It's not over until it's over!

We will see who wins!!!!!!!!!!

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
stokesr@michigan.gov
"Volunteers are NOT paid, Not because they are worthless, But because they are priceless"

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.

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
stokesr@michigan.gov

"Volunteers are NOT paid, Not because they are worthless, But because they are priceless"



From: "Ingersoll" <ingersoll614@utmi.net>
To: Stokes, Rodney <STOKESR@michigan.gov> 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

Final Post for Today!

Please help get this resolved, somebody knows somebody that can help!

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts folks?

Not a hunter John.

Thank You for all you do here on GLF.

h2o

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.