Michigan Supreme Court

[quincy]

I am sure Quaere is working on just that, jci, and I am, as well.

Yours has never been a libel action that was going to be a slam-dunk anyway - I think you probably had a much stronger slander action possible against some of those in your community, as well as the possibility of a decent shot at winning a false light invasion of privacy action. However, none of that really matters at this point.

Your goal is to show the court that the trial court and appeals court erred in designating you a limited public figure, this to get around the actual malice proof you would need as a public figure for your defamation action to be successful. Proving actual malice is one of the most difficult elements in any defamation suit, and I honestly don't see you proving it based on the letters that were written. So that is one area where you need to convince the Supreme Court that the lower courts erred.

The other area is the defamation itself. The word albino is not defamatory in and of itself. It can, however, be defamatory when used in a certain context. This is where your DNR testimony can be used, to demonstrate that the judge erred by relying on the "legal" definition of albino provided him by the DNR witness, and not on it's actual definition as it appears in 3.100.

The dual meanings of the word "albino" is important in your case, because the people in your community understand that shooting an albino deer is (was) illegal, and that knowledge imparts a different meaning to the word albino, to those in your community (who, being in a hunting community, are aware of the difference between albino, white, piebald) than the innocent form of the word does.

You are up against what is, basically, a free speech issue here, jci. It is the constitutional right of people to speak out on matters of public interest and controversy. The letters were, to my mind, opinion, and were also placed in the Letters to the Editor section of the paper, which further connotes that the letters express opinion and not fact.

I think one of the strong cases you can use for the public figure/private figure issue is the Firestone case I cited (somewhere around here ).

Wait for Quaere to post, and I will post back as well, when I come up with some brilliant ideas for you.

 

[Quaere]

JCI:

This thread is huge and I am having trouble following the timeline of the events in the case. Could you please post a SIMPLE chronological list of events? Something like this:

Dec. 1, 2007 – Shot deer
Dec. 2, 2007-so and so examined deer and found it was not albino.
Dec. 5, 2007 – First photos appear in public on bulletin board of store

This will enable me to piece together your slightly confusing list of excerpts from transcripts and exhibits.

I'll check back later today (Friday).

 

[Quaere]

Ronin wrote: Quaere, by federal court do you mean the U.S. Supreme Court?

I don’t know what I meant! Was I referring to the US SC or the MI SC? I can’t find where I wrote that sentence. I know at one point last night I was mulling over some actions that might prevent future misapplication of the public figure status, although such action would not do anything to further OP’s claims directly. Maybe I can go back and reconstruct my thoughts from that post when I get more time, lol. Anyway, it was a nice catch on your part…OP does not need any misdirection as to which court he should be in! Thanks!

 

[Quaere]

Quincy wrote: What can be said about private figures becoming limited public figures, however, is this: Private figures can become limited public figures for the purpose of a defamation action IF the private figure injects himself into a controversy, is thrust or dragged into a controversy, has more than a minimum role in the controversy, or tries to engage the public attention in order to influence public opinion over the controversy. But, whether drawn into the public controversy willingly or involuntarily does not matter. What matters is that the private person becomes an integral part of the controversy.

I was right there with you till the last part, which I highlighted. In this country we have a constitutional right to privacy and defamation law is based upon that right. All rights can be waived of course, but they are ONLY waived through some voluntary action on the part of the citizen.

Inconsistent application of public figure status is of no interest where authority is available from the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). According to SCOTUS, public figures are those who (1) occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes or (2) have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, and are public figures with respect to comment on those issues. See 443 U.S. at 134 (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974).

You will find a nice compilation of SCOTUS opinions re. defamation law at US Constitution Annotated - Defamation. That whole site is great because it organizes the opinions by topic!

I can't comment further on any of your posts tonight Quincy because i don't have time to read anymore of this thread right now (I haven't gone through OP's stuff yet either). Will try to catch up later today!

 

[quincy]

I don't want to get off jci's concerns here, but I will respond once again to Quaere about the private figure/public figure debate we seem to be having.

In Michigan, courts look at a limited public figure as one who has injected himself into a public controversy or who has been drawn into a public controversy. They look at the nature and extent of an individual's participation in the controversy. Check out New Franklin Enterprises v. Sabo, 480 NW 2d 326 (Mi App 1991).

Defining who is a public figure for purposes of First Amendment protection is a question of federal Constitutional law, so what the federal courts say is binding on the states. However, state laws on defamation vary widely and, when it comes to defining private figures and limited public figures and public figures, the states have significant and often substantial differences.

Only those who are highly visible representatives of government can be a public figure in Florida, whereas ANY elected official can be a public figure in Massachusetts, and private figures can become limited public figures in Indiana if the defamatory statements made about the person involve newsworthy matters or involve matters of public concern, and New Jersey follows Rosenblatt v Baer with a two-part test which determines a person's involvement in a public controversy and the nature and extent of their involvement, and Ohio follows Gertz v Robert Welch Inc with a person's injection into a controversy, and Virginia courts look at whether a person has access to the media and voluntarily assumes a role in a controversy and has sought to influence the public on the controversy and on whether the controversy existed prior to the person's involvement in it, and so on and so on through the 50 states.

In general, and in most states (including Michigan), a person will be considered a limited public figure for the purposes of a defamation action after a court has considered the person's depth of participation in a public controversy, and whether the person has taken advantage of the media to advocate his cause, and whether the person invites in some way public comment and attention (through their words, actions or conduct - voluntary or involuntary).

Bill Gates, therefore, could be considered a public figure, a limited public figure, and a private figure for purposes of a defamation action, depending on the circumstances and depending on the state.

For jci, I am trying to locate something for you that I have not already posted to you here in this thread. You can review, once again, the Wolston v Reader's Digest Association case and Time Inc v Firestone.

As for the order of your arguments, I would have Number 3 follow your Number 1, as they both relate to the use of the word "albino," and I would put Numbers 2 and 4 together, as they both relate to your designation as a limited public figure (and the need to show actual malice).

I will post back, probably after Quaere, unless I find something useful before then.

 

[Quaere]

JCI: As you can see by the discourse between Quincy and I, there are many aspects to your case and the presentation of your petition to appeal.

You need to go to a law school library. The answers to all of your questions as well as answers to questions you didn’t even know you should be asking, are there in books that address each topic in an orderly manner.

You need to see a treatise on defamation (the treatise will explain, with citations, every aspect of defamation law. For an example of such a book, go here:
Practising Law Institute - Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander & Related Problems. If your library has a treatise specifically for MI defamation, even better.

Once you learn everything there is to know about your claims and the possible defenses to those claims, you need to find a book that will answer all of your questions about MI civil procedure.

For an example of some books on MI civil procedure, go here:
Civil Procedure Research Guide

The law library has reference librarians that will direct you to the books you need. You will want to make copies of many pages of these books so take bookmarks and money for the copy machine. If you want to be thorough, it will take you several days to get through these books.

I will go through your posts again and pull out some specifics I want to comment on but I can’t take the time to explain and provide citations for everything. You can use my comments to help you know what to research at the law library.

 

[Quaere]

JCI:

1. It makes no difference to the claims or defenses, that people have expressed their feelings about the deer (calling it a pet, etc.).

2. At trial, unless you somehow open the door for the defendants, they will not be permitted to testify as to how they felt about the deer. There won’t actually be a parade of children telling the jury how much they valued the deer but there may be children at trial, looking very sad every time the photo is shown.

3. This focus on the meaning of the word Albino is misplaced. There is no such thing as a defamatory word. There are only defamatory STATEMENTS and those statements MUST be examined in context in order to determine the affect the statements would produce on a reasonable person.

For example, consider the isolated report that: “I heard Mary and Ed talking last night and Ed said, “Mary, can I have that pot?”.

Pot has multiple meanings. In isolation, we have no idea what Ed was requesting. The statement takes on one meaning if we know that Ed and Mary were sitting in a smoke filled car when the statement was overheard and an entirely different meaning if we know they were in a kitchen making a gigantic batch of chili for a troop of girl scouts.

Without context, we would be hopelessly hung up on deciding what the meaning of is, is.

I’ll look over the letters again later and consider the affect they would have had on me if I had read them in the paper. That is what your whole claim comes down to…whether a reasonable person reading the letters would have believed you were actually accused of committing a crime.

 

[quincy]

I don't think jci is worried about a parade of crying kids at this point, Quaere. I think his concern is finding a way for the Supreme Court to grant his leave to appeal, by citing an error or errors in the earlier proceedings that led to the summary disposition of his case. He needs to convince the Court that errors were made in those proceedings that affected the outcome of the case.

One possible error: The judge in the trial court relied on a DNR official's testimony to decide, erroneously, that the statement, "He killed an albino deer," was not defamatory because killing an albino deer in Michigan could be legal - which is not what 3.100 says at all. In fact, it states that to kill or be in possession of an albino deer is illegal at all times in Michigan (not anymore, however - the law changed this past summer, thanks in large part to jci).

Another possible error: The judge decided, perhaps erroneously, that jci was a limited public figure, based on statements made by the defendants relating to jci's public appearances and the media coverage of his deer kill, much of which was sought out by jci. If jci's kill was publicized prior to the letters appearing in the paper, the letters could be a response to a matter of public interest and controversy, of which jci was the major player.

However, according to jci's timeline, nothing was publicized about his deer by the media or by him until after the letters were written - thereby making jci a private figure at the time the letters appeared, and not a limited public figure.

Jci did say that a picture of him with his deer was taken and posted somewhere in the community prior to the letters being published, and the picture led to community comment. The 4th letter writer wrote his letter, however, in response to a photo and blurb about jci that appeared in a local newspaper, as mentioned in this letter writer's letter to the editor.

The court errors mean that the court decided jci was not defamed by accusations of him killing an albino deer because the court said it was legal to shoot albino deer sometimes (which is false according to Michigan law but is what the DNR official said when testifying). The judge then partly relied on this "false law" instead of Michigan law when making his decision to grant summary disposition.

In addition, when the trial judge determined jci was a limited public figure, based on the defendant's testimony, that meant jci was held to a higher level of proof when showing fault. Instead of the negligence which needs to be shown by a private figure, jci needed to show actual malice. The failure to show actual malice led to the Court of Appeals summary disposition.

"Pot," by the way, could never be considered defamation per se, even when used in the context of falsely accusing someone of smoking pot, just as albino could never be considered defamation per se, even when used in the context of killing an albino deer. For a word to be defamation per se it can only have one defamatory meaning. A word like rapist is always defamatory on its face because a rapist is only a rapist (one who committed a rape). There is no innocent meaning.

 

[Quaere]

The following is a list of the elements of a defamation claim in MI. I’m not sure I’ve seen the TC opinion, but it appears the TC dispensed with the case by finding you can’t meet the requirements of elements 1, 3, or 4. I've interspersed my comments in bold:


(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;

TC found the statements are substantially true, therefore they are not defamatory.

It is your task to show the SC that the TC erred in this finding, in which case the truth and the defamatory nature of the statements become questions for a jury.

(2) an unprivileged communication to a third party;

Defendants cannot claim their communications were privileged, therefore you have this element covered.

(3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher; and

The TC placed you in the “public figure” category, where the fault must rise to the level of malice, a burden you can’t meet.

It is your task to show the SC that the TC erred in placing you in the public figure category.

(4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.

If the substantial truth doctrine doesn’t fly, you can meet the first element. If the public figure status doesn’t fly, you can meet the third element. The only element left to debate, is number four. The TC has decided that even if the statements are false, they are not defamatory per se. Of course, if they are not per se, you must prove special harm, which you can’t do.

In order to deny per se standing, the TC says statements do not accuse you of a crime. The TC says when the writers accused you of shooting an albino, they were not necessarily accusing you of a crime (because sometimes it’s ok to shoot an albino). What the writers were trying to say is completely irrelevant. If they created the impression that you did something illegal, regardless of their intentions, they defamed you per se.

It is your task to show the SC that the publications qualify as defamatory per se. You do this by stating that the evidence does not support the TC’s finding that the statements do not accuse you of a crime. Spend less time talking about the TC’s ridiculous finding and more time showing the SC why the statements DO accuse you of a crime.

 

[Quaere]

Let’s review the letters and decide what facts the writers conveyed about you. Again, my comments are in bold:

1. Neighbors upset by killing of “albino” deer

Who killed our friend for a trophy? Please be advised that on Monday, December 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. The DNR said it was a legal kill – but having been as close as 10 feet from this pet deer one of us was unable to see any brown markings. The stain observed by DNR was quite possibly a discharge from hind quarters and the small stain on forehead could be from tree rubbing. The neighbors and surrounding friends are very, very upset over the killing for a “trophy.” Saddened and broken hearted*******…..

Who wrote that caption? Was the word albino actually in quotes? If so, I read it to mean you MAY have killed an albino. If there were no quotes, I would take it as a statement of fact that the deer was albino and therefore the shooting was illegal.

I see the actual letter as questioning whether the shooting was legal. Questioning the legality of something is not the same as claiming the act was illegal.

If I have the facts straight, hunting season closed on 12-19. If so, the FACTUAL statement that the deer was killed on the 20th, falsely imputes criminal activity to you. THAT line, if false, entitles you to a trial.

2. Deer should have been protected

I would like to know what the law is, or how the DNR stands with killing an albino deer. Webster’s dictionary defines albino as: a person, animal, or plant lacking normal coloration. I was told the white buck that lived in the Burt Lake area was shot by a hunter and killed. This news has saddened myself and others. If the law doesn’t protect these animals, who will? I know the people in the area tried – even hunters wouldn’t shoot him if he came into their bait pile. I come from a family of hunters, but some living beautiful animals should be protected**************....

Again, who wrote that caption? The letter writer here states that she does not know what the law is. It follows that no reasonable person would believe she was claiming you broke the law. If this was the entire letter, there are no defamatory statements in it.

Sad to hear white deer was killed

After receiving the sad news on Christmas eve about someone shooting the white deer near Alanson, I felt I needed to let people know how sad it really is. As a relative of people who watched this young buck grow and blossom since birth and then to watch them be so broken hearted over his death, I feel the people who live in Northern Michigan and appreciate its miracles and beauty should know that a young man looking for a “trophy” shot and killed the most beautiful sight I have ever seen! It’s just so sad**************....

Absolutely nothing defamatory in the caption or letter above.

Beautiful deer slain

To say that your article and the picture of the Albino deer that was killed near Alanson saddened us would not be the correct choice of words. I also believe that the referring to Mr. jci63 as a hunter would not be correct. I am but one of the many residents of the area who have enjoyed viewing this deer over the past years. I have both movies and pictures of this beautiful animal.

Reports are that the deer had a small brown spot near its back foot. I would like to know how Mr. jci63 could see such a spot with the amount of snow that we had on the ground on the day that he killed this animal. This deer has been cared for by the residents of this area for years and was almost as tame as our house pets.

Many of us wonder how Mr. jci63 dispatched the animal: did he use his pocketknife or just a stick that he picked up off the ground? I have been a deer hunter for more than 50 years and have never needed a deer bad enough to end the life of such a beautiful animal. I am very happy to say that I know of no real hunter who feels any different than I.

Who the heck writes these captions? The use of the word “slain” implies something far different than a legal shooting by a hunter!

This letter appeared long after hunting season, and the writer neglects to mention that the deer was killed in hunting season. If I read this letter without knowing anything else about the shooting, I would believe the writer was saying the deer was killed (possibly out of season) under questionable circumstances via questionable means. The existence of defamatory facts are definitely implied in this letter and since any deviation from the hunting laws would make the killing illegal, it follows that this is defamation per se.

Although the writer called the deer an Albino, in the next paragraph he acknowledged that the albino status was questionable. Thus, he did not state as fact that you killed an albino.

In sum, there are statements in these letters that are defamatory per se and with the possible exception of the caption on the first letter, the word “albino” is not even a factor in any of the defamatory statements.

 

[jci63]

Will post when I can later. Pages will not let me view.

States:
Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired. But only on the last 2 pages...

 

[Quaere]

The token? What token? I've never heard of such a thing, lol.

Quaere

 

[quincy]

Once again, Quaere, there is NO defamation PER SE here. No matter how the letters are read.

I thought it might help you, jci, to tell you what some of the oral arguments are that the Michigan Supreme Court has actually heard in the past. Not all of these have been decided in the Supreme Court with a reverse judgment, not all were sent back to the lower court to be retried (with the necessary amendment in the judge's ruling), and some resulted in an agreement by the Supreme Court with the lower court's decision.

One: The court reviewed whether judge's must exercise independent judgment when reviewing a determination of actual malice. Two: The court reviewed whether the standard for double damages required a showing that a principal acted in bad faith. Three: The court reviewed whether a truthful report of a crime but false statements of how the crime occurred should result in a conviction on filing a false criminal report. Four: The court reviewed whether "coercion" can include a person whose position of authority is a surrogate dad. Five: The court reviewed whether a prosecutor erred in asking a witness about the taking and passing of a polygraph since, in Michigan, polygraph tests are inadmissible as evidence.

You will want the Court to review the fact that the courts erred in labeling you a public figure, and that the courts erred in deciding that the term albino, as used in the context of the letters, was not defamatory (or did not imply an illegal act). Again, I want to point out that there is NO defamation per se here!

You want to establish that the decisions made by the judges in the lower courts are separate from the issue of whether any defamation occurred. You need to establish that the summary disposition on your defamation claim is separate from the issues you present to the Court - that the issues have importance beyond this particular litigation.

In other words, you want the Court to decide the permissibility of a judge determining public figure/private figure designations and defamatory meanings of words where there is both a defamatory and innocent meaning. The latter should be a question for a jury and not a judge. These issues are separate and apart from the issue of whether defamation occurred in your case (which goes to the matter of free speech, and you want to avoid this free speech issue if possible).

If the Supreme Court finds that there was an error in law, then the Court will send the case back to the lower court to be retried, with the issues you have addressed, unless, of course, the Supreme Court finds the whole case in your favor (which can be hoped for, but is unlikely).

I disagree with Quaere's interpretation of the last letter, by the way - the letter writer used rhetorical hyperbole when asking how the deer was killed.

(it is nice to have your input here, Quaere, because it makes me work harder to find proofs that you are wrong )

 

[quincy]

Another comment about the defendants' constitutional privilege defense and the decision made in Rosenbloom v Metromedia, Inc, 403 U.S. 29 (1971).

Justice Brennan, in addressing the issue of the distinction between private figures and public figures and the constitutional protection offered private individuals, said: "If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a private individual is involved, or because in some sense the individual did not 'voluntarily' choose to become involved."

However, the Court also said in that case that the first remedy of any defamation victim is to use available opportunities to contradict the lie or correct the error, which would minimize the adverse impact on the victim's reputation. Jci did just that, by seeking media attention to address the falsities in the letters to the editors. This media attention was not used to make him a public figure, but rather used to correct the defamatory falsehoods published about him - which is a private figure's means to remedy the harm a defamatory statement has caused. This media attention, used as it was to correct the errors in the letter writers' letters, did result in bringing more public attention to the matter, leading to the defendant's claim that jci was a public figure - to which the trial court judge agreed.

I think jci can use Rosenbloom to show the Court that he was a private figure whose private figure remedy of seeking available opportunites to contradict the lies and correcting the letter writers' contentions that he committed an illegal act did NOT make him a public figure.

 

[jci63]

Quaere said:

"This thread is huge and I am having trouble following the timeline of the events in the case. Could you please post a SIMPLE chronological list of events? Something like this"

Chronological List of Events​

December 19th 2004 A) At approximately 4:50 pm I harvested piebald deer
with my muzzleloader.


December 21st 2004

A) At approximately 1:00 pm took piebald deer to
Indian River D.N.R. Field Office.
B) Took piebald deer to Pat & Gary’s party store. Picture was taken and hung on bulletin board with my name on picture.
C) Took piebald deer to Staitsland Resorter, picture was taken
For paper.

December 22nd 2004

A) Took piebald deer to Petoskey News Review, Picture was taken for paper.

December 27th 2004

A) Dropped piebald deer of at Taxidermist To get full body mount.

December 28th 2004

A) At 11:59am my wife received harassing call from Defendant H
B)Took piebald deer head to D.N.R station in Gaylord.

December 29th 2004

A) My piebald deer appeared on 9 & 10 News Hooks & Hunting segment

B) Petoskey News Review published a picture of me with my piebald deer.

December 30th 2004

A) At 11:02 received harassing call from Defendant H
B) Made complaint at local Police Department
C) Straitsland Resorter published picture with me and my piebald deer, along with letters from the editor, from Linda, Gertrude, Gerald & Mary, Judy and Laura.

January 5th 2005

A) News Review published article from George xxx explaining deer was legal.'
B) Gaylord Harold Times published a picture of me with my piebald deer.

January 6th 2005

A) Per TAxidermist – D.N.R. was at Taxidermist and took samples of the deer hyde.
B) xxxx Press published an article in sports section on my piebald deer.
C) Resorter published articles in paper from myself and Defendant Ron.
16) My article and Ron Hagermans article

January 7th 2005

A) Was informed from Bob from taxidermists that my piebald deer hyde was damaged.
B) called Attorney
C) Picked up piebald deer hyde from Taxidermist.

January 8th 2005

A) D.N.R. came to house questioning me about piebald
Deer. Accusations were – 1) shot deer out of season, 2) applied shoe polish or hair die to make brown areas 3) I was trespassing when shot deer.

January 12th 2005

A) Received D.N.R. TB tag in the mail, stating deer
was 2.5 years old.

January 18th 2005

A)News Review published letter from Defendant Ron
B) News Review published letters from myself and Chris .

January 27th 2005

A) Took piebald deer to another taxidermist to get full body mount.

February 1st 2005

A) News Review published letter from Richard.

February 23 2005

A) D.N.R. came to my house and talked with my wife stating
“samples came back negative, and I was cleared of all charges”

March 11th – 13th 2005

A) Took piebald deer to Hunting & Fishing Expo.

March 18th 2005

A) Took piebald deer to Practical Sportsman Hunting
awards Banquet.

May 17th 2005

A) Sent retraction letters out to News Review,
Resorter, Linda, Gertrude, Gerald & Mary, Laura, Judy and Ron.

June 26th 2005

A) took piebald deer to Michigan Madness Outdoors and
put on display in sporting goods store.

November 1st 2005

A) Michigan Hooks & Bullets Magazine did an article on my piebald deer titled “A Cold Hunt For A Rare Trophy”

December 29th 2005

A) Filed Complaint at 53rd Judicial Circuit Court in Cheboygan against defendants

quincy said - Once again, Quaere, there is NO defamation PER SE here. No matter how the letters are read.

MCL 600.2911 (1) Words imputing a lack of chastity to any female or male are actionable in themselves and subject the person who uttered or published them to a civil action for the slander in the same manner as the uttering or publishing of words imputing the commission of a criminal offense.

Court of Appeals Opinion
In Michigan, words that falsely impute the commission of a crime constitute defamation
per se, and are actionable even in the absence of an ability to prove actual or special damages.MCL 600.2911(1); Burden v Elias Bros Big Boy Restaurants, 240 Mich App 723, 728; 613 NW2d 378 (2000); Tumbarella v Kroger Co, 85 Mich App 482, 493; 271 NW2d 284 (1978).

Defendants letter

Neighbors upset by killing of “albino” deer

Who killed our friend for a trophy? Please be advised that on Monday, December 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. The DNR said it was a legal kill – but having been as close as 10 feet from this pet deer one of us was unable to see any brown markings. The stain observed by DNR was quite possibly a discharge from hind quarters and the small stain on forehead could be from tree rubbing. The neighbors and surrounding friends are very, very upset over the killing for a “trophy.” Saddened and broken hearted*******…..


• Defendants letter stated the deer was shot on December 20, 2004, hunting season ended on December 19, 2004.

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 (DNR Sgt.)

MCL 324.40107(1) The DNR may establish orders regulating the hunting and taking of game and wild animals in this state.

MCL 324.40107(1)(c) Make recommendations to the legislature regarding animals that should be protected.

MCL 324.40118(3) A person who violates a DNR order concerning the hunting and taking of deer is guilty of a misdemeanor.

At the time this action was filed, a standing DNR order prohibited the hunting and killing of albino deer.

DNR Order 3.100(2):
Providing that: “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.”

Along with the DNR Order 3.100(2), all white or albino deer were on the DNR Protected Wildlife Order:

Eagles, hawks, owls, swans, spruce and sharp-tailed grouse, wolverines, lynx, moose, cougars, cub bears, and sows accompanied by cubs, and all white or albino deer may not be taken at anytime.

MCL 324.40118(10)

(10) A person who violates a provision of this part or an order or interim order issued under this part regarding the taking or possession of an animal that has been designated by the department to be a protected animal, other than an animal that appears on a list prepared pursuant to section 36505, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not less than $100.00 or more than $1,000.00, or both, and the costs of prosecution.

MCL 324.40103(7)

(7) "Protected" or "protected animal" means an animal or kind of animal that is designated by the department as an animal that shall not be taken.


MCL 324.40106

A person shall not take, release, transport, sell, buy, or have in his or her possession game or any protected animal, whether living or dead, or parts of any game or protected animal, from this state or from outside of this state, except as provided for in this part or by an order of the department or an interim order of the department. This section does not enhance the department's powers to establish an open season for an animal that is not game or give the department the power to designate a species as game.

MCL 324.40119(1)

(1) In addition to the penalties provided for violating this part or an order issued under this part, and the penalty provided in section 36507, a person convicted of the illegal killing, possessing, purchasing, or selling, of game or protected animals, in whole or in part, shall reimburse the state for the value of the game or protected animal as follows:

MCL 324.36507

A person who violates this part or who fails to procure any permit required under this part is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or less than $100.00, or both.

MCL 324.40117

In a prosecution for a violation of this part or an order or interim order issued under this part, the possession of the parts of any game or protected animal, except when the taking is permitted by this part, is prima facie evidence that the animal was taken in violation of this part by the person possessing the animal.