Download pdf 2018 Tax Changes
Government v Private Sector
By Pat Foster
When I was in high school in the late fifties, I had checked various careers. I wanted to be an oceanographer, and work for the government in that capacity. At the time, government employees made substantially less than the private sector, and I remember my grandfather talking me out of career even though my heart was truly into it. I am now a Certified Public Accountant with over 45 years experience as a tax accountant.
Today, the whole thing is reversed as the graph above prepared by the Congressional Budget Office clearly shows. Erich Wagner writes in the Government Executive that the differential can be attributed to the fact that federal government employees largely still have “defined benefit pension” plans that have “largely disappeared in the private sector.” The private sector is therefore guaranteeing benefits to government workers, and the private sector is being taxed to pay those benefits out of salaries and wages that are below their government counterparts.
When did this big change occur? James Douglass in his JFK and the unspeakable made the point that when JFK was assassinated on Nov. 23, 1963, there was a coup de tat that took place in our government. The argument he makes points the finger directly at the CIA and the Joint Chief’s of Staff in carrying out the assassination under the direction of Alan Dulles, the first head of the CIA. Mr. Dulles was fired by JFK for setting the president up at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Chief Justice Warren was appointed to head the investigation into JFK’s assassination, and he appointed Alan Dulles to chair the committee investigating it.
The conclusion that Mr. Douglass made relative to the CIA and the Joint Chief’s of Staff was in line with most other investigative reports on the subject. Mr. Douglass’s conclusion that there was a coup de tat was strictly his own, and he made a very convincing argument, but it needed some backup proof to make it more credible.
The one department that the CIA would need to control in order to control the government was elections. To control them, you would not put your operatives in the highest position of each department, but it would be an underling that actually controlled, so if there was a problem, the head of the department could be changed, while the real power was at the underlings position. In the Michigan Bureau of Elections, the head was Chris Thomas in 2009 when I started my audit of the 2008 General Election. His underling was Brad Whitman. On Aug. 23, 2009, when I put four groups of volunteers to go to various townships and cities in Allegan County and request to see the ballots under the Freedom of Information Act, it was Brad Whitman who the clerk’s called and he controlled how each clerk would decline our requests.
In 2010 as the audit was coming to a close, and the Attorney General, Mike Cox issued AG Opinion 7247 allowing the citizens to see and photograph the ballots under a Freedom of Information request, I ran an article regarding my theory about Brad Whitman, and within six weeks he was replaced. We must then ask who governs us; if elections are fake, what keeps elected officials there?
Collusion Between Ganges Township’
And the Developers on
Recreation Development Subdivision No. 1
The developer of the platted subdivision placed a dedication on the plat that the two private roads Blue Goose Avenue and Mallard Street are dedicated to the use of the lot owners and adjacent property owners. The validity of this dedication is now before both the Michigan Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. This subdivision was platted in 1965 under the Plat Act of 1929, which was replaced in 1967 by the Subdivision Control Act, which was amended 1998 as the Land Division Act of 1967. Neither act provides for “adjacent property owners”, and there are no cases involved with this issue. Both acts have a simple way of providing for “adjacent property owners” by dedicating the road not as private, but as public. This meets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s “equal protection under the law” clause. If the road is public, both the lot owners and the “adjacent property owners” are subject to the same law, like who pays for the maintenance and upkeep of the road. When the road is dedicated as “private” it allowed the township to take money from both both the developers and “adjacent property owners” to the detriment of the lot owners.
Proofs regarding validity of dedication:
Recreation Development Corporation developed two platted developments by purchasing a ¼ section or just over 48 acres on Lake Hutchins in 1964 shown in the tax map above. The two platted subdivisions are Recreation Development Subdivision on Lake Hutchins and Recreation Development Subdivision No. 1 (RDS1) on a channel off of Lake Hutchins. The plats accounted for approximately 22 acres, while 9 acres were adjacent to the platted roads, and the balance allocated to wet lands and road ways. By the time the developers recorded the plat for RDS1 on Nov. 12, 1965, they owned not only all of the lots for the plat, but all of the adjacent properties.
The two sets of principals that controlled Recreation Development Corporation (RDC) were the Dangermond brothers doing business as ERA Resorts, a partnership, and Myron Sale and his wife. RDC deeded ERA Resorts all of the adjacent properties on April 1, 1967 almost a year and half after the subdivision was platted. This parcel included the adjacent properties south of Mallard Street. Myron Sale and his wife were not distributed the adjacent properties until much later on a deed dated Jan. 31, 1977, and it included the four parcels west of Blue Goose Avenue.
It is an established rule of law that an owner cannot create an easement across their own property. There is a motion and brief in support of that motion before the Michigan Supreme Court questioning the validity of the dedication on the plat based upon not only establishing an easement across their own property, but the violation of the “equal protection under the law” clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Collusion between the township and the developer:
The township approved two land division applications to “adjacent property owners” that we currently have. One was on the south side of Mallard Street. As you can see from the tax map above, none of the land parcels just to the south of Mallard Street have frontage on the public road, 122nd Avenue. The land division application (Exhibit A) proposed that one parcel, which is a “division” has frontage on an existing public road.” It is obvious from looking at the tax map that this statement is false.
Roger Dengermond, one of the principals of RDC signed an affidavit that states “ I agree the statements made above are true, and if found not to be true this application and any approval will be void.” (Ex A2) Ganges Township issued two building permits on Mallard Street based upon a “void” application filed under the Land Division Act of 1967. This application was not been approved by the township assessor on page 2 (Ex A2), but it appears that on page 4 (Ex A4), Melvin Koenes the assessor accepted it on May 17,2000.
A second land division application (Exhibit B) on Blue Goose Avenue was accepted on both page 2 (Ex B2) and page 6 (Ex B6) by Mr. Koenes. Again on the first page, it states that “each new division has frontage on a public road”. The map on page 3 shows that out of four divisions, only one has frontage on a public road, the other three are on Blue Goose Avenue. Pages B7 through B10 are soil evaluations that show The water table to be at 6’, 18”, 3’, and 5’ respectively. That is why they could not get it to be accepted as buildable under their plat application.
Ganges Township continued
Ms Cynthia Yonkers, who is also is a lot owner within RDS1, got the first building permit on 10-29-91 to build on the south side of Mallard Street which is a 30’ right-of-way (ROW). On April 15, 1991, six months prior to Ganges Township issuing the building permit, the Allegan County Road Commission issued Requirements and Specifications for Subdivision Development. On page two of this document under right-of-way for streets, it states “New platted streets shall have a minimum right-of-way of 66 feet in Residential Plats…” When the plat was originally platted in 1965, Blue Goose Avenue had residential lots on both sides of the road, and it was platted as 66 feet, while Mallard Street only had residential lots on the north side of the road, so it was platted as a 30’ ROW. The township in issuing this permit violated the “equal rights under the law” clause of the 14th Amendment by requiring the original plat to have a 66’ ROW on Blue Goose Avenue, and then almost 25 years later treating the “adjacent property owner” differently than the platted lot owners were treated. See Parcel 012-20 above.
The second parcel that Ganges Township issued a building permit to was parcel 012-40 to Richard Saputo, who purchased the property from ERA Resorts. This was the second permit issued to an “adjacent property owner” on the other side of the street, which was only a 30’ ROW. I partnered with another lot owner on Mallard Street to bring suit against Mr. Saputo and the developers, ERA Resorts for an injunction against their building any additional houses on the street. Our attorney, John Marple had asked Cindy Yonkers, who was now the township clerk for a copy of the Land Division Application. She claimed that it was not available. In a later suit with subsequent owners to that property, Ms Yonkers, the Ganges Township Clerk was deposed and questioned regarding that application:
Q. Okay. What does a Ganges Township clerk do in her responsibilities; may I ask that please?
A. I’m responsible for accounts payable, payroll, insurance work, cemeteries, elections, voter registration.
Q. Do you get engaged in the Land Division Act?
A. No, sir, I do not. That’s zoning. It’s zoning and assessment department.
A. No, sir, I do not. That’s zoning. It’s zoning and assessment department.
Q. Do you get involved in any–anything with regard to having applications submitted for land division?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you at all familiar with the Township of Ganges land division application that was submitted by Mr. Saputo–or, strike that, Mr. Dangremond?
A.It’s been brought to my attention after the fact.
Q. In 1999?
Q. Why would it have been brought to your attention after the fact, ma’am?
A. Because it was included as part of a zoning variance hearing and the township board and the ZBA get a copy of that packet.
Page 53, lines 5 -23:
Q. And in here on this application, if you will, it indicates, according to the checkmarks on the proposal under C, it says the division of [the] parcel provides access to an existing public roadway, and basically, it’s checked where it says each new division has frontage on an existing public roadway; is that not true?
A. That’s what it says. I’d Say the form is wrong. It should have been stricken by Mr. Koenes and changed to private, but it didn’t.
Q. This was never approved, was it, ma’am?
A. I don’t know, sir. I know there was a holdup on the initial one because they were waiting–I know there was a tie-up with the–when the building permit was issued, blah, blah, blah, bit I know it was eventually resolved. Again, it’s not my area. The township board does not get involved in land division.
Q. If it would be approved, they would have signed it or put a signature to the document; would they not have, ma’am?
A. I assume Mr. Koenes (township assessor) would have.
Ganges Township has a Land Division Ordinance that says exactly who receives the applications:
“A. Upon receipt of a land division application package, the municipal clerk or other official designated by the governing body shall forthwith submit the same to the municipal assessor or other designated official for decision. The municipal assessor or other designee shall approve, approve with reasonable conditions to assure compliance with applicable ordinances and the protection of public health, safety and general welfare, or disapprove the land division applied for within 45 days after receipt of the application package conforming to this Ordinance’s requirements, and shall notify the applicant of the decisions and the reasons for any denial.”
The land division application (Ex A) was received “4-1-99”, and it was possibly approved “May 17, 2000” (Ex A4). This is not 45 days after being received, but over 500 days later. If Mr. Koenes, the township assessor made a mistake, by accepting an application that had no “divisions” on a public road, then he again made the same mistake because the land division application on Blue Goose Avenue with only one out of four divisions having frontage on a “public road”, and that application (Ex B) said exactly the same thing that “each new division has frontage on an existing public road.” Mr. Koenes did accept that application on “9-25-00” Schedules B2 & B6) two days after it was received on “9-23-00” (Ex B).
After the land division application (Ex A) was received by the township on 4-17-99, but not accepted until 5-17-00 (Ex A4) over a year later, ERA Resorts deeded on 5-7-99 the parcel to Richard Saputo that had no access to a “public road”. Almost a year later, the township issued a building permit for this parcel to build on a 30’ ROW on 3-7-00 even though a land division application had never been accepted by the township.
May 17, 2000, I along with a fellow lot owner filed a lawsuit (Exhibit G) against Mr. Saputo and ERA Resorts for an injunction against their building on Mallard Street. Number 18 (Ex G2)of our complaint stated:
“At the time of the creation of the lots, the unplatted area had approximately 725 feet of frontage on 122nd Avenue, a public road.”
June 14, 2000, defendants filed an answer (Exhibit J) to our complaint. They answered # 18 (Ex J2):
“Denied. The Dangremonds further affirmatively state that the unplatted parcel of land south of Mallard Street, which was conveyed to them at the same time as the platted lots north of Mallard Street, never extended to 122nd Avenue, never had frontage on 122nd Avenue, and never had access to or from 122nd Avenue, and that said parcel of land was only accessible from Blue Goose Avenue and Mallard Street by virtue of the easement expressly created and referred to in the recorded plat.”
This answer directly refutes Roger Dangermond’s land division application (Ex A) filed a year earlier. The correct answer as Ms Yonkers indicated in her deposition would have been to place the “X” before “A recorded easement.” The developers knew their dedication was not valid, so they intentionally made an incorrect choice on the application that the township accepted knowing from the diagrams filed with it that it was not correct.
The lot owners are eligible for damages from both the township and the developers if we show collusion between the two to intentionally damage the lot owners for the benefit of the developers. I spoke with an attorney regarding this situation, and he said damages would be limited to the insurance policy the township carries to cover them for events like this one.