I commenced this story with two of my major concerns over the investigation of my son’s death. For 30 years the King family, and to my knowledge, the families of the other three victims, relied on law enforcement to identify the killer or killers. It was more than 33 years after Tim was abducted that the authorities provided me with any information. In response to my FOIA action, the Michigan State Police provided me with 3,411 pages on December 15, 2010.
My first major concern was the automobile identification process. I outlined these concerns in Chapters 3 to 7. There was little or no basis for emphasizing the participation of a blue AMC Gremlin when the files make substantial reference to other automobiles. In particular, a Pontiac LeMans was identified as being involved in three of the murders and the fourth murder even referred to a Pontiac without identifying the brand. This has continued for forty years. Why? Was this tactic deliberate? There were a lot more Pontiac LeMans on the road than there were AMC Gremlins. Is it possible for the current investigating officers to correct my perceived omissions?
My second concern is the lack of information from the Oakland County Prosecutor and the Oakland County authorities. It is my understanding that on October 28, 2008, the date of the Search Warrant, the Oakland County Prosecutor, the Wayne County Prosecutor and the Michigan State Police all believed that Christopher Busch was the best suspect at that time. I was unaware of the Search Warrant Affidavit until the Oakland County Prosecutor went to Court without my knowledge and perhaps the judge’s knowledge of my involvement to deny everyone access to this document. Was this done with a suggestion or cooperation of the Oakland County officials? Why did Jessica Cooper advise me on March 1, 2010 that Busch was no longer a suspect?
In continuing my story, over the next chapters I will discuss the following:
a. Identification of Busch as a suspect
b. Identify, Christopher Busch, Gregory Greene, Vince Gunnels, Ted Lambrogine and Archibald Sloan, the only suspects identified to me by law enforcement, and
c. The chronology of the events leading up to my FOIA lawsuits.
I first filed my FOIA case against the Michigan State Police and the second one later against the Oakland County Prosecutor. The Oakland County Prosecutor immediately filed a Motion to Consolidate the two cases. This Motion was denied by the Oakland County Circuit Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. I had no original reaction as to the reason for filing this Motion, but I have now concluded that it was filed to deny me access to the search warrant affidavit and all other information and for no other reason.
In the typical lawsuit much more time is related to discovering matters and pretrial preparation than to the actual trial of the case. If the cases have been consolidated, Oakland County taxpayers would have spent funds on these pretrial matters in the Michigan State Police case and the Michigan taxpayers would have similar payments in the case against the Oakland County Prosecutor. Judge O’Brien and Judge Potts delayed any activity on my cases until the consolidation matter was settled by the Michigan Supreme Court.
After I obtained access to the search warrant affidavit on April 1, 2013 and the other information discussed in the search warrant chapters, it is my conclusion that the Oakland County Prosecutor, and perhaps other Oakland County agencies, filed this Motion to Consolidate to take control both cases and to deny me any access to the OCCK case. Fortunately, the Michigan State Police honored their FOIA obligation and gave me 3,411 pages on December 15, 2010. Admittedly this is conjecture on my part but I cannot think of any other reasonable conclusion.
Ex Parte proceedings do not require you to give any notice to interested parties. Section 9 of the search warrant statute regarding warrant suppression orders allows the Oakland County Prosecutor to obtain the search warrant suppression order without notice to any other persons or their attorneys.
When the Oakland County Prosecutor filed the Motion for Entry of the Clarification of the October 20, 2008 original order of suppression, her office knew of my pending FOIA cases against the Michigan State Police and the Oakland County Prosecutor. The comments to Rule 3.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct contain the following instructions regarding the obligation of an attorney in ex parte proceedings:
“Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting one side of the matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary restraining order, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts that are known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision.”
When I was given access to the court file on April 1, 2013, I noticed the motion filed by the Oakland County prosecutor was not supported by an affidavit. When I ordered a transcript of the proceeding, I was advised that there was no hearing. I will discuss my concerns over a court saying orders without a supporting testimony in the following chapters.
What did the Oakland County Prosecutor tell Judge Kimberly Small? If you were served with a suppression court order suspending your driver’s license and could not obtain any background information on the entry of the order, I assume you would be as disturbed as I am about the legal basis of the Order. It bothers me more as a lawyer than as a father. Am I entitled to an explanation? How did the OCP obtain this order without competent testimony?
In order to obtain the April 29, 2011 suppression orders from the 48th district court, the accompanying Ex Parte Motion to Clarify Order of Suppression of the October 28, 2008 search warrant and affidavit filed by the Oakland County Prosecutor states as follows:
4. That this Court has issued sixteen orders continuing the suppression of the search warrant and affidavit in this matter. The last issued March 23, 2011, and to continue to in force to May 18, 2011.
The expiration date on the fifteenth Order of Suppression expired on March 7, 2011, 840 days after October 28, 2009 Search Warrant Affidavit was issued. The sixteenth Order was not issued until March 23, 2011. Obviously, one or more of the 15 orders of suppression were issued after the expiration date of a 56 day period. Whenever the first order was not renewed within the 56 day period it can no longer be suppressed. This occurred all subsequent orders of suppression were improperly entered. The statute contains no provisions allowing the prosecutor to obtain ex parte orders once the 56 day renewal period is breached. Is my interpretation correct? Did the Oakland County Prosecutor advise the 48th district court of this interpretation when the order was entered?
Attached are the following copies of the Orders of Suppressions referred to in the previous chapters.
1. Exhibit B: A “true copy” of an Order Suppressing Motion to Clarifying Orders of Suppression of Search Warrant and Affidavit dated April 29, 2011 from the 48th District Court denying everyone including me access to that Court’s file on the October 28, 2008 Search Warrant for the former residence of Christopher Busch which was delivered to Judge Coleen O’Brien in my FOIA case against the Michigan State Police.
2. Exhibit C: A “true copy” of an Order Clarifying Orders of Suppression of Search Warrant and Affidavit dated April 29, 2011 from the 48th District Court denying everyone including me access to that Court’s file on the October 28, 2008 Search Warrant for the former residence of Christopher Busch which was delivered by the Oakland County Prosecutor to Judge Wendy Potts in my FOIA lawsuit against the Oakland County Prosecutor.
3. Exhibit D: The 48th District Court copy of this Order of Suppression which was delivered to me by the 48th District Court on April 1, 2013, more than two years after the delivery of Exhibits B & C.
IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER APRIL 1, 2013 THAT I NOTICED THAT “TRUE COPY” EXHIBITS B & C WERE BOTH DATED APRIL 29, 2011 BUT WERE NOT IDENTICAL. FURTHERMORE, EXHIBITS B & C ARE DATED AND ARE NOT TRUE COPIES OF THE UNDATED COPY IN THE COURT 48th DISTRICT COURT FILE (EXHIBIT D).
In my two lawsuits against the Oakland County Prosecutor, I was forbidden any discovery and both these cases were closed prior to April 1, 2013. Perhaps somebody from the media can check with the 48th District Court for an explanation of these inconsistent documents.