Another Waco brewing in Michigan?

A Bois Blanc Island, Mich., couple besieged by local bureaucrats for
allegedly violating local zoning rules has said they will not permit
their differences with officials to evolve “into another Waco.”

Mike and Christine Stitt told WorldNetDaily that they would comply
with a judge’s order to vacate their 40-acre property or tear down barns
and remove all farm animals rather than risk an armed confrontation with
law enforcement officers.

The Stitts were responding to reports that elements of a local
militia organization had pledged to deploy an unspecified number of men
on their property to help defend against a possible assault by state and
federal officers if the family had decided to defy a zoning authority
order.

“No, we’re not going to allow that,” Christine Stitt said. “I’ll
sell everything or give up everything to keep that from happening.
We’re not going to put our kids in that kind of danger.”

Norman Olson, commander of the Northern Michigan Regional Militia,
confirmed those sentiments to WorldNetDaily in a telephone interview.

“[The Stitts] have made it clear they don’t want us to interfere in
this,” Olson said, “and we’re going to honor that.”

He and “a detachment” of militiamen had initially gone out to the
Stitt property “to assess its defensibility and do site recon.” And he
said his group stands “ready to assist them” should the Stitts change
their minds. “But at this time, we’re not planning to be out there” in
a few weeks, when township authorities will begin enforcing local zoning
ordinances against the agricultural-based homeowners.

The Stitts, who moved onto the property in 1995 after vacationing on
the island, told WorldNetDaily before they relocated to the Island
township — a 60-by-40 mile stretch of land off the northeast coast of
Michigan — the local township board supervisor, Bill Wescott, approved
their request to construct a barn and raise crops and livestock on the
property.

However, shortly after they began construction and bringing in
livestock, they said they were contacted by township zoning officials
and told they were in violation of zoning ordinances prohibiting
agriculture on “residential-zoned” property. They told the Stitts they
would have to dismantle a partially built barn, remove livestock and
crops or face eviction.

Neither Wescott nor other township officials returned phone calls for
comment.

“We initially contacted Mr. Wescott to find out if we could do these
things,” Christine Stitt said. “He told us about a week later that no
one — neither him nor anyone on the township board — had a problem with
what we wanted to do. For a while some of them even bought our farm
products.”

“Then we got a visit from the township zoning inspector and the
building inspector,” she said. “When they saw the barn, they told me
we’d have to tear it down because we weren’t zoned agriculture.” She
said she explained that the couple had permission from the Township
Board but the inspectors insisted, so the matter landed in court at the
behest of the township authorities.

“I was extremely new to the legal system at that time,” Mrs. Stitt
said, “and I didn’t know that I should have gotten permission [from the
Township Board] in writing.”

After months of legal battles, a local judge finally ruled in June
that the Stitts could not keep their agricultural-zoned home, giving
them until October to comply with local zoning ordinances or vacate the
property. The Stitts have no liens on their property and no taxes are
currently owed, Christine Stitt said.

In court, though, the attorneys and the judge took over and what
happened next, the Stitts believe, was a classic miscarriage of justice.

“They [the attorneys] did a lot of dealing that was negotiated behind
closed doors in the judge’s chamber,” she said. “In court, our attorney
— who was never allowed much cross-examination of the prosecution’s
witnesses — agreed to all of it on our behalf in closed sessions of
court,” said Mrs. Stitt. “But we never agreed to give up our property
and acknowledge that the township officials were right all along.”

“But we had to agree to the initial provisions because the judge has
finally given us until October 7 to leave the property or tear down the
barns and other outbuildings,” she said. “Otherwise they’re going to
throw us in jail.”

The Stitts cannot appeal the judge’s ruling because, she said, there
was some initial confusion as to whether or not the settlement was an
agreement between attorneys or a formal court order.

“We could have appealed a former court order,” she told
WorldNetDaily, “but we thought the attorneys had settled the matter
already. We didn’t find out until later the attorneys had not
settled the case — that it was actually ruled on by a judge. You can
appeal a judge’s court ruling but not a settlement. We didn’t find out
it wasn’t an attorney settlement until after the 21-day appeals limit
ran out.”

At press time the Stitts were still trying to file a letter with the
court seeking a review of their case and a summary ruling.

“Then, if the court rules against us we could at least appeal the
decision,” Christine Stitt told WorldNetDaily. But at press time the
court had not responded to her request.

After Oct. 7, the Township Board has the legal right to “charge us
$500 a day until we comply or until we move,” she said. “Once the fine
equals the property value, they will then own the property, without
compensation.”

“They’re basically telling us how to live,” she added. Concerned
about the ramifications of Y2K and intent on raising their children “the
old-fashioned way,” the Stitts have all but resigned to looking for
another place to live, even though they make their living partially by
selling home-generated farm products when husband Mike Stitt cannot work
his timber-framing job in the winter.

“They’ve got all the corners covered. We don’t have much choice, and
I don’t want this to escalate into violence,” Christine said.