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
Continue reading

Upper Peninsula land deal poised for approval

1835 Original Seal for MichiganWHY ARE WE ALLOWING A CANADIAN COMPANY TO MINE OUR LAND IN THE UPPER PENINSULA?  WHO WILL ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS?  It won’t be the locals…perhaps jobs for “illegals”?  Couldn’t this be a likened to our fiat money we pay the private Federal Reserve to put “ink on paper” and sell to us with INTEREST to use.  We constitutionally are supposed to be creating our own money and it wouldn’t cost us a dime so “no debt” but the US Corporate Government contracted with the Private Federal Reserve Bankers (Foreigners)…. is this not similar? Why aren’t WE MINING OUR OWN LAND and keeping ALL THE PROFITS INSTEAD OF RECEIVING ROYALTIES?  Who profits from this?  It won’t be the locals as they are claiming.  IT IS ANOTHER PILLAGING OF OUR STATE’S RESOURCES BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE DEFACTO STATE GOVERNMENT.  STATE LAND BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE, NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DO AS THEY WILL!!

UPPER PENINSULA LAND DEAL POISED FOR APPROVAL!!

 A controversial Upper Peninsula land deal appears closer to approval.   A Canadian mining company wants to buy land and mineral rights on ten thousand of acres of state land in the Upper Peninsula.

Graymont wants to mine limestone in the area northwest of St. Ignace. The company plans surface and underground mines.

Top Department of Natural Resources officials initially opposed the land deal.

But Graymont made changes to the proposal, including increasing royalty payments to the state and promises of greater wetland protection.

DNR department heads now support the plan which is likely to be approved next week.

A controversial Upper Peninsula land deal appears closer to approv

A Canadian mining company wants to buy land and mineral rights on ten thousand acres of state land in the Upper Peninsula.

Graymont wants to mine limestone in the area northwest of St. Ignace. The company plans surface and underground mines.

Top Department of Natural Resources officials initially opposed the land deal.

But Graymont made changes to the proposal, including increasing royalty payments to the state and promises of greater wetland protection.

DNR department heads now support the plan which is likely to be approved next week.

Environmentalists and others fear the mining operation will cause irreversible damage to the region.

Marvin Roberson is with the Sierra Club.

He says the DNR should give people 30 days to review the latest proposal before taking any action. He says Graymont has submitted multiple revisions to its proposal since the beginning of the year.

Continue reading

Great Lakes Water

Link

  Michigan Free De jure State  The letter below is from a year ago.  Notice how vague and inconclusive the reply is?      No mention of big industry (Nestles) buying property on the shore line to “pipe” the water out of the lakes.

 

 

GREAT LAKES WATER

—– Original Message —–

From: Charles
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:40 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: great lakes water

Dear Charles,

Thank you for contacting me about prohibiting the sale of water from our Great Lakes. I appreciate that you have taken the time to communicate your views and concerns with me.

I understand your concern about removing water from our Great Lakes, which is already threatened by low water levels. As you may know, the eight Great Lakes states entered the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact in 2008. The Compact contains a provision that bans taking water out of the Great Lakes basin in containers greater than 5.7 gallons, but individual states can decide whether to ban putting water in smaller containers such as bottles. Should the issue of selling water from the Great Lakes or similar legislation comes before me in the U.S. Senate, I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow United States Senator

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow
The United States Senate • Washington, DC 20510

stabenow.senate.gov