Detroit Is Stuck Legally

The fiscal problems of Detroit are embroiled in a number of legal issues.

Consent Agreement Not Approved

Detroit's Consent Agreement was not approved by Corporation Counsel due to the debts the State of Michigan owes the city - $230,428,206.09 owed by the State to the City. The Mayor should be demanding payment.

In 2009 Mayor Bing pulled together a Turnaround Team that was very lopsided with interest - Miller Canfield attorneys monopolized the legal section of the team and were present in nearly every area. Miller Canfield worked with Gov Snyder to draft the 2011 Emergency Manager Law, which a week later March 21, 2011 Gov Snyder announced plans to dissolve city and county services moving them to metropolitan area authorities that were to be created. Legislation is currently in Michigan Congress now (SB1366, HB6025) to adopt the Michigan Municipal Area Municipal Authorities (MAMA) Act.

Consent Agreement Rendered Baseless 

The result of the referendum to repeal Public Act 4, the Emergency Manager Law put over 60% of the state opposed, passing the referendum. Over 45% of counties voted more than 60% opposed to PA4. The Consent Agreement has been contested in court on several occasions: Roots vs Bing in which 3 AFSCME Union Leaders. Miller Canfield was present to intercede on behalf of Mayor Bing.

Motivation for Representation

Why has Mayor Bing pushed Corporation Counsel to the side (which according to City Charter must approve or prepare legal contracts) and sided with Miller Canfield? Why would the same legal firm that wrote the Emergency Manager Law be referenced as the best choice to oversee legal matters of the Financial Stability Agreement?

Are the administration and state afraid that a nonbiased legal firm would find improprieties in the legal practices of the city or state? Should an audit of the administration's legal proceedings be conducted? It certainly seems TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT has been and continues to be a failure for City of Detroit administration, especially the Executive Branch.

Pursuit of Legal Justice

There have been a number of forms of malpractice and criminal activity oppressing the City of Detroit for an extended period of time. When pursuing justice it is particular note the nature of the Organization as Weapon in White-Collar Crime. The abstract at NCJRS for the Michigan Law Review article "The Criminal Liability of Corporations and Other Groups: A Comparative View" indicates...

"The offenses were antitrust violations, securities fraud, postal and wire fraud, false claims and statements, credit and lending institution fraud, bank embezzlement, tax evasion, and bribery. Three principal categories of offenders were identified: those who committed offenses alone or with affiliated others using neither occupational nor organizational role (individual offenders), those who committed offenses alone or with affiliated others using an occupational role (occupational offenders), and those who committed offenses in which both organization and occupation were ingredients (organizational offenders). Organizational offenders were found to commit crimes yielding greater 'takes' over a longer period and with greater frequency. Most victims of white-collar crimes are organizations, including the Federal Government. Organizational offenders tended to have higher educational attainment, were significantly older, and had impressive occupational and community status. Differences in the rate of incarceration among the offender categories were not significant, even though organizational offenders committed more severe crimes." 

The article is also available through JSTOR. The following forms of misconduct have occurred through and been supported by Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, PLC. Citations of occurrences withheld at this time.

• Abuse of Process - The use of legal process to accomplish an unlawful purpose; causing a summons, writ, warrant, mandate, or any other process to issue from a court in order to accomplish some purpose not intended by the law.
• Extortion - In a large sense it, signifies any oppression, under color of right: but in a more strict sense it means the unlawful taking by any officer, by color of his office, of any money or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before it is due.
• Undue Influence - A judicially created defense to transactions that have been imposed upon weak and vulnerable persons that allows the transactions to be set aside.