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

[Terry D. Eagle]

Reps. Lund and Jones' position regarding this being an issue of
"representation" of the people makes no sense at all.  What's the difference
whether cases are heard by only the Ingham County Circuit Court, or a judge
panel appointed by the Supreme Court controlled by either of the two extreme
right-wing or left-wing parties ?  Simply expand the law to have cases able
to be filed in the county of residence of the plaintiff--thhe person or
entity filing the lawsuit claim.  In other expand it to all 83 county
circuit courts.

>From a legal Constitutional standpoint, I hope it is challenged as a
Constitutional violation of a plaintiff's right to a citizen jury trial.



-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
harcz Comcast
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:58 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] clear as mud on court of claims bill

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/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
com