Delayed Justice

Yep, the Michigan Court of Appeals judges ruled in right-fast order to deny the appeals. Here’s the opinion in full.

You’ll get no argument from me that they got the appeals issues just right.

YES!

…Going over the trial transcript again last night. Yes, there are plenty more names associated with the crime, some more tightly than others. We’ll hear of Robin Clonkey (again), Willie Bass, Sharon Thorpe, Matt Manion, Ron Wirick, Mark Henning, Ron Cekoric, Tim Smith, John Sebasta, Vaughn Banks, Mark Mitchell, Vinnie Crnich, Avery Grant. Some weren’t at the party but were in the mix of friendships; no crime there. And some of those people were just THERE, and that, Assistant Attorney General Donna Pendergast reminds us, is not a crime. And all are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

*******

After being twice denied permission to have my camera in the Michigan Court of Appeals to document the oral arguments in the cases of the convicted murderers of Janet Chandler I filed suit at the Michigan Supreme Court, asking for the high court to exercise its superintending control. The suit was filed with the extra consideration for an emergency hearing. The court didn’t make a decision in time for the oral arguments and I wound up taking a feed from Channel 8. For TV news it was very good; for my purposes it was far less than optimal. Still, a half a loaf is vastly better than none.

When I determined that the case needed to go to the Supreme Court there were some people who stepped up and said they’d help. (Frankly, I didn’t have the ready funds–$525–at that moment.) The first to come forward was Doug McNeil of Grand Haven. He is a friend, an attorney, and a fellow swimmer (but much better than I). The second was Andy Marks of Mt. Pleasant. Andy and I have known each other for more than 30 years. We’ve traveled to China together, we’ve been through all manner of event and adventure together. He is another attorney of high repute. The third named supporter is attorney Mike Butler of Southfield. He’s another critic of the high court and you can read what he writes here. He’s is the newest friend of this trio and also highly esteemed. These three–whle attorneys–were not consulted for legal advice or help in laying out my arguments. Any shortcoming is entirely my own and should not be attached to them. At the same time, though, they provided encouragement in the pursuit by an individual to ask for help from a court. It can be done, in part because of the unfailing courtesy of the court clerk, Corbin Davis.

I did not prevail. That is perhaps no surprise. The matter was moot. But the court did take the time to reason it out and there is one VERY bright spot: Justice Betty Weaver, someone I highly regard, is calling for further review of the issue:

Given the seriousness of the issue as to whether courts (the government) should be
deciding which media (the press) is permitted to cover court cases and how media covers
court cases, I request that this Court open an administrative file to review the 20-year-old
policies pertaining to media filming of court proceedings contained in Administrative
Order 1989-1.

You may read the entire four-page order here. This may be a case of loosing a skirmish but engaging in a much larger struggle. I believe the issues that attach dealing with the First Amendment are very important.

Now, back to work.

The list of names grows of people who were identified in testimony as having something to do with the planning of the party or the party itself at the Chemetron guesthouse. Here they are

ROBIN CLONKEY

LIZ SCHAFTENAAR

HARRY KEITH

DUANE HALVERSON

PATTY BRIGHT WARD

WILLIE BASS.

Patty Bright Ward testified during the trial and said she was unaware of what was happening at the guest house. She was concerned enough to ask Janet Chandler if she was all right as she saw her being yanked around by a belt. She testified that at that time Janet said she was. You’ll be able to hear Ward’s testimony soon. (All are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)

Sometimes it takes me a long time to work my way around something…in this case publicly revealing the rest of the people who knew something about or were present at the murder of Janet Chandler.

We know from Mark Sands argument at the Michigan Court of Appeals that he believes there were others deeply involved:

Click To Play

I have before in this space urged bringing the rest of them to justice in a court of law. But I am changing my mind about this, not because I want them to get away with it; I don’t. Assistant Attorney General Donna Pendergast has said there wasn’t enough to bring charges against any others. She and her team certainly were successful with those they did bring to trial.

I have sat on this footage for almost two years now, waiting in case the investigatory team was called again into action. It’s not going to be. And that releases me to share the details of the others who were there, some of whom allegedly participated in the murderous assault on Janet.

This project also will roll out a bit at a time, but I have come to understand that’s just the way it has to be for now. I have the first part done and just waiting on confirmation of a couple of details.

Check back later tonight. It’ll be tomorrow morning at the latest.

LATER

It’s here. Today’s named participants are Robin Clonkey and Liz Schaftenaar. According to Laurie Ann Swank both were present at the session when the plan was formulated to abduct and rape Janet Chandler. She reported in court that Clonkey participated in the rape. (All are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)

It’s a fairly long story and you can read it all here, but the essence is this: You need to realize opportunities when they arise.  And what at first seems like a conundrum may turn out to be just exactly what is needed.  The short of it is this: I sent to and received a letter from Lamont Marshall, the convicted murderer of Laurel Jean Ellis.  That murder was classed as one of the Heritage Hill Murders, a series of crimes that shared certain characteristics.  It took me a little while to realize that what I had in Marshall’s vituperative response was a gold mine of information if only I could decipher it.  I couldn’t, but Graphoanalyst Linda Spencer could and did.

Like many of my stories, this may seem a little long, a little convoluted.  But that’s the way any investigation runs…in fits and starts, with false trails, moving slowly at times, rapidly at others.  It is not prepackaged for your viewing convenience.  But I hope it will give you something to think about.   And Linda Spencer certainly has convinced me of the validity of her analysis.  I, too, have had my crabbed penmanship under her discerning eye.  It is both literally and figuratively a revealing experience.

****

In other news, or non-news as the case may be, still no action from the Michigan Supreme Court.  I did file an amendment or addendum to urge  the court to still consider the matter even though the event is past.  At issue here is the standing of the nontraditional journalist in comparison to the television station.  Never mind that our audience is about the same: the whole of the internet.  This is how I put it:

 

 July 20, 2009

The Honorable Justices

Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

 

Your Honors:

 

I thought the Court of Appeals erred when it denied my first and 

second requests (and giving no reasons for its actions), but when it 

acceded to the application by Channel 8 (WOOD TV, Grand Rapids) I 

thought we’d crossed into different territory: that of standing under 

the First Amendment.  With the first two dismissals it could have been 

argued that this was a matter of wanting to keep electronic media out 

of the court room.  With the assent to Channel 8 the court clearly 

showed that some media were considered more valid that others.  

Further, after that decision the Court of Appeals clerk called me and 

said the judge(s) said I could take a “feed” from Channel 8.  I have 

had my camera in many courtrooms, sometimes under pool coverage 

conditions, but this is the first time a court has entered into the 

production business of determining exactly who was going to furnish 

the camera.  In my experience the court has stipulated pool coverage 

and allowed the members of the pool to work it out among themselves.

 

The court’s solution was unsuitable for several reasons.  If I was 

finally to be granted standing of any sort, shouldn’t my request, 

coming first, have led the way?  Shouldn’t 8 have been told to find 

accommodation with me?  Beyond that, the court’s arrangement was 

unsuitable for several other reasons.  I shoot in high definition; 8 

shoots standard definition (lesser quality).  I shoot for film and 

seek a smooth flow for long segments; 8 shoots for TV news and makes 

use of short clips (no long continuity) and abrupt camera moves for 

footage gathering in its two-minute stories.  (You may see the entire 

footage of the oral arguments at http://www.delayedjustice.com/.)

 

In short, it’s my contention that I should have gathered high 

definition footage with my camera in the courtroom and at the same 

time provided a feed to Channel 8 in a standard definition signal if 

the judges demanded pool coverage.  But is seems the court is now 

involved in production, a place I’d not thought to see it.

 

And the possible idea that all this is now moot would not be 

accurate.  We are likely to face this situation again.

 

I continue to ask the court to grant my plea to let the court know it 

exceeded its authority, that it ruled in an arbitrary and capricious 

manner, and to affirm my standing as a member of the media.  (This has 

application for other media practitioners who make use of internet 

technology, an issue that is likely to expand.)

 Because you have not yet ruled on this matter I hope this 

 communication may be included in your deliberations.

 Sincerely,

 

 David B. Schock, Ph.D.

Well…such as it is…here it is: the oral arguments from the appeals. That’s it’s permanent home, but here it is for a little while, too:

I have split this into two segments. The shooting, while just fine for television news, doesn’t work well for film. And the original is standard definition. But it’s better than nothing. And there’s an elision that eventuated at a tape change. You’ll miss the warm welcome to Cooley Law School students and the encouragement for them to ask questions of the defense (appealing) attorneys. Judge Bandstra teaches at Cooley and wanted to use the occasion to give his students some more experience.

I will add more to the page, including putting all the posts about the denial of our camera in the courtroom at the site…but it might be a while. For now, you might find a few things interesting. For instance, Attorney Michael Faraone misidentifies his client (Anthony Robert Eugene Williams) as Mr. Nelson. No big deal and if I were arguing with a Court of Appeals I would make worse mistakes. And yes, Mary Owens repeatedly points her fingers at the judges, but not so much in a scolding way as perhaps outlining points and attempting to drive home an argument. Still…. Mark G. Sands, representing the Attorney General’s office, also makes gestures, tapping the rostrum firmly enough that it carries clearly through the audio. I noted during his presentation that he was significantly louder than anybody else in the courtroom. He’s not shouting, he’s not unduly forceful, but he has a powerful voice that was clearly appreciated by the mic. Everybody else I had to boost. Him, not so much. I spoke with him later that day and shared my observation. He agreed that he has a reputation for having his voice carry. I also thanked him for his work.

Be warned that he repeats a choice bit of testimony from the trial…what the murderers planned to do to Janet: “They were going to f___ he to death.” I didn’t bleep it out. Be warned. I take no joy in the language, but that’s what Laurie Ann Swank related that Carl Paiva told her was planned for the event after they abducted Janet from the Blue Mill Inn.

And I’m still getting my feet back on the ground. Where to start? Probably with the paying work, I’m thinking, but I will attempt to digitize the tape from the Court of Appeals this evening.

The shoot? Oh, great fun working on a project about Ted Ward, a pioneer in education in general and theological education in particular. This is the best part about my work: people who are deeply committed and passionate about their work. Mmmm-mmm.

The Smart Web Guy has tweaked the site so that now it shows up better in Internet Explorer. Wow! I am so glad that’s come to pass. And I’m so grateful for all the help. The attitude of gratitude is great to wear around my shoulders.

Attorneys for the convicted murderers of Janet Chandler preseted their oral argument this morning at the Hall of Justice in Lansing. We–Jim Chandler (Janet’s father), Dennis Chandler (her brother), and Tom Williams (her uncle)–drove from West Michigan to be there. They sat in the courtroom. I was assigned a space in the lawyers’ waiting room behind the court where I would take a feed from WOOD TV, Channel 8, the official camera of the session.

The arguments pretty much fell flat after Judge Richard A. Bandstra opened with: “This was the most horrific crime I’ve seen. […] The gang rape and killing were…horrific.” That was the word of the day. All the attorneys granted it was horrific and only one of the other judges could think later of a crime that could be considered worse. It didn’t appear that the attorneys for the convicts had much to say, unless it was Mary Owns (for Freddie Bass parker) who alleged that it wouldn’t be possible for people to remember all these years later who was there and who wasn’t. She likened it to the numerous law school parties she’d attended. That really didn’t fly. Nor did her shaking he finger at the judges after they’d more or less cautioned her that her argument didn’t have much to commend it.

The most notable of those who stood before the judges was Mark Sands who represented the Attorney General’s Office. He was well prepared and his defense of the convictions was emphatic. Of course, the judges were well prepared, too. They had the elements of the case and the trial at the ready and contended with the appeals attorneys about substance and nuance.

So, will you be able to watch it? In the immediate run you can go to Channel 8 and follow the story there: 4 appeals filed in Janet Chandler case. Ken Kolker (formerly of the Press) was there to give an accounting and it’s VERY good. You have heard me sing his praises before. I’ll continue. So, for now, trust 8; Ken was there.

When I get back I’ll post the entire 30-some minutes and you can judge for yourself how the appeals ran.

And what about my appeal to the Supreme Court to be allowed to have my camera in the courtroom? Well, you remember that $150 fee for emergency consideration? Doesn’t mean the court will actually deliver an opinion in a timely fashion. Clerk of the Supreme, Court Corbin Davis, said after I suggested that I should get that $150 back (of the $525 total) that the money was to “get the [Supreme] court’s attention.”

The shooting was suitable for TV news but doesn’t really suit my purposes as well as my my own shooting would have. Nor is it in high definition. But what I have, you’ll be able to see if you like after I return and have the time to load and edit it.

God willing, I’ll be back.

By the time you read this we’ll be well away on our trip to Lansing to see and hear what transpires at the Court of Appeals. The “we” will include Janet’s father, Jim Chandler, his brother-in-law Tom, and me. I’ll be taking along all the equipment to allow me to either to set up and operate my camera or to record only from a remote location. Channel 8 will be supplying a feed and I would be taking it in that event.

I expect it will be not much for continuous viewing but there may be some interesting points that are raised. According to someone much more familiar with these kinds of proceedings than I, it’s likely the three-judge panel will ask the attorneys for the convicted murderers what’s not included in their briefs or what’s transpired since they were filed. Mark Sands from the Attorney General’s office will have a chance to respond. Each side will get time. It might go on for as much as two hours, but who knows?

And then the judges will withdraw to deliberate. The ruling is likely to come down late this fall. So I’ve been told.

It’s procedural. It’s important.

And it’s unlikely that I’ll be able to tell you much about it until I get back from a production trip. Certainly, I won’t be able to post any video until the weekend at the earliest. The press of business has me on the run…and that’s fine. …But just so you know.

HE got BIG access!  WHO?  The OTHER dog in this fight.

Sorry this is convoluted. Here’s what happened:

Steve Kelso at Channel 8, WOOD TV, is really one of the originators of the cameras-in-the-courtroom movement.  He helped to frame the arguments and rules and was one of the first, if not THE first, to operate a camera in a Michigan courtroom.  I think a lot of him. And it was to Steve I turned last Thursday to let him know that the Court of Appeals had denied my initial request and my request for reconsideration.

Of course, this was the first that he’d heard of the appeals (he’s been skipping my blog of late; something to do with lots and lots of work).  Why, he said, HE might want to get a camera crew there!  HE might file paperwork.  According to the clerk at the COA that’s just what he did and the judge granted his request.  So, I’m denied and he’s approved…but, wait…the clerk of the COA called and let me know that the judge said I could set up my equipment in the lawyers waiting room and take a feed from the Channel 8 camera.  There’s my half a loaf.  But it’s also a really clear indication that my status or standing (an important word, I think) is not that of a broadcast television station; I am second tier if that.

I thought about it all and then called the COA clerk back and said that while the arrangements were better than nothing, it still wasn’t truly suitable.  TV 8 is NOT gathering news in high definition.  I film in high definition.   I cannot take a feed from TV 8 and turn it into high definition.  I need my camera in the courtroom and perhaps TV 8 could take a feed from me…OR even better, perhaps both of us could be in the court room and I could supply anybody who wants hi-def with an SDI signal and TV 8 could provide a standard-def signal.

After all, my request was in first.

So, we’ve requested an emergency ruling from the High Court. It’s late afternoon and there’s been no word of a decision. The second in command at the Supreme Court Clerk’s office has said that the justices were not scheduled for conference this afternoon but that they might handle things by individual phone calls or e-mail. OR they might decide there is no rush after all and they’ll get back to me when they get back to me. (There was no snarkiness involved. The people who staff the courts are unfailingly polite. The assistant clerk said that she would call me if she heard. What number should she use?)

Interestingly, though, my film Conflict at the Court has been hit more than 20 times this afternoon. I gather the viewers must be people affiliated with the Court. I wonder if this could really be the first time some of the Justices have seen it. I wonder. I know Mr. Taylor knew about it; don’t know if he ever watched it, though.

And if you want watch it you certainly may. Just press here and we’ll take you right to it. Heck, you could watch while you wait with me for the answer.