LEAVE TO APPEAL

1835 Original Seal for MichiganThis e-mail is only going out to a few folks who might actually read it and share the information about the property rights cause with friends. Our judicial system is constitutionally bankrupt but we must use the system to expose it to everyone who wants to reestablish liberty in America. To have a case heard by the MI Supreme Court you must ask their permission, this process is called LEAVE TO APPEAL!  This LEAVE is not the actual BRIEF that must be filled if you are GRANTED permission to go before the MI Supreme Court it is just to present why you think this case is important and why they should hear your case. There is only about a 5% chance the case they will agree to hear the case and that is ok because this is a step in the overall exposure process. Below is just the introduction to the leave to appeal. Attached is the actual leave that was filed with the court. The attached also have both the opinion of the circuit and appeals courts. I have highlighted a couple statements in the Appeals Court OPINION I think you will find very interesting.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” –Ronald Reagan

Greg

GROUNDS   (INTRODUCTION)   MCR 7.302 (B)
This Constitutional and statutory case against the State could affect hundreds of thousands of acres of private property and property owners within the exterior boundaries of Michigan. Plaintiff’s / Appellant’s sought declaratory relief to prevent defendant Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) from entering the property to inspect for wetlands and to require wetland permit with restriction if State so desired.
The state has properly admitted they do not have any Holds, Liens, Monetary, Proprietary or Contractual interests in the physical Property which the Plaintiffs / Appellants is the Assign and holds fee simple patent with no reservation, as evidenced by chain of title. However, the state and lower courts claims PA 451 of 1994, MCL 324.30301 gives jurisdiction over the person and police powers are granted to them by Art. IV § 52 of Michigan Constitution to enter, inspect, and require permits. The Court has also stated this kind of entry and requirement for a permit would not constitute a taking.
The term “property” embodies more than just physical, corporeal assets; it can include intangible entities, such as rights and interests.[1]   The patent 4829 Grants all rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances of whatsoever nature, to heirs and assigns forever.” In its precise legal sense, property is nothing more than a collection of rights;[2] indeed, “property,” in law, is not the material object itself, but is the right and interest or domination rightfully obtained over such object, with the unrestricted right to its use, enjoyment, and disposition.[3] The right to exclude others, as well as their property, is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property. [4] Our case was brought to defend the right to exclude other from the property, to retain control of resources and defend the right not to have to enter into any permitting scheme (contract) with the state for rights already secured.
Art. I § 14 Jury trials “The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one of the parties in the manner prescribed by law.  So far, this case has been bantered around on the states home court by trustees and actors of the state, and now needs to be addressed by a jury, the ones who authorize the state to exist, and the ones whose properties are at risk.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

LEAVE TO APPEAL SUPREME COURT searchable PDF DOCUMENT

The people should be allowed to judge if the trustees and actors of the state, that being judges, attorney general, directors of DEQ and DNR, would see nothing wrong in giving police powers to the state and then allow them to buy, sell, rent, lease and exchange land in the same market place where the trustees of the state use police powers to apply regulations affecting the value of private property. What group of people would knowingly allow their trustees to use tax dollars to devalue private personal property? Then allow the State to purchase private property that said regulations have devalued.
The trustees of the state claim Art. IV § 52 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution gives them police powers outside and above the Constitution for the United States and Bill of Rights Art. I § 10, 5th, 9th Amendments and Art. VI  § 1 – Cl. 2. WE all know this is wrong.  To quote Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine; 1789   “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” A jury should decide this question of Law not the Judges, trustees of the state who are being sued; after all, servants do not make rules for their masters.
[1]  Solomon v. Solomon, 383 Md. 176, 857 A.2d 1109 (2004)
2 Matter of Valuation Proceedings Under Sections 303(c) and 306 of Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 445 F. Supp. 994 (Regional Rail Reorg. Ct. 1977); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, 323 U.S. 373, 65 S. Ct. 357, 89 L. Ed. 311, 156 A.L.R. 390 (1945) (used accurately, “property” denotes the group of rights inhering in the citizen’s relation to the physical thing, as the right to possess, use, and dispose of it)
3 Howlett v. Doglio, 402 Ill. 311, 83 N.E.2d 708, 6 A.L.R.2d 790 (1949); City of Akron v. Chapman, 160 Ohio St. 382, 52 Ohio Op. 242, 116 N.E.2d 697, 42 A.L.R.2d 1140 (1953)
4 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994); Novelty Crystal Corp. v. PSA Institutional Partners, L.P., 49 A.D.3d 113, 850 N.Y.S.2d 497 (2d Dep’t 2008)
[1]  Solomon v. Solomon, 383 Md. 176, 857 A.2d 1109 (2004)
[2] Matter of Valuation Proceedings Under Sections 303(c) and 306 of Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 445 F. Supp. 994 (Regional Rail Reorg. Ct. 1977); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, 323 U.S. 373, 65 S. Ct. 357, 89 L. Ed. 311, 156 A.L.R. 390 (1945) (used accurately, “property” denotes the group of rights inhering in the citizen’s relation to the physical thing, as the right to possess, use, and dispose of it)
[3] Howlett v. Doglio, 402 Ill. 311, 83 N.E.2d 708, 6 A.L.R.2d 790 (1949); City of Akron v. Chapman, 160 Ohio St. 382, 52 Ohio Op. 242, 116 N.E.2d 697, 42 A.L.R.2d 1140 (1953)
[4] Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994); Novelty Crystal Corp. v. PSA Institutional Partners, L.P., 49 A.D.3d 113, 850 N.Y.S.2d 497 (2d Dep’t 2008)

LEAVE TO APPEAL SUPREME COURT searchable  PDF DOCUMENT

Leave a Reply