|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Holowka started in the Prosecutor's office in 1978 and he was Prosecutor from 1982 to 1992. |
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:27 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Document 31 :: Abiola v. Genesee, County of et al :: 2 ...
law.justia.com › … › Eastern › Abiola v. Genesee, County of et al
Genesee County argues that Abiola has not pled and cannot prove that any policy or procedure of the county led to the alleged violation of Abiola's constitutional ... |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:39 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Order Granting Summary Disposition
This was an action in which plaintiff Abiola claimed violations of the right to equal protection based on the execution of an Oakland County writ.
The defendants Robert Reznick, Thomas Royal II, and Ashley Pointer are while and plaintiff Abiola is black. Abiola claimed that in the course of an execution of an Oakland County writ for seizure, the three defendants assaulted hi, falsely arrested him and subjected him to discrimination based on race in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The claims were based on 42 USC sec 1983.
All but one of the original allegations were dismissed without prejudice by Judge Gadola on June 7, 2007. They were:
violation of the state law regarding assault and battery;
false arrest and imprisonment;
gross negligence;
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
violation of the Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act MCL 37.2102(1).
The sole remaining claim was the violation of 42USC section 1983. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:08 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Abiola was a resident of Oakland County and was the owner of All American Mortgage Network in Southfield. Abiola is African American and the three defendants Robert Reznick, Thomas Royal II, and Ashley Pointer are white.
At the time of the incident both Reznick and Royal had been deputized by Genesee County Sheriff Pickell. Reznckwas also a deputy in Midland and Gladwin Counties. Reznick and Royal ere issued "other agency special deputy card" at the request of the City of Coleman Police Department. Neither man worked for the Genesee County Sheriff Department. The seizure writ was not on the behalf of the Genesee County and was from an Oakland County private party.
On 1-31-2006 Royal and Pointer went to Southfield to serve and execute a $131,744 seizure writ on Abiola on behalf of Ameritech Publishing, Inc.. Royal represented himself as a Genesee County Sheriff Deputy to the son of Abiola and used his special deputy badge to gain access to the business office of All American Mortgage. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:56 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
During the seizure, Royal was said to become angry at the poor quality of the property. He told Abiola to "come up with some money now: and "there's not enough very shit around here". Abiola said he was "beaten bloody" and threatened. The son of Abiola called the Southfield Police and Royal called Reznick.
Abiola was arrested by the Southfield Police for "resisting and obstructing Court officers."Abiola claimed the arrest was instigated by Reznick who told hi on the phone to "come up with some money or you're going to jail". The charges were later dismissed.
Abiola claimed Reznick made repeated abusive phone calls. Allegedly Reznick told Abiola "You niggers better come up with some money" and "You and your nigger lawyer are going to jail." |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:09 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Reznick had been a special deputy for about 15 years. According to Pickell the "special deputy status" was for the purpose of facilitating civil process. The status was given as a courtesy to the Police Chief of Coleman to simplify for Reznick the process serving in Genesee County. The status was to be used only in Genesee County and not to be used outside the county. Reznick attended the Genesee county Civil Process class to become a special deputy.
Royal testified he routinely executed writs for seizure in Oakland and used his Genesee County Special Deputy identification. He said the purpose was to represent himself as a deputy sheriff when he was executing a writ of seizure.
Pickell revoked the special deputy status of both Reznick and Royal in February 2006 after he received complaints about Reznick' behavior in Eaton County, Rochester and Auburn Hills. Pickell said he heard that Reznick entered the Chrysler Building in Auburn Hills and "kind of bullied his way around". |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:28 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Pickell testified there were no procedures for dealing with complaints about special deputies outside the county. Captain Swanson advised Pickell that Reznick was using his special deputy identification to execute process outside the county.
Pickell also testified that while there was a one hour annual class for special deputies, there was no test procedure to ensure they understand the class materials. Genesee County has no written procedures on how to deal with special deputies, no record keeping, and no evaluation said Pickell in response to Aboila's claim that Genesee County failed to train and monitor. The monitoring of conduct of special deputies lies with the persons who use them to execute process said Pickell. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:19 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
ROBERT REZNICK. It is currently active. - shareholders, officers and directors, …
.
More assholes with badges: Bill collectors [Archive ...
www.secondcitizen.net/Forum/archive/index.php/t-11057.html
In Michigan, apparently it's ... Robert Reznick showed Ms. Nowak a police officer's badge and informed her that he was a sheriff's Deputy ... According to Defendant |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:18 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Asher Bertrand11-15-2010, 02:40 PM
I've found out about a practice that has me seething. In Michigan, apparently it's legal for a bill collector who has won a judgment against a debtor to enter the debtors home, refuse to leave, threaten the debtor with violence and extort money. There's one collector in particular in this state, Robert Reznick, and one law firm that uses him, Weber & Olcese (yep, I'm naming names, anyone with access to the federal court online filing system can look up the same) that appear to be using this tactic, over and over. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed and as far as I can tell, they usually end up settling before it goes to trial.
Here's excerpts from some of the complaints filed. I've edited some for space, and I can't post links - though I do have the complaints saved to hard drive. Has anyone heard of this being done elsewhere? Resident attorneys, care to chime in? Given the economy, I've got to believe there are more and more people who are falling behind and having judgments entered against them. Can we look forward to more of this?:
IV
14. On or about October 15, 2007, at about 7:30 p.m., Ms. Duffield was at home when she heard a knocking on the door of her home.
15. When she inquired who it was, she heard a male voice saying, "Sheriff Deputy, open the door."
16. Believing that the man outside was a sheriff's deputy, on official law-enforcement business, she opened the door.
...
19. Ms. Duffield, suspecting something was not quite right, shut the front door and refused to let Mr. Reznick enter.
20. Mr. Reznick then called the local police department and the City of Clarkston police officers appeared on the scene.
21. The Clarkston police, after conferring with Mr. Reznick, told Ms. Duffield that she had to let Mr. Reznick into her home.
22. Ms. Duffield, believing that she had no choice but to comply with the Clarkston police officers, was forced to permit Mr. Reznick and his companions enter her home.
23. Once inside the home, Mr. Reznick informed Ms. Duffield that he had come to seize property inside her home pursuant to a judgment entered against her husband and Order to Seize Property and that unless she gave him cash to satisfy the judgment, he would take everything in the home.
24. Mr. Reznick also announced that he would remain in her home and not leave until his demands for money were met.
25. Ms. Duffield informed Mr. Reznick that she was not responsible to pay any money since the judgment was not against her and asked Mr. Reznick to leave.
26. Mr. Reznick then informed that Ms. Duffield was equally liable as her husband because she was married to him and, once again, informed that he would only leave if paid in cash.
27. Mr. Reznick also informed Ms. Duffield that her property became her husband’s property by virtue of marriage, making all property in the home subject to seizure.
28. Mr. Reznick demanded $10000 in cash and threatened to take all property within the home if not paid immediately.
29. Ms. Duffield informed Mr. Reznick that she did not have that kind of money and, once again, requested that he leave.
30. Mr. Reznick then informed Ms. Duffield he would leave if he was paid 2400 in cash.
31. Mr. Reznick demanded that Ms. Duffield make phone calls to her friends and family in order to raise the money demanded by him.
32. It was only after Ms. Duffield was able to raise the money demanded by Reznick and gave it to him, did Reznick finally leave Plaintiff’s home. Case
IV
FACTS
14. On or about August 22, 2007, at about 7:30 p.m., Ms. Eckhout heard a knocking on the door of her home.
15. When she inquired who it was, she heard a male voice saying, "Sheriff’s Deputy, open the door."
16. Believing that the man outside was a sheriff's deputy, on official law-enforcement business, she opened the door.
17. Once she opened the door, Defendant, Robert Reznick flashed her a badge and identified himself as Oakland County sheriff's deputy and demanded entry into the home.
...
20. Fearing the very fraud that Mr. Reznick was trying to perpetrate, Ms. Ekhout shut the door, locked it and informed Mr. Reznick that she was not letting him into her house.
21. Mr. Reznick then summoned the Clarkston Police Department.
22. The Clarkston police arrived and, after conferring with Mr. Reznick briefly, informed Ms. Eckhout that she had to let Mr. Reznick in her home.
...
24. Upon entry, Mr. Reznick announced that he and his companion were there to seize property pursuant to an Order to Seize Property, demanded $1800 and stated that he and his partner would not leave the home until he was paid money in cash.
...
27. Mr. Reznick sat at Plaintiff’s kitchen table, while his companion made himself comfortable on the couch and began watching TV.
28. When Eckhout informed Reznick that she did not have $1800 in cash, Reznick informed her, “Then it’s going to be $2400 in cash. If you don’t come up with $2400, me and my partner are not leaving this house.”
29. Reznick demanded that Ms. Eckhout start making phone calls to family members and friends in order to raised the $2400.
30. Ms. Eckhout was then forced to call family members to obtain the money demanded.
31. Ultimately, Plaintiff’s family members raised the money demanded by Reznick and came to her home to give her the money.
32. It was only after Plaintiff’s family members gave the money to Plaintiff, who – in turn - then gave it to Mr. Reznick, did Reznick finally leave Plaintiff’s home.
IV
FACTS
18. On or about January 8, 2007, at about 9:00 p.m., Plaintiff’s wife, Julianne Nowak returned home with the Nowaks’ 11 year old minor son and discovered that there was a car parked in the driveway and another car parked in front of the home.
19. Defendant, Robert Reznick showed Ms. Nowak a police officer's badge and informed her that he was a sheriff's Deputy and that he had a court order permitting him to enter her home and seize all property within the home.
20. Mr. Reznick demanded that Ms. Nowak permit him to enter her home and that if she refused to do so, he would arrest her and have her prosecuted for committing a felony, carrying a two-year sentence.
21. Ms. Nowak immediately called her husband, Damon on his cell phone, who instructed her to remain in the car and not to speak to anybody until he arrived.
...
24. Plaintiff's minor son began crying, believing Mr. Reznick would make good on his threats and that his mother would be arrested and taken to jail.
25. Mr. Reznick continued to pressure Ms. Nowak to open the front door of her home and let him in by repeatedly threatening to arrest and jail her for not complying with his "lawful orders" and further threatening that if she did not voluntarily open the front door to the home and let him in, he would break down the front door and confiscate all furniture, electronics and any valuables within the home and also hurt the family dog.
...
29. Mr. Reznick threatened to throw Mr. Nowak in jail if he did not surrender his wallet and the gold chain on his neck and empty his pockets and ordered Nowak to place everything on the hood of Reznick’s car.
...
31. By this time, Plaintiff's son had become so upset and hysterical that one of the St. Clair Shores police officers informed Ms. Nowak that she could leave the scene with her son and return in a little while.
...
34. Mr. Reznick then informed Mr. Nowak that unless he received $5000 in cash, he would have no alternative but to arrest and jail him.
35. Under threat of arrest Mr. Nowak was able to borrow $5000 to give to Reznick and Reznick, upon receiving the money, left the Nowak's property and premises; however, not before threatening that Mr. Nowak had better pay $1250 within 4 days and another $1250 by the following Friday and that if Mr. Nowak did not pay the money, Mr. Reznick would return and that Mr. Nowak and his family would receive the same treatment again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgaine Alter11-15-2010, 02:54 PM
sob
Is it not against the law to impersonate a police officer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnnyVann11-15-2010, 02:56 PM
sob
Is it not against the law to impersonate a police officer.
Ask Greenie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asher Bertrand11-15-2010, 02:58 PM
The thing is, Morgaine, I think the guy is actually listed as an officer of the court, so he does have the authority. I don't know for sure whether that entitles him to describe himself as a deputy or not, but the police in the incidents above came out to check what was going on and wound up backing up the bully. It's insane.
But I don't think he has the right to insist on money from a third party, even if the third party is a spouse. And I don't think he can legally camp out in someone's home until they come up with $5,000 or however much. It's just too over the top.
I ran this by an attorney friend of mine last week who said, "That's a time to announce that you're in fear for your life and you have a gun." I guess he's lucky that he's only picked on unarmed homeowners so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spaceman Opus11-15-2010, 03:00 PM
I ran this by an attorney friend of mine last week who said, "That's a time to announce that you're in fear for your life and you have a gun." I guess he's lucky that he's only picked on unarmed homeowners so far.
That's what I was thinking too. Mr. Reznick would get a stomachful of his own teeth the second he threatened violence to me or my family in my own home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
evoL mubble11-15-2010, 03:02 PM
The thing is, Morgaine, I think the guy is actually listed as an officer of the court, so he does have the authority. I don't know for sure whether that entitles him to describe himself as a deputy or not, but the police in the incidents above came out to check what was going on and wound up backing up the bully. It's insane.
But I don't think he has the right to insist on money from a third party, even if the third party is a spouse. And I don't think he can legally camp out in someone's home until they come up with $5,000 or however much. It's just too over the top.
I ran this by an attorney friend of mine last week who said, "That's a time to announce that you're in fear for your life and you have a gun." I guess he's lucky that he's only picked on unarmed homeowners so far.
If he came to me that way... there would be a fresh mound of earth somewhere on an acreage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgaine Alter11-15-2010, 03:02 PM
Lawyers are officers of the court but can they claim they are a sheriff deputy?
weird shit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucian Rozenberg11-15-2010, 03:10 PM
ITT: inspiration for new ICP (who are from Detroit, btw) rap about axe-murdering bill collectors while guzzling Faygo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnnyVann11-15-2010, 03:26 PM
Lawyers are officers of the court but can they claim they are a sheriff deputy?
weird shit
Would you give Trout a badge?
:freakout:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susanne Pascale11-15-2010, 03:51 PM
This would be illegal in CA for a bunch of different reasons. For one thing, as someone pointed out, lawyers are "officers of the court." That does NOT mean we are "peace officers" like police or deputy sherriffs. We don't cary badges and we dont carry guns as part of our jobs. If an attorney identified him or herself as a "deputy sherrif" or "sherrif's deputy" in CA that would be impersonating a peace officer and is a crime.
Just because this stuff is illegal in CA doesn't mean it is in Michigan though.
don't take my word for it though, I'm sure Trout will check in on this.
Sooz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VictoriaK11-15-2010, 03:53 PM
Thought debtor's prison was pretty much a thing of the past
I know it's wikipedia but:
In 1833 the United States abolished Federal imprisonment for unpaid debts,[3] and most states outlawed the practice around the same time.
It is still possible to be incarcerated for debt, though this may be unconstitutional unless the court finds that the debtor actually possesses the means to pay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors'_prison
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed and as far as I can tell, they usually end up settling before it goes to trial.
I know that settlements aren't normally public knowledge, but I wonder if the debt collector opts to pay the money back, figuring for every one they settle, several others never bother to file a lawsuit or don't have the means to do so.
Anyway you look at it this is screwy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnnyVann11-15-2010, 04:16 PM
This would be illegal in CA for a bunch of different reasons. For one thing, as someone pointed out, lawyers are "officers of the court." That does NOT mean we are "peace officers" like police or deputy sherriffs. We don't cary badges and we dont carry guns as part of our jobs. If an attorney identified him or herself as a "deputy sherrif" or "sherrif's deputy" in CA that would be impersonating a peace officer and is a crime.
Just because this stuff is illegal in CA doesn't mean it is in Michigan though.
don't take my word for it though, I'm sure Trout will check in on this.
Sooz
Try putting on a green lantern outfit and see if it works. I hear it does in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-15-2010, 04:18 PM
Something worth noting. Is the people never stated the police said the man was a sheriff only that they had to allow him to enter the homes.
The thing that says this is not kosher is instead of calling the sheriffs office he calls the local pd. The local pd is suppose to verify the man is who is claims. And if he represented himself ad a sheriff to them he would be in violation of impersonating a peace officer.
Once the man enters the people home and refused to leave, people should then start calling to find out who this guy is. No police officer or deputy can refuse to leave your home unless they feel there is some sort of danger to you or somebody in the house. IF they feel there is danger they have to contact ems, and call for back up. Im not blaming the people as Im sure most of the average population dont know this.
If you goto their site one of their services is medical collections. That is telling of what the guy is doing. The person they are using probably is a private detective and that is the badge he is flashing.
eta dont I remember seeing something about a weird ass michigan law regarding debit collection recently?
also I whole heartedly support the people suing this company. It is a brute force way of collecting debit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vivianne Draper11-15-2010, 04:31 PM
this may shed more light on the subject:
http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20080930_0003515.EMI.htm/qx
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/04/Collector.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asher Bertrand11-15-2010, 04:45 PM
Veeeery helpful, Viv. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Karuna11-15-2010, 04:55 PM
What I can't understand is on what possible grounds city law enforcement told the homeowner that they had to let him in? Was it because of property seizure or is he just paying the locals off?
Surely the local PD is smart enought to know the difference between an officer of the court and an officer of the law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-15-2010, 04:55 PM
this may shed more light on the subject:
http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20080930_0003515.EMI.htm/qx
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/04/Collector.pdf
so if im reading that right the judgment for money or real property is how they are able to enter. interesting.
I would assume then all contracts should state the property being held for collateral right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-15-2010, 04:57 PM
What I can't understand is on what possible grounds city law enforcement told the homeowner that they had to let him in? Was it because of property seizure or is he just paying the locals off?
if i am reading the law properly it says by obtaining a judgment for the money or real property non specific they are allowed by the city pd to enter and determine real property valued at or near the amount of debt.
which sounds a bit shady.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vivianne Draper11-15-2010, 04:59 PM
Well if you read it more closely, it looks like collusion. It looks like a couple of buddies got together with a buddy judge and figured out how to circumvent the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-15-2010, 05:03 PM
Well if you read it more closely, it looks like collusion. It looks like a couple of buddies got together with a buddy judge and figured out how to circumvent the law.
yes i agree with that.
the formation of the "company" was done behind closed doors.
but the tactics used seem legal although a bit extreme.
I would bet enough people start taking notice and bring this to the public limelight. You will see at least three cowards running for what ever hills they can find in Michigan  .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oryx Tempel11-15-2010, 05:19 PM
Jesus Christ. Welcome back to the bad old days of the Middle Ages, or maybe 1840 Ireland.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Family_evicted_by_their_landlord_during_the_Irish_ potato_famine.JPG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Waveington11-15-2010, 05:58 PM
I wonder if they have rusty sheriff badges?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen11-16-2010, 01:13 AM
this may shed more light on the subject:
http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20080930_0003515.EMI.htm/qx
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/04/Collector.pdf
Ah, the joys of very privatization, yet again making themselves manifest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vivianne Draper11-16-2010, 09:32 AM
Ah, the joys of very privatization, yet again making themselves manifest.
this goes way beyond privatization. i liken this to the prisons that were built in Arizona to 'house' illegal immigrants and then laws were drafted and passed to fill those prisons. this is much the same concept only no laws are drafted -- instead a lawyer, a judge, and a thug got together to see how they could circumvent the law to rob people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorus11-16-2010, 09:41 AM
Help help he has a knife. *blam blam blam*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen11-16-2010, 09:58 AM
Help help he has a knife. *blam blam blam*
Just a matter of time, really.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JohnnyVann11-16-2010, 11:42 AM
Help help he has a knife. *blam blam blam*
Except his "knife" turned out to be a cell phone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trout11-16-2010, 06:35 PM
Lawyers are officers of the court but can they claim they are a sheriff deputy?
weird shit
NO!
Holy cow. If he pulled that nonsense here, guys with actual badges would drag him to jail. "Officer of the Court" essentially just means someone with a particular responsibility to the court. lawyers are officers of the court, but we don't get to carry badges, barge into people's homes or do anything like what this nut is doing.
I can't figure out what the police were doing supporting him. It's crazy! I don't do collections work, but I would think the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act would prohibit this sort of behavior, and there may be a Consumer Protection Act claim as well. (maybe not - that's a weird one) He's also trespassing and assaulting people.
The issue with the settlements is interesting. My guess is that he gets away with this behavior enough to make it profitable, and he considers settling the lawsuits to be a cost of doing business. I don't know. Just a guess. But holy cow! I can't believe this guy hasn't been smashed by the courts yet!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-16-2010, 07:05 PM
NO!
Holy cow. If he pulled that nonsense here, guys with actual badges would drag him to jail. "Officer of the Court" essentially just means someone with a particular responsibility to the court. lawyers are officers of the court, but we don't get to carry badges, barge into people's homes or do anything like what this nut is doing.
I can't figure out what the police were doing supporting him. It's crazy! I don't do collections work, but I would think the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act would prohibit this sort of behavior, and there may be a Consumer Protection Act claim as well. (maybe not - that's a weird one) He's also trespassing and assaulting people.
The issue with the settlements is interesting. My guess is that he gets away with this behavior enough to make it profitable, and he considers settling the lawsuits to be a cost of doing business. I don't know. Just a guess. But holy cow! I can't believe this guy hasn't been smashed by the courts yet!
I agree with you Trout its amazing somebody hasnt either shot these guys or been sucessful in suing.
The one thing I picked up from the links vivianne posted was the guy was a off duty sheriff, and the other guy was a former/off duty highway patrol.
Maybe they were using those badges and leverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asher Bertrand11-16-2010, 07:07 PM
They are successful in suing, in that the cases almost always are settled out of court. I assume the plaintiff has a reason for accepting the settlement. I'd be curious to see what happens if one ever got to trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-16-2010, 07:09 PM
They are successful in suing, in that the cases almost always are settled out of court. I assume the plaintiff has a reason for accepting the settlement. I'd be curious to see what happens if one ever got to trial.
I misread the court doc vivianne posted then  .
I think the settlements have to outweigh the amounts collected.
Has this been brought into the full public light?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asher Bertrand11-16-2010, 07:10 PM
Hmmmmmm.
Not yet.
Workin' on it.
eta: "Almost always settled." The collector usually files to have the case dismissed and sometimes the suit does get tossed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spaceman Opus11-16-2010, 07:13 PM
The one thing I picked up from the links vivianne posted was the guy was a off duty sheriff, and the other guy was a former/off duty highway patrol.
Maybe they were using those badges and leverage.
Are you saying he's not even calling real cops?
This gets better every time I read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-16-2010, 07:14 PM
Are you saying he's not even calling real cops?
This gets better every time I read it.
No they call the local pd.
But the guy is in cohorts with another person.
Go read that pdf vivianne posted its telling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-16-2010, 07:15 PM
Here read this.
According to Defendant Robert McKenna, when Lapeer decided to privatize, he and Robert Reznick arranged a meeting with the Lapeer County Chief Judge, the Honorable Nick O. Holowka, whom McKenna and Reznick knew from Judge Holowka's time as a county prosecutor. (At that time, McKenna was a Michigan State Police Trooper and Reznick was a Lapeer County Deputy Sheriff.) They told the Judge that they were interested in applying to be Court Officers and Judge Holowka agreed to appoint them. [McKenna Dep. pp. 72-73.] They each obtained and presented a bond to the Court, signed an "Independent Contractor Agreement for Court Officer," see Plaintiffs' Ex. N, and they were appointed as Court Officers for the 71-A District Court approximately three weeks later. Id. at p. 73.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spaceman Opus11-16-2010, 07:21 PM
Lovely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Fester11-16-2010, 07:26 PM
I know in Oklahoma and Missouri the guy would be in prison for extortion and the law firm would be out of business.
Actually he would probably be dead or seriously wounded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc. |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:20 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:29 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
ROZEWSKI v. WEBER Case No. 10-13035. - Leagle.com | Leagle
www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020110803A19
TIFFANY ROZEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY WEBER, MICHAEL J. OLCESE, LAW FIRM OF WEBER & OLCESE, and ROBERT J. REZNICK, Defendants. |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:32 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:37 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
ROZEWSKI v. WEBER Case No. 10-13035. - Leagle.com | Leagle
www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020110803A19
TIFFANY ROZEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY WEBER, MICHAEL J. OLCESE, LAW FIRM OF WEBER & OLCESE, and ROBERT J. REZNICK, Defendants.
Many of these cases have the same theme, the same attorney for the plaintiffs. the same arguments and the same losing results. In this case the Plaintiff stated she received a communication from the lawyer and asked her to contact him regarding Reznick. One would think that after so many losses, the attorney would change his tactics.
Reznick often claims to be a Sheriff Deputy ( having special badge from Gladwin, Genesee County or Midland should not be recognized in Oakland or Wayne County)
The police in these jurisdictions tell the plaintiffs who call they must comply/
Allegedly the law firm representing Reznick gets ex parte orders in closed court communities that refuse to allow Reznick to be a court officer. These closed court systems allow only their sheriffs deputies, local police and court officers to serve these documents.
In many cases the plaintiff is a female and she is not the party named in the document. These women state Reznick and his associates reuses to seize property and demands cash settlements from them although they are not the party named in the seizure document. He refuses requests to leave until the female makes calls to obtain money and requires them to sign agreements to satisfy the remainder of the debt. (Remember these women are not named in the documents and yet they are forced to make the settlement) Reznick and or his "contractual" employee also tell the individuals they cannot leave. They tell them they can call the police because they know the police will support them.
In the Abiola case, the male Abiola claimed to be beaten by Reznick's contractual employees and then arrested for resisting a court officer. |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:19 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:51 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
ROZEWSKI v. WEBER
Case No. 10-13035.
TIFFANY ROZEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY WEBER, MICHAEL J. OLCESE, LAW FIRM OF WEBER & OLCESE, and ROBERT J. REZNICK, Defendants.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
August 3, 2011.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER SETTING FINAL PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES
DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND/FACTS
On July 31, 2010, Plaintiff Tiffany Rozewski ("Rozewski") filed the instant suit against Defendants Jeffrey Weber ("Weber"), Michael Olcese ("Olcese"), Weber and Olcese, PLC ("Weber and Olcese"), and Robert Reznick ("Reznick") alleging: Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I); Conspiracy under State Law (Count II); Trespass (Count III); Fraud (Count IV); Abuse of Process (Count V); Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count VI); Intrusion (Count VII); Conversion of Money (Count VIII); and, Extortion and Threats (Count IX). The Weber and Olcese law firm obtained Orders to Seize Property and engaged Reznick to execute the Orders. (Comp., ¶ 1) Rozewski generally claims that Weber and Olcese conspired with Reznick to use "terroristic and abusive conduct in executing Weber and Olcese Orders to Seize Property" despite numerous complaints from Weber and Olcese employees and other judgment debtors. (Comp., ¶ 2) Upon stipulation by the parties, the Court entered an Order Dismissing Counts II through IX of Plaintiff's Complaint on May 31, 2011. The only remaining count in the Complaint is Count I, Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A Default Judgment was entered by the 37th District Court in Warren, Michigan, against Rozewski in the amount of $941.26 on behalf of Weber and Olcese's client, People's State Bank. (Motion, Ex. 4) After submitting the standard request for an Order to Seize Property to satisfy the Default Judgment, the court entered the Order on May 24, 2007. (Motion, Ex. 5) The Order to Seize Property authorized a sheriff, deputy sheriff, or court officer to seize "personal property . . . includ[ing], but not limited to . . . money, wherever located" to satisfy the judgment. (Motion, Ex. 5) Reznick was sent to the home by the Weber and Olcese law firm to execute an Order to Seize Property following an entry of civil judgment against Rozewski. (Comp., ¶ 13)
Reznick, accompanied by two other men, went to the home of Rozewski in Warren, Michigan on August 1, 2007 at about 10:00 p.m. (Comp., ¶ 12) Rozewski's sister told her that there was "a police officer wanting to talk to her." (Rozewski Dep., pp. 15, 22) Rozewski went outside through the house's side door and saw Reznick and another man standing in the driveway. (Rozewski Dep., p. 22) Reznick was dressed in casual clothes and told Rozewski, "My name is Robert Reznick. I'm a deputy sheriff here to collect a debt." (Rozewski Dep., p. 23) Reznick was holding up the Request and Order to Seize Property. (Rozewski Dep., p. 24) Reznick told Rozewski that if she did not pay him $1,200 to satisfy the debt then he would seize her property, including her 1997 Buick Regal. (Rozewski Dep., pp. 28-30)
Rozewski then told Reznick she was going inside the house to get her mother, shutting the door behind her. (Rozewski Dep., pp. 26-27) While her mother was coming up the stairs from the basement, Rozewski heard the side door open and Reznick and his companion came into the home. (Rozewski Dep., p. 27) Rozewski asked Reznick what he was doing in the house and he responded, "I'm not leaving until you pay me my debt." (Rozewski Dep., p. 2 Rozewski told Reznick she did not have that kind of money and he responded by telling her to start calling friends and family to get the money. (Rozewski Dep., p. 32) When Rozewski asked Reznick what he was doing in the house, he responded by going back outside into the backyard. (Rozewski Dep., p. 34)
Rozewski went outside to make some telephone calls. She testified that Reznick kept following her around while she was making the calls. (Rozewski Dep., p. 45) Rozewski called the Warren Police Department who responded to the home. (Rozewski Dep., pp. 40-41) When the officers arrived, Reznick walked up to and spoke to the officers, and before Rozewski could speak with the officers, the officers drove away. (Rozewski Dep., p. 42)
Rozewski's father and sister each had $500 and her mother had $100 in cash. (Rozewski Dep., pp. 34-35, 37) Rozewski was still short of the amount and asked Reznick if she could sign her $70 paycheck over to him and Reznick told her he only accepted cash. (Rozewski Dep., p. 37) Reznick told her to cash the check at a party store, which she did and gave Reznick the money. (Rozewski Dep., pp. 37-39) Rozewski signed a receipt provided by Reznick. (Rozewski Dep., p. 39) Reznick was at her home for one and one half to two hours. (Rozewski Dep., p. 40) Rozewski testified that he did not assault or threaten Rozewski with any harm. (Rozewski Dep., p. 52)
Rozewski called the Warren Police Department the next day to make sure she did not give her money to "some strange man" and the Police Department told her what Reznick did "was okay." (Rozewski Dep., p. 46) Rozewski did not make any other complaints about the incident or do any further investigation. (Rozewski Dep., p. 46) Rozewski had no further contact with Reznick after August 1, 2007. (Rozewski Dep., p. 54)
In 2009, Rozewski received a letter from her current counsel, James Shaw, who inquired if a court officer named Robert Reznick had come to her home and that "if you feel like you were violated or treated uncourteously in any way, to please contact the law office." (Rozewski Dep., pp. 48-49) Rozewski testified that she had never had any contact with anyone at Weber and Olcese but that she was suing them because "they were the people who sent him to do this." (Rozewski Dep., pp. 56-57) Rozewski filed the instant suit after contacting Mr. Shaw's office.
On January 3, 2011, Weber, Olcese and the Weber and Olcese firm filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Rozewski filed a two-page response to the motion, without an accompanying, on April 25, 2011. On May 11, 2011, a reply was filed to the response. A hearing was held on the matter and Rozewski's counsel was allowed to file a late brief.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedures provides that the court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The presence of factual disputes will preclude granting of summary judgment only if the disputes are genuine and concern material facts. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. Although the Court must view the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, where "the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment must be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23. A court must look to the substantive law to identify which facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim/Vicarious Liability by Weber, Olcese and Weber and Olcese and Conspiracy
The Weber and Olcese Defendants argue that they cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the actions of Reznick. They claim that Rozewski's counsel has filed several lawsuits against the firm and Reznick in this District and that courts, including the Honorable John Corbett O'Meara, have held that the Weber and Olcese Defendants could not be held liable for Reznick's actions under any theory, including conspiracy. (Defendants' Br., Ex. 7, D, Bairactaris v. Weber, Case No. 10-10983, Nov. 4, 2010 Opinion and Order Granting Summary Judgment). The Weber and Olcese Defendants argue that Rozewski has no evidence as to any alleged conspiracy between Reznick and the Weber and Olcese Defendants but that Rozewski's counsel relies on the exact same "evidence" he has presented in other cases.
In response, Rozewski argues that there is sufficient evidence regarding the conspiracy between the Weber and Olcese Defendants and Reznick to conclude there are genuine issues of material fact. Rozewski argues that Judge O'Meara's decision in dismissing the Weber and Olcese Defendants was erroneous, unsound and improper and that this Court should make an independent determination regarding whether or not summary judgment is proper in this case.
The Weber and Olcese Defendants replied that the Court should not consider Rozewski's response since it was not filed within 21 days after service of the motion, but more than three months after the summary judgment motion was filed. In addition, Rozewski did not file a brief with her response to the motion. The Court allowed Rozewski to filed a brief after the hearing was held on the matter.
"To successfully state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must identify a right secured by the United States Constitution and the deprivation of that right by a person acting under color of state law." Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036 (6th Cir. 1992). The following requirements must be met: (1) the conduct at issue must have been under color of state law; (2) the conduct must have caused a deprivation of constitutional rights; and (3) the deprivation must have occurred without due process of law. Nishiyama v. Dickson County, 814 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1987). As § 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, and only a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred, a plaintiff must set forth specific constitutional grounds for asserting a § 1983 claim. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3 (1979).
Rozewski attempts to hold the Weber and Olcese Defendants liable under a vicarious liability or respondeat superior theory in that they obtained the services of Reznick to execute the Order to Seize Property. Such a theory is generally applied to municipalities although it has been extended to hold liable a private corporation in certain circumstances. See Street v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 818 (6th Cir. 1996). In order for a municipality to be liable under Section 1983 there must be some evidence that "execution of [the] government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury." Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). "[A] municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor-or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory." Id. at 691. Generally, the doctrine of respondeat superior has no application in a § 1983 claim absent an allegation that the defendants were following the government's policies or customs. Dunn v. Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121, 128 (6th Cir. 1982). Rather, "the touchstone of the § 1983 action against a government body is an allegation that official policy is responsible for a deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution." Monell, 436 U.S. at 690. The Supreme Court has indicated that "municipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policymakers under appropriate circumstances." Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986). However, "an `official policy' is one adopted by someone with `final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.'" Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 926 F.2d 505, 515 (6th Cir.1991) (quoting Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 481) (emphasis added). In other words, "[l]iability for unauthorized acts is personal; to hold the municipality liable, Monell tells us, the agent's action must implement rather than frustrate the government's policy." Id. A municipal employee is not a "final policymaker" unless his decisions "are final and unreviewable and are not constrained by the official policies of superior officials." Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 988 F.2d 649, 655 (6th Cir.1993).
The Sixth Circuit recognizes three tests for determining whether or not conduct by private actors, like a law firm, is "fairly attributable to the state" under § 1983: the public function test, the state compulsion test, and the nexus test. Ellison v. Garbarino, 48 F.3d 192, 195 (6th Cir. 1995); Lansing v. City of Memphis, 202 F.3d 821, 829-30 (6th Cir. 2000). The "nexus test" is the only relevant test at issue. The "public function" test is not applicable because there is no allegation that the defendants have taken over a traditionally state function, like operation of an election or prison. The "state compulsion" test is also inapplicable because there is no suggestion that the state somehow put the defendants up to the argument they made in the state courts. Ellison, 48 F.3d at 195. Under nexus theory, a plaintiff must plead "a sufficiently close relationship (i.e., through state regulation or contract) between the state and the private actor so that the action taken may be attributed to the state." Id. For private litigants accused of acting "under color of law," a court must consider "the extent to which the actor relies on governmental assistance and benefits, whether the actor is performing a traditional governmental function, and whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of governmental authority." Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 621-22 (1991). While judicial actions are state actions, steps taken by the litigants to obtain a ruling from a court are generally not deemed to be state action. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 54 (1999); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-35 (1981)(holding that public defenders whose role is limited to performing a lawyer's traditional function as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding is not a state actor under § 1983).
The Court must first determine whether the Weber and Olcese Defendants, as private entities under the nexus theory had a sufficiently close relationship (i.e., through state regulation or contract) with the State of Michigan so that the action taken by the Weber and Olcese Defendants may be attributed to the state. Ellison, 48 F.3d at 195. The Weber and Olcese Defendants were acting as counsel on behalf of a certain client when a Default Judgment and the Order to Seize Property were obtained with the state court. There are no allegations by Rozewski that the action by the Weber and Olcese Defendants in obtaining such a judgment and order constitute a "state action." Rozewski claims that the action of obtaining Reznick's services to enforce the Order to Seize Property constitutes a state action. However, Rozewski has not submitted any legal authority that a law firm's action to obtain services to enforce an Order to Seize Property constitutes a "state action." Michigan law allows a party to take steps to satisfy a judgment. No state or municipality decision is involved in obtaining such services, other than the applicable statute. There is no evidence that apart from the statutory fees for the services charged by Reznick, the Weber and Olcese Defendants have any other employment or contractual relationship with Reznick. The Weber and Olcese Defendants cannot be held liable under a vicarious liability or respondeat superior theory for any actions by Reznick since no state action existed when the Weber and Olcese Defendants obtained the services of Reznick to satisfy the judgment. A § 1983 action cannot lie against a municipality or, in this case, the law firm or its principals, under the theory of respondeat superior since the Weber and Olcese Defendants were not executing a policy or custom adopted by a state or municipality. Monell, 436 U.S. at 695. The Weber and Olcese Defendants' actions of obtaining Reznick's services cannot be connected to any state or municipal policy or custom.
In addition, the individual Defendants, Weber and Olcese, also cannot be held liable under a supervisory liability theory in a § 1983 action because no such action is available for failure to prevent misconduct, absent a showing of direct responsibility by the supervisor for that improper action. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362-373-77 (1976); Dunn v. State of Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121, 128 (1982). The § 1983 claim against the Weber and Olcese Defendants is dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Weber and Olcese Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13, filed January 3, 2011) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, and the Law Firm of Weber & Olcese are DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendant Robert J. Reznick only remains in this lawsuit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule governs this matter:
• Final Pretrial Conference is set for Monday September 12, 2011, 3:00 p.m. All parties with full settlement authority must attend the conference.
• Plaintiff and Defendant Reznick must submit a proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 16.2 by September 7, 2011.
• The Trial Date is set for Tuesday, October 4, 2011, 9:00 a.m. |
|
|
|
Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:54 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
