×

Ruling significant — for all the wrong reasons

On March 21, a 13th Circuit Court judge affirmed the public’s right to view certain evidence in the state’s governor kidnap plot case.

We can’t imagine any other ruling since — as the judge pointed out — you can’t un-ring that bell.

So we mark this moment as a significant milestone in these proceedings only because it seems a remarkably sane and reasonable finding, against the backdrop of some inexplicable conduct by the state Attorney General’s office.

We marvel that they could have actually expected any other judgment.

And we marvel that they would insist on going through the exercise of withholding from the public those documents already presented in open court during a public proceeding.

What a waste of taxpayer money.

What a waste of the judge’s time and attention.

What a mockery of the court system.

A freelance videographer by the name of Eric VanDussen, representing himself, was able to argue in court that this “Super Top Secret” material being sealed by the attorney general’s office was, in fact, already out.

The screen that projected some of the evidence being offered in open court during a preliminary hearing in August could not be easily viewed from the gallery where the audience was seated. But VanDussen had been able to photograph some related poster board versions of it during a break.

(Oops, attorneys general people: You had that screen angled just right, but you’ll have to watch for those poster boards next time you’re trying to pull a fast one.)

So VanDussen’s argument last week to release the material was strengthened by the fact that he was standing before the judge holding some of that evidence in his hand.

You can’t un-ring the bell, Judge Charles Hamlyn said.

Now the only question is what items may still be withheld for little or no reason during the trial in August.

That’s when defendants Eric Molitor, Shawn Fix, Michael and William Null each face one count of providing material support for an act of terrorism and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony in Antrim County.

The Record-Eagle’s Mardi Link has been relentless in her efforts to obtain the evidence that had been withheld by the attorney general’s office. She filed a Freedom of Information request for the material before the judge removed the blockade, and again afterward.

Secrecy has not only been sought in this case, it also has been incorporated in the criminal prosecution of Lee Chatfield, former leader of the Michigan House.

In both cases, Attorney General Dana Nessel refused to release search warrant records, and when the arguments were made in court to shield the records from public view, no attorney opposing the request was present at the hearings to argue in favor of transparency.

That lack of argument from the opposition, so the court can consider the other side before rendering a decision, is inherently unfair to the people.

Bridge and the Free Press went to court last fall to gain access to the Chatfield documents. Their motion was opposed by Nessel. Then, on Nov. 8, Ingham District Court Judge Stacia Buchanan ordered the Chatfield documents released. However, before the material could be turned over, a lawyer from Nessel’s office appealed the ruling to the circuit court.

In December, Ingham Circuit Judge Wanda Stokes — who previously had worked in the state Attorney General’s office — sided with Nessel and reversed Buchanan’s order. Given the fact that Stokes had a prior relationship with Nessel’s office, if not Nessel herself, it seems inappropriate for that judge to be ruling in this matter. Why didn’t she recuse herself?

That’s another good question.

There may be good answers to all of these situations, but the abject lack of transparency swirling around these matters explodes any hope of trusting what we’re told.

The irony, of course, is that the attorney general in Michigan touts transparency.

There’s an old newsroom saying: If your mother says she loves you, check it out.

In this case, given these recent experiences, we suggest an update:

If the attorney general’s office says they’re transparent, check it out.

We did.

They’re not.

— Traverse City Record-Eagle

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today