West Michigan News Company

First Crimes

      During the Bush years and after into the Obama years, we the people are finding that the law can only be used against us, and government officials are above it. My story just illustrates to many of you the fact that government does not go by the law, it does whatever it wants to do to the detriment of the people. That is the major underlying truth to my story.

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



Recreation Development Subdivision No. 1

Plat Map Recorded Nov. 11, 1966


Cindy Yonkers from our Chain of Corruption on Elections owns a lot in our development which is shaded yellow was on the building permit for the first house built on the unplatted land (shaded yellow)south of Mallard Street in possible violation of MCL 750.157a of the Michigan Penal Code.

Tax Map showing platted lots as shaded while un-platted parcels are white

          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).




     On March 7, 2000 almost a year after the developer, Roger Dangremond signed his Land Division Application, and a parcel was sold to Richard Saputo. Ganges Township issued a permit to build on Mallard Street without ever complying with the provisions of the Land Division Act of 1967. It was issued to Mr. Saputo and his builder Jim Kramer. There was a lot of discussion with the lot owners currently. They could not understand how a second house could be built on a 30’ right of way. I contacted a good friend and attorney, John Marple. He looked at this issue and agreed that there was something wrong. I partnered with another lot owner Dan Roberts to hire Mr. Marple to file suit.

    On May 16, 2000, Mr. Marple filed our complaint in a civil suit against Mr. Saputo and the Dangremond brothers. Number 18 of the complaint stated: “At the time of the creation of the lots, the un platted area had about 725 feet of frontage on 122nd Avenue, a public road.”  Defendants’ Dangremonds responded to number 18 by stating: “Denied. The Dangremonds further affirmatively states that the un platted parcel south of Mallard Street, which was conveyed to them at the same time as the platted lots north of Mallard Street, never extended to 122nd Avenue, never had frontage on 122nd Avenue, and never had access to or from 122nd Avenue, and that said parcel of land was only accessible from Blue Goose Avenue and Mallard Street by virtue of the easement expressly created and referred to in the recorded plat.”  This is a subtle contradiction to page one of the Land Division Application were Roger Dangremond clearly stated: “Each new division has frontage on an existing public road.” A look at the area tax map shows their division as the first three numbers of each parcel. Their division was “012” . All these parcels go over to “out lot A”, which is adjacent to 012-10. Since the Dangremonds were the developers of both subdivisions 461 and 460, they had access to 122nd Avenue or Recreation Street, both public roads over out lot A. This was a clearly a conspiracy to injure the lot owners property rights north of Mallard Street by not complying with the provisions of the LDA67. This is a possible felony under MCL 750.157a, Conspiracy to commit offense or legal act in illegal manner.

    Mr. Koenes (deceased 7-3-01), the Ganges Township Assessor whose responsibility it was to approve that application had attached his approval form to the Land Division Application. There are many problems with this approval. It is over a year since it was filed. The paragraphs do not line up. The lines under the dates, signatures, rubber stamp, and signature are not parallel to the paragraphs. The date May 17 is a different font size and font to the year 2000 and the numbers over the Parent Parcel. If you go to the 3rd page of this form under “reviewer’s actions”, you find that it is not filled in. This application appears to be poorly doctored by taking Mr. Koenes signature from another application and changing the date. Someone took that part from the bottom and pasted it onto another application, but failed to complete the approval on page two of the application.

     We also got a second application that was both reviewed and accepted by Mr. Koenes on another split on Blue Goose Avenue. The paragraphs and the lines are all parallel. The month is in the same font size and font. The application under “reviewer’s action” is marked “approved”, and Mr. Koenes signs and dates it within four days of the owner signing the Affidavit under #9, rather than over a year later like the first application.

     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.


   Click above for    audio summary

First Crimes.mp3
HomeGovernment CrimesLogical NewsJudicial CorruptionElectionsAuditor IntimidationArchivesSubscribe