At every hearing in this case, supporters have packed the courtroom - even to the point of forcing the court to move the hearing to a larger courtroom to accommodate the high number of people.
But now, perhaps due to the nature of the motion, it seems the court might not want to see so many faces in the crowd.
"The DEQ is trying to block our attempt to inspect or have video / audio copies of the recordings made in open court during our court hearings of April 4, 24, and July 9," the Plaintiffs wrote in an update to supporters. "The DEQ has filed a Motion demanding a hearing with the court to Quash our subpoena, file on the County Clerk for those records. Now why would the DEQ not want us to have access to those records?!"
The Plaintiffs realize the date of the hearing is no coincidence - the court doesn't appear to want to draw a crowd.
"Now for the really rich part," Plaintiffs write. "They have scheduled this hearing for opening day of deer season - Friday, Nov. 15 at 1:45 p.m. before Judge Beale in his courtroom at 301 West Main Street, Midland, Michigan...."
Despite the date, the Plaintiffs are hoping that the crowds will turn out en force to continue to show solidarity, and support them in their case against the DEQ.
"This is a really big request of you, but if you can possibly make this hearing it would be greatly appreciated," the Plaintiffs noted. "I can promise you one thing; this is going to be a real interesting Motion hearing to witness. Public witness and action is the only cure for government bullying."
Mark this on your calendar:
What: Motion Hearing to Quash Subpoena for inspection of recordings made in open court for hearings in the case of Groninger’s et al V. DEQ File No. 12-9040-CZ
When: Friday, November 15th 1:45 pm
Where: 301 West Main Street, Midland, Michigan
Presiding: The Honorable Judge Beale
An overview of the last court action follows below:
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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment