This is my comment for your article.

You don't have my permission to

modify, edit or change my words in any way. You don't have my permission
to share my comments in any way with anyone not listed in the address line
of this email prior to publication. I'll make this comment public as soon as
your story is published.

Video records show that on February 4, 2019, Luis Vazquez stood before
City Council and told the public he saw "Tom Weider walking" in his
neighborhood. Incredibly, Vazquez then told Council he wanted to know if
Weider had met with CM Hayner. Vazquez went on to make other, similarly
unfounded, accusations against Tom Stulberg and me (without using my
name). Two months later, he filed a FOIA for our private communications.

Unlike FOIAs which I've submitted, Vazquez's FOIA demands materials in

the city's possession that are unrelated to a single governmental action or
a single vote at the table. Luis Vazquez and Edward Vielmetti (who
piggybacked the Vazquez FOIA) simply want to peep into the digital
widows of neighbors with whom they disagree politically, and the Michigan
FOIA Statute does not give these two men—or anyone else—this right.

This is why I agreed to sign on as a plaintiff to this lawsuit.

Being permitted by Mr. Postema to abuse FOIA, to bully and intimidate, as

Vazquez is attempting to do, is the antithesis of governmental
transparency; the Vazquez FOIA is the height of neoconservative hubris.
Luis Vazquez seeks to wield FOIA as a weapon to intimidate neighbors
whose political opinions he has publicly and repeatedly said he doesn't like.
Disagreeing with anyone politically is his right; demanding to read a private
citizen's private emails is creepy.

Unfortunately, City Attorney Stephen Postema is poised to allow this abuse

of FOIA. This points to a larger problem at City Hall whereby assessing
prohibitive fees for public records requests, and denials of public records,
are used to thwart transparency. For example, I filed a FOIA for the two
most recent complaints filed with the City's HR Dept. for sexual harassment
and/or sexual assault. The written response I received was that the HR
Dept. doesn't write down such complaints. This is news.
The question is now before Judge Kuhnke, who issued an injunction
against the release of the materials. Briefs from both sides are due to be
filed by August 30.

I have all the materials which the City Attorney seeks to release. Of almost
500 pages of materials (at least two-thirds are duplicates), two
communications (total) are from me. One is to the City Administrator asking
after a late response to a FOIA appeal. The other was an email sent to CM
Eaton concerning a publicly-available FOIA request.

Patricia Lesko