A big "Thank You" to the Genesee County Herald for mentioning the book signing at the Clio Center for the Arts Art in the Park event on Friday, August 26th. To those of you who have read the book, and are interested in our ongoing legal issues with Thetford Township, you will be happy to know new action was filed on Thursday, August 25, 2016 in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, MI. appealing the Zoning Board of Appeals' denial of our appeal to them that Thetford Township adopted a policy that conflicts with their zoning ordinance, and, in effect, changed our zoning defacto leading to the basis of their claims on which they based the denial of our ability to renew our licenses at the end of 2005, resulting in the loss of our business. We believe we have presented adequate proof this policy exists, and that it has been used in an arbitrary way violating both our rights to due process, and equal protection.
Due to this new action, I have not had time to promote the book as I would like, so a big "Thank You" for the interest the book is generating. The comment heard most often from readers is that once they start reading, they can't put the book down. That's very gratifying! A former Thetford Township Trustee told me it should be required reading for every trustee elected to the township board. To date, the blog has had nearly 400 views, and as mentioned in a recent post,
Under Color of Law is now in the Library of Michigan.
Because of the interest the book is generating, and the importance of addressing the questions we have identified regarding the way in which Public Act 495 was passed, I am reposting them for new viewers. Michigan State University College of Law and Hillsdale College have both notified me by letter that they are distributing information on the book for use as a possible research project. Any effort to address these questionable actions by our lawmakers is appreciated. It our hope that
Under Color of Law will make an impact by promoting awareness and prompting discussion that will bring about real change in how our lawmakers conduct business. Thank you for all who are having a part in making this happen.
Questions Raised by Under
Color of Law the Story of P.A. 495
Since the passage of P.A. 495 has
raised several significant questions involving the actions of legislators, and
encompasses public policy as well as constitutional and procedural issues we
are seeking public policy organizations and groups to address these issues.
Questions that have yet to be addressed include:
·
Why fiscal impact studies were not
done to determine the impact on the businesses being regulated per the Michigan
Administrative Procedures Act 24.240 Reducing disproportionate economic impact of
rule on small business MCL 24.245(3) Section 40,
·
Since
the new “Established Place of Business Requirements” were applied to license
renewals of those who were home-based and others whose business models did not
require them to operate a full retail establishment, should the appropriate
department have reviewed the takings assessment guidelines prepared under the
Property Rights Preservation Act 101 of 1996 24.424 (3) and a consideration
done of the likelihood that the governmental action may result in a
constitutional taking per Section (4) of that Act?
·
Since the Michigan Constitution
states, “No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in
its title” and “No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage, was the
Michigan Constitution violated by adding the “Established Place of Business
Requirements” the day of its final passage into a bill that dealt only with
abandoned vehicles, had nothing to do with business or licensing up to that
point, and had already been passed by the House on August 9, 2004?
·
Does the definition of ‘rule’ as
defined in the Administrative Procedures Act 24.207 apply to the “Established
Place of Business Requirements,” and what are the parameters of “on its
passage” as intended by the Michigan Constitution?
·
P.A. 495 Section 248 (1) states
“this subsection does not apply to renewals.” If this is referring to the new
“Established Place of Business Requirements” as it appears, does this mean that
a ‘grandfather clause’ was overlooked or intentionally ignored?
-
Were Senate Rules of Procedure violated since
they prohibit an amended bill from being considered in the Committee of the
Whole or on Third Reading until the amendment or amendments have been printed
in the Journal (Senate Rules Chapter III Section 4 3.403. And yet Bill 4231 was
voted on for passage by the Senate the same day amendment S-2 with the new
“Established Place of Business Requirements” was added.
