Martin Schilling Comes Forward

[XLFD]

The two traffic stops of Martin Schilling several years ago, the subsequent lawsuit that was settled in 2009 for $7500 in Mr. Schillings favor were discussed in this thread another-side-of-coles-law  with links to prior discussions and relevant records.  This is the first known public comment by Martin during the interim, including the primary election, where he was resoundingly silent.

Now, with this letter to the editor, published in Monday's City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), we find that he once again boldly comes forward to suggest to us all why, for at least one day in his life, Sergeant Kim Cole neglected the training all police officers should have down pat after serving since the early 1980s.  This should cause one to wonder whether Martin Schilling has been the only one to get this kind of treatment, or just the only one not scared of the repercussions of coming forward.

One must also begin to wonder, if they haven't already, why Kim Cole has never commented on his mistakes made that day, but instead seeks to blame Schilling's lawyer for asking what he thought were too personal questions in the discovery phase of Mr. Schilling's lawsuit.  His inability to acknowledge his own shortcomings for at least this one day, shows me that he is not the man for the Sheriff's job if we expect liberty and justice for all in this republic.  Take the time to do some writing next Tuesday if you agree.

[Willy]

Wow. My surprise isn't because of the letter, I'm surprised that LDN printed it. The way LDN has conducted business in the past only leads me to believe they printed that letter only because it will benefit them in some way. This is truly unlike LDN to actually allow both sides of a story to appear in print. It's a sad day when a news agency does the right thing and  a reader only  looks at with suspicious eyes.

[XLFD]

Your surprise was my surprise as well.  When the COLDNews originally made comment on this back in 2009 (mainly because they were forced to by the County settling this lawsuit) they gave us a very abbreviated and County-friendly article.  Jeff Fiers' write-in campaign, even if it turns out to be unsuccessful, at least brought this issue to the forefront instead of the backburner.

[Brian Carlson]

One thing a bit odd about Mr. Schilling's letter is that he says he only asked for $2100.00 and he never asked for the $250000.00 allowable by law. In the court documents for this case his complaint does ask for $250000.00. Did his attorney ask for this without his knowledge?

[AQUAMAN]

Brian, I think those documents you refer to might be skewed a bit, and asking for "up to $250K", which is the maximum allowable, and standard operating practice. As Shilling's letter to the editor plainly states, he was NOT in this suit for the money, but the "principle of the matter". That of not letting an officer bend the law to his whimsical benefit, to get a desired result. Wth can you buy for a petty $7500 nowadays anyhow, some groceries and some utility bills for several months? Less attorneys fees makes it even more petty. Bottom line though, it floors me too to believe that the LDN actually would publish this, esp. so close to election day, they usually don't want the other side of the story heard at all, just the put-up job. I see this episode dovetailing with the McAdams suit, not for the money so much, but for the hospital bills and the principle of the matter.

[Jane]

I believe in the beginning of a lawsuit if the law  your using to sue under allows for "example" (over 25,000 up to 40,000) you would ask for "over 25k up to 40k" or whatever the law permits is what you start the paperwork with, then it goes from there into what the person really wants.

If shilling was in it for money he would have pushed for a higher payout at the end.

I believe he was trying to make a point on the principal that even if your a police officer you can't be a jerk just to get what you want, the real world is not TV's Law and Order.

[Brian Carlson]

You're right Aquaman. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

[XLFD]

Let us not forget that Martin Schilling was a County Commissioner until the early '90s who was probably more fiscally conservative than Mary Nichols according to my research.  His claim to not wish to bankrupt the county, yet prove his point, is totally believable. 

What isn't believable is Cole's canned response claiming his own victimization by the plaintiff's lawyer, and why people who know the whole story, can't figure out why it makes Cole look unsuitable to be sheriff.

[Willy]

Very good points X. Something I hadn't considered.

[Chuck Finley]

Here is a story as it was told to me and again its about 3rd hand but I believe its well worth looking into; I was told that... after Schilling Jr and put in jail, Schilling Sr threatened the the sheriff before Fiers with a law suite if he didn't make Schilling Jr a worker in the jail. Well truth be told, that admin backed right down and made Jr. a worker in the jail. Now, I was also told that Schilling Jr then had more charges put on him because he tried to poison and other inmate by putting some kind of cleaning chemical into his drink.  Im sure X you could FOIA that and find out the particulars if you wanted to. I just thought it was an interesting tid bit