Latest Response to the State in our Graymont Lawsuit

29 Jul

In response to our Motion for Summary Judgment, the State claimed that, because we lacked “standing,” the court lacked jurisdiction to even hear the case.  Their “argument” then leads them to a simple refusal to address any of the substantive issues raised by our Motion. Here’s the text of our rebuttal: 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

RESPONSE

In his Response, Defendant’s Counsel makes the claim that this “lack of standing divests the Court of jurisdiction,” failing, apparently, to read Section 1.3 of the 2007 Inland Consent Decree, to wit: “The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this action to enforce this Decree.” Consequently, implementation of Section 1.3 is not dependent for its enforcement on anything other than the inherent power of the Court. So, despite the repeated, spurious, and vexatious “arguments” of the Defendant’s Counsel to the contrary, Plaintiffs wish to remind this honorable Court that they have argued repeatedly throughout the course of this case that they are not coming before the Court under the guise of their “standing” under the 2007 Inland Consent Decree. In fact, Plaintiffs have argued that, under Section 1.3 of the Consent Decree, the issue of “standing” is moot.

Consequently, Plaintiffs state, once more, that they seek relief under the US Constitution: Article VI, Clause 2; and the 14th Amendment.

The 1836 Treaty of Washington is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Honorable Judge Maloney is bound thereby, and anything in MCL 324.2131 of the State of Michigan to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, Clause 2, US Constitution

The “usual privileges of occupancy” are fundamental rights inherent in the liberty of the Plaintiffs, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, American Indian Plaintiffs may not be deprived of those rights and that liberty. 14th Amendment, US Constitution

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Latest Response to the State in our Graymont Lawsuit”

  1. Gayle Shumaker July 29, 2015 at 3:08 pm #

    Phil,Thank you so much for the update. Did you see the recent news article on a tribe in Az. that are trying to prevent mining there? They filed a law suit that mining would prevent them from practicing their religion which is also protected under the constitution. I’m not sure if this would pertain to the tribes here in Mi. but is something to think about. Sincerely,Gayle Shumaker

    Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:41:05 +0000 To: shuclan@hotmail.com

    • Phil Bellfy July 31, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

      Gayle, Yes, we’ve been following that case closely –not exactly the same, but with the same result –the sale of Traditional Territory. The big difference in the two cases, though, is that in Arizona, the Tribe is taking the lead, but here in Michigan, the Tribes are silent (except for the Grand Traverse Bands–they filed an Amicus brief opposing those of us who are fighting the Graymont sale).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: