The Lurkers at the Threshold or How I Beat the Bogus Rap at My Summer Jury Trial

[XLFD]

"Not guilty"

Two words that you can't really enjoy the meaning of until it comes at the end of a long day in court defending yourself against some trivial criminal claims created by the local city hall and police department.  Ten hours after the six jurors filtered into the courtroom along with a couple dozen others that went home early, they came back into the courtroom after 100 minutes of deliberations and redeemed reality over the odd legal theories peddled by the assistant prosecutor all day.  The outcome of this trial is definitely a victory for justice, but the story of how we got to that point is a lot more interesting.

BACKGROUND

Summarizing the background of this case, last August the Ludington City Council held a special meeting and voted to go into closed session to discuss legal issues dealing with the AndyS Restaurant project with an attorney they never formally contracted with.  They sent the handful of attendees out of their chambers and closed their door.  I wandered around the lobby for about five minutes before selecting to lean against the wall adjacent to the chamber doors and near the aquarium.  I could not hear anything happening from the other side, especially over the aquarium's pumps working constantly.

LPD Captain Mike "My Caveman" Haveman would vacate the meeting, ostensibly to get a drink of water from the fountain in the lobby.  He reported back to the council his idea that I could overhear what they were saying.  He received guidance to clear the lobby and secure the doors until the closed session was over, and promptly did so, without explaining the move and without getting resistance from anybody.

Five minutes later I was standing on a concrete slab outside of the south wall fire door, a perch where I saw and heard absolutely nothing coming from the inside of the chamber.  The move was meant to "yank Haveman's chain" should he do a security sweep, because I deducted the only reason to throw us out into the eighty-degree weather outside was because they suspected I could hear their scheming from where I was previously at.  He did notice, went outside and confronted me.  

I was threatened with arrest and imprisonment for trespassing on the public property I was posted at, instantly escalating the issue into a civil rights argument that I would not yield to without receiving a letter of trespass I requested multiple times; he outright refused to make one, possibly knowing he did not have that authority.  More threats were made suggesting I could not enjoy the shady area, thus by the time he called in four other LPD subordinates my resistance to his request warranted trespassing, disturbing the peace, and potentially obstruction. 

I would deescalate the situation when it appeared to me that Haveman was about ready to do something very dumb and moved along to a shady spot in front of the LPD Station without any further accosting that night.  Three weeks later, I would receive a notice of arraignment for a subsection of the city's disturbing the peace law, claiming I disrupted a meeting. 

From my perspective, what happened that night was I quietly stood outside two doors doing nothing, bothering nobody, and hearing nothing while being threatened with unlawful arrest and imprisonment.  Also from my perspective, three articles I wrote about the incident (Who retained?, Peaceful Disorderly Conduct,  Disturbing Prosecution) for those who want more than just a summary.  Multiple public defenders have pointed out to me that this prosecution was never about the seeking of justice by either the LPD or their contracted prosecutor, Beth Hand-- confirming my understanding of reality.

THE JURY SELECTION

Ten days before the trial scheduled for June 22, I experienced a vicious gout flare up in my right knee.  Days later, even with proper diet and medication, my left leg also flared up.  The pain would rarely allow me to sleep or even put any weight on either leg.  The night before trial, I was resolved that I would need to be in a wheelchair, have ice packs on my left leg, and have Ibuprofen to keep the pain manageable in my system.  This wasn't well-received by my defense attorney, Tracie Dinehart, when she saw me that morning who was ready to go but worried about the effects of my courtroom appearance and mental acuity for a full day trial.

A sidebar initiated by Dinehart was held with 79th District Court Judge John Middlebrook to make a decision on whether the trial would proceed, he and Dinehart were concerned that my condition of great pain and infirmity could negatively affect my outcome.  Knowing that the court would have to send 30 jurors home, since the alternate trial was my other one for some other specious charge of trespassing on public land initiated by Haveman too, I assured the court I would try to play through the pain the best I could and conceal my legs-- I wanted to proceed and preserve respect for the court. 

The judge would concur, and it did work against me as I was in enough pain for over half the time to make it difficult to focus.  In addition, it took away the potential alternative of testifying in my own defense. should the case against me look stronger than it actually was.  Thankfully that didn't transpire, my attorney scoring big in her cross examinations of the city's witnesses.  We all moved into the courtroom and began the voir dure process to seat a jury.  

If you've never seen the process in district court, here's what happens.  Seven people are chosen at random from the jury pool.  They get seated and asked a set of questions by the judge designed to weed out those who would not make fair jurors due to relationships, history and biases.  The first person disqualified was a member of my graduating class and a past baseball team who was aware of the disputes I had with the city.  Another followed him off, noting that he was one of the 6000+ members of the Ludington Pitchfork, and indicating he was a bit of a fan.  

I thought this was a good start despite losing two likely allies; the rest of the pool that wasn't familiar with me was able to see that I had lived in the area my whole life (give or take some college years) and that the websites I ran had to do with keeping government agencies accountable. Those who survived the judge's questions would then be quizzed by the prosecutor, Jason Gerbers and Dinehart.  

Each side had three peremptory challenges, meaning they could excuse a jury without any reason needed.  About a dozen were dismissed by the judge without using these, the prosecutor used one of theirs while we wound up using all of ours but not needing any more than we needed to seat what we thought was a fair jury.  Seven jurors were seated, the remainder was sent home, the trial was set to start.

CITY OFFICIALS TESTIFY

Opening statements were made starting with Gerbers laying out his route to showing that my actions were intentional and done in an effort to disrupt the August 2025 meeting, doing so twice.  Other elements were part of the record.  Dinehart would counter that the only person disrupting the meeting was Haveman and that my actions of standing quietly by a door was nothing disruptive nor was it unlawful.  The first prosecution witness would be called to testify:  City Manager Kaitlyn Aldrich.

Aldrich's testimony was not remarkable, it was to establish that the closed session was interrupted twice, first when Haveman informed them that they could be overheard from the outside and they decided to move people out of the city hall lobby, second when Haveman informed them of my outside perch.  She would relate that the first to suspect that I may have been positioned at the door was Heather Tytkoski who related her fears to Aldrich, who then put Haveman into action.  

Under cross examination, Aldrich would be hard-pressed to establish a direct correlation between my standing quietly near a door and disruption of a meeting without considering Haveman as a catalyst, but Attorney Dinehart would be distracted during her questioning by the court's own closed doors.  When she sat back down, she informed me that the city's second witness, City Councilor John Terzano, was lingering at and looking in from the hall onto what was happening in the courtroom.

This was significant in that the witnesses in this case (as in many trials) had a sequestration order that applied to them, meaning that they could not look in upon the trial until after they personally testified.  This is so that their testimony will not be tempered by what they see from other witnesses.  Terzano violating that sequestration order by being the lurker at the threshold actually looking in and listening to the trial showed that they were wanting to criminalize my less intrusive lurking while practicing a similar act in violation of a court order.

Dinehart chose to slow play this infraction, waiting until Aldrich was finished, and Terzano was called up to the witness stand.  Terzano's testimony effectively confirmed that the closed session was interrupted twice, and the cross examination started off much like it did with Aldrich, Dinehart even used softer gloves in asking him questions about why my actions were disruptive and led to the pauses.  Only after establishing a respectful rapport would she begin a memorable Perry Mason moment, letting the jury know that Terzano was a practicing lawyer who should know better than violating the court's sequestration order by doing more at the court threshold than I ever attempted on that warm 2025 afternoon.  

Dinehart would effectively neutralize most of any impact these two would have on the jury with this revelation.  The lunchtime break would coincide with the momentum break, while the threshold of pain in my legs had yet to be a concern.

CAPTAIN MY CAVEMAN TESTIFIES

The prosecution would enter the evidence (found here) were played during Haveman's testimony with him doing the narration of what was happening.  The first video used was the city hall lobby footage I was never able to see.  It sees me wandering around the lobby for several minutes before settling against the only open wall in that area.  I was posted there for maybe a minute or so before Haveman opens the door.  It would be noticed that I had no reaction at the time to the door opening and I had done nothing to indicate I was trying to listen at the door.  As noted, I could hear nothing intelligible at that point, the walls and door being thick and the aquarium pump being active and lending a slight vibration to the wall.

When Haveman loudly busted open the door the second time (less than a minute after the first time) I was notably surprised, which seems surprising had I actually been able to overhear what was going on.  Nevertheless, it showed that I exited the lobby immediately and went outside.  Haveman would also admit that he could hear talk coming from the other side of the middle of the chamber's closed doors when he was outside, but that he couldn't tell what was actually being said.  My attorney would exploit that during cross examination wondering how I would have been able to hear anything meaningful from my own inferior door positioning.

The external footage showed me getting to the concrete near the fire door and talking with Haveman, resisting a request to move until and unless he issued a valid letter of trespass.  The effect of all this footage doesn't appear to make me seem as if I was doing anything disruptive at the threshold of either portal, it did show that Haveman's responses were unnecessary ones.  Dinehart would highlight both during her cross examination, incredulously wondering why the City was trying to criminalize suspected eavesdropping (which is not a crime) to accomplish its goals.  Haveman and the evidence presented during his time fell rather flat because the overall effect didn't show any sort of intentional disruption or specifically prohibited conduct.  

THE FINALE

While I was somewhat self-prepared for testifying if the prosecution had established some footholds, I didn't see that they had done so, thus during a jury break after Haveman finished, I attested that I knew I had the right to testify and knowingly waived it.  Had I not been suffering through most of the afternoon with additional leg pain, I just might have testified to blow the prosecution's persecution but knew that my mental focus was being primarily used all afternoon to stop me from screaming out due to the physical agony in my left leg.

The closing statements that followed went to the prosecutor's advantage in my opinion.  He promoted a legal theory that was ambitious in trying to establish guilt and intent and did a credible job of giving it merit, that should have been easily deflected.  But Dinehart, who had been pitching shutout ball all day came out flat herself in her closing arguments in this late inning, not definitively addressing the prosecutor's flawed arguments sufficiently, bringing enough attention to the City's own behavior and misattributed my behavior to curiosity and a desire to listen in to the meeting.  

As I have said throughout the last year, my intention to post myself outside the chamber doors was to take advantage of the open wall in that area.  Had Haveman actually put on his police shoes, he might have conducted an investigation to see whether conversations could be heard and understood from either of my two locations.  Maybe he did and found out that neither place afforded any quality eavesdropping experience, as my testimony would have verified.

The crime in all of this was the threatening conduct by Captain Haveman against me for not obeying an order that wasn't lawful when I was outside.  I was not suspected of the commission of any crime; I was in an area allowed to be stood on by the general public; there was no public safety concern or emergency in progress.  Yet I was told that this police captain would use the trappings of his authority to arrest me and imprison me thereafter for doing absolutely nothing wrong, and he echoed that after summoning four other LPD officers and insisted I would be going to jail if I didn't comply by moving from where I was allowed to be.  

Nevertheless, the next 100 minutes after the jury was dismissed for deliberating was painful, because at that point my ice pack was useless and my Ibuprofen had been used up.  The amount of time it took was somewhat worrisome, as it could have became a mistrial that would likely lead to a refile of the case by Prosecutor Hand and another year of wasting public resources.  

But they did reach a verdict and one always has to be prepared for the worst.  Fortunately, as we have known all along, my peers got it right despite getting all their information from the petitioners in this situation all day, those officials being suitably humbled in their quest by the cross examination of my attorney and the realization that they had no real case to begin with.

In Beth Hand's prosecutions/persecutions of this critical media personality she is now 0-for-3.  A judge dismissed a trespassing charge for a public park, Hand herself dropped a charge after two years of knowing there was no such violation alleged, and now a jury has acquitted her nemesis on a third specious charge.  And I still have one yet to be decided, another trespassing charge for a public park, an eight-month-old charge that I still haven't figured out what I'm to be tried for, but that I know I will prevail in. 

At what point do other officials address the grotesque hand in the middle of the courtroom floor? 

[Freedom Seeker]

So good to hear the good news! What a waste of of public resources iniated by Heather Tykoski complaint. The city would be much better off if she were fired and trespassed out of town, imo.

Take care of yourself X. The stress of bogus trespasses against you must take a toll. Prayers for health, and continued justice. Thanks to the jurors to seeing thru the BS of false prosecution. Public servants such as Heather Tykoski and Mike Haveman should actually have a heart for public service. I have personally witnessed HTs disregard and contempt of the public on other issues.

[XLFD]

Thanks for your prayers for my health and for justice in Mason County.  Tykoski, who has been busy over the last two decades being the city's most corrupt official, has made special effort in getting even with me for exposing her taint.  My first FOIA appeal to the circuit court back in 2011 was because she wouldn't share public records showing the DDA was playing favorites, with her husband being the main favorite.  Meanwhile the Tykoski-initiated and unconstitutional "Workplace Safety Policy" cost the City a lot of money in a major settlement and it was all because of her directives.  I see a lot of HT influence in the way our current city manager deals with the public and in the way she goes around ethical safeguards.  In court, her testimony (IMHO) was unequivocal in trying to get the jurors to convict me rather than coming off as a neutral observer and participant.

[Freedom Seeker]

Tykoski should have been fired in 2011 over the Workplace Safety "tresspass" against you, covering up her malfeasance bolstered by the Chief of Police got-your-back  corruption, and ignorance of public rights.  Instead HT DDA ruins the peace of the small-town most loved.

[XLFD]

Tykoski should have been fired even before that for all of the issues dealing with conflicts of interests and other unethical behavior in the Community Development Department and DDA before 2011 and for the same behavior continuing throughout the John Shay era of Ludington corruption up to 2018.

Fun fact:  in yesterday's mail I received an "official notice regarding selection for jury duty", including a questionnaire that applies to all such candidates.  I would love to serve on a jury, fulfill my civic duties, so I filled it out and sent it out through the mail immediately. 

Unfortunately, it has a question that asks whether I have ever been part of a trial in the past, and in what capacity.  What a list I had!  

[Freedom Seeker]

I agree, X, but the evil goes on.  People without ethical and moral compass will eventually get their just rewards from the Great Judge.  Meanwhile, thanks for all you do to slow down the evil in the Ludington community.

[Golf~6~Romeo]

Light is the best disinfectant

You are in a great position (as are many others) to initiate the next step.

Attorney Grievance Commission(AGC)

Attorney Discipline Board (ADB)

Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC)