I was quite shocked to learn that our City Atty did not consult with the State AG office, nor did she consult with the Secretary of state election officials, AND i am reading that she consulted with someone at Oakland County, but it was NOT with the Election officials. Had she done this, I seriously doubt we would be in this position with 3 lawsuits. Our Council and Mayor depend on the City Atty to do 100% of the research and come to them with ALL the information so our elected officials can make an informed and intelligent decisions.

"failed to come to an agreement" - interesting choice of words. I don't think the SOS viewed this as an attempt to 'come to an agreement'.

SOS: Troy, you are wrong, here's what State law mandates. Do it or else.
Troy: Well, we don't see it that way, so we're going to IGNORE you and hope this goes away.

Reminds me of the auto mechanic telling the customer to turn up the radio so he doesn't hear the strange noises anymore...

Which of you are an attorney? What don't you known a bout politics? There are several problems with both of your comments. I believe the SOS is wrong but we will let this up to the judge. If Fleming was selected there would not have been this question by these groups.

You don't have to be a lawyer to figure this one out..I read the law..I've thought from the beginning that the law was clear. You have an election at the next election cycle, and for Michigan its February - no matter who was selected Slader or Flemming for Mayor there would have been a big squabble.

Troy put recall verbiage in the charter and the state election laws were changed later on .. It is Troy's responsibility to kept up with the Michigan changes and amended their charter to conform to updated State Election Laws..

The Attorney and Clerk were required to check with the Oakland County Clerk, and review State and local law. They did both, and discovered the contradictions. The Attorney and Clerk must defend the Charter, it's their job. The City's opinion is that the Charter is most fair and controlling, the SOS and AG have a different view (their job is to defend State law, go figure). So a judge decides. It's a simple and efficient remedy. Let it play out, because speculating isn't going to change anything. And mudslinging gets everyone dirty.

It would have made more sense to have the city and state agree on the proper process prior to "appointing" (annointing) Slater as mayor. Now, it is time for Bluhm to go to battle, in an effort to keep Slater in there. They have had a plan all along, and they are sticking to it. All that we have to do is pay for it.

For jack, that is just more conspiracy nonsense. The attorney would defend the Charter no matter who's sitting in the Mayor's chair. There is no benefit to the attorney one way or the other to take this issue to the courts. If the Charter is upheld there is no gain for her. If the Charter language is not controlling, then she has to start working to have it changed, which will take a vote of the electorate.

Most of you are so gullible I cannot believe it. I bet that you own a lot of swamp land in Florida. The city attorney should have checked on what state law says, instead of trying to hide behind a city charter and make it work for Slater. Maybe she did find some technicalities, but in the end, state law will prevail. Slater managed to bully his way to become mayor, and he will "run" for it when the election comes up; he will be the "incumbent". The only person on the current council that has any common sense is Fleming; otherwise, you better get ready to open up your piggy banks, wallets, purses and bank accounts because Slater and his people will need your money. $.

Talk about gullible. That's still just nonsnense. She did check the State law and it was in conflict with the Charter. In home rule Cities there are instances where the Charter supercedes, and vice versa. This is one of those instances. Once again, show us all how the attorney benefits by having Mr. Slater (or anyone else for that matter) as Mayor. And by the way, it was a 4 - 2 vote to go with the attorney. As far as conspiracies, if Mr. Fleming were the Mayor right now, do you think any of this would have happened? Not a chance. It's the Clark Gosselin contingent that is pushing the issue. Sour grapes? There's your conspiracy. No other.

Maybe Jack should have requested a FOIA like TRUST so he wouldn't be spreading incorrect information. It's not simple, it's not cut and dry. My money is on the city. It's a shame that TCU and CTC have dragged us down this path. They are a blight on this city.

Slater, McGinnis, Campbell & Bluhm (all the game players) are 100% responsible for this. They managed to push this "annointment" through, instead of waiting for a decision from the state. Lets remember, Bluhm "ran out of time" to "check her e mail" that came in from the state, two hours before the meeting began. I thought the council and administration had computers during these meetings - maybe her computer stopped working at 5:00 and she was pretending like she was staring at a working computer during the council meeting. So, this e mail goes unchecked, and then "poof" - Slater is in! Instead of all this "he said" - "she said" stuff, just look at the actions of the council and administration. Nuff said. Fleming was the one that kept the council from wasting $2M on the bus station - otherwise, we'd have the bums sleeping on leather chairs!

Jen, can you live blog from the hearing like they da at the Kwame trial?

Since Jen is probably in the courthouse, I will note that you can't take recording equipment into the courtroom.

Can't get facebook where I'm at. Anything new in court?