Friends, this message is going out to you because it won’t be long before the next round of fights between the DEQ/DNR and the Groninger’s will begin.
Remember, the Groninger's have been fighting a battle against these state agencies for awhile.
From a previous Blog:
Remember, the Groninger's have been fighting a battle against these state agencies for awhile.
From a previous Blog:
In the case of Greg Groninger, Carol J. Groninger, Kenneth Thompson and Thomas Dunn v. State of Michigan, aka Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Plaintiffs refused to allow the DEQ – a state agency with jurisdiction and authority over land in the Public Domain – access to their private, patented property in order to determine if it was a protected wetland under the Michigan Wetlands Protection Act (MCL 324.43001 et seq.) As a result of the landowner’s refusal, the plaintiffs were informed that an administrative warrant would be issue to give the DEQ access to their property without their consent. The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, alleging Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by the DEQ, and asking the court to find that the DEQ cannot enter their private, patented property.
The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition filed by the DEQ on July 9, 2013, argued three points, including the point that they feel the Michigan Wetlands regulations apply to the Plaintiff’s private, patented property; that … “even if Michigan law did not apply to the Plaintiffs’ property … federal wetlands regulations apply to the Plaintiffs’ property, and those federal wetlands regulations are enforced by the DEQ; and that Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn lack standing to participate as plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
Regarding the third argument about Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn, who lease a portion of the property in question for hunting purposes, the Court opined that he could not find that Thompson and Dunn had any interest in the land; further stating that “…even if Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn had produced a document entitling them to place hunting blinds on the property they still would not have standing.
While the Groningers can show a particularized injury if the DEQ enters and places restrictions on the use of their land, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Dunn cannot.” In the Motion for Summary Disposition argument regarding the application of the Michigan Wetlands Statute to the Plaintiff’s land, Judge Carras held the opinion that the plaintiffs had “…no legal basis for their action as they are mistaken in their reading of the law, the Wetlands Statute is meant to apply to all land within the state, including privately owned patented land.” Furthermore, it was the judge’s opinion that the DEQ, as an arm of the Department of Natural Resources, had the authority to regulate wetlands under the Wetlands Protection Act.
In his conclusion, Judge Carras noted that, “…when viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs there is no issue of material fact upon which this motion for summary disposition could be denied,” thus opining that the Michigan Wetlands Protection Act applies to the Groningers’ private, patented land, and that the DEQ has the right to come onto that private property and enforce regulations on behalf of the state and/or federal government.
In a statement issued by the plaintiffs, they explain:
"Ever since we filed this Constitutional and Statutory case against the DEQ for threatening to enter our land and control activities on our land, the state has been doing everything they can do to drag this case out – hoping we will drop the case, and folks like all of you will lose interest. We will not drop the case, and we hope you will continue to follow the case and witness the delay and bully tactics the government is using to bury the constitutionally protected contracts that the founders used to grant land from the public domain into private ownership and control. This case will have impact on everyone – just think what America would be like if the government owned and controlled all the farm land, forests and land that contained oil, gas and other minerals? That would be the end of the free market system and our way of life."
The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition filed by the DEQ on July 9, 2013, argued three points, including the point that they feel the Michigan Wetlands regulations apply to the Plaintiff’s private, patented property; that … “even if Michigan law did not apply to the Plaintiffs’ property … federal wetlands regulations apply to the Plaintiffs’ property, and those federal wetlands regulations are enforced by the DEQ; and that Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn lack standing to participate as plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
Regarding the third argument about Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn, who lease a portion of the property in question for hunting purposes, the Court opined that he could not find that Thompson and Dunn had any interest in the land; further stating that “…even if Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn had produced a document entitling them to place hunting blinds on the property they still would not have standing.
While the Groningers can show a particularized injury if the DEQ enters and places restrictions on the use of their land, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Dunn cannot.” In the Motion for Summary Disposition argument regarding the application of the Michigan Wetlands Statute to the Plaintiff’s land, Judge Carras held the opinion that the plaintiffs had “…no legal basis for their action as they are mistaken in their reading of the law, the Wetlands Statute is meant to apply to all land within the state, including privately owned patented land.” Furthermore, it was the judge’s opinion that the DEQ, as an arm of the Department of Natural Resources, had the authority to regulate wetlands under the Wetlands Protection Act.
In his conclusion, Judge Carras noted that, “…when viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs there is no issue of material fact upon which this motion for summary disposition could be denied,” thus opining that the Michigan Wetlands Protection Act applies to the Groningers’ private, patented land, and that the DEQ has the right to come onto that private property and enforce regulations on behalf of the state and/or federal government.
In a statement issued by the plaintiffs, they explain:
"Ever since we filed this Constitutional and Statutory case against the DEQ for threatening to enter our land and control activities on our land, the state has been doing everything they can do to drag this case out – hoping we will drop the case, and folks like all of you will lose interest. We will not drop the case, and we hope you will continue to follow the case and witness the delay and bully tactics the government is using to bury the constitutionally protected contracts that the founders used to grant land from the public domain into private ownership and control. This case will have impact on everyone – just think what America would be like if the government owned and controlled all the farm land, forests and land that contained oil, gas and other minerals? That would be the end of the free market system and our way of life."
You may have thought after the Michigan Supreme Court denied to hear that case and supported the Appeals Court Opinion that Art. I, § 10 of the Constitution is not absolute, the fight would be over and the DEQ/DNR and Attorney General’s office had won the right to control private property.
This first round has only shown how Constitutionally Bankrupt the State of Michigan has become and how far they will go to delay, deny, deceive and destroy to keep their tyrannical control over the public.
In this first round, the DEQ/DNR and the Attorney General’s office has documented in their own hand how they are willing to work together to twist the law to achieve their agenda of controlling private property.
The Groningers were denied a Constitutionally protected right to a jury trial, through the use of a court rule called summary disposition, to hear our case involving the abuse by PUBLIC SERVANTS of our private property rights: PUBLIC SERVANT Stephen Carras, at the request of PUBLIC SERVANTS Daniel Bock and Bill Schuette (each of whom should, by their job description, represent THE PEOPLE - not a state agency acting AGAINST The People); supported by the PUBLIC SERVANTS working at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
It is about time we hold PUBLIC SERVANTS accountable to the Constitution and their OATH.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Let's fight the DEQ/DNR Abuse of Private Property Rights by Making Them:
Let's fight the DEQ/DNR Abuse of Private Property Rights by Making Them:
Obey the Law
When the Constitution is Silent it can give NO AUTHORITY
The Legislature cannot give power and jurisdiction to the DEQ/DNR that the Legislature has never been given!
ARTICLE X
PROPERTY
Michigan Constitution 1963 § 1 Disabilities of coverture abolished; separate property of wife; dower.
§ 2 Eminent domain; compensation.
§ 3 Homestead exemption.
§ 4 Escheats.
§ 5 State lands. The legislature shall have general supervisory jurisdiction over all state owned lands useful for forest preserves, game areas and recreational purposes; shall require annual reports as to such lands from all departments having supervision or control thereof; and shall by general law provide for the sale, lease or other disposition of such lands.
§ 6 Resident aliens, property rights. Aliens who are residents of this state shall enjoy the same rights and privileges in property as citizens of this state.
The Law
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 451 of 1994
MCL 324.503 "The Departments of DEQ/DNR has the power and jurisdiction over the management, control, and disposition of all land under the public domain,"
MCL 324.301 "Public domain" "means all land owned by the state”
No other power or jurisdiction was given to DEQ/DNR by Legislature because the Legislature can only give what it is authorized to give by the people through the Constitution.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 451 of 1994
MCL 324.503 "The Departments of DEQ/DNR has the power and jurisdiction over the management, control, and disposition of all land under the public domain,"
MCL 324.301 "Public domain" "means all land owned by the state”
No other power or jurisdiction was given to DEQ/DNR by Legislature because the Legislature can only give what it is authorized to give by the people through the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment