Wahr on Free Speech

[XLFD]

In today's City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) 15 days after the bludgeoning heard round the city, a reader came out in support of Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett and his frank talk at the last city council meeting on March 24.  It was mostly in response to a letter that was written by Jana Brockwell that she took as being somewhat critical of Chief Mark Barnett.  To my knowledge I have never met either Jana or Terry before their submissions.  Please read the above links if you are unaware of the backstory, for I will comment on Terry's letter below and make an incorrect inference or two about her, like she has about me.

In paragraph two, Terry says Jana put her own spin on the Chief's comments, but in paragraph three, Ms. Wahr does not use his full statement:  "While he has every right, as provided by the Constitution, it doesn't make it right for you to be able to (bludgeon people indiscriminately)."  This is not respectful of my rights, and is not factual.  In the next paragraph, she infers that I'm a bully just because I can be.  Her viewpoint is unsubstantiated in her prose; I don't use bully tactics, unless one considers the truth and law applied to public officials as bullying tactics. 

Perhaps she was swayed by his use of terms to suggest clubbing, beating, bashing, bludgeoning and character assassination on my behalf, again without substance by Chief Barnett, which Wahr glossed over, or casually accepted as truth:

"What I don't think that they envisioned is to create a verbal club, somebody could bring out at will... and bludgeon people indiscriminately"

"My concern is, with Mr. Rotta, is the random use of the ability to say whatever he wants about whomever he chooses whenever he chooses to do it."

"And to create a forum to routinely bludgeon people."

" I'm supposed to protect and serve people, but I look around here on this council, I look around in the audience, I look in the mirror and I see people that have been bludgeoned by this constitutionally-protected speech, and it just doesn't seem right to me."

"I would say to you that I reject your notion that you just indiscriminately bash these people, and beat out of them the volunteer spirit."

Contrary to her next assertion, speech at a city council meeting is not all free, the person who has the floor should not be engaging in attacking private individuals or discussing things that fall without the realm of public policy and actions.  I make sure my speech is constructive and on public issues, Chief Barnett's speech was clearly not about any public policy and focused directly on a private individual, instead of the words he has said critical of some policy and acts by his city officials.  In his speech, it was either all about him, his feelings, or his false perceptions on my personal non-public actions and words:

"I myself have been called, my physical self appearance has been called into question, I've been called a pervert or some other type of terms."

"And it's because of your exercising your free right to say those things, or your view of your right to say such things, not fully recognizing that it hurts me, it hurts my family..."

In the third paragraph of the second column she mentions that Jana was wrong in inferring that Chief Barnett was disrespecting, deeming, and judging, for that I offer his own words once again to show Jana was more on track than she would think:

" I would like to apologize, apologize on Mr. Rotta's behalf to those men and women who have served as volunteer police officers and reserve police officers, as volunteer firefighters..."

"You should be ashamed of yourself"

"You should be ashamed of yourself" (again)

"Shame on you Mr. Rotta"

"Shame on you."

"I would suggest for you, Mr. Rotta, if you want to be part of the solution you better act appropriately."

'How does someone write on the topic of freedom of speech while telling someone they can't speak?', Terry poses at the end of column two; but Jana or I have never done this, Jana only infers that Chief Barnett uses his speech more responsibly, particularly because of all the power he has to wield over most of the rest of us in town by dint of his position.  All I want is for him to address the real topics, instead of addressing all the false issues he raised in his comments and focusing shame and asserting dominance over a private citizen who asked about the records and legality of the reserve police force.

Chief Barnett is the one trying to influence my speech by gaslighting my character, not Jana or I putting a limit on his speech.  Ironically, I can only speak for up to five minutes during the public comments, and unless there is a public hearing on something that I have an interest in, that's what I am strictly limited to.  Chief Barnett can speak for as long as he wants during any part of the meeting within reason.  Even when he uses over four minutes to personally attack me, I was only allotted one minute for any rebuttal.  Does that seem fair, Ms. Wahr?

Your last paragraph is so far off base among the people I routinely run into, or who contact me about being harassed by the Chief, and the behavior I have witnessed myself over the years.  Obviously, he knows who he has to butter up to keep his stature secure, and that applies to few general citizens.  But then, Terry Wahr is not just a common citizen, but the Pere Marquette Township's Building Inspector, who herself is probably vext because of my opposition to having LIAA take place in our local master plans.  I actually inadvertently went out of my way to thank her for helping fulfill a FOIA request I had sent to that township (see below).  Not bad for a bully that should be ashamed of himself.   By the way, the incorrect inference about Terry Wahr I alluded to at the beginning is that she is actually a man.

[Willy]

Terry is as ignorant of the facts as Barnett and the crew at City Hall. I take that back. They're not ignorant of the facts, they ignore the facts, then they lie about the truth. If one looks closely at the circus act called Ludington's governance you will see the same tactics used by liberals all over the Country, especailly Democrats, who  paint a negative picture of those that are trying to help promote honesty and integrity in Government. Wahr has joined the long list of incompetent, self serving, anti Constitutional, a_s covering, ignorant public officials that are commonly found in Ludington. Congratulations P.M. Township you have a real winner on your payroll. I wonder just how much inaccurate, lying propaganda P.M"s building official  has spread about Mr. Rotta while scurrying around the countryside carrying out his duties. He, along with Ludington"s elite ruling class have a duty to tell the truth but it seems that every time they open their mouths out gushes ignorance and lies. This is obvious to anyone who has been following this story and paying attention to the facts. In my opinion,the way these officials have been spreading lies with the aid of LDN is almost criminal.