A Piece of the Case Summary

The summons and complaints were served today on the
City of Iron River and Iron County, and the entire package
mailed to the Court of Appeals with the filing fee. A "case
summary" was included, part of which I reproduce below.

======================================
Although this case is about the violations of the Headlee
Amendment, Michigan Constitution Article IX § 31, in the
interests of understanding how we came to be at this
juncture, the case is significantly assisted by knowing a
bit if the history of the mainstream lawlessness that began
with the earliest days of Iron County and persists almost
unabated through the modern day.
It began with the “stolen courthouse” from which
history the county clerk republished the events of  1885,
see Exhibit “R”.

(editor's note- this is a segment of the Iron County Directory
of 2013)

The next major event occurred  in 1920 during Prohibition
with the Scalcucci brothers commercially making and selling
wine in Iron River. When federal officers were dispatched
from Chicago to put a stop to the illegal practice, local
officials were ordered to fire on anyone attempting to
enforce prohibition, and in the end were driven out of the
area. The event is a matter for an annual local three day
celebration. See the last page of Exhibit “R”.
Without delving into the details of this case too heavily at
this juncture, Plaintiff must here point out that the July 31,
2013 acts of amending Iron River ordinances in order to
allow the city council to establish new utility rates by
resolution instead of by ordinance directly violates the
alleged charter’s § 2.11(e). Please see Exhibit “B”. The
charter that Defendant City is allegedly obeying says an
ordinance is required to regulate the rate charged by a
public utility for its services. It is clear, in this act, and
others too numerous to discuss here, that Defendant City,
just like Defendant County, ignores the laws that govern
them unless and until someone like Plaintiff calls them to
task in court.
In Exhibit “S” Defendant City acknowledges no provision
of utilities to Plaintiff, but charges for them anyway,
knowingly violating the laws of this state and forcing the
situation to this Court for resolution that already exists in
the laws of the state.
As part of the election in November 2013, Defendant City
included a measure requesting the elimination of “conflict of
interest” by elected officials from the Iron River City Charter.
The deciding vote in the city council for the resolution to get
this measure on the ballot was cast by an individual who, at
that time, was knowingly in the very conflict he was trying to
get removed. Subsequently, after your Plaintiff complained to
the governor and the attorney general, the county prosecutor
investigated and asked two members of Iron River’s city
council to resolve the conflict issue by resigning one post or
the other. The city council, itself, did nothing while all the
members were knowledgeable about the conflicts that should
have been sufficient to keep the two from being sworn into
office and seated.
Unfortunately, both City and County defendants are so
deeply entrenched in their illegal activities that they seem to
have no way of stopping because once the first lie is told,
and then another to cover that up, the entire scheme just
spirals out of control and the lies can never stop. In
Exhibit “Q” Defendant County acknowledges it know the
source for the bills it will attempt to collect by undertaking
a foreclosure action, and ignores the illegality in Plaintiff’s
case.
That is why we are here, in order to get a fair hearing and
to break the cycle of lies, subterfuge, and deception, by
local governments who are thus damaging the Plaintiff, and
many others, financially.
======================================

It is well past time for municipalities to stop charging for
public utilities that are not delivered to citizens.

Bill Vajk