Mud Bog Case Back in Court Tuesday - Will You Be There?

We have the chance this week to see the wheels of justice turn in yet another of the disturbingly

increasing number of cases involving private property rights: The Mud Bog Case in Gladwin County against Denise and Kelly Miller.

The motion and settlement conference will take place Tuesday in Gladwin County's 55th Circuit Court. Many of us are planning to attend the hearing, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

The case stems from an “ordinance violation” regarding a 40-acre private property farm belonging to the millers that has been used for years as a popular venue for mud bogs.

In the Summons and Complaint dated April 24, 2013, it is alleged that the Defendant, Denise Miller, owner of the property in question on Nettleton Road, has hosted along with her husband, Kelly Miller, mud bogs on the private property, which the county says is a violation of its Zoning Ordinance.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff, County of Gladwin, asks the court to confirm that mud bogging is a nuisance per se, and is violation of the County's Zoning Ordinance.

They also ask for an injunction against the activity on the Millers’ property, “…or any premises in Gladwin County unless a permit is obtained.”

 

We've said it in our blog before: This is not about a mud bog. It's about property rights. But it's also about something else - it is about examining the validity of the Zoning Department in enforcing the issue.

For many years, the mud bogs have been a staple at the Miller farm. In fact, aside from the fact that it's private, patented property, over which the county has no jurisdiction, it's been going on longer than the county's zoning has been in place. The County's Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 2007.

According to Michigan Zoning Enabling Act PA 110, 2006 - Activity should be legal nonconforming use, as confirmed by written statements in file. So why does complaint focus on mud bogging as a nuisance per se, and not the Fair/Festival aspect? In any case, non-conforming *legal* use should apply. There have been mud bogs on the property since 2002; others claim as far back as 1999.... Millers have obviously complied with requests - parking, sanitation, noise reduction (berm), which shows cooperation... Not like they have shirked requests. Uninformed on the issue does not constitute disobedience...

 

This case is yet another example of how Zoning is the death of property rights, and how bureaucratic departments are being used to enforce sometimes bogus "violations" over people, places, and even animals over which they should have no jurisdiction.

Take this case, for example:

Mark Baker vs. The Department of Natural Resources. DNR redefines the words "feral" and "domesticated"; issues Invasive Species Order against their definition of "feral" pigs, allowing them to build a bridge from their intended purpose - to manage wildlife on state land - to exerting their authority over farm animals on private property.

Learn more. Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_OyraGo-o&feature=c4-overview&list=UU-cAVy-oC3v7ENiQu-Ls-4w

There are countless other cases where questionable measures are used as means to various ends -

FDA attack on organic egg producers by using fear tactics:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/24/205230655/the-fda-doesnt-want-chickens-to-explore-the-great-outdoors

EPA making the determination that we can totally eat significantly more amounts of Monsanto's Round-Up this year:

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-epa-483/

Or a Zoning Authority's impact on a rural hobby farm.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/08/mattawan_familys_rural_hobby_f.html

If you read any of these cases and questioned motives, or felt at any time, "That's not fair." You're not alone.

Because of the examples of seeming overreach by unelected bureaucrats, WE - the people - should always examine cases thoroughly, even when they are controversial and emotional. The more we allow an agency to create case law, the more we bolster its authority to commit the same action again.

 

Think about the implications of creating case law regarding mud bog activity, and more importantly - the dangerous potential in any bureaucratic office to exert a police-like authority over a situation involving what appear to be separate incidents that are criminal in nature, to punish landowners where law enforcement was not able to, using the methods employed by the duties assigned to them by your local government.

 

This lawsuit was initiated by The County of Gladwin, through its Zoning Department. The County in essence gave the authority to the department to enforce the rules how they see fit, even to the point of initiating litigation, all without a vote.

 

That's the part that should be concerning: When unelected bureaucrats appointed by the legislative body of a municipality, in this case Gladwin County, are free to initiate lawsuits without a vote BY that legislative body - in this case, the Board of Commissioners - we have lost our representation.

 

We elect the county commissioners to represent us, not to turn over the checkbook to any of its unelected bureaucratic offices - in this case, the Zoning Department. We elected them to make financial decisions with our tax money, and in this case they have failed us. They have started a lawsuit without a vote.

 

A lawsuit on our behalf, no less. Who is the County of Gladwin? It's US, folks. It's The People, The Taxpayers. Had the issue been taken to the Board of Commissioners for a vote, we may have been able to weigh in on the potential of spending thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on what some of us feel is a frivolous lawsuit.

 

Which is why we invite each and every one of you reading this to come out and be there to see this case play out in the courtroom. After all, if you live in Gladwin County, you're essentially a plaintiff; and you're paying the fees to the attorney.

 

Beyond that, even if you don't live in Gladwin County, we know that many of you feel very strongly about property rights, and we would love to have you there. This case may seem small, but any case that infringes upon the property rights of homeowners on private land - private, patented land in this case - affects all of us.

 

Learn more about the death of property rights. Watch our video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McN_KI5jUxw

What We're Teaching

No bullying. No life lessons in handling poor behavior amongst ourselves.
 
No fighting. The animal kingdom we belong to requires establishing hierarchy. No checks and balances allowed at the personal level.
 
Go to the authorities, they will deal with the injustice. We used to discourage tattling.
 
Guns are dangerous and there will be zero tolerance. We used to teach gun safety. We used to teach that guns level playing fields when protecting property and life.
 
We used to go to church and plant seeds of morality. Now the worst examples of hypocrisy are used justify subjective morality.
 
We used to teach that marriage is a holy vow between a man and woman, and a promise to God. Now it's a convenience for tax status and survivorship benefits, with God nowhere in sight.
 
We used to respect the miracle of life. Now we struggle to define what that means and encourage young women to consider selfishness as an option.
 
We used to teach abstinence and the repercussions of having children out of wedlock. Now we witness most kids with one parent, or two duplicate sets if they're lucky.
 
We used to teach that hard work will bring your material desires. Now many high schoolers are handed better vehicles than families struggling to make ends meet.
 
We used to teach the value of mechanical aptitude. Now we teach academics can trump common sense in the work force.
 
We used to discourage government handouts. Now we promote it unapologetically.
 
We used to teach spare the rod, spoil the child. Now we employee armies of child protective service workers.
 
We used to teach the exceptionalism of the American experiment. Now we teach our small footprint on the globe.
 
We've created a society on fast forward that sees the glamorization repeatedly in our pop culture of bullying, fighting, gun violence, indifference to faith, divorce, hooking up, gay lifestyle, women's rights over the womb, non traditional family units, non contact discipline, and a mocking of the greatness that America was – and could be again.

But you won't hear that from traditional media.
 
How do you combat generations immersed in degradation of morality? How do you explain to the youth that all those movies and video games glorifying martial arts fighting, weapon skills, gun handling, is not tolerated even in role playing scenarios? And that any hint to it is grounds for dismissal? 

How do you get through to a society that has swallowed that pill and have no idea how to handle any situation without tattling to the authorities? Will the desensitization of violence through media allow an acceptance of it through the very authorities we now depend on to prevent our petty injustices? 

We now discourage holding firm positions for fear of offending an opposing view.
 
I'm not sorry that I refuse to get with the times.

Update will be given on Groninger v. DEQ at Freedom 21 meeting Oct. 15

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.

Peter Konetchy will speak at Freedom 21 Meeting Oct. 15 in Midland

MIDLAND - Peter Konetchy, the man who will challenge Dave Camp in the 2014 Republican Primary, will speak to guests at the Freedom 21 Meeting in Midland on Tuesday, Oct. 15 at 7 p.m. at the Salvation Army in Midland, located at 330 Waldo Ave.
Konetchy, a Roscommon businessman, is running as a republican for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. Konetchy said his frustration with government left him no choice.
"I’m watching my country being destroyed in front of my eyes," said Konetchy. "I can no longer sit and wait for the ‘professional politicians’ to solve our problems. They just make them worse."
Konetchy has always felt that the federal government’s role is a limited role.
"My understanding of the U.S. Constitution reinforces that fact," he said.
He added that he believes the government was designed to establish us as a sovereign nation and to represent us in the world community.
"It has no authority to control the daily lives of the people," he said.
He also believes that many of the problems facing the country today are a direct result of the federal government overstepping its authority. Konetchy feels that federal "one-size-fits-all" programs produce many more unintended consequences than benefit.
"Economic development is critical to this nation’s survival," said Konetchy.
He added that government cannot produce jobs, but instead drain resources away from the private sector to support its own needs.
"I don’t think anyone can honestly think our government is not a bloated bureaucracy," he said.
Konetchy feels that the way to revitalize the U.S. economy.
"The federal government must be frugal with the taxpayer’s money," he said.
Energy Independence is high on Konetchy’s agenda.
"We have three times more oil reserves domestically in this country than all of the OPEC countries combined," Konetchy said. "It’s criminal that our federal government is prohibiting the domestic development of our own reserves. We should not only be energy independent, but we should be selling our oil to other industrialized nations and using the revenue to pay down our debt."
Konetchy’s focus will be to immediately balance the federal budget; eliminate deficit spending; and concentrate on eliminating wasteful, duplicative, and non-constitutionally authorized programs.
Konetchy and wife Zhanna have five children. He is a partner at Desktop Business Solutions which provides software to law firms throughout the nation. Konetchy filed his FEC papers in January and has been travelling the state introducing himself and explaining his positions.
For more on Peter, visit his website www.peterkonetchy .com or join him on Facebook.
To learn more about Freedom 21, go to https://sites.google.com/site/freedom21michigan.

It's STILL not about a Mud Bog

Kelly Miller, Tab Faber, and Tom Dunn from We The People of Gladwin County took the time to get together this week and discuss the Mud Bog Case that Gladwin County has brought against Denise Miller and her family. We urge you to watch the video....

Click here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Z_G6ZVW94&feature=share

And read below for a timeline of the case, and some background information.

Each day, we see an increasing number of cases involving private property rights. Including this one: The Mud Bog Case in Gladwin County against Denise and Kelly Miller.

The case stems from an “ordinance violation” regarding a 40-acre private property farm belonging to the millers that has been used for years as a popular venue for mud bogs.

In the Summons and Complaint dated April 24, 2013, it is alleged that the Defendant, Denise Miller, owner of the property in question on Nettleton Road, has hosted along with her husband, Kelly Miller, mud bogs on the private property, which the county says is a violation of its Zoning Ordinance.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff, County of Gladwin, asks the court to confirm that mud bogging is a nuisance per se, and is violation of the County's Zoning Ordinance.

They also ask for an injunction against the activity on the Millers’ property, “…or any premises in Gladwin County unless a permit is obtained.”

We've said it in our blog before: This is not about a mud bog. It's about property rights. But it's also about something else - it is about examining the validity of the Zoning Department in enforcing the issue.

For many years, the mud bogs have been a staple at the Miller farm. In fact, aside from the fact that it's private, patented property, over which the county has no jurisdiction, it's been going on longer than the county's zoning has been in place. The County's Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 2007.

According to Michigan Zoning Enabling Act PA 110, 2006 - Activity should be legal nonconforming use, as confirmed by written statements in file. So why does complaint focus on mud bogging as a nuisance per se, and not the Fair/Festival aspect? In any case, non-conforming *legal* use should apply. There have been mud bogs on the property since 2002; others claim as far back as 1999.... Millers have obviously complied with requests - parking, sanitation, noise reduction (berm), which shows cooperation... Not like they have shirked requests. Uninformed on the issue does not constitute disobedience...

This case is yet another example of how Zoning is the death of property rights, and how bureaucratic departments are being used to enforce sometimes bogus "violations" over people, places, and even animals over which they should have no jurisdiction.

Take this case, for example:

Mark Baker vs. The Department of Natural Resources. DNR redefines the words "feral" and "domesticated"; issues Invasive Species Order against their definition of "feral" pigs, allowing them to build a bridge from their intended purpose - to manage wildlife on state land - to exerting their authority over farm animals on private property.

Learn more. Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_OyraGo-o&feature=c4-overview&list=UU-cAVy-oC3v7ENiQu-Ls-4w

There are countless other cases where questionable measures are used as means to various ends -

FDA attack on organic egg producers by using fear tactics:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/24/205230655/the-fda-doesnt-want-chickens-to-explore-the-great-outdoors

EPA making the determination that we can totally eat significantly more amounts of Monsanto's Round-Up this year:

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-epa-483/

Or a Zoning Authority's impact on a rural hobby farm.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/08/mattawan_familys_rural_hobby_f.html

If you read any of these cases and questioned motives, or felt at any time, "That's not fair." You're not alone.

Because of the examples of seeming overreach by unelected bureaucrats, WE - the people - should always examine cases thoroughly, even when they are controversial and emotional. The more we allow an agency to create case law, the more we bolster its authority to commit the same action again.

Think about the implications of creating case law regarding mud bog activity, and more importantly - the dangerous potential in any bureaucratic office to exert a police-like authority over a situation involving what appear to be separate incidents that are criminal in nature, to punish landowners where law enforcement was not able to, using the methods employed by the duties assigned to them by your local government.

This lawsuit was initiated by The County of Gladwin, through its Zoning Department. The County in essence gave the authority to the department to enforce the rules how they see fit, even to the point of initiating litigation, all without a vote.

That's the part that should be concerning: When unelected bureaucrats appointed by the legislative body of a municipality, in this case Gladwin County, are free to initiate lawsuits without a vote BY that legislative body - in this case, the Board of Commissioners - we have lost our representation.

We elect the county commissioners to represent us, not to turn over the checkbook to any of its unelected bureaucratic offices - in this case, the Zoning Department. We elected them to make financial decisions with our tax money, and in this case they have failed us. They have started a lawsuit without a vote.

A lawsuit on our behalf, no less. Who is the County of Gladwin? It's US, folks. It's The People, The Taxpayers. Had the issue been taken to the Board of Commissioners for a vote, we may have been able to weigh in on the potential of spending thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on what some of us feel is a frivolous lawsuit.

By the way, I thought we were broke. Whatever. Keep spending to fight this case....might cost you a deputy or two...which is a shame! They aren't the bad guys here....... But of course, their retirement isn't so near as others, nor so dependent on their usefulness to the county.

Here's a Timeline from documents located in the Millers' file, as well as from the Minutes from the Gladwin County Board of Commissioners:

April 6, 2010 - Anonymous complaint regarding "excessive noise, large crowds, and camping," in regards to 1420 Nettleton Road.

April 6, 2010 - Z.A. did a drive by. Took pictures - see attached. Called DEQ. Z.A. reports trash and old trucks all over.

April 7, 2010 - Handwritten note: "Complaint about mudbog on corner of Nettleton & Ridge Road." Miller indicated bogging since 2005; 4 mud bogs per year; Easter weekend largest; April through October; Smaller bogs since 2000 per Kelly Miller; Appx. 3000 people / 1000 vehicles on Easter weekend." Signed by Schneider.

NOT DATED: Photos taken by Schneider allegedly. Port a potties. Bog activity land use (mud, ruts, holes.) Camping. Photos taken daytime and nighttime.
ATTACHED - Special Permit Uses for Residential Farming.  "Campground/RV Park circled."
ATTACHED - Special Permit Uses for B2 (business): Star next to "Outdoor Assembly."
ATTACHED - Definitions from Zoning Ordinance 2.1.08 - Starred: "Outdoor Amusement Facility." and "Outdoor Assembly."
ATTACHED - Further Definition of Section 7.17 Outdoor Assembly.
ATTACHED - Further Definition of Section 7.19 Recreational Vehicle Park, Campground.

NOT DATED: Handwritten notes: "Called Mrs. Sparkman 4-13-10. She had stated to Board Secretary Carmen that she had diary of when mud bogs were here...diary listed only dates 2009."
She did state they started in 2006 (miller said 2005). She told me she had contacted Zoning previously. Zoning had told her there was nothing they could do." "Talked to lawyer will talk Reed Whittington." "Due to the fact these bogs started when zoning was not in effect. Therefore was allowed because it was an existing use." "Is not permitted use. Went from mud bog casual event to a fair/festival <scribble> outdoor assembly. casual social event on a personal matter. to outdoor assembly that is not permitted." "Does not look like it's gonna fit."

April 27, 2010 - From Zoning/Schneider to Jacobson: "Enclosed please find copies of a file for Denise Miller, complaint #C10-36. If you need anything else from our office, please let me know."

April 27, 2010 - From Board of Commissioners meeting:

April 30, 2010 - Letter from Jacobson to Miller mailed (per postmark) May 1, 2010: "I am the attorney for Gladwin County... The Board of Commissioners has received several contacts recently concerning mud bog activities on your property located in Gladwin Township on Nettleton Road." No complaints included from Commissioners.

May 13, 2010 - Letter from Jacobson to Miller re: their meeting. "Personal activity such as mud bogs would not be itself a violation of the Ordinance, if it is kept as a personal activity.

May 29, 2010 - Pictures (9) taken of bog activity and later submitted to Zoning by Sparkmans; date unspecified for delivery of photos.

June 15, 2010 - Letter from Zoning/Schneider to the Sparkmans: "Thank you for submitting pictures of the last mud bog held at 1420 Nettleton Road. We would like to assure you that this office appreciates your efforts. As explained, the property owners are allowed to have small gatherings. If you feel the gatherings are becoming a problem, please let us know."

April 1, 2011 - Letter sent to Denise Miller from Zoning Dept/Schneider. "Please accept this letter as a reminder that you have agreed to limit the mud bog participation to personal activity (25 vehicles total). Large events are still not allowed in the zoning district in which you reside. Your cooperation is needed in this matter."

ENTER LONG GAP OF TIME. NOTHING NOTED. 


March 30, 2013 - Deputy Goss observed mud bogging activity at 1420 Nettleton; initiated traffic stop against vehicle "which led onto grounds of the event." Not charging anything. 50 vehicles present. "5-8 actively engaged in mud bogging."

April 24, 2013 - Summons and Complaint filed against Denise Miller in Circuit Court which asks court to list mud bogging as a "nuisance per se", grant an injunction for ordinance violation; award costs to plaintiff Gladwin County; force Miller to submit "Special Use Permit."

ADDITONAL PER WRITER:

According to Michigan Zoning Enabling Act PA 110, 2006 - Activity should be legal nonconforming use, as confirmed by written statements in file. So why does complaint focus on mud bogging as a nuisance per se, and not the Fair/Festival aspect? In any case, non-conforming *legal* use should apply. There have been mud bogs on the property since 2002; others claim as far back as 1999.... Millers have obviously complied with requests - parking, sanitation, noise reduction (berm), which shows cooperation... Not like they have shirked requests. Uninformed on the issue does not constitute disobedience...

 

Additionally, there's only one complaint in the file.... There's only one complaint from *a citizen* in the Public Safety notes. 

And of course this latest update, a response by Attorney Doug Jacobson on behalf of Gladwin County, Plaintiff, in regards to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition, and Support of the Motion to Strike Defenses, was filed Nov. 10 with the Gladwin County Clerk's office:

According to various sources we researched:

“Affirmative defenses plead matters extraneous to the plaintiff's prima facie case, which deny plaintiff's right to recover, even if the allegations of the complaint are true."

When a motion is made to strike defenses, it essentially is asking the court to establish the validity of a defensive strategy. In this case, the Plaintiff is asking the court to deny the validity of the patented land defense.

He writes in the brief:

And continued, then following up with his conclusion:



Is a 100% taxation rate an unrealistic expectation?

 Really, if there is no definable threshold of taxation....where does it end? why do we get away with the current realized average rate of 59% ? I know that sounds illogical....

..but look here : http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html 

---

A partial list of the various ways in which citizens of the US are taxed:

• Accounts Receivable Tax
• Building Permit Tax
• Capital Gains Tax
• CDL license Tax
• Cigarette Tax
• Corporate Income Tax
• Court Fines (indirect taxes)
• Deficit spending
• Dog License Tax
• Federal Income Tax
• Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
• Fishing License Tax
• Food License Tax
• Fuel permit tax
• Gasoline Tax
• Hunting License Tax
• Inflation
• Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
• Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
• IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
• Liquor Tax
• Local Income Tax
• Luxury Taxes
• Marriage License Tax
• Medicare Tax
• Property Tax
• Real Estate Tax
• Septic Permit Tax
• Service Charge Taxes
• Social Security Tax
• Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
• Sales Taxes
• Recreational Vehicle Tax
• Road Toll Booth Taxes
• School Tax
• State Income Tax
• State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
• Telephone federal excise tax
• Telephone federal universal service fee tax
• Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
• Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
• Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
• Telephone state and local tax
• Telephone usage charge tax
• Toll Bridge Taxes
• Toll Tunnel Taxes
• Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
• Trailer Registration Tax
• Utility Taxes
• Vehicle License Registration Tax
• Vehicle Sales Tax
• Watercraft Registration Tax
• Well Permit Tax
• Workers Compensation Tax

We have been hinting to the broad dependence our governments have created at all socioeconomic levels form below the defined poverty level to the uber rich, to local and state governments. We are all now revenue sharing in one way shape or form. If we can sustain 59%, why would 80% or 100% be unfeasible?

 A progressive dream of complete socialization of all aspects of our organic economy top to bottom is a succinct possibility if we stay on this course of broad entitlement.

When In Doubt, Zone Them Out

It's not about a mud bog.

On Tuesday, Aug. 6, Denise Miller is set to return to 55th Circuit Court for a hearing in the case that Gladwin County, by way of the Zoning Department, has drummed up against her for a "Zoning Ordinance Violation."



The crime? She and husband Kelly Miller have been hosting semi-regular mud bogs on their 40-acre private property for around 11 years. They even have a club - Backyard Mudders. They don't charge money to enter, or to bog; but in the past they have taken donations to help out local folks who had lost loved ones, or in some cases, had a large amount of medical bills.

In the Complaint filed in 55th Circuit Court, it states that these mud bogs violate the zoning classification for the Millers' property. It reads:

As we've stated before: This is not about a mud bog. It's about property rights. But it's also about something else - it is about examining the validity of the Zoning Department in enforcing the issue.

For many years, the mud bogs went on without complaint, until fairly recently. We have attended many meetings, and have even heard conversations regarding the complaints of neighbors of the Millers.

Wait. Let us clear something up before moving on here.

Some folks have accused us as being "pro mud bog," or unsympathetic toward the neighbors and their plight. Not so.

We are concerned with property rights, and the ever increasing tendency for municipalities, agencies and even corporations to employ "enforcers" to restrict the rights of people on private property, and establish dangerous precedents that could lead us even further away from the freedom we should all enjoy.

Take this case, for example:

Mark Baker vs. The Department of Natural Resources. DNR redefines the words "feral" and "domesticated"; issues Invasive Species Order against their definition of "feral" pigs, allowing them to build a bridge from their intended purpose - to manage wildlife on state land - to exerting their authority over farm animals on private property.

Learn more. Start here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_OyraGo-o&feature=c4-overview&list=UU-cAVy-oC3v7ENiQu-Ls-4w

There are countless other cases where questionable measures are used as means to various ends -

FDA attack on organic egg producers by using fear tactics:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/24/205230655/the-fda-doesnt-want-chickens-to-explore-the-great-outdoors

EPA making the determination that we can totally eat significantly more amounts of Monsanto's Round-Up this year:

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-epa-483/

Or a Zoning Authority's impact on a rural hobby farm.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/08/mattawan_familys_rural_hobby_f.html

 If you read any of these cases and questioned motives, or felt at any time, "That's not fair." You're not alone.

Because of the examples of seeming overreach by bureaucrats and governmental appointees, WE - the people - should always examine cases thoroughly, even when they are controversial and emotional. The more we allow an agency to create case law, we bolster its authority to commit the same action again.

So what of the Mud Bog case? Well, here's what we've determined so far:

Yes, there were complaints by neighbors regarding mud bogs, however, we've yet to hear a complaint that dealt directly with the activity. Instead, the complaints we were made aware of are due to the actions of humans, not the sport.

We've heard allegations of drunkenness, nudity, trespassing, and other bad behavior. In fact, bring up the mud bogging, and anyone who is opposed is opposed on the basis of the actions of the individuals who attended, not the activity of running trucks through mud holes.

The lawsuit, however, asks the court to establish mud bogging as a nuisance activity and order an injunction against said activity. It goes on to say that anyone who wants to have a mud bog needs to get a Special Use Permit.

Wait. Can anyone get a permit for nuisance activity? Does that mean we can apply to start constructing that gas-leaking, junk vehicle totem pole surrounded by tall grass art piece we have been considering!

Either there's a dangling carrot of hope attached to that Complaint to further the notion of "ordinance violation" or we should really examine Special Use Permits.... Why on Earth would any governmental entity label an activity a nuisance and then allow people to pay in order to continue taking part in said activity?  Money grab?

Of course, it's not completely a baseless argument. Consider these Minutes from one of the County Commissioners meetings:

Hmmmm.... Zoning as a revenue generator? Sort of turns the stomach, doesn't it. If you don't remember Mr. Christie from the video including the Planning Commission meeting, make sure to check out his behavior. We took issue with the way he acted.  Start at 20:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPigoNdZ-ms

If that's common behavior, people addressing the planning commission have a problem. The County of Gladwin has a real problem.

But back to the issue at hand. If the chief complaints by neighbors have involved the actions of humans, why has the Zoning Department called for redefining of the activity as a nuisance?

Shouldn't each of the incidents be addressed individually as crimes? Trespassing, nudity, destruction of property.... Was there an investigation?

Consider this possibility: Unable to prove the criminal behavior, and without the outcome that they desired from law enforcement, the complainants (and the county, who may have been seeking to help the complainants) shifted gears, instead looking to use the Zoning Department as the means to the end.

Eliminate the bogs, eliminate the bad behavior. Right?

Maybe, but we see this scenario as potentially a very inappropriate use of the Zoning Department. It's like banning the sport of baseball after too many little boys broke windows around the neighborhood.

Say mud bogging is labeled a nuisance and an injunction is issued by the court. How will that affect other mud bogging activities, or similar activities? If someone doesn't like their neighbor's dirt bikes, will they then employ the Zoning Department to label them a nuisance? And what about that Logging Company? They sure rip up the roads....

NOWHERE in that summons and complaint, or the attached police report, are any complaints about bad behavior - only the fact that the land is not zoned for mud bogging. Of course not - there's nothing in the zoning ordinance specifically designating any of the zones as appropriate for mud bogging. Sure hasn't been an issue in the past, though.... Not until the complaints about people started coming in.

For that fact alone - the fact that the Summons and Complaint is not, in our opinion, completely forthcoming about the situation, we are requesting the complaints as documented in the Case File from the Zoning Department. That way we can figure out if there ever were any complaints about the activity specifically, or if all the complaints were in some way about the behavior of people who had attended the events.

Meanwhile, we URGE you to think about the implications of creating case law regarding mud bog activity, and more importantly - the dangerous potential in ANY use of a county department like Zoning to exert a police-like authority over a situation involving what appear to be separate incidents that are criminal in nature, to punish landowners where law enforcement was not able to, using the methods employed by the duties assigned to them by your local government. 

No. Emphatically, NO.

Let us punish you with the powers of bureaucracy when law enforcement fails. Let us criminalize an activity many people enjoy - not just at one property, but at other locations throughout the county. And let us force you to ask for permission to enjoy that activity, and perhaps even other similar activities, on your own property. If it's deemed a go, you can then pay us $350 for "special use" of your own, private property.

Sound fair? If not, you need to speak out. We're not asking anyone to justify or defend bad behavior; we're asking you to consider the long-term implication of giving up our rights to these layers of government and bureaucracy.

Make a call to your County Commissioner. Send a letter. Send an email.

Or better yet - show up in Court tomorrow: Tuesday, Aug. 6, 8:30 a.m. 55th Circuit Court, third floor of the Gladwin County Courthouse. Let's get enough folks up there to open up a few more rows of seating....

Learn more about the death of property rights. Watch our video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McN_KI5jUxw