STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
THE COUNTY OF KENT
___________
ANNALISE MCMENAMIN,
PLAINTIFF,
FILE: 03-09173-DC
VS.
HON.
G. PATRICK HILLARY
LARY HOLLAND (Pro Se),
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DEFENDANT.
-----------------------------------------------
}
Lary Holland (Pro Se)
}
5180 Cedar Lake Rd.
}
Oscoda, MI 48750
}
(989) 747-0079 (v)
}
(989) 764-5920 (f)
}
------------------------------------------------/
Napieralski & Walsh
}
(Attorneys for Plaintiff)
}
4790 Cascade Ave.
}
Grand Rapids, MI 49509
}
------------------------------------------------}
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
DISPOSITION
NOW COMES, Defendant,
Lary Holland, with this
Motion For Summary Judgment
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4),
MCR 2.116(C)(8), and MCR
2.116(C)(9), and for the
reasons stated herein:
1.
This Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction
over the Defendant.
2.
The Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction
over Plaintiff unless
she is determined unfit
or is mentally incompetent.
3.
The Plaintiff has
failed to state a valid
claim on which relief
can be granted.
4.
The Plaintiff has
failed to state a valid
defense to the claim asserted
against her.
5.
The Court, after
diligent inquiry, has
failed to introduce a
claim in which it may
legally act on to deprive,
diminish, or interfere
with Defendant’s pursuit
of life, liberty, happiness,
and hedonic rights, including
but not limited to parenthood.
6.
The Court, after
diligent inquiry, has
failed to prosecute in
a timely manner any valid
claims that would allow
it to deprive, diminish,
or interfere with Defendant’s
pursuit of life, liberty,
happiness, and hedonic
rights, including but
not limited to parenthood.
7.
All the false investigations
caused by Plaintiff over
the past several years
has resulted in no substantiation
of abuse or neglect.
8.
This Court, after
diligent inquiry, and
more than reasonable time
to act, has failed to
identify a claim in which
it could reasonably act
to deprive, diminish,
or interfere with Defendant’s
pursuit of life, liberty,
happiness, and hedonic
rights, including but
not limited to parenthood.
9.
The mere single
act of two parents not
living under the same
roof is insufficient evidence
to subject Defendant to
the intense punishment
associated with the deprivation,
diminishment, or interference
of Defendant’s pursuit
of life, liberty, happiness,
and hedonic rights, including
but not limited to parenthood.
10.
The necessary burden
of proof in this civil
lawsuit between the parties
will never achieve the
necessary level of “reasonable
doubt” to inflict the
most extreme punishments
of depriving the Defendant
of life, liberty,
happiness, and hedonic
inalienable rights, including
but not limited to parenthood.
11.
This Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction
to grant the relief requested
by Plaintiff in her Complaint;
in order to inflict the
most extreme punishment
of continued diminishment,
deprivation, and interference
of Defendant’s pursuit
of life, liberty, happiness,
and hedonic rights, including
but not limited to parenthood;
for the court to do so
would violate the Constitutional
protections afforded to
Defendant.
12.
This Court continues
to act without subject
matter jurisdiction over
the parties in this civil
lawsuit and continues
to cause the diminishment,
deprivation, and interference
of Defendant’s most fundamental
liberties without granting
him the proper protections
afforded murderers, thieves,
and child rapists.
13.
This Court may
not act as “parens patriae”
unless first terminating
the constitutionally protected
parental rights of both
parents. As long as one
parent is deemed fit,
or both in the case at
hand, until proven beyond
a reasonable doubt otherwise,
this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over
the parties and lacks
standing to represent
the interests of the children
in this civil lawsuit.
14.
The Plaintiff in
this action has failed
to state a claim in her
civil lawsuit complaint
that alleges, even after
diligent inquiry, any
incompetence or unfitness
in Defendant’s ability
to parent the parties’
two minor children that
would grant the State
or this Court sufficient
jurisdiction to deprive,
diminish, or interfere
with Defendant’s protected
rights.
15.
Even if Plaintiff
would allege issues of
unfitness and incompetence
in her civil lawsuit between
the parties, this Court
would still lack the Constitutional
authority to deprive,
diminish, or interfere
with Defendant’s protected
rights without the sufficient
substantial and procedural
due process even afforded
a common murderer, thief,
or child rapist.
16.
The Plaintiff has
failed to present or timely
prosecute this civil lawsuit
to achieve the burden
of proof required to inflict
Defendant with the current
punishment of depriving,
diminishing, or interfering
with Defendant’s constitutionally
protected rights involving
but not limited to his
life, liberty, pursuit
of enjoyment, parenthood,
and other hedonic liberties.
17.
Any determination
of less than equally allocated
parental responsibilities
and opportunities is undeniably
a diminishment, deprivation,
and intrusion upon Defendant’s
pursuit of life, liberty,
happiness, and hedonic
rights, including but
not limited to parenthood
and exceeds the limits
imposed on this Court
by the Constitution.
18.
The right to the
control, custody, and
upbringing of one’s child
is specifically protected
by the Constitution, which
this Court is charged
with upholding first before
any application of statutes
over the parties.
19.
Any unequal equity
determination of custody
and parental rights beyond
similarly equivalent distribution
and benefit, where neither
party has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt
as incompetent or unfit,
is the actual diminishment,
deprivation, and interference
that the Constitution
protects the citizens
against.
20.
Neither party is
entitled or limited to
more or less time as a
parent unless there is
a finding of unfitness,
incompetence, or threat
of harm to the children.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays
that this court do one
of the following:
A.
Enter an Order
of Dismissal with prejudice
of this Civil Lawsuit.
B.
Enter an Order
of Dismissal without prejudice
of this Civil Lawsuit.
Dated: 3/23/2006
By: __________________
Lary Holland
(Defendant)
5180 Cedar Lake Rd.
Oscoda, MI 48750
