Instead of the state choosing a local Royal Oak shyster, er, counselor, to represent them in the proceedings, they are opting to go the distance with the big guns. That’s right; they called in chi-chi lawyers from tony Bloomfield Hills. These are the kind of guys who can still afford a membership at Oakland Hills, still eat dinner at exclusive restaurants and hang around the Maserati dealership in their off time.
Our respondent’s first request for documents is intimidating and reads like a first year law text book. There are 51 “interrogatories” for the respondent (that’s us) and 34 more regarding the production of the documents we will be submitting. I can see why some might take a look at it and run screaming.
My husband’s first response was to freak out. It’s too much information to gather during the oncoming busy season. “I’ll back out this year, but next year I’ll let them have it!” So I took a look.
Many of the questions have little to do with the subject of taxes or the value of the property. For example, they want to know who provided financing from 1995 and what the payments were. They also want to know the “historical average tenant turnover,” how much we pay for pest control (0) among other things, and copies of our environmental reports. I don’t know what to say about that, since we share our space with several nesting sparrows. Should I produce my own research paper and give myself an A+?
After a deeper look, I decided this was totally doable, so I’m taking my case to the tribunal. I realize some of those vacant properties on my street are tax foreclosed, and the city and county are out the money they could have been collecting if there wasn’t a major depression going on. That doesn’t mean they can raise the value of my worthless building to something of worth and expect me to pay to make up the difference.
I’d rather see them dismantle the Bureaucratic Clubhouse and let the county do it.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy
Joanne,
Shyster? How could you insult the legal profession so? I find it absolutely digusting! You should be ashamed of yourself! Even if you were telling the truth.
Mr. Miller?
2 - Joanne Huspek
Ruvy: Even the attorneys I know and who I'm on good terms with regard the bulk of their profession (as witnessed by our Beltway Boys) as shysters, I mean counselors...
3 - Bliffle
Good article. Nice picture, too.
4 - Ruvy
You mean you couldn't tell I was joking, eh, Joanne? When I first met my wife, she was growling over how she got screwed over by the big name law firm she had hired to sue the MTC for her when she fell on a St. Paul bus and damaged her back.
I sat and sympathized with her over what shysters lawyers are, bought a birthday gift, etc. Later, after we had gotten married, I read the transcript of the discovery proceedings that led to the law firm's advice to her not to sue - that she didn't have a leg to stand on.
She didn't. They did her an immense favor. When I explained why, it took a a while to accept. But most folks tend to feel that all lawyers are shysters - except their lawyer. They then extend those feelings to congressmaggots - with the tragic results we all see.
5 - Marsh Newmark
This is liberalism in action and explains why so many shysters, I mean lawyers are liberals.
6 - Joanne Huspek
Thanks, Bliffle. It's my headshot. I don't really look like that, ask my husband.
I knew you were joking, Ruvy. You seem to have the same warped sense of humor I have. But I can't believe your wife didn't prevail over the MTC.
7 - Ruvy
Joanne,
I can't believe your wife didn't prevail over the MTC.
The reason she couldn't have prevailed was that her own testimony was so uncertain. Her memory was uncertain as the exact order of events, and to whether there was ice on the steps or not, etc., etc. The MTC did make a token settlement of $25,000, so it was not an entire loss. But between the lawyers' cut and the expenses for discovery, my wife saw $12,700 or so. So it was not an entire loss....