Public Lynching on a Private Individual by John Shay

[XLFD]

Late into last night's meeting City Manager John Shay, obviously vexed, made some comments during the "Communications from public officials" part of the meeting.  It was not part of the agenda, but it was part of an overall agenda.  Here's what he said (1:03:00 in):

 

Ludington City Manager John Shay:  "I feel compelled to respond to Mr. Rotta's comments earlier in the meeting, today. He indicated that he won the lawsuit of the workplace safety policy. That is not correct. The case was settled, the city made the decision to settle the case because unfortunately it was less expensive to settle than pay our legal costs. In fact, there is not any factual basis for many of his claims in that lawsuit. He indicated that this letter of trespass was used against him because of the 195 FOIAs that he has submitted to the City, and that's not true. It was filed because there were employees that felt threatened by him frankly. And there is a side of me that understands that. You're the one that has taken a family photo of mine without permission, superimposed a slash mark, and a Darth Maul character against it, a family photo that I didn't give you permission to use. You take pictures of the house, you're entitled to go out on the street and take photos of the house, you can do that. I have had to deal with parents or teachers coming up to my wife and saying that you are staring at my wife and my kid while they're at school. You bring up allegations of corruption, lining my pockets, yet no evidence, there is no evidence, because no one has ever lined my pockets, and no one ever will. You mentioned earlier about the Golden Rule, about treating people how they want to be treated, and it's strange or funny that you don't follow your own rule. That's not very surprising. That's all."

Ludington City Councilor Kaye Holman:  "Your honor. I just want to say thank you to John. We are not, we don't always agree on everything, but dammit he's right."  (spontaneous applause)

 

The rest of the council then voted to adjourn, and I left without issue from anyone else.  Unable to respond publicly to the rocks he lobbed at me.  Until now.  Here are the issues of contention with correction by the slandered party.

 

1)  "He indicated that he won the lawsuit of the workplace safety policy. That is not correct. The case was settled, the city made the decision to settle the case because unfortunately it was less expensive to settle than pay our legal costs." . 

As noted in this legal site, "in a civil lawsuit, the victim brings a case for money damages against the offender or a third party for causing physical or emotional injuries".  My side found itself $15,000 wealthier at the end of this case.  John Shay's side lost that $15,000, and they allegedly spent over $16,000 on their own legal expenses besides.  That's a loss of over $31,000.  I don't think it's a controversy to say that the plaintiff prevailed, but I'm not creating mythology for the taxpayers.

 

2)  "In fact, there is not any factual basis for many of his claims in that lawsuit." 

Uttered without any references to one of those many claims.  He is free to speak about the case, so maybe one day he can list all those unfactual claims, but he has yet to mention one, even in his press release issued before the case was officially settled.

 

3)  "He indicated that this letter of trespass was used against him because of the 195 FOIAs that he has submitted to the City, and that's not true."

Not true, simply because there was significantly less than 100 FOIA requests submitted before the letter of trespass was issued back in the beginning of 2011.  But also not true because in the original press release besides saying that "one of our employees felt physically threatened and intimidated by him" (one whom I never formally met, but whose ethics had been called into question due to what was uncovered in FOIA replies), the only indication of my behavior that could be interpreted as threatening would have been the FOIA requests or bicycling.  Since the Ludington Police Station was part of the letter of trespass, I could only figure it was the former. 

 

4)  "It was filed because there were employees that felt threatened by him frankly." 

And one of those employees petitioned the court for relief from this perceived threat, and was summarily denied by a city-sympathetic judge saying all things I did was constitutionally protected.  Stuff that a reasonable private person would not feel threatened by, and particularly not a public official.  Heather Venzke's felt her public position was threatened because she had repeatedly violated the public trust in her public policy.  I have recently learned at Shay's deposition that someone else I hadn't even heard of, or contacted, also felt threatened enough by my visits to look at documents.  Which is a good reason why this policy is dangerous to all. 

Most of my friends and family are personally frightened of City Manager Shay, but they don't craft their own laws and slander him in the newspaper.

 

5)  " And there is a side of me that understands that.  You're the one that has taken a family photo of mine without permission, superimposed a slash mark..."

This is a reference to a post about "Freedom of Information Week" made by a poster named "John" shortly after I had the letter of trespass put on me, in March.  "John" had put up a picture of Shay with a line across it, like they do here, but he has since departed on his own. 

"John" wasn't one of my aliases, and I admitted such under oath during my 6 hour plus deposition by the City in the Federal suit.  He would probably be surprised if he knew who "John" was.  Nevertheless, doing such is a matter of free speech and well within "John"s rights to post.  Accusing me of doing this means he was intentionally misrepresenting facts to put me in a bad light.

 

6)  "... and a Darth Maul character against it, a family photo that I didn't give you permission to use."

This photo is shown below, and linked here:

Whereas, I have no idea where "John" got his photo from, my photo was taken from the internet, a picture of John Shay from the May 2011 Michigan Municipal League meeting superimposed on a picture of Darth Maul.  This is not a family photo unless you're talking about the Darth Maul half.  Again, this photo-morph was political speech, taking issue with what led up to the City's unconstitutional policy.

 

7)  "You take pictures of the house, you're entitled to go out on the street and take photos of the house, you can do that."

I will grant his thesis, but it does sound creepy.  However, I have never taken any pictures of Mr. Shay's house, period, and his comment was either made on erroneous hearsay information, or was deliberately stated to intentionally misrepresent the facts in order to put an uppity citizen in a bad light. 

 

8)  " I have had to deal with parents or teachers coming up to my wife and saying that you are staring at my wife and my kid while they're at school."

At the 9-24-2012 Ludington City Council meeting, the meeting after my lawsuit with him was entered into the Federal court system, John Shay stared at me with seemingly bad intent for over two minutes.  That video doesn't lie.  As for John's wife and kid, I would not recognize them if I walked by them on the street, and have never done what his hearsay informants, parents or teachers, say I have. 

 

9)  "You bring up allegations of corruption, lining my pockets, yet no evidence, there is no evidence, because no one has ever lined my pockets, and no one ever will." 

Here is what I said earlier:  "Steel water towers in our climate need to be painted only every 20-30 years, so without any competitive bids ever sought, without any reason to paint these towers more than ten years before they needed to be painted, without any sort of labor or materials itemization on their contract, John Shay and the 2011 City Council, well represented here, voted unanimously for this project.  One has to wonder whose pockets were lined by the three-quarters of a million dollars overcharge."  It's a good question, and I'm sure the City Manager didn't get the full cut-- there is too much looking the other way going on.  He seems touchy on the subject of his own involvement, but I think they can't line his pockets because his pockets are likely full.  There is plenty of evidence of corruption, but not anybody with the stones or authority to prosecute them fully.

 

10)  "You mentioned earlier about the Golden Rule, about treating people how they want to be treated, and it's strange or funny that you don't follow your own rule."

Not surprisingly, he massacres the Golden Rule (Treat others as you prefer to be treated, etc.).  Let me be clear, I do not attack John Shay personally; when I criticize him, its for him acting in his public official capacity.  I invite anyone to find a personal attack I have ever leveled on John Shay or his family, other than what he passes for fact under color of his authority, at this meeting.

 

In closing, I will never again bring my family members to this meeting where they personally attack an individual for using his constitutionally protected speech, doing so by using hearsay, innuendo, or just pure falsehoods. Then punctuating their diatribe by swearing like Councilor Holman did:  "I just want to say thank you to John. We are not, we don't always agree on everything, but damn it he's right." 

I am more firm in my resolve than ever that the Ludington City Hall is the most corrupt entity around these parts, and that's saying something. 

[AQUAMAN]

I think the "ethical conduct" part is the root of the whole problem here. When Shay and Wilson were originally interviewed by the Mayor and Council, they saw something in them they didn't see in the other candidates at all. That was their willingness to be "yes" men, to ally themselves with any schemes or means to achieve a fixed agenda for the long run. To follow orders given from the top, no matter the cost or how it appears to the public. The main thing is they don't cross over into thinking for themselves, and oppose any orders that Henderson gives them, period. We have seen this type of crony politics for many years around here, examples are the firings of others, whom did NOT follow orders, and proceeded to think with ethics, then find themselves out of a job. How about Morrill, Miller, and Byers? There was also another, a former building inspector, his name escapes me for the moment, but he too, was given an ax, after many successful years of service, suddenly, they said his qualifications were inadequate, was the excuse. There are also a host of others in the tank, with lesser profiles in the COL's roster of former employees that could attest to this system of checks and balances that are afraid for their pensions that won't leak this dirt.

[masonco]

eYe... I think more people respect that Tom did settle and saved money since it is obvious to most...(except shay) that he would have won.

[XLFD]

Thanks, Masonco; let's not forget that John Shay was the main defendant in this lawsuit, and if he thinks that paying me off is winning for him, then I will nod my head and say "OK-- and let me get this straight: you're managing my city?  Seriously?"

But here's the answers to EyE's three inquiries:

1)  If I recall correctly, the "Answer" to my lawsuit filed my MMRMA Attorney Alan Vander Laan, finished off with the typical "Defendant requests this lawsuit to be dismissed with prejudice and for plaintiff to remunerate us for legal expenses in dealing with this matter."  Now, gee, if the judge actually decided to do that at some point, I would have had to pay the City's legal expenses.  So if that scenario occurred, the other side would not only have not paid anything, but I would have wound up a lot poorer.  Apparently, the City thought the likelihood of that happening was unlikely. 

The second part of your first question is no, the third can be answered by saying that it takes two parties to settle, and the terms were favorable to my side, showing to a reasonable person that I won.  I did not need to go the extra route and get vindication from the judge that my 1st, 4th and 15th Amendment rights were broken, as well as my right to vote and to go to open meetings, etc.  These are also easily seen when one dispassionately looks at the Workplace Safety Policy in its current form and function.

2)  He is always free to relate which of my claims are not factual, and I will tell him exactly why they are, and people can make their own judgments.  But I don't see him doing that. 

3)  The March 5, 2011 press release mentioned employees feeling threatened and intimidated by me.  Instead of saying why they might be, he related that I give the city a lot of FOIAs and that I drive thru stop signs.  Since I had never met Ms. Venzke properly or the other woman I found out about last month, I figured they could only have been fearful with the information I asked for, cutting into their free time and threatening their future hubby's sign business with the City.  I never came close to running them over with my bicycle by running through a stop sign, after all.

 

Whereas I do like a positive public perception, it's not high on my list.  If I'm doing what I think is right, and it is the right thing to do, the public will figure it all out eventually, and either line up against me if they feel threatened by what I do, line up beside or behind me because they want fairness and justice too, or go about their business because it's not all that important to them.  I've been standing up to these guys for 5 years now, appealing to their fairness and goodness, and not getting any takers in the power corridors at Ludington City Hall.  It's a shame.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for taking the initiative for clarification X, it's certainly NOT the position of a "pied piper" either.

[Willy]

Eye

It wasn't enough that X posted a detailed topic, you needed more explanation before you were satisfied. If you would have researched Miranda on the internet you would have found that X was doing an excellent job of presenting the facts. It's OK to be a doubting Thomas but being one out of ignorance is no way to carry on a conversation. Also, a court case is not the only way to prove an individual has taken the correct position in a disagreement.

[AQUAMAN]

Doubting Thomas indeed, you get me WIlly, lmao. Tip of the hat goes to Masonco too, for a very insightful post(s).

[Willy]

Eye

if you would take the time and read the posts you may find that they may not say what you interpret them to be. I do my own research on most subjects posted. I don't blindly agree on what anyone says, as you imply. Your Pied Piper comment was a snide remark to all who support X with his conflicts with Government. Referring to us as Pied  Piper followers won't make you any Friends. Frankly I don't care who you care about. You were an agitator in the beginning but tempered your tone when you finally realized what X was trying to explain to you was the truth. He's to much of gentlemen to snipe back at posters who are and were negative to him and his causes but I on the other hand am not. So please stop playing the poor, innocent  poster who is unfairly criticized.

[AQUAMAN]

Very well said Willy, you clarified this area very diligently and with due respect. On the rebuttal of Shay, which I now finally had time to view, I ask Shay, do we as the public always have to believe what you say? Can you prove your bank accounts are all in order, from salaries alone? Should we really believe your continued phony excuses for losing a court battle as just to save taxpayer monies? When have you yourself ever admitted any mistakes, errors, or just plain being human? You hide behind a formal podium of public servant appointed, no one voted you into your office, and I really doubt anyone would be foolish enough to vote for you IF you ever ran for ANY office here in Ludington. You are supposed to be a respectful hired public servant. You have proved over and over again that your loyalties and confidences are with your peers and John Henderson alone, not for the public trust and good as one would assume you should be. Your "circus act" doesn't fool people that know you, your temperament, how you react to situations with haste and harshness, how you repeatedly and constantly ask for city attorney advice, not able to think and act on your own, lacking in composure and wisdom. How you have a honed ax of hatred for a number of locals that are interfering with you, simply by asking for FOIA information, or trying to post legal election signage, and so much more. You've been partially found out, and what we have so far isn't boding well for you. Continuing to investigate ALL the deals and contracts in depth, may reveal many more truths into the future, which I expect will be forthcoming with time, and effort.

[XLFD]

It's an easy thing to forget sometimes, but City Manager John Shay works on behalf of the city council.  He is hired, fired and evaluated by them.  Everything John Shay does, is usually and should be done with full knowledge and backing of the Ludington City Council. 

 

When John Shay gets into a no-bid contract for painting the water towers. 10-20 years before they need painting, and at $800,000 more than the expected amount should be, he is not acting unilaterally. 

The Public Utilities Committee, then chaired by Councilor Castonia and the Finance Committee, then chaired by Councilor Kay Holman, both staffed by a quorum of councilors taken together, had full knowledge that tower painting was optional at the time and that no competitive bidding took place, and one would hope that they knew it was far from a competitive price. 

So it is normal to ask where the money went, and look suspiciously at all these guys who ignored protocol in spending $1.2 million of local taxpayer money on a needless project.  What is not normal is to do what every single one of our city councilors, then and now, are doing in standing mute on the topic.

[XLFD]

EyE,

In your context, the pied piper reference did not have a clear antecedent, meaning it could be applied to either the City's followers (rats and mice) or my followers (freedom-loving boys and girls) depending on the reader's interpretation. 

Blaming Willy for your own ambiguity is therefore, not all that constructive.  But thank for clarifying your words.  Ambiguity is great in poetry, but sometimes causes problems in prose, particularly on this site.

[AQUAMAN]

I also misunderstood and applied EyE's comment towards X, good we got some clarification on that.

[XLFD]

EyE,

It still seems unclear.  In the "Pied Piper of Hamelin", via wikipedia: "the piper is a rat-catcher hired by the town to lure rats away with his magic pipe. When the town refuses to pay for this service, he retaliates by turning his magic on their children, leading them away as he had the rats." 

I could easily fit the role of the piper.  In a sense, I an individual, was hired by the town of Ludington to assist them with putting out fires (via water pipes, LOL).  When the town showed that it was not honorable, and in fact corrupt, I turned my magic website on the children of all ages of the town to lead them away from the villainous rats at City Hall. 

Reversing the roles does not make as much sense, with the pied piper being played by Ludington City Hall /Shay and me being the town/mayor of Hamelin.  That is why I was like Aquaman and Willy in misinterpretting your post.