UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION


In re: Chapter 9
City of Detroit, Michigan, Case No. 13-53846
Debtor. Hon. Steven W. Rhodes
/


Order Regarding Motions to Participate in the Confirmation Hearing

On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an Order Regarding Participation at the
Confirmation Hearing by Creditors Who Filed Objections Without an Attorney. (Dkt. #6584)
The following parties filed timely motions to participate in the upcoming confirmation hearing:

Jamie Fields (Dkt. #6778, #6791)
Irma Industrious (Dkt. #6802)
Fredia M. Butler (Dkt. #6804)
Ezza R. Brandon (Dkt. #6805)
Dennis Taubitz (Dkt. #6807)
Frenchie Williamson (Dkt. #6808)
Elaine E. Thayer (Dkt. #6809)
Dino R. Wright (Dkt. #6810)
Michael Joseph Karwoski and John P. Quinn (Dkt. #6811)
Terrance James Sims (Dkt. #6820)
Gloria C. Williams (Dkt. #6824)
Estella L. Ball (Dkt. #6825)
Walter Gary Knall (Dkt. #6827)
Tijuana Morris (Dkt. #6829)
Rickie-Allen Holt (Dkt. #6830)
Kirk W. Hunter (Dkt. #6831)
Cornell E. Squires (Dkt. #6832)
Ida Byrd-Hill (Dkt. #6833)
Thomas Cattron (Dkt. #6834)
JoAnn Watson (Dkt. #6835)
Thomas J. Cipollone (Dkt. #6849)
Lucinda J. Darrah (Dkt. #6857)
Reginald Williams (Dkt. #6858)
Deborah Lela Moore, El (Dkt. #6859)
Wanda Jan Hill (Dkt. #6860)
Constance M. Phillips (Dkt. #6862)
Yvonne Williams Jones and Cecily McClellan (Dkt. #6864)
Belinda A. Myers-Florence (Dkt. #6865)
Benyne Goldston and Evelyn Smith (Dkt. #6866)
Cecily McClellan (Dkt. #6867)
13-53846-swr Doc 6896 Filed 08/20/14 Entered 08/20/14 10:08:17 Page 1 of 7
2
Paulette Brown (Dkt. #6868)
Lula Millender (Dkt. #6869)
Steven Wojtowicz (Dkt. #6870)
Gloria D. Jones (Dkt. #6871)
George Lyons (Dkt. #6872)
George Lyons (Dkt. #6873)

1. Paragraph 9 of the Courts Eighth Amended Order Establishing Procedures,
Deadlines and Hearing Dates Relating to the Debtors Plan of Adjustment (Dkt. #6699)
schedules the objecting parties without attorneys to present their evidence before the City has
presented its evidence or filed a response to their objections. Several of these parties argue that
this would be unfair or a violation of their due process rights. The Court finds that it would be
more appropriate to schedule the presentation of evidence by these parties after the represented
parties have presented their cases-in-chief. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 29,
2014, at 11:00 a.m. is cancelled.

Parties whose motions are granted by this Order should read paragraphs 38-
40 below for further instructions.

2. The motion of Jamie Fields seeks to cross examine Charles Moore for one hour
regarding plan feasibility, the Citys ability to provide adequate levels of municipal services, and
the effect of deferral of the Citys annual pension contributions. The motion complies with this
Courts Order Regarding Participation at the Confirmation Hearing and establishes adequate
grounds for the relief sought. Accordingly, it is granted.
3. The motion of Irma Industrious identifies 7 specific witnesses, plus any witness
listed by the City or any other creditor and any necessary rebuttal witness listed by any other
party. The motion states that the estimated duration of the testimony is 1 day to 1 week per
witness. The testimony will concern the Citys annuity savings recoupment and the
confirmability of the plan. The Court concludes that the motion generally fails to establish
grounds for the extraordinary relief that it seeks. In the interests of justice, however, the Court
will permit this movant to examine 1 of her 7 identified witnesses for up to 20 minutes. The
movant shall file a paper identifying which witness she selects by September 12, 2014.
4. The motion of Fredia M. Butler restates her previously filed objections and requests
an opportunity to give testimony regarding her objections. The motion is granted and the movant
is allowed 20 minutes to testify.
5. The motion of Ezza R. Brandon also restates her objections to confirmation, but it
does not request an opportunity to present any evidence in support of the objections.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
6. Most of the motion of Dennis Taubitz complains about several of this Courts
procedural orders and asserts various due process violations. Eventually the motion does
identify 22 witnesses, but it states the creditor has no idea how long the cross examinations of
13-53846-swr Doc 6896 Filed 08/20/14 Entered 08/20/14 10:08:17 Page 2 of 7
3
them will take. Likewise, the motion does not identify the subject matter of the proposed
testimony as the Courts Order Regarding Participation at the Confirmation Hearing required.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
7. The motion of Frenchie Williamson seeks to present his own testimony about the
proposed clawback for 5 minutes and the testimony of an unnamed city witness who can speak to
the clawback and the terms of the recoupment for 15 minutes. This is a reasonable request.
Accordingly, the motion is granted. The movant shall file a paper identifying which city
witness he selects by September 12, 2014.
8. The motion of Elaine E. Thayer seeks 1 hour to present her testimony regarding the
treatment of her pension claim, the Citys new pension plan and the ASF recoupment. The
movant asserts that the matters that she wishes to present to the Court do not duplicate the
matters that she presented to the Court on July 15, 2014. Accordingly, the movants motion is
granted, except that the movant will be permitted to testify for 20 minutes.
9. The motion of Dino R. Wright seeks to present testimony regarding his workers
compensation claim. It is not clear that this matter is related to whether the Citys plan should be
confirmed. Accordingly, this motion is denied.
10. The joint motion of Michael Joseph Karwoski and John P. Quinn seeks to present
testimony from: (1) a current or former GRS Board of Trustees member whose term includes the
ASF Recoupment Period, (2) a current or former GRS on-staff auditor or financial advisor who
was employed by GRS during the ASF Recoupment Period, and (3) Richard Huddleston, retired
financial advisor to GRS. The motion also seeks the opportunity to cross examine 13 identified
witnesses. The motion identifies in some detail the subject matter of the proposed testimony and
states that it is unlikely that the examination of any witness will take more than 30 minutes. The
Court concludes that the motion should be granted, but with the condition that the movants total
time examining witnesses on direct and cross examination shall not exceed 5 hours.
11. The motion of Terrance James Sims restates his objections to the ASF recoupment
and to the state releases in the plan. However, the motion states that the movant does not seek to
present any evidence. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
12. The motion of Gloria C. Williams seeks to examine a representative of the Citys
balloting agent for 15 minutes on what she asserts was a flawed balloting process. This is a
reasonable request. Accordingly, the motion is granted, with the understanding that because the
Citys balloting agent is in California, this testimony may be taken by telephone. The Court
suggests that the movant contact the attorneys for the City and confer with them about these
arrangements.
13. The motion of Estella L. Ball restates her objections to the non-debtor releases, the
ASF recoupment, and the failure to meet the fair and equitable and best interest tests. She seeks
to examine Kevyn Orr and a City staff attorney, and to present her own testimony. Her motion
suggests that her own testimony will take 5 minutes but it states nothing about the other request.
The request to examine a City staff attorney about the City Code is denied because applicable
13-53846-swr Doc 6896 Filed 08/20/14 Entered 08/20/14 10:08:17 Page 3 of 7
4
law is not an appropriate subject for evidence. However, the rest of the motion is granted. The
movant is allowed 10 minutes to examine Mr. Orr and 5 minutes to testify herself.
14. The motion of Walter Gary Knall seeks an opportunity for him to testify for 15
minutes in support of his objection to the ASF recoupment. This is a reasonable request and is
granted.
15. The motion of Tijuana Morris merely elaborates on her confirmation objections. It
does not request an opportunity to present evidence or otherwise comply with the Courts Order
Regarding Participation at the Confirmation Hearing. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
16. The motion of Rickie-Allen Holt appears to request an opportunity to present
evidence regarding his claim against the City and his complaint about the actions of the
emergency manager rather than whether the plan should be confirmed. Accordingly, the motion
is denied.
17. The motion of Kirk W. Hunter requests 5 minutes to testify about the illegality of
the comprehensive release of the State of Michigan in the plan. This is a legal question that the
Court will consider, but no evidence on the issue is necessary or appropriate. Accordingly, the
motion is denied.
18. The motion of Cornell E. Squires addresses his claim for pension benefits against
the City and asserts that the City has not been paying his benefits. This is not a plan
confirmation objection. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
19. The motion of Ida Byrd-Hill seeks an opportunity to examine Kevyn Orr and a City
budget representative regarding the feasibility of the Citys plan, its financial projections and its
plan to improve its services. These issues will be the subject of extensive testimony during the
Citys case-in-chief. Because it appears that the requested evidence will be duplicative and
cumulative of other evidence, the motion is denied. The movant may, however, file a motion
after the conclusion of the Citys case to request an opportunity to present evidence that is not
duplicative or cumulative.
20. The motion of Thomas Cattron seeks an opportunity to present evidence on his
objections, but the proposed evidence appears to duplicate evidence that he presented at the
hearing on July 15, 2014. Accordingly, the motion is denied. In the interest of justice, however,
the Court will allow the movant to submit the documents that he requests the Court to consider.
These documents shall be filed by September 12, 2014.
21. The motion of JoAnn Watson requests 15 minutes to testify about her objections to
the plan. This motion is granted.
22. The motion of Thomas J. Cipollone does not identify any witnesses that the movant
requests to examine. In addition the proposed exhibits are all matters of law that the Court will
fully consider. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
23. The motion of Lucinda J. Darrah seeks permission to introduce substantial
testimony in an attempt to find long term solutions to the problems in the Detroit Water and
13-53846-swr Doc 6896 Filed 08/20/14 Entered 08/20/14 10:08:17 Page 4 of 7
5
Sewerage Department. Because that issue is beyond the scope of the confirmation hearing, the
motion is denied.
24. The motion of Reginald Williams is a copy, almost word for word, of the motion
filed by Frenchie Williamson. Because the proposed evidence is cumulative and duplicative, the
motion is denied.
25. The motion of Deborah Lela Moore, El seeks to present evidence regarding
property transfers and purchases, especially private property, as well as public hearings and
fiduciary responsibility of receiver to have them. These matters are not relevant to plan
confirmation. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
26. The motion of Wanda Jan Hill seeks permission to submit evidence that the 6.75%
interest rate on the ASF recoupment is excessive and that this interest rate was not adequately
disclosed in the disclosure statement. The motion seeks to call Belinda Florence and Heather
Lennox as witnesses for 20-40 minutes. The motion is granted and the movant is permitted 20
minutes total time to examine these two witnesses.
27. The motion of Constance M. Phillips, seeks an opportunity to testify regarding the
impact of plan confirmation on her personal finances and the hardship that would result.
Because this evidence does not directly bear on plan confirmation and the movant had this
opportunity at the hearing on July 15, 2014, this motion is denied.
28. The motion of Yvonne Williams Jones and Cecily McClellan requests the
opportunity to examine David T. Kausch and Judith Kermans of Gabriel Roeder Smith &
Company for 15-30 minutes regarding the movants objection that the General Retirement
System is fully funded and that therefore it is not necessary to reduce pensions. This motion is
granted and the movants are permitted 20 minutes total time to examine these two witnesses.
29. The motion of Belinda A. Myers-Florence seeks to present testimony from Wanda J.
Hill, Cecily McClellan and William Davis regarding the ASF recoupment. It appears that the
motion is cumulative and duplicative. Accordingly, it is denied.
30. The motion of Benyne Goldston and Evelyn Smith does not identify any witnesses
or exhibits. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
31. The second motion of Cecily McClellan seeks permission to present evidence from 8
witnesses regarding the adequacy of the disclosure of the ASF interest rate. This appears to be
duplicative and cumulative. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
32. The motion of Paulette Brown, an election official, seeks to present evidence that the
balloting process was improper and illegal because it included material urging approval of the
plan. The Court approved those materials and that process because balloting for a plan under the
bankruptcy code is governed by rules very different from the rules governing elections.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
33. The motion of Lula Millender seeks to present evidence in support of her objection
that the amount of the notes to be given to the General VEBA are unknown and therefore the
13-53846-swr Doc 6896 Filed 08/20/14 Entered 08/20/14 10:08:17 Page 5 of 7
6
plan is not proposed in good faith. The Court concludes that this evidence is unnecessary to
determine this issue because the plans terms are clear. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
34. The motion of Steven Wojtowicz requests that he be permitted to testify for 5
minutes to obtain an explanation of the ASF Recoupment Cap. This motion raises an important
question. Accordingly, it is granted.
35. The motion of Gloria D. Jones seeks an opportunity to testify regarding the impact
of plan confirmation on her personal finances and the hardship that would result. Because this
evidence does not directly bear on plan confirmation, the motion is denied.
36. The motion of George Lyons identifies 3 witnesses whom he seeks to have testify
but does not state the subject matter of their testimony. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
37. The second motion of George Lyons seeks to present the testimony of 5 witnesses
regarding the Citys alleged mishandling of his workers compensation application. This
evidence does not relate to confirmation of the Citys plan. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
38. This order grants permission to the following parties to examine certain witnesses of
other parties: Jamie Fields, Irma Industrious, Frenchie Williamson, Michael Joseph Karwoski
and John P. Quinn, Estella L. Ball, and Yvonne Williams Jones and Cecily McClellan. These
parties shall be present during the testimony of the witness or witnesses they are authorized to
examine so that their examinations can proceed without delay. A party who is not present to
examine a witness as authorized in this order waives the right to examine the witness. The Court
will make an effort to advise these parties regarding when to be present, but the ultimate
responsibility to be present remains with the party seeking to examine the witness.
39. This order grants permission to the following parties to present witnesses in support
of their objections to confirmation: Fredia M. Butler, Frenchie Williamson, Elaine E. Thayer,
Estella L. Ball, Walter Gary Knall, JoAnn Watson, Wanda Jan Hill, and Steven Wojtowicz. The
Court will give sufficient scheduling notice to these parties regarding the time and date of their
opportunity to participate in the confirmation hearing.
40. By September 2, 2014, parties who are authorized by this order to present testimony
or to examine witnesses shall provide contact information (phone number, email address or both)
to Chris Sikula at 313-234-0020. Also by September 2, 2014, these parties shall bring their
exhibits to the Intake Counter on the 17
th
Floor of the Bankruptcy Court at 211 W. Fort Street,
Detroit, Michigan, for marking. The Court will not take time during the trial to mark exhibits.
Exhibits must be brought to trial and presented into evidence at the time of the trial to be
considered by the Court. Please note that this paragraph applies to any documents
previously filed with the motions addressed in this Order: these documents must be
marked in advance and presented into evidence at the trial to be considered.
It is so ordered.
.
Signed on August 20, 2014
13-53846-swr Doc 6896 Filed 08/20/14 Entered 08/20/14 10:08:17 Page 6 of 7
7
_ /s/ Steven Rhodes _
Steven Rhodes
United States Bankruptcy Judge

13-53846-swr Doc 6896 Filed 08/20/14 Entered 08/20/14 10:08:17 Page 7 of 7