Murphy's Oil, Scope

[XLFD]

In the course of litigating a nine-count lawsuit against the City of Scottville and five of its officers individually, I received an unexpected surprise while going through items received through discovery.  It was a police report authored by Scottville Police Chief Matt Murphy (who was also serving as interim city manager at the time) that described what happened at the Scottville Optimist Hall at a commissioner meeting on the night of May 3rd.  

The morning after I published an account of what happened at that May meeting while it was still fresh in my mind, an account which has never been under dispute at the Ludington Torch, the Ludington Pitchfork, our Facebook outlet, the meeting's minutes or any other known forum, including the Ludington Daily News.  The latter actually took a picture of the affair while it was going on and their reporter Riley Kelley described the event in the newspaper as follows:

"Ludington resident Tom Rotta was removed from Monday’s meeting for “causing a disturbance,” after refusing to stop holding up a sign that included language about the city’s charter.

For the past several meetings, since Spencer altered the city’s meeting format to include only one public comment period, Rotta has regularly spoken out against the decision, stating that it went against the city’s own charter.

The change was initiated on April 5, and on April 19, the commission unanimously passed a resolution to make it the new format moving forward.

That resolution stated that procedures, including public comment, outlined in the city charter can be suspended in accordance with parliamentary procedure, which allows the presiding officer, Spencer, to set the agenda.

The city stated that the resolution was in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act, and that citizens still had time to address the public body during meetings.

At the start of the meeting, Spencer asked Rotta to take down his sign, saying that it was causing a disturbance. He refused, and Police Chief Matt Murphy said that if Rotta did not remove the sign, he would be asked to leave the meeting.

After some back-and-forth, Rotta put the sign down, then appeared to reach for it again.

Murphy gave him yet another verbal warning. Rotta picked the sign back up, asked what was wrong with it, and Murphy and Case escorted Rotta from the Optimist Hall.

Rotta spent the remainder of the meeting standing outside the entrance, holding the sign up in the commissioners’ view..."

Reporter Kelley's account gels completely with mine; though in clarification, when Kelley wrote 'picked the sign back up', describes my effectively moving the sign from the floor to the right of me (where I had covered up my agenda and comment on putting it down) and lifted it off the ground only an inch or two to place it behind my chair on the ground.  That simple act triggered the chief into taking matters into his own hands.  One would think that such a drastic measure would be recorded in the May 3rd meeting's minutes (see p. 5), which were approved without change at the next meeting on the 17th (see p 5).  It was never mentioned at all.

It should also be noted as significant that City Clerk Kelse Lester and City Attorney Alvarado were absent from the meeting, and that the person who actually wrote the minutes is never attributed, though this chore has usually fallen to Mayor Marcy Spencer, who would have a good reason for forgetting that her actions spurred the removal of a person sitting quietly at their chair.

While it appears that the city commission wanted to forget this episode from their official meeting minutes, and ergo from the historical taint that it will achieve following this lawsuit's ultimate conclusion in my favor, Chief Murphy decided to commemorate it with a police report of a 'disturbance'.

It's rather unlikely that the conversation the chief had with the other two officials noted in 'Information' is properly characterized, because he uses that private confab to try to say that the mayor asked me to take down the sign 'so that others could see behind him'.  She never used that language, had she asked me to lower the sign so others could see what's going on, I would have complied.  As noted in both accounts by the assembled media, she wanted the sign down because in her mind it was creating a disturbance. 

The diagram I made above (not drawn to exact scale) shows the layout of the Optimist Hall that day.  As you can see from the original photo I was as decentralized as possible and had there been people in the seats behind me they could easily see both Spencer and Alway, while the sign at my forehead level would likely only obscure their view over the form of Chief Murphy, whose bulk totally obscured my view of the two other commissioners on his side of the table.

In reality, Murphy interjected himself then, doubling down on the public disturbance I was supposedly creating, he never mentioned anything about putting the sign down 'so the rest of the public could see the meeting'.  Not surprisingly, Mr. Kelley's report reflects reality.

Murphy asserts that I said something about leaning the sign against my chair so it could still be seen, and I never said that.  I did that, as noted shifting it at floor level from my side to the back of my chair, and that's when he committed to removing me from the hall.  He never said anything about obstructing the views of others.  

"Rotta put his sign up again, obstructing the view of the public behind him" is completely false, as is Mayor Spencer getting back into the debate.  "I walked back to Rotta and asked him multiple times to stop holding the sign over his head.  Rotta advised he wasn't going to put it down." is pure fiction and fabrication, as is the direction from Mayor Spencer to remove me-- he did it all on his own.

"I asked Rotta to stand up multiple times".  Untrue.  "Rotta advised he was not moving."  Fallacious.  "I advised Rotta I am going to physically remove him if he didn't stand up and walk out."  Wrong.  "Rotta advised he was not moving."  Fallacious, the second time too. 

Chief Murphy warps reality in order to make it look as if I was creating a disturbance, that I wasn't being reasonable by lowering the sign so that others could see, I was otherwise acting unruly, and that his actions were under the directions of the mayor.  It's not what happened though, and isn't it surprising that he never mentions what's on the sign in dispute in his report?

This is the same city official who claimed comp time he didn't qualify for and allowed other officials to rob the city coffers when he was the interim city manager.  Murphy committed three criminal acts involving public extortion, destroying public records, and destroying evidence of a crime.  Chief Murphy is a bad hombre who won't let law or the truth get in the way of his selfish advancement.

Which is why he must be called out on his corruption, since it is likely that he has been using his position to make even more money illicitly than what he's been caught with and making life difficult for Scottville citizens who he targets, some of which I've heard from.   Someone in power who could lie so easily on a police report that over a dozen people could refute, would have no issue with doing that to innocent folks caught in his crosshairs.

[Willy]

Another excellent and informative post X. One thing people can count on when you post is that you back up your opinions and situations with facts. Not only facts but with pictures and diagrams that show much more context and insight as to what took place than any local authority or press will dare reveal. You have revealed the underbelly of corruption that controls local politics. Many thanks.

[XLFD]

What made the disclosure of this report even more interesting was that the other side presented a motion for summary disposition of the nine counts against them under c(10) grounds on Thursday, meaning that they believe the facts in the case are totally agreed upon by both parties and judgment is solely a matter of law.

In just this one count, however, one can see all of the differences in the fact sets of both parties, and it continues down the line with other dishonest and misleading affidavits from others being sued for not following the law.  Certainly there can be some counts up for summary disposition (in my favor, naturally) but not too many.