Can You Be Sued For Asking Questions?

Apparently our “new” township attorney, Carol Rosati, thinks you can. I’ve received two letters from Ms. Rosati (see below) that state that “you can be sued” and “you could be liable for treble damages,” for asking questions at the February 12, 2010 board meeting, then telling the Salem public about these unanswered questions in my newsletter.

Download Carol Rosati Threat to sue Roperti for asking Questions

Download Carol Rosati Threat to sue Roperti, 2nd Letter

 

I DID ask the board if they knew of Ms. Rosati’s involvement in the landmark case known as Sandstone v Novi, as well as Salem Properties v Salem Township and REIS/Shostak v Northville Township. In her letters threatening to sue me she confirmed what I said, that she was absolutely involved in each of the cases I mentioned.

 

So what's the problem??

 

Since she wasn’t at the meeting it would be an obvious conclusion that someone at the meeting “brought to her attention” the questions I asked of the board. There were only two types of people at the meeting, members of the public and Board members. How likely do you think it is that members of the public have the ability to bring something to our attorney’s attention? Then the only alternative is that someone on the township board made her “aware” of my questions, perhaps misrepresenting their content in the process. Perhaps that explains why Ms. Rosati found it necessary to “cc” (send a copy to) "Robert Heyl, Township Supervisor," and the “Township Board.” This letter, which completely misrepresented my questions and accuses me of lying, has been FOIA’d, and has been provided by the township free of charge.  Perhaps someone else might be liable for treble damages.  

 

Do you find it scary that Ms. Rosati, this township’s legal representative, would write a letter threatening a lawsuit when she apparently didn’t have first-hand or verified information of what the alleged offense actually was? As you know, complete audio of the meeting is readily available, I doubt the township would make her pay for it, and she can always look at my website for absolutely free.

 

Definition of Irony

Now here’s the kicker, and it might be comic if it weren’t true…see if you can follow this sequence of events -

This township board

 

…that just patted itself on the back for settling an ACLU lawsuit,

…that was brought against me as Supervisor for asking 2 residents to follow the meeting rules,

…that was brought by Bob Uherek (who is current Treasurer Paul Uherek’s father), and O'Neill Muirhead

…who both admitted during depositions to being out of order during the meeting,  

…who both admitted during depositions that they weren't thrown out of the meeting, but decided to leave of their own will,

…and now that same township board has hired a “new” attorney that is threatening to sue me, a township resident, for asking questions at a township board meeting, without being out of order.

If you're wondering why this lawsuit settled with any payment to the Plaintiff's at all, it's a simple matter of money. Many times the best solution for someone that hasn't done anything is to fold – I’ll pay you to stop costing me attorney fees, as the cost of settlement is less than fighting you in court. It’s no victory, and it’s nothing to be proud of, no more than the parents of the school bully who takes your lunch in exchange for not beating you up should be proud of the bully’s “work.”

 

 

Now the township decided to go the extra mile, and pass a resolution about what already is a fact – which is like having a police department pass a resolution that says, “we don’t agree with murder.”

 

Here’s the resolution, as passed, and it’s really a masterpiece of word art -

 

“The township acknowledges that it is a violation of the First Amendment for a township official to eject a citizen from a public meeting because the citizen has criticized the official's performance at the appropriate time of the meeting pursuant to the township's rules.”

 

Is it just me or is that masterfully written to lead you to believe that the plaintiff’s were not out of order, which they were, and admitted being so.

 

The township resolves to respect the First Amendment rights of its citizens and to recognize the right of the members of the public to criticize, consistent with township rules, township officials based on their performance without fear of any adverse consequences.

 

Do you think that the two letters I received which threatened lawsuit might be considered “adverse consequences” for “criticism of the township board?”

I wonder why more people don't want to get involved with the township - could it be that a lawsuit might be imminent if you ask questions that they don't like?

Comments

[Rural neighbor]

Sounds like these officials have gone too far! We, the voters have gifted them our vote to put them into office. Now we find out that some of the "Gang of Four" fail to tell the truth. Heyl calls the police on the citizens for asking questions, but Uherek is allowed to berate an older woman over and over, jumping out of his chair - and that is acceptable. Van Fossen reaches into the distance past to create a culture of wrong doing. This behavior is unbelievable and should not be tolerated! What happened to the promised citizen participation? The intimidation of residents and attempts to keep people from expressing themselves sound like a fast track to more First Amendment litigation. Anyone considering a class action lawsuit?

[See Spot Run]

Yes, apparently you can be sued for asking questions. I just read about a private school suing the tuition paying parents for asking questions about where their money goes. Apparently crooks don't like it when you ask questions about them.