MLive – March 10, and BC Times’ Front Page – March 12.
Can you imagine an attorney filing a motion with a court arguing he can’t be an effective lawyer if he can’t have alcohol? Sounds like a real loser, doesn’t it? A lawyer who needs booze to be effective is addicted to the stuff, or has a serious drinking problem, or has such low self-esteem he needs the bottle for “support and courage”.
Let’s be clear: I am not a problem drinker nor am I addicted to alcohol. I do not seek courage or support from the bottle. At 66, I have never had an issue with alcohol. YET THE RECENT HYPE BY THE COURT AND MLIVE MEDIA TRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK THAT WAY.
Let’s take a look at the motion I filed to amend the order of probation that forbids me from consuming or possessing alcohol. THE LAW DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A JUDGE TO ORDER SUCH THINGS when sentencing on such a “fairly minor [civil] infraction”, as described by the judge at the time.
The motion’s paragraphs 14-16 cover why I should be allowed the freedom to use alcohol, like everyone else, because it impacts my effectiveness as a community activist and my livelihood as a lawyer:
14. Defendant is a political activist in the Bay County community for some 45 years standing. The Bay City Times, formerly a daily newspaper, published many articles and editorials about Defendant’s involvement in his community, particularly during his 20’s. (As example, see Exhibit A, attached, an editorial published by The Bay City Times on March 13, 1974 entitled “The Czuprynski Affair.”) During the Defendant’s college years, he twice earned one of two national scholarships (1975 and 1979) granted yearly based strictly on Achievements and Leadership in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. In fact, Defendant’s entire adult life has been committed to the struggle of championing that cause. (See Exhibit B, attached, a copy of “A Rarity,” a brochure that summarizes Defendant’s lifetime involvement in his community).
15. As a well-recognized and highly regarded public figure, Defendant enjoys strong public support and nurtures his community ties through appearing at public events, often held at bars and other venues serving alcohol. At such times, Plaintiff usually, if not always, picks up new cases when appearing in public, due to his name and reputation, and immediate recognition in his hometown.
16. Defendant being forbidden by the court from alcohol possession and consumption, or being in bars, impairs his abilities as a community activist and his livelihood as a lawyer. Moreover, the prohibition of alcohol places the Defendant in harm’s way because the police watch for the Defendant so they can arrest him and/or file a police report to trigger a violation of his probation of the alcohol prohibition. (See Exhibit C, attached police report dated February 28, 2017; and see Exhibit D, attached Affidavit by Keith Roznowski, regarding an incident on February 12, 2017). Hence, the Defendant is placed in harm’s way with certain police officers who have a vendetta against the Defendant and wish to harm him in whatever way possible.
Be sure to click the Exhibits above and…
NOWHERE DOES MY MOTION STATE I CANNOT BE AN EFFECTIVE LAWYER IF I CAN’T HAVE ALCOHOL, AS FALSELY AND MALICIOUSLY REPORTED BY MLIVE MEDIA.
Obviously, MLive had a copy of my motion because Cole Waterman made reference to it in the third sentence of the article containing the slanderous statement about me. Obviously, too, is how MLive media used that published falsehood to make me look like some drunkard, loser lawyer who is so hooked on the sauce that he can’t be effective without it.
Finally, note how the LEAD SENTENCE of this slanted story sets the tone by referencing something I said OUT OF CONTEXT. During the hearing to remove the probation condition regarding medical marijuana, the subject of alcohol came up. In comparison to medical marijuana, I said I can live without alcohol, but I cannot live without medical marijuana because it’s the only thing that gives me relief from my arthritic pain. Taking my comment out of context and fitting it in with the slander that followed, the reader is left with the following twisted impression:
That only two weeks ago, I told Judge Jurrens I could live without alcohol. Yet now, I want him to lift this probation condition because to be an effective lawyer, I need booze.
Clearly, my comment about living without alcohol was taken out of context, and then used to support the false impression that I am some drunkard lawyer who is so wasted he can’t get his story straight or be consistent.
A demand for retraction is coming.
At that time, I will discuss what is involved when a public figure sues a media source because it involves the important First Amendment Right for a free press.