Archive | April, 2015

More Graymont Filings

23 Apr

I’m not going to post everything here, today, but things are heating up –proof that we have their attention.  “Their” in this case is both the State and Graymont, who has decided to file an action claiming the judge should throw out our suit because we “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”  The state filed a similar suit, and we answered it today (April 23rd).

The state also filed another document claiming they didn’t have to meet the court-ordered 21-day deadline.  They argued that the court is essentially wrong –they claim they had 28 days.  What is at stake in this argument is the requirement that the Court grant our “relief” –the imposition of a temporary injunction.  As I read the law, the state can certainly argue against the injunction, but only after it’s imposed as a result of their failure to respond to our original motion, as was claimed in the other of today’s filings.

One of the motions I filed today contained a “request for relief” that the temporary injunction required under the Default statute be “upgraded” to permanent.  

Our Hearing is set for the 29th in Kalamazoo –3:00 in the federal court, there.  Stay tuned ……..

Motion for Default Judgment Filed in Graymont Suit

22 Apr

On April 21st, 2105, we filed a Motion for Default Judgment.  The Court Rules require the defendant to file a response to our original Complaint within 21 days of being served with that Complaint;  the 21-day clock stopped ticking on the 16th of April.  

According to the Rules, at least as I read them, the judge has no discretion in this matter –the language that appears on the Summons is unequivocal:  “If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.”  The “relief demanded,” of course, is the issuance of a preliminary injunction barred the transfer of land to Graymont (the transfer of any “1836 Ceded Territory” to any entity will also be enjoined).

Click on the Graymont Injunction link, above, for the details.

Graymont Injunction Hearing Set for April 29

17 Apr

LATEST NEWS –Judge sets hearing date on Graymont Injunction

Despite media reports, this case is far from over.  The judge did dismiss our 2nd request for a Temporary Restraining Order, but he did order a Hearing, now set for Wednesday, April 29, 2015, at 3:00 p.m., 174 Federal Building, 410 W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI 49007.

The Order contains this language: “Also, there is no indication that the mine will irreversibly alter the land before the lawsuit progresses; the transfer of title alone is not irreparable harm because the Court could reverse the sale.”

Graymont-Hearing Order

Refiled Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, April 13, 2015

13 Apr

As you can see in the documents linked on the “Graymont Injunction” page (above), our original TRO was denied due to procedural deficiencies. Those were corrected, and we re-filed the Motion today.  The two TRO Motions are nearly identical, so the second is not posted here –we added a “Verification” page.  When we get the ruling from the Judge, we’ll post everything here (maybe as soon as tomorrow).

Second Appeal filed in Fracking-Water suit

10 Apr

Go to the “Fracking-Water Injunction” page, scroll down, and read about our second Appeal in this increasingly complex and bizarre case.  The Appeal is of a Tribal Court Order that granted the State’s Motion to Dismiss.  We were never given the opportunity to Answer that Motion, despite the Appellate Court assuring us that we would have an opportunity to challenge the State’s Motion, and, oddly, the Tribal Court conducted no Hearing on the Motion, despite the State’s “Oral Argument Requested” “Notice of Motion.”