Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michigan Militia and Landowner Vow Armed Defense of Property
Grand Rapids Press ^ | 9/17/03

Posted on 09/17/2003 8:54:30 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar

Landowner, militia vow armed defense of property

Wednesday, September 17, 2003By Ted Roelofs
The Grand Rapids Press


HORTON BAY -- On the surface, Lyle Barkley hardly seems the type to provoke an armed standoff.

At 55, the silver-haired, grandfatherly Charlevoix County excavator says he never has been in real trouble with the law. He does not advocate violence.

But as he leans by a sign on his property that says "Honk For Your Constitutional Rights," it becomes clear Barkley is ready for a fight.

"I don't want no bloodshed unless they shoot the first shot," Barkley said. "All I'm doing is standing up for my rights."

As if to underscore the point, Barkley stands just a few feet from a 6-foot-deep trench he dug on the perimeter of his land in the hill country about 10 miles southeast of Charlevoix.

Barkley says armed men from across the country are ready to occupy that trench to defend him, as he approaches a Thursday court deadline to remove three mobile homes he installed on his land.

In April, District Judge Richard May found that Barkley violated the zoning laws of Bay Township when he brought in the homes without permits. May reaffirmed that ruling Tuesday afternoon, denying a petition by Barkley to rescind his order.

The case has drawn widespread interest from local media outlets, not to mention radio talk shows from Arizona to Texas to Washington.

It also has attracted the scrutiny of patriot and anti-government groups, including a Colorado-based organization that threatens to send 600 armed members to protect Barkley.

Denver resident Rick Stanley, founder of the Second American Revolution Militia Mutual Defense Pact, vowed Barkley will not stand alone.

"They have subverted the intentions of what our forefathers say our government should be," he said. "We have a fascist tyranny.

"I call it the police state of America, and we are going to stop it one way or another," Stanley said.

On his Web site, Stanley warned about the consequences of the standoff with Newaygo County resident Scott Woodring, killed by state police in July after authorities tried to serve him with an arrest warrant that accused him of trying to solicit sex from 15-year-old girls.

Stanley said he got involved in the dispute when he was contacted by Barkley, a member of his group.

A statement faxed to The Press quotes Norman Olson, the self-described senior adviser to the Michigan Militia, saying the dispute "stinks of crooked politics, corruption and favors."

"I admire his spirit," Olson said of Barkley.

Charlevoix County Sheriff George Lasater said he is prepared to enforce the law. But he also said he hopes to avoid confrontation.

"We will do everything in our power and jurisdiction to make sure nobody is hurt on their side," Lasater said, adding, "the sheriff's department will do what it has to do to make sure the court orders are followed. We won't be intimidated by them."

Lasater would not say what action he might take if Barkley refuses to back down.

Township officials say they are doing nothing more than enforcing the law.

"This is a simple, blatant disregard for the law," township attorney James Murray said of Barkley's actions. "You can't just disregard ordinances."

According to the township, Barkley applied for a permit to build additions on to two mobile homes on his 4-acre property. Barkley instead moved two additional mobile units onto his property, attaching one to the mobile home in which he lives with his wife, Shirley, 50, and one to the mobile home where his daughter, Kim, 22, lives with her boyfriend and three children.

Judge May found that both homes violated building codes.

The court also found Barkley allowed people to move into another modular unit on the property without a permit.

To Barkley's way of thinking, he is just doing what every property owner has every right to do.

He has tangled with the township before. About 13 years ago, he was cited because of numerous barking dogs on his property. Barkley said he was acquitted.

About five years ago, he had a dispute over stumps he wanted to bury on his property. Barkley said that was resolved amicably.

He has had no criminal brushes with the law, felony or misdemeanor, according to state police records.

Barkley believes he is backed up in his latest dispute by his discovery that his property is "patent land," stemming from an 1871 act by President Ulysses S. Grant.

He said he has several weapons on his property, including a high-powered rifle and shotguns. He has plenty of ammunition.

"I myself am not going to be armed," Barkley said, adding he will leave that to others.

Barkley said he has had plenty of local support, including lots of honking horns in response to the sign in front of his driveway.

But standing on a deck on a bluff that overlooks Barkley's property, neighbor Carol Hellstrom said she backs the township.

"I have no sympathy for him whatsoever," Hellstrom said. "There's reasons for the laws. That's what this whole country is founded on."

Hellstrom's deck faces west, where she has a postcard view of Lake Charlevoix. But she's weary of looking down on Barkley's property, which is cluttered with old tractors, backhoes, numerous vehicles, a sizable wood pile, piles of discarded siding, old tires and rusted engines.

To her way of thinking, Barkley brought this on himself.

If things proceed toward showdown Thursday, Hellstrom said she is making plans of her own.

"We're having a kegger. You might as well enjoy the show."



© 2003 Grand Rapids Press. Used with permission


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: abrokenglassretread; antitrailer; antitrailertrash; bang; banglist; bigotsonfreerepublic; classists; elitists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last
Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: Stew Padasso
A sickening display of Elitism... :(
62 posted on 09/17/2003 5:43:50 PM PDT by Chad Fairbanks ("I guess we got so focused on the rubber penis we didn't even pay attention to what he was saying.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
A sickening display of Elitism... :(
63 posted on 09/17/2003 5:43:52 PM PDT by Chad Fairbanks ("I guess we got so focused on the rubber penis we didn't even pay attention to what he was saying.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Got an extra daisy cutter?
64 posted on 09/17/2003 6:20:04 PM PDT by A Broken Glass Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
And you have no damned idea what you are talking about!

Sean Hannity bitches and moans quite a bit. I'm very sorry, but when one lets emotion override logic (as Hannity frequently does, even for patriotic issues) then you start down the dark path of liberalism.

65 posted on 09/17/2003 6:23:48 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Perhaps you should have paid better attention

Maybe you should get better reading comprehension skills as in my original post I stated that I couldn't remember what the court decision was. Thanks for the update regarding the decision.

Please be so kind as to enlighten me to whom was attempting to subvert the Constitution?

66 posted on 09/17/2003 6:25:34 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A Broken Glass Republican
Hannity is an OUTSTANDING foot soilder for Republicans

Yes...the Republicans who continue to tack to the LEFT under the banner of 'compassionate conservatism'.

67 posted on 09/17/2003 6:26:31 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
When the Law is WRONG

I'm very sorry, but your interpretation of the law being right or wrong is a matter of YOUR opinion unless you are a sitting judge making a decision in a legal case or you rally a referendum and get the law repealed.

Or...next time I get pulled over for doing 85mph in a 55mph zone, do you think the judge will buy the "the Law is WRONG" line?

68 posted on 09/17/2003 6:28:59 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A Broken Glass Republican
You are too cowardly to do it yourself. Better get the gubmint so you don't hurt yourself.
69 posted on 09/17/2003 7:17:28 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (Who is the tag whore now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
You always so good at making friends?

Let me guess...You're usually too busy printing your own kook-currency to brush-up on your social skills?
70 posted on 09/18/2003 2:49:32 AM PDT by A Broken Glass Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: A Broken Glass Republican
You don't like people reacting to your stupid posts, do you? You enjoy seeing people die at the hands of government? This gives you a thrill? You are just as bad as Rick Stanley.

"You always so good at making friends?"

I don't make friends with obvious jackasses.

Again tough guy, since you are so eager to see blood spill, why don't you ever show up at these events?
71 posted on 09/18/2003 5:25:36 AM PDT by Stew Padasso (Who is the tag whore now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: countrydummy
Zoning laws are evil! They are about control and power!

Zoning laws in some instances can be abused. But they are not evil.

It is zoning laws that keep a chicken farm from being inserted into a residential neighborhood. It is a zoning law that keeps the property next door from becoming a commercial trash dump. It is a zoning law that requires a buffer zone between a chemical producing plant and the nearby elementary school.

If this man wants to live with no zoning, he only has to move over a couple of counties, and there is a place where people live in one trailer and have two more out back for parts..... And another one for a storage shed..... And another one to house their 13 dogs..... And another one for when their Southern Kentucky inlaws come to visit.

72 posted on 09/18/2003 5:35:33 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
He said he has several weapons on his property, including a high-powered rifle and shotguns. He has plenty of ammunition.

Now there's a shocker.

"I myself am not going to be armed," Barkley said, adding he will leave that to others.

Coward. If Barkley is determined to sound like a wingnut, he at least should have the decency to ACT like one too.

73 posted on 09/18/2003 5:39:16 AM PDT by strela ("Piffle, dear, I don't have morals, just customs." Hilda Burroughs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
They may be trailer trash, but they should be entitled, like the rest of us, to a government responsive to its citizens and not a government that abuses it's powers to rid itself of whatever people it deems as unacceptable for whatever reason.

All People are equal under the law according to wealth.

74 posted on 09/18/2003 5:42:54 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Michigan Militia and Landowner Vow Armed Defense of Property

Why post such blatantly incorrect headline? The Michigan Militia is NOT involved. See following excerpt from article:

It also has attracted the scrutiny of patriot and anti-government groups, including a Colorado-based organization that threatens to send 600 armed members to protect Barkley.

Denver resident Rick Stanley, founder of the Second American Revolution Militia Mutual Defense Pact, vowed Barkley will not stand alone.

75 posted on 09/18/2003 5:42:56 AM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." --James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45

LOL, which includes the power to conduct warantless searches as long as they are "reasonable"...
It is unlikely that we would disagree with each other that the things you listed are NOT Constitutional. They are unconstitutional on a couple of grounds, first that we never granted the federal gonernment that authority and second that the founders found many on the things so fundamental that they specifically forbid them in our Constitution.
I can not address your information about the shutting down of the news papers for the anti-Federalist views, that is the first time that I have heard of that. Considering that the Federalist point of view prevailed, I would tend to believe that your information is correct.
They are still useful documents along with the anti-Federalist papers, and several other books containing writings of the time to understand what was ment and why certain things were added/deleted from the proposed Constitution.
If I had been around at the time I would have probably have taken the anti-Federalist position. However, the Federalist position did prevail.
Your references to what congress considers "interstate commerce" are exactly my point with reference to the limited powers of the Federal government. If we allow every word to be that elastic then we get Federal intrusion at every level. It is bizzar for the Senate to assume that they can treaty in areas where they have no authority to legislate. That is what it appeared to me that you were indicating that the Constitution was - elastic.
The problems that we have with our Federal Government operating outside its legal boundries are our fault. We have failed to demmand that our elected officials do their job and uphold the Constitution.
After reading your homepage (not sure of it's official name here at the site) here at Freerepublic I am really suprised that we differ in views on this topic. Everything you stated I feel that I could also state as my position.

I do respect your views, and enjoyed the discussion, but it is unlikely that we would ever agree on this.
76 posted on 09/18/2003 5:43:44 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
You're unstable. Stay away from me. I'm sure you've got some bunkers that need digging.
77 posted on 09/18/2003 5:59:34 AM PDT by A Broken Glass Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: countrydummy
You just don't get it do you?
I would argue that you just don't get it.
Zoning laws are a local event. If people don't get out and vote and/or replace those who don't represent them then they deserve what they get.
I will not argue with you that this gentleman is probably doing the best he can. I think nothing bad about him.
It is simply NOT a federal issue, and therefore not a Constitutional breech.
People are free to associate with whom they please. They are also free to contract with whomever they please. zoning laws represent a contract between land owners and investment decisions are made based on them.
In my own case I built my house in an area that had no zoning laws but did have restrictions built into the deeds. I purchased this land in full knowlege of these conditions. At the time I built my house there were only a few houses in the area. I based my home investment on what was currently in the area, building a house that was only slightly larger that another one there. Since that time over half of the sites were purchased and moble homes moved in. The moble homeowners benifit from my investment because their homesite values are higher because of the 10 of us who built homes; however, my home is worth about $35,000 dollars less due to theirs.
Initially this is quite annoying but in reality they (with the exception of 3 moble homes) are fully within the restrictions on the land when purchased.
Most are fine people and great neighbors. My financial loss is not their fault - it is mine.
In any case none of it is a Constitutional issue. It is a contractual issue.
I do have an issue with zoning that requires existing structures to change with the advent of new laws. If for example, if we did pass some zoning laws in my area I would go to bat for those existing moble homes to remain even though is costs me financially because it would be wrong to make them move/rebuild. They bought and invested also based on the existing contractual agreements between landowners in the area. It would still be a LOCAL issue.
Zoning is only about control if those with the money and power can convince those opposed to the changes to stay home and not vote.
78 posted on 09/18/2003 6:08:52 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: A Broken Glass Republican
"Don't give it to him, just give him a daisy cutter and be done with it."

Who is unstable?


79 posted on 09/18/2003 6:09:43 AM PDT by Stew Padasso (Who is the tag whore now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Who is unstable?

You and your government hating buddys.

80 posted on 09/18/2003 6:11:23 AM PDT by A Broken Glass Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson