My pleasure. I was curious a couple hours ago, and looked for a filing ...
http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/pages/default.aspx
That same day, Dr. Stein filed a response to the objections, asserting that MCL 168.879(1)(b) only required her to allege generally that she was aggrieved. She further asserted that the statue did not require her to meet any particular standard or offer proof to demonstrate her aggrieved status.
How is this a serious legal argument?