RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

In Sgt. xxxx’s deposition on 8-22-06, xxxx made several statements of fact that were untrue. These statements have caused damage to my reputation and to the Judicial Process of my Civil Lawsuit 05-xxxx.

(Sgt. xxxx Deposition)Page 17, lines 6-25 / Page 18, lines 1-25 / Page 19, lines 1-8

Q Now, in this report that you signed it says in there, quote, “Sergeant xxxx stated he had made contact with Bob xxxx, owner of xxxx’s Taxidermy, and had gotten permission from xxxx to take hair samples from the hide.” Is that true?

A Yes

Q And by saying that you had made contact, does that mean that you contacted him?

A Right. I went to xxxx’s Taxidermy.

Q This was the day of the frozen hide?

A Right.

Q And on that day did you ask him if you could take samples?

A I did.

Q And what did Mr. xxxx say?

A He consented to that.

Q And was this Mr. xxxx deer hide?

A It was Mr. Ingersoll’s deer hide. It was in Mr. xxxx possession.

Q Now, is there any reason why you didn’t contact Mr. Ingersoll to ask if you could—

A Yes

Q --take samples

A Yes

Q And why not?

A Because in criminal investigations, if I would have done that, it’s a possibility the deer hide would disappear before a sample could be taken.

Q But you could get a warrant?

A Could . If—

Q Did you?

A If the –if the deer hide could be produced. But no—no. I don’t think a warrant was needed.

Q A warrant was not needed?

A No. I got consent from a taxidermist to—

Q But not the owner of the hide?

A No

Q And is it your understanding as a law officer that consent from a person who is in possession of the hide is as good as consent of the owner?

A What—could you explain what you mena by “as good as”

Q Well, you don’t think that that’s a 4th Amendment search and seizure violation, without a warrant?

A No, I don’t believe it is.

Q And why is it that you believe that that was a proper seizure? Did you consult anyone?

A Well, because I received consent from the taxidermist. We do taxidermist inspections regularly. And it was a small hair sample—small hide hair sample that was taken.

Q So it wasn’t just a hair sample?

A No; no. A sliver of hide was taken with hair.

Q And who instructed whoever took this sample to take a hide sample as well as hair sample?

A That would have been me.

Page 21, lines 7-8

Q So you haven’t done anything like this in the past?

A With an albino deer?

Page 21, lines 20-24

Q Does an albino have characteristics different from other white deer that would be –identify the deer right off the bat as albino?

A I’ve heard about pink eyes, hoofs that are—are—don’t have brown pigment in it. Talking to the scientist, talking

Page 22, lines 7-10

Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether this deer had pink eyes or dind’t have pink eyes?

A I went from the photographs, and the eyes did not appear to be pink.

Page 28, lines 16-19

Q Did you at any point give any of this information to the Cheboygan County prosecutor?

A Yes. I didn’t personally, but officer xxxx submitted the report to the Cheboygan County prosecutor.

Page 39, lines 11-14

Q Well ,no, I’m just wondering, did you—have you had requests or dispatches that have come in from another source that says “We’d like you to investigate this deer:?

A For this albino deer

Page 43, lines 11-24

Q So whether it was biologically an albino was not really as issue for the DNR in terms of its law enforcement obligations; correct?

A We had to go on what the law said.

Q Right; right. But it could be an albino – what I’m getting at is—

A It could be an albino with---with—

Q --this could be an albino deer, but if it had enough brown markings of whatever source other than manmade sources, --

A It would be legal

Q --it would be legal

A --animal to shoot

Q --to shoot, and there would be no prosecution; correct?

A Exactly

Page 47, lines 18-23

Q Didn’t matter to you whether it was an albino deer?

A It didn’t matter. What mattered is, if it had brown on it, if that was naturally occurring.

Q And once it had enough brown on it that was not manmade source, your job was done?

A Correct.

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

Honorable xxxxxxxx in the Cheboygan County civil court based his ruling on the testimony of the DNR officials.

(Court Transcript)Page 45, lines 12-25 / page 46, lines 1-18

Previously these motions for summary disposition when they were brought I was of the opinion that an albino deer was illegal to shoot and therefore looking at things in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the letters could be interpreted as accusing the plaintiff of having committed a crime which is per se libel or slander. The pleadings now before me really, I guess, have educated me to the individuals in charge of enforcement that an albino deer—



what is technically an albino deer can be a legaltarget and legal kill if it has a certain amount of that brown coloration or stain on it, and there is nothing to refute that that’s the law.

I mean, that is what the DNR testified to. There is nothing on the opposite side that indicates that’s wrong. That an albino deer regardless of amount of staining or quantity of staining or however it comes about is always an illegal kill. That’s not the case on this record. It appears that it can be a legal kill. Therefore, what’s different today than it was before discovery had concluded was to indicate somebody has shot an albino deer is not to accuse them of a crime.

As the DNR has testified to, there are instances where shooting an albino deer can be a legal act. With that not being a part of the equation anymore, there is no per se slander or libel and it’s down to actual malice and when I read these letters I don’t find that to be the case together with the attachments to the pleadings on these motions for summary disposition, so I’m going to grant the motions for summary disposition.


On 12-01-06 Ingersoll’s Civil case 05-xxxx was dismissed with prejudice. This was due directly to DNR officer’s Lt. xxxx and Sgt. xxxx incorrect testimony.

On 8-23-07 Ingersoll contacted Lt. xxxx and asked if he could meet with him for lunch or something and try and put their issues at hand behind them. Stating that if xxxx and xxxx would write a letter to the Judge xxxx to straighten out the incorrect statements they made, they could possibly come to terms. Lt. xxxx declined!
(Phone Records)

Ingersoll then contacted Attorney General Mike Cox office. He received an e-mail with a Meeting Request form attached.

On 8-27-07 Ingersoll drafted up a retraction letter to Sgt. xxxx and mailed it. On 8-31-07 Sgt. xxxx received his retraction letter with all the incorrect statements listed. (Mail Receipt)

On 8-28-07 Ingersoll drafted up a retraction letter to Lt. xxxx and mailed it. On 9-1-07 Lt. xxxx received his retraction letter with all the incorrect statements listed. (Mail Receipt)

On 8-31-07 I received a message on phone cell phone from Barbara Schmidt from the Attorney Generals Office, leaving me her telephone number to return her call.

At 11:34 a.m. on 8-31-07 Ingersoll returned Barbara call and gave information to her regarding Constitutional rights, obstruction of Justice, subpoena incident, prosecutor’s office incident and Lt. xxxx name for contact.

He informed Barbara about the false statements made by DNR officials and how his civil case was dismissed based on their false testimony. She replied that due to next week being a holiday, many people would be off and she will contact me the following week. Barbara was planning on talking with the Chief of the DNR and possibly Rebecca Humphries. (Phone Records)

On 9-18-07 I called Barbara Schmidt from the Attorney Generals Office regarding the DNR. She suggested that I get in contact with DNR director Rebecca Humphries the Director of the DNR. (Phone Records)

AT 2:14 on 9-20-07 Ingersoll contacted State Representative Gary McDowell’s office. He spoke with Dan and explained the situation; Dan stated he would look into it and call back. (Phone Records)

AT 2:42 Dan called back and informed Ingersoll to contact DNR Director Rebecca Humphries, if that does not work, please call back. (Phone Records)

On 9-20-07 at 4:15 Ingersoll contacted the DNR Director Rebecca Humphries office in Lansing. Ingersoll informed them, that the Attorney General Office and State Representative Gary McDowell’s office requested him to contact this office regarding the DNR issues.

Their response was that I should talk with the Chief of Law enforcement. Ingersoll told them how he called Chief Allan Marble before and was told to contact Captain Kurt Bacon in regards to the conduct of the DNR officers. Doing so, only to Lt. xxxx call him back 10 minutes later.

They replied that Chief Allan Marble was no longer with the department and the new Chief of Law Enforcement was Rodney Stokes and to make sure I gave the new chief the information regarding Chief Allan Marble.

On 9-21-07 Ingersoll called Chief Rodney Stokes office and talked with Taunia Sadler and briefed her on the situation. She checked the chiefs schedule and informed Ingersoll to try to call back tomorrow between 9:00-12:00.

She asked which officers were involved; I listed Lt. xxxx, Sgt. xxxx and Officer xxxx. I was informed that Lt. xxxx was no longer with the department, due to his retirement.

Ingersoll was able to schedule a meeting for 10-16-07 in Lansing with Chief Rodney Stokes. Ingersoll attended the meeting with Mr. Stokes and discussed the activities of the officers. It was a promising meeting, with acknowledgement of wrong doing on the DNR’s part. Chief Stokes was going to check into a few things and get back with Ingersoll.( DNR meeting)

•Why Sgt. xxxx and Lt. xxxx stated under oath that Ingersoll had shot an albino deer?

•Why Sgt. xxxx stated under oath that Officer xxxx submitted my Incident Report to the Cheboygan County Prosecutor?

•Why Lt. xxxx , Sgt. xxxx and Officer xxxx did not have a warrant before they confiscated and damaged his property?

After not hearing from Chief Stokes for almost two months Ingersoll e-mailed the Mr. Stokes on 12-6-07.


On 12-13-07 Ingersoll received an e-mail response from Chief Rodney Stokes. With answers to all the questions in his e-mail sent on 12-06-07. This will bring up several items in dispute, which will be covered later in this document.

On 12-26-07 Ingersoll e-mailed Mr. Stokes again with several factual items, to help him sort the information out.

Not getting a response from Chief Rodney Stokes Ingersoll followed up with another e-mail stating his intentions on 1-07-08. Ingersoll Informed Mr. Stokes that he was referred to the Directors Office from the Attorney General Mike Cox office and was trying to settle his problems as he was instructed.

On 1-08-07 Chief of Law Enforcement Rodney Stokes e-mailed Ingersoll that he had nothing else to offer.

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

Please help a fellow hunter in need and stop these people before they strike again!

Please contact your State Represenative and Senator in your district and help get this issue investagated!

Locate State Rep- http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp

Locate Senator - http://www.senate.michigan.gov/

Tell them to contact Peter Manning at the Attorney Generals Office. 517-373-7540

Reference the Ingersoll DNR Issues.

We can make a difference!

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

Any thoughts folks?

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

They are the iron ball and you are the rubber hammer.In a battle the longer it is ,the more it shows on the rubber hammer not the ball. I'm sorry but thats how it is .I could have told you how it would trun out after the first post .I have been there,you will not even get an apology for all the time and money they wasted of yours.They think everyone should just bend over and spell R U N without a qustioning them.


[/align]

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

John, what those people have done to you makesme want to vomit!![:'(]Plain and simple, they've got a problemadmitting they went about thingsin an unprofessional/illegal manner. What really pisses me off is that they have their superiors covering for them!![>:] They are scumbags as far as I'm concerned. This kind of crap is all too common in this country these days, and it's part of the reason other countries view us the way they do. If I was an attorney, I'd help you out for FREE.
Also, the guy on this forum who questioned your ability to identify the deer's eye color is a realsmacked ass. The brown on that bucks head is enough to make it a piebald.The bottom line is, THEY OWE YOU A PUBLICAPOLOGY, and should make good on any financial hardships you incurred. Good luck my friend. That's a beautiful trophy that you earned.;)

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

4-28-08 - I finally talked with Peter Manning from the Attorney Generals Office. I was told he will be forwarding the information to the Criminal Division and calling me back with a contact persons name!

Environment, Natural Resource and Agriculture
G. Mennen Williams Building – Sixth Floor
525 West Ottawa, P.O. Box 30755, Lansing 48909

Community Pressure helps!

Please make a call!

Division Chief, S. Peter Manning ........................................ 517-373-7540

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

May 8, 2008 - NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION

[align=left]I. FOR INFORMATION ONLY – NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ACTION IN JUNE [/align]
[align=left]A. Deer Management Units (DMUs) Open or Closed to Antlerless Deer
Licenses, Removal of Protection for Albino and All-White Deer
Wildlife Conservation Order, Amendment No. 8 of 2008 [/align]FOR INFORMATION ONLY.............................................. ...........................1-9


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...8_232198_7.pdf

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

That's a partial win.

RE: Does the MDNR Condone misconduct by Officers?
 

Yes, this was on my list of things to do. But this law does not effect my situation and does not apply to me...............