Appendix — Hoy v. Mentor Township Township, Michigan (No. 09-121)

Supreme Court, U.S

ih at U.S.

“an y 09-121 Afr: : 2009

\r

No. OFFICE OF ‘THE: CLE RS

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Gene Hoy,

Petitioner

vi

MENTOR TOWNSHIP,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

APPENDIX I!

Gene Hoy

2586 Stitt Road,

In Propria Persona

P.O. Box 491

Mio, Michigan 48647

989-826-6025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Order of Mich. Supreme Court, Jan. 27,2009....... pl

Order of Mich. Supreme Court, Sept. 22, 2008.....p2

Order of Mich. Court of Appeals, July 3, 2008......63

Order, Oscoda County Circuit Crt., Jan 25, 2008.p4

Order, Oscoda County Circuit Crt.,

TS EN eg ie ee ea eieeceeewinkesuniwcdes ee)

Pgs. 7 and 8 of the STATEMENT OF KENNETH M

DONOHUE, Inspector General, Dept. of Housing

And Urban Development — Before the

Committee On Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal

Financial Management, Government

Information, and International Security, United

States Senate JUNE 29, 2006............ ccc cccccee econ ps

Wyckoff Letter to Office of Federal Grants........ pl3

Wyckoff’s response to FOIA requeist...............4. p15

Part of Appendix D - HUD’s CDBG Proarain....... p17

Part of Utility Authority Audit...................... 00.008 ply

Minutes of Mentor Township Board of Trustees for

NE a Naas cs ceveuws es ciecuneeucecsarabeaeel wie p21

Newspaper clipping — Oscoda County Herald,

A RN I BE ssn en ab vacdiws avadcrenseinesses p24

Newspaper clipping — O. C. Herald, Feb, 2002...p28

Statement of Harald E. Sprowl, Feb. 27, 2007.....630

Order of Oct. 17, 2008 in McNeil case.............. p34

DHD No. 2 HOLD HARMLESS STATEMENT........... 137

DHD No. 2 Spl. Construction requirements or

Additional comments for Permit #68-4694...... p38

AEDs er PN CI UT FA Owe vn ca ccicccesisces cesescvevescsss D4]

i Lscaanaavevaneeies p43

Black’s Bill of Pains and Penalties..................... p45

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

January 27, 2009

136941 (21)

MENTOR TOWNSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

V SC: 136941

COA: 283469

Oscoda CC: 06-004028-CE

Gene Hoy,

Defendant-Appellant,

And

FLASKA PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendant.

/

On order of the Court, the motion for

reconsideration of this Court's September 22, 2008

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it

does not appear that the order was entered

erroneously.

|, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan

Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true

and complete copy of the order entered at the

direction of the Court.

January 27, 2009 (signature)

Clerk

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

September 22, 2008

136941 & (15)(16)}(17)

MENTOR TOWNSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

S.C.: 13694]

Vv COA: 283469

Oscoda CC: 06-004028-CE

Gene Hoy,

Defendant-Appellant,

And

FLASKA PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendant.

/

On order of the Court, the motion for

immediate consideration is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the July 3, 2008

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it

is DENIED, De cause we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this

Court. The motion for stay and motion for

miscellaneous relief are DENIED.

|, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme

Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and

complete copy of the order entered at the

direction of the Court.

September 22, 2008 (signature)

Clerk

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

(names of

judges)

Mentor Township v Flaska Properties LLC

Docket No. 283469

LC No. 06-004028-CE

The Court orders that the application for leave

to appeal is DENIED for lack of merit in the grounds

presented.

A true copy entered and certified by Sandra

Schultz Mengel, Chief Clerk, on

Jul 3 2008 (signature)

Date Chief Clerk

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF

OSCODA

MENTOR TOWNSHIP,

a Michigan Municipal corporation,

Plaintiff,

V File No. 06-004028-CE

FLASKA PROPERTIES, LLC, JOHN WERNLY,

CHARLES GALBRAITH, CLYDE MCINTIRE,

JODY SHEPARD, GENE HOY, RONALD HOY,

HAROLD SPROWL, and KATHLEEN SPROWL,

Defendants.

/

GERARD F. BRABANT, P.C.

By: Gerard F. Brabant P31123

Attorney for Plaintiff

241 Lake Street, P.O.Box 35

Roscommon, MI 48653

(989) 275-4365

ORDER

At a session of said Court

Held in the courthouse in Mio,

Oscoda County, State of Michigan,

On the 25'" day of January, 2008.

PRESENT: HONORABLE RONALD M. BERGERON,

Circuif Court Judge

This matter having come before the Court on

Defendant Gene Hoy'’'s Motion to Set Aside the

Order and the Court having reviewed the file and

heard argument of Defendant and Plaintiff's

Counsel, NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Gene Hoy's motion

is denied as frivolous.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any subpoenas issued

by Defendant for January 14, 2008, the hearing

date of his motion are quashed, and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gene Hoy

shall pay costs of Two Hundred Fiffy and No/100

($250.00) Dollars to the Law Office of Gerard F.

Brabant, P.C. on or before February 13, 2008.

Date of order: 25'» January 2008 (signature)

Honorable Ronald

M. Bergeron

Circuit Court Judge

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF

OSCODA

MENTOR TOWNSHIP,

A Michigan Municipal Corporation

Plaintiff,

V File No. 06-004028-CE

FLASKA PROPERTIES, LLC, JOHN WERNLY

CHARLES GALBRAITH, CLYDE MCINTIRE,

JODY SHEPARD, GENE HOY, RONALD HOY,

HAROLD SPROWL and KATHLEEN SPROWL

Defendants.

/

GERARD F. BRABANT, P.C.

By: Gerard F. Brabant P31123

Attorney for Plaintiff

241 Lake Street, P.O. Box 35

Roscommon, MI 48653

(989) 275-4365

aoe ode /

Ata session of said Court held in the

Courthouse in the Village of Roscommon,

Roscommon County, State of Michigan,

On the 215’ day of September, 2007.

PRESENT: HONORABLE RONALD M. BERGERON,

Circuit Court Judge

This matter having come before the Court on

Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Judgment and the

Court having heard argument from Plaintiff's

counsel and certain Defendants and otherwise

being fully informed in the premises.

ITIS ORDERED that Plaintiff's representatives,

agents or contractors may enter upon the lands of

Defendants Gene Hoy and Flaska Properties LLC

on or after November 1, 2007 for the purpose of

constructing connections to the Big Creek-Mentor

Utility Authority's public sanitary sewer system.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT

Defendants Gene Hoy and Flaska Properties LLC

may install an alternative waste system pursuant to

MCL 333.127.57 or make satisfactory arrangements

with Plaintiff for the connection to the sanitary

sewer system prior to November 1, 2007.

[note: next lines hand-written in by judge]

R.M.B.

R.M.B. The objection that was filed is frivolous.

Date of order: 21 September 2007 (Signature)

Honorable Ronald

M. Bergeron

Circuit Court Judge

(Comment: Your Petitioner was not present. ]

STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. DONOHUE

INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

UNITED STATES SENATE

JUNE 29, 2006

Grantees have sufficient capacity to successfuily

participate in its programs. We found that CPD

has management controls to minimize the risk that

grantees and sub-grantees lacking capacity

receive funding, however, unverified assumptions,

incomplete and outdated guidance, and limited

on-site monitoring undermine these controls.

Therefore, Management controls are not sufficient

to provide reasonable assurance that grantees

have the capacity to participate in CPD's

programs.

| have seen the success of active monitoring

efforts with “monitors” used by the Lower

Manhattan Development Corporation in

preventing waste and fraud in post-9/11 rebuilding

activities and | have testified previously to this

effective concept for use in disaster relief efforts in

the Gulf States.

Common fraud Schemes in the CDBG Program:

A review of HUD OIG investigative activities snow

that there are, in general, five major fraudulent

types of schemes affecting the CDBG program:

making false claims for funds; soliciting/receiving

bribes or kickbacks, procurement or contracting

rigging; theft or embezzlement; and public

corruption. The following cases are examples of

eacn:

A. False Claims. A former employee embezzled

nearly $160,000 from the East Saint Louis

Community Development, a non-profit

organization funded by CDBG. False vendor

numbers and invoices were created to receive

checks for services and materials never provided.

The employee, utilizing her personal checking

account, deposited and spent the fictitious

vendor payments.

B. Soliciting Bribes/Kickbacks. Two former City of

Rochester, New York rehabilitation specialists were

sentenced for bribery. They had solicited

“kickbacks” from contractors in exchange for City

of Rochester rehabilitation contracts funded by

CDBG.

In another case, the Mayor of Chicopee,

Massachusetts, extorted campaign contributions

from a developer with the promise he would

intercede on the developer's behalf in a planned

economic development project, while promising

the developer that his towing Company would

continue to have city contracts.

C. Procurement and Contracting. Two senior civic

leaders of Springfield, Massachusetts, together

with a real estate developer, and a builder were

convicted for steering CDBG funds to renovate

bars owned by the civic leaders.

In another case, a wrecking company admitted

using another wrecking company as a “front

company" to satisfy the HUD-funded St. Louis

Community Development Authority's (CDA)

regulations relating to minority business

participation in the renovation of old St. Louis City

Hospital. The wrecking company funneled payroli

checks through the second one to make it appear

as if a minority contractor was involved in the St.

Louis City Hospital project, as certified to CDA.

(end of pa. 7, start pg. 8]

D. Theft or Embezzlement. A New York Rabbi was

charged in federal court with misappropriating

$700,000 in federal grant money. The Rabbi,

president and director of a jewish day scnool in

Brooklyn, received an EDI grant from HUD. He

misrepresented to HUD that the entire grant

amount would be used to pay off a mortgage on

a building to house educational and therapeutic

programs for disabled preschool children. In

addition to the $700,000 grant, the school

received over $2.7 million in other EDI grants from

HUD for FYs 1999, 2001, and 2002.

10

The criminal complaint stated that the Rabbi

diverted funds to several individuals and entities

that were not entitled to the funds. For example,

$300,000 was diverted to a corporation in which

the Rabbi's son-in-law was an officer and $80,000

was diverted to a variety of other rabbis and

schools and organizations in Brooklyn. Another

$78,000 in checks were made payable to the

Rabbi.

Another example is where a federal employee

fraudulently obtained lower Manhattan

Development Corp (LMDC) grant funds after sub-

letting and relocating from a LMDC qualified

apartment. LMDC, a HUD-funded non-profit, was

created to assist in the revitalization of lower

Manhattan afier the September 2001 terrorist

attacks.

In a further exampie, the president and chief

executive officer of Save Our Children Community

Project (SOCC), a HUD-funded non-profit

corporation, transferred federal grant money from

SOCC to his personal account, wrote checks from

his personal account to another individual who

was the former Program Administrator for HIV

Services in the Arkansas Department of Health,

and fabricated invoices and other documents to

hide the money transfers and personal checks to

the other individual.

E. Public Corruption. Every year HUD OIG

develops successful cases against elected officials

who use tneir offices for personal or political gain.

1]

The former Mayor and direcior of the East

Cleveland, Ohio, Department of Community

development (ECDCD), a HUD funded

organization, was convicted for, among other

things, soliciting and receiving bribes, kickbacks

and secret payoffs through intermediaries using

HUD funds as a “carrot” for contractor bribes.

The City of Springfield, Massachusetts, was

especially hard hit by public corruption. In the

past several years, a number of officials including

the Public Housing Authority director, and the

directors of at least two CDBG funded non-profit

or public agencies, have been indicted and/or

convicted of crimes that run the gamut, including

conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government,

obstruction of justice, extortion, mail fraud, theft of

honest services, false statements, perjury, criminal

contempt, filing false federal income tax returns,

and witness tampering.

CDBG Reform/Proposed Legislation:

We strongly endorse efforts to improve

performance and accountability within the CDBG

program and applaud proposed changes by the

Assistant Secretary, but we are concerned

[end of pg. 8]

(Source: Testimony before Senate Comittees

obtained by a federal representative's office]

(Purpose: To show this to be a NATIONWIDE

PROBLEM.]

[stamped] RECEIVED

Apr 30 1993

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

OFFICE OF FEDERAL GRANTS

Dick Pastula

Office of federal Grants

Michigan Department of Commerce

P.O. Box 30225, 5'> Floor Law Building

Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Mr. Pastula:

Attached is the application for Mentor Township

for funding under the Rebuild Michigan Initiative.

This application describes a joint project with Big

Creek Township to construct a waste water

collection system for the unincorporated village of

Mio. The village has a critical problem with existing

septic systems which threatens private wells and

the AuSable River. Many of the existing septic

systems are inadequate or have failed resulting in

nitrate contamination being documented by the

Michigan Department of Public Health and some

commercial owners being forced to close or use

expensive pump and hau! operations.

The proposed project will assist residents of Mio

and the township, who are primarily low and

moderate income, by providing safe waste water

collection and maintenance and expansion of

employment opportunities.

We are hopeful you will view our proposal

favorably.

Sincerely,

(signature)

Gary Wyckoff

Township Supervisor

[Source: Letter in USDA files.]

[Purpose: Show what the Mentor Township

Supervisor is on record as claiming.]

[Comment: This should be read together with 18

USC 666 and maybe other sections of title 18 and

some of the next pages here.]

14

BIG CREEK/MENTOR UTILITY AUTHORITY

P.O. BOX 99

MIO, MI. 48447-0099

(989) 826-8750

May 13, 2008

Gene Hoy

2586 Stitt road

Mio, MI 48647

Q: Documents showing critical needs for the

sewer system by 1993...and

A: Unknown

Q: Documents showing the low-income/low

interest luans that are or were in effect for the

connection.

A: Personal information.

Q: Documents supporting your determination that

critical needs exist(ed). If none existed, please

state so in writing.

A: Unknown

Q: Documents reporting instances of raw sewage

entering a “structure” in the BC/M sewer

district.

A: Unknown.

Q: Documents reporting instances of saw sewage

entering houses in what became tne BC/M

sewer district PRIOR to the existence of the

sewer system. If none exist, please state so in

Writing.

A: Unknown

Q: Copies of contracts between either Mentor -

Township and Gene Hoy or between your

sewer authority and Gene Hoy where Gene

Hoy agrees to connect to the BC/M sewer

system. If none exist, please state so in writing.

A: None

Gary Wyckoff

BC/MUA

(signature)

(Source: “Response” to FOIA request from G.

Wyckoff, Supervisor Mentor Township and

Chairman of BC/M Utility Board]

(Purpose: To show a lack of contract for the

“services,” the cooperation in proving low-income

loans’ existence, and what Mr. Wyckoff knew by

May 2008. ]

(Comment: This is for real.]

16

[Part of Appendix D — a guide fo users]

States are free to use this definition as interpretive

guidance.

Special Assessment to Recover Capital Costs

Where CDBG funds are used to pay all or part of

the cost of a public improvement, special!

assessments may only be used to recover capital

costs as follows:

Restriction on levying a special assessment fo

recover CDBG funds:

Special assessments to recover the CDBG funds

may be made only against properties not owned

and occupied by L/M income persons. When

assessments are levied against non-L/M income

property owners, the proceeds are CDBG

program income.

Special assessments to recover non-CDBG funds:

Special assessments to recover the non-CDBG

funded cost of the public improvement may be

made, provided that CDBG funds are used to pay

the special assessments on behalf of all properties

owned and occupied by L/M income persons:

except that CDBG funds need not be used to pay

the special assessments on behalf of properties

owned and occupied by moderate-income

persons if the grant recipient certifies that it does

not have sufficient CDBG funds to pay the

17

assessments on behalf of all of the L,M income

owner-occupants. Funds recovered through such

special assessments are not CDBG program

income. Reference: Section 104(b)(5) of the

HCDA

[Source: HUD’s information for users of its

Community Development Block Grant Program.]

(Purpose: To show some of the rules the townships

contracted to follow.]

[Comment: The certification could not be

obtained but it can be proven to have existed

since there are no figures for moderate income

persons for any of the years in question. A better

copy of this may be found on HUD'’s web site or in

the original Appendix]

[Part of Page 7 of audit]

BIG CREEK — MENTOR UTILITY AUTHORITY

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1995

NOTE 2 - CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS

(Continued)

Funding for these projects is detailed below:

Sewer

Project

Community Development Block Grant:

Big Creek Township $ 409,500

Mentor Township 400,000

Michigan Dept. of Public Health

Grant [all went to “Water project”

Which | can't fit into this format]

U.S. Department of Agriculture —

Farmers Home Administration:

Loan 2,000,000

Grant 4, 000,000

Project totals $ 6,809,500

Future construction costs are as follows:

Total anticipated project costs $ 6,809,500

Costs incurred as of March 31, 1995 465,913

Future costs $ 6,343,587

NOTE 3 — FIXED ASSETS — PROPRIETARY FUND

A summary of fixed assets in the proprietary fund

as of March 31, 1995 follows:

Land $ 40,107

Construction in progress — Sewer 425,806

Construction in progress — Water 56,999

Total cost $ 522,912

[Source; Audit of Big Creek/Mentor Sewer

Authority for year ended March 31, 1995]

(Purpose: To show that both townships received

CDBG funds subject to rules in HUD's Appendix D

and to point out the 400,000 that Mentor Township

received to connect low/moderate income

people. It also shows others agree that this is a

proprietary function.]

(Comment: This may not be a very good copy but

it’s the best! can do with this format. Tne water

project is omitted since it would not fif but was not

very relevant anyway.]

20

The regular monthly meeting of the Mentor

Township Board of Trustees was called to order by

Supervisor Wyckoff at 7:300m at the Township Hall

on Jan. 17, 1994.

All members of the Board was present.

Kann/Velten: | move we accept the minutes of

the Dec. 20 meeting as presented. APPROVED.

Treasurer's report was received.

Fire Reports: #1. No incidences.

#2. 1 incidence, a structure fire 4

miles south of Mio, at the old Bea's

Rest. Total loss.

Supervisor informed Board that Steiner's Museum

Comm. Has requested a grant from us. It is a per

capita rate of .10 or $109.80. Discussion regarding

support of the museum led to consensus that we

will not contribute any more to the museum.

Sherwood/Kann: | move we resolve to admend

The Rebuild Michigan Grant to

provide for the acquisition of

property for the sewage

treatment facility. The

admendead budget would be:

Property Acquisition $32,500.00

Construction 357,500.00

Administration 10,000.00

Total 400,000.00

Wyckoff, Kann, Crane,

Sherwood, Velten: yeas

No nays. Resolution APPROVED

Sherwood/Kann: | move we again this year have

an annual meeting, to be held at

the Town Hall on March 26' at

10:00am. APPROVED.

There will be a Public Hearing on March 10', at

the Town Hall regarding water craft use of Mack

Lake. The Hearing will begin at 7:00pm.

Crane/Velten: | move we adopt the proposed

resolution regarding the

establishment of Competitive

Bidding for projects over$20,000

Crane, Kann, Sherwood, Velten,

Wyckoff: yeas

No nays. Resolution ADOPTED (see

Attached)

Velten/Kann: | move we pay the bills as present in

vouchers #4418-4452.

Kann, Velten, Crane, Sherwood,

Wyckoff, yes

None opposed. APPROVED

Meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. Next meeting

02/21/1994

Lee Sherwood, Clerk

(Source: Mich. Dept. of Treasury]

22

[Purpose: To show where the 400,000 in CDBG

grant money went and to show the adoption of

an ordinance requiring sealed competitive

bidding on contracts over $20,000 with the

Township. ]

(Comments: They really “admend” things there.

Also, the 400,000 didn’t connect anyone to their

proprietary sewer system per their contract with

HUD and none was returned — yet. This should be

read along with the previous pages, the next few

pages, and title 18 of the U.S. criminal code. There

is a photocopy in the original Appendix. ]

[Newspaper clipping: The Oscoda County Herald]

Townships

Continued from page la

In 1997 to stop construction of the sewer system.

There are currently 235 people hooked up to

water, which was offered free in 1998. Three

people chose not to hook up. Of 620 potential

sewer customers, just 335 are current users of the

system.

The Big Creek/Mentor Utility authority was

formed in December 1992 for the purpose of

constructing the sewage disposal and water

supply system in the unincorporated village of Mio.

Need for the system was based on a strategic

plan and feasibility study completed in 1992.

A group of Mio residents attempted to stop work

when it filed suit on July 14, 1994. The suit alleged

that the sewer authority misrepresented attitude

surveys, among other items. The suit was dismissed

Oct. 11, 1994, in 23 circuit Court.

FHA contributed $4,365,000, or 71 percent of the

total sewer cost. The Authority borrowed

$2,135,000 on a 40 year note. Annual debt is

$53,375 plus interest, and $140,000 to pay Earth

Tech to maintain the system.

Bohlinger said the authority offered low-interest

loans at the time the sewer was completed to

defer the cost of the $1,500 hookup fee, and 76

low-income residents took advantage of the

project. Low-interest loans for sewer connection

are currently available through the Oscoda

County Housing Commission.

24

Theresa Badgero has lived on Deyarmond Street

in Mio for two years. She is opposed to mandatory

hookups and said people were denied an

opportunity to vote on the issue.

“| personally was not approached,” she said.

We were told you have to accept this. They've

made it so you can't put in a new septic system,

must hook up to a sewer because it’s available.

For a long time they said they would never make if

mandatory. But what it all comes down to, is that

they didn’t give us the time for a referendum.

“And everybody's biggest complaint is that we

were gypped out of a vote.”

Legal notices published in the Oscoda County

Herald alerted residents to a 45-day window in

which they could call for a vote for or against the

district. Bohlinger said no one did and the project

went forward.

“FHA mandated that resolutions be in place by

the authority to force mandatory hookups,”

Bohlinger said. “They didn’t want to invest $4

million only to have a system that was non-

functioning because people didn't want to pay

for it.”

Badgero said the situation is made more difficult

because so many people are already part of the

system.

“They've done it backwards without having an

ordinance in place," she said. They put the cart

before the horse. Now they're scrambling

because a handful of people thought it was a

good idea and are just now finding that the rest of

the township doesn't agree with them.

25

“It's not feasible to close it down. We got it now

whether we want it or not. And whether we can

afford it or not.”

Ed Knauf said the discovery of a lack of an

ordinance to enforce the hookup is just tne latest

round of many mistakes by the townships. He said

that if the township believes it had bad counsel, it

should pursue its bond attorney to recoup

damages to help pay for the system.

“We went to court and we fought because we

felt they were wrong, and we lost.” He said. “Now,

it turns out we were right after all. But what are

you going to do? The system is clready in."

Booth said the people in the district should have

to pay for the system because the townsnip can't

afford it.

"If we had to come up with that money, we

probably could,” he said. “But something would

have to go. It might be road dusting or parks. But

ithas to come from somewhere. This is reality.

Two years from now, the money will not be there

cnd this (system) will become a long-term expense

on our budget.”

Bohlinger was a litfle more blunt. “The bottom

line is that the township is responsible for payment

of the debt." Bohlinger said. “Tney can either

force the hookups for the people who live in the

district, or they can pay for it out of the general

fund. Either way, it has to be paid for."

The township boards will be scheduling special

meetings to discuss the ordinance.

[Source: Local newspaper — The Oscoda County

Herald, Sunday, June 24, 2001]

26

[Purpose ({s):

To show news of low-interest (and therefore low-

income) loans that violate their HUD contract for

CDBG funds. If there were 76 low-interest loans

then, how many are there now?

To show the difference in wills — the public as

opposed to those of local government.

To show that there was a dispute about the

authority misrepresenting attitude surveys.

To show that the general public was lied to about

mandatory connections.

To show that the FmHA/USDA mandated that the

resolutions (mandatory connections) be in place ,

effectively doing indirectly what they couldn't do

directly. This ulso shows the willfulness of the local

government officials by lying about forced

connections {it was premeditated).

To show that Township Supervisor Booth claims

that the townships couldn't afford the bill (so will

dump it onto anyone).

To show that Bohlinger thinks that they might be

able to pay but would rather extort money from

the people than cut spending regardless of the

harm.

And, to show that the people had no say in the

matter, informed or not.]

[Comment: That 335 out of potential 620

“customers” were already connected does NOT

prove that they were willing “customers.” ]

27

[Newspaper clipping — Sunday, Feb. 3, 2002]

Bottom line:

Residents not hooking into sewer system will pay

fine

By Starr Golembieski

Staff Writer

MIO — Big Creek and Mentor townships sent a

letter Feb. 1 to residents mandating nookup into

the Mio sewer district in April.

According to the letter prepared by Big Creek

Township, the township board passed a

watersewer ordinance in September that requires

all premises within 200 feet of the public sewer

main to connect to the Mio sewer district.

Currently, the hookup fee is $1,900 per

Residential Equivalency Unit, but on August 1 the

fee will jump to $2,100.

The letter states residents can finance the

hookup fee over a 30-year period, if they make a

down payment.

Residents receiving the letter will nave 90 days to

connect to the system starting in April. Individuals

who don't comply with the letter will pay a $100

fine for every day past the 90 days.

At a Big Creek Township meeting June 18, Big

Creek/Mentor Utility Authority attorney Gerry

Brabant of Roscommon said the resolution passed

by the township boards prior to construction

wasn't enough to force mandatory hookups to

heip make the system financially solvent.

Mentor Township Clerk lee Sherwood said the

townships took Brabant's advice and crafted an

ordinance which clarified the wording, making it

28

easier to bring litigation against those not hooking

into the system.

lf more Mio residents don’t hook into the system,

authority board member Charles Bohlinger said

the townships are responsible for a debt of about

$200,000.

“If they had to pay $200,000, it would be

staggering.” Bohlinger said. ‘We, the authority,

told the people we wouldn't enforce hookup if

the majority of peopie hooked up. But with about

50 percent of people hooked in we can't survive.”

Big Creek Township Supervisor Randy Booth

admitted in June that he was wrong for telling

people they wouldn't have to connect. Because

of that previous action, Booth said the Feb. | letter

may cause some backlash.

“There is no real way to prepare for it."" Booth

said, “But we can't afford to subsidize the utility

authority. We don't have enough people hooked

in to pay.”

[Source: The Oscoda County Herald, Sunday,

Feb. 3, 2002]

[Purpose: To show the beginnings of the fee run

UDS.

To show the $100 per day threats (RICO?).

To show utility board member Charles Bohlinger’s

flip now claiming he had said they wouldn't force

connections if most people hooked up, and that

he doesn't want the townships to have to pay the

$200,000.

To show that J. Randy Booth admits to promising

peopie that they would not have to connect.]

(Comment: White man speak with forked tongue]

29

[Statement by Harold Sprow]]

February 27, 2007

|, Harold E. Sprowl do hereby swear and affirm,

that if called upon can testify to the following

facts:

1. Tne townships of Big Creek and Mentor,

Oscoda County made application for a

federal grant and loan to construct a sewer

system in Mio to address “a critical problem

with nitrate contamination which can be

documented by the health department.”

2. That there is no documentation of nitrate

contamination at the District Health

Department. This is documented by a

response to questions by health department

employee Doug Getty, a letter from Jessica

Ratcliff from the state Water Quality Division

and a personal inspection of the water testing

results of DHD #2 by then county commissioner

Laura Fairrnan and |.

3. The township officials knowingly

misrepresented a contamination problem to

obtain grant monies for a problem that has

never existed.

4. Each township received four hundred and forty

thousand dollars in grant money to assist low

and moderate income residents with

connection to the system. Officials circulated

30

applications for grant monies to only low

income residents and never provided any

support or funds to moderate income

residents.

5. In 1994,f township officials were informed by

Harry Bruner that because of the grant monies

received, the townships could not charge tap-

in connection fees to low or moderate income

residents and that the terms and conditions of

the grant loan would delete any merition of a

$1,500.00 cannection fee.

6. That the original loan/grant application was

approved to include 512 businesses and

residents which would generate 869 REUs.

(residential equivalency units.

7. |In 1997, officials ignored the conne ztion fee

amendment from 1994 and required

connection fees for the low and moderate

income residents.

8. That in 1997, the scope of the project was

enlarged and now affected 621] business and

residents. This is an increase of 109 residential

properties.

9. Based on each residence generated 1 REU,

the new total should have been 978 REUs but

the new total of REUs was on 871. An increase

of only 2 REUs.

10. Officials reduced the REUs to selected business

3]

12.

13.

owners and passed the costs on to low and

moderate residential property owners.

. Officials responded to a FOIA request for the

minutes which documented the total

reduction of REUs for businesses that they

could not provide the documentation

because they do not have the

documentation.

| have a copy of the minutes of one of the

Utility Authority minutes that reflects the

reduction of REUs for one such business.

Officials mislead residents when they asserted

there would never be mandatory connection

to the system, when in fact, all documents

and the terms and conditions signed by the

townships, required mandatory connection.

. Big Creek Township Supervisor, Randy Booth

phoned me recently and said he was

gathering information regarding the use of

grant funds and asked if | now made more

then the states standard for medium income.

This has no beariny on what | or other affected

residents made in 1996-1997, the dates used to

determine if a person was eligible for

assistance.

. Based on my information and belief, had

officials offered assistance to low/moderate

income residents in 1996-1997 approximately

25-30 percent of the residents would have

32

been eligible. (| have a copy of the assistance

application sent to residents reflecting low

income only)

16. That under Michigan Law, it is a felony for any

person to obtain money under false pretenses.

The above is based on personal knowledge,

information and belief, as well as copies of

minutes and other documentation to attest to the

accuracy of the allegations.

Respectfully,

(signature)

Harold E. Sprowl

P.O. Box 365

200 Fairland Ave.

Mio, MI 48647

(Source: Document created and signed by Mr.

Sprowl.]

[Purpose: To show just what it says — fraud,

problems with FOIA requests, giving the few

business owners who didn't want to fix their drain-

fields a break while dumping costs on low and

moderate income people to pay for the thing.]

(Comment: Some of the numbers may be off a

little but the message is right. The only significant

difference is in no. 15 where the 25-30%

approximation is ‘way low! See the original

Appendix for more.]

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

October 17, 2008

[names of

134437 judges]

KENT A. MCNEIL, FRANKLIN E. FISHER,

ROGER GRIFFIN, SCOTT WAY, and

JEFF LEGATO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

V SC: 134437

COA: 272410

Charlevoix CC: 05-088 120-CZ

CHARLEVOIX COUNTY and NORTHWEST

MICHIGAN COMMUNITY HEALTH

AGENCY,

Defendants-Appellees.

ae /

By order of May 2, 2008, the parties were

directed to file supplemental briefs. On order of

the Court, the supplemental briefs having been

received, the application for leave to appeal the

June 5, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is

again considered, and it is DISMISSED as to those

plaintiffs who lack standing (Franklin E. Fisher, Kent

A. McNeil, and Roger Griffin). The application is

GRANTED as to the remaining parties. The parties

shall consider: (1) whether the local health

department or the county board of

comiiissioners, the entity vested with final

authorization of the regulation, MCL 333.2441(1),

can create aright or a private cause of action

against a private entity that alters Michigan's at-

34

will employment doctrine; (2) whether the right or

private cause of action created by Clean indoor

air Regulation sec. 1001 falls within the exceptions

2t forth in Suchodolski v Michigan Consolidated

Gas Co, 412 Mich 692 (1982), to Michigan's at-will

employment doctrine, and (3) whether the

exceptions to Michigan's employment at-will

doctrine set forth isn Suchodolski on the basis of

‘public policy" are consistent with this Court's

decision in Terrien v Zwit, 467 Mich 56 (2002).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this

case on the January 2009 session calendar for

argument and submission. Appellants’ brief and

appendix must be filed no later than November

24, 2008, and appellees’ brief and appendix, if

appellees choose to submit an appendix, must be

filed no later than December 18, 2008.

The Attorney General, the Michigan Townships

Association, the Michigan Association of Counties

& Michigan Association for Local Public Health,

and Peter C. Venlet, in pro per, are invited to file

briefs amicus curiae, to be filed no later than

December 30, 2008. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issues

presented in this case may move the Court for

permission fo file briefs amicus curiae, with such

briefs to be filed no later than December 30, 2008.

MARKMAN, J., (concurring)

| concur in the order granting leave to appeal.

However, | would direct the parties to also address

35

the issue whether, under relevant legal and

constitutional principles, MCL 333.2441(1) properly

delegates authority to Charlevoix County and the

Northwest Michigan Community Health Agency to

promulgate the regulations at issue in this case.

See, e.g., Taylor v Gate Pharmaceuticals, 468 Mich

1, 1On9 (2003); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of

Michigan v Governor, 422 Mich 1, 51 (1985).

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave

to appeal.

WEAVER, J., would deny leave to appeal

because she is not persuaded that the questions

presented should be reviewed by this Court.

|, Corbin R. Davis, clerk of the Michigan

Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true

and complete copy of the order entered at the

direction of the Court.

October 17, 2008 (signature)

Clerk

[Source: Michigan Court's web site]

[Purpose; To show Steve Markman's comments on

delegating authority in this case for comparison to

the court's response in your Petitioner's case. This

case gol leave to appedi.]

(Conclusion: Since the arguments Markman

requests here were developed in your Petitioner's

case and passed by without any comment, your

Petitioner and others do not believe the court

even read the pleadings.]

36

DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT NO. 2

HOLD HARMLESS STATEMENT

A Hold Harmiess Statement is required by the

Board of Health as a condition for the issuance of

an on-site sewage disposal permit for the Pirana

Aerobic Treatment.

The owners of the property located at 115

Deyarmond., Big Creek Township, Oscoda county,

MI, Tax ID [numbers inked out] agree to the

following: “District Health Department #2 and its

employees and its assignees shall be held harmless

from any liability from any damage or claim

implied or other wise associated with the issuance

of the permit for the sewage disposal system for

this property.”

[victim's signature inked out] Property Owner

Date [inked out]

Signature: : _ DHD#2 EH Supervisor

Douglas Getty Date:

(Source: District Health Department]

[Purpose: Show anotner pari of an

unconscionable adhesion contract]

(Comment: Mr. Doug Getty didn't sign this for

some reason. The victim here didn't volunteer into

this but was forced into it since the monthly bills for

the sewer amount to a bunch of signed checks

they may fill out with no limit and enforce. Equity

should never enforce this, but their circuit court

will.]

37

District Health Department #2

Special construction requirements or additional

comments for Permit #68-4694

Revised 6-29-05

1. Install a Pirana system in a new 1000 gallon

septic tank.

2. Install the Pirana system according to

manufacturer's recommendations. The

installation shall be completed by a certified

installer (Pirana).

3. Sealed and secured risers that extend above

grade shall be used for all entry ports into the

septic tank.

4. Aninspection port shall be installed on two

“infiltrator”’ runs. The inspection ports shall be

set to final grade and have an easily

removable cover.

5. Install an access port between the tank and

header to collect effluent samples.

6. Homeowner shall receive an operation and

maintenance manual as well as a 3-year

warranty for the system from the Pirana

company.

7. For the trench in the oid drainfielad area,

excavate 48" to clean sand. Backfill with new

clean coarse sand to 24" to 30 " below original

grade. Both trenches shall be at the same

level.

8. The infiltrators shall be the standard unit (34" x

75" x 12")

Additional Instructions:

1. Contact DHD#2 for a final inspection.

2. Follow the attached DHD#2 guidelines for the

use of a Pirana Aerobic Treatment System.

3. Recommend homeowners contact their

respective Township authority to notify them of

their choice to use an alternative treatment

system in lieu of connecting to sanitary sewer.

4. Homeowners have been given a copy of

“General Outline for a Plan to Utilize an

Alternative or innovative On-Site Sewage

Disposal System.”

Required Documents:

The following documents must be signed by the

property owner and submitted to DHD#2 prior to

final approval for the permitted sewage disposal

system:

1. Signed variance (DHD#2) for the Pirana

aerobic Treatment System.

2. Hold Harmless Statement

3. Deed Advisory shall be filed with the Oscoda

County Register of Deeds. Documeniation of

the filing of the Deed Advisory shall be

submitted to DHD #2.

4. Signed agreement to notify DHD #2 within 24

hours in the event of any type of system failure

or malfunction that will result in the discharge of

sewage effluent onto the surface of the ground

or into any surface water or ditch OR if use of

the Pirana system is discontinued AND AND

agree to provide DHD#2 with a copy of the

annual manufacturer's inspection report of the

Pirana system, including water samples from a

39

certified laboratory or facility, for a period of

time not less than five (5) years.

[Source: District Health Department]

[Purpose: Show the requirements/hoops to jump

through if a “homeowner” wants to get out of the

sewer connection. ]

(Comments: The “AND AND agree to provide...”

words are in the original but whether it’s emphasis

or what! don't know. The beginning of this thing

claims to be “Special construction

requirements..." but it's really Special cost

requirements since all this costs money. Since

there’s no nitrate contamination problem fo fix,

this will probably work so far as that goes but it

seems to “fix” homeowner's liberty from local

government's point of view. Since the Pirana is

the most expensive commercial alternative they

could come up with, it isn’t “innovative” in that

sense, but it is innovative for making money and

making the sewer appear cheaper. This is not

liberty of contract. The people trying this also

have to agree to waive their rights to a search

warrant with probable cause, etc. This adhesion

contract makes the citizen liable for much and the

DHD#2 liable for nothing which is a fair definition

of unconscionable. This “contract” offers no

consideration to the homeowner — only the

possibility that in the long run it will be cheaper

than the certainty of overcharges by the sewer

“authority.” Note too that this option is not open

to low-income residents since, by definition, they

can't ufford this.]

40

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) |

[Since this is from a web site, the stuff to "click on”

is not copied here]

Sanitary Sewer Overflows

OVERVIEW

Properly designed, operated, and maintained

sanitary sewer systems are meant to collect and

transport all of the sewage that flows into tnem to

a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

However, occasional unintentional discharges of

raw sewage from municipal sanitary sewers Occur

in almost every system. These types of discharges

are called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). SSOs

have a variety of causes, including but not limited

to severe weather, improper system operation and

maintenance, and vandalism. EPA estimates that

there are at least 40,000 SSCs each year. The

untreated sewage from these overflows can

contaminate our waters, Causing senous water

quality problems. !t can also back-up into

basements, causing property damage and

threatening public health.

WHAT CAN I FIND ON THIS

WEB SITE? [Picture here]

NPDES Permit

Requirements for Municipal

4]

Sanitary Sewer Collection

Systems and SSOs —

[This is only part of the sheet — but it's enough to

make the point that their sewer is far from perfect

because there are inherent problems with any

sewer system. Given the admitted sparse density

in the residential area and probable negative

growth due to the rotten economy, the sewer

provides only problems for residents. This is

included to counter any conclusion that might try

to claim that their sewer is better than private

septics - like the Michigan Legislature has

conclusively presumed. For a better copy, try:

http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?progra

m_id=4, or check out the original Appendix.

Note, too, that if there are fines and/or report

writing for an SSO, then their 40,000 per year figure

may be low. The BC/M Authority system doesn’t

have anti-backflow valves and has already

overflowed. | don't know how many times

because the information is “unknown.”

Chairman/Supervisor Wyckoff heard Sandy's

complaints along with the rest of the board.

Somehow the dispute went away.]

42

1885 W. Miller Rd.

Lewiston, MI. 48756

10-10-2008

To Whom it may concern

When sewers were put in Mio ! was told that |

would not have to hook up unless my septic went

bad. | chose not to have the sewer.

Later | was told | had fo hook up or else 1. :ey

would do it and charge me for it.

After going to court numerous times | guess | just

gave up and sold my House as! could not afford it

at the rate it was going to cost me.

| understood there was grant money to pay for

hooking up the low income folks. | did not see it

happen and the money can not be accounted

for. Then the rest of the people have to pay more

(which they don’t have) to make it up. So they

either sell out at low prices or go into debt to keep

their home.

Respectfully

Lyle R. Ellis

[Source: Handwritten letter by Mr. Ellis]

[Purpose: Snow more proof that never came up in

their circuit court and show ai little of the

consequences.]

[Comments: Mr. Ellis tied to argue at a hearing

but was cut off. There was no trial. He didn’t nire

an attorney. To do so would have cost as much

as the sewer and would not have won anything.

His (forced) selling price in a down market was

made even lower by the fees for connecting to

their unneeded sewer. The circuit court claimed

43

“we're in equity.” This reads more like a bill of

pains and penalties. This one was not in the

original Appendix but other letters are, along with

other material not included here. Your intake

people are in possession of the original Appendix.

Your Petitioner is in possession of contracts for

some of the low-interest loans and documents

proving no nitrate contamination in the area. Mr.

Ellis does not possess a remedy.]

j4

Bill of attainder: Legislative acts, no matter what

their form, that apply either to named individuals

or to easily ascertainable members of a group in

such a way as to inflict punisnment on them

without a judicial trial. United States v. Brown, 381

U.S. 437, 448-49, 85S. Ci. 1797, 1715, 14 L.Ed. 484,

492; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315, 66

S.Ct. 1073, 1079, 0 L.Ed. $152. An act is a "bill of

aitainder" when the punishment is death and a

“bill of pains and penalties” when the punishment

is less severe; both kinds of punisnment fall within

the scope of the constitutional prohibition.

U.S.Const. Art l, Sec. 9, CL 3 (as to Congress); Art. |,

Sec. 10 (as to state legislatures).

{Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pg.

150]

{[Purpose: A reminder.]

[Comments: The emphasis above is added here.

Since courts look at acts “taken as a whole," this

seems to fit.]

45

Gary Wyckoff — Supervisor

Allan Vallad — Clerk

Nancy Crane — Treasurer

Paul Matte — Trustee

Robert Hoffman — Trustee

MENTOR TOWNSHIP

216 E. 107 Street

Mio, Mi 48647

(989) 826-5414

Gene Hoy

P.O. Box 491

Mio, MI 48647-0491

Mr. Hoy,

Per Court Order we will be connecting your

properties (500 E. 5'" St. and 201 Glen St. and 418

12th St.) to the sewer system the week of Sept. 1,

2008. The fees (connection fee and installation

fee) if not paid for before Oct. 1, 2008 will go on

you Winter Taxes.

Thank you,

(signature}

Mentor Township Board

Gary Wyckoff

Supervisor

(Source: Letter from township board]

[Purpose: To show they treat it as a tax.]

[Comment: This doesn't mention the amounts

which have increased significantly — additional

penalties for attempting to litigate this.]

46