plaintiff’s motion for entry of temporary …media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/other/lee...

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN—NORTHERN DIVISION

________________________

ROBERT LEE, Case No.: 4:15-cv-14255-LVP-PTM Plaintiff, Hon. Linda V. Parker vs. JOHN MILLER, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Bay County Sheriff, TROY CUNNINGHAM, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Undersheriff of Bay County, TROY STEWART, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Jail Administrator of the Bay County Sheriff’s Department, and MICHAEL SHORE, , in his individual capacity and official capacity as Sergeant for the Bay County Sheriff’s Department, and ART KLEINERT, in his individual capacity and official capacity As deputy for the Bay County Sheriff’s Department. KURT ASBURY, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Bay County Prosecutor, and JEFFERY STROUD, in his individual capacity and official capacity as assistant prosecutor for Bay County, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO

ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND FREE SPEECH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and states in support of his motion:

1. Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a temporary restraining order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 65 to enjoin the defendants from violating Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of the law under

the Fourteenth Amendment and his right to free speech and free political association under the

4:15-cv-14255-LVP-PTM Doc # 19 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 189

2

First Amendment, said Defendants violating Plaintiff’s rights as stated more fully in the brief

below and by the affidavits attached thereto.

2. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a request by email to Defendants’ counsel of record for concurrence

for the relief requested on July 25, 2016. Defendants’ counsels responded by email on July 25,

2016 and July 26, 2016, and counsel for the parties discussed the matter by telephone on the

afternoon of July 25, 2016. Defendants do not consent to the relief requested.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter a temporary restraining order

enjoining Defendants Miller, Cunningham, and Shore from violating MCL 168.932(a) and MCL

169.257(1), award Plaintiff the fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this motion, and grant other

such relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

July 27, 2016 /s/ Todd H. Nye Todd H. Nye (P59301) Nye & Associates, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiff 10393 S. Merrio Rd. Roscommon, MI 48653 (989) 821-1225 tx. (989) 821-1133 fx. [email protected]


3

BRIEF IN SUPPORT

Issue presented:

Should the Court enter a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants Miller,

Cunningham, and Shore from campaigning for Cunningham for Bay County Sheriff by going

door-to-door in police uniform, or wearing a sheriff’s badge, or in a marked police vehicle, or by

displaying other indicia of being official police, and threatening citizens to remove “Lee for

Sheriff” campaign signs and to vote for Cunningham for sheriff because “it would be in their best

interests”?

Plaintiff says "Yes."


4

Authority for Relief Requested

Cases Cameron v. Brock, 483 F.3d 608, 610 (6th Cir. 1973)…………........................................... 11

Summit County Democratic Cent. & Exec. Comm. V Blackwell 388 F.3d 547, 550 (6th Cir. 2004) ………………………………………………………….. 15

Statutes and Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ................................................................................................................ 11


5

Table of Contents

I. Factual Background ................................................................................................. 6

II. Applicable Law ………….. ................................................................................... 8

A. Two Michigan Election Laws ................................................................................ 8 B. Equal Protection Under the Fourteenth Amendment and Free Speech and Political Association under the First Amendment ................................................... 9 C. Rule 65 ……………………………………………………………………………. 11 III. Application of Law to Fact ……………………………………………………….. 12 IV. Request for Relief – Temporary Restraining Order ………………………………. 14 Exhibit A: Proposed Temporary Restraining Order ………………………………. 17 Certificate of Service ……………………………………………………………… 20 Exhibit List

1. Affidavit of Tom Jane

2. Affidavits of James Murphy and Steve Murphy

3. Affidavit of Plaintiff

4. Certification by Counsel


6

NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and states in support of his brief:

I. Factual Background

1. Plaintiff Lee is a retired Bay County deputy, private citizen, and currently a candidate1 for

Bay County Sheriff.

2. Plaintiff Lee also ran for sheriff in 2014, but barely lost to long-time incumbent, Defendant

Sheriff John Miller.

3. Sheriff Miller is not seeking reelection this year, and instead, has endorsed his undersheriff

Troy Cunningham for the office of Bay County Sheriff.

4. The Democratic primary election is scheduled for August 2, 2016.

5. Plaintiff Lee and Defendant Undersheriff Cunningham seek the same office.

6. Lee filed this civil rights case against Undersheriff Cunningham, Sheriff Miller, Sgt.

Michael Shore, and others in the Bay County Sheriff’s Department, because of a multi-year and

ongoing conspiracy by these men to violate Lee’s First Amendment rights of free speech, to seek

public office, and for free political association.

7. Lee’s lawsuit is 56 pages long, with 335 specific allegations, which contain over 150

references, cites, or quotes to approximately 5000 pages of litigation documents created within the

last few years, involving Sheriff Miller and his cronies.

8. In the last four years Miller and members of his command were or are involved in at least 5

other lawsuits2, mostly involving allegations of Miller’s abuse of power and violations of the civil

rights of his employees.

1 Historically in Bay County, the winner of the Democratic primary for any particular office will win the general election for that office. This year in Bay County, the declared candidates for Sheriff in the Democratic primary are Robert Lee (Plaintiff), Terry Spencer, and (current undersheriff) Troy Cunningham (a defendant here.)


7

9. Lee’s lawsuit here states compelling and specific factual support demonstrating an

unrelenting and unapologetic pattern by Sheriff Miller and his command of violating the First

Amendment rights of Plaintiff and his supporters, in particular interfering with the right to seek

public office, interfering with the right to free political association, and the right to free speech.

10. Despite this pending action, and given the serious and documented allegations in the

complaint, Defendants Sheriff Miller, Undersheriff Cunningham, and Sgt. Shore, are actively

going door to door in Bay County, intimidating citizens into removal of Lee’s campaign signs. In

one instance, Sgt. Shore literally stole Lee’s campaign sign in front of the citizen; and another

deputy then ripped two “Lee” bumper stickers off from the man’s two trucks sitting in his

driveway.

11. While campaigning, the defendants confront citizens at their homes and advise citizens

they should support Troy Cunningham, remove Lee campaign signs, install Cunningham signs,

and “it would be in their interest” to comply3.

12. Miller was in uniform, in a marked police vehicle, and with Shore, when Shore made

threats to citizens while wearing his Badge of Bay County Sheriff, wearing a full Sheriff’s

uniform, driving a fully marked Sheriff’s police vehicle, and/or passing out official Bay County

Sheriff Department business cards, and from the same citizen Shore, while wearing a badge,

removed or stole campaign signs supporting Lee, but without consent4 of the citizen.

13. Stated another way, Miller, Cunningham, and Shore are approaching citizens wearing a

badge, gun, sheriff’s uniform, or other indicia of authority, and telling citizens to vote for

Cunningham or replace Lee signs with Cunningham signs “or else.”

2 Three of those suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of Michigan, to wit: Holsapple v. Bay County, et al., 1:13-cv-11039-TLL-CEB, Gillis v Miller, et al., 1:14-cv-12518-TLL-PTM; Walraven v Miller, et al., 1:14-cv-12517-TLL-PTM 3 Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Tom Jane 4 Exhibit 2, Affidavits of James Murphy and Steve Murphy


8

14. Plaintiff now seeks relief to enjoin Miller, Cunningham, and Shore from their blatant and

continuing violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth and First Amendments.

II. Applicable Law

A. Two Michigan Election Laws

MCL 168.932 states that a person who violates the following provision is guilty of a

felony:

(a) A person shall not attempt, by means of … menace, or other corrupt means or

device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote,

or to deter the elector from, …

….

Also, MCL 169.257 provides in part:

(1) A … person acting for a public body shall not use or authorize the use of …

personnel, … vehicles, … or other public resources to … volunteer personal

services that are excluded from the definition of contribution under section 4(3)(a).

… This subsection does not apply to any of the following:

…

(f) An elected or appointed public official or an employee of a public body

who, when not acting for a public body but is on his or her own personal time, is

expressing his or her own personal views, is expending his or her own personal

funds, or is providing his or her own personal volunteer services.

….

(4) A person who knowingly violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor

punishable, if the person is an individual, by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or

imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, or if the person is not an individual,

by 1 of the following, whichever is greater:

(a) A fine of not more than $20,000.00.

(b) A fine equal to the amount of the improper contribution or expenditure.


9

B. Equal Protection under Fourteenth Amendment and Freedom of Speech and Political Association under the First Amendment

1. To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §19835 the plaintiff must establish “that (1) a

person, (2) acting under color of state law, (3) deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.” Sperle v

Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2002)

2. To state a claim for relief under 42 U.SC. §1985[3]6 the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of

Appeals in Conklin v Lovely, 834 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1987) held that the plaintiff must plead:

a. a conspiracy,

5 42 U.S.C. §1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction

thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in

equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, … .

6 42 U.S.C. §1985[3] provides:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire ..., for the purpose of

depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal

protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . in

any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged

therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such

conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of

having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the

party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages

occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the

conspirators.


10

b. for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or claims of

person the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities of the law;

c. an act in furtherance of the conspiracy;

d. whereby the plaintiff is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any

right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.

3. Further, Plaintiff must show that the conspiracy was motivated by racial or other class-

based, invidiously discriminatory animus. Bass v Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041, 1049 (6th Cir. 1999)

4. The Fourteenth Amendment provides in part: “ ... No state shall ... deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend XIV, §1.

5. The First Amendment provides in part: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the

freedom of speech, ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” U.S. Const. Amend. I.

6. Within the First Amendment, is the “right of political association” to wit:

[W]e have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with otherwise in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, education, religious, and cultural ends. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984)

7. In the U.S. Sixth Circuit, the First Amendment is zealously guarded by the judiciary

because “[i]t is our freedom as Americans, particularly the freedom of speech, which generally

allows us to express out views without fear of government sanction. ... [and] one of the chief

distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes, ... .” Bible Believers v Way County, 2015

U.S. App. LEXIS 18745; 2015 FED App. 0258P, October 28, 2015 (6th. Cir) (En Banc.)

8. “[S]upport for a political candidate falls within the scope of the right of political

association.” Sowards v Loudon County, 203 F.3d 426, 432 (6th Cir. 2000)


11

9. Persons who are supporter of a particular political candidate are a clearly defined class

protected from invidious discrimination under §1985[3] as a matter of law. Cameron v. Brock, 483

F.3d 608, 610 (6th Cir. 1973)

10. A county sheriff acting in his official capacity who privately conspires to deprive a member

of a protected class of the equal protection of the law is liable for damages suffered by the

aggrieved class member. Cameron, supra

C. Rule 65

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 provides in part:

…. (b) Temporary Restraining Order.

(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

(2) Contents; Expiration. Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after entry--not to exceed 14 days--that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.

(3) Expediting the Preliminary-Injunction Hearing. If the order is issued without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction must be set for hearing at the earliest possible time, taking precedence over all other matters except hearings on older matters of the same character. At the hearing, the party who obtained the order must proceed with the motion; if the party does not, the court must dissolve the order.

(4) Motion to Dissolve. On 2 days' notice to the party who obtained the order without notice--or on shorter notice set by the court--the adverse party may


12

appear and move to dissolve or modify the order. The court must then hear and decide the motion as promptly as justice requires.

(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

(d) Contents and Scope of Every Injunction and Restraining Order.

(1) Contents. Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must:

(A) state the reasons why it issued;

(B) state its terms specifically; and

(C) describe in reasonable detail--and not by referring to the complaint or other document--the act or acts restrained or required.

(2) Persons Bound. The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:

(A) the parties;

(B) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and

(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

….

III. Application of Law to Fact

Here, the acts of Shore literally stealing Lee’s campaign sign from the lawn of Affiant

Murphy while wearing a sheriff badge, indicating Shore was on official duty, violates MCL

169.257(1).

Here, the acts of Miller and Shore interrogating Affiant Murphy about his use of a Lee

campaign sign, while in uniform and driving a marked police Tahoe violates MCL 168.932(a)


13

because it was a corrupt and menacing attempt to interfere with the vote of Affiant Murphy and

interfere with the political association of Plaintiff with Affiant Murphy.

Further, the use of the police vehicle to campaign was contrary to MCL 169.257(a).

Here, the acts of Shore at the home of Affiant Jane violate MCL 168.932(a). Shore made

express statements:

a. That he was a deputy at the sheriff’s department,

b. That the whole sheriff’s department was supporting Cunningham,

c. That Affiant Jane should not have a Lee campaign sign on his lawn;

d. That he would take Lee’s campaign sign down for Affiant Jane;

e. That “it would be in [Affiant Jane’s] best interest” to remove the Lee campaign sign.

Clearly, Shore was using menacing and corrupt means to influence the vote of Affiant Jane

contrary to MCL 168.932(a) and interfere with the political association of Affiant Jane and

Plaintiff.

Miller, Cunningham, and Shore were acting under color of law when they appeared at the

affiants’ homes, either in uniform, with a badge, in a marked police vehicle, or by statements about

their status as police and how it would be in the affiants’ “best interests” to comply with their

political demands.

Miller, Cunningham, and Shore violated Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of MCL

168.932(a) and MCL 169.257(1), because they intentionally violated those laws for their benefit

and thus deprived Plaintiff the equal protection of those laws.

Further, by the use and display of their status as police officers, to include wearing a badge,

wearing a uniform, driving a marked police vehicle, and making threats about doing what is in the


14

affiants’ “best interests”, they were acting under color of law and by their blatant violation of law,

depriving Plaintiff of equal protection of those state laws.

Moreover, Miller, Cunningham, and Shore’s use of their status as police officers and their

theft of signage, threats, and interrogation of affiants’ support for Mr. Lee, interfered with Mr.

Lee’s and the affiant’s right of political association and interfered with Lee’s right to free speech

by his placement of campaign signs at the homes of his political supporters.

Additionally, according the affiants, the defendants worked together, in a coordinated

manner, and circumstantially it seems clear that they had an agreement to violate Plaintiff’s right

to free speech by the display of his campaign signs at the homes of his supporters. Their

coordinated and repeated interrogations of the affiants are further evidence of an agreement

between Miller, Cunningham, and Shore to violate Plaintiff’s rights to free speech and equal

protection.

Clearly, the acts of Miller, Cunningham, and Shore, as described in the affidavits of

Murphy and Jane violate Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of law under the Fourteenth

Amendment and the right to free speech and free political association under the First Amendment.

A sheriff, undersheriff, and deputy sergeant cannot put on a gun, badge, and uniform, and

then go door-to-door and threaten and intimate citizens to remove campaign signs and demand that

the citizens vote for Cunningham “or else.”

On information and belief, these illegals acts of Miler, Cunningham, and Shore are likely

ongoing and will continue to the primary on August 2, 2016.

IV. Request for Relief: Temporary Restraining Order

In considering the merits of a temporary restraining order, the Court must consider the

following four factors:

1. Whether the movant has a ‘strong” likelihood of success on the merits;


15

2. Whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable injury;

3. Whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others,

and

4. Whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Summit County Democratic Cent. & Exec. Comm. V Blackwell. 388 F.3d 547, 550 (6th

Cir. 2004)

Success on Merits

Here, the plaintiff has a strong likihood of success on the merits. There is no authority that

the acts of Miller, Cunningham, or Shore, are lawful. In the United States, even in Bay County,

MI, the police cannot appear on a doorstep with a gun and badge and demand or threaten a citizen

to vote for or support a political candidate chosen by the police officer.

Irreparable Harm

Here, if this Court fails to act, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm. The primary

election for the Democratic nominee for sheriff is in six days on August 2, 2016. There is

insufficient time to allow for any delay. Importantly, Miller, Cunningham, and Shore committed

these obscene acts of intimidation of citizens knowing that they were subject to a pending case in

federal court, yet, it failed to deter their contempt for the Constitution. The election is closely

contested, and delay may result in Cunningham winning the election as a direct result of his

violations of Michigan law and intimidation of citizens exercising their rights to vote and to free

speech. As required by the rule, an affidavit of the petitioner is attached at Exhibit 3 in support of

the request for a finding that he will suffer irreparable harm if the relief were not granted.

No Substantial Harm

Here, the issuance of a temporary restraining order would not cause substantial harm to

others. In fact, the only result of the issuance of the order would be the possibility that Miller,


16

Cunningham, and Shore, would be required to follow the law, if by nothing else than by the

contempt power of the Court.

Public Interest Served

Here, the public interest would be served by issuance of a temporary restraining order. The

public interest is always served when the Constitution is followed and the public can engage

exercising their right to vote without interference, threats, coercions, or fear of the police authority.

The plaintiff’s attorney’s certification regarding efforts and necessity of notice is attached

at Exhibit 4.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter a temporary restraining order

enjoining Defendants Miller, Cunningham, and Shore from violating MCL 168.932(a) and MCL

169.257(1), award Plaintiff the fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this motion, and grant other

such relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

July 27, 2016 /s/ Todd H. Nye Todd H. Nye (P59301) Nye & Associates, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 10393 S. Merrio Rd. Roscommon, MI 48653 (989) 821-1225 tx. (989) 821-1133 fx. [email protected]


17

EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED ORDER


________________________


TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

ENJOINING DEFENDANTS MILLER, CUNNINGHAM AND SHORE FROM VIOLATING MCL 168.932(a) and MCL 169.257(1)

The Court, upon review of the plaintiff’s motion for entry of a temporary restraining order

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and for the reasons stated in the motion and the Court finding a

sufficient factual and legal basis, and being otherwise advised, NOW THEREFORE,


18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

A. This order is being issued because the motion and affidavits state a prima facie case of

constitutional violations by certain Defendants involving an election between Plaintiff and

Defendant Cunningham for Bay County Sheriff. The primary election is in six days on

August 2, 2016, and the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm if the election is tainted by

alleged acts of Defendants John Miller, Troy Cunningham, and Michael Shore contrary to

the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

B. This order is being issued without notice because there is insufficient time for notice with

only six days to the election and there is little risk of substantial harm because the order

merely requires that the named persons comply with existing law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

A. Defendants John Miller, Troy Cunningham, and Michael Shore are enjoined from

violating MCL 168.932(a) and MCL 169.257(1).

B. Defendants John Miller, Troy Cunningham, and Michael Shore, shall not campaign or

politic in Bay County while on duty as a law enforcement officer.

C. Defendants John Miller, Troy Cunningham, and Michael Shore, shall not campaign or

politic while wearing their police uniforms, nor with their badge visible, nor in a marked

police car, nor pass out official Bay County Sheriff Department business cards or printed

material from the sheriff’s department while campaigning.

D. Defendants John Miller, Troy Cunningham, and Michael Shore shall not remove any

campaign sign or other advertising by Plaintiff Lee from any location, unless they may

otherwise have a property interest in that location.


19

E. Defendants John Miller, Troy Cunningham, and Michael Shore shall not threaten any

person to remove any campaign sign or advertising of Plaintiff nor threaten any person to

install a campaign sign for Cunningham.

F. Defendants John Miller, Troy Cunningham, and Michael Shore shall not threaten any

person as to how they should vote for Bay County Sheriff.


20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I state that I served a copy of Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Brief

in Support upon counsel for Defendants by electronic notice through ECF on July 27, 2016.

/s/ Todd H. Nye Todd H. Nye (P59301) Nye & Associates, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 10393 S. Merrio Rd. Roscommon, MI 48653 (989) 821-1225 tx. (989) 821-1133 fx. [email protected]



________________________


Exhibit List for Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

1. Affidavit of Tom Jane

2. Affidavits of James Murphy and Steve Murphy

3. Affidavit of Plaintiff Robert Lee

4. Certification by Counsel

4:15-cv-14255-LVP-PTM Doc # 19-1 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 209

1


________________________


COVERSHEET FOR AFFIDAVITS OF JAMES MURPHY AND STEVE MURPHY

Now comes Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and submits the attached affidavit of James

Murphy and Steve Murphy.



1


________________________


AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT LEE

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

I, Robert Lee, being duly sworn depose and state that:

1. I am the plaintiff in this case.

2. I reviewed my motion for a temporary restraining order.

3. The allegations in the motion are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief.


2

4. In addition to the affidavits of Tom Jane, James Murphy, and Steve Murphy, I had several

other citizens approach me in the last several weeks, to include acts alleged to have

occurred this past weekend, who report that Shore and others, while representing

themselves as police officers by wearing a police uniform, displaying a badge, or by

express statements, are requesting that my campaign signs be removed, Cunningham

campaign signs installed, or they suggested it would be adverse for them in some way if

they supported me.

5. The election is on August 2, 2016, and any further interference with my political supporters

and signage by Miller, Cunningham, and Shore, may cause me to lose the election due to

constitutional violations, and such damage cannot be repaired or compensated.

Further deponent sayeth not.

July 26, 2016 /s/ Robert Lee___________________ Robert Lee, Plaintiff Subscribed and sworn to before me on the 26th day of July, 2016. /s/ Todd H. Nye. Todd H. Nye, Notary Public, Crawford County, MI My commission expires: 4/22/2021 Acting in Bay County, MI


1


________________________


CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF AS MOVANT

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Now comes counsel for Plaintiff Robert Lee, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B)

states:

1. I am counsel for Plaintiff.

2. The efforts I made to give notice to Defendants about the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order are: 1) an email to Defendants’ attorneys on July 25, 2016 with a draft of the


2

Plaintiff’s motion and copies of the affidavits and review of two responses by email from

Defendants’ attorneys, and 2) a telephone discussion about the merits of the motion with

Defendants’ counsel on the afternoon of July 25, 2016, without agreement.



plaintiff’s motion for entry of temporary …media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/other/lee...

Documents