Lary Holland: Official Blog, Links, and Resources

The Kent County friend of the court, being represented by Daniel J. Fojtik, a staff attorney also employed by the Kent County Circuit Court, filed a Brief in Opposition to my Motion to Set Aside Order to Show Cause, et al. My motion was brought once already before the court on December 9, 2005 and was adjourned by Judge G. Patrick Hillary until December 22, 2005 to give the foc time to respond as they were not prepared and there was a question of proper service among other things. You can find the complete brief that was filed by the foc's staff attorney HERE. It makes for a great read as it definitely shows the foc trying to mature itself into another CPS type group. Watch out, it is just around the corner.

The brief obviously only addresses one area of my Motion with regard to the need for an affidavit to support a Petition for Order to Show Cause, and also alleges that the foc "has a special standing unlike the parties to the case" as well as states that the foc "merely receives the information from the parties and initiates contempt proceedings when it appears that a violation has occurred." That is only a sample of the language from the brief presented by Daniel J. Fojtik.

Of course, as presented by the foc, instead of a party following due process to protect the accused rights, they should complain to the friend of the court who has special standing and doesn't need to prove allegations to the same standard, allowing for people to be thrown into jail right and left without any evidence, just a mere unsupported allegation. Just check out the mockery of a hearing conducted by Marie Kessler last month if you don't believe me. Please continue to send your comments directly to me on this issue, as many of you have brought up other great points regarding the powers of the foc.

As a precautionary matter with regard to the arbitrary ruling of Kent County Circuit Court Referee Marie Kessler (see results of hearing), I figured it would be prudent to timely file my Objection to Referee Order while the foc prepares arguments of why they should be able to do things differently from the rest of us. For those that attended the referee hearing (Nov 22, 2005) and witnessed first hand the arbitrary nature of the proceedings most of this will make perfect sense to you, as your perceptions were very helpful. Bear in mind that I have already re-noticed out the Motion to Set Aside the Order to Show Cause, et al (Dec 9 2005 forced to adjourn) that prompted the non-judicial parody hearing which is pending for argument on Thursday, December 22, 2005 at 8:30am. This Objection to Referee Order is slated for hearing, only if necessary, on January 6, 2006 at 8:30am both before Judge G. Patrick Hillary in Kent County.

Well, I received a letter today from Judge G. Patrick Hillary. Here is a copy of the letter: (Letter).

Essentially one attorney (I blocked his name) that received one of the Notice of Alleged Improper Conduct emailed the Judge. It's important to note that the Judge indicated on the record something to the effect that the guy might file a PPO against me. We all know that the conditions certainly are not met for a PPO and I was suprised that the Judge would even allude to such an absurd thing.

Nonetheless, the one person that was alleged to have emailed Judge G. Patrick Hillary (no copy was attached to the letter) was added to the sender's DO NOT FAX list. However, (opposing counsel) Attorney Peter Walsh yesterday attempted to discuss the notice in depth on the record, and the Judge had to bring him (Pete Walsh) back to the matter that I brought before the court.

Today I appeared for my Noticed Motion regarding Setting Aside an Order to Show Cause issued by John R. Cole, among other issues. Pete Walsh (Peter Walsh, Grand Rapids, MI) appeared on behalf of his client with a late filed answer, Attorney Dan Fojtik noted his appearance as on "behalf of the Friend of the Court," and I of course appeared to discuss the motion.

I asked if the Judge had read the pleadings and he indicated he did not receive a copy, so Marie Kessler obviously took the Judge's copy. There were courtwatchers present to observe the hearings.

Judge G. Patrick Hillary posed the question to the FOC after my arguments, why don't they [foc] have to follow the same rules as everyone else, as presented in my arguments. Dan Fojtik indicated that the foc does not have the legal expertise or personal knowledge necessary to make an affidavit to support an ex-parte petition and that they [foc] do thousands of their petitions the same way. This hearing is adjourned for 13 days to be re-brought on December 22, 2005. The Judge wanted to give the friend of the court extra time to respond to the motion through his attorney, Dan Fojtik. 

One thing to note is that Attorney Peter Walsh wanted to act like he was "ratting me out" for sending letters to various Grand Rapids Bar Members in an effort to shift Judge G. Patrick Hillary's perception of the hearing against me. The Judge had to indicate to him (Pete) that the letters have nothing to do with the hearing today and referenced an issue with an attorney emailing directly to him [Hillary] with a request that he not be contacted. The Judge posed his question though, proving that my motion was not frivolous as alleged by Peter Walsh's ranting statements and late filed answer. There is much to say about this hearing today, but I will reserve until I receive the Transcript.