FOIA lawsuit in Iron County

Yours truly has filed a lawsuit in Iron County
Circuit court. The summons was served today and
the affidavit of service was filed with the
Clerk of the Court this afternoon.

The exhibits are in .pdf format and I am not
posting them at this time as they are not
necessary to understand the case. They are
only needed for a judicial review which is not
happening in any public forum. If you believe
a cp of the exhibits would be helpful to you
in some way, please ask me for a copy of that
file in email sent to bill.vajk@gmail.com.

Document follows.

------------------------------------------------

State of Michigan
In the Circuit Court for the County of Iron
Circuit Division
_________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

William J. Vajk v. John Archocosky

Case No. I 08-3982-CZ

Hon. C. Joseph Schwedler

1) Now comes the plaintiff William J. Vajk,
pro se, and complains under the Freedom of
Information Act, Act 442 of 1976, MCL 15.231
et seq, hereinafter referred to as Act 442,
and common law, as follows:

2) This court has jurisdiction.

3) Plaintiff made a multiple Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests that he
personally served on the office of the
Clerk in the City of Iron River on
December 1, 2008. A copy of that request
is provided in Exhibit A.

4) The ensuing email interchange, including
attachments, is provided in Exhibit B.

5) Plaintiff thus came to discover one
aspect of the City of Iron River's "Pay
to Play" illegal gambit that wantonly
violates Act 442, common law fraud, and
common law extortion, as follows:

A) Plaintiff asked that the basis of the
"unreasonably high costs to the City"
part of the forms provided by the City,
Exhibit B pg. 4-7, be disclosed. Failure
or refusal to disclose this information
is a violation of Act 442.

B) Plaintiff was met with silence. The
pertinent part of Act 442, Sec. 4 (3)
states in part:

"A fee shall not be charged for the
cost of search, examination, review, and
the deletion and separation of exempt
from nonexempt information as provided
in section 14 unless failure to charge a
fee would result in unreasonably high
costs to the public body because of the
nature of the request in the particular
instance, and the public body specifically
identifies the nature of these unreasonably
high costs."

C) Defendant Archocosky has steadfastly
refused to provide this information and
has also refused to abandon the City's
demand for payment of the illegally
constituted fees. Since there is a well
established statutory requirement that
the named Defendant knew or should have
known, that the requested information be
provided without fees unless "unreasonably
high costs" are extant, identifiable, and
disclosed, the demand for payment is a
violation of Act 442 as well as both common
law fraud and common law extortion.

D) Given the circumstances of this case,
wherein the public body withholds requested
information for the sake of collecting an
illegally constructed fee, that the Defendant
knew or should have known to violate Act 442,
wherein the charge violates the clear
mandates of Act 442, imposition constitutes
a constructive denial of providing the
requested information in a timely manner.

E) The demanded fee of $38.46 is, on its
face, absurd and cannot be supported as
"unreasonably high" under any definition
of the words of the statute. Plaintiff's
reading of all reported and unreported
opinions relating to Act 442 to be found
on the Michigan courts web page finds that
each upholds the letter of the law as
spelled out in the italicized text above
with no allowances, alterations, or
modifications authorized by case law.

F) As the first example of patent
absurdity, the "Wastemanagement Contract,"
a document reported to be 4 pages long,
has a 1/4 hour charge associated with it
at a fee demand to Plaintiff of $10.53.
The City had the document in hand to
determine that it is 4 pages long. The
City has demonstrated that there is no
additional research necessary. The
document is one that is subject to
public scrutiny as it stands without
"review, deletion, separation of exempt
from non-exempt information" that might
suggest some, or any, reason for demanding
a labor fee. Thus it cannot meet the
relevant "unreasonable" test. Any city
employee that spends as long as 15
minutes on this item is in serious
need of being fired as is any supervisor
permitting such incompetence or reticence
to perform ordinary office job functions
in a timely fashion.

G) The balance of the requested documents,
while larger, all represent similar
circumstances. Labor for the act of
copying is built into the per page charge,
leaving no additional labor charge that
can ever be considered "unreasonably high."

6) As shown in Exhibit C, Plaintiff filed
an FOIA Appeal in this instance issued to
the named defendant John Archocosky since
the city failed at every opportunity to
comply with Act 442 by failing to
identify the "head of the public body"
in their responses to Plaintiff's
requests. Please take notice that
defendant Archocosky insisted that all
future FOIA requests from me be
addressed to him. The statement is in
Exhibit B pg 1. To demonstrate to the
Court the City of Iron River's routine
practice of omitting the required
statutory language divulging the
correct addressees for appeal and
litigation information mandated by
Act 442, Plaintiff has included
another FOIA reply in Exhibit D.
This example is the only completed
FOIA response from the City of Iron
River to Plaintiff, and it too fails
to comply with the requirements of
Act 442 in the above stated regards,
specifically Sec. 5. (3)(d).

7) Since John Archocosky, the City
Manager for the City of Iron River,
asserted control over this and all
future FOIA requests, and in the
absence of any additional information
directing this complaint elsewhere,
Plaintiff had no option but to name
Archocosky as the defendant in this
action.

A) Plaintiff had and has no reason to
question Defendant Archocosky's
asserting control over FOIA requests
from this Plaintiff. Defendant John
Archocosky is, and was, the City
Manager of the City of Iron River
at all pertinent times.

B) A courtesy "FOIA appeal" went to
Archocosky. Mr. Archocosky failed to
respond to the aforementioned appeal
during the 10 days allowed by Act 442.
Even on the off chance that the City
had some legitimate reason for
believing the fees demanded to be
legitimate, Defendant Archocosky
failed to comply with Act 442 by
divulging such reasons as required
by Act 442 despite a specific request
by Plaintiff that he do so. Please
see Exhibit C pg. 1-2.

C) Plaintiff was not required by Act 442
to appeal the fees to the City before
taking further action. Plaintiff could
have proceeded directly to suit, but
wrote an appeal as a courtesy to
Mr. Archocosky and the City of Iron
River and in a failed attempt to avoid
the need for this litigation. In addition,
Plaintiff sent a copy of the final email
not only to the named defendant, but also
to the Clerk of the City of Iron River,
and the Mayor of Iron River, as a
courtesy to notify everyone working on
behalf of the City of Iron River possibly
interested in the issues a notice of the
pendency of this action. Please see
Exhibit C.

D) Plaintiff was forced to the conclusion
that Defendant Archocosky and the other
addressees prefer resolution of the fee
issue through litigation, and so here we
are.

8) Defendant Archocosky had, at all
relevant times, the authority and control
over the City's decision(s) regarding fees
to be charged while responding to FOIA
requests. If he does or did not, he had
only to divulge another person to whom
the request(s) might have been directed.
Defendant Archocosky has earned the
exclusive right, by his own actions, to
represent the city as the sole defendant
in the immediate cause.

9) It is thus clear that after
notification of a violation of Act 442
and common law, Defendant Archocosky's
actions, and the pertinent lack thereof,
under the color of his office, meet the
criteria for punitive damages.

10) Plaintiff asks the court to ignore
the smallness of the amount at the core
of this case. It is the repetitive routine
violations of state law by the City of
Iron River that is the significant problem
for which this case is the first of several
others currently in work. Indeed, the
information requested under the FOIA at the
core of this case is relevant to background
information necessary to develop the
complaints for one or more such class action
cases. Invoices representing city billings
against property owners in Iron River will
soon be sought using FOIA requests. Defendant
Archocosky and the City of Iron River are
aware that those previously promised lawsuits
will be brought soon as memorialized in the
minutes of the City Council meeting of
15 October 2008 as follows: "Tousignant will
contact MML concerning possible litigation."
Unreported in the minutes is the actual
mention of Plaintiff's name, at the meeting,
in these regards.

11) Plaintiff also publishes reports relating
to his activism on behalf of the community on
the internet at

www.ironcountydoings.blogspot.com.

ISSN registration request has been filed.

12) As a consequence, the records requested
by Plaintiff should be deemed to "be in the
public interest" as defined in MCL 15.234,
Sec. 4. (1) of act 442.

Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests
this Court enter the following judgments:

A) The City of Iron River shall be ordered
to provide the information requested in the
pertinent FOIA request at the core of this
case at a cost to Plaintiff consisting only
of the standard copying costs of 25 cents
per page.

B) The City of Iron River shall be ordered
to pay Plaintiff's costs in this action.

C) That this Court find that the City of
Iron River has arbitrarily and capriciously
violated Act 442 and order the City to pay
to Plaintiff the maximum punitive damages
allowed by Act 442.

D) That the Court permanently enjoin the
City of Iron River from routinely demanding
payment of small amounts for information to
be provided under the FOIA where
justification of "unreasonably high costs"
is not legitimately established and
articulated. Plaintiff is asking the Court
to prevent the need for repeating this
lawsuit with the same City defendant for
the same reason when additional different
FOIA requests are being processed in the
future.

E) That all future FOIA requests from this
Plaintiff, when accompanied by a
certification that his work is in the
interest of the public good be provided in
compliance with Act 442 Sec. 4. (1), at no
cost to the undersigned Plaintiff.


Respectfully submitted

__________________________________


The undersigned William J. Vajk, being duly
sworn, certifies under the penalties of
perjury that the information provided in
this complaint and attached Exhibits is
true.

___________________________________
William J. Vajk




Sworn and subscribed to before me on the
________________ day of _____________, 2008.


__________________________________________
Notary Public

My Commission expires ____________________________