.”

 

Coincidentally, the previous afternoon prior to this announcement, I was in court in front of the really honorable Judge Peter Wadel, where we were mulling over past rulings of Judge Raven in October, 2009 and November, 2008.  To those not familiar with my history, I contested a traffic ticket in District Court for the earlier date and Judge Raven was assigned my case.  I felt his assignment and knowledge of traffic law were suspect, and asked repeatedly over the next year for confirmation of the fact that he had the jurisdictional capability to try my case.

 

That information was never given to me by the 79th District Court Magistrate, Patricia Baker, even on the day I was summoned to the court to show-cause as to why I had not ever paid off the court order.  Judge Raven that day had assured me that he would give me proof that he had proper assignment to that case, and said that he would find me in civil contempt if I did not obey his court order after doing so.  He also intimated his disdain for me filing a complaint with the Judicial Tenure Commission over the issue of his prior conduct and the magistrate's.

 

The court proceeded to give me two documents that said Judge Raven could stand in for Judge Wadel (the elected District Court Judge) whenever Wadel was disqualified for familial matters for the year 2008 and 2009.  Each document represented a year.  This was not the proof I was promised, more a disproof of any legal authority.  Since he did not give me proof, I did my part of the bargain when I sat in the Mason County Jail for three days until I was bailed out by another. 

 

Since that time, I have hired an attorney to get the whole range of injustices and improprieties that I have barely scratched the surface on in my discussion here, expunged, my money returned and justice to be served.  Those three days in the slammer have strengthened all of my resolve to put things aright back in the City and County that I call home, and get the crooks out of the leadership roles that they have gravitated to over the years, and hopefully get honest men and women back in those positions in time.

 

But I digress; my hearing on the day prior to the Judge's decision, may have gave him good reason not to continue with his judgeship.  Representing the City of Ludington this time was former County Prosecutor Susan Kasley Sniegowski, a competent attorney herself, who did something that I thought was a bit shaky. 

 

My attorney had filed a Motion back in January, where the court set a date for 2-22-2012.  The City had the court move it back to 3-20-2012, and had plenty of time to prepare briefs for the case if they wanted to pursue it.  They did not file anything until last Thursday, effectively sending it out in Friday's mail to my attorney in Lansing.  He did not receive it until late Monday, so when he came on Tuesday to court, he was still in the process of reviewing the salient points. 

 

Ms. Sniegowski is well aware of how long it takes mail in general to reach others, and her fair sized brief of many pages, referring to state traffic control orders over 50 years old, and other mundane topics needed a little while to be pored over.  Judge Wadel listened to primarily my lawyer for over an hour (I said nothing in the whole course), and had the two parties agree to submit further documentation in support of two of the positions due 28 days, and then gave a further week to submit rebuttals.  Then another court date would either be set or the judge would make up his mind.

 

I have waited so long, another two months can't hurt any worse.  But one thing is now certain.  There never was any proper assignment given to Judge Raven to appear on the original court date, and my prospects for winning the battle is very good.  

[AQUAMAN]

Looks like it was Sniegowski's turn to delay the proceedings, go figure how she can get away with such short notice of rebuttal on matters pending for already too long, nasty. Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot they procrastinate and delay forever, but, when they are the plaintiffs, they rush to get things in order and done real fast.

[XLFD]

When I was dealing with the Prosecutor on an FOIA appeal, he sent me a letter proffering a deal and gave me a time limit that had already passed by the time I got the letter.  His document was signed on Friday, postmarked on Monday, and received late on Tuesday-- for something he said I needed to get back to him during business hours on Tuesday. 

Whereas, if he sent it by E-mail on Friday, I would likely have seen it on Friday or at the latest by Saturday.  It was a crappy deal anyway, but that's beside the point.

[AQUAMAN]

Actually, he will be sorely missed as a fair and honest judge, we all make some errors, his were minor compared to many others imho. His replacement/candidate doesn't match up to Raven, anyhow, wishing him luck and happiness in the retirement pursuits.

[XLFD]

I never caught that side of him, Aquaman, I saw him as cliquish even before this in a former probate matter which I was part of.  I don't see him as being fair and honest when he tells me he had the authority to preside in the 79th District Court, is politely called on it, ducks the issue and sends me to jail because he cannot prove his claim. 

MCR 8.111(C) says:  "Reassignment. If a judge is disqualified or for other good cause cannot undertake an assigned case, the chief judge may reassign it to another judge by a written order stating the reason. To the extent feasible, the alternate judge should be selected by lot. The chief judge shall file the order with the trial court clerk and have the clerk notify the attorneys of record. The chief judge may also designate a judge to act temporarily until a case is reassigned or during a temporary absence of a judge to whom a case has been assigned."

No written order is on court record, no notification was made to either party in that hearing of the reassignment.  For the record, Judge Wadel was sick the first trial date, the LPD officer was on vacation the scheduled court date and had the court reschedule (a rarity in itself) because of that.  The new date had Judge Wadel being available, but the reassignment stuck; and even though I made arguments that I believe an experienced traffic judge like Wadel would have accepted, I lost. 

This reassignment issue may seem a technicality to some, but Raven never used any legal argument in his judgment, or rebutted the facts I had presented about the illegality of the placement of the stop sign and the dangers it presented to pedestrians.  That the stop sign appears to have no traffic control order behind it came later. 

[AQUAMAN]

I'll say what concerns me most is the fact that now, after all this time, the City Attorney pulls this stunt, and to add injury to insult, she's trying to fight the case with ancient old traffic laws that have since expired long ago. That in itself should tell you she is grasping for straws, that which do not exist, and have no legal bearing on todays' traffic signage requirements per MDOT rules and law. For Wadel to postpone this again, tells me of nothing more than delay is the game, not sober law practice as should be expected and required by all the officers of the court system, but, as we clearly see here, that is lacking. Like I said many times before, they cannot nor will not admit any wrongdoing on their parts, ever, it's sickening and illegal at best, and at worst contemptible and worth of legal sanctions from on high.

[XLFD]

I should be getting my copy of Susan Sniegowski's briefs in the mail, and I will see whether the traffic control order (TCO) exists or not.  If it does, that part of the case may turn out to be moot, however, then the City Manager will have violated the FOIA (once again) by not sending me (actually my attorney) the TCO when it was requested in the first place, setting the City up once again for a civil fine for not complying with the FOI Act, and perhaps more since there seems a fair chance of showing the City Manager perjured himself when he swore on two different affidavits that the City-Tykoski records were complete when they were far from it (from my FOIA civil action). 

I seriously need a legal secretary to keep up with all this stuff, I definitely am falling way behind in posting things here at the Torch.

[AQUAMAN]

Secretary, what? lol. That's the main COL strategy, to drown you in legal paperwork, to the point you throw in the towel. Just keep plugging away at your best pace, you're doing just fine, let the Torch be the secondary concern now, it's too late to pull the horse back into the barn....lol. You are only one person fighting an army from the city, court, attorneys, and many more behind the scenes. The Trojan Horse won against a huge army too.

[XLFD]

It's good to see your keyboard is once again working properly A-man.  Alas, I may turn out to be only the back end of that Trojan Horse by the end of all this, but that's why they play the game.  Number one seeds do lose. 

[Marty Redman]

I wouldn't be surprised that Raven is ducking out because he's a chicken and a turkey.  When you succeed in getting this overturned will you be able to get some recompense from Raven for your injuries by his legal malpractice?  From what I've seen with Raven, he isn't a bad judge, but he has his bad days.  From what I've heard, hes gotten worse over the years.  Like Cooper he'll look after his friends in public employ if he can.