When the Prosecutor Becomes a Persecutor, pt 1: Spaniola or Spin-a-lie-a

[XLFD]

Back before I was shockingly prevented once again from voting at my polling place in the Michigan primaries as recounted in the thread  primary-responsibility-of-ludington-city-hall  there was my initial bout with disenfranchisement by Ludington City Manager John Shay when I ran to be a City Councilor (with the prospect of being one of his bosses) documented just after that deciding election and related here:  the-candidate-who-couldn-t-vote. 

After making my share of belly-aching threads and letters, I sought to get an investigation into the improprieties, appealing to the various state election laws, and going through the proper channels, which just happened to be the Mason County Prosecutor.  I had little confidence in that personage due to his social partnerships with many of my antagonists, but had hoped he might at least pass it on to a competent authority.  So I sent him this electronically: 

 

• Tuesday, November 15, 2011 12:48 PM

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-cou...

 

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  

 

 

It was a letter of which I expected some action on after some sort of conference with the PA's Office, but I waited a week with no reply in my inbox.  I was sent a letter in the mail from the Prosecuting Attorney the just before Thanksgiving letting me know that he was having my assertions investigated by the Michigan State Police (MSP).  After a couple of weeks from the reception of the letter without hearing anything from the MSP, I sent a brief E-mail to the prosecutor asking about the investigation, and asking for further investigation.

 

I swear I could give him job security, if I wanted to pass along everything I have on the City Hallers, but let's not forget the City of Ludington and the County of Mason governments have more in common with each other than they have with the people who vote them in (and grant them authority to do the things they do).   I never heard from him, but the MSP set up an appointment with me at the end of the week for a Monday conference at the Hart MSP.

Which turned out to be a complete waste of gas.  Note that except for my link to the Torch article on having my right to vote snatched from me, I had not even been asked for anything else for their investigation.  But that day, I learned that the case had been denied on the grounds that they did not have anything to go on.  After a thorough pat down at the entry door, I heard an investigator and the Hart MSP leader (Fellowes) tell me that they had not enough to go on for a criminal investigation, and offered up several defenses for John Shay in any criminal proceeding, that were flimsy and based on only one side's set of facts, many which differed from the full truth. 

But it didn't matter that my lawyer and I had officially asked three times each between June and November for access to the City Hall, where I never received any direct reply, it only mattered that the City Manager had let me in three times by written permission between 2-28 and 5-2-2011.

And whereas I would eventually agree with them that MI election law has some wriggle room for Mr. Shay for a successful defense against the charge (and agreed that it did have a strong chance for being civilly fought) I was very disappointed that they effectively made such a decision without ever conferring with me or looking at a fair deal of supplemental material I had brought along. 

It felt kind of like telling a dispatcher (the PA, in this case) that you've just been robbed by Joe Schmo and they send the police to interview Joe.  They call you to come in, you drive a half hour to the precinct and they tell you that Joe has affirmed that he is innocent and that his word is unimpeachable, and that you should be ashamed of yourself for casting such doubt on his character.  No matter whether you brought a video tape of the incident along with you and some eyewitnesses.  But I guess I should have been happy, I was permitted to leave the Hart MSP office on my own at least with intact kneecaps.

On January 24, 2012 I sent the following E-Mail to PA Spaniola and the County FOIA Coordinator Fabian Knizacky: 

"In November just after the election, I had forwarded you a complaint on a violation of state election law, wherein you notified me of having the MSP investigate the case. About two weeks after that, I had a talk with the investigators from the Hart MSP, and although I got a verbal result of their conclusions, which I felt was flawed, I have as of yet received some sort of written summarization of an investigation and any of your conclusions, and why it had not rose to the level of violating the State Law. In my preparation of the final documentation I need to initiate a federal investigation on how the City of Ludington, under color of law, violated my voting rights, I wish to review the totality of your investigation.

Since I am on the understanding that the officers closed that investigation back in December, 2011, and sent the fullness of their investigation to you, there should be no problem with sending me this, as you have not contacted me since the investigation started over two months ago and are long past due. I hope you don't treat other victims of crimes who report to you so callously. I would appreciate either the sending of such records by transmission through E-mail or allow me to inspect them. This is effectively a FOIA request in that regard, and is why I have the County Administrator, newly sworn in, as a co-recipient."

Here is what I got back:  Memo: Warrant Action.  The slanderous allegations made against me by this moron are totally debunked in this thread  creating a monster pt3.  I put out in the beginning of March.  Kind of makes you wonder how he's adapting the facts in the Baby Kate case in order to get a conviction, doesn't it?

 

In the meantime, however, I chided Prosecutor Paul and his 'careless disregard for accuracy in a public record' by sending him this E-mail on 1-28-2012 complete with his offensive memo:

"The attached public record you created has false and malicious claims against myself and my character. MCL 750.370 says: " Any person who shall falsely and maliciously, by word, writing, sign, or otherwise accuse, attribute, or impute to another the commission of any crime, felony or misdemeanor, or any infamous or degrading act, or impute or attribute to any female a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

I have not committed any of the infamous acts as you depict in the above memo as "numerous non-consenting acts of a stalking nature by the complainant against a City Hall employee" nor have I ever been issued a Personal Protection Order, both of which you declare as fact in your capacity as a Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Mason in your 12-2-2011 memo to Michigan State Police Sergeant Fellowes. My previous E-mail of this day also noted several other inaccuracies you could set aright as well, of a non-defamatory nature.

I hereby give you notice that you need to publish a retraction of your false claims of myself and my character or to publish facts and evidence that certifies any truth to your claims. I give you two full weeks to do so (February 12, 2012). If I receive no such retraction, or any reasonable request from you to extend the time period further than two weeks, I will seek relief through legal means.

Thank you for your interest in the rights of individuals.

 

I also sent another E-mail that same day clarifying my position on the offensive and inaccurate details he passed off as facts and asked to see the supposed PPO he referred to by the FOIA.   I had to fight for all of February to get to see the PPO application which was denied, but have I yet got the retraction and the apology one would expect?  Find out in the soon to come out sequel:    When the Prosecutor Becomes a Persecutor, pt 2:  The Dressing Down of Defendant Paul Spaniola.

 

[Sweater Cows!]

If concern is of your tax dollars tell your reps to act ethically and morally and this situation never would have happened. The more you empower the gov't to be unethical, the more they will push the envelope, it isn't you this time but your day will come as well. keep giving up liberty for nothing and you'll have nothing.

[Willy]

Jason

I doubt very much that Spanolia was rolling on the ground in laughter because he knows he filed false information with the States top law enforcement division. He filed false information regarding a citizens request to have him personally oversee a serious complaint, false information that affected the investigation of that complaint, false information that halted that official investigation that he was duty bound to initiate and be involved with. This is not some frivolous act by a hick prosecutor. This was a deliberate attempt by a sitting Prosecutor to minimize and derail an investigation that he was trusted with and which he is responsible for while safe guarding and protecting citizens rights as his oath of office dictates. He violated the Constitutional provisions of his oath and should be held responsible. I'm sure this is only the tip of the ice berg regarding his misconduct while supposedly representing the Citizens who granted him the privilege of being their prosecutorial  representative.

[XLFD]

Contrariwise, I put great weight behind legal advice from Willy.  His head, heart, and spirit is in the game and on the right track.

[Jason]

Willy,

I agree with what you have said to a certain point, that point being "deliberate attempt". Show us a scintilla of evidence Spaniola did it deliberately. Quite the contrary, on this site he has been made out to be an "idiot" proof by your own words, that hes stupid enough to make that kind of "mistake". Without "deliberate" it goes nowhere, unless you think he is stupid enough to admit it, doubt it.

[Willy]

Jason

He wrote the memo to the State Police with false / slanted information. What do you suppose he was thinking when he did that? Was he thinking that the memo reflected the entire situation including the complainants position and story? When someone puts into writing, information that will be used by an investigative officer to make a determination regarding misconduct by Governmental officials, don't you think that information should be accurate, concise and complete? And if it's not then there is only one conclusion that can be drawn and that conclusion is that the misleading information was a deliberate attempt to skew the investigation. "idiot" and "stupid" are your words. He doesn't have to admit to anything because his actions and memo speak of his potentially corrupt intentions.

[Jason]

Willy,

You say "What do you suppose he was thinking when he did that?", that's the question that needs to be answered. Did he just make it up? Did he contact the circuit court and get bogus info? Did he have the file himself? Did the State police tell him that stuff? Did one of his assistants inform him of these things? We don't know. You're assuming he made these up himself, but you or XLFD don't know the true answer. You're confusing the conclusions with the "deliberate intentions". The "investigation" is what lead him to conclusions and until you know HOW he "investigated" and reached these "conclusions", you don't know his intentions. Nonetheless, mere speculation at this time on his intentions proves nothing.

I didn't say anyone called him "idiot" or "stupid", I said you guys made him out to be an idiot and stupid and If you notice, I didn't argue the point either. Name calling just dirties the waters.

[XLFD]

Jason there are four points that a plaintiff must prove in court for libel/slander:

1) the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement.  CHECK

2) the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff.  CHECK

3) the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message.  CHECK

4) the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff's reputation.  CHECKMATE

 

Next case.  The prosecutor could claim a privilege protects him, as he has already tried, as the statements of certain defendants in certain circumstances, such as lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses, are protected from defamation for public policy reasons.  I find that defense specious in this case.

[Jason]

XLFD,

Sounds simple, heck, take the bet.

[XLFD]

Which bet, the one where Spaniola was ROFL, or the bet that I couldn't get a court-ordered sanction, retraction or apology? 

[AQUAMAN]

I think we can simply look at the baby Kate case today as evidence of the competency of the PA in court these days. Phillips had ample rhyme and reason to get a mistrial on at least two occasions this past week, but has not pursued that avenue yet. Talk about absurd and confused prosecutor....lol.

[XLFD]

The prosecutor has a shot at redemption in the Baby Kate trial in cross-examination of the defenses witnesses, particularly if they have Sean testify.  If the State can't get any more than what they've shown so far, Sean should testify only if he is completely innocent and wants to point the finger towards Ariel and/or someone else. 

I sense that if Spaniola fails to get Sean, there will be some scapegoating on Ariel, and I believe he will seek easier prey by seeking perjury charges on her, to lessen his appearance of ineptitude.