Isabella County Tenants Beware! Sheriff's Department Can & Will Evict You Without Due Process!
Disturbing the Peace
Multiple times on September 27th, 2010 we were threatened by, or cautioned with, arrest for "Disturbing the Peace". More than twice by by Deputy Steinert and again by Undersheriff Tellis.
This is oppressive is it not?
I'll just push your face a little further in the dirt while all these
"CIVIL" crimes are happening against your family.
The threat of arrest is a very powerful tool!
Steinert disturbed our peace when he made us leave our own property and could or should have been arrested himself for this right?
It seems to me that "Disturbance of the Peace" charges or allegations are mostly to quell a situation or force people into compliance with what an officer
is doing regardless of the lawfulness of his actions. Isn't it just a lesser means of saying
"Stop or I will shoot!" - "Shut up or I will Arrest!"
Steinert was a trespasser on our property and disturbed our peace when he made us leave our property. This was an unlawful seizure of our property? or theft because the rules of seizure were not there? Wrong no matter how you look at it.
Trespassing:
Steinert also called us trespassers on our own leased property and told us we could be arrested for this too if we didn’t leave our property when he was in fact the trespasser?
Is there anyone reading this document that does not understand this to be the willful interference by a police officer in our possessory interest in and of our own property?
Steinert, as an officer of the law - "An Actor of the State", trespassed upon our property? Disturbed our Peace? and willfully and intentionally seized our possessory interest of our home, papers and possessions and these are all crimes? for which he must be made personally accountable? Or is this like the parking example there in front of the Sheriff's Department and officers of the law get to bend and break the rules as they please without fear of prosecution?
Quote:
Under the law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands.
For the life of me I can't find where this goes into more detail anywhere else and says that cops can infringe on these basic laws.
Nuisance Defined:
“an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all."
So by Wikipedia definition...
Steinert is a Nuisance?
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person trespass to chattels and trespass to land
Trespass to the person, historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming. Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery"; battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it"; and false imprisonment, the "unlawful obstruction or deprivation of freedom from restraint of movement."
Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as "an intentional interference with the possession of personal property...proximately causing injury." Trespass to chattel, does not require a showing of damages. Simply the "intermeddling with or use of...the personal property" of another gives cause of action for trespass. Since CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, various courts have applied the principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage.
Trespass to land, the form of trespass most associated with the term trespass, refers to the "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in real property." Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. "At common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser", however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.
Conversion:
Conversion is a common law tort. A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another. It is a tort of strict liability. Its criminal counterpart is theft.Examples are seen in cases where trees are cut down and the lumber hauled from the land by someone not having clear ownership; or removing furniture belonging to another from a cohabited dwelling, placing it in storage and not telling the owner of the whereabouts. In medieval times, a conversion would occur when bolts of cloth were bailed for safe keeping, and the bailee or a third party took them and made clothes for their own use or for sale.
Many questions concerning joint ownership in enterprises such as a partnership belong in equity, and do not rise to the level of a conversion. Traditionally, a conversion occurs when some chattel is lost, then found by another who appropriates it to his own use without legal authority to do so. It has also applied in cases where chattels were bailed for safe keeping, then misused or misappropriated by the bailee or a third party.
Conversion, as a purely civil wrong, is distinguishable from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act inconsistent with another's rights, and theft will also be conversion. But not all conversions are thefts because conversion requires no element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. If one claims an unjust enrichment, the person who has another's property may always raise a change of position defense, to say they have unwittingly used up the assets they were transferred. For conversion, there always must be an element of voluntarily dealing with another's property, inconsistently with their rights.
To claim, as deputy Steinert did, the changing of ownership of our home and personal property to be that of “Conversion” would imply that the landlord and the tenant were living together or owned the home and personal property in partnership. Steinert’s claim also suggests that a landlord/tenant dispute is a form of cohabitation and is entirely wrong. Steinert’s claiming or calling the loss of our property the result of conversion is and was an ignorant assertion as conversion requires no element of dishonesty. A claim of conversion is the means used by Steinert to get out of doing his job which was of course to enforce the law.
Theft:
In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief, and the act of theft is known as stealing, thieving, or sometimes filching.
As you can see in the police report, I called to report a burglary and was arrested for misuse of 911 and Steinert refused to respond to our call for help with the burglary primarily due to the fact that he was an active participant in the burglary itself?
Steinert’s assertions that the property taken was somehow jointly owned by the landlords and the tenants because of the landlord tenant relationship or that the personal property was somehow lawfully held as collateral for the landlord tenant contract to satisfy any future disputes over rent is completely asinine and entirely self serving and fraudulent?
This goes well beyond simply being lazy and is a crime in and of itself as Steinert became a willing participant in the act of burglary?
Criminal Conversion:
Criminal conversion is the crime of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property. It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of the possession of that property. As such, it is a lesser included offense of the crime of theft. Criminal conversion specifies a type of conversion in that it involves criminal law, not civil law.An example might be tapping someone's secured wireless LAN or public utility line (which could also amount to theft of services). Another example might be taking a joy ride in a car, never intending to keep it from the owner. Some places have defined such conduct as a specific type of theft, perhaps with a modified penalty.
Note that the "unauthorized" use may begin after a period of authorized use, where, for example, a person rents a car then keeps it for an extra week without permission from the rental company. Another common example occurs when a person fails to report finding lost goods (including animals), intending only to keep them until someone asks for their return. When the intent becomes one of keeping the property, it is a theft.
But it is up to Steinert to define “theft” on behalf of another person? I report burglary and Steinert calls it civil? I call to report a burglary and Steinert calls it conversion? It is up to the same deputy's discretion that completely failed to recognize my concern with this matter from the beginning?
VISNER was advised that due to the comlaint, which did not even concern him...
I would agree that the line between theft and conversion can sometimes be a tricky thing to determine such as in the case where the landlord and tenant did in fact live together but this was clearly not the case in our situation. For Steinert, calling our case civil or a matter of conversion not only made his job simple but produced a situation where he felt he didn’t even need to complete a police report.
In Steinert’s very own police report, he claims that I was dealing in matters that were of no concern to me. Honestly folks! How is it that a deputy can claim that the loss of my family’s house and the property within were of no concern to me, the father, the husband and the man of the house?
This was of no concern to me?
This was such a contention of no-concern to me that I called 911 repeatedly in effort to get competent law enforcement help for my family because it didn’t concern me? Steinert! Did you graduate the 3rd grade?
John Tellis and Leo Mioduszewski you really need to be ashamed of your actions with regard to this matter. Your deputy is alleged to have committed crimes against my family and you respond by writing me and my complaints off as me being some sort of lunatic? A fanatic? Next you will be calling me an anarchist? Next you will issue an interoffice memo to be on the lookout for me and calling me dangerous? Be on the lookout for Ted Visner a danger and threat to your department and the status quo?
This isn’t serving the people! This is serving and protecting yourself and your department!
All this to protect yourself and your liability…
Aren't you both failing to do your jobs? Failing to uphold the law and failing to uphold the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan and I’m the lunatic? I’m the crazy person?
Your actions are Oppressive, Demeaning and Hurtful and only go towards serving yourselves and for that you should be very very ashamed of yourselves.
Leo! You are required by Michigan State Statutes (the [bleep] LAW!) to specifically not oppress the people you serve!
YOU ARE OPPRESSING MY FAMILY ! ! !
Revised Statutes of 1846 (EXCERPT),
OF SHERIFFS.
51.69 Sheriff; bond; condition.
Sec. 69.
The condition of an individual bond required under section 68 of this chapter shall be in substance as follows:
“................... has been elected to the office of sheriff of the county of ................, at the general election held in the county, or at a special election held in the county, on the ......... day of ............ . ............. shall be required to well and faithfully perform and execute the office of sheriff of the county of .............., during his or her continuance in office by virtue of the election, without fraud, deceit, or oppression, and shall pay over all money that may come into his or her hands as sheriff.”
oppression
–noun
1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
Is Steinert your nephew?
Were our landlords related to anyone in law enforcement? What in the hell are you doing besides living up to your 2010 trophy?
Have you not ordered an investigation into this matter?
ARTICLE: THE AUTHORITY OF A MICHIGAN SHERIFF TO DENY LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS TO A DEPUTY
2008
25 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 433
Author
E. Frank Cornelius, Ph.D., J.D.*
Excerpt
I. The Context in Which the Issue Arises
This Article explores the authority of a sheriff to deny law-enforcement powers to a deputy under section 51.70 of the Michigan Sheriff's Act, the first sentence of which provides that "[e]ach sheriff may appoint 1 or more deputy sheriffs at the sheriff's pleasure, and may revoke those appointments at any time." 1
This issue was squarely presented in the proceeding to enforce the award rendered in the arbitration of Police Officers Ass'n of Michigan & County of Leelanau, Michigan & Its Sheriff. 2 The circuit court held that "the Arbitrator did not have the authority under the collective bargaining agreement to order the Sheriff to restore [the Deputy's] law enforcement powers. Nor does this Court have the authority to enter such an order." 3 This case (Leelanau County) is under appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. 4
The arbitration concerned the sheriff's firing of a deputy for, inter alia, allegedly having improper contacts with a criminal suspect who had struck her former boyfriend in the face. 5 The deputy was placed on administrative leave while an internal investigation was conducted by the undersheriff. 6 Following the conclusion of that investigation, the deputy was terminated. 7 A grievance was filed, and ultimately it went to arbitration. 8
750.123 Officer omitting duty for reward.
Sec. 123.
A sheriff, coroner, constable, peace officer, or any other officer authorized to serve process or arrest or apprehend offenders against criminal law who shall receive from a defendant or from any other person any money or other valuable thing or any service or promise to pay or give money or to perform or omit to perform any act as a consideration, reward, or inducement, for omitting or delaying to arrest any defendant, or to carry him or her before a magistrate, or for delaying to take any person to prison, or for postponing the sale of any property under an execution, or for omitting or delaying to perform any duty pertaining to his or her office, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months or a fine of not more than $750.00. However, if that defendant is charged with an offense against the criminal laws of this state, an officer convicted under this section may be punished by any fine or by any term of imprisonment or both a fine and imprisonment, within the limits fixed by the statute that the defendant is charged with having violated.
Section 750.159n
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 seizure without process
750.159n Seizure of property subject to civil in rem forfeiture; petition; filing; personal or intangible property; determination by court; seizure without process; circumstances; lien notice against real property; notice and hearing required; return of property to crime victim; exceptions; custody of property by seizing agency.
801.103 Separation of prisoners; prisoners arrested on civil process and criminal process.
Sec. 3.
Prisoners arrested on civil process, other than for civil contempt, shall be kept in rooms separate and distinct from those in which prisoners detained on a criminal charge or conviction are confined. Prisoners arrested for civil contempt shall not be housed with other prisoners detained on criminal charges, except those detained on a misdemeanor charge. Except as otherwise provided in this section, prisoners arrested on civil and criminal process shall not be put or kept in the same room.
A small donation will go a very long way
for this family as they continue to put
their lives back together!
The family would like to offer you their
sincere appreciation for your considerate
contribution!