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

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