UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

FMIO, INC., a Michigan corporation and ) 

RICHARD A. GARST, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 

 ) 

 v. ) HONORABLE 

 ) 

TOWNSHIP OF SUMMERFIELD, MICHIGAN, ) 

a Michigan municipal corporation, KEVIN R. ) 

IOTT in his official and individual ) 

capacities, TAMMY BLEASKA, in her official ) 

and individual capacities, JOAN ) 

WIEDERHOLD, in her official and individual ) 

capacities, DALE WAGENKNECHT, in his ) 

official and individual capacities, ) 

JAMES V. SEEGERT, in his official and ) 

individual capacities, AMY REITER, in her ) 

official and individual capacities, RICHARD ) 

KORALESKI, in his official and individual ) 

capacities, DAVID GRUDE, in his official ) 

and individual capacities, JOSEPH ) 

STRANGER, in his official and individual ) 

capacities, LINDA DIESING, in her official ) 

and individual capacities, and MICHAEL ) 

STRAHAN, in his official and individual ) 

capacities, jointly and severally, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

________________________________________________________________ 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 Plaintiffs FMIO, Inc. and Richard A. Garst, by and through their attorneys, 

The Victor Firm, PLLC, hereby state for their complaint against defendants the 

Township of Summerfield, Michigan, Kevin R. Iott, in his official and individual 

capacities, Tammy Bleaska, in her official and individual capacities, Joan 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.1 Page 1 of 35
- 2 -

Wiederhold, in her official and individual capacities, Dale Wagenknecht, in his 

official and individual capacities, James V. Seegert, in his official and individual 

capacities, Amy Reiter, in her official and individual capacities, Richard Koraleski, 

in his official and individual capacities, David Grude, in his official and individual 

capacities, Joseph Stranger, in his official and individual capacities, Linda 

Diesing, in her official and individual capacities, and Michael Strahan, in his 

official and individual capacities, jointly and severally, as follows: 

JURISDICTION

 1. This is a civil action: 

 (a) Arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States 

and this Court has original federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331; 

 (b) To redress the deprivation, under the color of law, of the 

rights, privileges and immunities of plaintiffs secured by the Constitution of the 

United States providing for equal rights of its citizens and of all persons of any 

jurisdiction in the United States, and this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §1343(3); and 

 (c) For declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. §1983 and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(4). 

 2. The principal events giving rise to the claims stated herein occurred 

in this District and venue is therefore proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b). 

 3. This Court has authority to issue declaratory and injunctive relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.2 Page 2 of 35
- 3 -

THE PARTIES

 4. Plaintiff FMIO, Inc. (hereinafter “FMIO”) is a Michigan corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of Michigan, with its principal office and 

place of business located in Monroe County, Michigan. 

 5. Richard A. Garst is an individual who resides in Monroe County, 

Michigan. 

 6. Defendant the Township of Summerfield, Michigan ("Summerfield 

Township") is a Michigan municipal corporation existing in Monroe County and 

organized under the laws of the State of Michigan. 

 7. Defendant Kevin R. Iott is the Summerfield Township Supervisor 

and a resident of Summerfield Township, Monroe County, Michigan, and is being 

sued in his individual and official capacities. As Supervisor, defendant Iott is the 

chief administrative and executive officer of Summerfield Township. By virtue of 

his office, defendant Iott is a policy-making and decision-making official for 

Summerfield Township. 

 8. Defendant Tammy Bleaska is the Summerfield Township Clerk and 

a resident of Summerfield Township, Monroe County, Michigan, and is being 

sued in her individual and official capacities. By virtue of her office, defendant 

Bleaska is a policy-making and decision-making official for Summerfield 

Township. 

 9. Defendant Joan Wiederhold is the Summerfield Township 

Treasurer and a member of the Summerfield Township Planning Commission, 

and a resident of Summerfield Township Township, Monroe County, Michigan. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.3 Page 3 of 35
- 4 -

Defendant Wiederhold is being sued in her individual and official capacities. By 

virtue of her office, defendant Wiederhold is a policy-making and decision-making 

official for Summerfield Township. 

 10. Defendant James V. Seegert is a Summerfield Township Trustee 

and a resident of Summerfield Township, Monroe County, Michigan, and is being 

sued in his individual and official capacities. By virtue of his office, defendant 

Seegert is a policy-making and decision-making official for Summerfield 

Township. 

 11. Defendant Amy Reiter is the Chairperson of the Summerfield 

Township Planning Commission and Chairperson of the Summerfield Zoning 

Board of Appeals, and is a resident of Summerfield Township, Monroe County, 

Michigan. Defendant Reiter is being sued in her individual and official capacities. 

By virtue of her office, defendant Reiter is a policy-making and decision-making 

official for Summerfield Township. 

 12. Defendant Richard Koraleski is a member of the Summerfield 

Township Planning Commission and is a resident of Summerfield Township, 

Monroe County, Michigan, and is being sued in his individual and official 

capacities. By virtue of his office, defendant Koraleski is a policy-making and 

decision-making official for Summerfield Township. 

 13. Defendant David Grude is a member of the Summerfield Township 

Planning Commission and is a resident of Summerfield Township, Monroe 

County, Michigan, and is being sued in his individual and official capacities. By 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.4 Page 4 of 35
- 5 -

virtue of his office, defendant Grude is a policy-making and decision-making 

official for Summerfield Township. 

 14. Defendant Joseph Stranger is a member of the Summerfield 

Township Planning Commission and is a resident of Summerfield Township, 

Monroe County, Michigan, and is being sued in his individual and official 

capacities. By virtue of his office, defendant Stranger is a policy-making and 

decision-making official for Summerfield Township. 

 15. Defendant Linda Diesing is a member of the Summerfield Township 

Zoning Board of Appeals, and is a resident of Summerfield Township, Monroe 

County, Michigan, and is being sued in her individual and official capacities. By 

virtue of her office, defendant Diesing is a policy-making and decision-making 

official for Summerfield Township. 

 16. Defendant Michael Strahan is a member of the Summerfield 

Township Zoning Board of Appeals and is a resident of Summerfield Township, 

Monroe County, Michigan, and is being sued in his individual and official 

capacities. By virtue of his office, defendant Strahan is a policy-making and 

decision-making official for Summerfield Township. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

 17. The property that is the subject of this complaint is an 

approximately one (0.927) acre parcel of real property, located at 4019 SylvaniaPetersburg Road, Summerfield Township, in Monroe County, Michigan (the 

“Property”) (a copy of the legal description of the Property is attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1). 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.5 Page 5 of 35
- 6 -

 18. The property is zoned for local commercial uses pursuant to the 

Summerfield Township zoning ordinances. 

 19. FMIO is the fee title owner of the Property. 

 20. Plaintiff Richard Garst is an agent of FMIO, and has the authority to 

act on its behalf. 

 21. FMIO purchased the Property to utilize it for all the uses allowed by 

Summerfield Township for property located in the local commercial zoning 

district, including, but not limited to, the construction of a business dwelling for 

the purpose of selling farm produce, as well as all other generally recognized 

local commercial purposes. 

 22. The Property has access to and/or otherwise abuts a public 

highway, which is Sylvania-Petersburg Road. 

 23. On or about November 2000, plaintiff Garst attended a public 

meeting of the Summerfield Township Board, and during the portion dedicated to 

the discussion of the Fire Report, Garst inquired about an alleged child 

pornography incident which may have occurred at the Summerfield Township 

Fire Hall (“Fire Hall”). 

 24. The Summerfield Township Board advised Garst that “this was not 

the proper time” to discuss the alleged child pornography incident and refused to 

discuss the matter. Additionally, Garst was told that in the future, he should ask 

to be on the agenda if he wanted to speak at Township Board meetings (a copy 

of the minutes of the November 8, 2000 meeting of the Summerfield Township 

Board is attached hereto as Exhibit 2). 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.6 Page 6 of 35
- 7 -

 25. On April 11, 2002, a computer located in the Fire Hall was 

confiscated by the Michigan State Police as a result of an on-going investigation 

conducted by Detective Alison D. King of alleged child pornography incidents 

occurring at the Fire Hall (a copy of an article from The Monroe Evening News is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3). 

 26. When the investigation of alleged child pornography incidents 

occurring at the Fire Hall began, Nick Lucas was the Fire Chief for Summerfield 

Township. At that time, Zelda Lucas, who is the mother of Nick Lucas, was the 

Supervisor of Summerfield Township. 

 27. On or about April 2002, Garst attended a regular meeting of the 

Summerfield Township Board, and inquired about the confiscation of a computer 

at the Fire Hall and the allegations of child pornography incidents occurring at the 

Fire Hall. The Summerfield Township Board refused to provide any information 

regarding the confiscation of the Fire Hall’s computer or the allegations of child 

pornography incidents occurring at the Fire Hall, at which time Garst asked the 

members of the Summerfield Township Board to resign. 

28. Garst was concerned about the alleged child pornography incidents 

occurring at the Fire Hall and believed that the Summerfield Township Board 

needed to address the concerns of its residents, and at the very least, inform the 

residents what the Summerfield Township Board was doing to protect the 

children in the community. 

29. On or about April 2002, Garst sought to circulate recall petitions, 

seeking to recall some of the members serving on the Summerfield Township 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.7 Page 7 of 35
- 8 -

Board, including then-Supervisor Zelda Lucas, defendant Clerk Tammy 

Bleashka, defendant Treasurer Joan Wiederhold and then-Trustee Fred Smith. 

29. Before Garst began circulating the recall petitions, he was asked by 

Detective King to hold off on circulating the recall petitions until she could 

complete her investigation of the pornography allegations occurring at the Fire 

Hall. 

30. Although the language on the recall petitions was approved at 

clarity hearings which were held on May 22 and June 4, 2002, Garst complied 

with Detective King’s request and allowed the six-month deadline to lapse 

without collecting any signatures. 

31. On March 17, 2003, Garst attended a Summerfield Township Board 

meeting where he stated that there were certain Summerfield Township firemen 

that should not be around children because the Federal Bureau of Investigations 

(“the FBI”) investigation of alleged child pornography incidents occurring at the 

Fire Hall was still an open investigation. 

32. When Garst received an approved written copy of the meeting 

minutes of the March 17, 2003 Summerfield Township Board meeting, he 

discovered that the minutes reflected that he had suggested that Randy LaRocca 

was one of the individuals under investigation by the FBI. 

33. Garst did not suggest that Randy LaRocca was under investigation 

by the FBI; instead, Garst said at the March 17, 2003, Township Board meeting 

that Randy LaRocca was the only person at the Fire Hall he could trust (a copy of 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.8 Page 8 of 35
- 9 -

the minutes of the March 17, 2003 meeting of the Summerfield Township Board 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 4). 

34. The change in the minutes was a deliberate act by defendants 

designed to chill Garst from exercising his First Amendment rights to speak at 

public meetings and petition the government for redress of grievances. 

35. In 2000, Garst entered into a lease agreement with Summerfield 

Township to lease approximately 72 acres of farm property located on Ida West 

Road for the amount of $6,550.00 per year, with the lease guaranteed to run 

through at least December 31, 2003 (a copy of the lease agreement is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 5). 

36. On September 17, 2003, Garst received a letter from Summerfield 

Township informing him that as a result of interest shown by other parties, the 

Summerfield Township Board decided not to renew his lease agreement. 

37. However, on September 25, 2003, the Summerfield Township 

Board placed an advertisement in The Independent seeking bids for 

approximately 69 of 77 acres of farm property located on Ida West Road (a copy 

of this newspaper advertisement is attached hereto as Exhibit 6). 

38. On November 5, 2003, the Summerfield Township Board sent a 

letter to Howard Keinath to inform him that he was the highest bidder on the 69 

acres of farm property located on Ida West Road (a copy of this letter is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 7). 

39. On March 2, 2004, Summerfield Township and Howard Keinath 

entered in a lease agreement for 67 acres of farm property located on Ida West 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.9 Page 9 of 35
- 10 -

Road for the amount of $7,705.00 per year, with the term of the lease being from 

March 2, 2004 through December 31, 2006 (a copy of this lease agreement is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 8). 

40. On May 4, 2008, Garst entered into a lease agreement with 

Summerfield Township for approximately 67 acres of farm property located on 

Ida West Road from Summerfield Township for the amount of $12,797.00 per 

year, with a guaranteed lease period through December 31, 2008 (a copy of this 

lease agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 9). 

41. Defendants’ refusal to renew Summerfield Township’s lease 

agreement with Garst was a deliberate act in retaliation for Garst having sought 

to recall certain members of the Summerfield Township Board. 

42. The renewal of the lease in 2008 for terms that were far more 

favorable to Summerfield Township than that for which the previous lease 

agreements provided was a deliberate act to retaliate against plaintiffs for 

exercising their First Amendment rights. 

43. Defendants committed further acts of retaliation against plaintiffs for 

Garst’s exercise of his rights as a citizen to recall certain members of the 

Summerfield Township Board. 

44. On October 28, 2004, Zelda Lucas, then-Supervisor of Summerfield 

Township, and defendant Kevin R. Iott, then-candidate for the office of 

Supervisor of Summerfield Township, served a personal protection order on 

Garst that prevented him from attending Summerfield Township Board meetings. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.10 Page 10 of 35
- 11 -

45. Sometime in late 2004 or early 2005, Nick Lucas, the Fire Chief of 

Summerfield Township, wrongfully filed assault charges against Garst. 

46. Garst was acquitted of these false charges on July 12, 2005, after a 

jury trial. 

47. Garst was forced to incur considerable expenses to fight against 

the false accusations made by defendants and the Fire Chief. 

48. On February 22, 2005, Garst received a letter from Peter Fales, an 

attorney for David Kottke, who serves as the cemetery sexton for Summerfield 

Township, in which Garst was advised that Kottke was upset over a slanderous 

comment attributed to Garst in the minutes of the August 16, 2004 meeting of the 

Summerfield Township Board (a copy of the February 22, 2005 correspondence 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 10). 

49. Garst responded to Fales’ letter on March 15, 2005, and explained 

that he had not made the slanderous comment, that he asked the Summerfield 

Township Board to correct the meeting minutes, and that the issue of incorrect 

statements being printed by defendant Clerk Bleaska in the meeting minutes of 

the Summerfield Township Board was an on-going issue which has been 

acknowledged and addressed by the Summerfield Township Board (a copy of 

Garst’s March 15, 2005 correspondence to Fales is attached hereto as Exhibit 

11). 

50. The false statements attributed to Garst in the minutes was a 

deliberate act by defendants designed to chill Garst from exercising his First 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.11 Page 11 of 35
- 12 -

Amendment rights to speak at public meetings and petition the government for 

redress of grievances. 

51. On May 15, 2006, the Summerfield Township Board voted to 

increase the application fee for site plan review from $300.00 to $2,000.00, 

effective July 1, 2006 (a copy of the minutes of the May 15, 2006 meeting of the 

Summerfield Township Board is attached hereto as Exhibit 12). 

52. At the time the ordinance was passed, FMIO was in the process of 

developing the plans necessary to demolish its old produce stand and replace it 

with a new one. Approval of the site plan for the new produce stand was critical 

for FMIO because the setback requirements for commercial buildings had 

changed since the old produce stand was constructed and FMIO wanted to 

maintain its non-conforming status. 

53. On June 29, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., Garst called Jack Lange, building 

inspector of Summerfield Township, to inquire as to where the site plan review 

packet needed to be delivered. Lange advised Garst that the site plan review 

packet needed to be delivered to the Summerfield Township Hall. 

54. On June 29, 2006, Garst delivered FMIO’s site plan review packet 

for the new produce stand to the Summerfield Township Hall. The site plan 

review packet contained: (1) a cover letter; (2) a $300.00 check for the 

application fee; (3) the application for site plan review; (4) the engineered site 

plan for the proposed produce stand; (5) a report from George B. Warnke, Jr., 

Registered Land Surveyor; (6) a description of the proposed new produce stand; 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.12 Page 12 of 35
- 13 -

and (7) a demolition permit for the old produce stand (a copy of the site plan 

review packet is attached hereto as Exhibit 13). 

55. Sometime in September 2006, after Garst had not heard anything 

from Summerfield Township regarding FMIO’s application for site plan review, 

Garst spoke with defendant Amy Reiter, Chairperson of the Summerfield 

Township Planning Commission, and inquired into the progress of the site plan 

application which he and FMIO had submitted. 

56. Defendant Reiter assured Garst that she would check into the 

progress of FMIO’s site plan application and call him back to inform him of the 

progress of FMIO’s site plan application. Garst did not receive any information 

as to the progress of FMIO’s site plan application from defendant Reiter or any 

other defendant or other Summerfield Township official. 

57. On November 13, 2006, Summerfield Township informed Garst that 

it did not have the check which FMIO had submitted with its site plan review 

application packet on June 29, 2006. 

58. FMIO immediately issued a certified check in the amount of 

$300.00 to Summerfield Township on that very same day, November 13, 2006 (a 

copy of the certified check is attached hereto as Exhibit 14). 

59. On or about November 20, 2006, Summerfield Township informed 

Garst that it could not find FMIO’s site plan application. 

60. On or about December 2006, Summerfield Township informed 

Garst that it found the engineered drawings of FMIO’s new proposed produce 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.13 Page 13 of 35
- 14 -

stand, but it still was unable to find the site plan application which FMIO had 

submitted. 

61. Throughout 2007, Garst continued to inquire into the progress of 

FMIO’s site plan application. 

62. Defendant Township Supervisor Kevin R. Iott told Garst that if he 

wanted to get FMIO’s new produce stand approved, FMIO had to resubmit 

everything along with the new $2,000.00 application fee. 

63. As of the date of this complaint, defendants have still wrongfully 

refused to process plaintiffs’ application for site plan review, a ministerial act 

which they cannot refuse to do. 

 64. Plaintiffs’ proposed use of the Property is a reasonable and 

a principal permitted use allowed by the Summerfield Township Zoning 

Ordinance. 

 65. Plaintiffs’ application for site plan review was completed and 

prepared in accordance with the Summerfield Township ordinances in 

effect at the time plaintiffs submitted their application for site plan review. 

66. Defendants’ actions in wrongfully refusing to process plaintiffs’ 

application for site plan review have deprived plaintiffs of the use of their land 

and have damaged plaintiffs. 

67. On September 15, 2008, the Summerfield Township Board adopted 

a new Dangerous Building Ordinance. 

68. Section IV (D) of the new Dangerous Building Ordinance provides: 

Service of Notice. The notice shall be in writing and 

shall be served upon the person to whom the notice is 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.14 Page 14 of 35
- 15 -

directed either personally or by certified mail, return 

receipt requested, addressed to the owner or party in 

interest at the address shown on the tax records. If a 

notice is served upon a person by certified mail, a

copy of notice shall also be posted upon a 

conspicuous part of the building or structure. The

notice shall be served upon the owner or party in 

interest at least 10 days before the date of the hearing 

included in the notice. 

(a copy of Summerfield Township’s Dangerous Building Ordinance is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 15). 

69. On April 4, 2009, Garst received a letter from Michael Mihalec, 

Ordinance Enforcement Officer for Summerfield Township, advising him that 

there would be a dangerous building inspection and hearing to be held at 4019 

Sylvania-Petersburg Road, on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. (a copy 

of Mihalec’s April 4, 2009 correspondence to Garst is attached hereto as Exhibit 

16). 

70. There was no filing of a written complaint and no notice was posted 

at the 4019 Sylvania-Petersburg Road address as required by the Summerfield 

Township Dangerous Building Ordinance. 

71. On April 13, 2009, Garst sent Summerfield Township a 

written request to be put on the agenda for the April 20, 2009, meeting of 

the Summerfield Township Board. 

72. The printed agenda for the April 20, 2009, Summerfield Township 

Board meeting set forth that Garst was scheduled to speak during the New 

Business portion of the meeting. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.15 Page 15 of 35
- 16 -

73. During the April 20, 2009 Summerfield Township Board meeting, 

Garst asked the Summerfield Township Board as to the status of FMIO’s site 

plan review application and attempted to present evidence that the site plan 

review application was submitted almost three years earlier. However, Conly K. 

Crossley, Summerfield Township attorney, refused to allow Garst to discuss the 

issue, and told Garst that he could present his evidence at the “Dangerous 

Building Hearing” which was to be held on April 22, 2009 (a copy of the article in 

The Independent setting forth this discussion is attached hereto as Exhibit 17). 

74. When Garst was told that he could not discuss the issue that 

FMIO’s site plan review application had been pending without any action for 

almost three years, he immediately stopped discussing the issue. 

75. However, since Garst had not used his allotted time to speak, he 

brought to the attention of the Summerfield Township Board that a commercial 

trucking business and/or commercial trucking terminal was wrongfully operating 

and/or being allowed to operate in Summerfield Township (Exhibit 17). 

76. Garst informed the Summerfield Township Board that the 

commercial trucking business and/or commercial trucking terminal was located 

on property which was leased by Mark LaRocca, the Summerfield Township 

Constable, who was defendant Supervior Iott’s brother-in-law, and that defendant 

Supervisor Iott, who drove a truck for Mark LaRocca’s business, parked the truck 

which he drove at the illegal commercial trucking business and/or commercial 

trucking terminal. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.16 Page 16 of 35
- 17 -

77. Summerfield Township attorney Crossley stopped Garst from 

speaking, and again told him that he could not bring this forward at a public 

meeting, but instead, was limited to speaking only at the “Dangerous Building 

Hearing.” Summerfield Township attorney Crossley then declared that the 

“public comment” was over (Exhibit 17). 

78. Defendants’ actions wrongly violated Garst’s rights under the First 

Amendment to the United States Constitution to speak at a public meeting and 

petition the government for redress of grievances. 

79. On Wednesday, April 22, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., defendant 

Supervisor Iott, defendant Clerk Bleaska, defendant Trustee Wagenknecht, 

Township Building Inspector Jack Lange, Township Fire Chief Nick Lucas, 

Township attorney Crossley and purported hearing officer Paul Delise showed up 

at plaintiffs’ property at 4019 Sylvania-Petersburg Road for the “Dangerous 

Building Hearing.” 

80. Defendants had not provided plaintiffs with any notice of which 

individuals would attend this hearing, or how it would be conducted, or even of 

the charges against plaintiffs which gave rise to this hearing. 

81. Garst asked Township attorney Crossley if anyone had ever posted 

a notice on the alleged “dangerous building,” as required by Section IV(D) of the 

Summerfield Township Dangerous Building Ordinance. 

82. Summerfield Township attorney Crossley verified with the others 

present for the “hearing” that no notice had ever been posted on the building. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.17 Page 17 of 35
- 18 -

83. Once this had been established, Garst advised those present on 

behalf of Summerfield Township that they had failed to comply with the 

requirements of the very ordinance which they had passed or for which they had 

the duty to enforce. 

84. Once they learned this information, those present on behalf of 

Summerfield Township at plaintiffs’ property for the alleged “Dangerous Building 

Ordinance” left plaintiffs’ property, and as they left, Summerfield Township 

attorney Crossley turned back to taunt Garst by saying that next time, “they 

would do it right” (Exhibit 17). 

85. Even though there are many other structures which would fall under 

the provisions of the Summerfield Township Dangerous Building Ordinance, 

Summerfield Township has never taken any action to enforce the ordinance 

against those property owners, or any property owner other than plaintiffs. 

86. On April 29, 2009, a meeting was held at the Summerfield 

Township Hall to discuss how to resolve the issue of FMIO’s site plan review 

application, on which defendants had failed to take any action for almost three 

years. 

87. In attendance at this meeting were defendant Supervisor Iott, 

defendant Planning Commission Chair Reiter, Township building inspector 

Lange, Township enforcement officer Mihalec and Township attorney Crossley. 

This meeting did not include the Township Clerk, Township Treasurer, or either 

of the two Township trustees. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.18 Page 18 of 35
- 19 -

88. No notice of a special Township meeting had ever been posted by 

defendants. 

89. On April 30, 2009, defendant Reiter drafted a letter to Garst which 

stated that, in an attempt to resolve the issue of FMIO’s unprocessed site plan 

review application, Summerfield Township would require FMIO to: (1) reapply for 

site plan review; (2) pay an application fee of $300; (3) be financially responsible 

for outside consulting fees; (4) after approval from the Summerfield Township 

Planning Commission, obtain a building permit from the Summerfield Township 

building inspector; (5) be financially responsible for any fees which the 

Summerfield Township building inspector incurred; and (6) tear down the old 

produce stand within 90 days of receiving a building permit for the new produce 

stand (a copy of defendant Reiter’s April 30, 2009 letter to Garst is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 18). 

90. The procedures, reviews and fees set forth in defendant Reiter’s 

April 30, 2009, letter to Garst do not reflect the procedures, reviews or fees which 

any other resident of Summerfield Township has had to follow when submitting 

an application for site plan review, whether the site plan was submitted in 2006 or 

in 2009. 

91. The April 30, 2009 letter to Garst was never discussed or approved 

at a public meeting of the Summerfield Township Board prior to its delivery to 

Garst. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.19 Page 19 of 35
- 20 -

92. The Summerfield Township Board did not discuss or approve the 

correspondence to Garst until the regular public meeting of the Summerfield 

Township Board on May 18, 2009. 

93. Defendant Supervisor Iott does not have the authority to change, 

modify or add to the procedures for an application for site plan review without 

obtaining prior approval of the Summerfield Township Board. 

94. The Chairperson of the Summerfield Township Planning 

Commission does not have the authority to change, modify or add to the 

procedures for an application for site plan review without obtaining prior approval 

of the Summerfield Township Board. 

95. The Summerfield Township building inspector Jack Lange does not 

have the authority to change, modify or add to the procedures for an application 

for site plan review without prior approval of the Summerfield Township Board. 

96. The Summerfield Township enforcement officer Michael Mihalec 

does not have the authority to change, modify or add to the procedures for an 

application for site plan review without prior approval of the Summerfield 

Township Board. 

97. The Summerfield Township attorney Conly K. Crossley does not 

have the authority to change, modify or add to the procedures for an application 

for site plan review without prior approval of the Summerfield Township Board. 

98. On May 15, 2009, Garst submitted to Summerfield Township a 

request under the Michigan Freedom Of Information Act (“FOIA”), MCL 15.231 et 

seq., in which he requested: (1) a copy of all minutes of the April 29, 2009 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.20 Page 20 of 35
- 21 -

meeting; (2) the names of the individuals, including the members of the 

Summerfield Township Board, who attended the April 29, 2009 meeting; (3) a 

copy of the posted notice of the special meeting on April 29, 2009; and (4) a copy 

of all correspondence between the township attorney(s) and Summerfield 

Township regarding the April 29, 2009 special meeting (a copy of Garst’s FOIA 

request is attached hereto as Exhibit 19). 

99. On May 20, 2009, Garst received a letter from Summerfield 

Township attorney Crossley, stating that the Summerfield Township was 

unable to grant his FOIA request because: 

[t]he April 29, 2009 meeting of the Township 

Supervisor, Building Inspector, Planning Chairperson, 

Ordinance Enforcer and Attorney to discuss 

numerous pending issues does not meet the definition 

of either a “public body” or “meeting” as set forth in 

MCLA 16.262. The minutes, transcripts, notes, 

posting you have requested do not exist. Pursuant to 

MCLA 15.233 the Act does not require a public body 

to make a compilation, summary or report of 

information, or to create a new public record. 

(a copy of Crossley’s May 20, 2009 to Garst is attached hereto as Exhibit 

20). 

 100. Defendants have continued in their animus and ill-will against 

plaintiffs and have continued to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to 

procedural and substantive due process and to equal protection under the law, 

as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 

and have continued in their adverse actions against plaintiffs in retaliation for 

plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights to petition the government and 

to bring grievances for redress by the courts. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.21 Page 21 of 35
- 22 -

 101. Defendants’ wrongful refusal to process plaintiffs’ application for 

site plan review have denied plaintiffs any economically viable use of the 

property. 

 102. The incidents set forth in the preceding paragraphs are sadly 

just a few examples of the pattern of unlawful harassment, 

unconstitutional activity and wrongful conspiracy which all defendants 

have directed against plaintiffs. 

 103. The actions of defendants, which continue to this day, have violated 

and continue to violate plaintiffs’ rights to procedural due process, substantive 

due process and equal protection under the laws, constitute an unlawful prior 

restraint of speech and unlawful retaliation for plaintiffs’ exercise of their First 

Amendment rights, including the right to petition the government and the courts, 

were unlawfully harassing and coercive, and constitute an unconstitutional and 

unlawful taking of plaintiffs’ property. 

 104. Defendants have conspired together to take unlawful and 

unconstitutional action against plaintiffs. 

 105. Plaintiffs have fundamental property interests in the Property, and 

their right to engage in agricultural activities is a fundamental liberty interest. 

 106. The policy to unlawfully harass and conspire against plaintiffs and 

engage in unlawful activity denying plaintiffs their fundamental and constitutional 

rights has been directed by defendants and their representatives, and has injured 

plaintiffs in their business and property. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.22 Page 22 of 35
- 23 -

 107. Defendants’ activities in unlawfully harassing and conspiring 

against plaintiffs have had the effect of destroying plaintiffs’ goodwill, personally 

and professionally. 

 108. Defendants have taken these wrongful and unconstitutional actions 

against plaintiffs to punish plaintiffs in retaliation for plaintiffs’ insistence on 

exercising their constitutional rights and petitioning the government during the 

public participation portions of Summerfield Township Board and for bringing 

grievances before the Summerfield Township Board. 

 109. Defendants’ harassing and conspiratorial activities are municipal 

actions and are inherently arbitrary, and a deliberate misuse of governmental 

power. 

COUNT I

Claims Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 

 110. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 109 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 111. Defendants, through their actions, deprived plaintiffs of federally 

protected rights, privileges and immunities provided by federal law and the 

United States Constitution, and plaintiffs are thereby entitled to redress and 

damages for defendants’ violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under 42 

U.S.C. §1983. 

 112. Defendants are each liable, because each acted in violation of 

plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, took no action to remedy the violation of plaintiffs’ 

constitutional rights, and instead engaged in further constitutionally-violative acts 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.23 Page 23 of 35
- 24 -

after they should have become aware of the unconstitutionality and unlawfulness 

of their actions. 

 113. The policies and actions of defendants were based on 

considerations other than those proper to the good-faith administration of justice, 

and lay far outside the scope of legitimate law enforcement or prosecutorial 

discretion. 

 114. Defendants’ actions constituted a deliberate denial, under color of 

law, of plaintiffs’ federal procedural and substantive due process rights 

guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution, for which plaintiffs seek redress under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. 

 115. Defendants’ actions constituted a deliberate denial, under color of 

law, of plaintiffs’ federal rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for which plaintiffs 

seek redress under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

 116. Defendants’ actions constituted a deliberate taking, under color of 

law, in violation of plaintiffs’ federal rights guaranteed under the United States 

Constitution, for which plaintiffs seek redress under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

 117. Defendants’ actions constituted deliberate retaliation, under color of 

law, against plaintiffs because of plaintiffs’ exercise of their federal rights as 

guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, for 

which plaintiffs seek redress under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.24 Page 24 of 35
- 25 -

 118. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs 

have suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including irreparable harm. 

 119. Because of the nature of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs do not have 

a complete and adequate remedy at law, and injunctive relief is required. 

 120. Because defendants acted with an improper motive and intent, in 

an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, and their actions show reckless 

disregard and callous indifference for plaintiffs’ federally protected rights, 

plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages as well as all other damages 

incurred, including costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and 

enter a judgment in an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus 

costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT II

Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) 

 121. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 120 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 122. Defendants acted with common purpose and agreement each with 

the others to deprive plaintiffs of their federal rights guaranteed under the United 

States Constitution and its Amendments, particularly the First Amendment and 

the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.25 Page 25 of 35
- 26 -

 123. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs of factual allegations, the 

actions of defendants of which plaintiffs complain in this suit contain acts 

committed in furtherance of the object of said conspiracy. 

 124. Defendants' actions were done in violation of plaintiffs’ 

constitutional rights, for which plaintiffs seek redress under 42 U.S.C. §1985. 

 125. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs 

have suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including irreparable harm. 

 126. Because of the nature of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs do not have 

a complete and adequate remedy at law, and injunctive relief is required. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and 

enter a judgment in an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus 

costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT III

Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1986 

 127. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 126 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 128. Defendants had knowledge of the wrongful acts conspired to be 

done, mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and were in a position to prevent 

the commission of said acts, but neglected and/or refused to prevent or aid in the 

prevention of the above mentioned acts. 

 129. Defendants' neglect and/or refusal to prevent or aid in the 

prevention of the above mentioned acts constituted violation of 42 U.S.C. §1986. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.26 Page 26 of 35
- 27 -

 130. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs 

have suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including irreparable harm. 

 131. Because of the nature of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs do not have 

a complete and adequate remedy at law, and injunctive relief is required. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and 

enter a judgment in an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus 

costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT IV

Superintending Control 

 132. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 131 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 133. Defendants had a clear legal duty to process plaintiffs’ application 

for site plan review. 

 134. Defendants breached this clear legal duty by failing and/or refusing 

to process plaintiffs’ application for site plan review 

 135. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of defendants’ refusal 

to carry out their ministerial duties and fulfill their clear legal duty to process 

plaintiffs’ application for site plan review. 

 136. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to an order of superintending control, 

compelling defendants to process plaintiffs’ pending application for site plan 

review in accordance with the procedures in place as of June 29, 2006. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.27 Page 27 of 35
- 28 -

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order of superintending control, compelling defendants to process 

plaintiffs’ application for site plan review under the guidelines in place on June 

29, 2006, as well as the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and 

enter a judgment in an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus 

costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT V

Violation of Michigan Freedom of Information Act 

MCL 15.231 et seq. 

 137. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 136 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 138. Plaintiffs submitted a request for information to defendants 

regarding the April 29, 2009 meeting, pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of 

Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq. 

 139. Under the provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, 

plaintiffs were entitled to any and all records relating to the April 29, 2009 

meeting. 

 140. Defendants wrongfully and unjustifiably refused to produce the 

records which plaintiffs requested pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of 

Information Act. 

 141. Plaintiffs have been forced by defendants wrongfully to expend 

sums to obtain the records which defendants should have produced to plaintiffs 

pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.28 Page 28 of 35
- 29 -

 142. Plaintiffs have been damaged by defendants’ wrongful actions in 

refusing to produce and disclose the records which plaintiffs requested pursuant 

to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order compelling defendants to produce the records which plaintiffs 

requested pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, as well as the 

relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and enter a judgment in an 

amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus costs, interest and 

attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT VI

Violation of Michigan Open Meetings Act 

MCL 15.261 et seq. 

 143. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 142 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 144. Defendants, by meeting in secret on April 29, 2009 and taking 

action in accordance with decisions made at that meeting, without posting any 

notice of a special meeting, or keeping minutes of the meeting, or voting in public 

to go into closed session pursuant to the provisions of the Michigan Open 

Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq., among other others, violated the Michigan 

Open Meetings Act. 

 145. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action against defendants 

pursuant to MCL 15.271. 

 146. Plaintiffs have been damaged by defendants’ violation of the 

Michigan Open Meetings Act. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.29 Page 29 of 35
- 30 -

 147. Because of defendants’ violations of the Michigan Open Meetings 

Act, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages, pursuant to MCL 15.273. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order finding defendants in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, 

as well as the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and enter a 

judgment in an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus costs, 

interest and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT VII

Violation of Michigan Right To Farm Act 

MCL 286.741 et seq. 

 148. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 147 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 150. Under the Michigan Right to Farm Act, MCL 286.471 et seq., a 

municipality cannot enact, maintain or enforce an ordinance, regulation or 

resolution which conflicts with the Act in any manner. 

 151. Under the Michigan Right to Farm Act, a municipality cannot 

restrict or impose additional conditions on a farm’s or farm operation’s 

agricultural activities. 

 152. Defendants, through the Summerfield Township Zoning Ordinance, 

have improperly attempted to regulate a farm’s or farm operation’s agricultural 

activities. 

 153. Defendants have used the Summerfield Township Zoning 

Ordinance to prevent plaintiffs from engaging in agricultural activities, in violation 

of the Michigan Right to Farm Act. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.30 Page 30 of 35
- 31 -

 154. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs 

have suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including irreparable harm. 

 155. Because of the nature of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs do not have 

a complete and adequate remedy at law, and injunctive relief is required. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and 

enter a judgment in an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus 

costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT VIII

Defamation 

 156. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 155 are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

 157. Defendants have each made statements about plaintiffs orally and 

in writing to third parties which are false and defamatory, as set forth in detail in 

the preceding paragraphs of factual allegations and which are incorporated 

herein as if fully re-alleged under this Count. 

 158. Defendants knew that the statements which they have made were 

false, and have done so specifically to hold plaintiffs up to public scorn, ridicule 

and embarrassment, both personally and professionally. 

 159. Defendants knowingly, willfully and without privilege to do so did 

publish the foregoing statements to third parties. 

 160. Defendants were both negligently and knowingly at fault in the 

publication of these false and defamatory statements. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.31 Page 31 of 35
- 32 -

 161. Defendants' oral and written statements concerning plaintiffs and 

their business constitute actionable libel and slander/defamation per se. 

 162. Defendants' oral and written statements have caused plaintiffs to 

suffer injury, including but not limited to, interfering with its relationships with third 

parties. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and 

enter a judgment in an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus 

costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

 Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in 

an amount to be determined by this Court and a jury, plus costs, interest, 

exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees, and that this Honorable Court enter an 

order that: 

 A. Preliminarily and permanently enjoins defendants, and their agents, 

successors, representatives, assigns or any other person or entity acting for or 

on their behalf, from taking plaintiffs’ property unconstitutionally, from violating 

plaintiffs’ rights to procedural and substantive due process, from denying 

plaintiffs equal protection under the laws and from retaliating against plaintiffs for 

their petitioning the government and/or seeking redress from courts for their 

grievances; 

 B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoins defendants, and their agents, 

successors, representatives, assigns or any other person or entity acting for or 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.32 Page 32 of 35
- 33 -

on their behalf, from violating plaintiffs’ rights under the United States 

Constitution and its Amendments, including First and Fourteenth Amendments; 

 C. Preliminarily and permanently enjoins defendants, and their agents, 

successors, representatives, assigns or any other person or entity acting for or 

on their behalf, from conspiring to violate plaintiffs’ rights; 

 D. Preliminary and permanently enjoins defendants, and their agents, 

successors, representatives, assigns or any other person or entity acting for or 

on their behalf, from violating the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et 

seq.; 

 E. Compels defendants to process plaintiffs’ pending application for 

site plan review for the Property; 

 F. Compels defendants to produce to plaintiffs the records which they 

requested pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et 

seq.; 

 G. Awards plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, their costs, attorney 

fees, interest, lost profits, and all other actual, compensatory, incidental, 

consequential, and exemplary damages as against all defendants, jointly and 

severally; 

 H. Awards plaintiffs, pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information 

Act and Michigan Open Meetings Act, their costs and attorneys fees for having to 

bring this action; 

I. Orders defendants to Show Cause why the preliminary injunctive 

relief requested herein should not be granted; and 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.33 Page 33 of 35
- 34 -

 J. Awards any other and further relief to plaintiffs as this Court deems 

just and proper. 

 /s/ Cindy Rhodes Victor___________

 CINDY RHODES VICTOR (P33613) 

 The Victor Firm, PLLC 

 35801 Mound Road 

 Sterling Heights, Michigan 48310 

 (586) 274-9600 

 cvictor@victorfirm.com

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: June 29, 2009 FMIO, Inc. and Richard A. Garst 

DEMAND FOR JURY

 Plaintiffs FMIO, Inc. and Richard A. Garst, by and through their attorneys, 

The Victor Firm, PLLC, hereby demand a trial by jury on their causes of action 

against defendants the Township of Summerfield, Michigan, Kevin R. Iott, in his 

official and individual capacities, Tammy Bleaska, in her official and individual 

capacities, Joan Wiederhold, in her official and individual capacities, Dale 

Wagenknecht, in his official and individual capacities, James V. Seegert, in his 

official and individual capacities, Amy Reiter, in her official and individual 

capacities, Richard Koraleski, in his official and individual capacities, David 

Grude, in his official and individual capacities, Joseph Stranger, in his official and 

individual capacities, Linda Diesing, in her official and individual capacities, and 

Michael Strahan, in his official and individual capacities, jointly and severally. 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.34 Page 34 of 35
- 35 -

 /s/ Cindy Rhodes Victor___________

 CINDY RHODES VICTOR (P33613) 

 The Victor Firm, PLLC 

 35801 Mound Road 

 Sterling Heights, Michigan 48310 

 (586) 274-9600 

 cvictor@victorfirm.com

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: June 29, 2009 FMIO, Inc. and Richard A. Garst 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 06/29/09 PageID.35 Page 35 of 35