High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
STATE OF MICHIGANIN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
ex relatione
BEVERLY TRAN,Petitioner,CASE NO:v.WILLIAM J. JOHNSON,SUPERINTENDENT,MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE,
et al.
Respondent,
ADDITIONAL PARTIES:
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, GOVERNOR;JOHN D. CHERRY, LEUITENANT GOVERNOR;MICHAEL A. COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL;TERRY LYNN LAND, SECRETARY OF STATE;JAMES R. STOKES, DIRECTOR OF APPOINTMENTS;ISMEAL AHMED, DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES;MARILYN KELLY, SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE;MAURA CORRIGAN, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE;KATHERINE HANLEY, DIRECTOR OF ADOPTIONS;JEREMY S. STEPHENS, STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR;And THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Real Party in Interest
.
BEVERLY TRAN,Private Attorney Generalon behalf of THE STATEOF MICHIGAN8437 LumpkinHamtramck, MI 48212313-522-8213
Michael A. CoxAttorney GeneralThomas L. Casey (P24215)Solicitor GeneralMichigan Department of Attorney GeneralAttorney for Michigan Department of Human Services,Michigan Children’s InstituteP.O. Box 30758Lansing, MI 48909(517) 373-7700
APPLICATION FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
QUO WARRANTO
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…...........................................................................................3QUESTIONS PRESENTED………………………………………………………………6PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO…………………………………………7MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES………………………..……….15STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………15
A. When Was MCI Created
………………………………..…………..…………15
B. When MCI Was Modified
…………...………………………………………...17
C. Why MCI Was Modified
……………...……………………………………….19
D. Lack of Administrative Oversight
………...…………………………………..21
E.
The MCI and Supreme Court Partnership
…………………...……………….26
F. Major Implications
…………………………..…………………….………….29ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………..…………30I.
RELATOR TRAN HAS THE RIGHT, DUTY, AND AUTHORITY TOBRING AN ACTION IN
QUO WARRANTO
BEFORE THIS COURT INRESPONSE TO THE
ULTRA VIRES
ACTS OF THESUPERINTENDENT OF MCI……………………………..................…32II.
THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM J. JOHNSON IS ANARTIFICIAL PERSON AND THEREFORE IS REPUGNANT TO THECONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN……………………………………..34III.
THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM J. JOHNSON HASUSURPED THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT………………...37a.
Usurpation of the Powers of the Governor
………………….……….37 b.
Usurpation of the Powers of the Attorney General
……………...…..37c.
Usurpation of the Powers of the Court
………………………………42CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….………….47
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
Carleton v. People
, 10 M. 250………………………………………………….….……36
DeRose v DeRose
, 469 Mich. 320; 666 N.W. 2d 636, (2003)…………………….…….29
Diggs v. State
, 49 Ala. 311……………………………………………………..………..36
Erwim v. Jersey City
, 60 N. J. L. 141……………………………………………………37
In re Cotton
, 1994 Mich. App 180, 526 NW 2d 601…………………………….………20
In re Miller
, 433 Mich. 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161, (1989)………………………...…….29
Johnson v. Manhattan r. Co.
, 289 U.S. 479, 502 (1933)…………………….…………..33
King v. Dep't of Human Servs. (in Re Bell),
2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 727(Mich. Ct. App., Mar. 15, 2007) …………………………………………...….…26, 27,30
Newsom v. State
, 922 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. App. Austin 1996)………….…………………33
People v. Parsons
,
728 N.W. 2d 62 (2007)……………….…………………………26, 27
Pulskamp v. Martinez
, 2 Cal. App. 4
th
854, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607 (2d Dist. 1992)….…….33
Rastall v. DeBouse
, 736 A. 2d 756 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999)…………………………….33
Smith v. Dillion
, 267 A.D. 39, 44 N.Y.S.2d 719 (3d Dep’t 1943);………………………33
State v. Carroll
, 38 Conn. 449…………………………………………………..……….35
State ex rel. Angelini v. Hardberger
, 932 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1996)……………..………33
State ex rel. Bruce v. Kiesling,
632 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1994)……………………..……….33
State ex rel. Cain v. Kay
, 309 N.E.2d 860 (1974)………………………………………..33
State ex rel. Stenberg v. Murphy
, 247 Neb. 358, 527 N.W.2d 185 (1995)………………33
United States v. Germaine
, 99 U.S. 508…………………………………………………36
Wayne Auditors v. Benoit
, 20 M. 176……………………………………………………37
Michigan Quo Warranto Petition
Info and Rating
Sections
« prev | next »- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
- QUESTIONS PRESENTED
- PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
- STATEMENT OF FACTS
- A. When Was MCI Created?
- B. When MCI Was Modified
- C. Why MCI Was Modified
- D. Lack of Administrative Oversight
- E. The MCI and Supreme Court Partnership
- F. Major Implications
- ARGUMENTS
- A. Usurpation of the Powers of the Governor
- C. Usurpation of the Powers of the Court
- CONCLUSION
Add a Comment