Ludington City Council September 13, 2021: Audio Illusions, Adieu Conclusions

Surprisingly, one would think that after a three week break from city council meetings at the end of summer in a tourist town there might be a lot of business, but there were zero action items on the agenda for the Ludington City Council on the evening of September 13, 2021. 

This would explain the meeting lasting only 21 minutes and why it will be remembered solely for the reports and public comments that took place.  Councilor John Terzano reminded the council that public projects the City plans to do should be going before the Planning Commission for their review and approval, a process that hasn't been happening.  City Attorney Ross Hammersley affirmed that interpretation of the law, and City Manager Mitch Foster acknowledged that this hasn't happened in the past for city projects, but that it would be done in the future if the city attorney further confirmed the process. 

Ironically, this was one of the points my co-plaintiff and myself brought up in court as regards the splash pad.  If this had been the procedure then, she would have received notice about the splash pad being planned at Copeyon Park and would have been able to voice her issues with the construction, before the city council effectively made it a done deal outside the purview of the community.  City leaders and their hired attorneys fought against that interpretation of zoning law back when we brought it before them, but not this night when friendly, elected forces brought that same law in front of them.

Foster reported that new owners at 102 Second Street (previously owned by Edgar Struble) would be seeking a new OPRA (Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act) for fixing it up and not being punished for having his taxes go up immediately.  He also mentioned there was going to be some sort of environmental clean up with the Blue Ribbon Cleaners property.  Additionally, he pointed out that 5th graders would be visiting city hall around 2 PM on Friday as part of their civics learning.  

A couple of citizens spoke out.  Lauren Brenowicz made the case for the City to look into whether a deer cull should be considered, citing a deer attack on a dog among other anecdotes.  She was hopeful that the currently dead traffic light at Jebavy and Bryant (for the new elementary) should be activated as soon as possible to alleviate traffic problems already existing there.  The new school is scheduled to be ready for students in January.

I spoke twice this night, challenging the city council to consider disciplining their FOIA Coordinator for lying to them at the last meeting, and for a history of lying in response to FOIA requests.  Three of those fibs are currently three of the counts against the City of Scottville with my lawsuit against them.  I am not happy at all when people don't tell me the truth, and Attorney Carlos Alvarado (pictured above) irritates me even more when he doesn't admit to his mistakes-- he even urges Ludington's council and Scottville's clowncil to back his initial lie when he is finally forced to release the records, when the false certification becomes evident.

I provide a transcript of the first and second comments I made.  The second was a continuation of the first.

September 13th, 2021 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  "Three weeks ago, FOIA Coordinator Carlos Alvarado came before this council acting in its capacity as a judicial body for a FOIA appeal.  Carlos had prepared a memorandum for the council prior to the meeting, undoubtedly claiming the hours researching and drafting the memo as a fee costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which had its own claim that 13 minutes of audio was exempted because someone's name was mentioned.  In person, Carlos claimed multiple times that a person's name was redacted to protect their privacy, this mirrored his memo which said:

"In this case, the privacy exemption was utilized to redact the name of the victim who had called the police."

This is compelling but totally untrue.  This city council backed the FOIA Coordinator's response, but allowed for the release of the missing audio.  Three weeks later, I haven't received anything from the City, but I have attended a court proceeding where the unedited version of the video and audio were played for Judge Middlebrook.  He reviewed the portion of tape that Carlos removed the audio from for at least three times, before deciding to dismiss the three felony resisting charges on the real victim of this incident.  

I wrote down what was said by the citizen who was unlawfully assaulted, not lawfully arrested, by three LPD officers.  While School Resource Officer Chad Skiba pressed his knee down on the back of the real victim's neck, what was said was fairly clear, and none of it was anybody's name:

"Let me breathe.  Let, me, breathe.  Please...let... me... breathe." followed by an immobilized silence.  

When you watch it, it's hard to not think of what happened with George Floyd repeating his plaintive cry of "I can't breathe." while pressed down by four Minneapolis police officers.   What you don't see in this video is any kind of resistance being offered by the innocent victim.  It's very sad, and I can see why Carlos may have wanted to protect the three officers from being charged with their own felonies and the City of Ludington from being sued in federal court.

All city councilors should watch this unedited video, not only to see what their police force is capable of, but primarily to see that Carlos willfully lied to them, the public, and to the plaintiff in the administrative appeal, both in his memo and in his testimony.  Lying about something so substantive in a real court of law would suggest that perjury charges should follow; if this council does not show the public that they will not discipline such breaches of the public trust sternly, the people will lose trust in everything you say and do."

"If you should rationalize that Carlos' perjury was somehow unintentional, the record clearly shows otherwise, as he has done three things very similar in the last year while acting as city attorney in Scottville.  

Earlier this year, Carlos denied the Daily News and myself the records of an investigation after it had been shared with the Scottville City Commission.  The exemption he used seemed to not apply, yet at a later date he had the commission uphold his decision, but release the record.  The exemption he used turned out to not apply when he used it, he lied during the administrative appeal hearing and in his memo.

Carlos denied a car-pedestrian accident report from the Scottville PD, claiming the full report was exempt, citing exemptions that would only apply to a very small part of the record.  Carlos would later have the commission support his decision to initially deny the records, but release it at the later date because the exemptions no longer existed.  As Maury Povitch would say:  "That too was a lie."  Once again, Carlos testimony and memo to the administrative appeal tribune were untrue.

On that report, he cited the privacy exemption in a spot in the narrative where it didn't seem logical.  I appealed that to the Scottville Commission, and once again he had them vote to support his denial.  My copy from the prosecutor's office showed the redacted record was not personal under any definition, he once again lied via memo and in person.  

The memoranda that he creates generally do not make a very good legal argument, and as noted, have been based on lies.  Both Ludington and Scottville city halls pay him a couple hundred dollars an hour to write his fiction and spout his untruths to you.  I don't like serial liars, elected public servants should not like serial liars.  Let's lose this lying liability." [END]

A major surprise came at the end of the meeting.  Noting that Mr. Foster finally handed me the lesser edited videos they approved release of at the last meeting, along with another response which was also late, Councilor Terzano addressed the issue.  This was totally unexpected, and so was what he proffered, which countered my narrative.  

Terzano expressed that when he hears of strong allegations of others that seem questionable, he goes to the source to see what the truth is.  He then related that he listened to the unedited video and determined that Alvarado had not lied about the name of the victim being in the edited part.  I listened disbelievingly, for I had heard otherwise in court, albeit, from about twenty feet from the portable computer source that was playing the video.  

I heard what I heard in court, the guy knocked out by the police (who wouldn't relive the experience in court) thought that's what he said.  Lindsey, the girl whose name was mentioned and who was standing in the living room when her boyfriend was assaulted by LPD, also thought that "Let me breathe" was what he said.  But the new videos I received, with unedited audio this time, has him saying "Lindsey please" and "please Lindsey please".  

One wonders why he was appealing to her while being manhandled by three cops, but that's what the released video says when listened to slowly.  Under slow-motion analysis, the first time he says "please" it sounds an awful lot like "breathez" due perhaps to the carpet he was being pressed into muffling his words and/or his state of sobriety.  Standing 20 feet away from the unedited audio also seems to give the audio illusion that he's saying "Let me breathe", especially if that's what you're expecting to hear.  

So even though Mr. Alvarado did not lie when he said that the victim's name (who wasn't a victim by her own admissions that night and since) was edited out, he was still unwarranted in claiming that the "Lindsey please" was edited out for personal privacy reasons when the police report released by him had Lindsey's full name four times and just her first name in 21 different locations.  Carlos lied and broke the law in doing so.  

I appreciate Councilor Terzano for pointing out the truth, I wish he had went farther and wondered why Mr. Alvarado would decide to use an unlawful exemption right in the midst of unlawful police interactions with the public.  I had an article with the edited videos published for weeks with a video where it appears that he said "Let me breathe", none of the people making up the more than 500 views on the Ludington Torch alone disputed those words from what they heard.  

Carlos Alvarado's actions alone in blocking records that should be disclosed to the public are costing the Ludington and Scottville taxpayers thousands in unnecessary costs, not to mentions tens of thousands of dollars in defending his malfeasance in the local courts and beyond.  He needs to go, he routinely shows that he has little competence in municipal law, as his education in that field would indicate as well.

Views: 297

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well done X. I don't think Mr. Alvarado will consider you a friend any time soon. It's probably time for local Governments to seek other legal representation other than Carlos for their FOIA problems. I might add that if OUR Government agencies would just hand out the information people ask for without putting up a stink, we would not need to fund some attorney's life style to the tune of hundred's of dollars per hour for wasting our time and withholding OUR information. Sorry, I just had to add some necessary accessories to Mr. Alvarado's outfit.

Didn't look the best tonight, but the good part is, they finished early, at is should. Couldn't hear Terzano and City Attrny. at all hardly, very weak on mic.. They need to practice. Foster is always at his best, speaks cl3

The general rule of thumb I've noticed:

If you are a public body and are contracting with someone at $200+ per hour to respond to public record requests, adding another layer of useless bureaucracy in the process, your goal is to block those requests, not fulfill them.  Additionally, you show that you have no fiscal responsibility.

Aquaman, I'm a citizen activist, not a fashion plate.  As for my aural mistake, I believe the COL waited 3 weeks to get me the unredacted audio because I was already on record as believing Wakelin said "Let Me breathe".  I wasn't alone, that's what Lindsey thought he said, that's what Wakelin thought he had said.  That's why Councilor Terzano had something prepared, for they knew I was going to likely comment on that plaintive cry. 

I actually see it as even more pitiable than the original phrase, because even when he's being roughed up and broken down to unconsciousness by three aggressive cops, he appeals not to their cruel hearts and intentions, but to his girlfriend.  Both Lindsey and her daughter have written the prosecutor urging them not to prosecute Devon Wakelin for DV because the contact was incidental and the push of the daughter that started things hurt because the daughter's necklace pressed into her chest, not from the force used.  Maybe she will learn not to interpose herself between arguing parents.  

It reminds me of when I was walking home a few years back (2014?), was approached by an aggressive, barking, teeth-baring dog on a neighbor's sidewalk, kicked him away from me, and while I was keeping the dog in my sight so he wouldn't re-attack me, the owner blindsided me with a strong push/punch to the chest.  I figured out why I had a mark on my chest and pain, it was because my camera had been in my coat and had been pressed in with the push.

I reported it to the LPD, they investigated the situation and since his statement was much different than mine (and almost complete lies), they decided not to pursue prosecution, even though I was willing to prosecute.  Here, no assault happened, no injury was sustained, and no victim wants a prosecution, yet the guy is being charged with two counts of DV by a prosecutor who has only proven that 4 LPD officers don't know how to effectuate an arrest or investigate a complaint.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service