Complaint re; C. Joseph Schwedler

The following document and exhibits was mailed to Michigan's
Judicial Tenure Commission on Friday, March 26, 2010. It is
my understanding that there are other complaints against this
judge. If you have such a complaint it behooves you to file it as
soon as possible. If you would like a copy of the entire document
on a CD in the pdf format, please contact me and I'll make sure
you get one. If you are out of the Iron County area, please send a
6" X 9" SASE (postage paid) envelope to PO Box 195, Stambaugh
MI and I'll put a CD in it and mail it back.

=========================================

State of Michigan
Judicial Tenure Commission
)
)
William J Vajk ) Iron County Trial Court Case
Plaintiff ) I08-3982-CZ
)
v. )
)
C. Joseph Schwedler )
Defendant )




Table of Contents



Complaint (this document, everything else listed below is attached)

Case I-08-3982-CA Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition Exhibit A

File I-08-3982-CZ Transcript dated February 26, 2009 Exhibit B

File I-08-3982-CZ ORDER dated April 30, 2009 Exhibit C

Case I-08-3982-CZ Plaintiff’s MCR 2.003 Post Denial Pleading Exhibit D

File I-08-3982-CZ Transcript dated June 5, 2009 Exhibit E

Act 442 of 1976 FOIA Exhibit F

Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct Exhibit G

Complaint

Now comes the Plaintiff William J. Vajk and complains of the defendant
C. Joseph Schwedler as follows:

1) Judge C. Joseph Schwedler allowed a political/social
relationship to influence judicial conduct. Schwedler
allowed his political connections to litigant Archocosky
to influence his judicial conduct.

In line 6 on page B3 of Exhibit B defendant Schwedler acknowledges
he knows John Archocosky on sight by deciding to wait, instead of
the proceeding as scheduled, for Archocosky’s arrival in the
courtroom. This is a small county with residency approximating
13,000 souls, and litigant, in the underlying case, Archocosky has
been a political figure in Iron County for a long period of time and
the two men have reason to know one another on that basis. While
this wait was, in Plaintiff’s opinion, ill advised, it serves only to
unequivocally demonstrate the two men know one another.

Litigant, in the above captioned case, John Archocosky, through
his attorney Susan MacGregor, made an admission on pages A19
(bottom of litigant’s boxed Exhibit near the middle of the page)
and again on page A25 (the penultimate line on the page) of
Exhibit A that John Archocosky sent email to plaintiff stating
his assumption of responsibility for city documents by stating,
“Please direct any future FOIA correspondence to me.” Please
see MCR 2.11 G (2).

Beginning with Line 25 on Page B11 through line 22 on Page B12,
during a hearing before Judge Schwedler on February 26, 2009,
Plaintiff alleged with great specificity litigant Archocosky’s
responsibility for asserting control over all documents requested
from the City of Iron River.

Later, defendant Schwedler, in line 23 of page B19 of Exhibit B,
states that “There is no allegation that Mr. Archocosky is the
person who was even in charge of these records.”

In light of the facts, as presented to the court with such abundant
clarity, C. Joseph Schwedler purposely and with thought aforehand
violated Canon 2C in rendering his verdict conflicting with the
evidence presented before and during the court hearing of
February 26, 2009 over which he presided.

2) Judge C. Joseph Schwedler failed to observe the law.
Schwedler substituted his personal opinion in place of
MCL 15.231 et seq.

In line 10 on page B3 of Exhibit B defendant Schwedler states,
“There’s no requirement to create a document….” as applies
to the statute, Act 442 of 1976 as amended, underlying the
lawsuit about which Schwedler was conducting a hearing. The
statute, in MCL 15.233 (4) clearly states that “This act does
not require a public body to make a compilation, summary,
or report of information except as required in section 11.”
Please see page F5 of Exhibit F, 15.241 (1) and (1)(c). For
further clarity I cite the following authorities regarding
interpretation of this statute:

“When interpreting a statute, we look first to the
language of the statute and give the words used
their plain and ordinary meaning.” DiBenedetto v
West Shore Hosp, 461 Mich 394, 402;
605 NW2d 300 (2000). “If the statutory language
is unambiguous, appellate courts presume that the
Legislature intended the meaning plainly expressed
and further judicial construction is neither permitted
nor required.” Atchison v Atchison, 256 Mich App 531,
535; 664 NW2d 249 (2003), citing DiBenedetto, supra.


The referenced MCL and its Section 11 were, at all pertinent
times, apposite in the matter being adjudged where
Schwedler held in opposition to established law.
C. Joseph Schwedler purposely and with thought
aforehand violated Canon 3A(1).

3) Judge C. Joseph Schwedler has failed to perform the
duties of office impartially and diligently. Schwedler
substituted his self-serving personal opinion in lieu of
observing MCR 2.003.

Plaintiff/litigant moved for a hearing, scheduled for May 13, 2009,
to vacate judgment and to disqualify Judge Schwedler. MCR 2.003
contains no restriction on when, during proceedings, that motion
may be brought. Exhibit C depicts the order issued by defendant
Schwedler canceling the hearing. C. Joseph Schwedler thereby
purposely and with thought aforehand violated MCR 2.003 and
Canon 3B(1)

Subsequently Plaintiff/litigant moved in a post denial pleading
scheduled for hearing June 5, 2009, that the court comply with
MCR 2.003(C)(3) as is shown in Exhibit D. On the appointed
date, C. Joseph Schwedler refused to hear the motion as he
stated as depicted in the transcript in Exhibit E. C. Joseph
Schwedler purposely and with thought aforehand violated
MCR 2.003(C)(3) and Canon 2(A) and Canon 3B(1).

Summation.

Plaintiff William J. Vajk understands the duty of the Judicial
Tenure Commission is not to retry the case which I did not
take to appeal because the monetary values involved are too
small when considering the costs of an appeal. Instead, the
undersigned maintains that C. Joseph Schwedler, during the
course of the case underlying this complaint, conducted
himself in violation of the laws of the State of Michigan,
of Michigan Court Rules, and the Judicial Canons of Conduct
as described above and in ways that the Judicial Tenure
Commission may discover for itself should the commission
decide to review the entire case. I add that there are many
additional possible causes for complaint in what is a small
case both in money and in scope, but I have limited my
participation in this process by formalizing only the elements
I personally consider most egregious. The entire purpose of
this complaint to the Judicial Tenure Commission is to seek
disciplinary proceedings against C. Joseph Schwedler with
the requested outcome being his removal from office as a
person not qualified to sit upon the judicial bench in a
Michigan Court.

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________________
William J. Vajk