| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
(Terry Bankert is a Face Book friend. I thought what he had to say was important. really no link that I know of)
ERIC MAYS FILL THE ROLE OF CITIZEN EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND POLITICAL ASSEMBLY I RESPECT THAT. BUT, HE DOES IT POORLY AND LIMITS THE ABILITY OF OTHERS TO COME FORWARD AND REFLECTS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE ISSUES HE ADDRESSES.
ERIC MAYS- lawsuit to stop the demolition of Genesee Towers.
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/06/judge_tells_flint_resident_eri.html#incart_river
THE DEMOLITION OF GENESEE TOWERS IS A POORLY THOUGHT OUT PLOT OF THE ECONOMIC POWERS IN DOWNTOWN FLINT TO REMAIN THE ECONOMIC POWERS AND STAYING IN THE FAVORABLE VIEW OF THE WHITE KNIGHT AND HIS SON THE BLACK KNIGHT
FLINT, MI – A Genesee Circuit Judge Geoffrey Neithercut told Flint resident Eric Mays that he was in the wrong court on Monday, June 10.
--
HERE IS THE LAW, MAYS IF A LAWYER WOULD HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE
MCR 7.103 Appellate Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court
(A) Appeal of Right. The circuit court has jurisdiction of an appeal of right filed by an aggrieved party from the following:
(1) a final judgment or final order of a district or municipal court, except a judgment based on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere;
--
A JUDGE CAN ONLY RULE ON ISSUES PROPERLY BEFORE HIM. MAYES MIGHT AS WELL HAVE ASKED THE JUDGE TO STOP THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE HIGHWAYS IN THE FLORIDA SWAMPLAND.
Mays asked Neithercut to issue an injunction and halt the implosion of Genesee Towers, but the judge told him to file the motion in civil court.
MAYES WAS A JERK AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, I WAS THERE, HE DESERVES TO PAY FOR THE TIME SPACE AND AIR HE TOOK UP.
Mayes is appealing his misdemeanor conviction of disruption of a Flint City County meeting in July 2012.
STUPID MOVE MAYES
“If you want to argue some sort of injunction to Genesee Towers, you’re in the wrong lawsuit,” Neithercut told Mays.
DREAMING
The injunction was meant to stop the planned demolition of Genesee Towers by Uptown Reinvestment Corp.
DISRUPTER IS HIS BADGE OF DISHONOR
The court motion was done as part of Mays’ appeal of his misdemeanor conviction in February of disruption of a public meeting.
HE HAD A FOOL FOR A CLIENT
Mays has acted as his own attorney and said he will file the civil lawsuit in the next few weeks.
“I’m very satisfied,” Mays said. “We alerted the public that there can be something done.”
HERE EVEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR GUYS ARE CLUELESS AND JUST TAKING UP SPACE.
Uptown said on Friday, June 7, that the demolition has been delayed because it cannot get financing to complete the work.
Neithercut issued a stay of Mays’ sentence until his appeal is complete.
Mays is asking for a new trial and that a judge allow certain evidence.
A judge ordered Mays to pay $425 in fines and court cost and spend a day in jail, with credit for one day served. If Mays didn’t pay the fine by June 6, he was supposed to spend five days in jail.
SPINNING THE SPINN
“I did not do it the wrong way on purpose,” Mays said. “That was a trick to get where we need to be.”
I WOULD LIKE MAYES TO SIT DOWN, NEW BLOOD NEEDED TO LEAD THE OPPOSITION. JUST WHERE ARE THOSE OCCUPY FLINT ZEALOTS?
Mays said he’d like Uptown to give the city of Flint between $1 and $2 million for summer jobs for youth or for police and fire protection, in exchange for the building.
Uptown purchased the building for the city of Flint for $1 in a deal that wasn’t finalized until August.
----
HERE IS WHAT MAYES OR SOMEONE BETTER SUITED COULD FILE
Definition
§13.1 Injunctions are judicial orders or judgments that prohibit future acts of a party or stop activities already commenced. A type of equitable relief, injunctions are potentially applicable (or at least requested) in a broad variety of circumstances, covering many substantive areas of law. The application of injunctive relief in any particular situation depends on the facts of the case and the court involved. However, basic principles cover the procedural aspects of injunctive relief. MCR 3.310 generally authorizes injunctive relief and outlines three types of injunctions:
1.
temporary restraining orders, granted if necessary for a very limited time until a hearing on a preliminary injunction can take place, MCR 3.310(B)
2.
preliminary injunctions, granted pursuant to notice and hearing on a motion or pursuant to an order to show cause, to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits, MCR 3.310(A)(4)
3.
permanent injunctive orders or judgments, granted after a trial or hearing on the merits, MCR 3.310(H)
B. Which Courts May Issue an Injunction?
§13.2 Any court with equitable powers may issue an injunction, and this includes the circuit courts, probate courts, and appellate courts. However, only those judicial bodies are authorized to issue injunctions. Quasi-judicial agencies generally lack the authority to issue injunctions, and such authority should not be implied when it is not expressly granted by statute. See Wikman v Novi, 413 Mich 617, 647–648, 322 NW2d 103 (1982) (tax tribunal not authorized to issue injunctions).
A circuit court may not grant injunctive relief to stay proceedings in an action pending in another court if relief could be sought in the other pending action. MCR 3.310(E). Also, pursuant to the separation of powers doctrine, a circuit court generally may not second-guess an executive branch decision. In Fieger v Cox, 274 Mich App 449, 734 NW2d 602 (2007), plaintiff was the subject of an investigation by defendant, pursuant to which defendant obtained search warrants and subpoenas from the district court. Rather than appeal the district court’s orders, plaintiff filed two original actions in the circuit court seeking injunctive relief, which was granted. The court of appeals held that the circuit court’s grant of injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order violated the clear and unambiguous terms of MCR 3.310(E), which provides, “[a]n injunction or temporary restraining order may not be granted in one action to stay proceedings in another action pending in another court if the relief requested could be sought in the other pending action.” Id. at 463. The court also held that the circuit court’s temporary restraining order, which constrained the executive branch’s authority to investigate or pursue potential violations of Michigan law, violated the separation of powers doctrine.
Michigan Civil Procedure ch 13 (Kathleen A. Lang et al eds, ICLE 2d ed 2012), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx?lib=litigation&book=2012555670&chapter=13
(last updated 05/31/2013). |
|
|
Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:54 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Terry made some excellent comments on the Mike Kilbreath show yesterday. he ay be too wordy when he writes, but h is informative. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:21 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
