Rotta v. Shay, et. al.: Federal Court Filing

[XLFD]

This morning as I was stirring in my bed getting up I heard the oddest story on the radio.  WMOM news (102.7 on your FM dial) was reporting that some malcontent who was stopped for a bicycle traffic infraction back in 2008 was involved with a federal lawsuit with the City of Ludington.  It seems that the City had passed a Workplace Safety Policy back in February 2011 which greatly infringed on his rights of free speech, due process, and involved the City of Ludington with creating an unconstitutional policy to achieve those aims.

City Manager John Shay is the primary defendant, for the first three counts; the first five counts ask for a minimum of $150,000 in damages, and count six seeks injunctive relief against the City so that the City Council will retract their claws and repeal the policy that has created such injuries.  Needlessly, against a citizen whose only crime was seeking information from the City and presenting that information to the citizens on his website, The Ludington Torch.  Kudos to WMOM for their newsgathering, and for mentioning the name of this website in their hourly news spots this morning.

Here is the full extent of this lawsuit, presented unfiltered from its filing.  The plaintiff fully expects to be villified even more by the City and their guard dogs at the COLDNews during the extent of this lawsuit.  Why change tactics midstream?  It's not their money that's being wasted due to the bad choices of City Manager John Shay, Mayor John Henderson, and the Ludington City Council and their four year vendetta against a citizen who seeks information, reports on corruption, and demands accountability from/by his public officials.   

SUIT1_0013.jpg   SUIT1_0014.jpg   SUIT1_0015.jpg

Website for this and future filings:  http://dockets.justia.com/docket/michigan/miwdce/1:2012cv00973/71832/

[CLFD]

Your lawsuit has obviously been in the works for several years. I appreciate the sincere concern toward all citizens to be free from unfair Letter's of Tresspass but I do have one question. I know the taxpayer will bear the burden of the costs to the city to defend this lawsuit. Will the taxpayer also ultimately pay if you win the monetary damages that you seek?

[XLFD]

You will notice John Shay, individually, is the sole defendant for three of the five non-injunctive counts.  The other two are the City's taxpayers's problem because the Ludington City Council passed a law that was unconstitutional and should never be passed by a concerned legislator at any level. 

If you're upset as a taxpayer with the actions above, don't blame me, I'm not the one who resorted to extralegal means to counter someone's search for answers.  I suggest to go to City Council meetings and demand answers yourself, its part of your money too.  Or you can go there and bad-mouth me if you want.  It's a free country, just not a free city-- yet.

[CLFD]

Will it cost people money to view the progress of this case on the link you provided?

[CLFD]

Never mind. I just read on the link you provided that there is a 10 cent per page fee to view any information regarding your case.

[Brian Carlson]

Everyone should have a Pacer account. If you do legal research or just want to keep informed, Pacer has most Federal cases and Chapter 7s, 11s and 13s.

[CLFD]

But Pacer costs money. Seems one of the prevailing questions upon this webblog asks why should any citizen have to pay anything to get public records?

[XLFD]

Once you get a Pacer account, you get the first $15 of documents free per billing period, meaning you can look at up to 150 pages without charge. 

Also, I have little problem with paying for postage, or making copies at a reasonable rate such as the library charges ($.10 per copy).  And I agree in charging something for labor if "failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs".  As verbatim from the MI FOIA, which Ludington has to follow. 

Those are the only allowable charges.  Ludington just this Monday tried to get money from FOIA which does not follow these rules, and hasn't been consistent.  They were rubber stamped by a judge even though they didn't, and we never seen the records.

[CLFD]

XLFD

So if I understand your comment above, you are OK with the court house charging me $1 a copy but you would only be OK with being charged $.10 per copy? Please clarify if you will.

I realize the Pacer Home Page explains that the first 150 pages per 3 months are free. But is it really free if you are required to provide them with your personal address information and your credit card number up front? Can an anonymous fact seeker obtain the first 150 pages free?

I agree that the FOIA does allow for labor charges if it will result in unreasonably high costs to the public body. I also realize that many things can result in unresonably high costs to the public body. I am curious if that would include ambiguous requests that confuse the record keepers who have to search through the records and try to figure out exactly what information the FOIA requestor really seeks?

The least paid employee is determined by who? Would that be by the FOIA director or the FOIA requestor?

Not sure what you mean by "rubber stamped". Please clarify?

[XLFD]

CLFD,

My point with the amount a government group charges for making copies is that it varies so much depending on who you get it from.  Centwise, the library charges 10, the City charged 15 (until 12-2010), then 25, the LPD charges 50, the county clerk 100, court reporter's transcripts 175 or 200 per copy, 30 if its a secondary copy.  Ink, paper do cost money but charging 20 times more for some applications over others of just copying a record seems arbitrary to me, and keeping the cost low to the taxpayers who are already buying the ink and paper anyhow, is consistent with ethical service to them.

If a request seems ambiguous, the FOIA Coordinator always has the option of asking the requestor what exactly he wants.  In about 130 requests, I probably have made some ambiguous requests, and 'speculative' requests based on records that I believe could and should exist, but the City doesn't necessarily have a duty to make or keep them.  A reply to such is just to certify that they don't exist.  

The replies to FOIA requests I have received from John Shay are often ambiguous and in need of clarification, because he relies on a basic form for the most part.  I will be throwing some of those up soon.  The reply I based my 'losing' FOIA appeal to Circuit Court was one of those.  I was granted the request and pointed to four previous requests made of four different record sets, on requests differing from the one I made.

Anybody can scan records, and I can point to probably over a 100 of the 300 city employees who have a lesser rate than the $23 per hour I was quoted.  Unfortunately for John Shay and the City Attorney, the FOIA also says the FOIA Coordinator "shall utilize the most economical means available for making copies of public records.", and in my request to inspect those records is a bit cheaper for him and me than the $46 he orders to be paid.   

"Rubber stamped" has its usual meaning.

[Willy]

Excellent. I'm proud of you x for standing up not only for yourself but for all the citizens of Ludington because folks that think you are causing trouble fail to realize that it's their freedom and rights that are being trampled on not just yours. So wake up people and support this endeavor because you are the ultimate losers when Government officials deny any citizen their Constitutional rights.

[XLFD]

I would be remiss if I did not show the Workplace Safety Policy in its entire ugliness.  I never even had any idea what this policy was a couple of weeks after a Letter of Trespass was placed on me (as shown here), and wasn't able to even see it via a FOIA request when the City manager set a $37.50 price tag on reviewing it, and other supporting documentation.  All four City Councilors still on the panel who passed this should be forced to resign, or recalled from office.  You shouldn't make such oppressive legislation as a legislator without being called on it.

[CLFD]

XLFD

What do you mean "forced to resign". I am not sure if that is even constitutional. There has to be some kind of due process.