Changes may be requested by e-mailing the details to pmarkham@manistique.org
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: sei·zure
Pronunciation: 'sE-zh&r
Function: noun: the act, fact, or process of seizing: as A : the seizing of property that involves meaningful interference with a person's possessory interest in it
03/15/07
When I wrote the early part of this editorial, I failed to note, consistently, the distinct difference between the words "maintain" and "modify". It is the difference between the meaning of those two words, and the impact of that difference, in the context of the reported circumstances surrounding Mr. Burns' property, that forms a basis of Burns' complaint against the City of Manistique. Hopefully, my recent review, and editing, removes most ambiguity from my writing, regarding my erroneous use, at times, of "maintain" and "modify" as synonyms for each other.
05/02/07
N.B. An historic right-of-way may meet the definition of a public highway, i.a.w. (Michigan Compiled Laws) MCL 221.20, and "... shall be deemed (a) public highway(s), subject to be altered or discontinued according to the provisions of this act..." Call it an historical right-of-way, a highway-by-use, a private road, a public road or public highway, it is still "subject to be altered or discontinued according to the provisions of this act". The act is Act 283 of 1909, and the provisions are plural. The "shall be" and "provisions" insures that no one ignores or chooses, with impunity, any provision(s) out of the context of the remaining provisions.
05/27/07
Most of what I wrote, below, was based upon my premise that, due to some unknown gross element of my ignorance, misunderstanding, or incomprehension regarding the issues, that the persistent clamor from City of Manistique officials, and the media, of the city's vindication by the courts, had a substantial element of truth that Burns and I had yet to understand. That premise was totally false. The city, or some other government entity yet to be identified, had illegally seized and converted Burns property, and the city lied about the rectitude and legality of its involvement, for seven years. Consequentially, I apologize to the courts for my early voiced troubled view regarding their decisions, based upon my mistaken premise that they had vindicated the city, as proclaimed by all, but the courts, Burns, and I. In retrospect, the courts dismissed the city's lies, in their way, as Burns and I have, in our way.
Thank you, Judge Charles H. Stark, and Judges Griffin, P.J., and Markey and Meter, JJ., of the Michigan Court of Appeals. Your decisions were based, mostly, upon the facts as presented you, and the law as considered by you, and not the fiction, whims, politics, and arguments from ignorance and faith, before and after your decisions.
08/16/07
Today, I start adding the latest additions to this saga at the beginning, in deference to those used to blog formats and those with slow internet connections that wish to stop the download after the latest additions are downloaded.
03/15/08
On 03/06/08, I attended the failed appeal of a traffic ticket that Al Burns received during
the incident of 10/29/07, when he resisted the successful attempt of the City of
Manistique to steal and convert more of his property, under color of law, with
the use of police force to remove him, and his vehicle, from a private road across
his private property.
Burns was convicted, on 12/14/07, in 93rd District court, for violating the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, by parking on his private property, over which is located a private road, over which the cited portion of the Michigan Vehicle Code does not apply. On 03/06/08, 11th Circuit Court Judge Stark upheld 93rd District Court Judge Luoma's conviction of Burns.
Even if Prosecutor Hollenbeck could prove that the "Lakeside Road" in question was a "highway", i.a.w. MCL 257.672, and not a private road, i.a.w. MCL 257.44(2), it would be impossible for such road to be other than "under local jurisdiction", and Burns could not have violated any law other than MCL 257.606, or MCL 257.675, MCL 257.675(6), and Burns' "disabled plate" relieves him from liability for a violation with respect to parking.
Like Manistique City Attorney John Filoramo, Assistant Michigan Attorney General Stacy Erwin-Oakes, 93rd District Court Judge Mark Luoma, and 11th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Charles Stark, Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Peter Hollenbeck had no problem dismissing applicable Michigan Compiled Law, and federal law, regarding property and due process rights, supposedly ensured by the constitutions of the State of Michigan and the U.S.A. They substituted personal opinion and whim for the existing laws that applied, secure in their knowledge that Burns would likely die of frustration, old age, and poverty, - unwilling to spill blood before any appropriate justice was achieved, if ever; while they are paid to abuse him, and retire with accolades, for their tireless efforts to act like chimpanzees.
To make the situation even more Kafka-esque, Judge Stark ignored all that he wrote in his decision of 2001, regarding ownership of, and jurisdiction over, private property and a road upon it. I watched him manipulated, like a small, bewildered and fearful child, by Hollenbeck's baseless arguments, and then make a decison that, as far as I am concerned, indicated his true chimpanzee nature, or the effects of mental defect due to advanced old age.
This is a 4MB MP3 recording of Alfred Burns' parking ticket appeal . Stark spoke very low, and did not use the p.a. system microphone, as if he tried to hide his apparent confusion and dementia from those that wished to witness and understand the appeal process. Hollenbeck's baseless pleadings argument against Burns' appeal was "...Mr. Burns did park and leave a vehicle upon a "highway", in a way that violated (MCL) 257.672, as alleged." and that, since, in his baseless personal opinion, it matters not who owns a road, or right of way property, then the Michigan Vehicle Code applies to the private road across Burns' private property because he, Hollenbeck, called it a highway, subject to MCL 257.652, and Judges Luoma and Stark agreed with him.
What no one, but Burns and I, will consider is the obvious difference between the generic term "highway", that includes all roadways available to public travel, including private roads, historic highways-by-use, limited access highways, etc. compared to "public highways" owned by, and under the jurisdiction of governmental entities, and subject to the Michigan Vehicle Code. The difference is as obvious, to humans, as the application of law regarding spitting on a public sidewalk compared to spitting on a private sidewalk, of a private residence. That difference is incomprehensible to chimpanzees, that claim, and enforce, ownership rights to all they can reach, take, and hold, by force.
On 10/29/07, I witnessed Mr. Burns park and attend a vehicle, with "disabled plates", upon his private property, upon a private road; an action that violated no part of Act 300 of 1949, pursuant to MCL 257.607. I witnessed and photographed the event, and Burns subsequent arrest for that failed attempt to prevent the imminent further theft and conversion of his property by the City of Manistique, aided by the forceful removal of Burns and his vehicle from the property seized and converted, that same day.
Nothing like having to defend yourself from those that steal your property, and then have to deal with broken attorneys and judges that condone the theft by punishing the victim for a failed attempt to defend his property! The religion of law has, at least, two less believers in Schoolcraft County.
To date, a simple explanation of the existing "Lakeside Road" dispute is this. The public has an historic legislated right to traverse an historic road right-of-way, for transportation purposes, across part of Burns' private property. Against Burns explicit, publicized and recorded lawful directions, and claims of lawful titled ownership rights of the right-of-way property, "secured" by numerous state and federal laws, and upheld in a mountain of case law, and the documents of two previous court decisions, the City of Manistique moved, widened, improved, and paved the travelled portion of the road right of way, as if they owned it.
At no time has any government entity taken the first lawful step to acquire lawful ownership of the property. It was seized and converted, with the educated adults' understanding that, in the United States, no government has the right to steal property, and prosecute the victim for failure to assist the theft.
On 10/29/07, the City of Manistique enlisted the help of local and state police, to forcefully size and convert more of Burns property, by widening and paving more of the travelled portion of the road. During that time, Burns attempted to physically block the attempts of the city to steal and convert more of his private property, and refused to assist those stealing his land by removing himself, and his vehicle, from his private property.
The Michigan Department of Transportation Bureau of Finance and Administration Director, Myron Frierson, had no qualms about providing state and federal dollars to finance the unlawful conversion of property that the City of Manistique stole from Burns, and, thus, provide additional impetus for the theft of the property. As he told Burns, in so many words, "If you don't like it, get a lawyer!"
Consequentially, Burns is charged with two offences for refusing to assist the police in their efforts to help The City of Manistique steal and modify his land. In subsequent court hearings, two courts decided that his titled ownership and due process rights, secured by state and federal statutes, mean nothing, and the City of Manistique has the legal right to steal and convert Burns' property. Additionally, Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Hollenbeck has exercised his discretion, with 93rd District Court Judge Luoma's formal sanction, to prosecute Burns for his failure to aid and abet the theft and conversion of his land!
Local "public" officials are learning well from the uncivilized, ignorant, stupid, or self-serving religious and political zealots of those Third World countries that feature so often in world news. I can only wonder what prevents local "leaders" from brandishing, and using, AK-47s.
In a document of unmitigated speculation, regarding a pretrial "hearing", Prosecutor Hollenbeck remarks that Burns wants to "perfect a civil law claim" against the city or county. From my perspective, Burns has perfected, already, a "slam-dunk" federal case, for a professional attorney.
02/20/08
From the 93rd District Court's Register of Actions of 02/19/08, regarding Burns' alleged "Assault PO" count, a "Notice to Appear" was generated on 02/14/08 associated with a miscellaneous action filed by an attorney Donald LeMire. I understood, from my previous conversations with Burns, about hiring an attorney, that he felt forced, by an apparent conspiracy of thieving and lying public officials, to try and protect himself from the false criminal charges, documented previously.
If Prosecuting Attorney, Peter Hollenbeck, is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for Schoolcraft County, and is the legal authority of the decision to arrest Burns, as stated in the Manistique Public Safety Incident Report, page 5, then Hollenbeck has a direct vested professional and personal liability interest in prosecuting and convicting Burns for the charge he invented. I understand that, assuming Burns' "criminal" trial results in his conviction, the conviction will give court sanction to the criminal acts and intent, of Hollenbeck, and other public officials, to foster the public's false perception of the "rectitude" of all those that have abused Burns, stolen his property, and denied him due process, under color of law.
If Burns' is acquitted, it might prompt those with an appreciation of ethics and law to consider the likelihood that many of the public officials in Schoolcraft County are seriously bent, or broken.
If the pending trial is, to a significant degree, as much, or more, about Prosecutor Hollenbeck's involvement, as it is Burns', then I suspect there is a distinct conflict of interest if Hollenbeck is the attorney representing, in trial court, his professional conduct as represented in the documented basis for the false and contrived "Peoples" case against Burns.
Another questionable wrinkle has been added to the perverse legal process. 90 days after Burns' arraignment, additional information was added to the Manistique Public Safety incident report to provide further false justification for the charge against Burns, and the amended incident report was backdated to the date of the original, 90 days earlier, and included in the court record as the testimony of the incident report of that date! I do not know at what point an incident report becomes or begats perjury, but I am curious.
Along with the details of the "amended" incident report provided Burns, were "copies" of hazy, over exposed, and unfocussed photographs of some old maps, obtained from the Schoolcraft County Historical Society, that, I assume, Prosecutor Hollenbeck thought, three months after Burns' arraignment, would provide some sort of jurisdictional justification for his action of 10/29/07, contrary to:
Act 51 of 1951, 247.669 Roads, streets, and alleys taken over as county roads. Sec. 19. The board of county road commissioners in each of the several counties shall, within 1 year from the effective date of this act, complete the taking over as county roads of all roads, streets and alleys heretofore required to be taken over as county roads by the provisions of Act No. 130 of the Public Acts of 1931, as amended, being sections 247.1 to 247.13, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948. Said board of county road commissioners in each of the several counties shall take over as county roads all streets and alleys lying outside the limits of incorporated cities and villages and dedicated to the public in recorded plats approved by said board of county road commissioners, within 30 days after the recording of the plat or the effective date of this act, whichever may be the later. Such dedicated streets and alleys, when taken over by the county road commission, shall be county roads in all respects and for all purposes and shall be classified as county primary roads or county local roads pursuant to the provisions of this act. History: 1951, Act 51, Eff. June 1, 1951 Popular Name: McNitt Act Popular Name: Michigan Transportation Fund Act © 2007 Legislative Council, State of MichiganIt requires no mastery of "rocket science" for the Schoolcraft County Prosecutor to realize that fanciful "maps" have no relevance after 1 year from the effective date of the act. Either the road across Burn's property became a road under county jurisdiction, i.a.w. the act, or by petition, dedication, acceptance, purchase or donation, after, i.a.w. the provisions of Act 283 of 1909 221.20a-h, or it is a private road, over which a host of government officials have exerted theft, control, and conversion by criminal action, under color of law.
02/05/08
Beyond pure speculation, I have no idea of how Schoolcraft County Prosecutor, Peter Hollenbeck, concluded that Alfred Burns had committed an assault related crime that should be pursued in court.
Beyond pure speculation, I have no idea what Schoolcraft County Prosecutor, Peter Hollenbeck was thinking, if he made out the following "People v Burns" pretrial hearing form. Burns signature is nothing more than his acknowledgement of that meeting, and has NOTHING to do with the apparent nonsense recorded thereon, by Hollenbeck or Judge Luoma.
I can say, as one that witnessed the incident of 10/29/07, and as one that has witnessed, and made it his business to understand the road related issues involved, it was never Burns' intent to "perfect a civil law claim" against the city or county. From my perspective, there is nothing to substantiate that idiotic claim, and any suggestion to the contrary is nothing but fantasy.
From the first time that Burns spoke to Hollenbeck, almost two decades ago, it was Burns intent to motivate those that are supposed to enforce criminal law, against criminal trespass, committed by the City of Manistique. He was told, at that time, "It sounds like a civil matter to me."
As a consequence of Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Hollenbeck, and Manistique City Attorney Filoramo, choosing to sanction criminal trespass, by the City of Manistique, Burns attempted to sue the City for damages, due to criminal trespass, with a civil action, dismissed by the 11th Judicial Circuit Court.
Ever since Burns' "failed" civil law attempts, in 2000-2001, Burns has attempted nothing more than motivate those whose sworn and paid duty it is to enforce the laws of the land, to do nothing more, or less, to defend him from the continuous criminal actions of those associated with the continued unlawful taking and conversion of his property. Burns asked for nothing more than would be expected of a victim of armed robbery, by drug addled street thugs.
It is nothing but Hollenbeck's or Luoma's baseless theory that Burns is facing trial for a felony/misdemeanor/whatever for "attempting" to assault/resist/obstruct/whatever, as an attempt to perfect a non-existent civil law claim. The historic background to the "parking ticket" and "assault/obstructing/resisting/whatever is a series of criminal acts, by public officials of the City of Manistique, to the Michigan Attorney Generals' office. It is not a civil matter, and never was.
Burns is facing trial for a felony/misdemeanor/whatever for "attempting" to assault/resist/obstruct/whatever during his attempt to prevent the City of Manistique from stealing and paving more of his property. Others chose to manufacture a parking infraction and assault related charge, to redirect attention from the equivalent of sanctioned armed robbery, by the City of Manistique, to an alleged "crime" by the victim, Alfred Burns, for attempting to defend his property from forcible trespass, theft and conversion.
From the pretrial hearing document, and subsequent documents, I infer that Prosecutor Hollenbeck concludes that Burns has chosen to perfect a civil suit, by committing an unspecified "criminal act", with no "probable cause", against which he must defend himself, in court. Pure crap! There has been more than enough basis for a civil and criminal suit since 2001, if Burns had the money to buy the legal representation to force others to enforce the laws they are sworn and paid to enforce; laws designed to prevent the whimsical victimization of taxpayers by tax-paid bureaucrats and their tax-paid legal representatives.
02/01/08
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT) Act 300 of 1949 257.20 “Highway or street” defined. Sec. 20. “Highway or street” means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949.
Most folk, consciously or otherwise, understand the requirement of defined technical jargon regarding any objective communication, whether it be seeking a sexual partner, designing a space station, or prosecuting Alfred Burns for defending his property and due process rights that no one else cares about.
If a private road has no defined line of travel, no surveyed boundaries, and is maintained, paved, and moved at will, by trespass of the Manistique D.P.W., how does it meet the definition of a "highway or street" as considered by the Michigan Vehicle Code Act 300 of 1949, 257.20?
If a private road has not become a public road, under the legal jurisdiction of some government entity, i.a.w. MCL 221.20a-h, where does Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Hollenbeck, and Michigan 93rd District Court Judge, Mark Luoma, find the substantiation for unspecified "probable cause", and worse, they claim exists in incident reports and the complaint to prosecute Alfred Burns for "illegal parking" and "attempting forceful" "resisting, obstructing, opposing", i.a.w. MCL 750.81d(1)?
If a complaint must have the specifics of an alleged act that constitutes either a misdemeanor under MCL 750.92, or a felony under MCL 750.81d(1), what specific action of Burns qualifies as a crime under either law? How can he defend himself against a charge that does little but quote the text of the cited laws, and names the "victim" of his unspecified "criminal act"?
On 01/18/08, Michigan 93rd District Court Judge, Mark Luoma, told Burns, in so many words, "Schoolcraft County Prosecutor, Peter Hollenbeck, has the discretion to charge you with a crime, without stating what action you took that qualifies as a crime under both laws, and if you do not understand the substance of the charge, get an attorney." and subsequently let stand a charge that states,
STATE OF MICHIGAN, COUNTY OF SCHOOLCRAFT
The complaining witness says that on the date and
at the location described, the defendant, contrary
to law,
COUNT 1: ATTEMPTED POLICE OFFICER
- ASSAULTING/RESISTING/OBSTRUCTING
did attempt to commit the following listed
offense and in the attempt did act towards the
commission of that offense, but failed in the
perpetration or was prevented in the execution
thereof; contrary to MCL 750.92:
resist, obstruct, or oppose, Trooper Rick
VanEffen, a police officer of Michigan
State Police - Manistique Post that the
defendant knew or had reason to know was
performing his or her duties; contrary to MCL
750.81d(1).
MISDEMEANOR: 1 year and/or $1,000.00; upon
conviction of an attempted felony, court
shall order law enforcement to collect
DNA identification profiling samples.
Beyond my logical assumption that Prosecutor Hollenbeck and Judge Luoma have a corrupt "understanding" of some sort, Burns and I have yet to understand how a completely peaceful resistance to the planned, publicized and imminent criminal theft and conversion of Burns' property has resulted in an unspecified and unsubstantiated bogus criminal charge against him. For me, it is a "no brainer" to understand that the public issues surrounding the ownership of Burns property have nothing to do with the "illegal parking" and "resist, obstruct, or oppose, Trooper Rick VanEffen", and everything to do with politics, personal agendas, corruption, and incompetence.
If any member of the community can provide me with the documented and substantiated specific "probable cause" against which Burns can formulate a specific defense, we would appreciate your help. As it stands now, the Michigan 93rd District Court has said little more to Burns than "Be prepared to defend yourself, at trial, against the Schoolcraft County Prosecutor's unspecified allegations that you committed a crime by violating MCL 750.92 and MCL 750.81d(1)!", that sounds like more "Third World due process", to me, based upon the illegal theory of "Guilty, until proven innocent".
Burns is forced, once again, to disprove that which does not exist. In this case, if he fails, it means more wasted life, and possible jail time, a fine, and a "record" attached to it, for his failed attempts to motivate others to ensure his property rights and rights of due process by enforcing laws for which they are sworn and paid.
For those that discount Alfred Burns and I as little more than "noise makers", consider the following quote from "Michigan Court Rules" as merely one instance of many, regarding denial of due process, that I have little doubt has snared many a Schoolcraft County resident, and will, most likely, snare many more.
CHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985 Subchapter 6.000 General Provisions ... Rule 6.101 The Complaint (A) Definition and Form. A complaint is a written accusation that a named or described person has committed a specified criminal offense. The complaint must include the substance of the accusation against the accused and the name and statutory citation of the offense.This is the complaint against Al Burns, filed in Michigan 93rd District Court, Schoolcraft County. Can you tell, from the complaint, the substance of the act upon which the complaint is based? Burns cannot, and Judge Luoma would not tell him. The victim of the next prosecutorial and judicial whimsy may be your child, tomorrow, charged with manufacturing and distributing, because of a maple leaf in his pocket.
From the public record Register of Actions, filed in Michigan 93rd District Court, Schoolcraft County, I read and assumed that Burns was some irrational violent wacko. Would you expect an employer to hire your spouse with a Register of Actions like this? I 'spose he could always dig ditches...
As far as my understanding of law enforcement is concerned, it has been quite apparent, first hand, since 2001, that criminal law is, generally, subservient to political whim, as much at the local level as at the national; which, until recently, I was loathe to admit, in a public manner. The impact of political whim upon criminal procedure is amplified by a defacto conspiracy of understanding among those in the business of justice, to, generally, accept any assertion as true, made by anyone in the justice system. With this form of whimsical law enforcement, that fosters incompetence and corruption, anything goes, and the onus of consequence is born by the defendant and general public.
Given the "gambling aspect" of a costly adversarial relationship between defendant, Burns, with limited means vs. "People" with infinite means; political, financial and professional; it doesn't take a genius to understand why most defendants accept a plea offer, with, or without, legal councel. Even if an innocent defendant can afford competent and dedicated legal councel, there is no guarantee of an innocent defendant's acquittal, when the "rules of law" are considered and applied in a whimsical manner, by the incompetent, or those motivated and corrupted by agendas beyond civilized justice.
The concept of "justice for all" has no relevance to chimpanzees. Chimpanzees know, inately, that justice comes from brute force, motivated by primal "needs".
01/22/08
The " Assault PO" hearing of 01/18/08, (2MB mp3 intermittent microphone file), went as I expected, consistent with the court's prior reasoning and process exhibited in Burn's hearing regarding the "illegal parking" ticket. Facts, context, history, and laws, had little or nothing to do with the process, beyond that required to further the political goal of silencing Burns with the implied threat of conviction and punishment for the non-existent felony crime of defending his property rights, and rights of due process; the laws ensuring which, others chose not to enforce.
The hearing started off with Michigan 93rd District Court Judge, Mark Luoma, stating that the hearing had been set to consider a motion to dismiss or quash the complaint and he "...did receive correspondence from the defendant, and another party, in this matter, and I have reviewed that correspondence...and I want to try and focus on what the issue is...the issue Mr. Burns, that you are raising, is that the arrest was illegal, therefore you had the right to resist it or obstruct it, is that right, because it was on private property, as opposed to public property?..." Burns agreed with Luoma's statements.
After a few following introductory statements regarding his sworn duty to consider and uphold the law, Luoma proceeded to tell Burns that the court had done some research on the issue... the "issue", with no context, regarding that which he had just elicited an agreement from Burns. Luoma then proceeded to tell Burns about a 2004 Michigan Appeals Court decision, People v Ventura, that indicates that even if Burns' arrest was illegal, resisting that illegal arrest, as cited by MCL 750.81d(1), was illegal because the Michigan Court of Appeals "adopted a rule that a person may not use any type of force, passive or otherwise, to resist an arrest made by one he knows, or has reason to know, is performing their duties..." as decided in the apellate court's decision regarding People v Ventura.
Subsequently, Burns told Judge Luoma, he had no idea of what he did that substantiated a misdemeanor, or a felony charge, assuming that "the law" requires basic facts and context to be applied to any particular "probable cause" issue. I deduced, from Luoma's lack of response to Burn questions, beyond referring to the incident reports and charges, outside of all documented historical context, contrary to legal documentation and court records, and contrary to the responsibility of his position to ensure a defendant's right to know and understand the charges against him, he didn't care.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.81d Assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, opposing person performing duty; felony; penalty; other violations; consecutive terms; definitions. Sec. 81d. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
750.92 Attempt to commit crime. Sec. 92. Attempt to commit crime—Any person who shall attempt to commit an offense prohibited by law, and in such attempt shall do any act towards the commission of such offense, but shall fail in the perpetration, or shall be intercepted or prevented in the execution of the same, when no express provision is made by law for the punishment of such attempt, shall be punished as follows: ... 3. If the offense so attempted to be committed is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term less than 5 years, or imprisonment in the county jail or by fine, the offender convicted of such attempt shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or reformatory not more than 2 years or in any county jail not more than 1 year or by a fine not to exceed 1,000 dollars; but in no case shall the imprisonment exceed 1/2 of the greatest punishment which might have been inflicted if the offense so attempted had been committed. History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ; -- CL 1948, 750.92Notice that MCL 750.81d(1) is not concerned with "attempting" anything. The statute states clearly that it concerns the felony of actual committing the acts listed. I have no idea what MCL 750.81d(1) has to do with a false and unspecified charge of "attempting to resist", beyond the intent to terrorize Burns, so he would accept the theft of his property and denial of due process, by pleading to the lesser false and unspecified charge cited with MCL 750.92.
The People v Ventura appeals case and decision is good reading, full of situation, facts, context, and rational consideration that bears little to no resemblance to the historical and current situation, facts, context and irrational consideration that I witnessed and documented, up to and including the hearing of 01/18/08. The People v Ventura appeals case has no real relevance that I see, beyond political, to the written MCL 750.81d(1) cited charge from Schoolcraft County Prosecutor that Judge Luoma now interprets to sanction the legal theory that Burns committed a felony by resisting, with "force, passive or otherwise,", what he knew to be a policeman's duty, when, in fact, he did nothing more than fail in his peaceful attempt to protect his property from theft and conversion by the City of Manistique, in another failed attempt to elicit some form of appropriate and relevant due process, that everyone else cared little to nothing about.
The decision by Judge Luoma to allow Hollenbeck to pursue a felony charge, based upon MCL 750.81d(1), in 93rd District Court, belies Luoma's "arraignment" statement and Hollenbeck's written statement, the "attempting resisting" charge was a misdemeanor. I infer, from Judge Luoma's decision, that because Burns would not cop a plea to a false misdemeanor charge, then it was time to pursue a felony charge, consistent with political whimsy, malice, and the implied denial of previous statements by Judge Luoma and Prosecutor Hollenbeck, that said the charge was a misdemeanor. It is not a misdemeanor to violate MCL 750.81d(1), the law allegedly violated by Burns and cited in the complaint filed by Prosecutor Hollenbeck. The law is clear and precise in language, and intent.
I definitely understand why Burns asked Luoma, "What am I charged with?". To Burns, and I, the charge is "subject to" just about any false claim or vague interpretation that representatives of "The People", and the Michigan 93rd District Court, can fabricate, as the "legal" process continues.
Within the context of People v Ventura, the appeals decision concluded, "A person may not use force to resist an arrest made by one he knows or has reason to know is performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest is illegal when charged pursuant to MCL 750.81d." What I read of the decision conclusion, and the prior reasoning, had nothing to do with a court "adopted rule" that "...a person may not use any type of force, passive or otherwise, to resist an arrest..." Maybe that information was in Luoma's version, and not mine, but, regardless, Burns and I have no idea of the probable cause that lead to a rational consideration of MCL 750.81d(1) as a cited felony law that Burns is charged with violating.
At the moment, I am mystified by Judge Luoma's opinion that Burns' violated MCL 750.81d(1) due to the Michigan Appeals Court decision that dealt with a case of forceful resistance, and referred to, specifically, in the details of its decision, and conclusion, the public safety aspects and dangers of forceful resistance. I cannot guess how Judge Luoma reached the conclusion that it was the appropriate legal discretion of Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Hollenbeck to charge Burns with a felony committed by Burns using "passive force", in his failed attempt to save his property. The concept of Burns committing a felony by "passive force", in lieu of the actual force he never used, strikes me as little more than sophistry based upon an oxymoron, with no basis in fact or concept, regarding MCL 750.81d(1) and the appeal decision of the People v Ventura case upon which Luoma based his decision, on 01/18/08, to allow Hollenbeck to pursue a previously disavowed felony charge against Burns.
It might be time for me, as a point of interest, to seek some clarification of the legal theory of "felony by passive force", a new stick thrown for Burns to chase, that has no relevance to the incident of 10/29/07, regarding Burns' property and due process rights, and right to self defence, denied by all concerned, to date. I hope that Burns ignores the stick, with the understanding of its false nature.
01/18/08
On 01/18/08, at 1PM, another hearing will take place at the 93rd District Court, in Schoolcraft County, Michigan, for the court to determine the next step of what I consider to be as corrupted an historical "legal" process as I would expect in any "Third World" country.
The following is the documentation of the complaint investigation concerning the incident of 10/29/07, upon the roadway that crosses Alfred Burns' property, filed by Kenneth Golat, Director of Manistique Public Safety.
Among the details of a well written and specific report, in the first two paragraphs that set the stage for all that followed, the stated concerns by the origin of the complaints, Superintendent of Manistique Department of Public Works, Nicholas Bosanic, and Manistique City Manager, Sheila Aldrich, are about Burns interfering with the planned imminent paving of his property, by agents of the City of Manistique. The original concerns of the complaints were NOT about illegal parking, and changing the complaint to one of illegal parking and attempted assault is nothing more than another attempt to get Burns to "Fetch the stick", instead of dealing with the issues.
The origin of the complaint was not about new "sticks" named "illegal parking" and "assaulting/obstructing/resisting a police officer". The complaint had one origin and purpose. The complaint was from the City of Manistique, with the purpose of removing Burns and his vehicle from his property so that the City of Manistique, and its agents, could steal and convert it to its own purposes, regardless of Burns' attempts to defend his property and due process rights, even if he was prepared to die in an attempt to defend those "inalienable rights".
As I have documented elsewhere, in these pages, both Aldrich and Bosanic are documented liars regarding issues of road jurisdiction and ownership. I have little doubt that, had not those two individuals complained, in the manner they did, Manistique Public Safety would not have been drawn into the continuing web of corrupt behavior regarding a vehicle with disabled plates parked upon a roadway, closed to the public.
The complaint investigation includes, under the "Case History" heading, the statement, "The Director (of Public Safety) has also received legal opinions from the City Attorney (John Filoramo) that the Lakeside Road has existed for years in this area and that it is a public road."
From mid 2000, after wasting a great deal of my life seeking some proof of an official public mantra that claimed the road that crosses Burns' property is a public road, I found only reasons to conclude that those that made such claims were little different from religious zealots, on other shores. There are no recorded documents at the office of the Schoolcraft County Clerk that indicate any entity, other than individual citizens, own any part of the road that crosses Burn' property. I concluded, years ago, that any claim that the road is a public road, is a malicious lie.
To the best of my current knowledge, there is no defined line of travel of the road that crosses Burns property. There has been no contract with Burns to use, modify, pave, or maintain his property. There has been no public need determined, or petitions filed, or public hearings held, to start any legal process required for any government entity to gain legal ownership of, or jurisdiction over, any part of the road that crosses Burns property. There is no certified survey of the road that crosses Burns property. There has never been a dedication and acceptance, by any government entity, of the road that crosses Burns property. Consequently, there is no government entity, that I know of, that has jurisdiction over the road across Burns' property, beyond that acquired at the point of a gun, with 93rd District Court blessing; and any claim of legal jurisdiction over the road, by any governement entity, is false.
Regardless of how many "sticks" of deliberate misdirection are thrown, by those with the sworn and paid duty to enforce and uphold the law, no entity, other than Alfred Burns, owns the property upon which he was ticketed and arrested in his failed attempt to prevent the further planned, publicized and imminent theft and conversion of more of his property, under the color and hired guns of the law.
There is, today, only one entity that has recorded title to, and jurisdiction over, that part of a road that crosses Burns' property, and that is Burns. In short, the road that crosses Burns private property, and the private property of others, is not a public road, and never was, regardless of all the lies and religious arguments and beliefs espoused by various Manistique, Schoolcraft County, and State of Michigan officials.
The provisions of the Michigan Vehicle Code, Act 300 of 1949, that Prosecutor Hollenbeck claims gives police officers the rights of search and seizure, without a warrant, are based upon the Prosecutor's ludicrous premise that search and seizure, without a warrant, is appropriate on a road over private property, that no government entity ever tried to acquire, beyond theft, over which no government entity ever acquired legal jurisdiction, or obtained owners' written permission to maintain, or enforce certain provisions of the Michigan Vehicle Code, and, therefore, maintained, moved, modified, paved, and regulated by trespass!
It takes no lawyer to understand that most of the provisions of Michigan Vehicle Code of 1949 apply to highways of different classifications, determined to be under the jurisdiction of a government entity i.a.w. the provisions of Public Highways and Private Roads, Act 283 of 1909.
By law, the legal nature of a highway has to be determined, first, before anyone upon it is subject to the Michigan Vehicle Code, or search and seizure without a warrant, or specious claims of illegal parking and assault/obstructing/resisting a police officer. The basic process that applied in 1949, applies today.
The Vehicle Code laws of the State of Michigan, apply to public highways, under the legal jurisdiction of local and State entities, i.a.w. MCL 221.20a-h. On 12/14/07, Burns was convicted, in the 93rd District Court of Michigan, for parking, illegally, on his private property, that the City of Manistique seized for a paved road, over which it never had jurisdiction, prior and subsequent to the incident of 10/29/08.
According to my understanding, on 12/14/08, I witnessed 93rd District Court Judge, Mark Luoma, accept, with no documented substantiation, Prosecutor Hollenbeck's verbal, baseless, and false opening statement, that the issue at hand was not about property. Burns stood before the judge and told him that he owned the property on which his vehicle was parked, and had, with him, all the documentation to prove his ownership. Burns also said that short of using a rifle to defend his property, he had no other civilized choice, but to resist an unlawful process that had the sole purpose of seizing his property, without due process, in direct violation of various state and federal laws, and the provisions of the state and federal constitutions, by those whose sworn duty it was to ensure he would not be victimized by the political expedience of deceit.
Requesting no substantiation of statements made by Hollenbeck, or Burns, Judge Luoma found Burns guilty of a parking infraction. I could only conclude that verifiable facts, truth, and context, have no relevance in enforcing law in Schoolcraft County, by those born with the "Wisdom of Solomon" and not a care for the due process for which they are paid.
Subsequent to various documented city and county officials' criminal acts, Michigan's 93rd District Court accepted Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Hollenbeck's baseless verbal claim that the case was not about relevant property issues and jurisdiction, but about a traffic ticket on a public highway, and fined Burns $100, including court costs.
My understanding of the legal ploy of "Fetch the stick.", as it applies to Burn's historical road issues, is the reprehensible legal tactic of beating down a victim of a corrupted legal or political process by using a continuous and changing barrage of contrived and irrelevent legal procedures and/or claims, with the sole purpose of wearing down the target of that barrage, by leading the victim to try to disprove each new false claim, individually, instead of focussing on the basic false premise that belies all the false claims and claimants, at once.
As I understand Burns' case, all he need do, at his pending trial, is ask his tormentors for the legal documentation, of a lawful process, whereby the private property he, and others, own by recorded title, is either owned by a government entity or that the private property he parked on became a public road i.a.w. MCL 221.20a-h, or some government entity acquired jurisdiction over the property by seperate contracts with the individual owners. From my perspective, without lawful ownership of, or lawful jurisdiction over the road, by some government entity, all charges against Burns are false, and criminal in nature, and any jury should understand that.
The following simple english definition describes a significant part of what took place on 10/29/07, the peaceful opposition to which earned Alfred Burns a felony charge, or misdemeanor, depending what content of the "Peoples'" charge applies.
"forcible entry n. the crime of taking possession of a house or other structure, or land by the use of physical force or serious threats against the occupants. This can include breaking windows, doors, or using terror to gain entry, as well as forcing the occupants out by threat or violence after having come in peacefully."
It is unconscionable to defend a series of crimes by public officials, committed at the expense of the victim, by victimizing the victim further, with a fabricated charge of assaulting-resisting-obstructing-whatever, the "law" enforcement personnel facilitating the seizure of private property of the victim by intimidation and force, under the color of law. It does not take a lawyer to know that, just a civilized human being. It takes nothing but a chimpanzee to be unconcerned.
Prosecutor Hollenbeck's choice to file and pursue a vindictive and deceptive case against Burns does not justify the City of Manistique, and its agents, stealing a road right of way from Burns, and others, to replace the public property they allowed Manistique Rentals Inc. and Manistique Area Schools, to seize and convert. In historical context, there is far more reason for me to believe that the trumped-up charge against Burns is an inappropriate favor for owners of Manistique Rentals Inc., than a legitimate charge against Burns.
There is no justification for, or substantiation of, claims of various local and state officials, that through some form of unspecified legal legerdemain, title and/or jurisdiction to a 1/2 mile strip of private property from Wilson Street to Tannery Road was, somehow, transferred to the City of Manistique, creating a public road, because Manistique City Attorney Filoramo says so, contrary to the details of two court decisions, and a ream of public documents and legislation. From my perspective, there is nothing but gross criminal misconduct by those whose sworn duties are to uphold and enforce state and federal laws, sanctioned by an amoral, cowardly, or politically motivated electorate that fosters illegal and predatory behavior in its community.
According to Golat's incident report, he helped the City of Manistique to steal and convert more of Alfred Burns' property, because he chose to believe deliberate unsubstantiated misrepresentations of Manistique City Attorney Filoramo, over the recorded legal documents that Burns had with him, when he was arrested. This situation is what Schoolcraft County Hollenbeck dismisses as a "civil matter", in Par. 6 of his "People's Answer to "Defendants Statement of Facts"" regarding the circumstances of Burns defense of his private property that resulted in allegations against him for blocking traffic on a public road and assault/resisting a Michigan State Police trooper.
Why the equivalent of armed robbery by public officials is a civil matter, only God and corrupt public officials know. Why an individual's defense of his private property, property rights, and due process is a criminal matter, only God and corrupt public officials know. Why seizure of public rights of ways property by Manistique Area Schools and Manistique Rentals Inc. is lawful desirable behavior, only God and corrupt public officials know. No one but Burns and I care enough to ask, "Why?".
The following was submitted by Alfred Burns to the 93rd District Court, as transcribed, below:
Defendant' Written Statement, Submitted at the Scheduled Pre-Trial Hearing of 12/17/07, for the 93rd District Court Case # 2007000245, Regarding a Cited Felony Charge, based upon Unspecified Allegations Unknown to the Defendant. Michigan State Police Officer's Violations of Various State and Federal Statutes Designed to Ensure the Defendant's Constitutional Rights as Described in the Constitutions of the State of Michigan and the United States of America After years of documented attempts to motivate various local, state, and federal officials to act in accordance with, and enforce a variety of statutes regarding property rights and due process, the defendant was forced to defend his rights, personally, under the legal theory of self-defense, for the following reasons, and others documented over a period of seven years. 1. Local and State police officers intentionally trespassed upon defendant's private property, 10/29/07. 2. Manistique City Attorney John Filoramo, representing the interests of the City of Manistique, trespassed on defendant's private property pursuant to "joint trespass", "trespass on the case", "trespass to chattels", "trespass to land", "trespass to title", "trespass from the beginning". 3. Police officers, by way of unlawful trespass, conducted a search of plaintiff's private property, without a search warrant, violating defendant's constitutional rights expressed in the State and Federal Constitutions. 4. Defendant used his "right of self defense" to peacefully resist police officers' attempts to seize defendant's private vehicle, and remove it and defendant from defendant's land, so that the City of Manistique could seize and pave more of defendant's land in direct violation of various state and federal statutes, and in violation of defendant's constitutional rights expressed in the State and Federal Constitutions. 5. A Michigan State police officer arrested and seized defendant, restraining defendant from stopping the subsequent City of Manistique's criminal trespass upon defendant's private property and the consequential criminal damage to defendant's private property. 6. As a direct result of police officers' unlawfull actions, the City of Manistique was able to criminally trespass upon defendant's private property and cause further criminal damage to defendant's private property. 7. As a consequence of the Defendant's attempt to defend his private property from further historical and unlawful seizure and conversion by the City of Manistique, he was arrested and imprisoned, unlawfully. On 10/29/07, a Michigan State Police officer, Rick VanEffen, arrested defendant and immediately transported him to the Schoolcraft County Sheriff Department for subsequent booking and fingerprinting. No hearing before any court to determine probable cause was ever afforded the defendant, therefore violating the Defendant's right to due process described by Michigan state law and the State and Federal Constitutions. To this date, over 6 weeks later, beyond an unsubstantiated cited felony charge, the defendant is completely unaware of what he is alleged to have done to earn a trial for a charged felony offence punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both.The following was "The Peoples'" answer to Burns statement of facts, quoted above:
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 11th CIRCUIT COURT FOR SCHOOLCRAFT COUNTY PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, vs Case No. 07-10-207-SM ALFRED JAMES BURNS, SR. Defendant, Peter J. Hollenbeck P26450 Schoolcraft County Prosecutor 300 Walnut Street, Room 209 Manistique, MI 49854 Tel. 906-341-3691 Alfred James Burns, Sr. In Pro Per 7059W Tannery Rd. Manistique, MI 49854 Tel. 906-341-6350 PEOPLE'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S "STATEMENT OF FACTS" (and in opposition to any motion to dismiss or quash filed) The People hereby give answer to Defendant's "Statement of Facts" as follows: 1. With reference to Defendant's paragraph #1, the People deny same, and affirmatively assert that no search warrant was required in that the Defendant was arrested on a highway or street, as defined by Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, MCL 257.20, regardless of who is the titled owner of the property upon which that highway rests; the Defendant could have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the property on which he was arrested, the location was outside the curtilage of the Defendant's residence and was in an area of "open view", for purposes of a search warrant; People v Smith 420 MI (1984); People v Smola 174 MA 220 (1988); Florida v Riley 109 S Ct 643 (1989), Oliver v U.S. 466 US 170, 104 S Ct 1735, 80 LEd2d 214 (1984); US v Dunn 480 US 294, 107 S Ct 1134, 94LE2d 326 (1987); Katz y_U5 386 US 347, 88 S Ct 507, 19 LE2d 576 (1962). 2. That with regard to Defendant's paragraph 2, the People neither admit nor deny, said allegation being irrelevant to the criminal charge now pending; 3. That with regard to Defendant's paragraph 3, the People deny same and affirmatively assert no unlawful trespass occurred, no unlawful search or seizure occurred, nor was a search warrant required, for the reasons stated in paragraph one (1); 4. That with regard to Defendant's paragraph 4, the People deny same, and affirmatively assert, as it relates to MCL 750.8Id (1), and 750.92, the Defendant has no right to resist a police officer who he knew, or had reason to know, was performing his duties. See CJI2d 13.1, and People vs Ventura 262 MA 370 (2004); 5. With regard to Defendant's paragraph 5, the People deny same, and affirmatively assert that the Defendant was lawfully arrested for attempting to resist lawful authority of the Trooper who was seeking to remove the Defendant's vehicle from the highway or street, pursuant to MCL 257.672, .673, which vehicle the Defendant had purposely left there; the Defendant was repeatedly given the opportunity to move the offending vehicle and when a wrecker was summoned to remove it, the Defendant tried to prevent the towing, specifically indicating that he wanted to be arrested; the Defendant attempted to resist or oppose the trooper, he was arrested for that offense committed in the trooper's presence; and the Defendant was properly arrested, without a warrant, pursuant to MCL 764.15; 6. With regard to Defendant's paragraph 6, the People deny same, and affirmatively assert that if the Defendant's property was in some way damaged, he has had various civil remedies to prevent such damage, and continues to have civil remedies, if, in fact, compensable "damage" has occurred to property owned by the Defendant. 7. A. That with regard to Defendant's paragraph 7, the first paragraph thereof, the People deny same, for the reasons asserted in paragraphs one (1) through six (6) above. B. With regard to Defendant's paragraph 7, second paragraph thereof, the People deny same, and affirmatively assert that the Defendant, following his arrest, was immediately afforded bail, consistent with State law, including MCL 765.1, et seq., once finger- printing/processing was accomplished; C. That with regard to Defendant's paragraph 7, third paragraph thereof, the People deny same, and affirmatively assert that the Defendant is not charged with a felony offense, in this case, and never was, instead he was arrested for attempted resisting on October 29, 2007, as indicated on the citation ticket issued him and on the interim bond form the Defendant signed on that date, and on October 31, 2007 a complaint was filed with the Court charging the misdemeanor offense of attempted resisting and opposing a police officer, contrary to MCL 750.81d(l) and MCL 750.92; the Defendant was arraigned in District Court on that misdemeanor charge; according to Court records, on October 31, 2007, the Defendant pled not guilty to the misdemeanor of attempted resisting and opposing a police officer. Wherefore, the People request that this Court, after any hearing that may be required in this matter, where a motion to dismiss or quash the complaint is considered, that same be denied, in so much as the Defendant's constitutional and statutory rights have not been violated by his warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor committed in the trooper's presence on the street or highway known as the Lakeside Road. Dated: January 3, 2008 Respectfully Submitted, Peter J. Hollenbeck P26450 Schoolcraft County Prosecutor CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I certify that on the 3rd day of January, 2008, a copy of this document was served upon the Defendant by ordinary mail addressed as indicated above. Robin A. Barker, Legal SecretaryMy understanding of "The People's" answer to Alfred Burns, filed by Schoolcraft County Prosecutor, Peter Hollenbeck, based upon the historical and documented context of my related web pages, is one of disgust and disbelief. From my perspective, either Hollenbeck, or Burns, are gross liars, assuming that both have an obligation to deal with the historical facts relevant to an ongoing property and due process dispute, and neither have a legal option to lie, at will.
As I have witnessed, or been an active participant in many of the related incidents, I have more than a passing familiarity with who is likely to be the liar of record. It is interesting to note, that in 2000, when I first came to understand the background of Burns' property dispute presented to Manistique City Council, Burns told me that Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Hollenbeck told him, years before, that the City of Manistique's trespass upon, and consequential gradual seizure and conversion of his property, "Sounds like a civil matter, to me." I did not believe Burns, at the time. Almost two decades later, as indicated in Par. 6. of the "People's Response", I have documented reason to believe Burns, as Hollenbeck states that opinion, and intends to pursue his fabricated felony charge against Burns, based upon that opinion, and petitions the court to ignore any attempt by Burns to dismiss or quash the felony charge. "...(and in opposition to any motion to dismiss or quash filed)"
12/25/07
I spent a less than merry Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, trying to draft the contents of a comprehensive witness affidavit regarding Burns' actions during the continuation of the "Lakeside" road property dispute I witnessed on 10/27/07. The draft is of my statement, as I witnessed and understand the events to date, for better or worse, essentially as quoted below:
"1. I have no vested family, political, monetary, social, fraternal, economic, religious, or any other interest in testifying on the behalf of Alfred Burns Sr., beyond the evident self-interest in promoting lawful and civilized behavior among the residents of the community and country in which I live. 2. On 12/17/07, after six weeks of failed efforts to determine the reasons for Alfred Burn's arrest, that I witnessed on 10/29/07, I became aware that Burns was arrested because a Michigan State Police trooper, Rick VanEffen, was advised, at the scene of the incident, by the Manistique Public Safety Director, Ken Golat, "...that the City had an ongoing problem with ALFRED BURNS believing that a portion of the roadway on Lakeside Street was his property and at this time was attempting to block the city from paving the street." 3. Within the context of my knowledge and understanding, for more than seven years, CITY OF MANISTIQUE officials have "an ongoing problem", choosing to believe and act, contrary to law, as if that part of a road it calls "Lakeside Road" is city property, including that part of the road that exists outside of the city limits, and crosses Burns' property. 4. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, Manistique Public Safety Director, Ken Golat, chose to enforce the City's unlawful and unsubstantiated claim, with a reasonable person's knowledge and understanding, that it was far more likely that the City of Manistique was acting in a criminal manner, than Alfred Burns. Consequently, I conclude that he was motivated to enforce the City's will for political reasons, and not lawful reasons. 5. Since witnessing a road related complaint brought by Alfred Burns before the Manistique City Council, on August 7 and 21, 2000, I have used a significant part of my life to document the events and circumstances, and my evolving understanding, of many associated issues concerning a road crossing Alfred Burns property. 6. I have published, since 2000, on the Internet, my well documented and referenced understanding of the history of the "Lakeside" road issues known to me, at: http://www.manistique.org/quarry.html 7. At the Manistique City Council meeting of 08/07/00, I heard Manistique City Manager Housler and Manistique City Attorney Filoramo admit their long term knowledge of Mr. Burns' claim against the City concerning a road on his property. 8. At the Manistique City Council meeting of 08/21/00, I deduced, from statements at that meeting, made by City Manager Housler and City Attorney Filoramo, that the City did not own the road, and had no more right to, or jurisdiction over, the road right-of-way than any other member of the public that used it. At that meeting, the City Attorney's unsubstantiated claim emphasized the history of the road as a public right-of-way for more than 10 years, that justified the City's position that it would take the property from Mr. Burns, in court. 9. Within the period of 08/21/00, to 12/25/07, I have made requests for, or about, the legal documents that indicate some government entity has gained legal ownership of, or jurisdiction over, the road and real property upon which Alfred Burns was arrested. Those requests were addressed to various government officials, verbally or in print, in private and public, with or without F.O.I.A. requests, in City Hall, at City Council meetings, of the Manistique Area School Board, of Schoolcraft County Road Commission personnel, of the Schoolcraft County Board of Commissioners, of M.D.O.T. personnel, of the Michigan Attorney General's Office, and the U.S.D.O.J. 10. Subsequent to my requests, or inquiries, I never received or saw a legal document, or copy thereof, that indicated any government entity ever acquired, or took the first lawful step to acquire legal ownership of, or jurisdiction over, any part of the approximately 1/2 mile of road that extended from the City of Manistique's Main Street right-of- way to Schoolcraft County's Tannery Road, including that part of the road that crosses Alfred Burns' private property, outside of the corporate limits of the City of Manistique. 11. From 08/21/00 until 12/24/07, I have documented Alfred Burns' failed attempts to motivate various local, state, and federal government officials to act according to various state and federal laws, and to enforce various state and federal laws, regarding road ownership and jurisdiction, property rights, and due process. 12. On 10/29/07, I witnessed and photographed Alfred Burns' failed effort to prevent the City of Manistique from trespassing, seizing, and paving more of HIS property. During that failed attempt to protect HIS property, I witnessed Alfred Burns coerced, by armed police, to remove his car parked upon what I understand to be HIS property, and, at that same approximate time, I witnessed his arrest, and removal from the incident site, by a Michigan State Trooper. 13. Within the context of my extensive knowledge, and understanding, regarding the road issues and circumstances, at no time have I ever had a substantiated reason to suspect, believe, or know that Alfred Burns ever intended to commit, or committed, a crime regarding those issues and circumstances surrounding the road across his property. 14. Within the context of my extensive knowledge and understanding, regarding the road issues and circumstances, I have substantiated reasons to believe that various local, state and federal officials have committed a variety of crimes, regarding a deliberate and unlawful process to deprive Alfred Burns of his property, property rights, and due process, including the use of armed police that were aware of, and understood, Burns' substantiated claims regarding the violation of his property and due process rights. 15. It is my understanding that a complaint was filed by a Michigan State trooper, that states, falsely, Alfred Burns acted "contrary to law". Regarding all the issues surrounding the road, it is my understanding that Alfred Burns acted consistent with law, within the context of the public record and local officials' knowledge of the details and history of the City of Manistique's false and unsubstantiated claim to the road upon which the incident of 10/29/07 took place. 16. To summarize this statement, within the context of Burns' knowledge and actions, that I know of, understand, and/or witnessed, and within the context of my personal knowledge and understanding, I believe that Burns, on 10/29/07, did nothing other than exercise his legal right to defend his property, property rights, and rights of due process, that had been denied him, deliberately, by local, state and federal officials, from 2000 until 10/29/07, the continued denial of which led to the subsequent criminal trespass, seizure and conversion of more of Burns property, on 10/29/07, by the City of Manistique, and its agents, using, unlawfully, the coercive force of armed police to achieve the political goals of local government officials, in their attempt to steal from Alfred Burns, and other private property owners, a road to replace that which they allowed Manistique Area Schools and Manistique Rentals Inc., to seize and convert to their own purposes."
My statement did not include my awareness that Director Golat requested assistance, from the Michigan State Police, because Burns was "...blocking the roadway." of a road that the City of Manistique had closed to the public; meaning that Burns' was not impeading public traffic, but only trying to block the City of Manistique's agents from stealing and converting more of his property. My statement did not include my later awareness that there is a law that allows a disabled Burns, with "disabled" plates on his vehicle, to park that vehicle on a roadway, legally. My statement did not include information about my attendance at Burns' "parking ticket" hearing, before 93rd District Court Judge Luoma, began by Prosecutor Hollenbeck's extensive opening statement claiming that the hearing was not about property issues, but about a parking infraction!
12/18/07
On 12/05/07, after wasting more of my life, again, with telephone attempts to find a warm body at the U.S. Department of Justice, that was willing to admit they had received, "lost", or filed in a trash can, my formal certified mailed complaint received 08/27/07 by a U.S.D.O.J. stamp named "Ernest L. Parker", I decided to give the Marquette F.B.I. office a call.
Over a month ago, Burns had tried to coax some interest from that federal law enforcement agency, and had been told, in so many words, that violation of constitutional rights, and associated federal and state laws was no concern of theirs, and he should hire a lawyer. After Burns' failure to generate anything more than a "It ain't in our jurisdiction. We ain't interested. We don't care. Get a lawyer." response, I had considered, at that time, to repeat his effort, but decided against it because, after several failed efforts, I thought I might have found someone at the U.S.D.O.J. that might provide me some assurance that there is some federal agency with the responsibility to enforce federal laws designed to ensure constitutional and civil rights. I was wrong.
Yesterday, in another failed attempt to locate someone, with responsibility for action, regarding my received 08/27/07 certified mailed complaint to the U.S.D.O.J., the circle of bureaucratic buck passing ended, once again, at the voice mail of a mysterious, absent, and possibly brain-dead, "Jenny Graves", whom I would have cheerfully vaporized, along with her voicemail device, had I a "Remote Vaporizer" function built into my computer.
After my wasted calls to "Jenny Graves", my telephone call to the Marquette, Michigan, F.B.I. office turned out to be somewhat more successful than Burn's previous attempt, only because I had learned by Burn's recounted failure to elicit any constructive response with his calls. In the face of determined attempts by two F.B.I. employees to tell me that none of the Lakeside Road issues are within the the F.B.I.'s jurisdiction, I maintained my position that I wanted to know the requirements for filing a written complaint, that required a written response, based upon my understanding and documentation. I stated that what had taken place was the equivalent of deliberate armed robbery by the City of Manistique, and denial of the robbery victim's rights of due process and property, under color of law, sanctioned by numerous government officials from the City of Manistique, to the State of Michigan.
Only after holding my position against the two nay-sayers, in the context of my documented claims and implication, that whether the F.B.I. liked it, or not, the issues were criminal, and not civil in nature, and that I would file a written complaint, did Agent Clint finally relent and provide the information that I requested, from him and his boss.
To paraphrase Clint's eventual answer to my inquiry, "Yes, Petey, after all our evasion and resistance to your request, if you file a written complaint with us, we must forward it to the U.S. Attorney's office, who will then determine if there is sufficient criminal substance to warrant legal action." No guarantees were given or implied that another documented complaint, sent by certified mail, would not become lost in the landfill of corrupt bureaucratic options.
The major difference between a written complaint to the Marquette office of the F.B.I., and previous similar complaints to the Michigan Department of Transportation, Michigan Attorney General's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, is it will not disappear into a bureaucratic black hole of ineptitude, apathy and corruption, in a distant galaxy beyond the reach of wretched mortals living among the cedar swamps of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. If a local complaint to a local office of the F.B.I. disappears into a bureaucratic black hole in my local galaxy, it means that Burns and I can afford, if necessary, to inquire, in person, at both the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorney's "local" offices located in Marquette, some 90 miles away, instead of having to deal with the long distance evasion and deceit of faceless bureaucrats insulated by the knowledge that their jobs and paychecks are secure, regardless of what they do, or not.
First, some court action was necessary. Some six weeks after I witnessed Burns arraigned before Schoolcraft County's 93 District Court Judge Luoma, on 10/31/07, for an offense stated by the judge to be a misdemeanor charge, Burns and I finally got to read, on 12/17/07, the actual complaint, and the "subtantiating" details of the complaint, that neither Burns nor I had seen for the past six weeks, and which did not exist in the 93rd District Court's record on 12/13/07, when I requested to read the allegations and subsequent charge.
After I read the details, I had some serious doubts about the charge being a misdemeanor since the written charge document cites a specific law that clearly defines part of the the charged offense(s), as a felony, with up to 2 years in prison and a $2,000 fine, or both. What takes precedence? Is it a misdemeanor charge as Judge Luoma stated during Burns' arraignment, or is it a felony charge? A cited law, within the complaint document, clearly identify Burns' alleged "crime" as a felony. That complaint was filed by one who was no part of the incident I witnessed on 10/29/07, a Michigan State Trooper Giannunzio.
There is little doubt, in my mind, that Burns resisted the unlawful coersion of law enforcement officers to remove him and his vehicle from his private property, so that the City of Manistique could seize and convert more of his property. Given all the knowlegable witnesses, and participants, with vested interests in the incident, I have little doubt that most knew and understood why Burns resisted the attempts of the City of Manistique to remove him from his property.
There is no doubt, in my mind, that Burns did fail in the perpetration or commission of his intent to defend his property and legal rights, that no one else cared about. The failure of his intentions was evident when the City of Manistique had him arrested, and subsequently trespassed, seized, and paved a new ~3 feet wide slice of his property.
I witnessed the Mayor of Manistique watching the incident, and talking with various public safety folk, including the Director of Public Safety, prior to Burn's arrest. I know that Mayor Peterson, like Director Golat, knew the details of Burn's public battle with Manistique City officials, if, for no other reason than both were present at most Manistique City Council meetings at which Burns and I spoke of the issues.
As I have said before, nothing in this saga of corrupt public policy is accidental, or done in ignorance. From my detailed and substantiated perception, it is done due to gross stupidity and/or malice.
Why Mayor Peterson did not keep his distance from the police action, as I did, I do not know. As the mayor of Manistique, he chose to involve himself in a police "criminal law enforcement" matter, in which he had no reason to participate, beyond the obvious political reasons to see Burns' property seized and Burns silenced.
I speculate that, to me, given my historical knowledge of the issues, and the nature of the officials involved, it was likely that Mayor Peterson was "coaching" the captain of "his team", Director of Manistique Public Safety, Ken Golat, with the likely goal of limiting the City's liability by having Burns arrested and removed from his property, by a Michigan State Trooper, relatively naive and ignorant of the history of City officials' deceit and unlawful behavior, regarding the road.
I find it difficult to accept that a State Trooper, and County Prosecutor, would, knowingly, have any part of the stinking political mess created by local political hacks, if they had a reasonable understanding of the situation. Then again, I find it hard to accept that the various knowledgeable public officials involved still try to maintain their fiction with a criminal trial, of an innocent person, instead of pursuing those now squatting on, or converting, public property they seized from the City!
By the complaint, and context, I infer that it is either a felony or misdemeanor charge, with the intent to convict, or coerce a plea, from one that is innocent of the charge, who cannot afford competent professional legal councel, and who made it his business to inform everyone, in public, of the legal nature and basis for his claims and action. It strikes me, again, that what I have witnessed to date, should be part of a novel describing life in some Third World country. In his own country, a citizen of the U.S.A. is forced to confront armed men, and their masters, all of whom have sworn to enforce the laws of the State of Michigan, and the rights enumerated in the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions, as they apply to the interests of the victim, citizen Burns.
Kafka would be proud of the evident pretzel bureacratic logic used to deny the protection of the law due Burns, as City of Manistique officials continued in there efforts to deceive everyone, and seize more of Burns' property, while forcing him to defend himself and his property from those sworn to protect him and his property! Meanwhile, folks representing Manistique Area Schools and Manistique Rentals Inc., among others, are laughing as they continue to profit from their seizure and conversion of adjacent public city streets rights-of-ways property! Strange days, indeed.
A complaint that alleges nothing more than Alfred Burns committed a crime. I defy anyone to tell me,
from Burns' "arraignment" and this "complaint", what Burns did that qualified as "probable cause",
or a crime. It could be you, or your family member, next.
I defy any reasonable person to read this public record "Register of Actions" and conclude that
Burns is much better than a baby raper. It could be you, or your family member, next.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.81d Assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, opposing person performing duty; felony; penalty; other violations; consecutive terms; definitions. Sec. 81d. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. ... History: Add. 2002, Act 266, Eff. July 15, 2002 ;- - Am. 2006, Act 517, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 2006 © 2007 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.92 Attempt to commit crime. Sec. 92. Attempt to commit crime—Any person who shall attempt to commit an offense prohibited by law, and in such attempt shall do any act towards the commission of such offense, but shall fail in the perpetration, or shall be intercepted or prevented in the execution of the same, when no express provision is made by law for the punishment of such attempt, shall be punished as follows: ... 3. If the offense so attempted to be committed is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term less than 5 years, or imprisonment in the county jail or by fine, the offender convicted of such attempt shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or reformatory not more than 2 years or in any county jail not more than 1 year or by a fine not to exceed 1,000 dollars; but in no case shall the imprisonment exceed 1/2 of the greatest punishment which might have been inflicted if the offense so attempted had been committed. History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.92 © 2007 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Lakeside Road incident report
Note the statement from Golat that "... the City had an ongoing problem with Alfred Burns believing that a portion of the roadway on lakeside street was his property..." To the best of my knowledge, the City owns no part of the road that crosses Burns' property, and has never produced a legal title, survey, or any other proof of legal ownership of, or jurisdiction over, the road, for over seven years that I know of. Golat knows that, because he has been present at just about every Manistique City Council meeting that Burns and I have asked for them. I conclude Golat represents his masters interests, and not the interests of the victim he has the responsibility to protect.
From my perspective, the irrefutable evidence and public record indicates, clearly, that Manistique City officials have an ongoing problem, believing that they can deceive, steal and convert private property, with impunity, including that part of 1/2 mile of road that crosses Alfred Burns' property.
The incident report mentions nothing of Burns extensive effort to explain to Manistique Public Safety officers, and showing his legal documents of property ownership and explaining to the Michigan State trooper, before he was arrested, booked and housed at the Schoolcraft County jail. As I have said before, there is nothing about this continued series of events that is not layered in obvious and serious deceit.
I can only wonder how much of the conversation, at the site of the incident, between Director of Public Safety, Ken Golat, and, in the truck, Manistique Mayor, Dave Peterson, Golat's ex-boss and ex-Director of Manistique Public Safety, influenced the content of the incident report and the subsequent complaint filed with the court.
Burns shows a Michigan state trooper the legal documents that prove his ownership of the property they stand on, then he is arrested for committing a crime.
There was no intent to commit a crime, and no crime committed, as Burns tries to save three more feet of his private property.
The consequences differ markedly, between a misdemeanor and felony, running from ?, to two years of hard time with "Bubba", and a $2,000 fine. The difference is significant to Burns, who, to this date, has been little more than a reluctant whipping boy for those that refused to enforce a ream of legislation designed to prevent the abuse heaped on him, and who, to this date, is the only one involved with this mess that I would consider innocent of any crime.
I do not know why the Schoolcraft County prosecutor sanctioned a felony assault charge filed by a Michigan State Police trooper, regarding the incident of 10/29/07, documented in these pages. From my perspective, Burns was arrested, booked, and charged with a felony offense, because he had no reasonable choice but to resort to his right of self defense, and defend his property, with his body, because every one else, from the Manistique City Council, to the U.S. Department of Justice, refused, deliberately, to do their respective jobs and enforce the well established relevant legislation they had the responsibility to enforce.
If a crime requires intent, who are the criminals? If it is a crime to ignore or break laws, for those whose sworn responsibility it is to enforce laws, before and after citizens are victimized, then who are the criminals? When a citizen has to resort to unarmed physical confrontation with armed men because others with the responsibility to care, do not, then who are the criminals?
A documented loose conspiracy of various public officials now have Burns' old and scrawny butt in a sling, greased and ready for his pending bunk-buddy, "Bubba", in some yet to be identified prison. But, before Bubba gets his turn, it is the responsibility of Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Hollenbeck to substantiate the Michigan State Troopers' charge of a felony or misdemeanor and to substantiate the City of Manistique's claims of ownership and jurisdiction over land owned by local residents. It is now time for various public officials to prove their claimed jurisdiction over a road that the city has never admitted to having made the first statutory legal effort to acquire.
Either Burns had no legal right to defend his property, and property rights, and intended to commit a crime for some unidentified ill conceived gain, or the criminals are those well informed local, state, and federal officials that refused to enforce state and federal laws to defend Burns and his property and due process rights.
It appears that the road and land ownership issue must be dealt with in trial court, as it is the basis for Burn's resistance to years of official abuse, including the current cited felony "assault" charge against him. Public officials must prove the legal viability of their claims that the City owns approximately 1/2 mile of paved road, by court decision, or by some other legal process they have refused to disclose, since 2000, that I am aware of.
If the Schoolcraft County Prosecutor chooses to pursue the charge in court, I suspect that he will have to prove that the City of Manistique's claimed ownership of, and jurisdiction over, Burn's property is legitimate, and by implication its ownership of all of ~1/2 mile of paved road. If it cannot prove ownership and jurisdiction over Burns property, it cannot prove ownership or jurisdiction over the rest of the road.
Law, or mysticism, will prevail. If law prevails, Bubba will be disappointed, and, hopefully, Burns will be made whole, in the civilized sense. If mysticism prevails, Burns might be "Bubba's" new playmate.
10/29/07
At the last Manistique City Council meeting I attended, City Manager Aldrich stated that the "Lakeside Road", would be paved November 8, 2007. It appears that the paving contractor has a different view of the schedule. Yesterday, I was told that Al Burns Jr. had spoken to a Payne and Dolan employee, recently, and was told that the paving of the north end of the road would commence Monday, October 29. The employee was made aware that the painted lines on the existing road pavement represented a good approximation of the boundaries of Al Burns' private property.
Had Burns acted upon the false publicized date from City Mnager Aldrich, more of his property would have been seized and paved, while he was absent, in exactly the same manner as the last time. I doubt that it was a coincidence, given the deliberate deception that I have documented since 2000.
I took some photographs of the north end of the road, yesterday, and was told by a local resident, Thomas St.Pierre, that he was glad to see the road paved. I told him that I was glad that he was glad. He then told me that Burns' property did not extend under the road. I then asked him if he had a certified survey that substantiated his claim. He did not answer my question. He then claimed that Burns' claims were too late. I then told him that he had not paid attention. The conversation ended.
It took a great deal of self-control to remain civil to someone that had no problem excusing and sanctioning the theft and conversion of his neighbor's property.
Below, an STS Consultant's map of apparent fiction with a good estimate of what property belongs to Burns, marked in violet, based upon his recorded deeds, and those of others. The S.W. corner of the orange pavement markings in the photo, above, correspond with the S.W. corner of Burns' property as described in his deed, and as he marked in violet on the STS Consultant' map. The hand written writing and lines are Burn's work on the STS Consultants' drawing. That STS drawing represents falsely, to the best of Burns' and my knowledge, the western boundary of Burns' property, and the eastern boundary of the City of Manistique, and consequently, the location of a constantly shifting roadway known as Lakeside Road. Other drawings authored by STS Consultants, included on this web page, represent similar apparent deliberate deception.
The City of Manistique and STS Consultants have never produced a certified survey of the adjacent Manistique city limit line, or the roadway outside of the city limits, known as the Lakeside Road, contrary to the documented claims made in public record Circuit Court transcripts and Manistique City Council minutes, and the requirements of Michigan law. Regarding the numerous F.O.I.A. requests that Burns and I have filed, the City of Manistique, Manistique Township, the County of Schoolcraft, STS Consultants, and the Michigan Department of Transportation have never produced a legal document that gave any entity jurisdiction over the property described in the recorded deed of Al Burns. To the best of my knowledge, beyond Al Burns, no one, representing any public interest in the contested property, has taken the first legal step to obtain legal owner ship of, or jurisdiction over, most of the roadway as Lakeside Road.
To the best of my knowledge, every public record representation of jurisdiction that I am aware of, other than Burns', is little more than deliberate and transparent deception.
10/29/07, 10:26 - Schoolcraft County road known as Lakeside Rd. closed to public traffic, so that the City of Manistique could pave that road over private property, over which it has no legal jurisdiction or ownership.
10/29/07, 06:47 - As the "Lakeside Road" was closed to the public, for paving, Burns posted his property and parked his vehicle on it.
10/29/07, 06:55 - A Manistique Public Safety policeman showed up.
10/29/07, 07:35 - Al Burns, Manistique Public Safety, Michigan State Police and the Mayor of Manistique wait for a decision to be made.
10/29/07, 08:11:08 - Burn's refused to accept the ticket and allow his vehicle be towed from his own property, without a warrant. He resisted the use, by unknown persons, of state and local police power to enforce the continued unlawful taking, conversion and denial of use of his property.
10/29/07, 08:11:48 - Al Burns Sr. was arrested by an officer of the Michigan State Police.
10/29/07, 11:46 - Private property, seized, modified and paved by the City of Manistique using state, federal and local funding, acquired with deliberate false claims, qualifications and pretenses, as described in detail, below.
10/29/07, 12:30 ...
10/30/07
Late this morning, Al Burns stopped by to discuss his current perspective of the predicament he found himself dealing with the consequences of his decision to resist the unlawful taking and conversion of his property. He was as depressed as I have ever seen him, considering facing prosecution and a one year prison term for resisting a police officer, in an attempt to assert the denied ownership of his property, in a peaceful manner. He told me that for most of his 67 years of life, he had believed in the law, but now realized, in the closing years of his life, that the concept and enforcement of law was more the empty promises of confidence men and women, than it was a reality.
At the time he arrived at my house, I was editing some of the language of my current web update, concerning the circumstances of his arrest, and, pointing to what I had on the screen, he stated "That just convicted me." That statement almost knocked me out of my chair, with a rush of subsequent guilt.
Recovering a degree of self-confidence, I pointed out, that in the context of what had happened to date, and the wholesale deceit involved, it would be more difficult for anyone to make of his action any more than civil disobedience regarding his refusal to accept the false legitimacy of the seizure and conversion of his property by the City of Manistique, contrary to the details of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court Decision, File # 00-3048-NZ, Pages 30-31, Para. 4.
Judge Charles Stark's words from the court transcript:
"... therefore we have a highway by use. Now, this does not -- A highway by use does not give the City the right or the jurisdiction or the title to the roadway. It doesn't give it to the state. It is an easement that is directed at the public at large that it has become a public highway. And Mr. Burns would continue to own whatever property he does to whatever description he can establish, but that it -- wherever that line may be is subject to this overarching easement for public use. In other words, Mr. Burns may use that area of the property as long a it's not in derogation of the public's use and right to -- to traverse that -- that property."
By no stretch of the imagination is the City of Manistique's seizure, grading, and paving of Burns' property, carried out under the gun barrels of armed men, synonymous with "traverse". That is what Burns resisted, and I witnessed and documented, here.
The City of Manistique had already closed the road to the public, to widen and pave it, with no legal ownership or jurisdiction over it, repeating what it had done following Judge Stark's decision, in 2000. 10/29/07 was a good time to take a stand, as the City had chosen to deny the public's right to traverse the road while it widened and paved it, and, consequentially, deny Al Burns the right to use more of his property.
If one looks at the photographs, above, any concerns for public safety were completely bogus, considering that all the vehicles, other than Burns', created far more of a hazard and blockage to traffic on a closed road, than Burns' vehicle. While I witnessed the documented obscene use of "law" enforcement, I watched two huge asphalt hauling tractor trailer combinations thread their way around the vehicles.
There was only one reason to arrest Burns. He, and his vehicle, had to be removed from his property, so that the City of Manistique could pave it. Had he left, when asked, it would have been de facto acceptance of the right of the city to steal and convert his property, using its police powers to enforce its will. I witnessed Burns' courage, confidence and civil behavior in the face of psychological and physical coercion by armed police, to deprive him of his legal rights and property.
Burns did not resist a Michigan State trooper's "lawful authority" as a consequence of being given a civilized and lawful choice. After seven years of serious resistance to the continued seizure and conversion of his property, that he had started decades ago, within his remaining lifetime Burns had no civilized, or lawful choice, without substantial financial resources to bet against the deep tax funded pockets and conspiracy of deceit, of those that stole and converted his property.
Within our limited awareness, over seven years of documented government wrong-doing, at multiple levels, had convinced he and I that hocking his soul to hire legal representation was a poor bet, assuming that he could find and afford a qualified attorney to represent him. Michigan state government sanction of documented unlawful official behavior, from Michigan State Governor Jennifer Granholm's office, down, supported by almost limitless tax paid legal resources and liability insurance, coupled with the lack of official accountability and the conspiracy of perjury, deceit and relative silence behind which all were hiding, made any option to hire legal help an open invitation to the poor house, from which it was very unlikely he would leave.
Add the fact that many of his abusers were collecting paychecks to abuse him, and had mortgage payments, health bills, car payments, etc., meant that no one was likely to risk losing their positions or employment, and the good life, if they could lie, with impunity, to retain their tax paid booty. From my perspective, short of picking up a gun, and forfeiting his remaining life to motivate future civilized behavior, Burns had no other likely effective option.
Burns was told, by an armed man with the authority to use his weapon, to remove himself, and his vehicle, from his property, so that the City of Manistique could commence with the unlawful grading and paving of that property it had seized from him. His choice was to resist, or not, the unlawful taking and conversion of his property, by those that chose armed men to do their bidding to achieve their goal.
Burns denied his approval and acceptance of the false claims of the City of Manistique, the State of Michigan, STS Consultants, and others, to take and modify his property, and deny him due process, under the color of law. I suspect that in other times, and similar circumstances, when the religious belief in the rule of law was non-existent, some relative innocent would have died. This time, Burns was the victim of an unlawful confidence game, that he came to understand, completely, before he visited me, this morning.
Burns was carrying no weapon, but those that served at the whim of government were men with guns, enforcing that whim.
With no qualified legal representation that I am aware of, Burns arraignment is scheduled for 0930, 10/31/07, at the Schoolcraft County Courthouse.
I visited Burns at his residence, this afternoon, to make sure that our difference of opinion, this morning, would not get in the way of pursuing our mutual interests, together. With his prior black mood set aside, he assured me that he realized that as long as I stuck to substantiated fact based editorial writing, it was highly unlikely that I would do him any harm, and, in the face of the conspiracy of official deceit and unsubstantiated claims he had to deal with, it was far more likely that my documentation would help him, rather than hurt him.
In a lighter mood, he mentioned that he had passed the S.U.V. of Manistique City Manager Sheila Aldrich, on Maple Street, today, and all he could see was a toothy smile. I could only wish, to myself, that she had crashed and burned, at that happy moment.
10/31/07
Regarding his resistance to the incident of the unlawful and forceful seizure and conversion of his property, by the City of Manistique, documented above; this morning, Burns stood before 93rd Judicial District Court Judge Luoma. The judge read one charge against Burns; filed by Schoolcraft County Prosecutor, Peter Hollenbeck. The charge alleges that Burns unlawfully resisted, or attempted to resist, the legal authority of a Michigan State Police officer, a misdemeanor, the conviction of which could be punishment of up to one year in jail. The judge then spoke of certain legal rights due Burns, and requested Burns sign an "advice of rights" form.
Subsequently, after baring his financial soul to the judge, Burns learned that, because he did not qualify as indigent, he must pay for a professional legal representative. Then, given the choice of pleading or not, Burns chose to plead not guilty, and requested a jury trial, which the judge granted.
Shortly thereafter, the arraignment proceedings completed, I exchanged a few word with Burns in the courthouse lobby. His mood was markedly changed from yesterday morning. To paraphrase him, with a painful grin on his face, "It mighta been worse. At last I get the jury trial I requested, seven years ago."
11/01/07
There has been more than one spark of humor in this painful continuing saga of human nature vs. the law, that I have kept silent about, deliberately. It is my awareness of the anonymous entities that have downloaded the content of my web pages, from the U.S. Department of Justice, to the Michigan Department of Transportation, to WLUC-TV. Of particular interest to me, over the past six months, has been the obvious, sometimes daily concerns of those associated with the likes of this address:
Michigan State Government DMB Office of Information Technology Lewis Cass Bldg Lansing MI 48933 United States EXT-DNS1.STATE.MI.US EXT-DNS2.STATE.MI.USRegarding the quoted address, I assume that Burns and I, paying dearly to do the homework of those that are paid well to lie about theirs, have generated more than a little unofficial official concern, or interest. If the visits mean nothing else, they provide a record that indicates that what has been done by State of Michigan officials was not accidental, or done in ignorance. A trial by jury will allow full documentation of a process by which Burns was forced to risk his life, health, and welfare to resist a deliberate official procedure to deprive him of his legal rights, and property, contrary to a ream of quotable legislation.
As far as I am concerned, if laws are unenforceable, or those with the responsibility to follow or enforce the laws may choose to do otherwise, based on little more than personal whim, then the rule of law becomes little more than a wishful myth, and, to one degree or another, human nature will assure that violence and anarchy will prevail. The recent histories of places like Rhwanda, Bosnia, Iraq and Darfour, provide graphic illustrations of extreme cause and effect, without having to consider the potential consequences of similar local policies that incite and encourage consideration of similar lawless behavior.
Under the documented circumstances, Burns' chose to take a civilized stand against those that stole his property, denied him his civil rights and due process, and then enforced their will with a gun, after ignoring or perverting the words and spirit of the law to meet their personal ends.
11/03/07
This morning, after browsing the online edition of the Escanaba Daily Press at:
http://www.dailypress.net/stories/articles.asp?articleID=14708
I was prompted to reflect upon the following statements attributed to Manistique City Manager Sheila Aldrich. Needless to say, there is more to the article than Aldrich's quoted statements, and I encourage the reader to visit the site and consider the details, in the context of the quote from Judge Stark's 2000 decision, above, and the consequences of the mounting pile of deceit built upon the explicit and implicit false claim of City of Manistique officials, that the city owns the road "Lakeside Road", outside of the city limits.
The first question that I considered was... "Who is the liar; Manistique City Manager Aldrich, or 11th Judicial Circuit Court Judge, Charles Stark? The second question I considered was when did a road outside of the city limits become the reserved city street named Lakeside Road, referred to in Manistique's 1959 deed to Miller, as recognized in the Michigan Court of Appeals decision, in 2001? The third question I considered was when did the philosophy of "The ends justify the means." become the cardinal rule of a supposed "democratic" government based upon the sanctity of individual rights and the rule of law? The fourth question I considered was who was served by a newspaper article that quoted only one side of a serious dispute?
Manistique City Manager, Sheila Aldrich, was quoted as saying:
"Burns has maintained that a portion of the Lakeside Road runs through his property, and that the city has no right to improve the road. “The Lakeside Road is listed by the Michigan Department of Transportation as being in the city’s inventory of Major Streets,” said Manistique City Manager Sheila Aldrich, “which means the city not only has the right to maintain and improve the road, but the obligation.”" “The whole purpose in improving the Lakeside road from a gravel surface to asphalt is for the safety of our kids. That road is the main bus artery for the new Emerald Elementary School, which is going to open next week, Aldrich said. “The location of the road is a non-issue. The courts have ruled, and we are following that ruling.”Since Burns' side of the dispute wasn't expressed, I spoke for him in an editorial letter to the Press. I appreciate the newspaper's choice to publish the letter in their online edition, because there was no "Attaboy!" for anyone, other than Burns.
Letter: City doesn’t own disputed road EDITOR: Regarding the Daily Press page 1A news story of Nov. 2 titled “Man arrested in road battle with city,” it appeared, to me that the “man,” Alfred Burns, was not interviewed or quoted for the article. What follows is my view of the issues, referred to in that article, by City Manager Sheila Aldrich, City Manager Aldrich’s quoted statements were little more than than a pack of lies, and in the context of an influential local newspaper reporting a one- sided argument from a voice of authority, hired to know better, the report was seriously biased. To the best of my knowledge, having enough detailed documents and knowledge of the issues to write a doctoral treatise concerning local government anarchy, what the reporter failed to state was at no time has the city of Manistique ever produced any legal document that granted it ownership or jurisdiction over the property, and at no time has the city of Manistique ever taken the first step to acquire such jurisdiction or ownership of the property, in the legal manner described by law. Regarding some similar road-related disputes surrounding a road adjacent to Wal-Mart that I watched change from a two track to a paved city street, there is the crucial and distinct difference that the city of Escanaba is stated to have followed an offer, with a legal condemnation, and payment process, while the city of Manistique just stole and paved the contested property, and lied continuously about its right to do so. Reduced to its essence, I witnessed Alfred Burns arrested for resisting, peacefully, the deprivation of his property and Constitutional rights, by armed men under the color of law. Peter Markham, Manistique ——— EDITOR’S NOTE — Our page 1A story of Nov. 2 included the following quote from Manistique City Manager Sheila Aldrich: “The location of the road is a non-issue. The courts have ruled, and we are following that ruling.”
The statement by Aldrich, that "The location of the road is a non-issue." is a self evident statement with the sole purpose of obfuscating the theft and conversion of private property, by the City of Manistique. Regarding her disingenuous statement, the issue is the location of city streets, reserved by the city, referred to in various deeds, that exist within the city limits of Manistique, adjacent to the property that the city seized. With no need to acquire property for a public road, those streets, owned by the city, make the theft, or condemnation, of anyone's property below the road, totally unnecessary and illegal, and make Aldrich little more than a paid predator using public funds to defend the theft and conversion of Burns', and others' property.
Regarding Aldrich's following statement, "The courts have ruled, and we are following that ruling." I cannot start to imagine how the dismissal of Burns' suit for damages, based upon what I consider to be little more than perjury by Manistique employees, and hired lawyers, gave the City of Manistique the right to seize and convert private property. The judges involved may not have been perfect, but they were not morons, as Aldrich, City Council, and City Attorney Filoramo would have all believe. The courts did not rule that the City of Manistique had the right to steal and convert property, for any reason.
Aldrich makes Pinnochio the fountain of truth.
As I wrote earlier, there is more to the article than Aldrich's statement, and the reader is encouraged to visit http://www.dailypress.net/stories/articles.asp?articleID=14708 for more details.
Some related Daily Press stories, of a similar nature, may be found at the following addresses, with the distinct difference that the City of Escanaba is stated to have followed an offer, condemnation, and payment process, while the City of Manistique just stole and paved the contested property, and lied continously about its right to do so.
http://www.dailypress.net/stories/articles.asp?articleID=14708
http://www.dailypress.net/stories/articles.asp?articleID=14704
11/06/07
Today, Al Burns mailed the following letter to all the federal legislators from the state of Michigan, and to the President and Vice President of the United States.
"Dear ...,
I am writing to you, to ask you directly, if my
new found revelations are, in fact, true. If
they are, please tell me, so I can continue my
life with the knowledge I should of have learned
sixty years ago.
I have a parcel of real estate that I have had
clear title to for the last 37 years. About
1995, the City of Manistique started to widen a
dirt road so that it encroached upon this
property. Although I have protested this action
on many occasions, including a circuit court
action, I now have a blacktop road that
encroaches upon my property, by some seventy
feet. (Please see the enclosed map)
The City of Manistique, Manistique Township,
Schoolcraft County, and the State of Michigan
have never offered to buy the property. They
have never proceeded with condemnation actions.
They have never taken any court action, or in
any manner attempted to acquire legal
jurisdiction or title to any of the property
upon which they built a paved road.
I have, of course, had my property surveyed,
staked, and mapped by a licensed surveyor.
According to my deed and survey, no-one has
ever acquired right, title, or jurisdiction
over any part of this property.
The actions over some past two decades, taken
by the City of Manistique, Manistique Township,
Schoolcraft County, and the State of Michigan,
have, in fact, been in direct violation of
several state and federal laws, and a circuit
court decision. If you are not aware of these
laws, I would be happy to mail copies to you.
These actions have violated several of my
constitutionally guaranteed rights, under both
the Constitution of the State of Michigan and
the Constitution of the United States. There is
absolutely no doubt that I can prove ownership
of this property. There is absolutely no doubt
that no government entity has ever gained lawful
jurisdiction over, or title to, any part of this
property upon which a paved road now exists.
There is no doubt that I have resisted the
gradual seizure of my property, to the best of
my ability and resources, for several decades,
with a real risk to the health and welfare of
my family and I.
I would appreciate, very much, if you would
provide me with truthful answers to the
following questions.
1. If the laws of the State of Michigan, or the
laws of the United States, are enforced against
individual citizens of the State of Michigan
and the United States, but are not enforced
against government entities and their employees,
do the laws mean anything or are they based on
nothing more than lies and propaganda? Can a
law, that no one will enforce, actually exist?
2. Do the constitutions of the United States,
and of the State of Michigan, have any meaning,
whatsoever? Certain rights are given to all
citizens in both constitutions, but if these
rights are not enforced, do they actually exist?
A granted right cannot exist, if the grantee is
not willing to enforce it.
3. Were the the provisions of the Constitution
of the United States, and the Constitution of
the State of Michigan, written to build a
country, based upon nothing more than lies,
deceit and propaganda?
4. Have I spent my entire life believing in a
way of life, taught to my children and I, that
does not exist? Are the principles of a form of
government designed to protect and foster
individual rights, little more than decoration
on toilet paper?
Constitution of the State of Michigan
Article 1, Declaration of Rights, Subsection 1,
Political Power:
Section 1. All political power is inherent in
the people. Government is instituted for their
equal benefit, security and protection.
All governmental entities, from the city, to
the county, to the state, to the federal,
including the F.B.I., have provided me with
absolutely no benefit, no security, and no
protection, against the illegal actions taken
against me.
Subsection 2, Equal Protection; Discrimination:
Section 2. No person shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws; nor shall any person be
denied the enjoyment of his civil or political
rights or be discriminated against in the
exercise thereof because of religion, race,
color or national origin. The legislature shall
implement this section by appropriate
legislation.
Subsection 9, Slavery and Involuntary Servitude:
Section 9. Neither slavery, nor involuntary
servitude unless for the punishment of crime,
shall ever be tolerated in this state.
Sincerely,
Alfred J. Burns"
"Slavery. 1. A situation in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.
Servitude. 1. An encumbrance consisting in a right to the limited use of a piece of land without possessory interest in it; a charge or burden on an estate for another's benefit."
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition.
It is quite obvious that the Manistique community, by its default silence, supports the concepts of slavery and unlawful servitude.
10/06/07
Today, Alfred Burns received the following response to his complaint filed with the State of Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. From a philosophical and legal perspective, it is terrifying, to me, to understand that the Commission's worthless response represents a de facto approval of the documented State of Michigan Attorney General Office's sanction of property theft and conversion, and the denial of due process, under color of law. In his own way, Burns understands, as I do.
"
State of Michigan
Attorney Grievance Commission
MARQUETTE BUILDING
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3259
TELEPHONE (313) 961 -6585
FAX (313) 961-5819
WWW.AGCMI.COM
MICHAEL MURRAY ROBERT L. AGACINSKI
CHAIRPERSON GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD B. POLING, JR. ROBERT E. EDICK
VICE-CHAIRPERSON DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
MARTHA D.MOORE CYNTHIA C. BULLINGTON
SECRETARY ASSISTANT DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR
MEMBERS ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
RUSSELL E. MOHNEY, M.D. WENDY A.NEELEY
KENT J. VANA RUTHANN STEVENS
KAREN M. DUNNE WOODSIDE STEPHEN P. VELLA
DAVID L. PORTEOUS PATRICK K.McGLINN
PASTOR DEBORAH L. BUTLER FRANCES A. ROSINSKI
JAN A. BRANDON EMILY A. DOWNEY
KIMBERLY L. UHURU
NANCY R.ALBERTS
DINA P. DAJANI
RHONDA SPENCER POZEHL
JAMES W. METZ
NANCY J. WESTVELD
October 4, 2007
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Alfred J. Burns
7059 W. Tannery Rd.
Manistique, MI 49854
RE: Correspondence Received October 2, 2007
Dear Mr. Burns:
The allegations you have made are not subject to
review by this agency. The agency will not act
as a substitute for the court's jurisdiction. If
you believe that a criminal act has occurred,
and the agency you have approached to address
this issue has not responded adequately to your
concerns, you will need to seek redress through
the court system. If you have not already done
so, I suggest you consult with an attorney who
can advise you of your options.
Very truly yours,
Ruthann Stevens
Senior Associate Counsel
RUS/cmr
"
09/27/07
It has been almost five weeks since I mailed my formal complaint to the U.S. Dept. of Justice. I hope the silence is due to some serious consideration, by a qualified and ethically motivated lawyer who will provide, at least, some coherent, logical, and relevant substantiation to justify what can be described as little more than an apparent conspiracy of local and state officials to steal property for Michigan roads rights-of-ways.
As Burns and I have little to no reason to expect any degree of justice, from any government official, without making ourselves thoroughly disagreeable to all concerned, I helped Burns to file a complaint against Assistant Michigan Attorney General, Stacy Erwin-Oakes. Our experience with this complaint will provide the basis to file a similar complaint against Manistique City Attorney, John Filoramo, of Olsen, Filoramo and McNamara, P.C., Law Offices.
Attorney Grievance Commission
MARQUETTE BUILDING
243 W. CONGRESS, SUITE 256
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3259
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ATTORNEY:
Re:
Stacey L. Erwin-Oakes, Mi. Asst. Atty. General
425 W. Ottawa
Lansing, MI 48913
517-373-0626
Date attorney was hired/Appointed: July 2007
Type of case(divorce, criminal, probate, etc.):
Civil
Have you ever previously submitted a Request
for Investigation to our office about this
attorney? If yes, When? No
STATEMENT OF FACTS (Please be specific. You may
attach additional pages if necessary.)
Ms. Erwin-Oakes was assigned to handle a
complaint I filed with the Michigan Attorney
General Office, concerning violations of state
law, civil rights, and th