MIDLAND COUNTY – An update to a case originating in Midland County, which impacts property rights, will be given at the next Freedom 21 Meeting. The meeting will be held in Midland on Tuesday, Oct. 15 at 7 p.m. at the Salvation Army in Midland, located at 330 Waldo Ave.
Recently, Midland County 42nd Circuit Court Judge Stephen P.
Carras issued an order granting the Department of Environmental
Quality’s Motion for Summary Disposition Sept. 6 in a case filed against
them by a local couple and their lease holders.
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.
Although disappointed with the opinion of Judge Carras, the judge’s findings were not unpredictable.
“I
can’t say we were surprised by his ruling, we predicted it, but the
opinion and order are full of errors and fiction of law. The judge’s
opinion is in direct conflict with the United States and Michigan
Constitution," said Dunn. “One has to wonder what part of ‘No Law shall
be passed impairing the Obligation of Contracts’ – found in both the
United States and Michigan Constitution – did they not understand?"
He
added, "How can the judge say the following and not feel we can sue for
protection? In the Judges own words: ‘While the Groningers can show a
particularized injury if the DEQ enters and places restriction on the
use of their land, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Dunn cannot.' Maybe this is
because the word Constitution does not seem to be in the vocabulary of
either the MDEQ or the judge because it has never came out of either of
their mouths or pen on paper during this case to date.”
On July 9, Judge Carras heard the Motion by
the Dept. of Environmental Quality [DEQ] to have this case dismissed, and
on Sept. 6 – 58 days later – he ruled in favor of the DEQ.
Additionally, the plaintiffs still
do not have a transcript that was requested for that July 9 hearing, even though records show that the check for the transcript in question was cashed on July 15.
According to Michigan
Court Rule 8.107 http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/1Chapter8AdministrativeRulesofCourt.pdf
:
“Statement by Trial Judge as to Matters Undecided (A) Time.
Matters under submission to a judge or judicial officer should be
promptly determined. Short deadlines should be set for presentation of
briefs and affidavits and for production of transcripts. Decisions, when
possible, should be made from the bench or within a few days of
submission; otherwise a decision should be rendered no later than 35
days after submission”.
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."
An appeal has been filed in the case.
To learn more about Freedom 21, go to https://sites.google.com/site/freedom21michigan.
No comments:
Post a Comment