Source: https://michiganfreedejurestate.us/info/2016/02/11/lawless-legal-system/
Timestamp: 2018-09-26 11:03:44
Document Index: 345175183

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 303', 'art 303', 'art 303', 'art 303', 'art 303', 'art 1', '§ 14', 'art 303', 'art 303', 'art 303', 'art 303', 'art 303']

Lawless Legal System | STATE OF MICHIGAN ~ SOVEREIGN REPUBLIC
The DEQ filed a complaint against defendant seeking an injunction and civil fines for defendant’s dredging, filling and draining of and maintaining a use on property alleged to be a wetland, contrary to Part 303 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.30301 et seq. (NREPA) (Part 303), that was in effect in 2009.1 Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the DEQ, holding that 92.3 acres of defendant’s 106.5- acre property was wetland and that defendant violated Part 303 by dredging, filling, draining, and maintaining a use on 4.1 acres of the wetland, and ordering him to remove 4.1 acres of fill material, restore that acreage to its prior condition, cease all Part 303 violations, including farming on all acreage designated as wetland, and pay the DEQ a statutory fine of $30,000.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by granting the DEQ’s motion to strike his demand for a jury trial. We disagree.
Ins Co, 304 Mich App 415, 444; 849 NW2d 31 (2014). Whether defendant was entitled to a jury trial for a complaint seeking an injunction and civil fines under Part 303 is an issue of constitutional law, which we review de novo. Elba Twp v Gratiot Co Drain Comm’r, 493 Mich 265, 277-278; 831 NW2d 204 (2013).
The Michigan Constitution provides that the “right of trial by jury shall remain.” Const 1963, art 1, § 14. “Thus the right to trial by jury is preserved in all cases where it existed prior to adoption of the Constitution.” State Conservation Dep’t v Brown, 335 Mich 343, 346; 55 NW2d 859 (1952). Further, the “constitutional guaranty applied to cases arising under statutes enacted subsequent to adoption of the Constitution which are similar in character to cases in which the right to jury trial existed before the Constitution was adopted.” Id. Because there is no historical right to a jury trial in Michigan when the relief sought is equitable in nature—like in this case where the DEQ sought declaratory relief—defendant was not entitled to a jury trial. Id. at 347; Gelma Sciences, Inc v Fireman’s Fund Ins Cos, 183 Mich App 445, 449-450; 455 NW2d 328 (1990). See also Wolfenden v Burke, 69 Mich App 394, 399; 245 NW2d 61 (1976) (stating that there is no historical, constitutional guarantee of a jury trial where the relief sought was equitable in nature). Who cares about all these other case opinions, the constitution is absolute when it says “the right of trial by jury shall remain,” if demanded no if and or buts about!
In general, MCL 324.30306 prohibits a person from depositing fill, dredging soils from, maintaining any use or development on, or draining surface water from a wetland unless the DEQ issues a permit to do so. Under MCL 324.30316(1) and (4), a trial court may restrain a violation of MCL 324.30306, impose a civil fine, and order restoration of the affected wetland. Part 303 was enacted after ratification of the 1908 and 1963 Michigan Constitutions and there is no evidence that a cause of action based on Part 303 was known to Michigan’s legal system when the Constitution was adopted. What does this have to do with anything he was on trial and was denied a jury. Because wetland protection is not a cause of action known to the common law, but is instead a new cause of action created by statute, there is no constitutional right to a jury trial, Brown, 335 Mich at 349-350, Are you trying to say the legislature and courts possesses powers outside the constitution? even though the statute also provides for monetary damages, see Madugula v Taub, 496 Mich 685, 696-698; 853 NW2d 75 (2015) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to a jury trial for an action brought under the Business Corporation Act for alleged violations of the shareholder oppression provisions of the act, even though the statute also provided for damages as a remedy).
Defendant argues that because the DEQ’s claims against him would also be a
We also reject defendant’s argument that federal law governs whether a defendant is
entitled to a jury trial, rather than state law. The United States Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil trials, US Const, Am VII, and the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, and we are paying these clowns to write crap like this! except where the Fourteenth Amendment, US Const, Am XIV, applies fundamental, substantive rights to the states, McDonald v City of Chicago, 561 US 742, 759-760; 130 S Ct 3020; 177 L Ed 2d 894 (2010). See also Hardware Dealers’ Mut Fire Ins Co of Wis v Glidden Co, 284 US 151, 158; 52 S Ct 69; 76 L Ed 214 (1931) (holding that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment neither implies that all trials must be by jury, nor guarantees any particular form or method of state procedure” and that “a state may choose the remedy best adapted, in the legislative judgment, to protect the interests concerned, provided its choice is not unreasonable or arbitrary, and the procedure it adopts satisfies the constitutional requirements of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard”). Further, our Supreme Court has recognized that“[t]he Constitution of the United States does not confer a federal constitutional right to trial by jury in state court civil cases.” McKinstry v Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, P.C., 428 Mich 167, 183; 405 NW2d 88 (1987). Accordingly, Michigan law controls whether defendant was entitled to a jury trial in the instant civil action brought under Part 303 and Part 303 does not provide for a jury trial for any violation of the statute. Thus, we conclude that defendant’s reliance on Tull v United States, 481 US 412, 422; 107 S Ct 1831; 25 L Ed 2d 1857 (1987), where the Court held that the United States Constitution provides a right to a jury trial in actions brought under the federal Clean Water Act where a monetary fine is an element of the relief requested, is misplaced because the federal law requirement does not apply to Part 303 actions alleging violations of the statute. McKinstry, 481 Mich at 422.
DEQ v Jack Morley Appeal
This entry was posted in ALERTS, LAWS STATUES CODES, NEWS by Michigan Free De Jure State. Bookmark the permalink.