From: Greg Groninger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:47 PM
Subject: Lawless Legal System
MORLEY DENIED JURY TRIAL
Folks we have a constitutional crisis. We have public servants, yes judges are servants and they work for us, who are absolutely out of control. They have created a lawless legal system and are using it to crush property owner. Please post this and share with other. We need folks to wake up and realize what is happening. Why would the STATE go to such extremes to denied having a jury hear this man's case? And how about all these other cases they have used to "justify" denying this man a jury trial, what happened in those cases. Does the STATE not want the people to know what is happening behind the closed doors of the court?
Please read Art I § 14 Jury trials and Art III § 7 Common law and statutes, continuance below from the Constitution for Michigan before reading the excerpt concerning the right to a jury trial from the Jack Morley property rights case involving wetlands in Michigan. You do not need to be an attorney to read and understand the courts double talk and circular logic depriving Mr. Morley a jury to hear this unjust case against him. I have attached the whole Appeals Courts opinion for those who care to read the whole tyrannical court opinion.
1963 Michigan Constitution
Art I § 14 Jury trials. The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one of the parties in the manner prescribed by law. In all civil cases tried by 12 jurors a verdict shall be received when 10 jurors agree.
Art III § 7 Common law and statutes, continuance. The common law and the statute laws now in force, not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations, or are changed, amended or repealed.
Before: SAAD, P.J., and STEPHENS and O'BRIEN, JJ.
Defendant Jack O. Morley appeals as of right the final order of the circuit court granting judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). We affirm.
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.
Defendant preserved this issue by filing a demand for jury trial. Moody v Home Owners
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
misdemeanor crime subject to a fine if the state proved intent, the state was required to prove to a jury that defendant purposefully or voluntarily deposited or permitted the placement of fill material in a known regulated wetland. In addition to providing for a civil lawsuit, Part 303 also provides that a person who violates MCL 324.30306 is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine. MCL 324.30316(2) and (3). However, here the DEQ only filed a civil action against defendant; it did not seek to criminally prosecute him. Thus, it is irrelevant that the statute provides for criminal liability.3
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.