UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GOODLAND TOWNSHIP,
Plaintiff,
V.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 99-73055
MICHAEL WYCKSTANDT,
Defendant.
MOTION TO REMAND
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT H. CLELAND
United States District Judge 712 Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
231 Lafayette Boulevard West
Detroit, Michigan 8 December 1999
APPEARANCES:
MR. STEVEN D. JARVIS, ESQ.,
In behalf of
Plaintiff.
MR. MICHAEL WYCKSTANDT, in pro per.
- - -
Suzanne Jacques, CSR, RMR
Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
313/965-1338
I N D E X
Proceeding
Page
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
Argument by Mr. Jarvis
Response by Mr. Wyckstandt
E X H I B
I T S
Exhibit No.
Offered
Received
Detroit, Michigan
8 December 1999
THE COURT: Next matter is Goodland Township versus Wyckstandt, 99-73055. We have
for Goodland Township, is it Mr. Jarvis, is that right?
MR. JARVIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And for Mr. Wyckstandt, Mr. Wyckstandt himself?
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I have Goodland Township's motion to remand here, and who else do you
have, Mr. Wyckstandt?
MR. WYCKSTANDT: I'm the defendant, and I have a motion to dismiss the whole
action.
THE COURT: I noticed that. We're going to handle the motion to remand first
though.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Okay.
THE COURT: And with you at counsel table is someone else?
MR. WYCKSTANDT: This is my wife, she has interest in the property, and Bill
Monroe, he also has interest in the property.
THE COURT: Is that right? They're not parties to the suit, though, are they? 4
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Yeah, they are.
THE COURT: They're not named as parties in the suit.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Well, the properties in dispute, she owns half and he owns one
percent, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have a seat.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Jarvis, your motion to remand. MR. JARVIS: Your Honor, do you
want me to stay back here?
THE COURT: Take the lectern. It's easier to hear you closer.
MR. JARVIS: My comments will be brief anyway, Your Honor. As this Court is
aware, this is our motion to remand this matter back to the 71A District Court
in Lapeer County. Just a real brief historical background. This all started with
two citations that were issued to Mr. Wyckstandt under Goodland Township
ordinance.
THE COURT: Some kind of building permit.
MR. JARVIS: Building code permit and a zoning compliance permit. Eventually
there was a third one, but on these first two, they were assigned to Judge
Barnard for formal hearing in district court. We appeared on the 21st for that
hearing. After the hearing we were,given notice of a petition to remand, remove
this matter to federal court after the default judgment had been entered against
Mr. Wyckstandt.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No objections are appropriate. This is simply a recitation. It's the
argument of counsel, and we'll be giving you an opportunity to state your
position as well.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Sorry.
THE COURT: That's all right.
MR. JARVIS: Again, just for the record, Judge.
THE COURT: There's a dispute as to the timing of the removal.
MR. JARVIS: Correct.
THE COURT: And whether the default had already been entered.
MR. JARVIS: Correct.
THE COURT: And whether you -- I understand there's some calendar disputes here.
MR. JARVIS: We weren't aware of the default until after the judgment had been
made in court.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. JARVIS: We made the motion to remand this. We believe the petition to remove
this matter was untimely, as I understand the federal rule, with resppct to
ruling of these items, to federal court. Should have been done within 30 days of
the defendant's awareness of this court proceeding if he wanted to remove it,
and as I look at the dates, Mr. Wyckstandt was aware of these issues early in
April or May. The removal was not done until sometime in June, so I don't
believe it was timely, I don't believe it should have been removed in the first
place. Secondly, I've submitted a supplemental brief that argues that there was
no original jurisdiction for this Court to have this matter in the first place.
THE COURT: That's the more fundamental question that occurred to me.
MR. JARVIS: As I understand it, this Court would have had to have original
jurisdiction over original citations to have jurisdiction over this now, and
clearly we don't believe the court had that jurisdiction. Mr. Wyckstandt had an
issue, really, we should have been in district court in Lapeer still, seeking to
set aside the default. But he chose not to do that and come here, and we'd ask
the Court to allow this matter to be remanded. And the argument which I believe
Mr. Wyckstandt relies on we don't believe supports the argument that Goodland
Township did not have, authority to endorse-this title of this property. We
indicated in our brief that a simple title to the property given by the
government, there are all types of land patents in the past given by several
different governments as I understand it. It's a title, it's not -- I mean, I
always believe that defendant, Mr. Wyckstandt, believes that somehow this almost
creates his own country , that we don't have authority to enforce our ordinances
against the property and there's any authority for that. We'd ask that you
consider costs to the township for having to have to respond to this.
THE COURT: Mr. Wyckstandt.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Thank you, Your Honor. This is a question about jurisdiction,
Your Honor. My name is Michael Wyckstandt, and me and my wife have total
interest in the property. The motion to remand was not made in a timely fashion,
and the plaintiff is speculating to the fact that it was a court case back when
the tickets were issued. in order to follow those guidelines, before I can take
it to court, it has to be filed, those tickets have to be filed in the court,
and they haven't filed -- they didn't file it in the court, okay, so you can't
remove a ticket to federal court for a federal question, at least not to my
knowledge. This is about land patent.
THE COURT: Do you know what a land patent is, Mr. Wyckstandt?
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Yes, I do. Michigan Compiled Law says it can be used as
evidence, and we have Pageation.
THE COURT: Evidence of title.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Title and control. The Pages --
THE COURT: You have title to the property? MR. WYCKSTANDT: And control, as long
as --
THE COURT: Good.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: -- we don't infringe upon the rights of our neighbors.
THE COURT: How does this -- and I have title to my property, too, in Michigan.
How does this, any of that, translate to federal jurisdiction over a building
code violation claim?
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Well, Your Honor, the land was first sold from the United States
government.
THE COURT: I understand that. That's how you got title.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: And it was public property, and the public property was sold to
private individuals.
THE COURT: That's right.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Okay. When the State of Michigan became a state in the enabling
acts, land was given to the state, Section 16, land for the capital, land for
universities, and all title and control passed from that point from the Bureau
of Land Management, then the interior department, to the state. When the state
became a state in the enabling acts, it was not supposed to interfere with the
primary disposal of the soil to a bona fide purchaser or any regulations that
congress found necessary for securing that title, okay.
THE COURT: All of that has to do with title. There's no dispute here about your
proper title to the property. As a matter of fact, that's a reason that you got
the building code violation tickets to begin with, as I understand it, because
you're the owner of the property. Nobody's disputing that. You have title to the
property.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: That's right, title and control, and we have a Pageation.
THE COURT: So why is this a federal case? This is a building code violation, or
claim of a violation.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: May my wife speak? She has a 50 percent interest in the
property.
THE COURT: No. you're the defendant in the case. You're the
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Says, generally, all title and control passes once the land has
been patented.
THE COURT: You're just saying the same thing in another way. You have title to
the property, or you, a collection of people. You're one of them. You've been
given a building code violation, apparently, or more than one, and you removed
this case purporting that there is some kind of federal jurisdiction. It is
incomprehensible to the court how this court has any jurisdiction over a
building code violation claim of Goodland Township, Michigan because the land
was at one time under the domain of the federal government and passed by land
patent to private owners. If it is upon that basis that you claim that there's
federal jurisdiction over this case, if it is upon that basis that you claim
that Goodland Township is without authority to enact a building code, to zone,
to restrict certain kinds of structures and uses and so forth, if that is the
concept, the fundamental concept that you're advancing here, it is not right. It
is baseless. It is in fact frivolous.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: I disagree with you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You are free to disagree with me, but it is I who am making the
decisions here,
MR. WYCKSTANDT: No disrespect, Your Honor, but the State of Michigan, when it
was granted statehood through the enabling acts, was granted land and title and
control of that land. There's nowhere spelled out in the enabling acts or that
the State of Michigan was to become a state that reserved the land, the private
land to the state. We're talking about public land. We're not disregarding the
statement that you said, that Goodland Township has the right to regulate and
restrict the use of land in which it has a monetary interest, or they have a
reservation on the patent or on the patent proceeds. Suma versus California.
THE COURT: Goodland, and various townships and cities, and so forth, consistent
with laws passed under the constitution of the State of Michigan have either
greater or lesser responsibilities and appropriate authority to govern the uses
of all the land that's found within that political subdivision. Now, if you have
a dispute about whether the particular zoning ordinance or restriction that's at
issue here, whatever it is, something to do with a pole barn, I understand, if
you have some challenge to the legitimacy of that ordinance, then I see no
reason why you can't raise that challenge in the course of answering the
litigation in state court. The State of Michigan state courts are fully able to
receive and to resolve disputes about the propriety of their various ordinances
and laws, but based upon what's been presented here, I do not see any colorable
federal jurisdiction that's been suggested here, in addition to the first basis
that was stated suggesting that the matter should be remanded, that is, the
timeliness issue.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: This is a federal question, Your Honor. The land patent is an
act of congress. So, in other words, you're telling me that that land patent
that was issued by the act, the federal government has no validity whatsoever,
but that the land that was issued to the state through the enabling acts has.
Where does it say the title control -- where does it say that my land patent
does not have control? As recent as 1996, the Bureau of Land Management had
issued land patents that have reservations on the land patent, and if the people
don't have reservations on it, they don't have the right to do this. There is no
corpus selected, there is no injured party here. Even the format of the
complaint doesn't fill the requirements of a complaint. It doesn't state who,
why, and what. What's the, who is the victim, for what? It states that, but it
doesn't say what for. Also, I've asked for a copy of the complaint. I have a
Page that I sent Ken Lawson on March 24 that I'd like to bring forth to the
Court asking for a valid complaint. A civil infraction is not considered a
complaint, so they had no jurisdiction to bring the complaint forward anyways.
Doesn't follow the criteria.
THE COURT: well, if that's the case, you may have a basis to challenge it in the
state district court. What's wrong with that?
MR. WYCKSTANDT: it's a federal -- why would the Michigan code of law say the
land patents could be used as evidence? MCL 565.301.
THE COURT: Evidence of title.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: What is title? I have Pageation that says title and control
passes --
THE COURT: Title and control -- I don't think anybody is -- we're back to the
same place we were when I first began speaking with you. I don't think anyone is
challenging your title to the property or your control of the property. What's
challenged is your use of the property, and there apparently are regulations
which in some ways restrict that use with reqard to what kind of structures can
be built or the manner in which such structures can be erected. That's the
problem here. There's no problem with title, there's no problem with control. It
is acknowledged that you have title and control. Now, control does not
necessarily mean unfettered control.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Where is the Page that says that they have control over the land
patent? That doesn't say it in the enabling acts.
THE COURT: No one has suggested that they, that is Goodland Township, has
control over the land patent. MR. WYCKSTANDT: Had to get the jurisdiction from
somewhere. When the United States acquired the land -- Michigan law, Michigan
law which has been --
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Michigan law can override federal law?
THE COURT: There's no overriding, there's no attempt in Michigan law to override
your title to the property. Nobody's trying to take the property away from you.
As they are, as I understand it , attempting to control your particular use of
the property.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: And how is that use harming anyone under the constitution?
THE COURT: That's for Goodland Township and you to dispute. That's a political
question, that's not a jurisdictional question.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Sure, it is.
THE COURT: 'You may think that it's a foolish ordinance, maybe I'll agree with
you, I don't know. I haven't looked into the merits of it. Some restrictions are
more sensible than others. Some restrictions are more useful than others. I
don't think anybody would quarrel, I hope you wouldn't, maybe you would quarrel
on the merits with the restriction that says that a pig farm should not be
allowed to be operated within the confines of the city limits of East Lansing or
the city limits of Detroit, that there should be no manure lagoons permitted to
be constructed and maintained.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: That would endanger the public health, welfare and safety of the
people.
THE COURT: That's your opinion. Others may disagree with you. Some may say it
can be done safely. What's the harm? Who's the victim? What's the problem? It's
my property, I can do what I want with it. I can raise pigs safely and without
odor and problem. That's my opinion. But, see,, those are political questions.
Those are to be resolved by the legislature. Those aren't judicially resolvable
disputes. And this particular use of your property that you're, I gather that
you're suggesting that it's, that it is a legitimate use, not harming anyone,
you should be able to build a pole barn that you want to in any manner that you
see fit. That's your opinion. Other people may disagree with you, and in that
regard, there may be appropriate restrictions enacted by appropriate political
subdivisions, perhaps including Goodland Township, which may restrict the
manner, the time and the manner and the size and the construction techniques,
and so forth, of various buildings that are intended to be erected. The reason
building codes exist generally, the literature teaches us, is because of
generalized concern for public safety.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Where does the public safety concern with my right to work in a
legal and lawful occupation, build a house or a dwelling in accordance with the
dictates of my own conscience, under Meyers versus Nebraska, in order to raise a
family and --
THE COURT: The dictates of your own conscience might lead you to buy property in
downtown Detroit and to attempt to raise pigs.
MR, WYCKSTANDT: Your Honor, I'm sorry, we're not talking about pigs here. We're
talking about not infringing upon someone's rights.
THE COURT: Well, again, that's a political question. Whether it is or isn't is a
matter to be resolved in the enactment of these building codes, seems to me. And
you may have a good case, I don't know. You may have some challenge. You may in
the course of the litigation in state court have a basis to persuade a judge
that this particular building code is illegitimate, that it's overbroad, that
it's inappropriate, that it's with no sound basis, that it was passed
arbitrarily or capriciously or is being enforced arbitrarily or capriciously.
There may be many things that can be said in the course of that litigation, but
none of that makes it a federal case.
MR. WYCKSTANDT: Your Honor, I'm willing to put up a thousand dollar bond to stay
this remand until my appeals have been exhausted. Would you consider that?
THE COURT: Well, first, what we will do is decide the motion to remand, and only
in the event that the matter is presented is any consideration of appellate
remedies or requirements for appellate relief to be considered. That matter is
not before me and I will not express an opinion about it. Anything else?
MR. WYCKSTANDT: I guess not.
THE COURT: Mr. Jarvis, anything?
MR. JARVIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Goodland Township's motion to remand for the reasons stated in the
brief in support and the supplemental brief in support persuade the court, all
things considered, that the matter is not properly before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Firstly, I believe that the
removal was untimely for reasons stated in the brief of Goodland Township, and
filed, that is, outside of the 30-day limitation. Secondly, and equally
important, the court finds that there is no jurisdiction in this court to
consider this local building ordinance dispute, and for these reasons, which
will be briefly stated in a written order, this matter is ordered remanded to
Lapeer County 71A District Court. And I think, Mr. Jarvis, that there's not a --
at this moment, I do not believe that there is a basis that would persuade me to
enclose costs and fees for improper removal. if at a later time this matter is
before me again for whatever reason, Iand if I am persuaded at that time that
there has been inappropriately litigious conduct, I may revisit that question.
At this point, the suggestion that you make that I consider costs and so forth
for responding to this removal, I'm going to deny that, but deny it without
prejudice. You haven't presented a written motion in that respect, have you,
just the oral presentation?
MR. JARVIS: Correct.
THE COURT: That's what I thought. Thank you, counsel. And court stands in
recess.