West Michigan News Company

Motion for Summary Disposition

Motion for Summary Disposition

      The key additional information I had going into this motion was MCL 750.157a Conspiracy to do a legal act in an illegal manner. In First Crimes, the conspiracy was to injure the property rights of the lot owners north of Mallard Street in Recreation Development Subdivision No. 1. Mallard Street was platted as a 30’ wide roadway with only residential lots on the north side of Mallard Street, yet Blue Goose Avenue was platted as 66’ wide roadway with residential lots on both sides of the roadway. Under First Crimes, we show how the developer and Ganges Township conspired to injure the property rights of the lot owners (shaded in gray) north of Mallard Street by not complying with the requirements of the Land Division Act of 1967 (LDA67).



      Under the LDA67, the road and drain commissions come out to inspect whether  the road and drains are sufficient to handle both the traffic and storm water flow. With houses on both sides, they require a 66’ wide road to handle emergency vehicles like fire trucks gaining access to the various properties if there are vehicles parked on the side of the street. Under current law, streets can be no narrower than 33’. Both the drain and the road had been originally laid out in the 60’s by the developer partly in the road right-of-way, and partly on their own property which is the farmland south of Mallard Street. They sold lots north of Mallard Street based on where the actual physical road and drains were laid out by the developers.


      Defendants placed a fence in the physical street, and filled in a storm drain so that water would flood onto the Plaintiffs’ properties. The Court made the following orders that were prejudicial to the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants that aided and abetted the commission of First Crimes under MCL 750.157a:

  1. Granted defendants an easement to use Mallard Street even though they did not meet the 15 year requirement under Michigan Law to be granted an easement, thereby taking away our only bargaining chip to force compliance with the LDA67. (First Interlocutory Appeal)
  2. Denied plaintiffs request for an easement across defendants property that the physical road was originally laid out on in the 60’s. The road had been there almost 50 years.
  3. Refused our request to join Ganges Township in this lawsuit due to the evidence produced in First Crimes.

       The Court is a possible Party of Interest in what appears to be another conspiracy to do a legal act in an illegal manner. In this motion there is an expert witness report by Nederveld, Inc. a local surveying and engineering company. The conclusions of this report was never served to the plaintiffs until long after this hearing on May 11, 2015.

Defendants’ Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees

Entry of Final Judgment, and Payment of Security Bond


     On July 1, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for costs and attorney fees:

         “13. If this court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous, the court must award the prevailing party costs and fee. MCL 600.259(1)

          14. Costs and fees include court costs and reasonable attorney fees. MCL 600.2591(2)”

     Mr. Cudney, Defendants’ attorney placed the first affidavit into the record in both the PPO’s and Civil Suit. He wanted the court to understand that he was only being fair in asking for $65,246.75.

     On July 6, 2015, Plaintiffs answered Defendants’ Motion. A new technique was used in this court filing. Up until now, I had followed regular court procedures that I observed in other legal filings, by placing attachments including photographs all as attachments. I instead used an old journalist’s technique of placing the photographs next to the words that they apply to. I also used a tax accountant’s procedure of dealing with the IRS. I placed my whole case out in front of the court.

     On July 19. 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Counter Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees supported by a brief and affidavits from Pat Foster and Blanche Hudson. This put the Plaintiffs at approximately 18 affidavits filed in this case compared to Mr. Cudney’s one affidavit.

     The original hearing was set for July 27th, then postponed to October 8th, and again rescheduled for November 19th.

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