Ludington City Council Meeting, January 26, 2026: Involuntary Reflex

[XLFD]

 The January 26, 2026 meeting of the Ludington City Council might be remembered as being one of the sparsest in recent history as regards to action items.  In fact, the agenda packet shows that these amounted to a first presentation of a clarifying ordinance, approving a quote for electrical materials for a primarily-grant-funded dock project, approving the perennial "Blessing of the Boats" event, and figuring out two FOIA appeals. 

One of these appeals was deferred to the next meeting, but the one that was considered turned out to be definitive item for this meeting, and it was not a good look for the City of Ludington.  We will review that in legal detail, and then briefly cover the public comments made, all roundly criticizing city policy and ethos.  As usual, your city council and their peers allowed these to fester.

For some unknown reason, Captain Mike Haveman and Sgt. Austin Morris in full uniform and apparently on the clock sat in attendance throughout the whole sparsely attended meeting.  Neither made a statement, none were part of any action item.  Were they there for some other purpose?  Good news, this reporter wasn't served any notice of arraignment papers.

Former City Attorney Ross "Sewage" Hammersley provided the defense for his own refusal to release a very specific set of records; this would include a 5-page written defense that sets his version of the legal basis within which he backed his denial (on p. 38 of the packet), further he would say , in relevant part at the meeting:

Hammersley:  (35:10 in) "I will not belabor the details of the appeal based on the specific exemption that was cited by our office: the police department relative to the involuntary statement that was made in the responsive materials... 'an involuntary statement made by law enforcement officer is a confidential communication that is not open to public inspection'... you will see there that there are four exemptions under which such statements can be disclosed by an agency, but none of those factual situations apply to this certain example... under the statute itself, this is not a discretionary call by the city, the statute itself says the statement is not open to public inspection, so unless one of those four exemptions apply, then this is actually a mandatory exemption to apply."

Noted local jurist, attorney, and current councilor, Jack Bulger, would stamp his seal of approval on the opinion by moving the motion to accept the denial, additionally saying:

Bulger:  "This is a pretty clear case.  The statute about disclosures by law enforcement officers is mandatory-- many things in Freedom of Information are discretionary, however, one of the exemptions is material covered by other statutes, so when you read the other statute, this isn't another instance where we are allowed to say "it's no big deal, we will release it anyway".  This appears to be a statement by definition is considered involuntary, and so even if we were wanting to release it, we'd be stuck by this language."

One thing I always noticed about Hammersley before he was dishonorably discharged late last year by this same city council (even when his firm offered a much cheaper proposal for services than their replacement) was that he rarely addressed the actual issue.  This reporter is well aware of what the Disclosure of Law Enforcement Officers (DLEO) says and what it doesn't say, and in appealing this denial, I made arguments regarding the presumption by the city that these statements made by two officers fell under the definition found in the DLEO Act says.

"The LPD has supplied the various MSP records and errata that were responsive to the request I had made, but they blocked the revelation of what Mendez and Babinec said at their disciplinary hearings.  The exemption used (summarized) is that statements made by police officers under the threat of disciplinary action is exempt from disclosure.  The record shows that both were given hearings where presumably they were given their rights including this and signed a document (not included in the records granted, but falling within the request).  The record also shows that Mendez wanted to make a voluntary statement before anything was put forth, later made that statement showing repentance according to the LPD chief, it also shows that Sgt. Babinec answered a few questions.  This statement and Babinec's answers were redacted.

The rule made for exemption is applicable as an exemption only when the officer has reason to believe that he could be disciplined for what he says.  Mendez offered his statement before anything was prompted, it appears voluntarily made, and as he was asked no other questions during the inquest, this appears to be a voluntary statement not made under duress of being sanctioned for his words.  One has the right to remain silent, but still people waive that right when they talk.  Babinec's responses may be properly redacted under this exemption, but as has been pointed out by your last two city attorneys, FOIA exemptions are permissive, and in many exemptions the public body is asked to weigh the public interest in disclosure to see if it outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. 

She and Officer Noble were caught doing highly unethical acts that the public has not been given a good answer as to why it happened and why it was kept a secret from the public; a reasonable person would think that the weight of public interest in disclosure is much heavier than in non-disclosure.  Meaning that even if it is lawful to exempt her answers, it is lawful also to disclose them for the better good of transparency and accountability"

In this document, we see the two redacted areas for Mendez (above) and Babinec below:

For those curious about the "Garrity form" mentioned, it should be noted that both officers are said to have signed it, but the LPD/COL have not offered it with their FOIA response even though it is responsive to the request.  As noted, it explains their rights not to be forced into incriminating themselves, like a Miranda warning for those arrested.

Wikipedia supplies a typical Garrity warning that police officers sign prior to interrogation during internal investigations, much like a police-detained suspect subject to interrogation signs that explains their Miranda rights:  "You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. This is a voluntary interview and you do not have to answer questions if your answers would tend to implicate you in a crime. No disciplinary action will be taken against you solely for refusing to answer questions. However, the evidentiary value of your silence may be considered in administrative proceedings as part of the facts surrounding your case. Any statement you do choose to provide may be used as evidence in criminal and/or administrative proceedings."

It becomes clear that Mendez was not questioned at all and that what he said was done voluntarily.  The DLEO law defines "involuntary statement" in section 1(a) of the act, namely it "means information provided by a law enforcement officer, if compelled under threat of dismissal from employment or any other employment sanction, by the law enforcement agency that employs the law enforcement officer."  

What Mendez said was not compelled under threat of employment sanction; indeed, one would suspect that what he said was to paint and craft himself in the most positive light to get him the least amount of discipline, as can be seen in the assessment that he was remorseful and contrite throughout.  This was not an involuntary statement, it was a sugar-coated defense of his DWI.

Babinec was asked at least three questions and so her 'answers' could be considered to fall under the definition-- that was acceded in my appeal.  However, Hammersley and Bulger try to tell us that none of the four exemptions in the DLEO apply in this case, and that just isn't true.  In section 5(a), an involuntary 'statement may be disclosed by the law enforcement agency... with the written consent of the law enforcement officer who made the statement'. 

The COL has not shown that Officer Babinec refused that written consent, and so they cannot support their claim that the answers made are exempt. That's because the burden of proving exemptions is on the public body.  They failed by not seeking her consent before declaring that the four exemptions do not apply, and this is necessary on application of law and Michigan Supreme Court precedent.

Under the FOIA, a public body must disclose all public records which are not specifically exempt under the act. MCL 15.233(1). The burden is on the public body to sustain its denial of
disclosure. MCL 15.240(4). The exemptions are to be narrowly construed and the burden of proving their applicability is also on the public body.  Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 232; 507 NW2d 422(1993); Herald Co v Bay City, 228 Mich App 268, 286; 577 NW2d 696 (1998).

Babinec had the right to remain silent in her hearing as guaranteed under her Garrity form, she explained her actions, none of which were being tested for criminality, only for explaining the ethical conduct which was already part of the record.  She had the right to remain silent and not have it held against her, but she explained herself.  A suspect in a criminal investigation who has signed their 'Miranda form' is still culpable for what they say after that point, fully understanding the right that it could be used against them later on. 

Mendez non-compulsory statement should be revealed, and Babinec's should be considered unresolved until Babinec weighs in and gives written consent or written denial of consent for her three statements made.  The burden of proof has not been met by the LPD/COL and the public is left in the dark about the mindset of these two people when they did a highly unethical act to conceal a blue-collared crime.

In public comment, the citizens would be unanimous in their disapproval.  Daniel Jensen would weigh in twice, reminding officials of their oath of office, what it meant to be a public servant, how there have been breaches of public trust, and would question why the PM Lake Watershed Council would not automatically be part of any sort of grant-funded projects coming up in the PM Lake/River area in order to ensure that the public safety is not compromised further.  Councilor Kathy Winczewski would earlier explain that WMSRDC was planning for having a couple of projects in that area.

All of our observers over the last two years know the answer to his query, the COL isn't concerned one iota with the pollution in that area or how it affects the public health.  Chuck Sobanski would have his binary switch flipped this time to criticizing the city for keeping him and other citizens in the dark about what's happening with PM Lake, since he owns property that is adjacent to that body of water.

This reporter's comments would key in first on how the COL's legal interactions with Dr. Andrew Riemer's enterprise is going much different than how Hamlin's is (in relation to the Stix Bar and mostly noise issues), along with the COL's basic FOIA policy of non-transparency:

XLFD: (11:30 in) "I went to court last Friday to catch a scheduled evidentiary hearing between Dr. Riemer and the City, found out two hours later that it was a closed, attorney-only hearing before Judge Fox of Oceana County.  I've sued the city a dozen times or so and have yet to have a similar conference out of the public eye.  Fortunately, during that interim I caught the finalizing of a consent agreement between Hamlin Township and Dr. Riemer concerning issues at Styx.  I saw two reasonable attorneys formulating an agreement that both parties could claim wins in, done in front of a judge in an open courtroom populated by Hamlin residents and officials. 

How novel, negotiating in good faith transparently.   In Ludington, Riemer filed suit in early October and our council regularly goes into closed session to talk with their attorney, but never gives an update about their efforts because they know they are acting in direct opposition to the public good.  Heck, they even consulted with attorneys in closed session that this council never formally hired in any aspect, the same attorneys never hired who were and are trying to defend the City's unlawful sale of family funeral plots already purchased in perpetuity according to contract.  Ask yourself councilors, would you trust a law-defying city who would shut down businesses on an imperialistic whim that invested millions into the area and steal graves from under a family without any remorse?  No, you wouldn't, but you are part of the institution that would perform such heinous crimes against humanity.

I have two FOIA appeals in front of the council tonight, I have sent you the reasons why you should embrace transparency for once, but I fully expect you to remain in the clutch of corruption.  Our police officers at all levels are allowing police and friends of police to drive drunkenly and recklessly through our streets, endangering my fellow citizens, without any sort of sanction when they crash or get stopped after committing multiple infractions, and then your police department decides to withhold that information from the public either directly or by paywalls when people try to learn more about the extent of the taint in the people who are paid for by our taxes.  If that's the type of city you want to represent, channel your inner cockroach and vote accordingly for non-disclosure, fraud, and public extortion [END comment]

When one looks at the video, you see that I will comment on why the clock for me was started by the mayor before I even got to the podium on both of my comments.  The clock is supposed to begin immediately after one's introduction and he tried to rob me both times of about 5 seconds, complaining about it the second comment period cost me about 15 seconds, and disallowed me from getting in my full comment, thanks to his unfair time management technique. 

XLFD: (45:50 in) "The city refuses to give us any updates on the Riemer case, so I'll give you one.  I mentioned earlier that Oceana Probate Judge Eric Fox was overseeing the Riemer complaint against the city, but didn't explain why.  It just so happens that Our circuit court Judge Susan Sniegowski disqualified herself from the case because her husband was an officer of the city, she has done this before seven times when I had lawsuits against the city.  In the spring of 2024, however, she decided she could act as a fair judge in my lawsuit with the city alleging criminal conduct by the police thief and former disgraced city attorney Ross Sewage Hammersley, to whit four cases of fraud and/or public extortion. 

The day after Judge Sniegowski ruled that she could not act as a fair judge for the Riemer case against Ludington, she wrote an opinion and order in my case against the city that totally rejected my solid claims in coming to the conclusion that it would take over $400 of labor to separate exempt material out of a public record that had no exempt material thereon, along with three other unfounded fee schemes pushed by Ross Sewage in order to commit willful public extortion and fraud.

And guess what?  For over a year while Sniegowski was taking 19 months to figure out a FOIA fee lawsuit, where expediency is mandated, her husband, city officer Tom Sniegowski, was tagged as a material witness against me for a nuisance criminal trespassing charge that was thrown out by a less conflicted court.  [Here I was stopped, 15 seconds more would have heard me say...] She needed to recuse herself within a month on her own initiative because of her husband for the Riemer lawsuit, but for the Rotta lawsuit she willfully refused the request by Rotta to recuse herself made from the start and for multiple times thereafter.  [END comment]

As usual, a deaf and dumb city council failed to respond to any of the citizens who spoke out, showing their contempt towards all of us and the notions of transparency and accountability.

[Freedom Seeker]

"Ask yourself councilors, would you trust a law-defying city who would shut down businesses on an imperialistic whim that invested millions into the area and steal graves from under a family without any remorse? No, you wouldn't, but you are part of the institution that would perform such heinous crimes against humanity.

If that's the type of city you want to represent, channel your inner cockroach and vote accordingly for non-disclosure, fraud, and public extortion."

Great statements above quoted from your pleas, X, to the city council. If those don't pick their individual consciences, then what will? I'm wondering if any is "chanelling their inner cockroach"?

[XLFD]

Ludington City Hall is not the Globe Theater in London, but the tragedies and comedies I'm forced to write twice a month draw some inspiration from the Bard of Avon.  I feel I must do this or they might think I'm nagging and stop listening to what I'm saying, lol.  I do think the addition of flowery language and imagery does help them focus a little more on what's the underlying issue.