Greetings. The ministry of New Buffalo township is the non-municipal government of the people, by the people, and for the people who are willing to motion the public good by being good stewards of the land and of community life. We are the original, still-existing form of Michigan state society – the Republic form. View the sidebar Page AMERICA'S PUBLIC TRUST TIMELINE for verification of this fact. Note: If you are seeking the municipal Township of New Buffalo, you’ve come to the wrong site, but we hope you can visit here before you go.

FORMAT of this Blog: Each originating post includes the difference between the way the municipal Township of New Buffalo functions and the way our non-municipal New Buffalo township functions. Some posts include links to operational documents related to the topic.

As the Hosts, we, Cheryl Marie and Michael Patrick, can be contacted at

Private communications are welcome.

We are growing the organic form of governance, which means we associate side-by-side under public law, the law of conscience, common to everyone. You are welcome to plant your seeds of thought within the posts you’ll find, or, you may send us a thought-seedling and we may provide the space for you to plant it for everyone's sharing of its increase.

Friday, September 27, 2019

Cheryl Marie speaks to Michigan Supreme Court on importance of a constitutionally-accurate Oath of Office taken and published by a court officer

At the Supreme Court’s public hearing held September 18th on proposed amendments to certain court rules, Cheryl Marie (co-host of this website) made a presentation about Rule 3.106. That pertains to court orders for the seizure of property and orders of eviction. The proposed amendment would require trial courts to send a copy of the bond of each person serving as a court officer or bailiff to the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). The link below pertains to just that 3:46 minute portion of the Hearing.

Cheryl Marie spoke in her own natural-law right, per prearranged acceptance of that capacity on the part of the Court’s speaker-reservation coordinator. Notice that Chief Justice McCormack introduces “Cheryl Marie” rather than “Ms.” followed by a surname.

Cheryl expresses that it’s a good rule amendment, because it would allow the SCAO to check the accuracy of the Oath of Office taken and published by the bonded person as proof of fidelity to perform the task in accordance with the United States and Michigan constitutions. Court officers would otherwise be acting under the published Oath of Office of the judicial officer who appoints them or gives them orders. Cheryl states that she has found oaths of office containing wording that deviates from the wording commanded by the Michigan Constitution. Justice Markman compliments the presentation.

How we, both hosts of this website, are affected by the necessity of an officer’s accurate Oath of Office is that we rely on an officer’s definite and published promise to support Article 1 Section 23 of the Michigan Constitution. That’s the only provision in that Constitution that applies to us. That provision contains the same content as Amendment 9 of the United States Constitution, being part of the so-termed Bill of Rights, required to be included by the people of the states in order for that constitution to have been ratified. The Bill of Rights pertains to the 1776 Declaration of Independence, which secures as final that all people are created equal by the Creator. Therefore no one has authority to enslave another, even pertaining to “consent of the governed”. Those constitutions’ linked-clauses protect our right to rely on the oath-taker’s promise to support our “retained right” to choose to live only under natural law, the law in which we were created (the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God), as the law governing our private authority to relate with other people. That means the oath-taker cannot merely presume that we consent to be bound to live under the private-law code of conduct established by the Legislature for people who choose to place their trust in man-made law.

The Michigan Constitution specifies that the Oath of Office must be taken and subscribed before entering upon the duties of the Office. The only acceptable deviation from its prescribed wording “constitution” and “state” would have to show the actual title of the state’s constitution–-CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963–-to be reliable as the officer’s promise made to us, even if his bonding company accepts his deviant oath and insures his performance of official duties.

Sunday, July 21, 2019

The events of the July 4th week clears the path for resurrection of the government of, by and for the people

The past week of July 4th will soon become known by the American people as a historically momentous one –- the beginning of a Great Awakening pertaining to governance. This post to our Readers provides advance knowledge. Two events occurred that week, which are related.

On Independence Day, President Trump spoke about his success in securing to us our birthright to exercise government “of, by, and for the people”, as he had promised to do within his Inaugural Address. That “guaranteed Republican Form of Government” is what the United States (all departments) must recognize as a guarantee made to each State within Article IV Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States, per that delegated power granted from the people through their States of the Union. The related event of that momentous week was the arrest of Jeffery Epstein on July 6th pursuant to a federal prosecution for his human trafficking and other very serious crimes. The prosecution will expose a vast network of co-criminals –- a Cabal, also called the “Deep State” –- that has been undermining the ability of the people of the several States to exercise righteous self-governance and experience prosperity. What we mean by “righteous” is people knowingly exercising their covenant-trust with the Creator to engage in governance together under the Laws of Nature’s God.

We first provide the links to a 3-part Youtube presentation by a man who is a retired Marine Corps broadcaster producing videos showcasing God-centered content about important events. This series decodes the spiritual and governmental elements of President Trump’s Independence Day message. Our Readers who have chosen to interact with us know that there has been a spiritual battle being waged by President Trump and the ‘white hats’ within the Military (the ‘black hats’ being discovered and removed) against “principalities” as is expressed in Ephesians 6:10-18. The arrest of Jeffery Epstein is significant in that the evidence against Epstein will expose that literal Satan-worship is the context of the Cabal’s crimes.

Here is one more researcher we follow. In this Youtube report he likens the Epstein prosecution as being the removal of the Keystone that has supported the Cabal’s structured ability to exert its evil and thwart righteous American governance

The American people will soon be able to realize Truth and question the trust that they may have blindly placed in so-called “authorities” spanning the whole societal spectrum. To our new Readers, who may wonder who or what is being referenced as “Q” in these videos, we refer you to this link that contains a good description; click on “New to Q?” in the header The videos above can also be accessed at the site, via its header “Q Army News Network” per the drop-down box linked with a list of sites by various researchers acting in their very capable role as the new media.

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Update to the post below this: Judge Dennis Wiley literally denies us access to the Court, per willfully ignoring the 1776 Declaration of Independence as being current and binding Law

The essence of what has transpired in the Case is that the Defendants (Township Board) never placed on the record any documented proof of their claim that we (the Plaintiff) consent to occupy citizenship within their body-corporate form of governmental association. Their corporate form of association incorporates foreign bankers who exert great influence over all aspects of life, thereby undermining peoples’ right to enjoy the freedom upon which the States of the Union were established. The original form of State government still exists, and does not include or depend on foreign bankers. That is the government in which we move. Readers who are new to this website can find out about the two forms of association from the “Timeline” of Acts of Congress that caused the secondary form (the Michigan body-corporate); find that linked on this website’s sidebar.

What has recently occurred is that Judge Wiley has ALSO refused to place on the record the documented evidence that he could judicially rely on, independently of the Township, to conclude that we ARE resident within the Township body corporate. On that claim alone Judge Wiley backed (or more accurately, bonded) his Opinion and Order denying us the relief our Case seeks. He has purportedly closed our Case per his Opinion that we – in the false party capacity of residents – failed to appeal the Township’s actions (an obligation of a citizen/resident) and therefore we do not qualify for the extraordinary relief of a mandamus case. Furthermore, Judge Wiley has refused to acknowledge our true party capacity that IS found in the Case record, and which IS proven to be true on the basis of documented facts and applicable law.

The Law that governs our right to receive mandamus relief is the Declaration of Independence. That’s the first of “The Organic Laws of the United States of America”. The Congress has declared that the four documents upon which our form of government–-of the people, by the people and for the people–-was established and functions is to be known as The Organic Laws of the USofA. The first one was the Law that allowed the next Law to be valid, and so on. The four Laws are the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and Constitution of the United States. These Laws are all current and valid Laws; none have ever been repealed.

The cause of our Case arises from our right to consent to governance, which right is specifically enshrined within the Declaration of Independence. That Law also secures our right, because such right is endowed to all people by our Creator. That Law also secures that all people are created equal, in that all are endowed with the ability to reason and to access wisdom from within–-natural consciousness of what is right conduct and what is wrong conduct. Since that first Organic Law is valid law (based on the “Laws of Nature’s God”), and the Statutes governing people who associate the body-corporate are also valid, the only way that both forms of law can be valid is that people must consent to be subject to Statutes. People consent by choosing (intentionally or not) to associate within the Michigan body corporate.

Judge Wiley has refused to find the facts about our cause that exist on record, and has instead substituted those facts with his pronounced facts that only pertain to his own completely different (false) characterization of our party capacity. Due to Judge Wiley’s pronouncement that denied us our true capacity to bring our cause, we filed a post-judgment Motion requiring him to find the fact that his Order closing our Case is actually void. The reason is, he could not in-fact bond that original Order with our energy (i.e. agreement) because he did not issue it to our party capacity. He then denied our Motion, claiming that his Order was not void, but his writing about the denial contained vague words and statements that are insufficiently-clear to us. So we issued a Motion seeking his clarification of his Opinion. We issued a Motion for Clarification from our absolute right to be provided with meaningful notice, which is one of the elements of the fundamental right to due process of law. Our Motion specifically holds Judge Wiley to honor the command of the First Organic Law securing our right of consenting to association. One’s association determines one’s party capacity to move a matter in court, because association is what determines rights and obligations toward other people. Judge Wiley simply denied our Motion for Clarification, per only this dogmatic statement: “this Court’s Order speaks for itself” (his Order denying us post-judgment relief). By doing so, Judge Wiley has judicially refused to recognize and honor the Declaration of Independence as one of the Laws of the Land under which he is bound and which directly applies to us and our Case.

Judge Wiley’s denial of our Motion for Clarification also includes the threat of a monetary fine to be imposed on us by him if we were to file another of what he terms a “frivolous” document. Per the threat of a future monetary fine, Judge Wiley has denied us our absolute right to freely pursue our absolute right to defend our absolute right to exercise our true capacity by holding him to the Rule of Law. Judge Wiley’s Opinions (resulting in Orders) exceed the matter of being just clear error of fact or misinterpretation of law. He has acted wholly outside the scope of the function of his Office. He has subjected us to slavery (forced association) and involuntary servitude (paying a fine when we have not committed a crime), prohibited by Article I Section 9 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 (which Constitution is applicable to him, not to us).

All of Judge Wiley’s ORDER Instruments are in fact and per law void. Our cause pertaining to the Township Board’s duty owing to us remains unsettled.

We haven’t even been seeking monetary restitution for the harm done to our home-life from the Board’s intentional inaction to perform their duty of honoring our home-life as existing outside of their body-corporate. All the Board had to do was perform in conformity with the mandates of their Special Land Use Ordinance requiring our land-use to be respected. Our most expeditious means of now obtaining the specific relief that our current case-filing lists is to pursue a different type of case (but not an appeal) to obtain the result we are due, and we’ll certainly be also seeking monetary restitution this time.

Since this website is offered as an educational forum, we believe that our Readers may benefit from our exposure of the serious societal matters that our Case presents. It’s imperative that Berrien County Trial Court judges (and all other judges of the Michigan body-corporate’s court system) be encouraged to refrain from judicially usurping the authority of those of us people who demonstrate that we occupy societal/party capacity in only the unincorporated Michigan government; the first Michigan Constitution expresses (at Article I, Sections 1 & 2) the enduring right of people to so-associate. People like us are being shut out of access to the courts, thus without access to justice. Therefore, we’re offering this link to our referenced Motion for Clarification, which document is generally informative. This links to Judge Wiley’s final denial document. We respect our Readers’ ability to view such evidence and think for themselves. The court of public opinion is, in fact and per the Organic Laws, the supreme court.

By: Website hosts, Cheryl Marie and Michael Patrick

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Circuit Court Case against Township of New Buffalo Board invokes Court’s attention to Article I Section 23 of the MI Constitution for compelling Board to perform its duty mandated by its Special Land Use Ordinance

The hosts of this website are seeking from the Berrien County Circuit Court a Writ of Mandamus (a special order) compelling Township Board members to perform their duty that is prescribed and mandated by their Special Land Use (“SLU”) Ordinance that has not been performed. The Case is 18-0226-AW, initiated on October 22 of this year. We are being harmed by the Board’s non-performance of that duty owing to us. On November 19, the Board announced the existence of the Case per their closed-session meeting (to consult with their attorney) that occurred right before their monthly Board meeting. Here’s that link:

This Case is unusual, since it involves natural law as well as statutory law. It invokes the presiding judge’s attention to the fact that we, as Plaintiff, are associated in the original and never-ended form of the Michigan body politic, that being the society of people who have not waived their birthright to live in the guaranteed “republican form” of governance (the unincorporated township – self-reliant people exercising good-conscience decisions singly or in groups), the word ‘republican’ has nothing to do with the Party of that title. The Defendants are of course associated in the corporate body politic, the form of governance termed a democracy (wherein the majority’s decisions determine what everyone can and cannot do at all times).

The Defendants’ association is identified as a “body corporate” with powers provided by the Legislature, per Article VII Section 17 of their 1963 MI Constitution. Our separate societal capacity is secured to us per their Constitution’s Article I Section 23, which is the same wording as the 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution within its Bill of Rights: “The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” All four of Michigan’s constitutions begin with: “All political power is inherent in the people.” The word ‘inherent’ means God-endowed (a birthright), so the word ‘power’ means that no Soul can dictate to another Soul. Since both forms of bodies politic exist, the only means per which someone can be deemed to be a participant in the corporate body politic is by evidence of his/her consent. We choose to retain our birthright to operate the unincorporated form of township society. We make that choice based on the reason we have included in the post on this site right before this one – the word ‘incorporated’ means joined with and operated by an international banking syndicate under its rules. Whereas our energy is only committed within these united States of America governed by natural law.

The cause of our Case is that the Defendants denied us our societal association when they approved a SLU Permit for our next-door neighbor. Our neighbor operates an “open air business” selling and renting golf carts, ATVs and the like, which type of business requires a Permit. The SLU Ordinance specifically mandates that the Defendants are to impose conditions on the Permit recipient that are necessary for the Defendants to ensure that the recipient maintains his required land use compatibility with an adjacent land use. Our land is in use as our full-time home, and it’s adjacent to the business’s land. So we have a special right to the Defendants’ performance of their mandatory duty. We gave the Defendants documented proof of our societal capacity, which includes that our land use is not located within their corporate society. But they instead treated our home as being within their society, and specifically within its “commercial zoning district”. That decision resulted in the Defendants allowing the business’s land use to to be very incompatible with ours. For instance, the Defendants did not prevent the business owner from constructing windows in his new showroom that allow his customers to look down into our home’s bedroom window, and into our garden’s seating areas and across our entire back yard. Our privacy fencing cannot provide us shielding from such public intrusion, nor are we with the obligation to accommodate the business owner’s land use. We seek the Court’s immediate action to restore our right to be free from such prohibited invasion of our home’s privacy and our outdoor areas of repose caused by the Defendants’ non-performed duty. We are now waiting for that ruling, plus the Court’s decision as to other filings in the Case.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Living in harmony with natural law or as a contender within the man-made debt-slavery system

The hosts of this site have been engaged recently in the process of holding certain County of Berrien (MI) judges to their burden of producing their authority to pronounce that we are residents/bankers within the State of Michigan body corporate and therefore subject to its statutes. Our true societal capacity is that of non-banker, by choice and per our exercise of due diligence to not pledge our energy into the central banking system that operates internationally.

Our Readers who have viewed our informative Timeline of Congressional Acts (accessed from the sidebar) know that people have the choice of endorsing or not endorsing the central banking system’s creation of private-money-for-public-use and that Federal Reserve Notes are IOU’s. They represent peoples’ energy pledged forward in a communal manner. The remedy from such pledging is found right in the Federal Reserve Act, at Section 16. The Congress left people the option of either endorsing central banking, or else making their demand on banking instruments (such as a paycheck) to handle national currency aka public money that’s 100% backed by silver. Public money circulates only within the continental United States and not in international commerce. A non-banker, still being a Michiganian, is subject only to natural law, being public law, the law of conscience internally known by everyone. 

One judge has recently asked Why? Why do we choose to not endorse central banking. It was more of a rhetorical question, but the matter of one’s societal capacity as a banker or non-banker is of the utmost importance in court, whether one is there as a plaintiff or defendant. A judge’s realization about one’s actual capacity is the best means of one obtaining swift justice.

The answer to that judge’s question could not be provided in the particular setting. But we offer the answer here. The central banking system is an evil creation by pure-evil people. It has been the platform utilized by pure-evil people for their commission of all the crimes against humanity one reads about, including but not limited to breach of peace, trespass on sovereign nations, and involuntary servitude of the common-man through schemes of illegal fraud, coercion, force, theft and deceptive practices and acts. The government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – a corporate creation that is separate from The United States of America (i.e. the people of the 50 States, most of whom are not knowledgeable about the difference) – has been serving the private banking system to the detriment and harm of the people of America and the people of the world. The private banking system has illegally forced its unnatural principles on a global scale. President Donald Trump is in the process of exposing this pure-evil system. But ridding the world of the evil-doers' central control of the money supply is a task we people must all take on if we are to enjoy life, liberty, pursuits of happiness and our right to obtain justice in court under natural law principles.

Since very few people are aware of their ability to choose to be a non-banker, primarily because they don’t realize the consequences to their life by pledging their energy into the central banking system, we try to introduce knowledge about the consequences.

When we come across a good article – by ‘good’, we mean easy for everyone to GET and RELATE TO – we share it. The following article fits such purpose:

"How Private Banks Create Bubbles — with the Help of Central Banks"

Friday, September 7, 2018

Nothing less than liberty is at stake

Do you know the meaning of the words that have the most impact on your life? Such as the meaning of the word Republic as being completely different from the word Democracy, per the above illustration. Do you blindly trust in the commonly-accepted meaning of words?

The common man has been duped by the corruption of our language, done over time by those people, known and unknown, who have intentionally done so. 

Take the words “person” and “personally”, for instance. The meaning is absolutely consequential to your best interests. When the word ‘person’ is found in the United States Constitution (which dates from 1787, and then 1791 when the Bill of Rights was added to the original document) the word ‘person’ means natural man or woman. That Constitution is still current Law. A natural man or woman exercises direct and sole authority over his/her societal affairs. Here’s an example from that Constitution’s Bill of Rights section: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. But the word ‘person’ in legislated-statutes and in court rules today means one who acts as a representative of or for his/her societal affairs. In other words, one who acts from a persona (a role, personally) that is separate from his/her natural authority over societal affairs. The statutory meaning of person includes a corporation too. More about how and why the word ‘person’ has been corrupted in American society can be easily found online.

Knowing how to control which meaning applies to you is the point to such inquiry. People operate the Republic form of government from their natural authority. People operate the Democracy from a persona.

The other critical, and related, inquiry impacting your life concerns money. It’s a primary medium of human-energy. In this post we share the following excellent 4-page paper. Easy to read. As the author identifies, his piece is for those people who understand the dangers of central banking. But if you have never realized such danger to your life exists, or even realized there is such a thing as central banking, the author warns (and we agree with him): “Nothing less than liberty is at state here. Herein lies the key as to how the debasement of our currency has led to the debasement of our language (i.e. eliminating the word “speculation” from Wall Street’s vernacular and ultimately replacing it with “saving”).”  

Link to the 4-page paper:

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Township Board members had no official authority to "reaffirm for compliance" the Special Land Use Permit for Carts on 12, so correction is necessary

This post reports on the New Buffalo Township Board’s special meeting of July 6th. It had been set as the deadline date to consider whether or not the business Carts on 12 had met the conditions required for complying with its Special Land Use (“SLU”) Permit and with the 6-6-17 Court Order the Township obtained concerning compliance with all Township ordinances. Just prior to their meeting, Board members had inspected the property the business occupies. The four Board members present, Clerk Zabicki being excused, voted to reaffirm the SLU Permit with one condition that they determined would be later met by the business. That condition pertained to a fence that the SLU Ordinance requires, separating the business from a neighbor.

The day before their meeting, we (the hosts of this site, and the other immediate neighbor of the business) provided each Board member with a specific list of still-existing violations of both the SLU Ordinance and general ordinances. We also provided photographs and the applicable ordinance provision, so they could easily find the facts they needed to find in order to form the necessary conclusion. After the special meeting, Supervisor Michelle Heit acknowledged to us that she had taken notice of the items on our list.

Our own finding of the physical evidence of violations includes that junk remained at numerous locations, that piles of golf cart parts were being stored outside (since the business did not apply to sell parts outside), and that about half of the required fence was completely missing because it had not been built on the surveyed property occupied by the business. We also referenced that the fencing material used for the portion of the fence that was built on the property – being of junked shipping pallets screwed to fence-posts – had previously been determined by the Board (at their June 18th special Hearing on this SLU) to be “not a fence”.

In addition to our list provided to the Board, we spoke at the start of the special meeting, for the purpose of reminding them of what their applicable ordinances and the Court Order actually state. Our goal was to keep the Board’s determination confined to the specific and relevant facts, and to the record, so that they would not instead act from personal opinion or sentiment. The record consists of the SLU Application, the final Site Plan prepared by a certified surveyor, the SLU Ordinance in particular, and the Court Order per which the business operator himself had agreed to comply with all Township ordinances.

We video-recorded this entire special meeting. There was also a video being made by someone else.

During the Board’s discussion portion of their meeting, when no one else can interact with them, Supervisor Heit claimed she found that all conditions had been met by the business, with the exception of the required fence. There was no finding of the fact of ordinance violations contained in our list. No other Board member challenged Heit’s opinion. Trustee Pete Rahm then added his own opinion – because it was not his finding of a fact – that the portion of fence not built on the business property was in litigation, and therefore the Board could not consider that issue as regards whether or not the business had met its obligation as of the July 6th deadline. However, at the June 18th SLU Hearing, the Board was made aware, by the attorney representing the neighbor, that a matter in litigation (with the operator of Carts on 12) did not pertain to the fence itself. In other words, there is no existing controversy about the fence being built on the neighbor’s property instead of on the business property.

The Board concluded their meeting by voting to reaffirm the SLU Permit, adding the condition that within two weeks the portion of the shipping-pallet-fence built on the business property be covered on the business side with white roofing paper, as the business operator had offered to add, for meeting the SLU Ordinance privacy requirement.

In effect, the Board approved that a fence made of junk have junk added to it until non-existent litigation is resolved so that there will remain a whole, required, fence.

The only slight dissension from that final determination was from Supervisor Heit, who continued to express that a shipping-pallet-fence is not a fence. But again, she spoke that as her opinion. She and the Board relied only on the regular fence ordinance as providing the standard for this required-fence construction, which ordinance is non-specific as to what material is or is not allowed. The Board ignored their duty to consult the SLU Ordinance language instead. That is the governing ordinance. It mandates that they require a fence to be “compatible with an adjacent use of land”. Shipping-pallets are not compatible with that neighbor’s land use and their property’s existing fence, which fact is visually obvious and which fact of incompatibility the neighbor had made known to the Board numerous times.

As this situation now stands, Board members each and together have acted without any official authority to “reaffirm for compliance” the SLU Permit, and not merely as concerns the required fence. Their official authority is specifically stated right within the SLU Ordinance itself, at Section 15.4 A, as follows (our emphasis added): “The Township Board shall approve, or approve with conditions, a special land use permit request only upon a finding that all of the following general standards for approval are complied with.” The Township’s Zoning Ordinance “Definitions” chapter defines that: “The word “shall” is always mandatory and never discretionary.”, and, “The particular shall control the general.” So, the SLU Ordinance's particular language concerning the 'compatibility' standard regarding the fence design overrules the general terms of the regular fence ordinance. Since the pallet fence does not meet the compatibility standard to which the Board must hold the business (as no Board discretion is allowed), Board members could not have officially approved that the mandatory fence had been built. 

The singular item the Board chose to rely on could in-fact not be officially relied on for forming their conclusion.

Yesterday (July 9th) we brought the Board’s attention to their lack of official authority to have reaffirmed the SLU Permit (at least under the condition they imposed), and we cited all of the reasons included in our listing, not merely the fact that the required fence is completely missing a whole year after the SLU Permit was issued. Of additional significance is that the 6-6-17 Court Order includes the requirement that the business comply with SLU Ordinance provision 15.7 U. That prohibits this ‘open air business’ from using the two driveways it has been using as US 12 access; there is instead a central business land-area on which a legal access-driveway can be established. The Board refused to enforce that critical safety-related SLU Ordinance provision when they approved the SLU Permit.

It’s now necessary that Board members timely act to comply with their mandated duty to find that Carts on 12 had not complied with its obligations by the due-date. The Board must revoke its unauthorized reaffirmation of the SLU Permit, or else impose additional terms for an extension of time for the business to come into complete compliance with its obligations. The business owner can choose to comply with the written standards that were known at the time the SLU was applied for in 2016, or else choose to locate elsewhere, or else choose to operate as an indoor retail business that would not require a SLU Permit.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Local business Carts on 12 given final deadline to comply with 2017 Court ORDER

This post relates to our earlier ones, dated July 14 and 18, 2017 and December 9, 2016.

On Monday, June 18th, Board members of New Buffalo Township (body corporate) voted to give the owner and operator of the open air business Carts on 12 until July 6th to finally come into compliance with the Special Land Use (“SLU”) Ordinance and SLU Permit conditions and with the 6-6-17 Court Order they obtained requiring compliance with all general ordinances too. The Board’s members will do their own inspection on July 6th and then hold a special meeting to vote whether or not the SLU Permits they issued last year should be revoked. The Board also voted to provide the business owners with a list of required compliance matters.

We, the hosts of this website, are direct neighbors of the business operation. At the Board’s June 6th Hearing on this SLU matter, we provided them with a detailed list of current and applicable ordinance and Court ORDER violations. The violations have been detrimentally affecting our land use. The other neighbors of this business also listed to the Board similar detriment being done to their land use.

Yesterday, we emailed Board members and the Zoning Administrator this simplified list of current violations that affect us from the standpoint of our right to enjoy the business owners’ compliance with land-use compatibility:

This shows the 4-page Court ORDER, which includes the fact that it resulted from a plea agreement:

Friday, February 2, 2018

Judge disqualifies himself, and then issues ORDER --- Part Five, Segment Two of the Two; educational series concerning Law Suit against Twp of New Buffalo

Segment One of this Part Five update is found below, entered on January 23rd. Since our last update, one case event has occurred and another is in work, as we continue to exercise our fundamental rights. We, the hosts of this website, are providing these updates in order to share with our Readers life-changing knowledge about the court system, in a nutshell.

As a bonus, this post intermingles our update with the HUGE added value from the just-released pre-print of a fantastic new little book --- a very people-friendly primer --- that reveals simply, efficiently and accurately how the great design of American governmental structure got off track, then got twisted and tangled. The tangled structure has produced a court system delivering injustice to the common man most of the time. The little primer is aptly titled “America: Some Assembly Required”. This author’s work has nothing to do with political parties or platforms. What’s unique is that Anna delivers presently-useful knowledge in 30-second sound-bite format. She intends for busy people to grasp one bit of valuable information within 30 seconds. Each page contains one complete bit (60 bits total). The author wrote it for benefit of President Donald Trump, who comes to the Presidency as a business Executive. So it’s written from the standpoint of the business-plan of American government that the founding declarations and treaties established. This primer correlates with what our own compilation of true history offers in the format of sequential Acts of Congress --- find our “Timeline” on the sidebar of this website. The author of the book we’re introducing to you is currently planning to offer it via Amazon (and we recommend our Readers buy one for family viewing or for a friend). The pre-print release can be accessed here, at no cost

The value of your extra time to acquire knowledge from that quick-read book can best be understood as the balancing of your left-brain and right-brain functions. Left processes logic, Right processes inspiration / revelation / creation. When presented with new information, we tend to experience our Left-brain-controlled EGO arguing with our Right-brain’s valuation of the effect of the new information.

This suit update centers on the matter of authority, specifically the burden of producing fact-based proof of authority. If you have read Segment One, you know that the judge assigned to our case has acted to substitute our “party” capacity (i.e., how we are moving our rights and obligations as the Plaintiffs) with his own proclamation of what our capacity is --- being 100% in opposition to our capacity that is evidenced as fact on the record of this case. And he did that as his personal act, not as a judicial act. But he has claimed, by implication per his Judgment and ORDER document, that he has the judicial authority to do that without providing any fact supporting his claim.

The published Court Rules require that all case documents be served on a “party”. Of special note, is Rule 2.107 titled: Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers. Provision “C” states: “Service on a party must be made by delivery or by mailing to the party at the address stated in the party’s pleadings”. Our initial document opening our law suit contains our statement showing exactly how we must be served as parties. A party’s capacity is the most important element of a law suit, because it’s the underlying reason there is a suit at all. A party to a suit has, or brings, certain rights and obligations that pertain to the claim or controversy. So, if a party is not served with the other party’s filing, the case cannot move forward.

The record of our case shows that the Defendants’ filings were not served to our party capacity. Judge Donahue’s so-called ‘final’ Judgment and ORDER of January 12, 2018 does not include us either, because it identifies on its face that it pertains to a non-party instead of us. His substitution of our party capacity is also evidence of his advocacy for the Defendants, because it secures that the Defendants would have had no duty to prove that we were associated with them under statutory-law as the event that had started our resulting law suit against them.

The only means per which Judge Donahue’s J&O could become valid and binding on us is if we consented to accept his personal and then official act of dragging us out of our public-law capacity and into private-law capacity. Therefore, we had to file notice of our non-consent into the record of the case; our silence would have implied that we consent. So, as soon as we received it, we acted to file our non-consent to accept the Judgment and ORDER issued to the substituted party-capacity. Because our filing is not in the format of a motion, the Clerk of Court entered it on the Register of Action (docket) as a “Letter” on January 22nd. What that filing contains is a cover notice to the Clerk plus the Judge’s ORDER document showing on the face of each page our hand-written “Refusal for Cause” to accept it in the entirety. Judge Donahue had been judicially self-disqualified prior to issuing it, so it’s not a Judgment or Order for us to appeal. That J&O is void without the foundation of applicability to our party capacity. All of the Defendants were mailed a copy of our January 22nd filing. They cannot claim to be relieved of their burden of proving we are associated within their jurisdiction. Our next act will invoke the superintending control over this stalled case, per the Chief Judge’s duty to review this Circuit Court judge-disqualification and void final J&O.

The other case-related event concerns the Transcript we received pertaining to the single Hearing that has been held on our case since its opening filing on October 16th. That session, held on December 7th, was turned into a general overview of the case by Judge Donahue. It was scheduled to be only the hearing of our first Motion, directed to him, requiring his acknowledgment of our party capacity and the public law within which we live. The only two options that motion presented to him was to grant it or recuse himself from presiding over the case (otherwise he would violate his Oath of Office requiring him to support our natural “rights retained”). Our case was opened from our expressed standing in God’s Kingdom under Divine Law/natural law. Our accompanying Ex Parte Motion (i.e., one party motion) details our party capacity. Our main case filing shows that the Defendants have never met their burden to prove their claim that we stand in their kingdom instead. Our original filing also contains, as documented evidence, that the Defendants had been provided a copy of a land claim document we recorded in the County’s land-related records. It details that we are domiciled on the land and soil of the nation-state Michigan, stewarding certain physical land under our God-given right of soil. They had the duty to prove their claim that we own or occupy “real property” within their body-corporate. The State of Michigan body-corporate has established the means for people to act on real property interests. The means is via a constructed Trust, titled to resemble one’s given appellation plus family-heritage, but spelled in all-capitalized letters. All Court documents show those Trust constructions, because they pertain to all types of case matters. What there is to gain by reading the useful book we have introduced is that you will realize how much those Trust constructions affect your natural rights, thus your life. Your natural rights are your material possessions.

When a party moves legal (society-made) rights and obligations, contrasted with moving natural rights and obligations, the Court designates the party’s legal capacity as “Proceeding in Pro Se”. That’s a representative status meaning “for one’s self”, just as attorneys move for their clients. A legal representative acts from an Office, a Role. Such role only exists within the private law boundary. Private law (society-made rules) is exercised for publicly-shared purposes. While public law/natural law is exercised for private purposes. When people move under private law, the judge can directly govern / lord-over people.

We opened our law suit as the Embodied-Souls called “Cheryl Marie” and “Michael Patrick”. Embodied-Souls are called, not named. Only things are named. The Court (an entity of the state body-corporate) shows a Trust construction spelled in all-capitalized letters pertaining to our case filings, but we move “specially” with respect to those Trust vehicles. The vehicles are like escrow accounts. Our energy (i.e., committed as Court fees and our testimony) passes through those accounts, but we do not move interests socially pledged in and via those accounts. So our party capacity is not that of Proceeding in Pro Se. But that is the capacity in which Judge Donahue has silently proclaimed we have been moving, and has now documented per his ORDER. Even the Transcript of the December 7th Hearing we ordered (and paid for) shows “In Pro Se”. Within the body of the Transcript, too, we are falsely designated as trustees moving within those private-law Trust constructions. The reason the transcriber formatted the Transcript that way is because she was required by Judge Donahue to do so. She told us that she would change the formatting if she was required to do so by the Judge. We attempted to cause that correction to happen, but the Transcript remains falsely formatted.

If the above report seems confusing to you, or if our focus on our party capacity seems trivial to you, your opinion may completely change if you will read even the first half of the book we have linked. What the court system is set up to cause is a lien on a party’s energy. A Judgment secures the lien, which is sometimes fair and just and sometimes not fair or just. The means of causing a lien when the party has NOT caused anyone actual harm or NOT damaged anyone’s physical possessions, is via the Trust constructions and peoples’ lack of knowledge about who they are and how to move natural law and how to exercise natural rights and duties.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Judge disqualifies himself, and then issues ORDER – Part Five, Segment One of the Two; educational series concerning Law Suit against Twp of New Buffalo

This post continues the earlier ones found right below. There has been a flurry of important case activity between us, the Plaintiffs (the hosts of this website), and Judge John Donahue. What has recently happened is that we have been acting to invoke and demand and protect our fundamental rights per certain assertive filings of ours into the case. For benefit of first-time Readers, fundamental rights are God-endowed (as opposed to ‘civil rights’ that are man-established). One can choose to solely exercise one’s private rights, or else waive the private exercise and instead accept rights exercised as publicly-shared privileges for publicly-shared benefits. Most people accept privileges without even knowing there is a choice; those people are thus self-obligated to obey written laws, which are private laws that apply within that communal form of Michigan society. But our initial case filing expresses that we know there is choice and that we know where we stand. We have not consented to waive our right to solely exercise our private affairs, peacefully alongside other people. We do so under public law. What is meant by public law is the unwritten law of conscience, Our Creator’s Law as the natural state of law common to everyone, from which people know right from wrong and enter into social agreements with any number of other people for intended mutual benefit; some of the mutual benefit can pertain to basic governmental services.

Since most people place trust in private law --- statutes, called ordinances at the Township level --- most of the time judges administer the social duties and benefits for those people in accordance with the statute at issue. But judges must also acknowledge the fundamental rights and social obligation of people like us, along with public law under which we live. Judge’s are bound to know all the law. Public law requires an injured party or damaged possessions. While private law can concern injury to the public as a whole such as when a participant (within that society) fails to perform a conceptual obligation --- like failing to register a vehicle.

If there is any confusion about the fact that judges must acknowledge public law when applicable to a party, the Michigan constitution clarifies. Judges take an Oath of Office to support that constitution, and the constitution of the United States. Both constitutions contain a key clause concerning fundamental rights that have not been waived –- or in other words, rights that have been retained. That clause is found in the MI constitution at Article I Section 23: “The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” If everyone was subject to the ‘rights’ (actually the privileges) written out within hundreds of statutes and clauses within those statutes, there would be no need for inclusion of Section 23 in that constitution. Retained rights cannot mean retained only by a group of people, or the word “people” would be “People”. It can only mean rights retained by singular people. Even when legislation is introduced by a people-driven Initiative, the Initiative must be signed by singular people making his or her own decision, and done within a legislature-prescribed amount of time. What people don’t realize is, they still waive their fundamental right to create a desired new social-condition by participating in that statute-created procedure.

What this Judge has tried to do, concerning our recent case filings, is use that evidence containing our purely fact-based acts of dutifully invoking, demanding and protecting our God-endowed and constitutionally-protected fundamental rights AS EVIDENCE OF OUR COMMISSION OF A CRIME. He has tried to claim it’s evidence of our disobedience of his authority! He has absolutely no judicial authority to use our right to assert our fundamental rights against us! In fact he is officially prohibited from “denying or disparaging” such “right retained”. A right we have asserted certainly evidences that it is a right we intentionally retain. He then tried to claim that he had the right / duty to punish us for our disobedience of his statutory-law-based authority, by means of the “sanction” of an ORDER for dismissal of our case with prejudice! He did all of this sua sponte, which means on a judge’s own accord, during his own in-chambers ‘hearing’ on January 12th that was not even announced to us as potentially case-ending. We had filed a Motion for his decision on our first Motion we filed after our case was opened on October 16th. That one concerned his acknowledgment of our movant-capacity (which we have fully detailed) and his acknowledgment of public law as being applicable to this case concerning our obligations along with statutory law being applicable to the Defendants’ obligations.

The bottom line is, Judge Donahue was self-disqualified as a judge prior to signing the January 12th ORDER. He violated his Oath of Office the instant he denied our statement of our movant-capacity as existing in public law. Then mister Donahue enslaved us by imposing his personal Will over our Will by proclaiming we are moving under statutory law. Then Judge Donahue used mister Donahue’s personal testimony as the ‘fact’ that Judge Donahue could rely on to issue the ORDER. That’s known as testifying from the bench. There is not a single fact included in the ORDER, or existing on record, giving foundation to Judge Donahue’s claim that we are people other than who we have said we are.

Not only was Judge Donahue disqualified due to imposing a movant-capacity on us, and for denying us due process (denying us the opportunity to be present when he considered dismissing our case), but he also advocated for the Defendants’ position.

Judge Donahue’s advocacy for the Defendants, plus our action taken after we received his ORDER for dismissal with prejudice, is the subject of Segment Two of this update Part Five.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Thumbnail sketch of Law Suit issue and details – Part Four of our educational series

This continues the three posts that precede it. One of our Readers has asked “Michael and Cheryl, please, can you summarize briefly what is going on and why it is significant?”

Our reply:

Thanks for your interest. Here’s the thumbnail sketch of the issue. Certain Township officers pursued a claim against us after they violated their official duty to cease and desist doing so. We had demanded they provide us with the cause of their claim (not just the nature of it), and they ignored that duty. They are being sued in their official capacity for that violation of our fundamental right to due notice (a constitutional tort on their part) and in their personal capacity for acting outside their governmental authority afterwards. They have caused us loss of energy (i.e., time spent to get them to stop) as well as emotional distress from their continued threats made to us to take what they had no established authority to take. From this Law Suit we seek monetary restitution as replacement of our energy and peace that they stole. We also seek a Decree from the Judge prohibiting them from issuing groundless claims to our attention in the future.

Here’s the thumbnail sketch of the Suit details. The zoning enforcement officer posted a letter on the front door of our home, back in August. It was a performance-demand, pertaining to “Your Property” in the Township. Zoning, along with property taxation ONLY applies to “real property”. That’s the significant point. We returned that letter with a cover-letter demanding to know the Fact he relied on to conclude that his expression “Your Property” has something to do with us and the Land that we steward. We have recorded a land claim in the Berrien County records, and the Township has had knowledge of it. Our land claim nullifies the PRESUMPTION that we own or occupy real property. People just mistakenly believe that the word “land” (earth) is interchangeable with the legal term “real property”. It’s not. The Legislature defines that the two terms are per se NOT interchangeable. Real property includes land, but not all land includes real property. That zoning officer, and his direct supervisor, both also refused our offer to clarify our initial question to them if they did not comprehend the question. Their attorney eventually got involved, and he also committed wrongdoing by opening a case in district court (which presides over zoning matters). We had no duty to enter that case, and did not enter it. We claim that attorney, who is now a Defendant in our circuit court Law Suit, misrepresented to the district court that the Township had standing (which requires injury) to bring their action, when they did not and the attorney knew they did not.

The Township’s hired attorney is currently trying to claim that the Township officers do not understand our Law Suit (pleading ignorance in other words), and therefore it is frivolous and should be summarily dismissed. The Defendant-attorney’s attorney is trying to claim his client had immunity for his actions even if the Judge finds that tort exists. These are typical first-motions made by such Defendants. We have brought the Natural Law (public law, which secures peoples’ God-given rights – like the right to know the cause of a claim) to bear in this case, not merely statutory law (i.e., private law / ordinances). That’s why the Judge has proclaimed our case is the most unusual he has ever experienced. The circuit court is a court of general jurisdiction, and is where the Natural Law can be invoked when it is the law that controls the obligations and rights of the party invoking it. Public officers are subject to Natural Law even though they concern themselves most of the time with private law. The difference is, under private law, also called Public Policy, people consent (knowingly or not) to monetize their societal rights.

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Shocking theatrics by Defendant’s attorney in open-court; Part Three of our Law Suit update

As our duty to act for the Public Good at all times, the hosts of this website will continue updating our readers concerning the progress of our law suit against the Township of New Buffalo body-corporate. See our last two posts. This case concerns all people, because we evidence that our human rights [not civil rights] have been violated. This is update Part Three.

On December 27th a fifteen-minute Hearing took place on our filed Objection to the proposed 7-Day ORDER written and submitted by attorney Thomas Waggoner (a shareholder with the firm Straub, Seaman & Allen) who is representing Defendant David Peterson, an associate there. The attorney representing the other three Defendants, Craig Noland (McGraw Morris, based in Grand Rapids), chose to not attend the Hearing.

At the end of the previous Hearing on December 7th, Judge Donahue ordered Waggoner to write a 7-Day ORDER, which would be signed into effect by the Judge within 7 days unless an objection to its content was filed. We timely filed our objection because of a serious and clearly improper inclusion in Waggoner’s version. We purchased the Court’s DVD of the Dec 7 Hearing. So our objection referenced that recording right down to the second that a pertinent point was made, thereby rendering our alternate proposed ORDER as the accurate one. Judge Donahue realized the particular error in Waggoner’s ORDER that we brought to bear, and he made hand-written corrections to it before signing it.

What is noteworthy about Waggoner’s version is that he advocated that a particular Motion of ours had been heard, and not merely filed. The truth is, that Motion was not set for hearing that day, nor was it even discussed in a preliminary manner. Waggoner’s wrongful act of advocating is important, because if the said Motion’s content had been even discussed, Waggoner (and attorney Noland too) could somewhat rely on the single statement Waggoner made on Dec 7 per which he tried to give credence to his client’s permissible use of the general term “land” interchangeably with the legal term “real property”. Waggoner had said, per his own reference to the subject Motion of ours, “the terms are often used to mean one and the same thing”. But Judge Donahue did not engage at all with Waggoner’s statement, as the DVD transcript proves.

The subject Motion of ours concerns the Legislature’s formal “Definition” of the term “Land”, which definition also contains the term “real property”. It's a mere nine-word definition of Land, and does NOT define that land is or means real property. It is irrelevant, then, that the ‘terms are often used to mean one and the same thing’.

There is another noteworthy event that occurred during the Dec 27th Hearing. Just prior to that Hearing, we filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Donahue’s previous scheduling of the subject Motion of ours to coincide with the Defendants’ motions for summary disposition at a date in the future (possibly in March). We claim that Judge Donahue had committed palpable error when rendering that decision (per the Court Rule governing reconsideration). Waggoner was angered by our filing, because it includes our quest for a Hearing on the Motion concerning land and real property to be set for the week of January 8 (when the Judge would return from his holiday break). He tried to object to our filing of our Motion. One of the other provisions the Judge had stated for inclusion in the 7 Day ORDER was that no “additional” motions of ours would be heard on that future Hearing date. However, the Court Rules provide for a motion for reconsideration of a past judicial decision within 21 days afterward, which rule allowed our filing. In the closing minute of the Dec 27th court-session, Waggoner stood up and with flailing arms and dramatic backward-arched body as if overcome by what had happened: “I will call the University of Notre Dame and ask them to rescind my law degree, as a motion for reconsideration is by its very name a motion!” We didn't comment. However, we doubt that this attorney's alma mater teaches that a Judge has the power to not only prohibit a party’s filing of an “additional” motion, but also to negate a Court Rule!!!

Judge Donahue has not yet ruled on our Dec 27th filing.

Monday, December 11, 2017

First case of its kind in the Circuit Court

This is a followup to our November 25th post concerning our Law Suit against the Township of New Buffalo body-corporate et al. The first Hearing took place on Thursday December 7.

It was set as a Hearing on our ExParte Motion (which means one-party motion) per which the “assigned judge” --- Judge Donahue --- would accept or not accept our grant of jurisdictional authority to preside and hear our testimony in the case. We have opened a Court, per our contract with the Clerk of Court. The Clerk independently assigns a judge to preside. Under public law where we stand, we are obligated to enter all relationships via a meeting-of-the-minds. This case involves two different law jurisdictions --- public law (which we term Natural Law) and private law also known as statutory law that applies to the Defendants’ obligations.

The session on December 7 ended up being only a preliminary Hearing about our ExParte Motion. Judge Donahue desired more clarity about the essence of the case. From the position of Assigned Judge, which he acknowledged holding, he has general authority to conduct a clarifying inquiry before committing to what our Motion seeks of him specifically. The Defendants’ attorneys were present, without the Defendants. Defendant Peterson is represented by a different attorney than the other three.

This preliminary Hearing lasted for over 1 ½ hours. To Judge Donahue’s credit, he was genuinely and respectfully engaged in discovering the unusual parameters of this case. His questions of us prompted such discovery. For instance, our filing goes into detail about our standing in relation to the founding laws of The United States of America and of Michigan. And how certain clauses in the constitutions to which the Defendants take an Oath of Office apply to our claim against them.

Our clarification about our ExParte Motion presented the facts per which the Presiding Judge’s Oath of Office requires him [or her] to maintain separation of the public and private law obligations of the parties to this case. Judges are prohibited from denying or disparaging rights retained by the people (per the 1963 Michigan constitution at Art. I §23). We have demanded a trial by jury, so the Presiding Judge ONLY has to maintain the fact that two law jurisdictions exist. Of course, the Defendants’ attorneys preferred that only private law be determined as governing the obligations of all the parties to this case. Soon after they were served with our suit, the Defendants tried to keep moving their own claim against us that they initiated in the 5th District Court (an ordinance violation, which can only exist within their private-law jurisdiction). Yet they have never provided the fact they rely on to conclude that the Embodied-Souls called Michael Patrick and Cheryl Marie associate under private law.

The ultimate value of this preliminary Hearing was that the underlying-most issue of this case was emphasized over and over again. The Defendants’ position relies entirely on their claim that Michael Patrick and Cheryl Marie [whom they wrongly address as “Michael Lynch” and “Cheryl Lynch”], own or occupy “real property” within the New Buffalo Township body-corporate jurisdiction. One of the realizations expressed by Judge Donahue himself during this clarifying session is that we claim to occupy land, not real property. A secondary, but related issue was clarified --- that we occupy land as people who associate as the updated (c. 1835) Michigan body-politic. We do not take any benefit from the body-corporate.

The fact that we, the Plaintiffs, associate under public law is of paramount significance. The Circuit Court’s denial of access to justice by people who move in public law (being a special movant-capacity) would be an unconstitutional policy or practice.

Of note is that near the end of this Hearing, Judge Donahue stated: “This is a most unusual case.”

Going into this Hearing, there was a Hearing originally set for Dec 15 on the Defendants’ summary motions seeking dismissal of our suit. Due to the fact that we had the right to amend our original filing to add the after-events pursued by the Defendants, Assigned Judge Donahue could take notice of our stated desire to amend under the Court Rule that allows an amended filing for that obvious reason.

As the outcome of this preliminary Hearing, the Defendants’ Hearing set for December 15 was adjourned. After our original case-filing is amended, and an allowance of time is projected for responses back and forth, a date will be set on which all the parties’ Motions filed as of December 7 will be heard. Assigned Judge Donahue did agree with our insistence that our additionally-filed Motion pertaining to mandatory judicial notice of the Legislature’s clear distinction made between ‘land’ and ‘real property’, must be heard before the Defendants‘ summary motions are heard on that date. The case Motions currently filed are now anticipated to be heard near the end of January, or in February or possibly even in March.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Law Suit against the Township of New Buffalo for violations of the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions

This post reports the key issues that we, the hosts of this website (Michael Patrick and Cheryl Marie), present in our Law Suit against the Township of New Buffalo and certain of its officers in their official and personal capacities. We remind our readers, that Township is a body corporate, which was established in 1850. The true township government was established in 1835 as Michigan’s original social compact that has never ceased to exist. You can confirm this by reading those constitutions. The second constitution did not dis-establish the original government functioning under the Laws of God --- public law, the conscious knowing of right and wrong common to all people.

The Defendants in our original Circuit Court case we initiated on October 16 are Michelle Heit (Supervisor), the Township, Dennis Buller (Ordinance Enforcement Officer) and includes David Peterson (who is the Township’s attorney of record) in his personal capacity. As officers of the body corporate they are prohibited by Oath of Office from committing slavery or involuntary servitude or compelled association. Our Law Suit shows the evidence that these Defendants did commit those prohibited acts in their official capacity, and then proceeded from a nongovernmental capacity to commit personal wrongdoing, all of which caused us harm. We seek from the Court the means of providing restitution for our energy the Defendants stole, including a decree that will prohibit them from starting this situation all over again.

The issues our suit presents are the following:

(1) Officers of this body corporate, per their inaction as well as action, apparently claim that an Embodied-Soul can be born to a body corporate. While ignoring the record that we live only in the public law, by their conduct these Defendants have proclaimed we are subject to their private law. The law of a body corporate is private law, applicable only to people who have consented to be subject, or to people who violate God’s Law of right conduct and who therefore must be controlled by man-made rules. In other words, law is for individuals who choose to separate from the Unity of Mankind.

(2) As background, the Defendants had presented an initial claim to our attention, in the form of a letter. We timely returned that presentment, and required they provide us the cause of their claim, not merely the nature of it showing on their document. This circumstance is similar to you receiving a charge on a billing statement (such as a credit card statement) that you don’t recognize as being your obligation. You would seek to be provided with the proof of such claimed obligation. These Defendants never provided us notice of the cause of their claim against us – the Soul called Michael Patrick and the Soul called Cheryl Marie. That was their act of officially subjecting us to involuntary servitude which then became their personal act of enslaving us based on their own pronouncement of who we are. We gave them numerous opportunities to correct their defective presentments and beliefs. After their letter, they issued an ordinance Citation, to the “MICHAEL PATRICK LYNCH”. That is clearly not the appellation of a Soul given by the Soul’s earthly mother. So, this was the Defendants’ act of subjecting us to compelled association with use of legal coercion so that we would choose to fight their claim via that fictitious entity. To fight would validate that their claim exists in the first place. To validate their claim would mean to the Court that we accept that we are associated with them.

(3) The Defendants’ claim also depended on what they termed is “Your Property”. Their ordinances only pertain to “property” (meaning real property) within the jurisdiction of their body corporate. The word ‘jurisdiction’ simply means ‘the law’ (juris) ‘spoken there’ (diction). Yet they had actual notice of our recorded “land claim” (recorded in Berrien County’s land-related records), which expresses that we do not steward the certain land as real property within the Township body corporate. It expresses that we steward the land under covenant-trust with our Creator and the physical land’s Creator, within the unincorporated township society. These Defendants have never claimed we have violated the Creator’s laws by actually harming other people in some way.

(4) One of our filings into this case, just this week, requires the presiding judge to take mandatory judicial notice that the Legislature of the State of Michigan (body corporate) defines that the words “land” and “real property” are not interchangeable. The Land Division Act contains the definition of ‘land’ --- “Land means all land areas occupied by real property.” The Michigan Appeals Court has defined land as earth. Therefore, land cannot be real property. There must be some means by which land becomes occupied by real property.

(5) So, the answer to our other essential question we asked these Defendants when they presented their initial letter --- that question being What does "Your Property" mean? --- might have prevented this Law Suit. They would have had to provide the fact they rely on to conclude that Michael Patrick or Cheryl Marie owns or occupies real property within the Township.

(6) These Defendants, in their official capacity have violated our right to consent to the Law that governs how we live, move and have our being. That is what the Revolutionary War was fought to achieve. That right is socially protected by the U. S. and Michigan Constitutions. In their personal capacity these Defendants have violated the public law “Thou shalt not steal”.

The case number in the Berrien County Circuit Court is 17-000229-CZ

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

"Rural Resort Community" character of New Buffalo Twp is threatened by Board's breach of trust

This is a follow-up to our post right beneath this one, because the matter has far-reaching public importance. On July 17th New Buffalo Township Board members were provided with this Notice from us before their regular monthly meeting that evening, so that they could perform their ministerial (mandatory) duty to enforce certain ordinances prior to approving a Special Land Use permit for the golf cart sales/rental business Carts on 12 located at 19429 West US 12 (as part of the Property of record at 19425). The business occupies two parcels of property. Along with our Notice that details which ordinances had to be enforced was a quick-reference Checklist (see Notice link) from which they could check YES or NO as to their compliance with their duty.

Their vote, approving the SLU permit, indicated they answered “NO” to each point on the Checklist. Their approval of the permit cannot be valid, because the procedure and the SLU conditions required by law have not been met. We now intend to seek a court-issued writ commanding these officers to perform their ministerial duty.

Their refusal to enforce a key SLU ordinance provision, specific to this “open air business”, also means that they are choosing to put the public’s safety at risk (and ours especially). That provision prohibits this type of business from using the driveway of the parcel of property at the street address 19415 US 12, because it is too close to the intersection of US 12 and the entrance to Grand Beach Village.

Another effect of their vote is that they have sanctioned the Township becoming a literal junk yard. Read more about that in sections 4 c and e, plus 4 f two, three and four, of our Notice document. According to Twp Zoning Administrator Estelle Brinkman (the Board irresponsibly concurring to-date), anyone can use derelict semi-trailers as storage structures or accessory buildings. Anyone can also put about anything anywhere on their property because Brinkman personally determines that anything is “reusable” and therefore is not JUNK. We believe that the better way to categorize such items is that they are treasure to the owner and possibly junk to the observer, and so the applicable ordinances should be enforced as they are now written.

How would you like to live next to a fence made from literal shipping pallets? Brinkman and Board members have allowed this business to install such ‘fence’. While the regular fence ordinance lacks a prohibition about such non-fence material (which ordinance could be easily amended), the SLU ordinance specifically requires a fence that is compatible with the adjacent use of land and that will not change the essential character of the vicinity. The mixed-use character of the vicinity---well what used to be the character---is “rural resort community”.

We claim the Township's officers have breached the trust they have been given, and have also breached the contract with the State established per their oaths of office by refusing to perform their mandatory duty to enforce their ordinances that maintain property values.

Michael Patrick and Cheryl Marie (who live next door to this business)  

Friday, July 14, 2017

New Buffalo Twp officials refuse to obey Twp laws

Today, the hosts of this website sent the following email content to the five Board members. This serious situation pertains to their processing of a Special Land Use ("SLU") permit for an “open air business” in arrears, since the business has been operating during the process. The approval process has been running for four years, due to these officials refusing to uphold their laws or being too incompetent to understand their clearly-worded laws (initially in conjunction with the former Twp Supervisor, Rose Dudiak, who lost the November election). Our home is directly next to this business operation.

This law enforcement matter affects not only residents (and possibly tax funds), but also affects the safety of the public traveling near the intersection of US 12 and the entrance into Grand Beach Village. The Twp has the capability to record its Board meetings, but its officers choose instead to keep the public in the dark. Not even the Minutes of the Board’s meetings reveal the truth about this matter we are now presenting (as no public commentary is included in their Minutes). That is why we have been video-taping the Board’s zoning-related proceedings.

We believe that Authority is derived from the Truth.

Below our email is the Zoning Enforcement officer’s final report. Our email contains the remedy that Twp officers might chose to consider. We will post their reply if we receive one.

Note: we welcome comments or questions from the public on all of our posts, but we do not invite input that is merely derogatory or else cryptic in nature.

Our email to the Twp follows ---

Supervisor Heit, and each and all of you Board members:

We have just been provided with a copy of Zoning Enforcement Officer Buller's final report concerning Carts on 12 compliance with your SLU and regular ordinances. A copy is attached.

We find outrageous---unconscionable---the depth of the Zoning Dept officers' gross negligence, and your official failure or inability to supervise them Michelle, and you Board members' refusal to uphold the intent and specific goals of your Master Plan by causing and then condoning a literal junk yard in your C1 zoning district, and your refusal to enforce or even recognize detailed regular ordinance and SLU ordinance requirements, and your reckless disregard for the traveling-public's safety near the intersection, as well as the resulting harm that all of these matters has been and continues to be caused to our peace and land rights.

You have all individually, and collectively, knowingly and willfully, and having had prior notice of what to do to correct your position and/or shortcomings, chosen to violate your laws and your law-enforcement procedures.

What is your fact-based justification for refusing to recognize, or to simply ignore, the clear language and intent of your published ordinances and your mandated procedures? Your refusal to provide your justification will be another violation of your oath of office.

If you stand on the claim that you have in-fact total discretion to see nothing and/or do nothing, or act from only your personal edicts, you could be wrong. You could be required to prove your claim, or to prove that your claim of having discretion is reasonable in light of specific resulting harm.

Furthermore, an official's refusal to perform official duties is cause for removal from the office by the Governor, if not by the residents.

Our position is that you should immediately re-think your position, and then start mitigating the harm you have been and are causing us, by beginning to enforce your ordinances as they are written. Our position on these matters is fully-documented.

Michael Patrick and Cheryl Marie

END of the email.

Ordinance Enforcement Officer Dennis Buller's report can be read at this link ---

Thursday, January 26, 2017

What Michigan’s 180th birthday announcement by top state officials has to do with our recent email to Berrien County Commissioner Ezra Scott

According to WSJM 94.9 NEWS TALK, Governor Rick Snyder and other top state officials are holding a ceremony in the Capitol today to commemorate Michigan’s admission into the Union 180 years ago (on January 26, 1837). The report reveals that “The event is being called The Turnaround, because 180 represents the number of degrees needed to turn something around.”

We hosts of this website hope that the “turnaround” being contemplated means that all Michiganians will again enjoy the benefits of the Republic form of government, within which each individual’s freedom of self-governance is respected. That original form is 180 degrees opposite the present form of government –- the Legislated Democracy, in which the Legislature rules over all participating individuals. Most people have never learned that our Founding Fathers did not establish a Democracy. In fact they warned against such mob-ruled government, which they knew was as much a threat to everyone' right to exercise individual freedom as the Monarchy form had been. 

So how did a mob-ruled option come to be the dominant one? The answer, plus the means for anyone in the Legislated Democracy to “turnaround”, is included within an email we sent yesterday to newly-elected County Commissioner Ezra Scott. It was also sent to the other three new Commissioners. Attached to it was our historic Timeline that can be found in the sidebar of this website.

In 1837, the people who had settled the frontier Territory that they named Michigan knew that one of the required conditions for admission into the Union was that the government of any applying people would be “republican”, per Art. V of the Northwest Ordinance. That provision states: “Provided, The constitution and government, so to be formed, shall be republican”. All of the original Union states were established as a republican form of government, wherein no one governed any one else. People self-governed side by side, per shared moral principles. The enslavement of certain people was later prohibited, under those founding principles.

Michigan’s republican form of government has never been extinguished. But over time most Michiganians abandoned that form and chose (or were enticed) to monetize their Divine rights and societal interests, by placing their trust in the Legislated Democracy that had been instituted by the Congress. This conversion to people trusting in ‘The Government’ began just after the Civil War and expanded during the Great Depression. 

Our communication to Commissioner Ezra Scott follows, and includes a simple explanation about how one’s land becomes subject to Property Tax within the Legislated Democracy's feudal system. There is no taxation of one's land in the Republic. Contrary to popular opinion, the word “land” is NOT synonymous with the word “real property”. Property Tax pertains to real property. The final paragraph of this following communication offers a way to begin The Turnaround of government that would benefit everyone.

Commissioner Scott [January 25]:

This communication is intended to provide you, as a new Commissioner, with at least two benefits. The two attachments have already been provided to previously-serving Commissioners. The other benefit has to do with an event that occurred yesterday, which affected the monetary resources of some of your constituents.

Yesterday, some people entered into a property tax payment plan with Treasurer Witkowski. Some of them may have done so only due to their ignorance about their land rights. You may know a lot about the General Property Tax Act, or very little. Do you know it dates from 1893, for the then-valid purpose of reconstructing civil society and infrastructure in the aftermath of the Civil War? Do you know that the payment of property tax today is entirely voluntary (with exception of payment by an entity created by the State)?

We ask that you think about your constituents’ right to make use of their God-endowed dominion in land, without being coerced into abandoning that right in order to receive some desired governmental services. Everyone has the right to consent or not consent to grant his/her money. No one has a right to demand money from anyone else; money is derived from labor. Slavery has been prohibited for a very long time.

This communication explains the simple fact about how and why physical land (perhaps on which your constituents live) is connected with a ‘real property right and interest’. There is an additional benefit offered to you at the end of this email.

The reason why we suggest you should care about the reason that land is connected with real property, is that caring honors the valiant and even sacrificial acts of the Founding Fathers of the USofA. Those acts established and still protect the freedom that each one of us can use, or else chose to not use. You may not know that many of the Founders were killed just for signing or supporting the Declaration of Independence, or were tortured or endured their homes being burned to the ground. Freedom was not free then, and is not free now. Freedom must be asserted by each of us.

The attachments to this email will assist you in easily understanding that land has become linked with a ‘real property right’ by people choosing to do so. We have attached a simple Diagram that shows you the two different Public Trusts that currently exist. The attached “Timeline” is a chronological listing of the relevant Acts of Congress that created the secondary Public Trust in which your official position exists. You function within the one showing on the right --- the legislated democracy (where people rely on communal-consciousness). The original and still-functioning Public Trust showing on the left is the Republic form. We (Cheryl Marie, Michael Patrick, and other people whom we know) move our rights and societal interests within the Republic (exercising individual-consciousness in respect of other peoples’ rights). This difference applies to how land relates to real property, and thus to property tax.

This email is not a condemnation of people, or officers, who function within the legislated democracy. We merely desire that you know that people who chose to remain in the original Republic must be respected. One is born into the republic form of governance (to move God-endowed rights). But one can choose instead to place trust in man-made rules of the legislated democracy.

You acknowledge the fact that the Republic exists when you express the Pledge of Allegiance. The flag that is displayed in your Boardroom is that of the legislated democracy, not the Republic. The flag of the Republic has no gold-fringe on it. President Eisenhower ordered gold fringe to be added to the original flag; he is the President who first spoke the phrase “military-industrial complex” as a warning to the American people that it described the legislated democracy. People monetize all of their interests within the legislated democracy, but that is a voluntary choice of societal organization.

NEW INFORMATION (not previously offered to the Commissioners)

How land becomes connected with Property taxation, per the General Property Tax Act that pertains only to real property rights and interest a.k.a. real estate:

One can consent to abandon one’s God-endowed right to claim and use certain physical land of earth (being one’s Divine Estate per that covenant described in the Bible, socially secured to each of us per our Founding Fathers’ efforts), and, then accept a shared-title in a “real property right” offered by the State of Michigan in order to obtain communal governmental services that the State offers. This offered ‘right’ is actually a privilege. In the agreement, the State holds the legal title (being half of the whole property-title), and the owner of the property right holds the equitable title (the other half of the whole title). Equitable title allows use of the property and the monetary-profit / value obtained from it. To obtain the property interest – the governmental services – the owner of the property right pays a tax. The amount of tax is determined by an assessor. The amount is what the property right would sell for in a cash sale. The agreement one enters with the State requires that one commit one’s land-use (possession / occupancy of land) as the collateral that backs one’s timely payment of the assessed tax. So the tax is assessed according to what the land (and everything attached to it) is worth in the cash marketplace as compared with similar “Real Estate”. If the tax is not paid after a certain time, the land-use (as the collateral) is forfeit. The State takes back the equitable title, after obtaining a foreclosure judgment in court. If the property owner does not then redeem his property right, by paying the back-taxes owed, the State sells that property right at auction to someone else who desires to own it. That is all there is to understanding the State’s property tax scheme. The land committed must of course be within the surveyed-boundary of the union state Michigan.

When people just pay the tax, after getting a notice, that activates their consent.


If your constituents knew that they have a secured right to consent to grant their money for receipt of governmental services, there is a way to do so that would honor our Divine heritage and our societal heritage caused by our Founding Fathers’ efforts. Such plan would originate at the lowest societal level (i.e., City, Township, Village). People could pledge to grant money for services selected from a menu of services, which they themselves could participate in creating. Governmental budgets would be set from those pledges. Presently, some government officer decides that money is needed for a service the officer decides is needed, so a “millage” request is placed before voters. People simply do not comprehend that they have the authority to design the functioning of their own lives. But the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the original U. S. Constitution express that we each retain such right over our own interests and the political power to govern side by side. We grant to the State’s officers only the power necessary for them to coordinate people-power across a larger expanse of area than we can locally manage.

Certainly, people can already get together to pay for some special project or service desired by a large or small group of people whom they can join, or, they can singly grant money for such purpose. So the notion of granting – gifting – could gradually take the place of the present property taxation scheme of forced group-participation. This private gifting already fully occurs within the Republic. It could begin in the legislated democracy, as a transitional move, to allow people to learn to fully self-govern again. Officers who are employed in the now-bloated governmental sector would transition into the private sector. Your constituents would never again lose their home to an ungodly and outdated scheme for delivering governmental-services.

Cheryl Marie and Michael Patrick