[nfbmi-talk] clear as mud on court of claims bill

Tue Nov 5 03:24:31 UTC 2013

I talked with the writer of the story at issue and he, like me, thinks the 
sponser doesn't even understand the ramifications of his bill.

Does it impact FOIA and OMA cases for example? Even in the story the sponser 
double talked and two stepped the issue.

The biggest thing I hate about the courts in general in Michigan is the 
partisanship. The law should always be above party affiliation.
I think Judge Collette from my readings and "his" court has been above the 
partisan fray.

Anyway I have a bad smell in my nose about this.

Not as bad as the blatent work of say Zimmer who created MAHS and then makes 
final agency determinations for the Designated State agency. But, sure he 
would say that isn't conflicted. After all he says so right?

Just in case annoint another hack from MAHS, Rodgers to run the BSBP. We've 
got to make it all look legal don't you know?

Man, no wonder why citizens are cynical about the "injustice" system here.

Sorry, I digressed here Christine.

I think your point might be an intended conciquence here too, except with 
purely federal issues like say the ADA and 504 cases.

I just don't know. Its breath taking though no matter how one looks at it.

Oh, well let us just rip up the Bill of Rights, the State Constitution and 
be done with it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christine Boone" <christineboone2 at gmail.com>
To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] clear as mud on court of claims bill

>I can also see where this might encourage Federal District Court Judges to 
>allow the "removal" of cases to this Court of Claims...and because that is 
>a state court, a plaintiff will be less likely to prevail than in the 
>Federal District Court.
> It is hard enough to get into federal court in the first place.
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:57 PM, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> This will effect us but I'm not certain how. I don't think others 
>> including those who wrote tis can explain it either....
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> GOP-backed bill would shift how lawsuits handled in Michigan Court of 
>> Claims By Paul Egan Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau A controversial 
>> bill speeding
>>
>> through the Legislature would send a much larger volume and wider array 
>> of cases to a revamped Michigan Court of Claims, says the former chief 
>> judge of
>>
>> the Ingham County Circuit Court. Under Senate Bill 652, lawsuits 
>> involving the State of Michigan now heard by circuit judges around the 
>> state would instead
>>
>> be heard by one of four specially assigned Michigan Court of Appeals 
>> judges, Ingham Judge William Collette said Friday. The bill, which was 
>> introduced
>>
>> Oct. 24 and passed the full Senate on Wednesday, has been seen as a way 
>> to sidestep the Ingham County Circuit Court, where the Court of Claims is 
>> now housed,
>>
>> because many GOP lawmakers view the Ingham County court as too friendly 
>> to Democrats. Only about 100 cases a year involving alleged torts by the 
>> state
>>
>> or its agencies are filed in the Court of Claims. There's disagreement 
>> over whether the bill would have the effect Collette identified. But it's 
>> clear
>>
>> the bill adds language that expands the types of cases the Court of 
>> Claims will hear. It says the revamped Court of Claims would have 
>> exclusive jurisdiction
>>
>> over any state action involving a "demand for monetary, equitable or 
>> declaratory relief, or any demand for an extraordinary writ. And it says 
>> the revamped
>>
>> court would have that jurisdiction notwithstanding any other state law 
>> that says otherwise. Collette, who served as chief judge in Ingham County 
>> in 2002-11
>>
>> and is now one of five Ingham County judges who hear Court of Claims 
>> cases, said that wording would result in state civil rights, 
>> environmental, Open Meetings
>>
>> Act and Freedom of Information Act cases - as well as many other cases 
>> now handled locally - being sent to one of four specially assigned Court 
>> of Appeals
>>
>> judges. Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, the bill's sponsor, denied Friday 
>> that his bill expands the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. But he 
>> also said:
>>
>> "I think that if you're going to sue the State of Michigan in any 
>> fashion, it ought to go the Court of Claims. Jones' bill is to be taken 
>> up Tuesday by
>>
>> the House Government Operations Committee, where the chairman, Rep. Pete 
>> Lund, R-Shelby Township, said he hopes to send it to the full House the 
>> same day.
>>
>> The four judges who would hear the Court of Claims cases would be 
>> selected by the Michigan Supreme Court, where Republican-nominated 
>> justices have a 5-2
>>
>> majority. Democrats have denounced the bill as a partisan attack on the 
>> independence of the judiciary by the GOP-controlled Legislature. 
>> Republicans such
>>
>> as Lund, who supports the bill, said it makes no sense to have cases 
>> affecting the entire state decided by judges in one county elected by a 
>> tiny percentage
>>
>> of the state's population. "I think it's important for the people of the 
>> state of Michigan that everybody gets equal say on something like this," 
>> Lund
>>
>> said. "It's about representation. Collette has handled emergency manager 
>> and Open Meetings Act cases brought against the state by Highland Park 
>> union activist
>>
>> Robert Davis. Some of Collette's rulings in those cases were appealed by 
>> the state and overturned by the Court of Appeals. But none of those cases 
>> was
>>
>> filed in the Court of Claims. Davis filed them in Ingham County Circuit 
>> Court. Bob LaBrant, senior counsel to the political consulting firm the 
>> Sterling
>>
>> Corp. who spoke in favor of the bill Tuesday at the Senate Judiciary 
>> Committee, said suits like those filed by Davis would continue to be 
>> heard by circuit
>>
>> courts - not the Court of Claims - if SB 652 becomes law. Despite the 
>> added wording related to jurisdiction, only tort cases will go to the 
>> Court of Claims,
>>
>> LaBrant said. Unless Davis is claiming damages for an alleged tort, those 
>> suits will continue to be heard by circuit courts, LaBrant said. But Art 
>> Przybylowicz,
>>
>> general counsel to the Michigan Education Association, said it's clear 
>> the bill "greatly expands the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. If 
>> passed, the
>>
>> bill would shift to one of the four designated Court of Appeals judges an 
>> Open Meetings Act case that is now before Collette over the closing of 
>> the Capitol
>>
>> during the right-to-work debate in December, Przybylowicz said. Shifting 
>> cases already under way to hand-picked judges will not inspire public 
>> confidence
>>
>> in the impartiality of the courts, he said. "It's just terrible public 
>> policy. Collette noted he was appointed by former Republican Gov. William 
>> Milliken
>>
>> and said he has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. He said 
>> he rules based on state law and the constitution and denied a partisan 
>> leaning.
>>
>> The appellate practice section of the State Bar of Michigan opposes the 
>> bill, said Brian Shannon, an appellate attorney in Southfield. Shannon 
>> said he's
>>
>> concerned the Court of Appeals, which is not a trial court, will be asked 
>> to carry out a trial court function. He also doesn't like that appeals 
>> from the
>>
>> revamped Court of Claims will go from one Court of Appeals judge to other 
>> Court of Appeals judges. And he said he's concerned that diverting four 
>> Court
>>
>> of Appeals judges to Court of Claims cases will slow the handling of 
>> regular appeals. The change is supposed to enhance convenience by 
>> allowing Court of
>>
>> Claims cases to be filed at appeals court locations around the state, 
>> rather than just in Lansing. But since one of the four Appeals Court 
>> judges will
>>
>> be selected for each case through a blind draw, a plaintiff in Detroit 
>> could end up with his Court of Claims case being heard in Grand Rapids. 
>> That scenario
>>
>> will be less convenient for many litigants than having the cases heard in 
>> Lansing, which is centrally located, said Jane Briggs-Bunting, a media 
>> attorney
>>
>> who is president of the Michigan Coalition for Open Government.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nfbmi-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/christineboone2%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net 