STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KENT
IN RE STEPHEN MARTIN HICKEL,
Plaintiff,
v Case No. 00-05186- AS
Hon. GEORGE S.BUTH
KENT COUNTY
CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING
BOARD, and its Delegates,
Defendant.
Stephen Martin Hickel Paul J.Greenwald
In Pro Per Teresa Decker
8220 Piney Woods Attorneys for the Defendant
Caledonia, MI 49316 Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howelett LLP
(616) 891-8336 333 Bridge Street, PO Box 352
(616) 361-3686 (f) Bridgewater Place
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
(616) 336-6000
Notice of objection to order for dismissal under 7-day rule and a proposed notice of rentry of order for dismissal under 7-day rule
Please take notice that, pursuant to MCR 2.602(B)(3), the order of dismissal that was submitted per above is objected to, as it does not accurately reflect the court record. NOW COMES Plaintiff, Stephen Martin Hickel, in PRO PER, hereby proposes the below order as properly reflected in the records of the court. Per MCR, it is understood that the Defendant will Notice a Settlement before the court to resolve the differences as noted in the proposed order.
Stephen M. Hickel, IN PRO PER
Dated: October 31, 2000
8220 Piney Woods
Caledonia, MI 49316
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL UNDER 7-DAY RULE
At a session of said Court, held in the Kent County Circuit Court, County of Kent, Michigan on ______, 2000.
PRESENT: HONORABLE GEORGE S. BUTH
Circuit Court Judge
It APPEARING THAT on Friday, October 20, 2000, the Court heard arguments in support of a Writ of Superintending Control filed by the Plaintiff, Stephen Martin Hickel; and
It FURTHER APPEARING THAT the Court was fully advised of all arguments raised by Stephen Martin Hickel in the four briefs originally written in Summary Disposition format (not the Motion for Summary Disposition for Open Meetings Act) but agreed to at hearing by the Defendant’s Attorney and the Plaintiff to be used as the briefs in support of above Writ of Superintending Control;
It FURTHER APPEARING THAT the Court was fully advised of all arguments raised in regards to the Motion for Summary Disposition for the Open Meetings Act by Stephen Martin Hickel and argued before the court;
AND IT APPEARING FURTHER THAT the Court dismissed the Writ of Superintending Control on all Counts without prejudice [except Count V, which the court ordered it did not have venue as it was a criminal count, and Count VIII -- see next paragraph] on the basis that because the Plaintiff held a “for hunting & target & banking & business purposes” concealed weapons license, the Plaintiff’s right to carry a concealed weapon was not completely prohibited, merely reasonably restricted; and
IT APPEARING FURTHER THAT Count VIII was dismissed without prejudice because the Plaintiff did not prove the “People” had been affected;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the above-captioned matters are hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs to all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______
Hon. George S. Buth
ATTEST: A TRUE COPY
______
Deputy Clerk
4