.webp)
.png)
Below you will find the email and attachments I sent to Sandra Kennedy on Monday February 19th, 2024 at 3:08PM to which I have not received a response.
Dear Sandra,
Enclosed please find the pertinent documents addressing the issues raised in your email dated November 17th. I am formally requesting the removal of all imposed restrictions. Moreover, as detailed herein, there have been numerous inaccurate portrayals and unfounded claims regarding my character. In light of these, a formal apology from the City would be instrumental in rectifying the injustices detailed within. I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Logan Foster
Word Document Attached To the esteemed members of the South Bend Department of Law, this is in response to the correspondence dated November 16th, 2023, from Sandra Kennedy, Corporation Counsel. My intention is to initially address the points raised in your original missive, before proceeding to the matters brought forth in subsequent communications during my pursuit of greater clarity and comprehensive understanding of the initial letter.
In contradiction to your statement, “Please be advised that you do not have a right to private meetings with government officials”, I would like to draw your attention to exhibits one, two, and three. A sign prominently displayed in Mayor Mueller's office reads: “Need to speak to the mayor? Scan Here.” This clearly indicates an invitation to the public for scheduling private meetings with the Mayor. Furthermore, the online scheduling tool stipulates a response time of 7-10 business days post submission for scheduling such a meeting. As a member of the public, I utilized this service, expecting reciprocity in the form of a scheduled meeting. Contrary to the stated time frame, I have yet to receive any communication, let alone a scheduled meeting, even after the stipulated 7-10 business days. I personally know members of the public who have filled out the same form, the same qr code, and have received scheduling invitations in as soon as 24 hours. As per the intricacies of this matter, it appears there might be some misinterpretations or miscommunications. It is crucial to clarify that my stance is firmly rooted in factual evidence. Therefore, any assertions to the contrary, lacking substantive proof or legal grounding, are regarded as unfounded. In Paragraph two, you stated “I understand that you spoke with Mayor Mueller at his most recent "Meet the Mayor" event on September 7, 2023 at La Casa de Amistad.” Upon interacting with Mayor Mueller during the 'Mayor's night out' event held on September 7th, 2023, I had the opportunity to present him with a set of questions (which are attached herein as exhibit 4). Mayor Mueller, at the time, was unable to provide immediate responses to these inquiries. Subsequently, [exhibit 4, “Question 6.)”] I proposed a further meeting with him to delve into these questions at length, to which he consented. Mayor Mueller then enquired if his staffer was in possession of my email address, affirming that she would arrange the said meeting that very night. However, such a meeting was never scheduled. Mayor Mueller never at any time communicated to me that he changed his mind or stance on his willingness to schedule a meeting with me.
You also stated: “Charles King, and the Chief of Police, Scott Ruszkowski, each attempted to meet with you to discuss your concerns.” Despite Mr. King of the Community Police Review Board making an unannounced and unscheduled attempt to meet with me, our paths did not initially cross due to his attempt occurring during my working hours. I managed to identify him through my home surveillance, and subsequently reached out via the 311 helpline to obtain his contact details for rescheduling the meeting.
As for Police Chief Scott Ruszkowski, there has been no initiative on his part to engage in a dialogue about my raised issues. Our only interaction was a brief encounter at the Mayor's Night Out event on September 7th, 2023, courtesy of an introduction by then Mayoral candidate Desmont Upchurch. During this fleeting conversation, which my wife Sarah was also a part of, Chief Scott Ruszkowski conceded to the inadequacies of the Transparency Hub. His discontentment with the system was evident when he stated, "that (the hub being inaccurate) makes me look bad."
In the third paragraph, you wrote: “I can barely hear Ms Micou’s voice on your recording...” In response to the videos I had submitted depicting my encounter with Ms. Micou in the Mayor's office on October 19th, 2023, I wish to again clarify that my recording commenced only after Ms. Micou activated the panic button and summoned security. I have previously communicated that the volume level decreased subsequent to the initiation of my recording, and that the audio was potentially muted owing to the physical barriers between Ms. Micou and myself, combined with the recording device being located at my hip. Ms. Micou even acknowledges the recording. When I record by my hip, instead of holding a camera in Ms. Micou’s face, it further demonstrates I was not an aggressor and I was simply attempting to document an unpleasant experience.
You claimed that Ms Micou “may have been frustrated that you were not listening to her repeated attempts to help you find resources to address my concerns.” Your assertion of Ms. Micou's frustration due to my alleged disregard for her attempts to provide resources is misplaced, as I never sought her assistance or advice. My objective was solely to secure a meeting with the Mayor, as he had agreed to during 'Mayor's Night Out'. If anything, you should sympathize with my frustration as Mayor Mueller agreed to schedule a meeting with me to discuss my concerns, in front of witnesses, and instead of scheduling the meeting, Ms Micou is offering (on her own volition) other resources. I entered the office to schedule an appointment I was promised by the elected official in the executive branch, instead Ms. Micou decided to confront me and become confrontational with me about what I have and haven’t done (in her opinion.) Ms. Micou initiated this encounter, and then made up false claims to justify her behavior (which we will cover later.)
Ms. Micou's reports of Police Chief Scott's visits to my residence and his provision of a police escort for Charles King to my home are entirely untrue. Charles King, in fact, admitted to visiting my residence unaccompanied. As of October 19th, 2023, Ms. Micou's credibility as a resource has been called into question due to these false claims. I would like to reiterate that my only request at the Mayor’s office that day was to schedule a meeting, and at no point did I ask for her assistance. Chief Scott has never reached out to schedule a meeting or a dialogue.
Again, Ms. Micou indisputably incorporated her own views and recommendations into the discourse, even when not solicited. The Mayor had given his consent to arrange a meeting with myself to deliberate over the matters at hand, a fact that was observed by my wife. However, it was Ms. Micou who took the liberty to act as a mediator, proposing resources like: I need to learn civics, the City Council cannot help me, etc... rather than permitting me to coordinate my scheduled meeting.
Ms. Micou, contrary to her claims, did not request my departure from the premises. Rather, she opted to persist in a confrontational engagement with me, exhibiting hostility from the onset of our interaction. From the moment I entered her sphere of operation, Ms. Micou adopted a combative stance – interrupting my speech, disputing my statements, and falsely accusing me of actions I did not commit. In essence, the actions of Ms. Micou were an unprovoked attack, a fact which can be substantiated by my video request for the surveillance footage and a public records request to unearth the actual events that unfolded in the Mayor's office that day. Moreover, the building's security personnel expressed their reservations about Ms. Micou's competence, referring to her as the "new girl" and acknowledging her lack of understanding in respect to her duties. The security personnel were also unable to articulate a valid reason for my removal from the premises.
“I understand you have been repeatedly calling the Department to inquire about a meeting to discuss being removed from the County-City Building. Your complaint and follow-up requests are noted, as is your commitment to call the Department every day to inquire about a meeting.”
Sandra, on October 23, 2023, the City Council President McBride instructed me to contact and file a complaint with the legal department about this matter. When I called to file a complaint on the 24th, I was informed that the Mayor’s office handles all complaints, but since this is about the Mayor’s office, it must be taken by the legal department and they will schedule a meeting with me to discuss further. On October 25th, I received an email that someone would reach out to me. In real time, I was unaware if I was banned from the building, if I would be arrested if I return, etc... Also, I needed to file a timely complaint on an employee of the city. This was a time-sensitive matter.
Your assertion that I am somehow culpable for desiring transparency about my position seems misplaced. As a taxpayer and resident of this city, it is not unreasonable to expect a clear understanding of one's standing in matters such as these. I trust this provides a clearer understanding of my actions and intentions.
“I presume this to be in addition to your calls regarding your outstanding APRA requests. Please be advised that the Department serves the City and does not advise residents as to their legal rights.”
Sandra, your correspondence seems to conflate several unrelated matters. The connection between my APRA requests and my removal from the Mayor's office is unclear. In fact, I think this substantiates my initial claim. I stated that Ms. Micou had a predisposition against me, and your email seems to corroborate that you hold numerous grievances against me too. Making inquiries regarding the status of my pending APRA's is a justifiable and legal course of action. It is neither harassment nor an intimidation tactic, but a legitimate utilization of government services made possible by taxpayers' contributions.
“I have taken into consideration your past behavior with city employees and officials, as well as the nature of the request.”
Once again, you've alluded to my previous interactions with municipal employees and officials. Could you please specify which exact instances you're referring to? I assure you that my conduct has always been lawful, ethical, and non-threatening in all interactions with city employees or officials. I have only ever acted within the confines of the law and my constitutionally protected rights. If any action was taken against me by the government for exercising such lawful behavior, would that not be considered a retaliatory act? This is, as you may know, protected under the First Amendment.
Just as Ms. Micou attempted to explain to you that a discussion with the Mayor regarding your concerns would not likely have been fruitful, so too would a meeting with me or any other attorney in the Department be unlikely to yield a result satisfactory to you. Ms. Micou advised me that she thought you were hostile, and she was concerned that you would be a continued disruption to the office and impede her ability to perform her work. As a result of her repeated interactions with you, she continues to be concerned about interacting with you.
Contrary to the assertions, the Mayor has already acceded to our proposed meeting. He acknowledges the potential benefits to both parties from such a discussion. Now, the question arises: who holds the position of Mayor in the City of South Bend? Is it Ms. Micou or James Mueller? The latter has given consent to a meeting with me to address my worries. Is Ms. Micou under the impression of my hostility, or was there a tangible display of it? From my experience, it was Ms. Micou who exhibited an overtly aggressive demeanor from the outset. What disturbances am I accused of causing? I merely sought a meeting with the Mayor per his commitment, however, I was met with uncalled-for verbal criticism from Ms. Micou. False accusations such as refusing to engage with elected officials at my residence or neglecting to attend board of public safety meetings were made against me. Such unfounded allegations and character defamation by Ms. Micou are unacceptable. Indeed, it was Ms. Micou who demonstrated hostility towards a local resident who simply sought to claim what had been pledged to him. Never at any time did Ms. Micou say that Mayor Mueller is not interested in speaking with me anymore. Instead, Ms. Micou said SHE doesn’t believe I should speak with him. There is a huge difference. Especially after Mayor Mueller, already pledged to meet with me in person.
Please note that the City seeks to balance your right to speak about matters of public and private concern against the health, safety, and welfare of the individuals who work for the City, including elected officials. In light of your most recent interactions with Ms. Micou, and your overall pattern of behavior when interacting with City staff, please cease contacting the Mayor’s Office the Department’s legal assistants;
The question still stands - who exactly has experienced detriment to their health, safety, or welfare? The city of South Bend continues to hurl groundless allegations as a reaction to a resident's justified use of public facilities and a rightful call for governmental transparency.
Should an employee find their health, safety, or well-being compromised by the basic tasks of their role such as answering phones, responding to emails, scheduling meetings, or engaging in face-to-face communications on genuine, legally protected matters, perhaps this profession is not a suitable fit for them. These individuals are public servants and as such, they operate under public scrutiny and are required to interact with the community. This is the responsibility they accepted when they assumed their positions.
You have asked for examples of harassment. Harassment is a form of behavior that is unwanted; demeans, threatens, offends, humiliates, or intimidates; and creates a hostile work environment. The EEOC has stated that harassment is unlawful when a person has to continue to endure the conduct or the conduct is severe enough to create a hostile work environment. Employers can be liable for harassment of their employees by third parties. (See https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment and https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/harassment#:~:text=The%20laws%20enforced%20by%20EEOC,older)%2C%20or%20genetic%20information.)
In each interaction I've had with the city of South Bend, I've operated entirely within the bounds of the law and my Constitutional rights, without initiating any unjustifiable conduct. How can the city of South Bend categorize my use of public services as "harassment"? The taxes I pay—both local and federal—fund these services, and South Bend benefits from state and federal assistance. If public service employees are reluctant to engage with the public, they may need to reconsider their career choice. It's unreasonable to exclude the public from public offices based on the personal inclinations of an employee. This is not what constitutes harassment; utilizing public services should never be classified as such.
Ms. Micou has claimed harassment; she indicated that you have made comments about being the only white person in your neighborhood, and she said that you claim to be the only taxpayer in your neighborhood. The implication to Ms. Micou, who is a person of color, is that the people of color in your neighborhood are not taxpayers. Additionally, she said that you have implied that by being the only taxpayer in your neighborhood, you have a greater right of access to the Mayor than any other person, all of whom are people of color, in your neighborhood. Ms. Micou also has stated that your demeanor toward her was intimidating and made her uncomfortable because you have given her the impression that you believe yourself to be more important than people of color. Regardless of your intent, that was the outcome.
Ms. Micou's accusations of harassment are unfounded and contradict the genuine nature of my interactions. I've attempted to communicate solely with the Mayor, with emails not intended for her. Her inclination to interpret these emails, not directed at her, as harassment is beyond my control.
Furthermore, her assertion of my alleged comments on homeownership and tax-paying is a gross misinterpretation. My reference to homeownership pertains to the financial context, having absolutely no racial undertone. It's a known fact that both renters, given their steady income, and landlords contribute to the tax system. To imply that I believe myself to have superior access to the Mayor is categorically false. My request for acknowledgment and scheduling from the Mayor's office is based purely on the stated timelines and previously observed response times.
Ms. Micou's claim that I perceive myself as more important than people of color is not only baseless but flagrantly damaging to my character. My advocacy for transparency in crime stats and appropriate reporting is driven by the concerns raised by local POC community members, who sought my help in addressing their issues with law enforcement. Their trust in me is a testament to my commitment to my diverse community, a commitment that transcends color and race. As you may or may not be aware, I have a diverse following with supporters from all racial backgrounds and walks of life. If Ms. Micou’s claims were accurate, that would not be the case.
My social media platforms, website, and public speeches at City Council meetings are all deeply influenced by the ideologies of leaders like MLK. Ms. Micou's allegations are not only unfounded but contradict the values that I have personally and publicly espoused long before these accusations were made. Those who know me will readily refute the allegations as baseless.
Additionally, Ms. Micou has said that every time she attempts to provide you with resources, you speak over her or state a different problem. This is similar to what the Legal Department staff have indicated. Generally, they tend to have to discuss your various concerns for a time period longer than a typical phone call. (I have been told your calls generally take close to ten minutes each.) Their supervisor has complained to me that they are being disrupted from their work by having to engage with you regarding the same questions. Both Ms. Micou and the Legal Department staff have indicated that you repeatedly call and ask the same questions, hoping for a different outcome. This is not unlike your repeated requests to see the Mayor. The Mayor spoke with you at Mayor’s Night Out. He said all he could say and provided you with resources to address the issue you presented to him. Ms. Micou repeatedly provided you with the same the resources.
I must express my disappointment in the implications of your previous statement. It appears to suggest that a resident is limited to expressing only one concern at a time. This notion is contrary to the very essence of democratic engagement. It brings to mind a rather startling headline: "City of South Bend Limits Residents to One Problem Only." Apologies, Sandra, for my numerous concerns. I recall distinctly that the Mayor had agreed to a meeting addressing my five principal concerns, each comprising several sub-issues.
It is quite clear from Exhibit 5 that the legal department has explicitly invited queries, concerns, or clarifications. Are my communications, therefore, not considered legitimate and integral to the affairs of the government's legal department? You have insinuated that my phone calls extend beyond 'typical' durations. What criteria, may I ask, are you using to establish this norm? Does a deviation from this so-called norm constitute a legal violation, warranting a cease and desist letter? Could this be construed as harassment? Your claims of an average call time of 10 minutes appear to be unfounded, as per my own diligent checks. Could you clarify how much of this time is spent on hold? Why, indeed, does the legal department maintain a contact number, with personnel prepared specifically to handle phone communications, if not to facilitate such interactions? This appears to be yet another instance of the city of South Bend's retaliatory approach.
As for Mayor Mueller's statement, it is patently false. The Mayor neither offered resources nor followed through on the promise of a future meeting for further discussion. As it is often said, a lie, when printed frequently enough, morphs into a semblance of truth, and if this 'truth' is reiterated enough, it becomes a dogma, something people would even die for. The level of confusion and dishonesty permeating your offices is so pervasive that it's plausible that even you struggle to discern right from wrong. I am choosing to err on the side of giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
City of SB Cease & Desist Letter
Emails From City Legal After the C&D Letter
Reminder Councilman Troy Warner just employed this same tactic on another resident
You can see above Councilman Troy Warner has asked for a C&D letter to be sent even though no laws were broken - South Bend has a pattern of retaliatory behavior