Crime # One by Government
I live in a platted development originally recorded in 1966. In 1982, I purchase my 2.5 lots (shaded in yellow) in this development. Two private roads are part of this plat with a dedication on the plat stating: “Blue Goose Avenue and Mallard St is dedicated as private to the use of the lot owners and adjacent property owners.” Both roads were approved under the Plat Act of 1929 by having the County Road Commission and Drain Commission come out and approve the roads and the drainage next to those roads. Blue Goose Avenue (shaded in cyan) was required to have a minimum 66’ wide roadway because there were residential units on both sides of the road. Mallard Street (shaded in orange) was only required to have a minimum 30’ wide roadway because there are only residential lots on the north side of the road. The land south of Mallard Street was undeveloped forest land at the time this plat was recorded.
A dedication is an agreement subject to Contract Law, which requires four elements to be legally valid.
1. There must be an offer
2. There must be an acceptance
3. Consideration must be given
4. It must be legal
Plat Map Recorded Nov. 11, 1966
On October 29, 1991, under the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, Ms. Yonkers was on the building permit for her dad’s purchase (shaded yellow) of an un-platted parcel across the street from my property lot within the platted development. None of the required provisions such as having the County Road Commission, Drain Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation, Environmental Quality, and the Health Dept./DEQ to determine if a 30’ Right of Way is enough width to service residential units on both sides of the street. It certainly was not enough width in 1966 when it was inspected. While all the lot owners were skeptical about this, MS. Yonkers met with all the lot owners on the Memorial Weekend to say that her father had every right to use our private roads based on the plat dedication. Later, her father, Keith Hamelen later admitted to me that he did not have an easement to use those roads and his daughter always knew that. It took me almost 15 years and Ms. Yonkers assaults with government approval on me after I did the election audit of the 2008 General Election to discover exactly how she did it.
Auditors use a tool called reasonableness. A look at the tax map above with Blue Goose Avenue required to be a 66’ right of way in 1966, and the current tax map shows Mallard Street at only a 30’ right of way. It is not reasonable, and Michigan Law would not allow it. How did it get this way?
The Subdivision Control Act of 1967 was amended in 1996, and became effective March 31,1997. They also changed the name of the act to the Land Division Act 288 of 1967. It was now required under the law to go to the township or municipality to file a form showing how you are going to divide your land parcels, and how you were going to provide ingress and egress to those parcels, so buyers would not find themselves land locked.
Felony Conspiracy Under MCL 750.157a
This law is a “conspiracy to commit offense or legal act in illegal manner.” The law is often applied to crimes known as “bait and switch”.
On April 16, 1999, one developer who owned the parcels south of Mallard Street filed an application under the amended Land Division Act to divide their property into parcels that could be sold individually. Under # 4, Proposal, they chose “c. The division of the land provides access to an existing public road. X - Each new division has frontage on an existing public road.” If a “X” had been placed under a “recorded easement” using the dedication on the plat, they would have been forced to comply with the provisions of the Land Division Act of 1967 (LDA67).
Ms. Yonkers was asked under deposition: Q. “Do you get engaged in the Land Division Act?”
A. “No sir, I do not. That’s zoning. It’s zoning and assessment department.” Q. “Do you get involved in anything with regard to having applications submitted for land division?” A. “No, sir.” (Deposition, page 51, lines 16 - 21)
The Ganges Township Ordinance under Section V - Application for Land Division Approval states: “An applicant shall file all of the following with the municipal Clerk or other official designated by the governing body for review and approval of a proposed land division....” It goes on to state the following: A. “completed application”, B. “Proof of ownership,” C. “survey map”, D. Proof that all standards of the State Land Division Act .....have been met”, D. “The history and specifications of any previous divisions....”, F. “Transfer of division rights”. G. It is “buildable”, and H. A “fee” must be collected by the clerk.
Section VI of the ordinance states: “Upon receipt of a land division application package, the municipal clerk or other official designated by the governing body shall forthwith submit the same to the municipal assessor or other designated official for decisions.”
Could Ganges Township have another official designated to collect these applications? The ordinance is written by the State of Michigan to aid all townships and cities in applying the law. The Cities of Detroit and Grand Rapids are so large that they would have someone in the Clerk’s department designated to handle it. Ganges Township in 1999 was so small, that Ms. Yonkers did not even have office hours. She collected all these applications in the privacy of her own home. Currently she has office hours 15 hours/week. There are major conflicts between what Ms. Yonkers testified to under oath and the facts surrounding this possible crime. She is closely connected to the Dangremonds, she would have had their application, and if Mr. Koenes had received it from her, there was nothing different on that application than was on the second application approved a few days after it was filed.
On June 15, 2000, there was a public hearing by The Ganges Township Zoning Board of Appeals regarding whether Mr. Saputo could build on Mallard Street because of a Ganges Township Ordinance that says no more than five houses can build on a dead end road unless it has a 66’ wide roadway. Ms. Yonkers testified in her deposition (Pg 52, lines 5-7) that “it (land division application) was included as part of a zoning variance hearing and the township board and the ZBA get a copy of that packet.” Ms. Yonkers implicated the whole township board, the three members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Mr. Koenes, the Assessor. If anyone had seen that document and read it, they were either parties to the crime or they would have placed an objection to building on Mallard Street.
|Writ of Mandamus|
|American Justice System|
|PPO Complaints I - IV|
|PPO Complaint VI|