re: City Attorney Ad Naseum // Phil Bellfy

Eliot Singer is right on about the need to get rid of the private-practice lawfirm posing as East Lansing City Attorneys.  Long-time readers of PR may remember the numerous posts that called them out on just about everything, ranging from “assigning” the City’s right of Eminent Domain to “third parties” so these private parties could avoid paying their taxes, to the latest “splattering the blood of a women on the floor of a bar is really nothing more than ‘littering’ in East Lansing” BS from the “city attorney.”

Those that want to read more of that older stuff can click on the “by author” box and read my earlier posts. (link added by PR editor:

By way of apology, I haven’t been posting on PR since I filed my Qui Tam lawsuit over the City’s decision to pay for the “City Attorney’s” retaining wall and sidewalk due to the simple fact that the law requires the case to be filed “under seal,” and I didn’t want to say even one word in public while the case was active.  I know the City thinks it’s over, but, anyone who’s been reading about this knows that is not the case.  Stay tuned …..

One last addition to Eliot’s post about the petition: the city spent about $30,000 challenging our signatures on the “in-house attorney” petition, defending their “right” to keep the private-practice lawfirm as their “City Attorneys,”  but readers should know we were only three signatures short.

Phil Bellfy

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Get notified when a new PR essay is published:
Subscribe Now
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime.
Send this to a friend