The Appeals Court Opinion Has Arrived

THE APPEALS COURT OPINION HAS ARRIVED

From: “Greg Groninger” <ggron@charter.net>
Date: February 5, 2015 at 11:15:16 AM EST
To: <ggron@charter.net>
Subject: The Appeals Court Opinion Has Arrived

So we can all be clear, the case we are talking about here is Groninger et al v. MI. Dept. of Environmental (DEQ).  The DEQ is just like the kid in the schoolyard who likes to start fights knowing Big Brother (Attorney General Bill Schuette and his office) will step in and protect Little Brother (DEQ). Bill Schuette’s office will tell you – by statute – it is his job to defend lawsuits against state agencies. What?? Attorney General Bill Schuette seems to not understand that his FIRST DUTY is to the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land) and the Michigan Constitution. Constitutions are written to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

To sum up the opinion, the court denied us a jury trial or any trial for that matter.   I would say the opinion also shows the State trustees to be constitutionally and morally bankrupt.

Attached to this e-mail is a copy of the opinion and I have highlighted only five points, of the many points, that could be commented on in this six-page opinion. To make this easy, start on page four. However, before you start reading, let me say this: Do not be confused or intimidated by all the case citation used in this opinion. Many of these citations can be summed-up by one citation used in a case where the fed’s sued the State, U.S. ON BEHALF OF SAGINAW TRIBE v. STATE OF MICHIGAN 106 F.3d 130 (1997). “The defendants (State) follow the familiar model of contemporary legal argument by taking out of context a snippet of language from a Supreme Court opinion and manipulating it to reach a chosen result. They seize on language from…”  Yes, the Attorney General’s office is good at doing this and the court seems to have bought right in.

Comments on points numbered in the opinion.  Please see opinion, then read comment below.

Point #1: When did the Constitution stop being the supreme law of the land? Article VI, § 1, Cl. 2 “This Constitution, … shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,…”  The State feels “However, the clause is not absolute, but “must be accommodated to the inherent police power of the State to safeguard the vital interests of its people.”  Sounds like we are being told we live in a police state and the Constitution is not relevant. To see where they think they get their police power authority, see point #4

Point #2: It is clear the State does not understand – or wants to twist the meaning of – FEE SIMPLE.  Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd, Edition, pg. 487) Fee Simple- “Absolute is an estate, which is limited absolutely to a man and his heirs and assigns forever, without any limitation or condition.” Seems to me when the DEQ wants to come on to my property and determine IF I can or cannot build a driveway this would be a “limitation or condition”.

Consider Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd, Edition, pg. 955) what is property. – Property, “Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it.”

Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd, Edition pg. 694) “LAND, in the most general sense, comprehends any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever; as meadows, pastures, woods, moors, waters, marshes, furzes and heath. The word “land” includes not only the soil, but everything attached to it, whether attached by the course of’ nature, as, trees, herbage, and water, or by the hand of man as buildings and fences.”

Point #3 This statement by the courts is very telling as to how they feel about private property. “Additionally, plaintiffs Groninger have not shown any reduction in the value of their property because defendant may enter the land to inspect whether it is wetland nor have they shown that any failure to issue a permit would reduce the value of their property. Even if they did, “[a] reduction in the value of the regulated property is insufficient, standing alone, to establish a compensable regulatory taking.”  The State Trustees are saying to us, we can take it if we want it and the Constitution cannot stop us.

Point #4: The Attorney General Bill Schuette is claiming the Michigan Constitution Art. IV § 52 gives the state police power over private property.

Art. IV § 52 states the following: “The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state (society of men) are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction.”  (added by gdg)  STATE, n. Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd, Edition pg. 1105) “A body politic, or society of men, …”OF, Webster’s Dictionary 1828:  “From or out of; proceeding from, as the cause, source, means, author or agent bestowing.”

Does this sound like the state trustees were given any police powers over your private property or just the property owned by all of us, the Michigan society of men?  Will they next say they have the police power to come and develop your land?

The State is a society of men, not a land mass. This means the boundary of Michigan is the defining line of who can be a member of the society of men we call the State of Michigan.

Point #5 “Plaintiffs make a number of other arguments, which fail principally because defendant is a state regulator empowered by a state statute.” Seems they did not have any comments about the IX Amendment “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It is very apparent; if it is not clearly called out in the Constitution, it belongs to the people undiminished.

Folks, it is up to us, the society of men, to stop this unconstitutional taking of your private property. All these folks (Attorney General, Judges, Governor, State Legislators…) who work for us, took an Oath before we allowed them to work for us.  We must hold them to their Oath’s; it is our duty to our children and grandchildren. What you are seeing is one of the most powerful tools the state uses to move the agenda of Agenda 21 forward in our great State.

What can you do?  Call, write or do both the Michigan Attorney General and let him know how you feel. His contact information is below. If you do not know, what Agenda 21 is then please looking into it.

Samuel Adams, who famously uttered,
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in the minds of men.”

Greg Groninger

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL
Bill Schuette
Michigan Attorney General
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-1110
e-mail  SchuetteB@michigan.gov

VICTORY: Citizens Stand Up to Agenda 21 in Alaska!

Link

1835 Seal for Michigan Free De Jure StateThis again does not directly pertain to Michigan, but indirectly it can because this is what land owners in Michigan need to do.  Renters need to stand and defend the property owners right because they could be a future land owner or their children. If it can happen in Alaska it can happen here too!  We just need to reach out to one another and stand up to defend and protect our rights.  They do what they do because WE LET THEM!!

 

VICTORY: CITIZENS STAND UP TO AGENDA 21 IN ALASKA! 

By Dan Johnson

The average planning and zoning meeting consists of the planning and zoning commissioners, a room, and very little else. They are often dry meetings dealing with rules and regulations for business and home licensing, property lines, and nuisance ordinances.

So when the Borough of Kodiak, AK (Pop. 13,600) chose to attempt to entirely revamp the zoning code and place greater restrictions on property owners, including a $1,000 fine per violation, they expected there to be little opposition, and little knowledge of the change.

Instead, the Solutions Institute assisted local resident Jamie Fagan, and he along with a team of people rallied over 300 residents to attend the meeting.

Even though many residents could not attend due to flooded roads and driving rain, there were over 69 speeches, nearly all in opposition to the new code, totaling over 4 hours of testimony against it.

The zoning code in question, drafted by Bob Pederson, enforces many of the suggestions of the United Nations’ 1992 “Agenda 21” treaty, including making it easier for local officials to seize private property.

Jamie was excited to have some assistance defending his home:

I can’t thank the Solutions Institute enough. From helping us to choose an appropriate name for our organization to setting up Facebook groups, editing videos, to helping in ways that one might describe as “unorthodox” but are breathtakingly effective, it really is a joy to work with these guys and there is no doubt in my mind that our group would not have been nearly as effective without their help.

Though the code has not been defeated yet, Jamie has no doubt that with the amount of people who came out to try and stop it, it is only a matter of time before the new code is scrapped.

While SI does not take a position on the issue, we were pleased to help get more citizens involved in their local governance, and happy to help ensure that the new zoning regulations faced the public debate and transparency that are the hallmarks of a free society. 

The Solutions Institute is a collection of activists and professionals from across the political spectrum, and we are always looking for new projects. Submit yours here: http://solutions-institute.org/get-help/ 

Dan Johnson is the founder of the Solutions Institute, where this article first appeared.