On the morning of April 8th, in the Circuit Court of Midland County, the Department of Environmental Quality had scheduled a hearing date and time for their Submitted Motions. The Department of Environmental Quality was the moving party.

At the Scheduled time of 10:30 Am, the State of Michigan, sitting as the Department of Environmental Quality did not show for the hearing IT had scheduled.

The Plaintiff then moved for a Default on the moving party which is and was the State of Michigan sitting as the Department of Environmental Quality.

Stephen P. Carras the presiding Judge (sitting pro-tem - normally District court) in response to the Motion for Default, stated he would adjourn Court for Ten Minutes to afford the MISSING moving party "time to show".

Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, whilst sitting in Chambers under the color of a "ten minute recess", the presiding Judge moved an ex parte communication to the missing Defendant to discuss a substantive issue.

This ex parte communication was a telephone call made to the missing moving party, the State of Michigan..

This fact of the ex parte communication by telephonic contact was discovered following the questionable actions of the presiding judge later in the day by the party Plaintiff.

Upon Returning to the Court Room, the Presiding Judge stated "As a Courtesy" to the missing moving party, the State of Michigan; he would reschedule the hearing that said Defendant had failed to attend.

The Judge mentioned in a round about off handed way that the Missing Moving Party had stated it thought the hearing time was for 2 pm. How would a Presiding Judge know that fact, unless he had discussed the issue ex parte in Chambers during the Ten Minute Recess with the missing moving party!

The actions of the Presiding Judge granted the delinquent moving party a procedural and tactical advantage, for as a matter of law, said moving party should have been defaulted for failure to properly prosecute its action.

The Michigan Rules of Court are clearly written wherein the actions of the Presiding Judge in this instant case are at best questionable, and at its worst a deliberate action by a presiding judicial officer to knowingly violate the Michigan Rules of Court as clearly annotated in the Code of Judicial Conduct , Cannon 3(4)(a)(i)& (ii).

The failure of the moving party to attend ITS Scheduled hearing is a substantive issue.

The moving party, The State of Michigan, who failed to show, is the Party that pays a large percentage of the presiding Judge's Salary. This action of the presiding judge to knowingly hold ex parte communications on a substantive issue brings to mind a point annotated in "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"

"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

All stand equal in the law, unless they are the State of Michigan, who in the judicial eyes of the Circuit Court in Midland County is more equal than others!