The Destroyer of Incriminating Public Records

[XLFD]

What would you say if the Ludington Police Department (LPD) Chief Christopher Jones destroyed a public record indicating corrupt police actions after a public record's request was made for it and an extraordinary fee to produce it was asked for?   What would you say if that fee was approved by the Ludington City Council 10 days after the record was destroyed and that sum was accepted as payment by the city treasurer 24 days after the public record no longer existed?  And what would you say knowing that over two weeks after the fees were paid, city officials would admit that the record had been destroyed and that the destruction was based on a willful act made by Chief Jones? 

Lastly, what would you say if the person who had been forced to pay a ransom for the withheld and destroyed public record would be offered a claim release to make them waive future legal action against the city and not litigate the issues that present themselves when a city official destroys public records, offering $500 as a settlement to the issue?  What would you consider to be just punishment for Chief Jones, for not only committing another count of fraud and the criminal act of public extortion by accepting a significant sum of money for a record that didn't exist, but also committing the criminal act of destroying a public record, in violation of MCL 750.491?

Consider your answers to this barrage of questions, as these hypothetical questions becomes concrete, the timeline is shown to be incriminating, and the infamy that has been enacted upon the people and the sanctity of our public records becomes evident.

The public records that we have already said were destroyed, involve a one-vehicle traffic crash on North Lakeshore Drive happening primarily the day before Christmas and the body worn camera (BWC) footage created that night by young LPD Officer Edward "Trey" Forfinski.  Credible accounts from that night alleged that the young driver involved, JT Szobozslay, was unmistakably drunk that night, leading him to drive across the median and into a utility pole, disabling several poles.  The damage was extensive, and some folks lost power that night due to the 'accident'.

Allegedly, Officer Forfinski overlooked the obviously impaired condition of Szobozslay, and allowed him to ride home with his father, this is confirmed in the police report.  In a manner totally inconsistent with many incident reports we've seen over the years trying to establish some reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a sobriety test, Forfinski unmistakably tries to establish a lot of reasons explaining why he wouldn't do a sobriety test.  

It turns out, that this report was only shared with this reporter in an email ten days after the BWC was destroyed.  Our first disclosure in this medium of the event was in a 12-30-2025 article where we suggest that what we had was another "Mendez Incident" right after Chief Jones was forced to uncover that 19-month-old coverup of one of their own officers being given special treatment after being caught driving while severely drunk.  Ironically, Chief Jones came clean about Mendez later on that same day, sharing two videos and internal investigations that took place in early June 2024.

As indicated in the article, we sent a FOIA request out to the LPD for the records, it was received on January 2nd.  What followed thereafter can best be displayed on a preliminary timeline:

Dec 24, 2025:  Szobozslay accident, BWC footage and incident report created by Ofc. Forfinski

Dec 30, 2025:  Big Lyla article on LT and LP, LPD release of 2024 Mendez records.  850 views.

Jan 02, 2026:  FOIA request received by LPD from XLFD

Jan 09:  FOIA response indicating $131.36 fee, and summation, indicating no exemptions claimed

Jan 11:  LT and LP run with another article about abusive fees, second coverup.  1470 views.

Jan 22:  FOIA fee appeal re BWC footage submitted to Ludington City Council (LCC)

Jan 26:  FOIA fee appeal re BWC footage extended by LCC by vote to next meeting

Feb 09:  FOIA fee appeal denied, LCC finds $131.36 is proper fee to provide edited BWC footage

Feb 23:  XLFD offers $131.36 for BWC footage, payment rejected by COL that night w/o reason

Feb 24:  City treasurer accepts payment, LPD Sgt. Morris says it will take 12.5 days to comply

Mar 11: (15 days later) City sends multiple files indicating that the footage requested was destroyed

This is a timeline based solely on what happened.  For the moment we will forget that the video requested potentially showed things that would damage LPD's reputation and that the fee asked for was unlawful and ridiculous.  Among the files sent to this reporter on March 11th was the denial explanation, an audit trail of the file requested, and that release of claims.  Incorporating all of the relevant information into the above timeline we get this amended timeline, with snippets from the audit log in proper chronological location:

Dec 24, 2025:  Szobozslay accident, BWC footage and incident report created by Ofc. Forfinski

Dec 30, 2025:  Big Lyla article on LT and LP, LPD release of 2024 Mendez records.  850 views.

Jan 02, 2026:  FOIA request received by LPD from XLFD

Jan 09:  FOIA response indicating $131.36 fee, and summation, indicating no exemptions claimed

Jan 11:  LT and LP run with another article about abusive fees, second coverup.  1470 views.

Jan 22:  FOIA fee appeal re BWC footage submitted to Ludington City Council (LCC)

Jan 26:  FOIA fee appeal re BWC footage extended by LCC by vote to next meeting

Feb 09:  FOIA fee appeal denied, LCC finds $131.36 is proper fee to provide edited BWC footage

Feb 23:  XLFD offers $131.36 for BWC footage, payment rejected by COL that night w/o reason

Feb 24:  City treasurer accepts payment, LPD Sgt. Morris says it will take 12.5 days to comply

Mar 11: (15 days later) City sends multiple files indicating that the footage requested was destroyed

Let's proceed down the relevant amended facts provided by the audit log as they appear in the record.  First, we find that the initial default of retention of the BWC footage is for a period of one year on the day it was downloaded.  Then the record gets interesting.

Next, we see that on the afternoon of Dec. 30, less than an hour after the "Big Lyla" article came out threatening an upcoming FOIA request for the footage, Chief Jones reviews the record, names it and changes its classification to "other", making it subject to deletion in a month.  Had he left it alone, the footage would not have been deleted until December 23, 2026.  This intentional action to reduce the record retention time down by a factor of 12 would remain up to the record's actual deletion at the end of January.

Next, we see Captain Mike Haveman view the record on the day the FOIA request was received.  Three days later, Haveman and Officer Forfinski review the record.  This may have indicated a possible internal investigation, since Haveman (who typically estimates FOIA request fees) would have no other clear reason to look at the record for estimation purposes a second time.  A follow-up FOIA response, however, indicates there was no formal investigation made, not even to clear Forfinski of wrongdoing given the many allegations against him at that point.

Then we have the one-month birthday of the footage come, where it is queued for deletion scheduled for the end of the month.  This is sandwiched between the date the fees were appealed and the date the council voted to defer the issue to the first February meeting.   But that would become a moot point, as the final relevant audit entry shows the Forfinski footage was deleted.  A subsequent FOIA response indicates that they had no backup made of the record regardless of it being reviewed at three different times before the destruction.  

The main issues here are 1) that a public record was requested and in the process of haggling over a correct price to provide access to it, the record was destroyed and 2) that the city council was duped by administrators/LPD into deciding that records deleted ten days ago were still worth $131 even after their destruction and 3) the city treasurer/LPD accepted payment for records that no longer existed, stated they would provide that record, then two weeks later indicated the record was destroyed over 40 days ago and offered $500 in incentives to make these issues legally go away.

There are multiple criminal acts that seem to be involved here, but let's first look at the potential civil penalties available under the FOIA.  In Walloon Water v Melrose Twp, the superior court opined in a similar case where the records were destroyed after they were asked for:

"We are compelled to conclude that the duty to provide access to records properly requested under the FOIA inherently includes the duty to preserve and maintain such records until access has been provided or a court executes an order finding the record to be exempt from disclosure... Although defendant's violation of the FOIA [destroying the record] in this manner obviously rendered the issue of disclosure moot, it did not preclude consideration of plaintiff's request for costs, attorney fees and punitive damages."

Even if an attorney was not utilized, punitive damages alone would amount to at least $1000 for not disclosing the record (under MCL 15.240(7)) plus a punitive fine of $500 for assigning and accepting a $131 fee to provide records that didn't exist (under MCL 15.240a(7)) and that's just for the requester-- a court is likely to give the same amount to the state treasury using those same law sections.  Under MCL 15.240b, the court could also grant an extra $2500-$7500 to the state treasurer if they saw this as a bad faith action by city officials-- and it's hard to see how they could overlook the multiple acts of bad faith throughout.  Even without their attorney fees, the $500 offered is much less than the potential $10,500 that their actions seem to merit.

Criminally, the willful destruction of public records before their retention time is reached or when they have been requested through FOIA is a serious matter and against LPD policy as seen above, where the very last paragraph indicates records requested shall be retained for a year.  Unwarranted destruction of public records under MCL 750.491 is a two-year misdemeanor.  

Intentionally selling an item that you know doesn't exist is a special type of fraud called false pretenses (MCL 750.218), a one-year misdemeanor where the victim is entitled to three times the amount of money that they were swindled out of.  Certifying falsely in the FOIA response that the actual cost of labor for removing exemptions from a non-existent record is $131 seems to show some criminal intent.  These willful actions by Chief Jones seem to have all of the elements of extortion by a public officer (MCL 750.214), another misdemeanor. 

While we would appreciate the $500 for doing absolutely nothing other than looking the other way when some serious crimes have been committed and some public records have been destroyed, depriving the public from seeing a very corrupt reenactment of the LPD's two-tiered system of enforcement, we cannot in good conscience do so. 

This episode of corrupt actions by multiple actors of the City of Ludington, including the elected city council that did not do any due diligence in the administrative FOIA appeal to determine whether the item under appeal still existed, requires any conscientious citizen to explore all of the options to hold these errant officials fully accountable under both civil and criminal laws made to protect the records that belong to the people. 

And while we may not be able to show everyone with a video that Officer Trey Forfinski let an obviously-drunk friend of his not be accountable for DUI or for the damage he did that night he took out some utility poles, we will be able to submit to the court affidavits of those who were involved that night to show Chief Jones has performed another cover-up of corrupt actions by his officers when we seek civil penalties from a public body that would destroy public records, but retain a criminal police chief, known by many as the police thief. 

As a bonus, we will get to see the two-tiered criminal justice system in action once again as we file a criminal complaint with the county sheriff once again and see whether he does an actual investigation this time or at least have the state police do one as he said he would the last time our city officials committed easy-to-prosecute crimes.