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 ……..
----------- idle no more --------- -----Defending Mother Earth -- 
Thanks for the update Phil. David G. (I can’t remember his name) had shared your last email on Facebook, it was then share by me and two others. A local newspaper reported went through on each one telling everyone to not bother with this or signing the petition as this had been thrown out. I went through behind her correcting the info. People seem to think that the initial denial for the injunction was the end of everything.
Gayle Shumaker
Sent from my iPad
Thank you for all you are doing, Phil!!!!!! Would you consider running for office again? We would work hard for your campaign!!! If Benishek decides to retire, we cannot allow Casperson to get in that office!
Sent from my iPhone KAE
>