Legal

West Michigan News Company

Articles

Home Legal Secrecy  Elections Subscribe
Subscribe to

Proposed Federal Civil Lawsuit Against theState of Michigan, Ganges Township, and the defendants in Hudson/Foster v. Kleussendorf/Benson/Mr. X

Pat Foster

This page is designed specifically for law firms that may want to represent Pat Foster in his lawsuit against the State of Michigan, etal. I believe I have an extremely good case that if presented to a jury, would return an extremely high dollar damage award. The reason I believe this is because all of our evidence presented to the Michigan courts has been completely ignored, and not addressed. What the state court system did in denying all of our motions is present an extremely good case to a federal jury for damages.

This case stems from an audit of the 2008 General Election in Allegan County in which I was the Democratic candidate for County Clerk against Joyce Watts, the Republican incumbent clerk for around 40 years. I did not request a recount, because I had run for county commissioner in 2006, and requested a recount then.  Joyce Watts chaired the counties board of election commissioners in a hearing to determine if I would get a recount. During that hearing, Joyce Watts admitted in questioning by Karen Wellman that she could access each tabulator’s modem by telephone after the machines had been tested and sealed. Ms. Watts had the opportunity on election day to call the modems on all of the tabulators in Allegan County and change the vote totals.

There was a recount for the circuit court seat between Kevin Cronin and William Bailargeon. Mr. Bailargeon had over two counters for each of the 18 tables counting ballots, while Mr. Cronin only had one volunteer, who was the son of Ms. Watts. She was also given the responsibility to secure all of the requested recount ballots until the day of the recount. I volunteered to help Mr. Cronin count the ballots. He told me he had enough volunteers.

Aug. 23, 2009, I put together 5 teams of volunteers to photograph the ballots of the 2008 General Election. Jan. 10, 2010, two men purchased the property uphill and across the street from me. They placed a fence on the physical, private road with Recreation Development Subdivision No. 1 (RDS1), and blocked a drainage ditch going through their property. During this period of time, one of them filed a predatory PPO against me. He committed multiple felonies against me like perjury before the chief judge, and creating doctored evidence. I put the evidence I had against him, and attempted to file it with the MSP, but declined and refused to even write up a police report based on my request.

I filed a civil suit against these two men with a close friend, Blanche Hudson who owned the property adjacent to theirs. Judge Cronin was assigned to the case. He denied every motion we filed, and he accepted every motion that defendants filed. Their legal argument for summary disposition was based upon an expert witness report prepared from defendants’ hearsay statement. The court in granting SD, intentionally misquoted my affidavit to make it look like I was solely responsible for have the ditch dug in the defendants’ front yard. See:

Motion for Peremptory Reversal

Brief in support

Attachments


  


Three Reason’s why the State of Michigan will settle

Pat Foster


The first reason is the very basis of the federal lawsuit. The State of Michigan changed the totals votes in the 2008 General Election thereby injuring me, and then they intimidated me after I started an audit of that election in 2009. They will not want all of our evidence coming out before the public, so they will settle.

Second, is an affidavit produced by defendants’ attorney to justify his attorney fees for sanctions against me. I have highlighted all of the entries the attorney made relating to “clients’ representative.”  The  representative was contacted for “authority” to act and was concerned about “costs”.

During discovery in 2014, I filed with defendants’ attorney a request to produce records showing who was paying the defendants’ legal bills based upon the fact that the Judge Cronin required us to post a $30,000 bond to cover defendants’ expenses. Defendants argued “attorney-client privilege,” and refused to tell us. A motion to compel was denied by Judge Cronin, and the COA denied an interlocutory appeal. The issue was brought up again during an appeal of SD by a motion for peremptory reversal, which was denied by the COA in case number 327878. It was again requested by an approved subpoena served on defendants Oct. 5, 2017. The trial court is now Judge Roberts Kengis after Judge Cronin quit over the holidays and refused to come back. Judge Kengis denied a motion to compel filed Nov. 8, 2017, heard on April 19, 2018, and decided on May 24, 2018 without allowing oral argument. That denial is now being addressed in the Motion for Peremptory Reversal. For almost four years, the lower court and the COA have sheltered this person who seems to control a lot of people in positions of power. Common law cites are all in our favor, and we should have been able to get the information we requested.

“The attorney-client privilege attaches to communications made by a client to an attorney acting as a legal adviser and made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” Herald Co, Inc v Ann Arbor Pub Sch, 224 Mich App 266, 279; 568 NW2d 411 (1997). “The attorney-client privilege is designed to permit a client to confide in his attorney, knowing that his communications are safe from disclosure.” McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722, 730; 587 NW2d 824 (1998). “The scope of the privilege is narrow: it attaches only to confidential communications by the client to its advisor that are made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” Herald Co, 224 Mich App at 279. See also Estate of Nash v City of Grand Haven, 321 Mich App 592, 909 NW2d 862, (2017).

“It is well settled that Michigan follows an open, broad discovery policy that permits liberal discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending case.” Reed Dairy Farm v Consumers Power Co, 227 Mich App 616; 576 NW2d 709 (1998). “The scope of the privilege is narrow; it applies ‘only to confidential communications by the client to his attorney, which are made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.’“ In re Costs & Attorney Fees, 250 Mich App 89, 99; 645 NW2d 697 (2002)

“The authorities are clear that the privilege extends essentially only to the substance of matters communicated to an attorney in professional confidence. Thus the identity of a client, or the fact that a given individual has become a client are matters which an attorney normally may not refuse to disclose, even though the fact of having retained counsel may be used as evidence against the client.” Colton v. United States, 306 F2d 633, 637 cert den 371 U.S. 951, (1962).

Third comes directly from the second issue. If you present a case with facts were the courts should rule in your favor, and they do not, there is a reason why a judge or justice might rule differently, and that is a payment from the other side to intentionally abuse their discretion for monetary compensation. As a CPA with 45 years experience in legal research on the Internal Revenue Code, I looked for a conflict of interest within the statutes. All elected officials have a campaign finance bank account established by statute that is tax free. That would be the place to hide your ill-gotten gains except for the Freedom of Information Act. This act covers all public documents, except those specifically exempted under MCL 143(1). Subpart “r” specifically exempts Records of a campaign committee including a committee that receives  money from a state campaign fund.”

I started filing discovery actions against two circuit court judges, and four COA justices. All discovery was denied all the way up to the Michigan Supreme Court with no explanation. I filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari  with the U.S. Supreme Court asking only one question: “Do litigants have the right to see through discovery an elected official’s campaign finance bank accounts protected from public view by statute?”  The U.S. Supreme Court in denying my cert was again silent on the issue as were all of the state courts. The doctrine that silence affirms is applicable, and you can now bring it before the U.S. S. C. from federal court while I am doing the same from state court. If they don’t settle at that point, we bring it before a federal jury.


Contact   About   Subscribe