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. 

[Willy]

Eye

You were questioning X, specifically 3 points that he had made. After he explained his position in more detail you added your "thanks" then installed your Pied Piper comment. You gave no reference that would allow anyone to consider you were talking about citizens and the local Government. Also notice you end many of your posts with snide comments. Do you really think your not going to get a reaction from them. If I didn't know better I would think you were looking for conflicts.

[AQUAMAN]

This perhaps, is sometimes the problem with an online talk forum. Someone may infer or interpret one's comments in a way that is negative, when in fact they may be referring to another party, not the one we thought. That's why I still prefer talking to someone either in person, or on the phone. Usually these misinterpretations can be sorted out rather quickly, and honestly. EyE, thanks for clarifying your position, and next time, try to be more exact in your finger-pointing, just for courtesy's sake. Then we all can breathe a little sigh of relief, and focus more on the thread, not an individual.

[XLFD]

EyE,

I would dare say that Willy is my biggest critic.  But the thing about being a critic is that they look deep into the various aspects of what they are critiquing and provide an evaluation, whether positive or negative.  Willy is probably the best bellwether around these parts, because he almost always has an added perspective others never thought of, or an extra point others missed. 

A 'critical' look into the archives shows that he is free with praise, pans, and postulations of everyone.  He does his homework, comments on topic, responds with reason, and is definitely not a blind follower of anyone-- except maybe his significant other.  I don't know the logistics of that arrangement.

EyE, you need to focus more on the issues/facts instead of the personalities involved.  Divorce the comment from the one who comments as best you can.  Not only will it make you better received, but it will help you be more receptive to knowledge.  It's a lesson I've learned over the last few years.

[Willy]

You give me to much credit for knowing what I'm talking about. And by the way that significant other is now living in Barbados with the pool boy. I don't know if I'm your biggest critic or not but I do know that if a bicycle, motorcycle or pedestrian falls out of the sky and kills me as I sit in in a  car in my garage, you  will undoubtedly place the  blame squarely on me because I am the motorist.  As for the praise I give others "you can all kiss my ....."

[AQUAMAN]

Barbados with the pool boy? That's priceless Willy.

[XLFD]

In your example, it sounds as if you did steal their right-of-way to hit the ground without your blasted motorist interference, but you should also be cited for your flimsy garage roof too, and that it was not equipped with airbags for such an incident. 

I suppose it could have been worse if they fell in your pool though.  The new pool boy isn't half as good as Carlos was.

[Willy]

That's funny X.

[XLFD]

Last night, there was no comment made by John Shay to correct the reckless assertions he made at the end of the June 24, 2013 meeting.  Now, I don't know how I can ever sufficiently prove that I've never purloined one of his family photos and superimposed a slash over it and published it, or that I've never took a photo of his house or stared at his wife and kid at school, except to say under oath that I've never done so, and encourage John Shay to bring forth his own proofs of such assertions or have his unreferenced witnesses say under oath that I have done those things. 

The Ludington City Council, who is responsible for the conduct of this employee of the City, obviously condones such defamation because lies have been accepted for the second meeting as gospel truth.   

[AQUAMAN]

Simple to say, but not prove with Shay. Afterall, as stated previous, he doesn't make errors, mistakes, nor even slight fumbles. He's the "perfect human" in all respects. After the die was cast for him, they destroyed it. Thank God!