jci63

On Thursday, May 08, 2008 the documentation regarding corruption of DNR Officers was sent to the Criminal Division of the Attorney Generals Office in Lansing......

I. FOR INFORMATION ONLY – NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ACTION IN JUNE A. Deer Management Units (DMUs) Open or Closed to Antlerless Deer Licenses, Removal of Protection for Albino and All-White Deer Wildlife Conservation Order, Amendment No. 8 of 2008 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...8_232198_7.pdf

4-28-08 - I finally talked with Peter Manning from the Attorney Generals Office. I was told he will be forwarding the information to the Criminal Division and calling me back with a contact persons name! Environment, Natural Resource and Agriculture G. Mennen Williams Building – Sixth Floor 525 West Ottawa, P.O. Box 30755, Lansing 48909 Community Pressure helps! Please make a call! Division Chief, S. Peter Manning ........................................ 517-373-7540

Two DNR rangers charged with poaching in Oceana County Muskegon - Two park rangers from the state Department of Natural Resources face poaching charges for killing deer on private property in Oceana County last fall. Prosecutors say Alex Gossett, 41, a full-time park ranger at Muskegon State Park, and Brian Tunk, 30, a seasonal DNR park ranger, killed deer in November and December of 2007 in Claybanks Township. The rangers' father-in-law, Philip Gooch, 61, also faces charges of possession of bucks over the limit and loaning kill tags to another hunter. The three men live in the Mears area. Prosecutors say Gossett posted photos of himself with a deer he illegally killed on an internal DNR website. Another conservation officer spotted the photos and began investigating. Prosecutors say the officer uncovered the mens' violations of state hunting laws and other infractions. The men have been formally charged in court. If convicted, they face jail time, fines and suspension of Michigan hunting privileged for up to three years. www.wzzm13.com/news/regional/lakeshore_article.aspx?storyid=91173

Please help a fellow hunter in need and stop these people before they strike again! Please contact your State Represenative and Senator in your district and help get this issue investagated! Locate State Rep- http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp Locate Senator - http://www.senate.michigan.gov/ Tell them to contact Peter Manning at the Attorney Generals Office. 517-373-7540 Reference the Ingersoll DNR Issues. We can make a difference!

Honorable xxxxxxxx in the Cheboygan County civil court based his ruling on the testimony of the DNR officials. (Court Transcript)Page 45, lines 12-25 / page 46, lines 1-18 Previously these motions for summary disposition when they were brought I was of the opinion that an albino deer was illegal to shoot and therefore looking at things in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the letters could be interpreted as accusing the plaintiff of having committed a crime which is per se libel or slander. The pleadings now before me really, I guess, have educated me to the individuals in charge of enforcement that an albino deer— what is technically an albino deer can be a legal target and legal kill if it has a certain amount of that brown coloration or stain on it, and there is nothing to refute that that’s the law. I mean, that is what the DNR testified to. There is nothing on the opposite side that indicates that’s wrong. That an albino deer regardless of amount of staining or quantity of staining or however it comes about is always an illegal kill. That’s not the case on this record. It appears that it can be a legal kill. Therefore, what’s different today than it was before discovery had concluded was to indicate somebody has shot an albino deer is not to accuse them of a crime. As the DNR has testified to, there are instances where shooting an albino deer can be a legal act. With that not being a part of the equation anymore, there is no per se slander or libel and it’s down to actual malice and when I read these letters I don’t find that to be the case together with the attachments to the pleadings on these motions for summary disposition, so I’m going to grant the motions for summary disposition. On 12-01-06 Ingersoll’s Civil case 05-xxxx was dismissed with prejudice. This was due directly to DNR officer’s Lt. xxxx and Sgt. xxxx incorrect testimony. On 8-23-07 Ingersoll contacted Lt. xxxx and asked if he could meet with him for lunch or something and try and put their issues at hand behind them. Stating that if xxxx and xxxx would write a letter to the Judge xxxx to straighten out the incorrect statements they made, they could possibly come to terms. Lt. xxxx declined! (Phone Records) Ingersoll then contacted Attorney General Mike Cox office. He received an e-mail with a Meeting Request form attached. On 8-27-07 Ingersoll drafted up a retraction letter to Sgt. xxxx and mailed it. On 8-31-07 Sgt. xxxx received his retraction letter with all the incorrect statements listed. (Mail Receipt) On 8-28-07 Ingersoll drafted up a retraction letter to Lt. xxxx and mailed it. On 9-1-07 Lt. xxxx received his retraction letter with all the incorrect statements listed. (Mail Receipt) On 8-31-07 I received a message on phone cell phone from Barbara Schmidt from the Attorney Generals Office, leaving me her telephone number to return her call. At 11:34 a.m. on 8-31-07 Ingersoll returned Barbara call and gave information to her regarding Constitutional rights, obstruction of Justice, subpoena incident, prosecutor’s office incident and Lt. xxxx name for contact. He informed Barbara about the false statements made by DNR officials and how his civil case was dismissed based on their false testimony. She replied that due to next week being a holiday, many people would be off and she will contact me the following week. Barbara was planning on talking with the Chief of the DNR and possibly Rebecca Humphries. (Phone Records) On 9-18-07 I called Barbara Schmidt from the Attorney Generals Office regarding the DNR. She suggested that I get in contact with DNR director Rebecca Humphries the Director of the DNR. (Phone Records) AT 2:14 on 9-20-07 Ingersoll contacted State Representative Gary McDowell’s office. He spoke with Dan and explained the situation; Dan stated he would look into it and call back. (Phone Records) AT 2:42 Dan called back and informed Ingersoll to contact DNR Director Rebecca Humphries, if that does not work, please call back. (Phone Records) On 9-20-07 at 4:15 Ingersoll contacted the DNR Director Rebecca Humphries office in Lansing. Ingersoll informed them, that the Attorney General Office and State Representative Gary McDowell’s office requested him to contact this office regarding the DNR issues. Their response was that I should talk with the Chief of Law enforcement. Ingersoll told them how he called Chief Allan Marble before and was told to contact Captain Kurt Bacon in regards to the conduct of the DNR officers. Doing so, only to Lt. xxxx call him back 10 minutes later. They replied that Chief Allan Marble was no longer with the department and the new Chief of Law Enforcement was Rodney Stokes and to make sure I gave the new chief the information regarding Chief Allan Marble. On 9-21-07 Ingersoll called Chief Rodney Stokes office and talked with Taunia Sadler and briefed her on the situation. She checked the chiefs schedule and informed Ingersoll to try to call back tomorrow between 9:00-12:00. She asked which officers were involved; I listed Lt. xxxx, Sgt. xxxx and Officer xxxx. I was informed that Lt. xxxx was no longer with the department, due to his retirement. Ingersoll was able to schedule a meeting for 10-16-07 in Lansing with Chief Rodney Stokes. Ingersoll attended the meeting with Mr. Stokes and discussed the activities of the officers. It was a promising meeting, with acknowledgement of wrong doing on the DNR’s part. Chief Stokes was going to check into a few things and get back with Ingersoll.( DNR meeting) • Why Sgt. xxxx and Lt. xxxx stated under oath that Ingersoll had shot an albino deer? • Why Sgt. xxxx stated under oath that Officer xxxx submitted my Incident Report to the Cheboygan County Prosecutor? • Why Lt. xxxx , Sgt. xxxx and Officer xxxx did not have a warrant before they confiscated and damaged his property? After not hearing from Chief Stokes for almost two months Ingersoll e-mailed the Mr. Stokes on 12-6-07. On 12-13-07 Ingersoll received an e-mail response from Chief Rodney Stokes. With answers to all the questions in his e-mail sent on 12-06-07. This will bring up several items in dispute, which will be covered later in this document. On 12-26-07 Ingersoll e-mailed Mr. Stokes again with several factual items, to help him sort the information out. Not getting a response from Chief Rodney Stokes Ingersoll followed up with another e-mail stating his intentions on 1-07-08. Ingersoll Informed Mr. Stokes that he was referred to the Directors Office from the Attorney General Mike Cox office and was trying to settle his problems as he was instructed. On 1-08-07 Chief of Law Enforcement Rodney Stokes e-mailed Ingersoll that he had nothing else to offer.

In Sgt. xxxx’s deposition on 8-22-06, xxxx made several statements of fact that were untrue. These statements have caused damage to my reputation and to the Judicial Process of my Civil Lawsuit 05-xxxx. (Sgt. xxxx Deposition)Page 17, lines 6-25 / Page 18, lines 1-25 / Page 19, lines 1-8 Q Now, in this report that you signed it says in there, quote, “Sergeant xxxx stated he had made contact with Bob xxxx, owner of xxxx’s Taxidermy, and had gotten permission from xxxx to take hair samples from the hide.” Is that true? A Yes Q And by saying that you had made contact, does that mean that you contacted him? A Right. I went to xxxx’s Taxidermy. Q This was the day of the frozen hide? A Right. Q And on that day did you ask him if you could take samples? A I did. Q And what did Mr. xxxx say? A He consented to that. Q And was this Mr. xxxx deer hide? A It was Mr. Ingersoll’s deer hide. It was in Mr. xxxx possession. Q Now, is there any reason why you didn’t contact Mr. Ingersoll to ask if you could— A Yes Q --take samples A Yes Q And why not? A Because in criminal investigations, if I would have done that, it’s a possibility the deer hide would disappear before a sample could be taken. Q But you could get a warrant? A Could . If— Q Did you? A If the –if the deer hide could be produced. But no—no. I don’t think a warrant was needed. Q A warrant was not needed? A No. I got consent from a taxidermist to— Q But not the owner of the hide? A No Q And is it your understanding as a law officer that consent from a person who is in possession of the hide is as good as consent of the owner? A What—could you explain what you mena by “as good as” Q Well, you don’t think that that’s a 4th Amendment search and seizure violation, without a warrant? A No, I don’t believe it is. Q And why is it that you believe that that was a proper seizure? Did you consult anyone? A Well, because I received consent from the taxidermist. We do taxidermist inspections regularly. And it was a small hair sample—small hide hair sample that was taken. Q So it wasn’t just a hair sample? A No; no. A sliver of hide was taken with hair. Q And who instructed whoever took this sample to take a hide sample as well as hair sample? A That would have been me. Page 21, lines 7-8 Q So you haven’t done anything like this in the past? A With an albino deer? Page 21, lines 20-24 Q Does an albino have characteristics different from other white deer that would be –identify the deer right off the bat as albino? A I’ve heard about pink eyes, hoofs that are—are—don’t have brown pigment in it. Talking to the scientist, talking Page 22, lines 7-10 Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether this deer had pink eyes or dind’t have pink eyes? A I went from the photographs, and the eyes did not appear to be pink. Page 28, lines 16-19 Q Did you at any point give any of this information to the Cheboygan County prosecutor? A Yes. I didn’t personally, but officer xxxx submitted the report to the Cheboygan County prosecutor. Page 39, lines 11-14 Q Well ,no, I’m just wondering, did you—have you had requests or dispatches that have come in from another source that says “We’d like you to investigate this deer:? A For this albino deer Page 43, lines 11-24 Q So whether it was biologically an albino was not really as issue for the DNR in terms of its law enforcement obligations; correct? A We had to go on what the law said. Q Right; right. But it could be an albino – what I’m getting at is— A It could be an albino with---with— Q --this could be an albino deer, but if it had enough brown markings of whatever source other than manmade sources, -- A It would be legal Q --it would be legal A --animal to shoot Q --to shoot, and there would be no prosecution; correct? A Exactly Page 47, lines 18-23 Q Didn’t matter to you whether it was an albino deer? A It didn’t matter. What mattered is, if it had brown on it, if that was naturally occurring. Q And once it had enough brown on it that was not manmade source, your job was done? A Correct.

On 6-21-06 Ingersoll decided to try and straighten out all the confusion and sent 3 Subpoena’s to DNR officers - Sgt. xxxx, Lt. xxxx and Officer xxxxx. (Subpoenas) They were sent with a letter explaining our objective. (letter to DNR) On 6-22-06 the Subpoena’s were accepted and signed by Lt. xxxx secretary xxxxxx. (signed delivery notice) One of the Defendants attorneys xxxx could not make that date (e-mail / xxxx 6-23-06) so the depositions were re-noticed for July 6, 2006. An e-mail was sent to Lt. xxxx on 6-26-06 with the amended notice attached (xxxx e-mail) along with a hard copy mailed on July 1, 2006 (Amended Notice of Taking Depositions) A few days after the Deposition date of July 6, 2007, the envelope was returned UTF (Unable to Forward) (envelope with proper address) Five attorneys were present on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at the Cheboygan Commissioners Conference Room awaiting the Deposition of Officer xxxx, Sgt. xxxx and Lt. xxxx. NONE of the DNR officers showed up! Resulting in a court action where Ingersoll had to pay Attorney fees. In Lieutenant xxxx deposition on 7-11-06, he stated under oath that he never received the deposition notices. Signed by his secretary. ( Lt. xxxx Deposition)Pg 21, lines 13-17 Q Well it was a letter to you. There was a deposition notice and there was subpoenas. A No Q You never received it? A No Even though the correct address and or P.O. Box number was on the envelope address to the DNR officers, it was returned UTF (Unable to Forward). This may have something to due with the fact that Lt. xxxx wife is a postmaster. He confirms this in his deposition. (Lt. xxxx Deposition) Page 30, line 1 A My wife’s a Postmaster. This entire situation may have been provoked by one of the defendant’s attorneys. Lt. xxxx admitted in his deposition that one of the attorneys sitting at his deposition had contacted him. (Lt. Jeffery Gaither Deposition)Page 51, lines 23-25 Q Were you contacted by any of the attorneys is this case that are sitting around this room. A Yes, I believe so. xxxx was very uncooperative in Ingersoll’s attempt to obtain the truth. In Lt. xxxx deposition on 7-11-06, xxxx made several statements of fact that were untrue. These statements have caused damage to Ingersoll’s reputation and to the Judicial Process of my Civil Lawsuit 05-xxxx. (Lt. xxxx Deposition) Page 22, lines 5-10 / lines 15-16 Q And what is xxxx’s last name? Your refusing to answer that? A You can find that out from the office manager if you want to. Q So you’re refusing to answer that? A I’m not going to tell you peoples names here. Q So you’re refusing—just for the record A Yes, I refusing that. Page 26, lines 16-25 / Page 27, lines 1-7 Q Do you maintain files in this office of the reports such as the one that Officer xxxx—you said he wrote? A Yes Q Do you—are copies of those reports forwarded to the central office, or not? A No. They would be remained here. Q Do you recall Ms. Sadler contacting you to ask if you had any of those records in your files here? A She wrote a memo to me and my secretary asking for a copy of that. Q And did you not return it? A I didn’t, because I relied on the secretary to provide that if it was needed,-- Q And that’s A --since she’s the one that files them and knows where they are. Q And that is xxxx? A Yes. Q So you didn’t follow up on that to see if that was done? A No Page 36, lines 20-25 / Page 37, line 1 Q Do you A I was not present at the time. I did see pictures of it, and, yes, I take issue with the fact that’s it’s a legal piebald deer. Q So you believe that it is not a piebald deer. A That’s Correct Q You believe it’s a albino deer? A YES Page 39, line 25 / Page40, lines 1-9 Q But you stated-----have you ever seen that deer? A I saw pictures of it. Q But you concluded from the pictures that it’s an albino? A Yes Q Based on what? A The mostly white coloring except for the staining on the head and the gambrels on the legs and the pink eyes. Q It had pink eyes? A Yes. That what it appeared to have from the camera—from the photograph. Page 40, lines 18-24 / Page 41. Lines 14-19 Q And its closed because A I don’t know. My understanding is that the prosecutor reviewed it and failed to issue a –and did not issue a warrant on it. Q So you---Who went to the prosecutor asking for a warrant? A I believe officer xxxx, but I’m not 100% sure on that. Q Did you review the toxicology report from the –from Lansing A No Q Are you--- A I may have seen that. Now that you mention it, I may have seen it,-- Page 65, Lines 12-25 Q I mean, was it appropriate for Sergeant xxxx to go there without a warrant and ask for samples of a privately owned deer? A I felt it was, yes. Q So then you---you were the one who then authorized xxxx to get those samples from the deer? A I didn’t really authorize him, but we had a discussion about it. Q Was that before or after the samples? A It may have been before. I’m not sure. But I didn’t have any problem with him doing it. Q Is that the proper procedure? A Well, there’s no written procedure on how to investigate a deer complaint. Page 66, Lines 17-24 Q Do you have direct knowledge, that Sergeant xxxx obtained samples of the Ingersoll deer at Mr. xxxx’s place of business; correct? A I don’t have direct knowledge, but it was my understanding that that happened, yes. And I don’t disagree with it. Q And you understood at the time that that was being done without a warrant? A Yes

Any thoughts folks?

Sgt. XXXX then informed Ingersoll that he was doing an investigation regarding 3 things. •Application of some man-made chemical to make the brown areas on the deer hide. (Sgt. xxxx Deposition) (Pg 6, lines 5-14) Q Now, you said that -- referred to this investigation of the Ingersoll deer. If Officer xxxx and Lieutenant xxxx arrived at a conclusion that that deer was legal on the 21st, why was there an investigation? AWell, information came forth that the deer may have not been taken legally. Q And where did that information come from? A From the community. From different -- different sources there were allegations of the deer may have been stained or painted to produce a brown color. • Shooting the deer out of season (Sgt. xxxx)(Pg 7, lines 1-6) Q And, to the best of your recollection, when you said that it wasn't taken legally, what did that mean? A It could have been several things; that it was taken on trespass on -- on property where the hunter didn't have permission, it could have been taken out of season, or with an improper weapon. (Sgt. xxxx Deposition) (Pg 9, lines 7-14) Q Now, you said another thing that was -- you were investigating was whether the deer was taken out of season? A Yes. Q And what was the basis that gave you an idea it might be taken out of season? A When I saw the photographs the deer appeared like it was a fresh kill. Kind of picture those nights where -- below freezing, well below freezing. It was two days from the date Mr. Ingersoll reported it was shot until he brought it in to the field office. So during those two days, if it was shot two days prior, it would have been frozen, it would have been stiff, it would have been a -- an appearance like it had been dead for a couple days in frozen temperatures. That was suspicious to me. • Trespassing (Sgt. xxxx Deposition) (Pg 7, lines 18-24) QWhat was the nature of your investigation of trespass? Where -- A I was familiar with the deer. I mean, it had been around several years. And I knew -- I mean, I knew personally that it usually was in certain areas. So, just to confirm that it was taken legally for -- regarding trespass, I wanted to confirm where it was shot at. Ingersoll learned through the Deposition of Robert xxx that Sgt. xxxx informed xxxx to destroy the invoice showing the Ingersoll deer was at his shop. (Robert xxxx Deposition) (Pg 22, lines 10-21) Q Okay. But you’re sure, though, that if someone comes and picks up a job that you can throw away the paperwork and it’s not required. A Absolutely. Because I----- Q Now, is this something---- Q --I asked—I did ask if I should keep any of this. A Asked who? Q I asked the sergeant in charge there, xxxx, I believe it is—or xxxx (pronouncing)\ A And when did you ask him? Q When it was picked up. I said, “Do I need to keep any of this?” And he said, “No,” I don’t have the job. On January 12, 2005 Ingersoll received, in the mail, the results of his TB and aging results. (DNR TB Tag #258627 results) Dear Hunter: Your deer TB Tag #258627, submitted on 12/28/04 was aged at the Rose Lake Lab as a 2.5 year old male. No evidence of tuberculosis was found in this deer. However, we recommend that venison from the Bovine TB Management Area be cooked thoroughly until it is not pink and no red juices flow out. We appreciate your cooperation. It would be impossible for us to collect the information we need to manage the bovine tuberculosis problem in our deer herd without your help. The TB and aging results clearly that Ingersoll did not shoot the same deer residents in the community had been feeding and admiring for four years. Due to the age of Ingersoll’s deer being aged at 2.5 years old. On January 27, 2005 Ingersoll took his frozen piebald deer hide to Taxidermist Ernest Brosseau owner of Daylight in the Swamp Taxidermy, to get mounted. Due to the concern that the MDNR may try to confiscate Ingersoll’s hide, Ingersoll had Mr. Brosseau sign a paper stating he would not give his property to the MDNR. This document is also signed by two other witnesses. (DNR paper) I John Ingersoll have entrusted this deer to Ernest Brosseau Taxidermist that he will not give up this deer to the Department of Natural Resources under any circumstances. This is a Piebald Deer 98% white and I very concerned they will take it. Signed and dated by John Ingersoll – 1-27-05 Ernest Brosseau – 1-27-05 Randy – 1-27-05 Joe – 1-27-05 While Ingersoll was at Daylight in the Swamp Taxidermy, Ernie received a phone call from a taxidermist in Cheboygan regarding the MDNR being at his place of business looking for white deer! (DNR paper phone call) 3:30 Received call from xxxx from Cheboygan 1-27-05. Taxidermist informed me DNR was at this place looking for white deer. Signed and dated by John Ingersoll – 1-27-05 Ernest Brosseau – 1-27-05 Randy – 1-27-05 Joe – 1-27-05 Ingersoll feels these actions by the MDNR showed the intent and objective of the individuals involved, to participate in the improper seizure and damage of the deer’s hide. In several of the Defendants depositions it clearly states the motives and intentions of the officers. (Mary xxxx Deposition 7-27-07)Pg 10, lines 14-19 The DNR officer was there. He came in; Mr. xxxx. I didn’t know him, I didn’t know his name. And I proceeded to ask him what he was going to do with the testing as a result of asking for samples, as Mr. xxxx indicated, if he was going to report to the Straitsland Resorter his findings of testing so the community would know, and settle this issue. (Gertrude xxxx Deposition 7-27-06)Pg 17, lines 7-8 Our feelings was hurt. And then the DNR said that they would take samples of the deer and put it in the Resorter

Sgt. xxx stating that the allegations the deer may have been stained or painted to produce a brown color. (Sgt. XXX Deposition) (Pg 6, lines 5-14) Q Now, you said that -- referred to this investigation of the Ingersoll deer. If Officer XXX and Lieutenant XXX arrived at a conclusion that that deer was legal on the 21st, why was there an investigation? A Well, information came forth that the deer may have not been taken legally. Q And where did that information come from? A From the community. From different -- different sources there were allegations of the deer may have been stained or painted to produce a brown color. DNR Toxicology Report showing the reasoning for the investigating Ingersoll’s Piebald deer. (DNR Toxicology Report) “The deer is a forensic case. The animal was reportedly seen earlier in the summer and fall with a pure white coat. When harvested, the animal had brown on the head and tarsal area. Because albino deer are protected by law, there is question as to whether or not the stain on the fur was due to the hunter painting or staining the hair with some type of petroleum product. More history is on the submittal form.” *This action was incorrect, fact; albino deer due to lack of pigment have pink eyes. The officer did not know the difference between Albino, White Deer and Piebald. Albino deer - all white or colorless hair with pink eyes White deer – all white or colorless hair with brown eyes Piebald deer – by-colored (partially white) deer with brown eyes. DNR Necropsy Report also showing the reasoning of the investigation, but more importantly stating the deer is not an albino. (DNR Necropsy Report)“The deer was seen earlier in the summer and fall with an apparent all white coat. When the animal was harvested during the 2004 deer season, it had brown colorization on the head and tarsal gland area. The eyes were pigmented (which by definition eliminates this as being an albino animal), but there was a question regarding the staining of the fur in the two area as to whether they were stained naturally or by the hunter through painting or staining the areas with some type of petroleum product.” Diagnosis: skin and hair samples are Negative for hydrocarbons and man-made chemicals. This is an article published in the Petoskey News Review showing the DNR’s position on the deer, it is a piebald deer due to brown eyes and brown patches of hair. (Petoskey News Review 1-05-05) “ Some readers were concerned about the piebald buck that was on the outdoor page last week. The Department of Natural Resources did investigate the situation, since the buck showed very little brown and a DNR wildlife biologist has confirmed that the buck was a piebald, not an albino. The buck did have some brown along the inside of the back legs, but the confirming factor was the deer had brown eyes, rather than pink that an albino would exhibit,” On 1-05-05 Sgt. xxx contacted xxxxs Taxidermy to obtain hair samples of the “albino” deer; the deer was frozen, so he would send officer xxxx back on 1-06-05. (FOIA request (11-08-06) DNR Daily Report / Sgt. xxxx– 1-5-05) xxxxx’s Taxidermy – Contact re: “albino” buck/locate – request hair sample-frozen/will have 5122 obtain sample 1/6/05. Discuss miscl. F&G. Next shows Officer xxxx was instructed by Sgt. xxxx to go to xxxx Taxidermy to obtain samples of the deer’s hide to determine if it was an albino or piebald. (DNR Incident Report / Pg 2) On January 05, 2005 I received a voicemail message from Sgt xxxxx. He stated he had learned the hide from the piebald deer, shot by John Ingersoll, was at xxxx’s Taxidermy shop. Sgt. xxxx stated he had made contact with Bob xxxx, owner of xxxx’s Taxidermy, and had gotten permission from xxxx to take samples from the hide. I was instructed by Sgt. xxxx to go to xxxx's Taxidermy on the morning of January 06, 2005 to obtain the hair samples and to log them into evidence. The samples would be sent to the forensic lab for testing to determine if the deer was an albino or piebald. Hide and hair samples were taken from the head and from both rear hocks. All samples came from the areas of brown coloration. The samples were logged into evidence at the Indian River Field Office and placed in the freezer at this location. *This action was incorrect, fact; albino deer due to lack of pigment have pink eyes. The officer did not know the difference between Albino, White Deer and Piebald. Albino deer - all white or colorless hair with pink eyes White deer – all white or colorless hair with brown eyes Piebald deer – by-colored (partially white) deer with brown eyes. 1-06-05 Officer xxxx collected the samples from Ingersoll’s deer hide. (DNR FOIA request (11-08-06) Daily Report / Officer xxxx – 1-06-05) xxxx’s Taxidermy to pick up hair samples from possible albino deer-per Sgt’s direction. C.O. xxxxxx, DNR -1-06-05 1-06-05 samples were logged into evidence. (DNR Chain of Custody Record- 1-06-05) Photographs of the actual holes cut into Ingersoll’s deer hide to determine if the deer had brown hair on it or if it was stained or painted. *This procedure was incorrect, due to the fact that the officers did not have a warrant to confiscate Ingersoll’s property, let alone damage his once in lifetime unusual animal. Ingersoll had kept the deer frozen and turned it over to Bob xxxx at xxxxs Taxidermy in Indian River. The hide condition was excellent with no holes and or hair problems. Several individuals testified that the deer was frozen and in a ball before it was thawed out and damaged. (FOIA request (11-08-06) DNR Daily Report / Sgt. xxxxxxx – 1-5-05) xxxx’s Taxidermy – Contact re: “albino” buck/locate – request hair sample-frozen/will have 5122 obtain sample 1/6/05. Discuss miscl. F&G. ( Robert xxxx Deposition) (Pg 11, lines 21-24) Q And on the 27th then he turned the deer over to you? A That's correct. Q And what did you do with it? A Skinned it out, put it in the freezer. (Robert xxxx Deposition) (Pg 16, lines 1-3) QA walk-in freezer? And what was the condition of the deer hide at that point? Was it fully frozen? AIt was frozen, yes. (Sgt. xxxx Deposition) (Pg 15, lines 7-11) Q Did you ever see the deer or the deer hide before it was mounted? A I never had the opportunity to see the deer. The deer hide, when I saw it, was frozen in a -- wrapped up into a ball, more or less, at the taxidermist's. On January 6, 2005 Ingersoll’s deer hide was thawed out and holes were cut and confiscated without permission or a warrant. (Sgt. xxxx) (Pg 16, lines 23-25 / Pg 17, lines 1-2) QDid you thaw it out to look at it? AHe thawed it out. That was -- it was frozen. I didn't sit there for 12 hours until it thawed out. Q Did you come back then after it was thawed out? A Officer xxxx came back. (Sgt. xxxx Deposition) (Pg 17, lines 17-25 / Pg 18, lines 1-25 / Pg 19, lines 1-8) QAnd on that day did you ask him if you could take samples? AI did. Q And what did Mr. xxxx say? A He consented to that. Q And was this Mr. xxxx's deer hide? A It was Mr. Ingersoll's deer hide. It was in Mr. xxxx's possession. Q Now, is there any reason why you didn't contact Mr. Ingersoll to ask if you could -- AYes. Q -- take samples? A Yes. Q And why not? A Because in criminal investigations, if I would have done that, it's a possibility the deer hide would disappear before a sample could be taken. Q But you could get a warrant? A Could. If -- Q Did you? A If the -- if the deer hide could be produced. But, no -- no. I don't think a warrant was needed. Q A warrant was not needed? ANo. I got consent from a taxidermist to -- Q But not from the owner of the hide? A No. Q And is it your understanding as a law officer that consent from a person who is in possession of the hide is as good as consent of the owner? A What -- could you explain what you mean by "as good as"? Q Well, you don't think that that's a 4th Amendment search and seizure violation, without a warrant? A No, I don't believe it is. Q And why is it that you believe that that was a proper seizure? Did you consult anyone? A Well, because I received consent from the taxidermist. We do taxidermist inspections regularly. And it was a small hair sample -- small hide hair sample that was taken. Q So it wasn't just a hair sample? A No; no. A sliver of hide was taken with hair. Q And who instructed whoever took this sample to take a hide sample as well as a hair sample? A That would have been me. Damaged Deer Hide – Ingersoll’s piebald deer hide was damaged due to incorrect measures taken by the MDNR. It was caused by having the hide frozen then thawed out for samples and then refrozen. Hair slippage occurred to the fact that the deer had a bald spot on its inner thigh. Therefore, Ingersoll had to have the deer mounted lying down, like a weak pansy! On January 8, 2005 at approximately 4:00 pm Ingersoll heard a knock at the front door at his residence. When he opened the door he was greeted by a DNR officer identifying himself as Sgt. xxxx. (DNR FOIA request -11/08/06 Daily Report / Sgt. xxxx – 1-08-05) 1600 – 7170 Tuscarora Circle – Interview John Ingersoll re: albino deer case.” (Sgt. xxxx / picture) Ingersoll was informed that Sgt. xxx was the person who cut out the samples off the deer’s hide. He informed Ingersoll that he had heard he was quite upset by the taking of the samples. Ingersoll replied yes. He was and he believed that the Sgt. violated his Constitutional Rights for search and seizure. He informed Ingersoll that the DNR had the authority to check any hides at a taxidermist. Ingersoll asked him what the law was regarding on cutting holes and confiscating a person’s property without a warrant. Sgt. xxxx replied “I don’t know but I felt I was in the right to do so.” Ingersoll informed Sgt. xxxx that he was going to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit on all the individuals involved. Ingersoll finished the conversation by giving the officer the name and telephone of his attorney Fred Trost. (Sgt. xxxx Deposition) Pg 17, lines 12-25 / Pg 18, lines 1-19) Q And by saying that you had made contact, does that mean that you had contacted him? A Right. I went to xxxx's Taxidermy. Q This was the day of the frozen hide? A Right. Q And on that day did you ask him if you could take samples? A I did. Q And what did Mr. xxxx say? A He consented to that. Q And was this Mr. xxxx's deer hide? A It was Mr. Ingersoll's deer hide. It was in Mr. xxxx's possession. Q Now, is there any reason why you didn't contact Mr. Ingersoll to ask if you could -- A Yes. Q -- take samples? A Yes. Q And why not? A Because in criminal investigations, if I would have done that, it's a possibility the deer hide would disappear before a sample could be taken. Q But you could get a warrant? ACould. If -- Q Did you? AIf the -- if the deer hide could be produced. But, no --no. I don't think a warrant was needed. QA warrant was not needed? A No. I got consent from a taxidermist to -- Q But not from the owner of the hide? ANo. Q And is it your understanding as a law officer that consent from a person who is in possession of the hide is as good as consent of the owner? (Sgt. xxxx Deposition) (Pg 18, lines 20-25 / Pg 19, lines 1-8) AWhat -- could you explain what you mean by "as good as"? Q Well, you don't think that that's a 4th Amendment search and seizure violation, without a warrant? A No, I don't believe it is. Q And why is it that you believe that that was a proper seizure? Did you consult anyone? A Well, because I received consent from the taxidermist. We do taxidermist inspections regularly. And it was a smallhair sample -- small hide hair sample that was taken. QSo it wasn't just a hair sample? A No; no. A sliver of hide was taken with hair. QAnd who instructed whoever took this sample to take a hide sample as well as a hair sample? AThat would have been me. MORE OF THIS STORY TO COME - KEEP POSTED

On December 21, 2004 Ingersoll’s deer was inspected by several individuals at the Indian River DNR Field Office, including two biologists, one still employed by the DNR and one that was retired. The biologist at the Field Office stated that the deer was called a piebald, due to the eye color and the brown hair. (Ingersoll Deposition) (pg 32, lines 16-25 / pg 33, lines 1-2) Q At that point in time, December 21st, who had seen the deer aside from yourself? A Several employees at the DNR station. That's the very first place that I went with the deer to show anybody, was the DNR field office, they call it, in Indian River. Q Okay. A There was a -- two biologists; one still employed, one retired; several of the people that checked the deer in, and so on and so forth, secretaries -- or I don't know what they do for sure. But they were having a Christmas party that day, and everybody there had seen it. And then Officer XXXXX had also seen it. (Ingersoll Deposition) (Pg 153, lines 1-6) Q Then how could you identify or learn or understand that there were two biologists in that group of DNR employees at the Christmas party? A Because they supplied that information to me. Q They told you that? A Yes, sir. (Ingersoll Deposition) (Pg 64, lines 1-5) Q Okay. Your testimony is that the deer did not have pink eyes? A That's correct. Q Okay. That you saw? A That I saw, and the DNR verified. Conservation Officer XXXX called Lieutenant XXXXX and e-mailed several photos of the deer’s eyes and brown hair. The Wildlife Biologist at the Gaylord Headquarters officially confirmed the deer was a piebald. Officer XXXX Daily Report verifying the deer was determined to be a piebald deer. The determination was made by the wildlife biologist at the Gaylord Headquarters. (FOIA request (11-08-06) DNR –Daily Report / Officer XXXX 12-21-04) Subject brought in deer shot last day of muzzleloader Season-believed to be a piebald-checked to make sure It was not an albino-had some brown coloring on it Took subjects info and photos of deer-made Determination that it was a piebald-photos viewed by Wildlife-confirmed piebald. DNR Incident report dated 1-07-05 showing the deer was a piebald deer; the determination was made by the wildlife biologist at the Gaylord Headquarters. (DNR Incident Report / Pg 1) This report details the events of a piebald deer taken by John Collier Ingersoll during the muzzleloader deer season. On December 21, 2004 while at the Indian River Field Office, John Ingersoll brought in a whitetail deer that was white in color. Ingersoll was bring the deer in to confirm his belief that it was a piebald deer and not an albino. Ingersoll stated he was hunting in the Alanson area on December 19, 2004 when he encountered the deer. He stated he saw the white deer approximately 200 yards from where he was hunting. Ingersoll stated he looked at the deer through his binoculars and could see brown coloring on the head and on both rear hocks. Seeing the deer had brown and was not an albino Ingersoll shot and killed the deer. The deer was examined at the Indian River Field Office by retired Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Biologist Doug Whitcome, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Technician Greg Whittaker, and me. There was obvious brown coloring on the head of the deer and on the inside of both rear hocks. The eyes were glazed over, thus making it difficult to determine the coloration. It was determined by all involved that the deer met the legal requirements to be considered a piebald. Lieutenant XXXX checked the law and confirmed that the requirement was the deer had to have brown coloration on it. This deer met the legal requirement so the deer was left in the possession of Ingersoll. Photos of the brown coloration on the deer were taken and e-mailed to Lieutenant XXXX who presented them to wildlife biologist at the Gaylord Operations Office. They confirmed from the photos that the deer was a piebald. On December 28, 2004 Ingersoll took the head and horns of the piebald deer down to the Gaylord Operations Office for TB inspection and aging. On January 7, 2005 Ingersoll visited Bob XXXX, owner of XXXX Taxidermy, to make a payment on his deer that was getting a full body mount. While he was at XXXX Taxidermy, he was informed by Mr. XXXX, that the DNR was at his place of business on January 6, 2005 and had to take samples of the deer’s hide to see if it was altered. They had claimed Ingersoll may have put shoe polish or dye on the brown areas! At 6:10 pm Ingersoll returned back to XXXX Taxidermy and picked up his damaged property. (Ingersoll Deposition) (Pg 48, lines 3-7) A December 27th, 2004. We have a receipt with that day on it with my signature and his. It's already submitted into one of the depositions as an exhibit. Q And you took it to XXXX's to get a mount done? A Full body mount; correct. (Ingersoll Deposition) (Pg 49, lines 10-25 / Pg 50, lines 1-25) A And I'm not sure if that was the same day or the day after. And I'd went in a different time to pay some money on my mounting bill. I figured if I paid $20 or $50 here or there that it would dwindle down by the time it was ready, and he told me it would be, you know, six or nine months or whatever.And when I learned that the DNR, or Mr. xxxx, or whoever, cut the holes in my hide, about that incident, then I picked up the rest of my deer. Q Is it your testimony that it was your decision not to have him mount it, or was it his decision not to have it mounted? A My decision not to have him mount it. I felt, since I had left the deer into his custody, for him to allow the DNR to come in and destroy my property without calling me, or a warrant, or the proper paperwork, that that was unethical on his part. Q Okay. And is that why you picked up the deer? A That's correct. Q And how did you find out about that? A Mr. XXXX told me. Q Okay. When did he tell you that? A On January 7th, 2005. Q Did he call you on the telephone and say -- A No. Q -- that "The DNR had been here"? A I had stopped by to pay some money on my bill. At the time there was, I believe, an insurance man there going around looking at different mounts, and so on and so forth, because he was either updating his insurance or doing something -- I'm not sure. So I waited around patiently probably a half hour waiting for them to get done. And then I had mentioned to Mr. XXXX that when my hide came back from the tanning process -- they send it out to get it commercial tanned -- that I'd like to be there the day it comes back so I could see it and make sure nothing got damaged and -- you know, just very concerned over the -- over the hide. And at that point he told me that the DNR was in the day before and took some samples. And he explained how they cut holes in the deer, and so on and so forth. Q And what did you say to him? (Ingersoll Deposition (Pg 51, lines 1-25 / Pg 52, lines 1-12) A "Why did they do that?" Q And what did he say to you? A He commented that Mrs. XXXX and Mr. -- Mrs. XXXX -- not Mister -- were at his place of business, and he told me they were there for approximately three to five hours, and they came with an 18-inch stack of Polaroid pictures of a deer since birth, and ranting and raved that -- this was in his words -- and stayed there. And then the DNR officer stopped by. He didn't say -- he didn't give me a name of which one. And he commented how Mrs. XXXX and Mrs. XXXX chewed the DNR officer out, and told him they weren't doing their job, and the deer was illegal, and so on and so forth, and that he needed to do his job. And apparently he went back and somebody cut some holes in the hide. Q What did he tell you? A I don't understand the question. Q You said "apparently he went back." I want to know what he told you. A He told me the DNR went back and took the samples. Q Okay. A But in the DNR paperwork it says that they called Mr. XXXX and he gave them permission, so -- Q So at that point what did you say? A Well, at that point I was very angry, and I didn't know what to say. I believe I went home and stewed about it and thought things over. And at that point was the first time that I called Fred. And that was on January 7th. Q And by "Fred" you mean, Fred Trost, -- A Fred Trost. Q -- your attorney here today? A Correct. Q And what was your purpose in calling Fred Trost? A To ask him what the legal process was for the DNR confiscating my property, did they have the right to do so. I explained the entire situation to him of what was going on, and asked him for advice on what to do. MORE OF THIS STORY TO COME - KEEP POSTED

After talking with Mr. Riley in Lansing at the NRC Meeting on April 10, 2008, I called the Attorney Generals Office to check on progress. I was told, finally my file was being reviewed and was shipped down to Peter Manning's Division. It has not been turned over to the Criminal Division at this point, but at least it being reviewed! So, when the officers involved read this and I am sure they do, their coming for ya boys! Environment, Natural Resource and Agriculture G. Mennen Williams Building – Sixth Floor 525 West Ottawa, P.O. Box 30755, Lansing 48909 Division Chief, S. Peter Manning ........................................ 37-37540 First Assistant, James Riley ................................................ 37-37540

Final Post for Today! Please help get this resolved, somebody knows somebody that can help!

Mr. Stokes on December 26, I had e-mailed the following information to you. I have not heard from you, so I thought I would follow-up. As stated in my past e-mail, if the DNR would be graciously enough to clear my name in the community and give me the Affidavits of the officers involved, we can put this thing to rest. I will be picking up the documentation from my attorneys office this week regarding the DNR. As I had stated in our meeting, I was referred to Rebecca Humphries office from Attorney General Mike Cox office. I was informed to try and settle my problems with you. I am trying to do just that! Could you please contact me regarding this e-mail sent 12-26-07. Thank You John Ingersoll Mr. Ingersoll: I have told you everything I know and everything our Conservation Officers have said regarding your case. For me to provide you with something other than what they have stated would be not be responsible on my part, since I was not part of the investigation at the time. For me to say Officer(s) ?, ?, and ? were wrong for saying your deer was not an albino deer when the tell me they thought it was one, would be wrong on my part. How can I say what these Officer(s) thoughts were? I have shared with you everything that I know. I have asked the officers to answer your questions regarding the reasons for stating it was an albino deer. I have shared with you their conversation with the Cheboygan County PAO, and the person they talked to (Mr. Keogh). I have shared with you their response regarding taking a small hide sample from the taxidermist shop. I have nothing else to offer Mr. Ingersoll. I will not ask our Officers to write a letter to the local newspaper. If the local newspaper choose to interview our Officers, I am sure they will be willing to discuss this issue. As for investigating Sgt. ?, I have not read nor heard anything from you that suggest an internal investigation of him. He has provide answers to everything that has been asked of him. Thank you. Rodney Stokes Acting Chief, Law Enforcement Div. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Mason Building -- 4th Floor P.O. Box 30031 Lansing, Mi. 48909 (517) 335-3427 [email protected] "Volunteers are NOT paid, Not because they are worthless, But because they are priceless" From: "Ingersoll" To: Stokes, Rodney Creation Date: 1/8 6:24 pm Subject: RE: FW: John Ingersoll - Piebald Deer Thank you for your efforts. I will continue with the Attorney Generals office. John Ingersoll Ok, thanks

12-26-07 Dear Mr. Stokes: In response to your e-mail on 12-13-07, I offer the following facts. In your response under paragraph 1, you mention that – "Through Sgt.s discussion(s) with the lab, he was under the impression there was no conclusive test to call an animal albino or not, i.e.: DNR testing." There were two reports done by the DNR regarding the deer 1) Necropsy Record, 2) Toxicology Report. As stated in the DNR Necropsy Record and the Toxicology Report the testing was done, due to the animal being reported earlier in the summer and fall with a pure white coat. Sgt. mistakenly, determined that this automatically made the deer an albino. DNR Toxicology Report “The deer is a forensic case. The animal was reportedly seen earlier in the summer and fall with a pure white coat. When harvested, the animal had brown on the head and tarsal area. Because albino deer are protected by law, there is question as to whether or not the stain on the fur was due to the hunter painting or staining the hair with some type of petroleum product. More history is on the submittal form.” DNR Necropsy Report “The deer was seen earlier in the summer and fall with an apparent all white coat. When the animal was harvested during the 2004 deer season, it had brown colorization on the head and tarsal gland area. The eyes were pigmented (which by definition eliminates this as being an albino animal), but there was a question regarding the staining of the fur in the two area as to whether they were stained naturally or by the hunter through painting or staining the areas with some type of petroleum product.” Diagnosis: skin and hair samples are Negative for hydrocarbons and man-made chemicals. In paragraph 1 you go on to state that Sgt.based his decision on pictures of the same buck. "Therefore, Sgt. called the deer an albino, which he believed it was based on photographs of the same buck several months before (entirely white)." I would like to point out, that the picture that Sgt. was viewing was that of a deer that residents in the area were feeding for four years. This is documented through their letter, published on December 30, 2004 on page 5 of the Straitsland Resorter. Who killed our friend for a trophy? Please be advised that on Monday Dec. 20, 2004, someone from Indian River shot and killed the neighborhood's pet Albino deer. We have been lovingly feeding this pretty animal for four years. My deer was aged through the DNR (TB Tag #258627) to be 2.5 years old. Making it impossible to be the same deer! Your deer, TB Tag #258627, submitted on 12/28/04 was aged at the Rose Lake Lab as a 2.5 year old male. In paragraph 1 also mention about the deer’s eyes being brought up in Sgt. discussions with the lab. “The eyes not being pink was brought up, however, he learned that an albino animal’s eyes apparently lose the pink colorization shortly after death (your buck was not seen by any DNR personnel until several days after death). This statement does not line up with the wording on the DNR Necropsy Record by Pathologist Cooley. Clearly stating, the deer’s eyes were pigmented (which by definition eliminates this as being an albino animal) DNR Necropsy Report “The deer was seen earlier in the summer and fall with an apparent all white coat. When the animal was harvested during the 2004 deer season, it had brown colorization on the head and tarsal gland area. The eyes were pigmented (which by definition eliminates this as being an albino animal), but there was a question regarding the staining of the fur in the two area as to whether they were stained naturally or by the hunter through painting or staining the areas with some type of petroleum product.” Diagnosis: skin and hair samples are Negative for hydrocarbons and man-made chemicals. It is a fact that I did not shoot an albino deer, whether you determine it by the Legal Description or the Genetic description of an albino deer. MDNR 3.100(2) (2) It shall be unlawful for a person to take or possess, at any time, an albino deer, being a deer with all white or colorless hair, or a deer with a coat of all white or colorless hair similar to an albino deer. Piebald, or partially white deer, may be taken under the provisions of this order. Legal Description – Albino deer; a deer with all white or colorless hair Genetic Description – Albino deer; "True albinism is due to lack of pigment. A true albino deer will have all white hair, grayish hoofs, and pink eyes. The eyes appear pink because, in the absence of pigment, the blood can be seen coursing through the blood vessels." (Page 182, The Deer of North America by Leonard Lee Rue III) It is clearly a misunderstanding by Lieutenant and Sergeant to even suggest that I shot an albino deer, when the legal and genetic description matches a piebald deer to the letter of the law and genetically. MDNR 3.100(2) (2) It shall be unlawful for a person to take or possess, at any time, an albino deer, being a deer with all white or colorless hair, or a deer with a coat of all white or colorless hair similar to an albino deer. Piebald, or partially white deer, may be taken under the provisions of this order. Legal Description – Piebald deer; partially white deer Genetic Description – Piebald deer; “Partially white, or piebald, deer are the color mutation hunters are most likely to see, being far more common that melanistic, albino or all white deer. Piebalds tend to be highly variable in color patterns, ranging from a few white spots to mostly white with a trace of brown. In albinos, none of the cells can produce melanin. In piebald’s, at least some cells can produce pigment. This causes a spotting of coat colors, with some areas appearing normal and others white.” (Page 142, 143 John Ozoga’s Whitetail Intrigue, Scientific Insights for White-tailed Deer Hunters) In paragraph 2 you mention how Officer ??? took my Incident report directly to Assistant Prosecutor Bill Keogh. CO ???was instructed to take the incident report to the Cheboygan County PAO and review it with them, advising the prosecutor we were not interested in prosecuting due to the fact the deer had brown stained hair, which made it not fall under the "all white deer" definition in the law. CO ??? reported to Sgt. ???? that he took the report to the PAO and discussed it with them, the prosecutor deciding that no arrest warrant would be issued. CO ???? advised Sgt. he took the incident report directly to Assistant Prosecutor Bill Keogh. The prosecutor reviewed the report, they discussed the incident, and the prosecutor advised it was not something he would issue an arrest warrant on. Since this is what the DNR anticipated, no warrant request was completed, and that was the end of contact with the prosecutor's office on the incident. This statement first of all makes no sense. Why would the DNR go to the Prosecutor with a case that they did not even want to prosecute? With an Incident Report that stated that I killed a legal Piebald! I would also like to point out the following factual information. CHEBOYGAN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE 1st contact – Inquired if my case was reviewed by the Cheboygan County Prosecutors office, the secretary entered my name in to the computer and said NO. She would double check with the Prosecutor, just to make sure, and call me. I left both my home phone and cell phone numbers. 2nd contact – Never received a call, so I followed up on information regarding if my case was reviewed by the Cheboygan Prosecutors office. I was told, “No the case never came thru this office!” If I needed more information, I should talk with officer ???? about this. On 11-8-06 I received an answer to my F.O.I.A. request I sent in on10-20-06. In this information was the Daily Reports of both DNR officers ???? and Sgt. After Reviewing all Officer ???? DAILY REPORTS supplied from F.O.I.A. request dated 11-08-06, from the dates 12-19-04 thru 2-28-05. None of these REPORTS showed Officer ???? going to see, or traveling to the Cheboygan County Assistant Prosecutor office. In paragraph 3 it talks about how the DNR did not believe it needed a search warrant. It was Sgt's decision to obtain a small hide sample from the taxidermist shop. Since it was at a location where no expectation of privacy was expected or requested, and it was a business that is regulated under DNR laws where we do routine inspections, the DNR did not believe a search warrant was necessary. The hide/hair samples were taken to determine if any artificial chemical substances were used to stain the hair, as was accused by several citizens. The lab tests were only able to determine if hydro carbons were present, with the results being negative for hydro carbons. The taxidermist did advise Sgt. the holes created by taking the hide samples would be of no consequence in regards to mounting the deer later, due to their small size. He advised they commonly dealt with much larger holes and tears in a hide, without any detrimental affects to the finished mount. Although it is correct that the DNR regulates Michigan Taxidermist businesses and is able to inspect said Taxidermist specimens at anytime. The law does not provide an avenue to confiscate ones property with out a warrant. Which the DNR did not have! It is also a severe problem that the deer was thawed out and refrozen, causing damage to my hide that was non repairable. This term is called slippage and is defined as hair falling out of the hide! The following factual documentation will back up my statements. Records and Inspection The following specific information is required for each animal or part thereof, which is held or processed by a taxidermist. 1. Each specimen must be identified by the taxidermist with a tag supplied by the Michigan DNR (PR9418). As an acceptable alternative, the specimen may be identified by unique tattoo, band or seal number if the DNR tag is properly completed, on file at the taxidermy location and contains the unique tattoo, band or seal number identifying the specimen. 2. Each DNR tag shall include the following: a. Name, address and telephone number of owner b. Date when specimen was left with taxidermist c. Species of specimen d. How specimen was obtained e. Hunting license number, captive breeder number, driver license number or other special permit number authorizing possession of specimen f. Origin of specimen g. Disposal of specimen and date h. If used, unique tattoo, band, or seal number on specimen. i. Name of person leaving the specimen j. Name and license number of the taxidermist 3. A person issued a taxidermy permit shall keep a copy of the identification tag (PR9418) for each specimen disposed of for one year after disposal of any specimen. This record and all specimens in possession of the taxidermist shall be available for inspection at any reasonable time of day by the Director, the Director's designee or any conservation officer. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/IC9161_149446_7.pdf I am aware that Lt. has retired, officer ???? was mostly following orders and Sgt. is the person whom initiated most of the questionable activities. It has also been brought to my attention that Sgt. told the original taxidermist to destroy the documentation of my job. Deposition Page 22, lines 10-23 Q Okay. But you're sure, though, that if someone comes picks up a job that you can throw away the paperwork and it's not required? A Absolutely. Because I -- Q Now, is this something -- A -- I asked -- I did ask if I should keep any of this. Q Asked who? A I asked the sergeant in charge there, I believe it is -- or Q And when did you ask him? A When it was picked up. I said, "Do I need to keep any of this?" And he said, "No," I don't have the job. This activity is not what the guidelines state for a taxidermist. Records and Inspection The following specific information is required for each animal or part thereof, which is held or processed by a taxidermist. 1. Each specimen must be identified by the taxidermist with a tag supplied by the Michigan DNR (PR9418). As an acceptable alternative, the specimen may be identified by unique tattoo, band or seal number if the DNR tag is properly completed, on file at the taxidermy location and contains the unique tattoo, band or seal number identifying the specimen. 2. Each DNR tag shall include the following: a. Name, address and telephone number of owner b. Date when specimen was left with taxidermist c. Species of specimen d. How specimen was obtained e. Hunting license number, captive breeder number, driver license number or other special permit number authorizing possession of specimen f. Origin of specimen g. Disposal of specimen and date h. If used, unique tattoo, band, or seal number on specimen. i. Name of person leaving the specimen j. Name and license number of the taxidermist 3. A person issued a taxidermy permit shall keep a copy of the identification tag (PR9418) for each specimen disposed of for one year after disposal of any specimen. This record and all specimens in possession of the taxidermist shall be available for inspection at any reasonable time of day by the Director, the Director's designee or any conservation officer. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/IC9161_149446_7.pdf It has been stated in several of the Depositions that the DNR was willing to publish the results of it’s testing in the Straitsland Resorter. Deposition 7-27-07 Pg 10, lines 14-19 The DNR officer was there. He came in; Mr. ????. I didn’t know him, I didn’t know his name. And I proceeded to ask him what he was going to do with the testing as a result of asking for samples, as Mr. ???? indicated, if he was going to report to the Straitsland Resorter his findings of testing so the community would know, and settle this issue. Deposition 7-27-06 Pg 17, lines 7-8 Our feelings was hurt. And then the DNR said that they would take samples of the deer and put it in the Resorter As of today in the community it is still questionable if I (John Ingersoll) shot an illegal albino deer or a piebald deer as posted online in our local Petoskey News Review. Some readers will recall the controversy over another white buck that was shot in the area a few years ago. The great debate was over whether or not the deer was a rare and protected albino or a not-so-rare and not protected piebald. Some other may recall that a pair of white fawns was seen in the same area in years past. http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/20 ... oors98.txt I have put an exhausting amount of time trying to clear my name and reputation in our small community. I have spent many hours of time trying to straighten this situation out. 1) Talking with Sgt. – to no avail (several times) sent retraction letter 2) Talking with Lt. – to no avail (several times) sent retraction letter 3) Talking to Chief Alan Marble – referred to Captain Kurt Bacon 4) Left message for Captain Kurt Bacon – Lt. called back 5) Called Attorney General Office – received meeting request form 6) Received call from Barbara Schmidt – Suggested contacting DNR director Rebecca Humphries office directly. 7) Called State Representative Gary McDowell – talked with Dan, explained situation, he stated he would look into it and call back (2:14 pm 9-20-07) (2:47 pm 9-20-07) received call from Dan stating I should follow up on the possible contacting of the DNR director first. If I have any problems, please call back. Contacted Rebecca Humphries office and ask to speak to the director, was referred to Rodney Stokes, Acting Chief of Law Enforcement 9) Contacted Rodney Stokes – Informed him of situation and meet with Rodney to discuss / e-mailed on follow-up questions / waiting for resolution. If you could please do the following we can put these questionable actions of the DNR to rest. 1) An Affidavit by Sgt. and Officer ???? stating in explicated detail that I John Ingersoll shot a piebald deer by the description of the law and the genetic make up of the animal and in no way was the deer genetically or legally an albino deer. 2) A official letter from Rodney Stokes stating the DNR’s position regarding the Piebald deer I shot, describing why it came to it determination that the deer was an piebald. 3) A public apology by the DNR and mostly Sgt. and Officer ???? in the form of an article to the Straitsland Resorter and the Petoskey News Review. Explaining in explicated detail that the deer I shot was a piebald deer and in no way genetically or legally an albino deer. Advising the community that the investigation was due to pictures of a different deer that was entirely white and not the same deer shot by Ingersoll. 4) An internal investigation into the conduct of Sgt.

December 06, 2007 Rodney Stokes 530 W. Allegan Lansing, MI 48933 517-335-3427 Re: 10-16-07 Meeting Dear Mr. Stokes: On October 16, 2007 we had met in your office to discuss the conduct of several DNR officers, Lieutenant , Sergeant and Officer ????. In which it was determined and agreed upon, that the DNR had made several mistakes. At this point we agreed that you would investigate three things, 1) Why Sergeant and Lieutenant stated under oath that I had shot an albino deer? 2) Why Sergeant Drogowski stated under oath that officer ?? submitted my Incident Report to the Cheboygan County Prosecutor? 3) Why Lieutenant , Sergeant and Officer ?? did not have a warrant before they confiscated and damaged my property? I was told that you would talk to Lieutenant Thomas Courchaine on Tuesday October 23, 2007 and then contact me. You also informed me to e-mail you with my demands to settle this matter and to be reasonable. After not hearing from you for approximately 2 weeks, I contacted your office on November 6, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. and talked with Taunia Sadler and was transferred to your voice mail. I left a message for you to contact me and have not heard from you. I am following up this morning with this e-mail to see where we things are at? I have contacted my attorney regarding the possibility of being able to use an affidavit to sent to the Appeals Court and the Lower Court to correct the inaccuracies your officers, but no legal avenue is available to do so. If you could contact me with a detailed answer of what the Department of Natural Resources would be willing to do to settle this matter or to discuss, it would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely John Ingersoll MDNR Chief of Law Enforcement Dear Mr. Ingersoll: In response to your e-mail dated December 6, 2007 regarding our October 16, 2007 meeting, I offer the following responses to your questions. 1) Why did Sergeant and Lt. state under oath that you (John Ingersoll) had shot an albino deer? RESPONSE: Through Sgt's discussion(s) with the lab, he was under the impression there was no conclusive test to call an animal albino or not, i.e.: DNR testing. Therefore, Sgt. called the deer an albino, which he believed it was, based on photographs of the same buck several months before (entirely white). The eyes not being pink was brought up, however, he learned that an albino animal's eyes apparently lose the pink coloration shortly after death (your buck was not seen by any DNR personnel until several days after death). From a law enforcement perspective, it didn't matter if we called it an "albino deer", or "all white deer", since the law states it is unlawful to take "an albino, or all white deer." 2) Why did Sergeant state under oath that CO submitted your incident report to the Cheboygan County prosecutor? RESPONSE: CO was instructed to take the incident report to the Cheboygan County PAO and review it with them, advising the prosecutor we were not interested in prosecuting due to the fact the deer had brown stained hair, which made it not fall under the "all white deer" definition in the law. CO reported to Sgt. that he took the report to the PAO and discussed it with them, the prosecutor deciding that no arrest warrant would be issued. CO advised Sgt. he took the incident report directly to Assistant Prosecutor Bill Keogh. The prosecutor reviewed the report, they discussed the incident, and the prosecutor advised it was not something he would issue an arrest warrant on. Since this is what the DNR anticipated, no warrant request was completed, and that was the end of contact with the prosecutor's office on the incident. 3) Why didn't Lt. , Sgt. , and CO have a warrant before they confiscated and damaged your property? RESPONSE: It was Sgt.s decision to obtain a small hide sample from the taxidermist shop. Since it was at a location where no expectation of privacy was expected or requested, and it was a business that is regulated under DNR laws where we do routine inspections, the DNR did not believe a search warrant was necessary. The hide/hair samples were taken to determine if any artificial chemical substances were used to stain the hair, as was accused by several citizens. The lab tests were only able to determine if hydro carbons were present, with the results being negative for hydro carbons. The taxidermist did advise Sgt. the holes created by taking the hide samples would be of no consequence in regards to mounting the deer later, due to their small size. He advised they commonly dealt with much larger holes and tears in a hide, without any detrimental affects to the finished mount. Mr. Ingersoll, I believe the above responses address all of the outstanding issues we have discussed. I do not know anything else I or our conservation officers can do to resolve your concerns/issues. Thank you. Rodney Stokes Acting Chief, Law Enforcement Div. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Mason Building -- 4th Floor P.O. Box 30031 Lansing, Mi. 48909 (517) 335-3427 [email protected] "Volunteers are NOT paid, Not because they are worthless, But because they are priceless"

Citizen Assistance Request Sent To Governor Granholm April 3rd, 2008 2-22-08 - Citizen Assistance Request I have been trying to resolve several issues with the Michigan Department of Natural Recourses. These issues include violating my Constitutional Rights, damage to my property (due to DNR actions), intentional false testimony by DNR Law Enforcement Officers and Obstruction of Justice. I have tried to maneuver through the proper channels to resolve this, to no prevail. I contacted the officer’s supervisor- Law Enforcement Chief Alan Marble - referred to Captain Kurt Bacon - no resolution I contacted DNR Lt. and Sgt. directly trying to resolve the issues. They were not interested! I next contact the Attorney General Mike Cox office and received a meeting request form. Due to all documents having to be attached to this form, it took several months to gather the information. I drafted up two retraction letters and sent them to both Lt. and Sgt. - No answer I contacted the Attorney Generals Office - I received a call back obtaining information - referred to the Director of MDNR Contacted my State Representative Gary McDowell - he stated I must try to resolve things with MDNR Director first. Contacted the Director of the MDNR - was referred to the new Chief of Law Enforcement Rodney Stokes. Had a meeting in Lansing with Rodney Stokes- He admitted the MDNR had made several mistakes! I was instructed to go home and get back to him with a reasonable solution. I complied and sent in my request to Chief Rodney Stokes. I received a reply he can't help me. Finished the paperwork for my Meeting (349 pages) with the Attorney General Office and mailed it certified mail. Received conformation - no answer Sent a copy of the Documented facts to Director Rebecca Humphries (349 pages) certified mail. Received conformation- no answer 2-28-08 - Response Citizen Assistance Request Dear Mr. Ingersoll, Thank you for contacting the Governor's Office to express your concerns about the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). To ensure that your concerns are given immediate attention, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your information to Director Rebecca Humphries' office of the DNR for their careful review and consideration. I have asked them to look into your specific situation and to report their findings directly to you. Again, thank you for contacting our office on this important subject. Respectfully, Monica Issue Specialist Constituent Services Division Office of Governor Jennifer M. Granholm 3-06-08 NRC MEETING in Lansing I made the following statements! I have some serious issues with some DNR officers a Sergeant and Lieutenant. I feel these DNR officers falsely testified under oath which directly affected the judicial process of a civil lawsuit filed in Cheboygan County by myself. I have several pages of documentation to back up my statements. I feel these officers • Violated my constitutional rights • Perjured themselves under oath • Obstructed justice While trying to get this situation investigated, I have been shuffled thru a messy bureaucratic process. This process included • Talking with the officers supervisor • Talking with the Chief of Law Enforcement • Talking with the Attorney Generals office • Being referred to the DNR Directors office • Then being referred to the Chief of Law Enforcement Rodney Stokes – which I did meet with and was told to go home and get back with him with reasonable demands to resolve these issues. Only to contact him at a later date to be told that there is nothing he can do for me. • Back to the Attorney Generals Office • Contacted my State Representative Gary McDowell • Referred to DNR Directors office – which I sent a meeting request to along with 349 pages of documentation. • Sent 349 pages of documentation to the Attorney Generals Office along with a meeting request form. • Contacted Governor Granholm’s office – received correspondence back stating this was referred back to the DNR Directors Office. • I received a call from DNR Directors Rebecca Humphries office stating I would be receiving a letter in the mail addressing my issues. WHICH I HAVE NOT RECEIVED YET! As a citizen I feel if the tables were turned action would have been immediately. This is my second trip to Lansing regarding this situation. 400 miles each trip! Not to mention the thousands of dollars in expenses this is costing my family and hours and hours of time spend. How does an average citizen settle a questionable unlawful action of a DNR Officer? Their needs to be an outside internal investigation! It’s like your trying to pick a lock or something, trying to crack the code! I don’t want to have to hire an Attorney and file a lawsuit of the DNR and I shouldn’t have too. I should be able to settle this matter with the DNR............................. Humphries comments – Well you did sent us several pages of documents to review and that takes time. My response – I sent you 28 pages of the overview of what happened and the rest of the documentation was for reference to back up my statements. Humphries response – Well, I want to go over all the documentation in detail, which I am sure that you would want me too. I just want this panel to know that this was not a case that was prosecuted by the department. My response – This involves me being falsely accused of a crime which was investigated. Which I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the MDNR ruining my deer hide I was getting a full body mount on! Mary Brown comments – What is all this about. Humphries response – I will write a letter to each one of the members of this board regarding the actions I will be taking on this situation. Frank Wheatlake – Your concern are being handles by the Director and she has stated that she will be writing you a letter. You may not like her response in the letter, but she will write you a letter. Thank You. While in the hallway after my 3 minute speech I was approached by the Attorney General Assistant Peter Manning in which he stated – that if I did not get a response that I was satisfied with to contact his office and they would turn it over to the criminal division of the Attorney Generals Office. But we must give the DNR Director the correct the issue first. 3-13-08 Response from DNR Director REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES March 13, 2008 Mr. John Ingersoll 7170 Tuscarora Circle Indian River, Michigan 49749 Dear Mr. Ingersoll: This letter will respond to the documents received by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on February 6, 2008. On February 28, the Governor's office forwarded your e-mail to me and asked that I respond to it on behalf of the Governor. In both the e-mail and from the documents you have provided, I have determined that you contend the following three things: 1) your Constitutional rights were violated, 2) that DNR Law Enforcement personnel intentionally and willfully provided misleading and false testimony resulting in the dismissal of your civil action, and 3) that the DNR's role in these events damaged your reputation. Let me establish at the beginning, that I have undertaken this review with no prejudice as to the outcome and with an open mind in an effort to provide you with a fair opinion and response to the issues you have presented. Violation of Constitutional Rights In your e-mail to Governor Granholm, you allege that your Constitutional rights have been violated by the DNR. In reviewing the documents pertaining to the collection of the hair and hide sample, I assume you believe that those materials were collected illegally as a violation of the 4th Amendment. Q: "Well, don't you think that that's a 4th amendment search and seizure violation, without a warrant?" Acting Law Enforcement Chief, Rodney Stokes, addresses this question in his December 13, 2007 e-mail, to which I refer in part: "It was Sgt's decision to obtain a small hide sample from the taxidermist shop. Since it was at a location where no expectation of privacy was expected or requested, and it was a business that is regulated under DNR laws where we do routine inspections, the DNR did not believe a search warrant was necessary." While I do not personally have a working knowledge of the various investigative protocols in this case, the actions taken by these officers do not seem unreasonable. The collection of the hide and hair samples proved to be instrumental in determining that the deer you harvested had naturally occurring brown spots. This was critical in concluding that this deer could legally be harvested. I must disagree that these actions were inappropriate, considering how they supported your assertion that this was a legal deer. Obstruction of Justice and intentionally providing False Testimony In the written documents you provided, and in addition to your testimony at the March 6, 2008 Natural Resources Commission meeting, you accuse two current and one former Law Enforcement officers of obstruction of justice and perjury. Based upon the very serious nature of these allegations, I paid particular attention to the testimony given by the officers in question. From the materials provided, which did not include the full text of each deposition, I do not agree that these officers intentionally provided false testimony. My review of their testimony simply did not reveal this intentional and coordinated effort to mislead. However, if you believe that these accusations can be proven, I would recommend that you notify local law enforcement or your county prosecutor's office. These officers should have an opportunity to formally respond to these allegations. Restoration of Your Reputation Our officers investigated the question of whether or not your deer was a legally killed deer or an illegally killed deer. That investigation determined that it was a legally killed deer. You were not criminally charged, and you were not issued a citation. The fact that you were not charged or ticketed should serve as evidence enough that you legally killed that deer. As a matter of course, the Department does not publish otherwise legal behavior in the newspaper. It is the duty of these officers to investigate complaints, which in this case they did, and based upon that investigation no further inquiries into the matter were made. Again, you were not charged with a crime, nor were you issued a ticket. If others, as a result of a media report, believed otherwise, that is unfortunate. If you feel that you have been or are unfairly portrayed in the media, perhaps writing a letter to the editor clarifying that you were never charged nor ticketed would help put the matter to rest. As I indicated in the previous paragraph, the fact that you were never charged with a crime or issued a citation is testimony enough to the fact that the DNR believes this was a legally killed deer. Conclusion Your situation has helped reveal to the Department that the rules and regulations relating to albino deer need to be changed. Over 20 years ago, the protections for albino deer were written in statute. As the environmental and natural resources laws were codified in the early 1990s, that law was converted to a regulation in the Wildlife Conservation Order. I have asked our Wildlife Division to prepare an order for the Natural Resources Commission that would make the harvest of an albino deer legal in the State of Michigan. Truly, in cases whether it is initially difficult to determine whether a deer is legal or not is burdensome to the hunter. Moreover, there is no compelling scientific reason to protect these deer as albinism represents a mutation that is not desirable in a deer herd. You have obviously gone to great effort to resolve this matter, and I understand the time and resources you have committed to that resolution. The DNR has also committed a great deal of its time and resources to resolving this matter as well. This letter represents the final determination of the Department and, from this point forward, we consider the matter closed. I thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. Rebecca A. Humphries Director 517-373-2329 cc: Governor Jennifer Granholm Representative Gary McDowell Natural Resources Commission Mr. Peter Manning, Assistant Attorney General Ms. Mindy Koch, Resource Management Deputy, DNR Mr. Daniel Eichinger, Acting Legislative Liaison, DNR Mr. Rodney Stokes, DNR I apologize for not including this information in my last request for help. I forgot that you probably get an extreme about of request per week. You first contact me by e-mail which informed me that your office referred this to the DNR Director. I did get a response from the Director and the Issues are still not settled or addressed. The DNR position is "This letter represents the final determination of the Department and, from this point forward, we consider the matter closed." "While in the hallway after my 3 minute speech I was approached by the Attorney General Assistant Peter Manning in which he stated – that if I did not get a response that I was satisfied with to contact his office and they would turn it over to the criminal division of the Attorney Generals Office. But we must give the DNR Director the correct the issue first. " I would like to set up a meeting with Governor Granholm to discuss and resolve these issues. John Ingersoll Citizen Assistance Request Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with Governor Granholm. Your message has been submitted. Thank you for contacting Governor Granholm’s Constituent Services Office for assistance. Please fill out the following form completely and include all the information, details and case numbers that will be relevant in reviewing your concern. Once the form is successfully transmitted, Constituent Services will begin working with the corresponding state agency to assist you.

Well, I received a little help regarding my situation, from a new source. The Up North Journal - http://www.upnorthjournal.com/

As a member of SCI I have contacted them and asked them to join in this battle with the bureaucratic green suited DNR. The SCI Mission Statement Safari Club International is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. That's why SCI Members are active in more than 100 countries, and why you'll cherish your involvement with SCI. SCI fights tirelessly to protect the hunting heritage enjoyed by 15 million Americans and 45 million families around the globe. Together, we help every sportsman and sportswoman understand how and why SCI is truly First for Hunters. By joining SCI, you join the ranks of hunters spanning more than 100 countries who share the same passion for our hunting heritage and wildlife conservation as you. I know that people read this thread, do you belong to a club or organization that can help? Please, get involved and lets get justice, nothing more, just what we have a constitutional right too!

The real story on the possible albino deer law. Gaylord DNR Rally 4-5-08 I was able to talk with State Representatives, Tom Casperson and Kevin Elsenheimer. Kevin agreed to review my documentation and see what can do, to help. Tom Casperson agreed to contact Attorney General Mike Cox and see what he could do to get things investigated.