Manistee's 19th Circuit Court Holds Judicial Processes in Contempt

[XLFD]

Our regular readers will likely remember that I took the City of Manistee to their own county's circuit court in order to get the police incident report and the use-of-force report regarding the seriously under-reported shooting of Lee Pat Milks by a Manistee Public Safety Officer in the spring of last year.  If you don't, read all about it here.  Due to it being an active case, I have been averse to updating the news about it, until now.

It has been a surrealistic trip over the last eight months, culminating in a hearing before somebody who had no authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on January 30, 2018.  As I await that phony judgment arriving at my mailbox in the near future, and prepare a responsive motion, I am in the process of sending out a Request for Investigation to the Judicial Tenure Commission, a court watchdog group created and given powers under the state Constitution to discipline judges and courts behaving badly. 

Rather than paraphrase the warped conduct of the 19th Circuit Court and their actions in violation of state laws, Michigan court rules, and canons of judicial conduct, I share my entire grievance as a warning to those who may decide to use this court to achieve justice.  Hint, you're not likely to find it.  Will the 19th Circuit Court get an advantage by me revealing this before a potential investigation?  Probably, but I wish them luck in explaining the actions and activities of what seems to be the very definition of a kangaroo court.

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT: JUDGES THOMPSON, BATZER, 19^TH CIRCUIT

 

Introduction:  This is an allegation of several instances of misconduct involving my experiences with the 19th Circuit Court after filing a FOIA lawsuit in June 2017 in my neighboring county of Manistee to disclose a police incident report and a use of force report.  The misconduct involves:

1) the court failing in their duties under the FOIA as to timeliness of proceedings.

2) disallowance of the plaintiff to reschedule a scheduling conference and punitively holding a show cause hearing to dismiss the case, while allowing the defendant's lawyer to miss the rescheduled conference, conducted ex parte between the court administrator and me despite my protestations.

3) contacting the defendant ex parte to alert the case had been reassigned to a retired judge, without ever notifying the plaintiff of that action as required by court rules.

4) conducting a summary disposition motion hearing with the retired judge without settling the issue of whether he had been reassigned properly and had jurisdiction of the court.  The retired judge dismissed the invalid reassignment and jurisdiction issues, then decided the legal questions 100% against the plaintiff.

5) the court administrator and initial judge failed to address any of these issues immediately brought before them in writing after the conclusion of that hearing.

While I am resigned in getting any fairness or even an honest answer from the 19th Circuit due to the experiences of this first encounter with them, I hope the JTC can investigate the abuse of the judicial processes detailed herein and help cure the conduct which is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice in Manistee County.

 

                                    FACTS SHOWING MISCONDUCT

  

On June 2, 2017 I filed a summons and complaint for disclosure of records pursuant to the FOIA with the 19th Circuit Court clerk in Manistee. In that filing the court was advised of its duty under MCL 15.240(5) that "an action commenced under this section... shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way."  It was served on the defendant's city clerk on June 6, and returned to the court that day.  Defendant filed their answer timely within 3 weeks.  

The records sought regarded a police-involved shooting which had more than one version of events from authorities, where the defendant withheld the full incident report and use-of-force report using the investigative records exemption.  Just after the complaint answer was received, Manistee authorities held a press conference to announce the investigation was over.   Over a month later, in early August, I received a notice of a scheduling conference for August 21, 80 days after filing the FOIA lawsuit in order to get the records by the earliest practicable time.

The court administrator would tell me over time that this 80 day period was expeditious of their court to getting the matter adjudged.  The first time was when I called the court over a week in advance of the court date in order to move the hearing to a date that did not interfere with a two-day family reunion vacation I had planned for several months which could not be rescheduled.  I was rebuffed by the administrator, and told my only alternative was to get together with the defendant's attorney and agree to the details of the scheduling order.  This was unacceptable to me, since I wanted to go over aspects of the case with the judge at the scheduling conference.  I did call the other attorney and told them that I would not be at the conference.

Expeditiously two days after I missed the conference they would not reschedule, the court sent me an Order to Show Cause why I failed to appear at that conference (Attachment 1) without any mention of my attempt to have the conference rescheduled and the court administrator's denial of that.  That hearing for whether the court would dismiss the matter under MCR 2.504(B) for "defendant's failure to appear" (I was plaintiff) was expeditiously held two weeks after I received the notice.  Judge THOMPSON ruled it would not be dismissed at that hearing, and shortly thereafter, the conference was rescheduled for 9-22-2017.

Before that, I was sent a scheduling order filled with the defendant's attorney's selection of dates and was informed that they would not be able to attend the conference due to their own scheduling conflict and these dates would be what they would want the court to consider.  In Email correspondence I related to their attorney:  "my hope is that the judge will order the release of the records during the scheduling conference... For this reason, I insist that we have a scheduling conference attended by the judge, not a stipulated schedule where the release of almost-completely non-exempt records is not part of the stipulations."

The defendant had no representative at this "scheduling conference", furthermore the court was represented not by Judge THOMPSON as it declares in its scheduling order (Attachment 2), but by the court administrator.  By MCR 2.401(B)(1), such scheduling conferences involve judicial decisions of the twelve issues under MCR 2.401(C)(1) and four issues under MCR 2.401(B)(1) to be addressed by 'the court', i.e. the assigned judge.  

The attendant administrator would not consider any of these issues and did nothing but force me to adhere to the numbers entered by the other party found on that document as if she was acting as their attorney.  She could not give me any reason supported by court rules that said she had the authority to conduct this conference ex parte, or any reason why Judge THOMPSON was not part of the process, nor were any of these other issues addressed at that conference or appear in the scheduling order and of which I wanted addressed as per my right (by MCR 2.401(C)(1)) at the conference:  MCR 2.401(B)(1)  b, c, d and MCR 2.401(C)(1) a, c, d, f, g, h.

The court administrator was deaf to my concerns about the absence of the judge, why the absence of the defendant at the last minute was allowed without sanction when I was punished for doing the same a week before the previous conference, and why it was a fair process to have only one party there (me) while the court administrator boldly and uncompromisingly advocated for the opposite side.  I would not sign the order willingly.

In October 2017, defendant's attorney sent me the initial witness and exhibit list.  I failed to notice at the time that instead of Judge THOMPSON's name on the heading, she had used "Hon. James M. BATZER (by assignment)".  I recognized it after receiving the defense's Motion for Summary Disposition and seeing that same 'assignment' in the heading three months later in January 2018.  

I had received no notice, written or otherwise, from the court about the apparent reassignment as required by MCR 8.111(C)(1).  According to defendant's counsel after the motion hearing, she had never received any written notice either and could not remember where she had heard of the reassignment before using it on her documents.  Judge THOMPSON was active in other court actions, so I knew he wasn't on a sabbatical.

This greatly eroded any faith I still had of the legal process, as Honorable James BATZER retired from the 19th Circuit Court at the end of 2014, and I could see no reason why he would be assigned my case other than two scenarios:  1) Judge THOMPSON may have noted I had the winning legal argument and did not want to upset the defendant by ruling against them or being overturned at the appeal level if he ruled for them or 2) the court administrator, miffed by my questions of propriety at the scheduling conference and/or wary of Judge THOMPSON's potential conflict, did the assignment herself since the retired judge would not have to worry about the judgment politically as Judge THOMPSON would.  

The covert reassignment coupled with prior actions brings up multiple problems with Canon 3 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct dealing with both adjudicative and administrative duties (especially A(4), B(1), and B(2)).  Retired Judge BATZER would sit in judgment at the motion hearing, and instead of leading off with the arguments for my case, I instead had to point out that MCR 8.111(C)(1) was not followed and question the court's jurisdiction.  

Jurisdiction challenges need to be addressed when raised.  "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.  "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416.  "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

Judge BATZER, with three court officers present, waived my concerns by saying he had no control over what Judge THOMPSON decides to do and wouldn't offer to show the reassignment order or the authorization by the Michigan Supreme Court that allowed him to rule in a court that he was not a judge in for four years as required by MCL 600.226(1).  The challenge was effectively ignored, and Judge BATZER continued the tribunal, before finding for the other party with some rather circuitous reasoning.  

I am cognizant that this commission does not review or second-guess the decisions of a judge like an appeals court would, but such review might illustrate why Judge BATZER retired four years ago and was not a reasonable and fair arbiter over the legal aspects involved in this case due to diminishment of his abilities or lack of recent judicial experience.

As I presumed Judge BATZER rather than Judge THOMPSON would decide the hearing, I prepared a letter (Attachment 3) with most of my concerns to the court and Judge THOMPSON and presented it to the court administrator and the defense after the hearing.  In the ten days since, I have not received any sort of answer, nor do I expect any from the way the court administrator acted throughout the process.  

It should be supplementary noticed that two court officers (at least) from the 19th Circuit Court have filed federal lawsuits against the court administrator and Judge BATZER within three years of his retirement, by Kathy MacBride and Lynne Mikolajczak separately, both against the administrator and Judge BATZER.  Among MacBride's allegations were that the court administrator stopped providing notice of court events or gave notices late; Mikolajczak's was for whistleblowing.  Both received settlements.

 

                                                          CONCLUSION:

 

The five main criteria introduced as misbehavior by the court and further developed in the body of these allegations should illustrate why there is a basis for further investigation by the Judicial Tenure Commission into these reported wrongdoings and appearances of impropriety.  Honore De Balzac famously said "To distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society."  The 19th Circuit Court provided fair reason throughout to distrust their actions and their fairness in dispensing justice, I will surely report their malfeasance to others, as I do this commission, to warn them of the injustice and unfairness therein.

When the court repeatedly and without remorse violates state law, Michigan court rules, and acts contrary to the third canon of judicial conduct in administering justice it degrades itself to irrelevancy.  The 19th Circuit Court has bad actors within its midst whose purpose seems contrary to their stated mission and goals.  They must be called to account, and a diligent investigation should reveal that my experience with this court is not unique.

[John Doe Jr]

The lack of accountability and transparency is destroying the fabric of our country.

[XLFD]

I actually had a favorable impression of the City of Manistee over the last few years and the citizens.  They elected reformers to the city council, they ousted a less than stellar city manager, was wise enough to not hire corrupt Missourian Kevin Bookout as replacement manager, and appeared to be doing the hard task of being financially sound by cutting some fat off the budget.  

The Lee Milks killing has me rethinking all of those assessments with all of the complicit secrecy, extortive FOIA responses, and incomplete/contrary versions of what happened not to mention the hidden back story I'm hopefully going to learn about soon.  All city officers seem willing to be complicit after the fact. 

I've listened to hearsay about the 19th CC and other Manistee courts having staff that are less than public friendly.  I've found it out firsthand throughout this, some that didn't make it onto my request for investigation.  A house cleaning is in order.

Manistee city and county court officials haven't learned from their counterparts in Ludington that such behavior only gets me involved deeper in seeking truth and justice.

[XLFD]

At the time they noticed that they had closed the investigation and found nothing wrong, while coming forth with a different version of events than previously disclosed, they revealed the officer's name as Doug Vansickle.  Manistee has been reluctant to give me anything, I can't even inspect the police report and use of force of this closed investigation without paying a ransom of $250.  

Manistee County and City have an incredible roster of awful public servants and public attorneys (part of Ludington's current problems is that we have those same unscrupulous lawyers as our 'city attorney').  

[shinblind]

Can you expand on your statement,"...while coming forth with a different version of events than previously disclosed,..."?

What were the differences between the two "official" stories of what went down?

[XLFD]

Thanks for the inquiry, shinblind, I'll get into the specifics of that while I review my compilations over the next day or two.

[AQUAMAN]

Positively appears like the 19th and 79th Courts are in parallel, acting in true uniformity, to deny true justice, and push a warped agenda into action now and the future. When you get away with this for many years, because many attorneys and all citizens don't realize the violation of Michigan codes, and can't afford an appeal case, they just give up and live with it. And all this unethical activity to continue to CYA's, and deny transparency to citizens. Good job X, sorry you met another brick wall in Manistee, but, it's to be expected. Don't give up now with the JTC, but, they are just another watchdog agency also on gov't. payrolls.

[XLFD]

The 79th District Court in Mason County does have its problems with process and administration issues, but Judge Peter Wadel is honorable enough.  Mason County's 51st Circuit Court scares me about as much as the 19th Circuit with all of its political motivations and disdain for the rules; I haven't seen any improvement with the retirement of ethically-challenged Judge Richard I Cooper with former prosecutor/city-now county-stooge Susan Sniegowski.  

To his credit, I've yet to hear or experience a credible bad review of local Probate Judge Jeff Nellis as he enters his fourth year of public service.  And he's a good tennis player too.  

[Willy]

Sounds like the Court is in full CYA mode. If the truth were to come out there would probably be a lawsuit along with a huge payout to Milks family and a serious black eye to Manistee's reputation. One of the main questions I still have with this case is why a code enforcement officer is carrying a weapon. Excellent work X. I had to read this twice to be able to understand all the legal mumbo jumbo that is taking place inside Manistee's courts.

[XLFD]

The question I would like answered is why wasn't there anything in the code enforcement records showing any official action that was needed to be done in March, the last record regarding that address was in January 2017 and it had no official action envisioned taking place in the near future.  This was a city police officer there on something other than code enforcement activity.

Thanks for reading it twice, and let me know if you or others have any questions, PM me if you would be too embarrassed to ask it in the regular forum.

[Willy]

Thanks for the info. X. I did not know a police officer was at the property. Why would the police cover zoning an housing codes? Of course there was no body cam and we only have the officers version of the incident.

[AQUAMAN]

The zoning officer was again harassing the citizen. The trouble is, Lee shouldn't have went outside with his gun. That's when the cops were called, and then he lost his life in vain, sad ending, needless shooting.