The Place Where Ludington Talks
Ludington's Lynching of Claire the Book Girl
Background of the Story
Even if you are not from Ludington, you may be familiar with Claire "the book girl" Whitcomb and her loss of the ability to do her job of book selling in the Ludington area because her vendors permit was revoked by the Ludington city clerk. You may have got the information from the local media or even here at the Ludington Torch, where it was linked to the original story broke by Rob Alway of the MCP.
A brief synopsis of the situation: Claire registered (as seen below) with the City of Ludington to sell educational materials door-to-door for the summer. City officials allegedly received numerous complaints about her activities to the point where they were forced to pull the permit for the safety of all in Ludington. Claire acknowledged the revocation and restricted herself to selling to the rest of Mason County, outside the cities of Scottville and Ludington.
Two of the local TV stations picked up on the story (see their take on TV 7 & 4 video and the corresponding article) and then the Associated Press put it out on their wire, where it was published in a variety of places throughout the web with the AP's take on it, including:
These stories were incomplete. We are fed a diet of hearsay information from a city official defending their action of pulling the vendor's permit, but nothing solid. Unfortunately, the way news is dispensed nowadays, the accuracy of such stories are trumped by the alacrity of its publication. Words of officials are taken as the final say.
After doing some further research behind the pulling of Claire Whitcomb's permit, I have come to the conclusion that what happened to Claire was little more than a public lynching. Whether you had a negative encounter with her or not, her plight should serve as a learning experience to show the damage that rumor and hearsay can do, and illustrate how well-meaning officials can operate clearly outside of the law without being called on it-- except by this forum.
To those who believe the terminology is misleading, Wikipedia defines "lynching" as punishment for an alleged crime or offense carried out by an informal group without legal process or supervision from a court or tribunal through a legal proceeding . Consider this as the story progresses.
Background of the Characters and Events
Claire Whitcomb is a senior of a Texas university selling books and other educational materials distributed by Southwest Advantage. The Southwestern Advantage website informs us they still make house calls. "We want to hear your stories. We want to look in your eyes as you tell us about your kids & your family. Our products help you and your children on personal levels. It only makes sense that we sell them with a personal touch."
Claire and Some Satisfied Clients
As noted, Claire received a permit in May to sell books in Ludington and Scottville, the rest of Mason County does not have such permits, nor do many other municipalities. One could argue that permits are unnecessary and redundant if general laws are followed by prospective vendors, or argue that the permitting process is an unconstitutional infringement on the free market and rife with potential improprieties by officials and cronies. Such arguments are fairly valid in my view, but the Ludington City Council in the past didn't think so.
In Scottville, Claire had some undisclosed complaints, according to their city manager/clerk, Amy Williams, which would have led her not to renew her permit that expired about four weeks before Ludington's revocation. There seems to have been no complaints regarding Claire inside of Ludington before the weekend or noted throughout the rest of Mason County. In this era of videotaping, no incidents involving Claire have either been videotaped. The only video proffered at all is one of Claire allegedly riding off in her vehicle by a Christa Soller. She would be the lone person who filed a formal complaint with the Ludington Police Department (LPD) involving Claire.
The Extent of the Problem
The first problem documented in Ludington was on July 13, when an unidentified complainant living at the corner of Franklin and Diana stated Claire was "pushy":
You will note that R/O Sailor admits herein that two months of selling had went by without any complaint before (formal or informal) to his knowledge. Christa Soller's complaint is next, where she describes her ordeal to officer Wietrzykowski:
As seen in the complete report (LPD Incident Reports Whitcomb.pdf), the dates of the three incidents at the Soller house are not included, the report itself saying the interactions occurred that very morning at 8:45. The police reports the heinous felonies and misdemeanors of name-dropping, dropping by at 8:00 PM, touching a front door, yelling "Hello", and apparently revisiting a house to sell something after being told "no".
The Notes on Claire Whitcomb Vending Permit.pdf does reveal a third instance, where Gary Boerma reports that on July 21, his daughter was visited by Claire, who allegedly told the saleslady that she was not interested because she was a teacher and had her own curriculum. Then, he relates, Claire grabbed his daughter's arm as she turned to leave. He also related that a friend of his daughter had had Claire come to their house, try the doors, and tried to climb in through the windows.
All of this was second hand information, hearsay and rumor, that was accepted as factual without even any sort of verification through the one's allegedly making the statements or by Claire herself. Odd, since (minus any clear intent) the hearsay that merited no formal report is of a simple assault and another is of attempted breaking and entering. As you can see, without any investigation into the inflammatory rumors, the permit was pulled.
Lastly, late on July 22, another LASD teacher, Tanya Gasaway, called in to complain about Claire, mentioning other totally legal acts she did like coming back a second time, talking to her children, and dropping personal info: Emails Chief of Police.pdf. You will also note a letter sent from City Clerk Deb Luskin to the full council and other justifying her decision to pull Claire's permit, echoing the hearsay and non-criminal complaints investigated or not by the LPD.
The Ludington Lynch Mob
So was this a lynching? Most assuredly, this was a punishment (revocation of her license to sell in Ludington) exacted on the Book Girl without any legal process or proceeding. The negatively toned news accounts, forever plastered across the internet, will follow Claire Whitcomb well after she finishes selling her last book. An eternal stain on her good name, for if you look at her Facebook page beyond the incriminating video of her driving away from a house you are overwhelmed by the positive posts from other local folks.
But let's take a look at the lynch mob, who have decided that the public needed to be saved from a door-to-door saleslady who was good at her job. I sent our city clerk an E-mail with three questions, which she expediently replied to on the same day.
1) Why was Claire Whitcombe's permit to solicit book sales in the city revoked?
2) Under whose authority was this revocation made?
3) Did the LPD have any credible criminal complaints against her?
She answered:
1. The permit was revoked due to the number of complaints received to the police department, phone calls from the public made to my office, residents coming to the front office counter and complaining as well as giving specific examples that went against Article II Sections 34-61, 34-63, 34-104,34-135. These sections of the Charter are provided to each vendor, solicitor, who takes out a permit to vend or solicit and I explain to each vendor or solicitor when they take out a vending permit that if we receive any complaints the supervisor in each situation will be contacted and if the complaints continue I explain that a permit will be pulled. I pulled the permit as the Code refers to Article II Section 10-36 which states that a vendor, solicitor must first register with the city clerk.
2. The City Clerk under this code section has jurisdiction to revoke the permit and I made the decision to revoke this permit.
3. Yes
The sections cited were in order Trespassing, Meddling or tampering with property, Begging and soliciting alms by accosting or forcing oneself upon th..., and Window Peeping. I found no first person account of anything in the record that indicated any willful violations of these. Even the hearsay entered into the record do not indicate Claire did any of these.
Regardless, section 10-36 of our city code does give her the jurisdiction to issue permits, but does not allow her to unilaterally revoke them-- or for that matter does not give anybody in the city any authority to "pull" a permit. A look at our city charter (section 10.2 (h))does not allow her the power to revoke any license or permit-- just to issue them.
So what we have here is a woman guilty perhaps of being good at her job, who rubs local teachers the wrong way with her heretical education books, who has not seriously been charged with any crime, or who has been given any kind of due process, ran out of the city by our officials. Sounds like another excellent civil rights lawsuit against the City of Ludington if she decides to do so.
Claire Schmoozing with More of Her Clients
Let's consider: this girl jumped through the needless local hurdles to register in Ludington, did nothing that has been determined to be illegal or unethical, and because one official without authority revokes her license on unverified rumor (without any dissent from the complicit city council), she immediately becomes the "book girl from Hell" with her story splayed everywhere, without even an attempt by the media or our officials to allow her the opportunity to defend her actions and her name.
Is there any better reason for eliminating the local licensing process and for getting our local government out of the business of choosing which businesses succeed or fail?
Epilogue
As part of my FOIA request to the city dealing with this issue, I received a copy of the revoked permit. Claire Whitcomb's copy taken from her Facebook page was presented at the beginning of this article:
Besides the handwritten "Permit Pulled", did you notice any other differences in the two permits? Claire covered her own addresses and phone number, because she valued her own privacy. The FOIA Coordinator of Ludington had no such consideration and allowed those two bits of information to be shared with everyone. Yet they routinely cover such private information on other public records they have given me over the years.
Views: 1467
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
Ludington is getting a reputation, which seems well deserved, as the anti Constitution city of Michigan. I would be curious to know how many City Council members, the Mayor and Manager as well as police officers vote Democrat and which ones voted for Obama and the Democrats? They all seem to act as a representative of promoting Obama's ideals and philosophy.
-
Permalink Reply by Jasper on
-
Willy,
I fail to understand what Obama has to do with this?? Or Democrats for that matter?? Thanks in advance for a further clarification.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
Most of the actions taken by a local government unit are not inherently liberal or conservative. These two opposing views are muted in local politics by the other political opposing view of statists and libertarians.
To whit, a statist is one who wants to expand the role of government at the expense of individual liberties, of which this country is based on. All our current councilors are statists by their repetitive actions in this regard, often going beyond the law to do so.
The last libertarian acting person on the council was Pete Engblade, and even he wavered and compromised towards the latter years of his twelve, as many libertarians do when they've been a part of the power for may years. Within the Democrat and Republican Parties, most of the infighting is caused by the clash of statists with libertarians in the party, as witnessed in the recent exchange in the Fox debate between Chris Christie and Rand Paul over Fourth Amendment rights.
Because of this, I believe that the majority of councilors voted for Romney in the last election, because he had strong statist leanings, as seen during his governorship of Massachusetts-- and he's a Pure Michigan product.
-
-
Well said X. Jasper, what I was trying to say, and should have said, is if someone supports Obama they also support his agenda which includes the limitations on freedom and the elimination of the Consititution, at least the neutering of it. Liberal / progressives are for control of the population by regulating every aspect of our lives through big government while conservatives promote limited government intrusions while encouraging individual accomplishments and personal freedom and liberty. Obama's philosophy and mode of governing is alive and well in Ludingtons ruling class.
-
-
Correct. Obama is a dedicated statist, as are anybody who label themselves as progressive, which is actually oxymoronic since there is fewer things more regressive to basic human rights and human progress than progressive philosophy.
Therefore, anybody who adores Obama because of his policies which are almost unilaterally against personal freedoms, should by extension also endorse such statist views. The logical fallacy in your original statement was the generalization that all statists gravitate to the Democrats and/or Obama, but the last two Republican presidential contenders, and George W. Bush, were more than ready to get rid of many basic Constitutional protections in the name of national security.
-
-
Thanks Willy for your response.
However, I do feel it is unfair to entirely place blame on President OBama, the Libertarian Party, or the Democratic Party. All parties are to blame for the erosion of the Constitution. To single out specific "Parties," is not fair.
With that being said, each past, present, and future president has or will "inherit, or inherited," the policies set forth.
So to blame the current President is not really fair. President Bush instituted the Department of Homeland Security, along with "Faith Based" propaganda.
In all actuality, it really is hard to distinguish between any "Parties," these days. They all have evolved into a mixture of "parties." There are no longer any distinguishable attributes to claim a "party affiliation."
As, an example Sheriff Cole ran his campaign on the Republican ticket, but is he truly what the Republican Party stands for?
-
-
Jasper. I agree that both party's have let down the U.S. citizenry and that politics is just a game between these 2 competing power grabbers where we are all caught in the middle, but to try and blend Obama into the mix as just another link in the deterioration of the Constitution is, in my opinion, missing the point. I know he isn't doing this demolition derby of the Constitution by himself but the fact that he is a proclaimed follower of Marxism doesn't exactly bode well for America's future. I don't consider the Bush's to be true Constitutional conservatives but more like puppets of the "New World Order" movement, so they are not fair comparison's. Compared to him Obama makes the Bush's seem like Paul Revere's. The fact that the Party's have blended into one is not a surprise because most of the politicians are products of the "baby boomer" revolution which has been heavily indoctrinated by the liberal / progressive public education system. Obama is the product of a Muslim background. He has been raised and formed by Communists influrences. He is nothing like any other President that has sat in the White House. Many people and apparently yourself, still cannot see what he represents and what he intends to do with America. He is a "socialist, Marxist, Communist and the leader of the Democrat Party". That's quite a mixture of political ideologies but it, frankly, describes exactly what the new Democrat Party is all about.
Obama has radical ties to Islam through the Muslim Brotherhood, radical ties to political terrorists and has made radical appointees to high Government offices. I suggest you do some research into Obama's past and present. He is the most dangerous person to hold a major office in the U.S. Government and the most radical president in our history.
http://keywiki.org/Barack_Obama_-_Controversial_and_Radical_Associates
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1791
-
-
Willy,
Please do not make assumptions of my political leanings...Hence your comment "Many people and apparently yourself..." Thank-you.
Merely was attempting to understand your correlation regarding President Obama and Claire the Book Girl and her denial of selling books in the COL, and COS.
How, this diatribe of anti-Obama sentiment ties in with "Claire" selling her goods at the local level baffles me! Do you truly believe President Obama had anything to do with this?
You posted web-site's of President Obama's alleged affiliations with all these "controversial" people or groups? Wiki??? Hell, take a google search and look at George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc...and one kind find plenty of negative, even questionable accusations or practices of their past.
It is the damn internet! One can find any source of information to support their view!
It really is a sad state of affairs....Is all the information out there on the WWW a positive or a negative???
-
-
Jasper. No I don't think Obama had anything to do with Claire. The point I am trying to make is the connection between the highest office in America and local office holders and the how their agenda's and mode of governing is the same. I am trying to show how people who support the Unconstitutional methods of governing are connected, so in my opinion, if local officials support Obama, it's a good bet they will also use his methods of side stepping the law in order to achieve their goals. This is what happened to the book girl. I might have taken a lengthy road to explain myself but I thought it is important to see how we are all being affected by liberal / progressive politics. Like any other source of information, including, libraries full of books, the internet can be a source of misinformation and pure propaganda. I have chosen to believe that Obama and many local politicians are eroding our freedoms not only because of information off the internet but from my own first hand experience with Government and hearing from other people I know who have personally experienced it. We have seen first hand what is going on.
-
Permalink Reply by stump on
-
Jasper, it must be true, it's on the internet. I think someone must be a farmer on here as their standing knee deep in bull shit. Obama must be a sheep farmer also. as he has the wool pulled over everybody's eyes. Really? where do you get those ideas? Now back to Claire the book girl.
-
-
I was checking across the internet to see whether any more issues had come up over the Claire Whitcomb situation, and actually found her own personal Facebook page, not her 'bookgirl' page. As I have noted, I haven't met Claire, but her likes, her travels, her attitudes that come across on her posts are all positive. I just can't see her being a bad person.
On the other hand, in my review of Christa Soller's Facebook posts, Claire's big detractor, which I re-reviewed, with the contents of her likes, her attitudes, her posts, she seems rather shallow and self-absorbed. But those are just my impressions.
Don't expect Claire to appeal her license revocation, because just like the revocation itself, there is no rules for it that exist for the city. Is anyone else troubled by the fact that any city official can claim the power to revoke a permit to sell things in this city at a whim upon unsubstantiated rumors? This is unbelievable tyranny.
-
Permalink Reply by shinblind on
-
Well some good might come of this after all.
If we can get Christa Soller to call 911 and complain that she saw John Shay" window peeping, trespassing, begging and soliciting alms, and tampering with property". And others went to the City Hall desk to lodge a complaint against Shay's pandering and and mismanaging city funds and not liking the looks of his smug mug do you think Chief Barnett will treat him with the same disdain that he showed to Claire The Book Girl Whitcomb, and prohibit Shay from operating within the city limits?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
