West Michigan News Company

Interlocutory Appeals

Motion for Partial Summary Disposition     

On July 25, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition and a brief in support of their motion. On August 4, 2014, Plaintiffs’ answered Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Disposition and attached a brief in support of our answers.

      Defendants motion was to counter Plaintiffs’ complaint for a Injunction against the defendants continued use of the private roads both Blue Goose Avenue and Mallard Street. The essence of their complaint was that the defendants had an easement to use both private roads based on the following dedication on the plat: Blue Goose Ave. And Mallard St. Is dedicated as private to the use of the lot owners and adjacent property owners.”  Our counter argument is that the dedication is an agreement subject to four requirements: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, and it must be legal. For the dedication to apply to them, it must be legal by complying with the Land Division Act of 1967 requirements. The judge agreed to our argument, but ruled against us based on laches (waiting to long to act). In 2000, I filed suit against the original builder, Richard Saputo in Foster/Roberts v Saputo, et al. Ganges Township has a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine if Mr. Saputo can build on the property. They ruled in favor of Mr. Saputo, however before this hearing we discovered a copy of the Land Division Application filed with Ganges Township, but never approved. This application clearly stated that the developers were going to provide access to these parcels by creating their own access “to an existing public road”, instead







of marking “a recorded easement”, which would have been to use the dedication on the plat. Of course, to mark “a recorded easement”, they would have been required to comply with the requirements of the Land Division Act and give up property to make a 30’ wide roadway a 66’ wide roadway. By not doing that they injured the property rights of the lot owners north of Mallard Street.

First Interlocutory Appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals

     On October 31, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their first Interlocutory Appeal on the lower court’s order approving Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Disposition. Issues argued are:

  1.    Can a dedication on a plat filed in 1965 provide adjacent property owner the right to “use” a private road within that plat without complying with the requirements of Land Division Act of 1967?
  2. The Doctrine of Laches does not apply to the Plaintiff Pat Foster because he lacked knowledge of violations by the township and developer until June, 2014 when the Rules of Discovery found a document that showed those violations?
  3. Blanche Hudson’s parcel is adjacent to the defendants parcel, but her rights differ with the rights of the defendants.
  4. The Plaintiffs met the requirements of MCR 2116(C)(8) in the answers and supplemental answers to defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Disposition.
  5. The Court erred in giving other parties not included in this action a right in real estate that is under Common Law a decision that should be made by a jury.



Motion to Compel Defendants’ Attorneys Who is Paying Their Legal Fees

      On October 2, 2014, plaintiffs served defendants a Request to Produce “Under MCR 2.310(C), Plaintiffs request to inspect under MCR 2.310(B)(1) (i-ii) all invoices, deposit slips, other costs, and information on any 3rd party involvement other than the defendants in the payment of those costs.” I wanted to know exactly who was funding these two men to come after me. Whoever that person of interest is has the power to control Circuit Court Judges, possibly the Michigan Court of Appeals, Allegan Count officials, Ganges Township officials, some troopers within the Michigan State Police, and higher officials within the Allegan County Sheriff’s Department. I put up a bond, and I wanted to know that money would be going to.

      On October 7, 2014, Defendants’ attorney answered claiming “attorney-client privilege”.

      On October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs served defendants a Motion to Compel them to produce the items we requested. We addressed all their defenses.

      On October 23, 2014, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Their answer was grasping at straws. They were now sweating bullets. I had them! The judge was clearly against me, so it had to go to the Michigan Court of Appeals who would also sweat bullets over this motion. The basic question asked in this motion is who controls our country?

    On November 4, 2014 there was a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion. The Court denied our motion, but it made one critical error in it’s order. Number 3, the Court states: “THEREFORE it is ORDERED that any amount of attorney’s fees paid to defense counsel by third parties not involved in this suit, including neighbors of the defendant, are protected by the attorney-client privilege.”  The Court now connected itself to Cindy Yonkers, the Ganges Township Clerk who may have aided the court in its’ recount in the 2008 General Election.

Cindy Yonkers, township clerk, the neighbor who worked with the defendants

      On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their second Interlocutory Appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. In that appeal I found during my research the formula for stealing elections in our country, and placed that in my Introduction.

       The issue of attorney-client privilege extends only to privileged communications between the attorney and the client. This is often cited in Colton v United States, 306 F2d 633, 637 cert den 371 U.S. 951, 1962. In March of 2015, the Court of Appeals denied my request to hear both appeals prior to a final decision on the matter.

Home Government Crimes Logical News Judicial Corruption Elections Auditor Intimidation Archives Subscribe