Ludington's Deer Cull Has Its First Day in Court

[XLFD]

On Thursday, June 13th, 2024, at 2:30 in the afternoon, a motion hearing took place to dismiss a case, and several Ludington celebrities were in attendance:  City Manager Mitch Foster, Mayor Mark Barnett, Councilors Wally Cain and Kathy Winczewski, and future interim City Manager Jeanne Oakes.  With such a cast in the audience, including myself, one would think that the issue involved was of monumental importance to the city, but all that would be determined this day would be whether a lawsuit against the deer cull in Ludington would proceed.  

One might think that this reporter would be the one to file this lawsuit, given my opposition to the culls and the fact that I was almost shot when the deer cull started in broad daylight at a park that wasn't closed or checked on by authorities.  That may still come, but today's court action was filed by Terry Grams, who lives in gunshot range of Cartier Park where two deer culling operations were undertaken in March, reportedly killing 27 deer. 

This 83-year-old gentleman who can claim ties to the Cartier family that endowed the parklands to the city over 100 years ago, had sought a temporary restraining order and injunction against this year's deer cull and future culls as they pertain to Cartier Park, considered the only feasible area in the city limits to host such an event without subjecting the public to extreme danger.  The culling activities in the old Depot area (Staffon and Dowland Street) were extremely hazardous to neighbors whose property were within ten yards of the shooting, and whose permission was never received.

His attempts were defended against by City Attorney Ross Hammersley, helped somewhat by the court which wouldn't grant a TRO to stop this year's cull.  Hammersley would file a "motion to dismiss" the case under the usual C(8) and C(10) grounds which states that either there is no claim to which relief can be granted, or that no material issue of fact exists, and as a matter of law the defendant has the winning legal argument.  Hammersley would overwhelm the court with his motion and brief, which was 54 pages long, much lengthier than the 20 pages allowed by Michigan Court Rules (MCR 2.119). 

This infraction by the experienced attorney would be overlooked by the court, represented by 51st Circuit Court Judge Susan Sniegowski.  She would call the court to order just after 2:30 PM and never disclose her relationship to the defendant and why she decided not to offer the plaintiff the ability to disqualify herself from the proceedings.  

Her Honor's husband, Thomas Sniegowski, has been employed by the City of Ludington for around three decades.  During that employment, city hall hired her Honor to respond to the city's FOIA requests after she as an incumbent prosecutor lost to Paul Spaniola and had to go back to private practice. 

Over the years, I have used those potential appearances of impropriety as a means to disqualify this judge from deciding my cases and have appreciated that she has always allowed it.  In three different cases where I filed suit against the sheriff's office, the City of Scottville, and two Scottville commissioners, I wasn't able to do so, and was the recipient of three of the worst-judged decisions I have ever had against me.  She seems to operate not by the existing laws, but by the official statuses of the litigants.  She is a major reason why Mason County is seen as such a major joke to lawyers who believe in blind justice and are asked to practice their trade here.

The main point of the defendant when Hammersley was called on to explain their motion was that Grams lacked standing.  The point was argued that he was a Cartier heir and that he had nothing to distinguish himself from other citizens, some of whom may be just as adamant against the cull.  He would further try to claim that any deed restriction was not violated by the deer cull.  He would claim there was no relief to be given at this point as the 2024 deer cull was over and the city "had no intent to continue with the deer cull."

Grams would have his own opening statement, arguing that he had standing due to the potential harms of his immediate environment and mentions a couple of precedents, the first of which seem to indicate that Grams should have standing under a few other statutes and precedents, provided he shows harms to the general environment that may have occurred.  Grams emphasized that he has never claimed to be an heir of the Cartiers, but indicated that the Cartier's lawyer had sent a letter indicating the concerns of the heirs with the deer cull operation and any future culling.  

Grams would note that the cull violated multiple state and federal laws, a fact that is supported in his own brief for the court, he mentioned a couple in his presentation.  Hammersley would later refute that with a blank declaration that no laws were broken.  When finished, the city's mouthpiece was given the opportunity to try and refute the standing claims of Grams and didn't seem very convincing in his arguments.  

At this point, Grams would later admit he wanted to point out the laws that were broken and the notion of standing, but her Honor did not allow him to do so, telling him that at motion hearings the procedure was to hear the movant first, the non-moving party second, then the movant last.  This procedure is a totally made-up rule for hearings.  The proper section of the MI Court Rules that outlines such procedures does not recognize this dictum for court procedures pushed forth by her Honor.  Having practiced pro se in fairer Mason County courts, this procedure has never been followed for a motion hearing in all of my cases before this.    

Instead, Judge Susan Sniegowski would look out upon all the powerful city officials in the gallery and make her ruling not on standing but on mootness, which was not introduced in Hammersley's presentations.  While she entertained the notion that Grams may have standing, she reasoned that since the deer cull had already taken place and that the city attorney said the city had no plans to do more deer culls that there was no controversy to enjoin.  When she was through making her decision, she allowed Grams to ask a question regarding mootness about the fact that there was still a written contract for another year of deer culling that has not been repealed, suggesting mootness was granted too quickly.

Rather than take that up for a fair consideration, her Honor told him that he could send the court a motion of reconsideration sometime during the next three weeks, then left.  As the city's official contingent left the courtroom, I let the two litigants converse between themselves and we all waited outside for them to clear the emptied courtroom.  

                                            Left to right:  City show of force:  Foster, Winczewski, Oakes, Barnett (Cain had left)

I couldn't help but walk over once I snapped the above picture and ask the burning question in my mind about why the city hadn't officially repealed the deer cull agreement ordinance in the six city council meetings since the last day of the deer cull.  They inferred it wasn't any of my business being that I was friends with the plaintiff, I insisted I was asking as a journalist.  When they gave the stock answer that neither of them had the authority to speak on behalf of what the city council would do, I asked the follow-up question that seems obvious.

If you had your city attorney claim in his voluminous briefs and this immediate court presentation that the city has no intention to conduct any more deer culls, why hasn't the city already rejected the contract for 2025 that is still active?  Does the city not honor its own words written down forever in legal documents and transcript?  Will you commit to repealing that cull contract ordinance at the next meeting?

Mayor Barnett was a moment away from pistol whipping me at this point for my questioning, thankfully he does not carry anymore after his retirement from LPD.  He suggested I move along at this point, and I did because I knew there would be nothing further forthcoming.  I would send a letter encouraging the council to save their city attorney from correctly being called a liar again, by considering the repeal of the cull ordinance starting at the next meeting.

Plaintiff Grams will continue his work at providing factual information to Ludington residents and beyond with his remarkable persistence by rallying against deer culls in local media, distributing yard signs with anti-cull messages, and protecting Cartier Park's best living natural resource in the website he created for that purpose: Stop the Deer Cull website.