From the Traverse City Record-Eagle:
TRAVERSE CITY — Meijer Inc. convinced a state appellate judge to hide from public view documents related to Grand Traverse County’s efforts to investigate the retailer’s campaign finance violations.
Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Alan Schneider is challenging a May 29 order signed by state Court of Appeals Judge Donald Owens that sealed the court file in Schneider’s case against Meijer and the Dickinson Wright PLLC law firm.
Schneider is trying to investigate potential violations of state campaign finance laws concerning Meijer’s illegal involvement in local elections in Acme Township in 2007 and 2005.
Schneider said Friday he filed a challenge this week to the suppression order, but declined additional comment because his appeal remains pending before the appellate court.
A motion to seal the appellate case was filed by John Pirich, a Lansing attorney hired by Meijer. Pirich’s motion remains secret, but Owens’ suppression order makes reference to state law and investigative subpoenas that “requires the maintenance of strict confidentiality of matters related to investigative subpoenas.”
Pirich did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
An attorney for the Michigan Press Association questioned Owen’s decision.
“The only thing at issue here is whether the secretary of state has exclusive jurisdiction over campaign finance violations,” said Dawn Hertz, an attorney for Butzel Long in Ann Arbor, general counsel to the MPA. “It has nothing to do with any confidentiality matters.”
In April, 13th Circuit Judge Philip Rodgers ruled state election law gives the Michigan secretary of state’s office sole jurisdiction to investigate campaign finance violations and refer them to the state attorney general’s office for prosecution.
In doing so, Rodgers blocked Schneider’s apparent ability to use subpoenas to compel testimony from Meijer, Dickinson Wright and others implicated in the Acme elections case.
Schneider appealed Rodgers’ decision to the appellate court. He maintains county prosecutors can pursue a criminal investigation of campaign finance violations.
Rodgers said Friday he wasn’t aware an appellate judge suppressed the case. He called the ruling “rather odd.”
“I never made any ruling in regards to investigative subpoenas,” Rodgers said. “Nothing about the investigative subpoenas themselves are on appeal.”
Hertz also said Michigan court rules require that courts weigh the interest of the public and the parties involved, and specify the grounds for granting such a suppression order.
“They have to set the grounds for good cause,” she said. “We have no way of knowing what good cause was alleged, much less found.”
Turtle Talk 