Stitt Family to lose barn, animals, tools, and home : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have just posted additional information on a previous thread. While I know some were impatient to find out more, but I do appreciate your patience as I collected information and pulled it into something almost coherent.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 16, 1999


Thanks again, Stan, for keeping us informed on this.

The situation is obviously one of small-town politics, and they have crossed the wrong people. Every one of us, every day, is probably guilty of breaking some idiotic, obscure rule/regulation/law. If you upset the wrong person, you will find out about it. If you don't, you probably will never know you broke a law!

I wonder if I take my kids camping for a week, if I'm guilty of child abuse?

-- Don Wegner (, August 16, 1999.

As awful as their predicament (to put it mildly) is a part of me is pissed at those parents for putting their family into this situation. If they purchased this land for the purpose of growing big gardens and raising livestock then they damn well should have looked into the zoning laws before the purchase. Sure, it sounds stupid to me that a 37 acre piece of land is zoned so they can't but they should have looked into this. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. And this should have been common sense.

Before I get flamed, let me say that I think it is rediculous that folks can't keep small animals on residential lots, etc.... but if the zoning laws need to change than DO IT! They should have not gambled their family's future on HOPING they could get a zoning variance.

BUT, I do think that variances should be considered for all sorts of folks to be able to gave a few chickens or goats or rabbits in their backyards, at least for the next year......

-- Kristi (, August 16, 1999.


Sorry for all of the typos. I really do hope things work out ok for these folks.

-- Kristi (, August 16, 1999.


You know that and I know that, but many first-time buyers do not. Especially when it comes to rural property. People buy land all the time without checking into such things as access, water rights, easements, and so forth. You could buy 100 acres with a creek on it, and 6 months from now the creek dries up. Come to find out, the rancher upstream owns the water rights, and built a dam to make a reservoir for his livestock. You now have no creek, you also have no legal recourse - it's his water! Cut em some slack girl...they probably moved from suburbia and were totally clueless! Legally, that's no excuse...but it seems to me that a compromise could be had here if cool heads would prevail.

-- Don Wegner (, August 16, 1999.


-- poeticus (, August 16, 1999.

The more Stan talks about this family, the more I visualize in my mind the movie "Deliverance." Yes, that's it Bingo, music from the movie Deliverance. And the Stitt family looks like the characters in Deliverance. Let's see now, what characters would best play this family. I nominate the midget "Minnie Me," from the "Spy that Shagged Me," Austin Powers as one of the characters. Perhaps he could be the sheriff. Hey this is fun, let's keep this going!

-- nosympathyhere (, August 16, 1999.

nosympathyhere- oh this is fun!

Stan is Ned Beaty's character. With every post he's just squealing like a pig.

-- Hey Stan (You are getting, August 16, 1999.

Mrs. Stitt is Ma Kettle.

-- movie goer (, August 16, 1999.

I regret having invited Kristin, the Stitts daughter, to visit this forum. I can only imagine what horrible people she must think of us if she reads some of these unkind words written by compassion-less ghosts that explore irresponsible and vicious actions from behind terrible masks. This is a horror show of hungry ghosts. I am terribly ashamed. I have made a mistake. I have thought you all to be good and decent.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 16, 1999.

Mr. Stitt is Pa Kettle.

-- movie goer (movie, August 16, 1999.

Back-off people. Stan is merely reporting his research.

Read these words carefully: Stan is reporting on his investigation of the Stitt case.

Have fun with INVAR, WC, etc. Don't shoot the messenger. Savvy?

-- Bingo1 (, August 16, 1999.

What is the good, the true, and the beautiful? What is the Way?

Who am I? How shall I live? How shall I love?

Now, these are good questions.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

$1.2 million dollars in a marijuana patch is not chump change. Furthermore, growing marijuana is a felony, and you don't get 4 months in jail, you get several years. Just another ???? to add to the story. Mrs. Stitt must not have any smarts to turn her neighbor in for growing marijuana and think that nothing bad would happen to her and her family.

-- Doubting Thomas (, August 17, 1999.

Master K'ung said, "To see what is right and not stand by it is inhuman."

Perhaps, Mrs. Stitt has more courage than you or I. Perhaps, she is human, and we are apes.

Do you bend a little, bend a lot?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

Good is not evil, true is not false, beautiful is not ugly. What is the way? The way is to take care of your family. If you can't feed them, clothe them, educate, and love them, then don't breed them.

I am a human being, I live my life in harmony with nature, I bother no one, harm no one, and ask nothing of anyone that I can do for myself. Love means never having to say your sorry.

-- more power to him (, August 17, 1999.

more doing, less talking:

If only you could exercise such principles here and to the stranger at the side of the road! Then, that would be something wondrous. Marvelous. Magnificent even!

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

If you don't agree, you don't agree. So tell us, Why is every derogetory post anon.?? Spineless jellyfish.

-- R. Wright (, August 17, 1999.

Stan, what is it that you want from us on this forum for the Stitts? If you get a bunch of reporters in there of the likes of Drudge, you may be going somewhere you never want to go or even have your name associated with. Like I said, I've read between the lines and there's too many holes in the story. And everytime someone points out a hole you get angry. So what do you want? If it's money, there isn't anyway in hell that's going to happen.

-- more power to him (, August 17, 1999.

Hey spineless,

Please show us where Stan did this>>

"And everytime someone points out a hole you get angry"

-- R. Wright (, August 17, 1999.

More and more I am convinced the only solution is one expanded to all government agencies that is outlined in the book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. (see reviews on and/or Voting and political action work only when a majority of voters are freedom conscious. That situation, always tenuous, definitely is not the state today. There is no protection other than force for people like the Stitts. Not to mention millions of other so-called criminals -- criminals by law only.

-- A (, August 17, 1999.

And if a neighbor of Stitts is growing pot -- that is not the Stitt's business -- nor the government's. Ever heard of the word freedom? Freedom is not just the liberty to do what your neighbors approve of, according to their particular morality. It is the liberty to do things that the neighbors DON'T approve also. And if I have to detail what that means, you are hopeless.

-- A (, August 17, 1999.


I did a little reading at the website for the Bois Blanc Island Association, (founded in 1891 has over 100 members--darn near the entire population of the Island). First, here is a May 1999 quote from the president of the Association, Curt Van Voorhees, from the Association's newsletter:

"Authoritative statement from Curt Van Voorhees: the only place in the country not affected by the Y2K problem will be Bois Blanc Island." With the attention Bois Blanc is receiving on the Y2K forums, Mr. Van Voorhees might have been a little hasty.

Anyway, in following the story of the schoolhouse, which is now closed due solely to the Stitt's decision to remove their children and homeshool them instead, it is interesting to follow the money in light of that decision. The following are excerpts from the Association newsletter:

No. 2, April 1998
"The school needs help. Under present law, there are only two ways to increase revenue in the general fund: increase the pupil count, or take in contributions for the general fund. Island residents have not been increasing the pupil count lately. [Late news: the two Stitt children are now attending school - total 4.]"

No. 3, July 1998
"If the school district folds in the future, the Island will be placed in another district after about 3 years. If placed with Cheboygan, their non-homestead rate is 18 millsan increase for us of 13.9 mills. On a $50,000 valuation, you would see an increase in taxes of $695 on non-homesteads (dwellings of non-permanent residents). For the whole Island the increase would be about $178,000: 1 mill to the Intermediate School District (headquarters in Sault Ste. Marie) , 6 mills to the state, and 18 mills to the Cheboygan district for non-homesteads. That's around $330,000 per year for schooling on an Island with no school."

No. 4, September 1998
"Future. There are only two ways to increase general fund revenue: to increase pupil-count, or increase contributions to the general fund of the school."

No. 5, February 1999
"Financial. This past year the school lost $3288, a lot less than predicted last year. The reason was the addition of two more students." (That would be the two Stitt children who were attending the school in 1998) "I calculated the break-even point this past year was 5.2 pupils. We were allowed a count of 4.6. The end-of-year fund balance was $45,700. To operate the school properly, 6 pupils are needed."

"A January 12 letter from the schools Board to Island taxpayers explained that if the Island district is annexed to Mackinac Island, non-homestead (that is, the owners principal residence is not on the Island) property taxes will increase $280 for property valued at $50,000. If the district is annexed to Cheboygan, the increase is $902".

No. 6, May 1999
"WANTED: ELEMENTARY AGE PUPILS TO BE TAUGHT ON BOIS BLANC ISLAND. The state is considering language that would financially help the Pines School. The problem is that it is contingent on the school having at least one pupil taught in the district. At this moment the district cant meet those requirements." link

-- RUOK (, August 17, 1999.

Spineless R. Wright--Go back to the original Stitt post and see what Stan wrote to Anita and others. Follow the posts and read them carefully. Stan gets upset with Anita for "asking questions, and pointing out variances to the story." BTW, you can't post anything to that thread anymore so I guess this is it. Frankly, it's getting to be pretty much a dead issue because there's too many smart people on this forum that can see right through all the muck and mire. If we think the government is lying to us about Y2K, why would you or anyone else think we should believe a story like the Stitts, who have brought it all upon themselves. There's too many holes and they have been outlined in previous threads.

A--your right on my man!

-- more power to him (, August 17, 1999.

My names Rick. What's yours? Chicken? I still say Stan did not loose it. You just read it that way.

-- R. Wright (, August 17, 1999.

Wait a minute here. "if the Island district is annexed to Mackinac Island, non-homestead (that is, the owners principal residence is not on the Island) property taxes will increase $280 for property valued at $50,000. If the district is annexed to Cheboygan, the increase is $902". "

So those who have homes elsewhere and come to the Island for the weekend or have "Summer homes" will have to pay a lot of taxes if there are no students for a school? Hmmmm. Sounds like some people who can afford a second home are concerned about having to pay taxes and the families choice to homeschool did not set well with them. Homeschooling is a "choice" in this country. Just how many of these people who are bringing charges (yes legal ones where building and livestock are concerned) knew about the marajuana being grown and chose to turn a blind eye to it? They knew they nedded more children for the school to stay open, why didn't some of the residents who are so damn concerned about children do something "right" and take in foster children instead of working to creat new "foster children"?

Stan I know you appear to some people to going overboard on this, but I think you your heart is in it. Too bad you had some people siding with you on this board which in itself is cause for a lot of people to have a gut negitive reaction out of experience.

A lot of people on this board profess to thing very negitivly towards our government and positivly to the militia in the possibility of Y2K causing chaos. Perhaps the family has followed the thinking of these people and believe that Y2K will be worse case.

What do they do? Take these people at face value and believe them and "head for the hills" and get some livestock etc. I did not get a chance to read what you wrote last about turning in their neighbors, so I only know they turned their neighbors in for "farming" an illigal crop.

The idea that people can do what they want and it is no-ones business, say grow and sell pot, is no different than the idea that crack dealers can do what they want and sell crack.

I was a foster parent for 8 years and saw what "people doing what they want" can do to children. Gee.. could that be why we make some (not all I agree) laws?

And for the people who think it is their business how they punish children ~ the reason physical punishment is illoigal now is that a lot of people took it to such extremes that it became necessary to put a legal stop to it completly. As is the norm in this country, something is allowed to go to an unexcusable extreme before we notice and when we do we over react to the other extreme.

I try not to tell people what to think about Y2K, I give what information I can and let them evaluate it themselves. I hope people on both sides of Y2K would do it in the case of this family and their situation.

After all, contrails POW compounds are acceptable subjects here, why does this situation make people so uncomfortable? Because it is real?

Who are the ones who likened it to Waco etc? Gee the ones who have suddenly lost interest because the FBI have not come in and surounded the house?

Personally I feel this family is just one more who are victoms the the extreme Y2K hype put out by the likes of G. North and people like him. Gee Ed, are you going to put this in one of your books?

Home many more will be victoms of Y2K extreme hysteria?

How many other people believed "that a percentage of 40 billion embedded chips would bring down the infrastructure and anything that used electricity was suspect" message that was shouted from the rooftops, spammed every Y2K mail list and board and testified to in front of Congress and told to every corperate executive who paid $1,200 to hear if from an "expert" at a Y2K seminar, only to have it disproven and and the percentages lowered with a statements like "a year ago we did not have as much test and inventory and evaluation data as we do now. My opinions can change when REAL data, rather than estimates, are available, as should anyone's "opinion". while the origional message sits on every Y2K site unchanged?

Next year we will see just who the real criminals were.

Think about it people, what if you, for some unthought of reason, should end up in a situation such as this? Who will stand by you and who will laugh at you for "not following the letter of the law"? What if your food supplies cause a rat infestation and you have the health department and neighbors after you? And Y2K ends up being a non event? And the food banks refuse your stored food and it starts turning bad on you?

Now don't go acusing me of saying you should not "be prepared" because I have had my "earthquake kit and supplies" for over ten years. Just consider other possible scenerios for a year from now if your worse fears do not happen.


-- Cherri (, August 17, 1999.

It is really pathetic that some people have to come to these threads and trash the messenger! Stan has spent a lot of time, not to mention phone calls to give us this information. I, thank you, Stan.

As for the rest,you can draw your own conclusions and that is your right, but whether you are pro or con on the Stitts ,don't blame it on Stan.

Whoever previously posted "keep your eye on the money" hit it on the head. Both the school issue and the marijuana issue hit a lot of people in the pocketbook and made a lot of powerful enemies. On an island with only 100 members of the association, there would have to be quite a few who knew about 1.2 million in marijuana.

Regardless, there are discrepancies on both sides and probably the only one discovering the whole story is Olson(?) the head of the militia who is actually there and can investigate it.

I, for one have a little heart left (obviously that is in short supply around here)and hope the publicity will help justice (just us) prevail (naive thought that that is!)

-- for the underdog (, August 17, 1999.

Cherri said,"and who will help you?"

Now that is a thought to ponder for the day.....

-- sue (, August 17, 1999.

Sorry for the misquote. Should have been "who will stand by you?"

Something to think about........

-- sue (, August 17, 1999.

Cherri--We're intelligent people here and some of us are long time students of survival. I would hope that no one here would get themselves into the mess the Stitts are in. The Stitts should have followed the building ordinances and kept their mouths shut about what their neighbors were doing. They opened their mouth and now they are suffering the consequences of their actions. There's more to this story than what we are hearing here. By the Stitts' own admission, they would not have gotten themselves into this mess if they were smart and educated people. As far as Stan goes, doesn't the messenger always get killed?

Rick: My name is George.

-- george (, August 17, 1999.


I never asked the reader for money or anything else... neither for myself nor for the Stitts. I did not sound the bugle to arms nor did I recommend any particular action. In fact, I said that I would myself review the information and consider carefully how I might possible get involved.

Yes, I am praying for the Stitt family as Christine Stitt asked. I will continue to pray for them.

I reported the information exactly as conveyed to me by Norman Olson, Lyle Andrew Peck, and Christine Peck. I tried to contact others that seemed involved with the story, but they either did not answer their phone nor did they return my telephone call. I have reported exactly the information as I got it. I did not add or delete any information.

If there are questions in your mind, then perhaps I did some things right in my search for the truth. Did I find the whole truth? I doubt it, but the Stitts are certain that unjustice has been done to them. Are there further details that deserve to be uncovered by my further effort, time, and expense?

I am satisfied in my investigation at this time by what I have learned about the Stitts. I believe that the information that I have provided to this forum is sufficient for someone to make an intelligent and good decision about whether or not they personally have interest in assisting the Stitts or finding out more at their own expense.

One thing that I found to be bothersome and humorous is that some readers have a very trivial interest in the Stitt story as if they suddenly entered into a new level of an interactive journalism and entertainment where they treat me as if I was their journalist-pawn. Maybe, this is a business idea that I should look into developing.

Another thing that I found to be bothersome is the lack of sensitivity and fiendish humor of some readers in light of the knowledge that the Stitt daughter has been invited to the forum. The Stitt story may be entertainment for some who follow the story like an interactive book (thinking they can somehow change the script of what is and is not).

I can assure you that this is not entertainment for the Stitt family. Nor are they objects for our mere scrutiny and amusement. They are real people. Whatever ethic you purport to be directed in your actions, words, and thoughts-- if your ethic fails to direct you to respect the dignity of another and sympathize with their troubles, than that ethic must be evil, untrue, and ugly.

As for shame, it like anger can at time be almost virtue-like -- according to Aristotle. If one has done wrong, they should be ashamed. If they have been wronged or have seen wrong done to another, they should be angry. Of course, it is wrong only to be ashamed or angry.

To do nothing to correct the wrong that one has done and to repeat the wrong is a failure. Likewise, to not correct a wrong that is witnessed and to not do something to prevent such wrongs from being done again, is also a failure. Unfortunately, it seems that these days people like to stay mad and do nothing about the wrongs they see. They also seem to prefer to deaden their capacity to feel shame so that they may continue to do wrong.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

Please note the following correction:

I reported the information exactly as conveyed to me by Norman Olson, Lyle Andrew Peck, and Christine STITT.

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

Stan, I have read your posts for many months now and respect the intelligent information that you have brought to this forum. Now I must ask you a serious question: "Why are you so surprised at the reaction to this Stitt story?" Stan, you of all people know the various mindsets that frequent these pages and the spectrum of response a story like this would elicit. Knowing this, you invite the Stitt daughter to join in on the fun. What on earth did you expect? I've seen much more important subjects and people trashed here so why would you imagine for even a second that the Stitt's would be immune? You are a good guy, doing good work but this dog won't hunt, IMHO. Now that we have been drawn into this situation, do you plan on bringing us updates from time to time? I for one would like to see how this plays out....thanks.

-- For (, August 17, 1999.


Thank you for the compliments and also to the others that wrote in my defense. I try hard not to answer insult with insult. Most times, I do not reply to insults at all. I can make excuses (I stress out too), but I might point out that I am not so proud that I am unable to apologize-- if an apology is due. Also, I rarely request a deletion-- only when speech is exercised without conscience and responsibility.

I admit that I am surprised by how some forum members and trolls acted by their regular signatures and by anonymous signatures. The Stitt story is not specifically related to the general arguments about Y2K failures, fixes, spin, lies, delusions, etcetera that go on here. The Stitt story is not a hypothesis; it is not fiction; nor did I provide information on the Stitts for our entertainment and amusement.

The Stitt story is about a family that has real troubles (potentially, its destruction). Some forum members had initial interest in helping out the Stits (as did I) and I wanted to provide myself and those forum members with direct information that would enable us to make a good and intelligent decision about our possible involvement.

I invited the Stitt's daughter to visit the forum in order to provide a more direct source of information to interested forum members, so that we might participate together in learning about the Stitt family. Yes, I made a mistake. (laughing) There is a reason why I do not generally recommend this forum to others!

Perhaps, I thought that the forum members would keep the table clean on this subject. Yes, we all do make errors-- myself included. It is a grievous error if the Stitt's daughter sees some of the things written in this post. If she has seen those unkind words, I am not sure how I will make it up to her. Certainly, responsibility for the invitation is mine.

Responsibility for the unkind words that have been written, however, is unmitigated by anonymous signatures and poor judgment. The soul is always wounded by the evil of one's actions. One can silence one's conscience, but they can not ever be fully human nor fulfilled without correcting the wrongs.

These people become hungry ghosts, more and more... and I wish that I could help them too.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

P.S. I will try to keep up with Olson's reports and report interesting developments, but I am reluctant to rely alone upon Olson's reports. Olson has a spin too. I asked him questions he didn't want to answer. I also don't see the media as a potential source of good information. They may take a press release from Olson or Peck and spin the story any which way. Of course, I can do a little bit (here on out) -- unless I can be found at Bois Blanc (which is not out of the question).

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

Hey Stan- thanks for the continued updates. How or where do you get updates from Norm Olsen ??? If it is personnel mail or some such info that the public is not privy to, ok. I just want to be able to read more about this as it happens: not 10 days or weeks later.

-- Brent James Bushardt (, August 17, 1999.


Next update I get, I will post the source email address. I don't have one now to do this.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

Stan, you really are a NICE guy! :-) (I just keep hearing that nagging cliche that nice guys "finish last". I sincerely hope that doesn't happen to you!)

-- Gayla (, August 17, 1999.

The following information is based upon my telephone conversations with Norm Olson (Commander of the Northern Michigan Regional Militia), Lyle Andrew Peck, Esquire (Attorney for the Bois Blanc Township), and Christine Stitt on August 16, 1999...

This was also included in the thread that was deleted due to html errors. Some clarifications have been added. I am not interested, however, in adding further information on the Stitts at this time.


According to Norm Olson, Commander of the Northern Michigan Regional Militia, the Stitt family was granted a waiver to have various farm animals (August 1997). Shortly after, Christine complained to public officials that a neighbor was growing marijuana. 1.2 million dollars of marijuana was found, the neighbor was arrested, and Judge Lambros jailed the neighbor for 4 months. Later, the Stitt family removed their children from the Bois Blanc school as (2) they believed Lani White (the teacher) was a bad role model and (2) she had shown PG movies to the children despite Stitt's pleas against showing such movies to them.

As a reaction to these incidents (according to Olson), some neighbors began to complain about the noise, stink, and manure run off from the animals. An EPA agent supposedly came out and found that there was no violation. The neighbor nearest to their property (about 150 feet or so), Alice, is fond of the Stitts and has no problem with the Stitts or their animals. Another neighbor, Clover Schlund (town clerk and whose husband runs a commercial contracting company from their home and without permits), however, seeks the removal of the animals, etcetera. Generally the Stitt's neighbors' homes are 150 to 500 feet from the Stitt's property. The closest animals to Clover Schlund is a couple hundred feet and Clover Schlund says the chickens make too much noise. According to Christine Stitt, Clover Schlund also keeps chickens that she bought from the Stitts and one of her relatives has an animal being cared for on the Stitt property.

Lyle Andrew Peck, Attorney for the Bois Blanc Township, explained that it is a simple case of zoning. According to Mr. Peck, a court order (Restraining Order) was issued instructing the Stitts not to build a barn. This order contradicts Michigan state laws regarding the proper housing of animals. The Stitts, then, published their intentions to disobey this court order. Michael Stitt went ahead and built a non-commercial barn and erected other non-commercial shacks, as Olson explains, in accordance with Michigan laws concerning the safe husbandry of animals. The Stitt family's disregard for the restraining order, however, did not help their case in the eyes of the judge, said Peck.

Mr. Peck says that he knows nothing of accusations of child abuse, however, he feels sorry for the Stitt children. He also said that the town would like to have them back in school. According to Christine Stitt, following the arrest of her husband for the permit and zoning violations, charges of child abuse were files and child services came out to investigate them and their property without a warrant. At the time, they were living in a temporary dwelling while Michael Stitt was building the main house. He is a craftsmen and restores historical barns across the country, thus preventing him from completing the house in a two week deadline mandated by the township officials. The charges against Michael and Christine Stitt being unfit parents were based on the absence of running water, a standard toilet, and standard laundry facilities.

The charges were dropped, however the threat remains. Apparently, a permit for a permanent dwelling has not been granted to the Stitt family (though all improvements have been made-- according to Olson) and the house may soon be condemned. According to Christine Stitt, should they continue to occupy the condemned building (which seems likely as they have no where else to go), child services will take their non-adult children into custody due to the inability of Michael and Christine Stitt to provide appropriate housing for their children. Christine has contacted the Christian Legal Association, the Rutherford Institute, and other organizations, but they cannot receive assistance unless they retain a lawyer. Christine Stitt, however, says they they cannot afford an attorney.

Christine Stitt is also wary of lawyers at this point. She claims that George J. Tschirhart who began representing her at the June 18, 1999 hearing was fired and yet continued to represent them against their will and signed the order on their behalf against their wishes. She believes that George J. Tschirhart was collaborating with Peck and Lambros. Nor does she believe that a shoot out is an appropriate conclusion to this situation. She would rather lose everthing than see any blood spilled. Most of all, she would like people to pray for them.

According to Olson, he and the Michigan militia are willing to defend the Stitt's home, but sees that as an unwanted conclusion in which he and his men would be killed on the island. There would be no leaving the island if it came to that, he said. The tactical disadvantage of an island fight does not make him optimistic about their chances of survival. Instead, he hopes that people will call and write letters to the Governor, Congressman, Senator, and Attorney General of the state. He hopes that a variance for one year can be achieved by such action. Olson said the barbeque went well and from 40 to 50 neighbors and other residents of the island came to show their support for the Stitts. These supporters, however, are afraid of the town board.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 17, 1999.

Sounds to me like the militia is backing off because they may feel a sense that the Stitts have not been totally on the up and up. Perhaps they have seen for themselves the uninhabital dwellings the children are living in. Stan, you may only be the spokesman or the reporter, but you have to expect that what is being reported is going to be microinspected, analyzed and an opinion put forth. It is nothing against you, it's the factual information that is under scrutiny. I would never do what you are doing just because people are being what they are..human. And, it does not matter who is posting anonymously or factually, it's the message, not the messenger.

-- anon (, August 18, 1999.

The plot thickens.... We need some address (e-mail, too) of the main participants, plus the MI powers that be. Keep up the good work, Stan!

-- Bill (, August 18, 1999.


Thanks for the kind compliment. I can only hope that I might at least finish well. Of course, when I say "well," I also mean clutching dearly to the high principle that the ends do not justify the means.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 18, 1999.


I have managed some pretty hot topics in previous threads (racism, etcetera)... and did so fairly well. So I'm not quite sure why the Stitt threads went differently. Again, I have not recommended any course of action. Perhaps, tensions are increasing as we count down to 2000.

Perhaps, there is something about the Stitt story that makes an urgent demand on us to get involved, turn our backs on the family, or even to reduce these people to a hoax. There may be something about this story that urgently demands something of us.

You don't see Mr. Decker jumping in (not yet) and getting dirty here.

There is, however, some division among the doomers. It's obvious that some people are offended by the Stitts turning in the neighbor growing marijuana. But Judge Lambros only gave him 4 months of jail time and what now threatens the Stitts is no comparison to that slap on the wrist.

Do some have a need to find something wrong with the Stitts and what the Stitts have done or what they do? Does one just have to not like the Stitts or will finding something wrong with the Stitts quiet the urgent feeling that comes from one's heart?

I am reminded of the Rodney King incident. You don't have to like Rodney to admit that he was viciously subdued by the police officers. Of course, the unjustness of Rodney's treatment is a historical fact. Back then, many stood on the wrong side of the facts. Some still do.

The American public, however, was fortunate in that they could watch the evidence from their armchairs. They didn't have to go out into the street and stop the cops from beating Rodney. It was a done deal.

I have a hunch that those that watched with their own eyes and did nothing are still haunted by their failure.

Years ago, there was a rape behind an apartment building. The women screamed and cried for hours, I am told. Many of the residents heard her screams and cries, but they did nothing. They didn't even call the police.

In interviews, some residents said that they were afraid the rapist would come after them. Others made the excuse that they thought someone else had called it in. Most of them closed their windows, closed their shades, and turned up the radio or television.

When I was a child, I happened to be in a bank that was robbed by several armed persons. There was no stand off, no hostage taking, and it happened over about five minutes. I remember that I did not see anything nor do I remember anyone else knowing the descriptions of the bank robbers.

It was very weird. Most people even had a sense of lost time. The only reason we knew the bank had been robbed was because we were all interviewed by FBI agents.

How people will react to Y2K?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, August 18, 1999.

Err, how will people react to Y2K?

-- Stan Faryna (, August 18, 1999.

Perhaps, off-topic...

The 19th Amendment was ratified on this date in 1920, thereby extending the right to vote to women.

-- Stan Faryna (, August 18, 1999.

Very few, if any, of us know the facts here. But so what? They are immaterial. Why? We have the possibility of some people using the government to crap on the Stitts for their hillbilly "lifestyle." We have the possibility of the Stitts using the government to crap on their neighbors for their (pot?) lifestyle. Guess what folks? The Stitts and the neighbors lose. THE GOVERNMENT WINS!!! Every time some bleeding heart or moralistic busybody, which includes many of you on this forum, runs to "BIg Brother" bleating (like a sheep) that we need another law, government is all too happy to oblige. IT MEANS MORE POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT!!! A conservative wants to bind a liberal in chains, GREAT! A liberal wants to bind a conservative in chains, GREAT. Those of you who don't get this, I sure hope I run into you post 2000-01-01. You are the dangerous ones. You are the ones who empower this shitpot government at all levels, from town council to D.C.

A mention of possibly "uninhabitable" buildings for the children ("Save the children!!" Sob sniff, boo-hoo.) Maybe the Stitts are preparing them for post-Y2K living conditions. :-)

-- A (, August 18, 1999.

Right on A! Your about the only one on this forum with any kind of commomn sense. I bet your a libertarian.

-- george (, August 18, 1999.

I'm in agreement. It seems mighty sad that a family that wants to bend the rules in their favor will complain about a neighbor who is breaking the rules. Dumb move.

Frankly, if you move into a new area and start rocking the boat, you shouldn't be surprised when you lose your footing.

-- Uncle Deedah (, August 18, 1999.

-- For (, August 18, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ