An account of William Munro’s Case based on the State of Michigan in the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland’s transcripts. 

The Charter Township of Waterford">

An account of William Munro’s Case based on the State of Michigan in the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland’s transcripts. 

The Charter Township of Waterford, Plantiff v William Munro, the Defendant before the Honorable Steven N. Andres, Circuit Court Judge, Pontiac, Michigan, Case number: 00-027093-CZ.

Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. Peter J. Donlin for the Charter Township of Waterford. 

William Munro was representing himself, Pro Per.

November 15, 2000 – First Hearing

Mr. Donlin, Township Attorney

The Township wanted injunctive, that is, a judicial remedy which would require the defendant to cease from doing or continuing to do a particular act or activity, and equitable relief, that is assistance from the court for protection from future harm, regarding the garage addition by William Munro whose property lies within the Waterford Historic District.

The Township alleges through a verified petition that the defendant began constructing the garage addition in the summer.  On September 12, 2000, the Township Inspector visited the site and issued a stop work order on the property.

The Township also alleges that the property is in violation of setbacks set forth in the Zoning Ordinance – 15 feet within a 35-foot yard setback.  There has been no application for permits neither through the Township nor through the Historical District.  The Township maintains that the violation of the Zoning Ordinance is a nuisance per se, that is, an act or structure that is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of its location or surroundings, for which the Township is entitled to equitable relief.

Mr. Donlin further states that Mr. Munro has stopped working on the property since the stop work order was issued and he would like that memorialized in the interim order that is prepared for the Court.

Mr. Donlin asked the Court’s permission to have an inspection of the structure that would be mutually convenient to the parties, but no later than November 23, 2000.

Mr. Donlin asked the Court to include a proposal that the Defendant may be served with additional pleadings in the matter to his address of record.

And finally, Mr. Donlin asked the Court to set a hearing on the merits to determine whether the garage should be destroy, demolished or where Mr. Munro can obtain a permit and any necessary variances with the Historical District’s approval.

Mr. Munro, Defendant

Mr. Munro placed an objection to be included in the record. 

1.      A violation of the Court’s Order which the Township agreed to.  Mr. Munro was not served at least 9 days prior to the first hearing.  He was served on Tuesday, November 7, 2000.  Being a layman, not an attorney with a staff, he did not have enough time to prepare a proper response to the Township’s petition.

When Mr. Munro called to ask Mr. Donlin for an adjournment, he abruptly stated NO and told Mr. Munro to ask the judge.  In spite of Mr. Donlin’s abruptness, Mr. Munro stated that the matter would not end here and now.

2.      The Township has neither proprietary nor monetary interest in Mr. Munro’s real or personal property; therefore, there is a question as to whether the Township has jurisdiction at all.  It was Mr. Munro’s contention that the Township violated Title 42 U.S.C. 1982, Personal Property of Citizens.

Mr. Munro asked the Court for an adjournment so that the question could be properly briefed and argued.

3.      Mr. Munro stated that the official who posted the stop work order did not have the authority to do so based on information and his belief.

Mr. Munro further stated that the Waterford Township Officials ought to follow the same procedures as Orion Township Officials do.

4.      Mr. Munro’s contention is that the Historical Commission is an arm of Waterford Township’s governing body formed by an administrative decree going back to the days of former Township Supervisor, Mr. James Sterelin.  His belief is that the Historical Commission’s formation and the rules it operates under were not properly publicized, therefore carries no force or effect, and certainly has no jurisdiction over property.  There is no one on the Historical Commission that Mr. Munro can think of that lives in the historical section of Waterford.

Mr. Munro also stated that the Court might lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case until at least the Township has exhausted administrative remedies available to them.  Indeed, Mr. Munro was astounded that he was never issued a violation as decreed by the BOCA code.  The Township took extraordinary steps in throwing the matter before the Court by a verified petition and it would appear as the Township were deliberately skipping steps in regard to the Defendant’s Due Process Rights and certainly smacks of selective law enforcement.

Based upon the information presented to the Court, Mr. Munro believes and is his position that the Township’s petition before the Court is little but a transparent attempt to avoid and outwit the steps outlined in its own ordinance.

Mr. Munro asked the Court to deny the Township’s request for injunctive relief.  It was Mr. Munro’s contention that the resolution in his matter would have far-reaching consequences and would affect all the citizens of Waterford Township and indeed on all property owners in the State of Michigan.

Mr. Munro also requested that the Court deny costs and attorney fees to the Township in this matter.  The alternative would be to request that the Court adjourn the matter for a period of 30 days until Mr. Munro could properly research and prepare an arraignment in some court of his position.

Mr. Munro asked the Judge if he could approach the bench in order to present pictures of his amended structure (garage).  Mr. Donlin, Township attorney did not object and the pictures were handed to the Court Clerk.

Mr. Donlin stated that the garage in the pictures looks nearly completed and Mr. Munro was served on November 7, 2000.  Mr. Donlin does not believe that he was abrupt with Mr. Murno during their conversation.  Mr. Donlin began to bring up the past sins of Mr. Munro; that he has litigated with the Township before and asserted similar allegations about the Land Patent Act and Federal Law preventing any Township Jurisdiction over his property and that he is arguing this again in this matter.

Mr. Donlin further stated that Mr. Munro did not address the question of the garage addition nor setbacks and failure to obtain a building permit.  Mr. Donlin stated that it was irrelevant whether the Township had authority to post the stop work order because that is not part of the Township lawsuit.  If Mr. Munro complied, then that is over.

Mr. Donlin stated that the question before the Court is that the existing structure is in violation of the Township Zoning Ordinance and Mr. Munro’s only defense is jurisdictional.  Mr. Donlin asked the Court to review the interim order presented and that Mr. Munro not continue further work and that the Township have a building inspection and set the time for a final hearing on whether the building should be demolished or Mr. Munro applies for a permit.

The Judge asked if Mr. Munro was served 9 days prior to the hearing date of November 15, 2000.  Mr. Donlin replied that the Proof of Service shows Mr. Munro being served on November 7, 2000.  The Judge responded that that was only 8 days not 9 days and Mr. Munro was entitled to the full 9 days pursuant to the Court’s Order.

The Judge asked Mr. Munro if he was planning on hiring a lawyer in this matter and he responded that it was being considered.  The Judge set the case over one week and advised Mr. Munro that he either hire a lawyer or represent himself.  That way Mr. Munro would have enough notice under the Court’s Order to prepare a defense.  In the meantime, the Court ordered that no further work would be done to the structure.

November 22, 2000 – Second Hearing

Mr. Donlin stated that the Court adjourned the motion from November 15, 2000 and that the Court ordered a cease and desist for any further construction on Mr. Munro’s garage.

Mr. Donlin stated that Mr. Munro filed supplemental pleadings enhancing his previous position that the Court does not have jurisdiction and that there are defects in the Township’s case.  Mr. Donlin asked the Court to grant an order allowing inspection of  Mr. Munro’s garage by the Township within the next 10 days at the mutual convenience of both parties, but, no later than December 7, 2000.  Mr. Donlin also asked the Court to order that Mr. Munro may be served with all future pleadings by first class mail at his present mailing address.

Mr. Donlin asked the Court for an evidentiary hearing date to resolve legal issues and to allow the Township to go forward with its proofs regarding the abatement of the nuisance, i.e., the garage.

Mr. Munro responded to the Court that on November 15, 2000 the matter was brought before the Court and towards the conclusion of the oral argument, the Court advised him to seek legal counsel.  Mr. Munro stated that he attempted to hire counsel and the attorneys that he spoke with did not have time to review the argument or the matter was over their head and did not wish to be involved with it.

Mr. Munro stated that he and his family in desperation prepared a written amended response that he gave to the Court and he begged the Court’s indulgence in this matter since he would have to go for it alone.

Mr. Munro voiced his objection to the proceedings for reasons stated on November 15, 2000 in his original response and that he would now place additional objections in front of the Court.   The Township selects parts of their code and ordinance for their benefit and at the same time seeks the right to place restrictions on the defendant.  Their code states that the defendant be given proper notice, as well as, the opportunity to correct alleged violations.  Furthermore, the Township never personally served upon the defendant the proper notice nor was anything sent by certified mail.  Mr. Munro included affidavits from his wife and himself asserting that he was never served nor was notice mailed to his address of record.

Mr. Munro submitted to the Court that the wording of pertinent sections of the code make it very clear that the Township violated the very code they seek to enforce upon the defendant.  The code also states that the defendant shall have time to correct the violations and that the defendant has the right to appeal.  Title 42 U.S.C. 1441 calls for the aid and assistance of those seeking to improve their property not the actions of the Township which clearly attempts to hinder and prevent property improvement.

Mr. Munro stated that the Township’s zeal to conclude the matter at the expense of prejudice and violation of the defendant’s Due Process Rights.  The Township was well aware of their need to follow the steps outlined in the BOCA code.  Indeed, if they were not aware, then they should, for government officials are always charged with the knowledge of their own rules.  Clearly, the Township chose to ignore their own rules and take extraordinary steps in filing the instant petition with the Court.

Mr. Munro stated to the Court that he certainly does not have a legal education or background, however, he can read and has submitted the steps outlined in the Township’s own code regarding how an alleged violation is to be resolved.  Clearly, in violating their own code, the Township has engaged in blatant, vindictive and selective law enforcement.  The amended response Mr. Munro submitted clearly outlines the run-ins he has had with the Township.  One must be verrrry careful with Waterford Township when one exercises constitutionally protected free speech or access to the courts.

Mr. Munro stated that he could not recall a single time when a Court declared that the pleading he filed were fictitious or frivolous and he maintains that he has an absolute right to voice criticism of elected officials.  He further submitted the right to seek judicial review of actions taken by his government, which he believes to be unlawful or unconstitutional.  The Township’s attempt to stifle these rights through litigation is a crystal clear example of their fondest wish and dream; “Shut up and go away!”

Mr. Donlin objected to Mr. Munro’s rambling because he thought is was not relevant.  The Judge intervened and told Mr. Donlin to “Sit Down”.

Mr. Munro stated that the Township would fail.  He respectfully requested that the Township’s injunctive relief be denied and the petition be dismissed with prejudice.  The Township must follow their own rules allow the defendant the right to outline in the same.

The Judge granted Mr. Donlin a brief response.  He stated that Mr. Munro did not address the Zoning Ordinance.  He conceded that the BOCA Code requires a permit.  He stated that the proofs offered to the Court show that on September 12, 2000, Mr. Munro was given notice to comply with the BOCA Code.  Mr. Munro violated the Historical District Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, violated setbacks and did not apply for a building permit.  Mr. Donlin stated to the Court that Mr. Munro’s other defenses will fall by the wayside and that he did not need to go any further into rebuttal.  Mr. Donlin asked the Court to grant the injunctive relief the Township has prayed for.

The Judge asked Mr. Munro if he built a structure without a permit, Mr. Munro answered, yes.  The Judge asked Mr. Munro if he followed the setback requirements required by the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Munro answered, no because it was an addition to an existing garage.  The Judge asked Mr. Munro if he obtained a variance from the Zoning Board, Mr. Munro answered that he did not realize that one was needed.

The Judge then stated to Mr. Munro that he has to treat him just like any other lawyer and that Mr. Munro must follow the same rules any other lawyer would.  Mr. Munro replied that he would expect that.

The Judge stated that the record would note that the matter comes before the court on the Township’s motion for a temporary restraining order pending this action.  It would appear from the arguments and pleadings that Mr. Munro erected a structure without a building permit as required by Township Ordinance.  Additionally, there is an allegation of a setback requirement violation as required by Township Ordinance.  Because there was a substantial amount of work that was completed by Mr. Munro on the garage, the Township is entitled to inspect work that has been done.

The Judge ordered and inspection and no further work would be done on the structure until further order of the Court.  The Township was given a temporary restraining order.

The Judge also stated that there were several issues raised by Mr. Munro.  First, the service of process and second, a violation of rights under the law.  The Judge stated that the appropriate motions need to be filed and an evidentiary hearing would be held.  Mr. Munro would have to file a response and appropriate motions to either quash service of process or do whatever the Court Rules required him to do.

In conclusion, the Judge told Mr. Munro and Mr. Donlin that an evidentiary hearing would be held on issues raised.  If Mr. Munro chose to file any motions, he would have to follow Court Rules.

 Sometime after the Court Adjournment

After the matter was adjourned by the Judge, Mr. Donlin told Mr. Munro that he wanted to settle the case out of court.  This was a complete turnaround from what just happened in court and a shock to Mr. Munro.  Mr. Donlin told Mr. Munro he would need to get setbacks, variances and pay about $30 for permits.  Mr. Munro asked Mr. Donlin about Title 42 U.S.C. 1441, the Township is supposed to help and assist him in improving his property.  Mr. Donlin replied that all he needed was 2 inspections, a rough and final with about $30 dollars plus go to the Historical Committee. 

Mr. Murno told Mr. Donlin to prepare the paperwork and send it over to Mr. Munro’s attorney for his review and signature.  When the consent judgment was prepared, sent over and reviewed by Mr. Munro, he stamped it with UCC 1-207 (this is reserving your common law rights, without prejudice) and then signed his name through it so that it could not be separated from his signature.  Mr. Munro’s attorney sent back the consent judgment to Mr. Donlin. 

The consent judgment from Mr. Donlin spelled out all the steps that Mr. Munro was to complete in order for him to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.  After Mr. Munro signed the consent judgment with UCC 1-207, he never heard anything from the Township again and they left him alone from that day forward.

In the event that the Township intimidated, coerced or forced Mr. Munro in any way to sign an application for a permit (this is a contract with the Township); he would have:

·      Asked for all copies of the application for a permit. (Some Townships may have a permit application with several carbonless pages together.  Others may have just one piece of paper, so ask which copy will belong to the applicant.)

·      Taken it home for review.

·      Crossed out anything that he did not agree with.

·      Placed UCC 1-207 with his signature through it.  Making sure that all copies of the permit application were readable.

·      Kept his copy in a safe place.  This is a very important step, because the permit application may be misplaced, or later not found by the Township and therefore, no record of the permit application would be found in the Township offices.

·      Returned the rest of the permit application copies to the Township.

 Some Final Thoughts

In the transcripts Mr. Donlin refers to Mr. Munro’s garage addition as “a nuisance per se”, that is, an act or structure that is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of its location or surroundings. 

A nuisance according the legal definition is: in tort law, it is a broad concept characterizing “the defendant’s interference with the plaintiff’s interests”.  It can be anything that annoys or disturbs the free use of one’s property, or which renders its ordinary use or physical occupation uncomfortable.  It extends to everything that endangers life or health, give offense to the senses, violates laws of decency, or obstructs the reasonable and comfortable use of property.  [Barron’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition]

·        What interest did the Township have in the defendant’s property?  The answer is none.  There was no monetary interest or proprietary interest that can be inferred through the transcripts.

·        How did Mr. Munro’s garage addition annoy or disturb the use of the Township’s property?  Based on the transcripts, the Township cannot prove that they were annoyed or disturbed by the garage addition.  The Township property is not located anywhere near Mr. Munro’s property.

·        How did Mr. Munro’s garage addition violate laws of decency?  Based on the transcripts, the Township cannot prove that Mr. Munro violated the Townships decency laws.

·        How did Mr. Munro’s garage addition make the physical occupation of the Township’s property uncomfortable?  Based on the transcripts, the Township cannot prove that Mr. Munro made the physical occupation of the Township’s property uncomfortable.

On the other hand, Mr. Donlin stated to Mr. Munro that if he complied with the Township’s consent judgment, then the garage addition would no longer be “a nuisance per se”.  This defies logic, is downright baffling and just shocks the conscience because as the transcripts point out; Mr. Munro’s garage addition would be a structure that is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of its location or surroundings.  On the one hand Mr. Donlin ranted and raved about Mr. Munro’s garage addition being “a nuisance per se”, but on the other hand, if Mr. Munro just would have paid up, then all of a sudden it would no longer be “a nuisance per se”. 

Unbelievable!