Ousted Macomb County Clerk Seeks Sov Help

[mpo]

In November, 2016, the folks in Macomb County, Michigan elected Karen Spranger to County Clerk. Prior to getting elected clerk, Spranger was known as a self-professed Tea Partier and gadfly to local politicians. She was also unemployed for the better part of the past two decades.

Once she was elected, things did not go well. She had well-publicized battles against the bargaining unit that represented most of the employees in the clerk's office, she battled the county executive's office, she battled the county commissioners (note to self: don't ask the county commissioners for an increase in your budget so you can sue the commissioners). A partial list of her shenanigans is here:
She was removed from office last week when the county was able to persuade the court that Spranger lied about her residence. The house she had listed as her residence was abandoned and uninhabitable. (https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/kar ... th-garbage)

Well, it seems she has enlisted Rodney-Dale, class, Private Attorney General, Constitutional Bounty Hunter to come to her defense. He (they?) drafted a document to have the governor reinstate Spranger. You can read the "Administrative Claim Notice of Administrative Overthrow of a Constitutional Office Clerk of Court of Macomb County by Rogue County Agents". (https://www.scribd.com/document/3754457 ... from_embed)

Spranger and Class give powers to the county clerk that sovs usually reserver to the county sheriff.

[Burnaby49]

Welcome aboard mpo. Karen certainly has Quatloos potential and Rodney is a Quatloos favorite from way back.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... =49&t=7785

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... =6&t=11325

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 49&t=10319

Actually the people to really thank for this new discussion are the voters of Macomb County, Michigan who chose an obvious nutcase to work for them.

[Chaos]

she could just go to Mabrush county.

[grixit]

We've found the new administrator for the Bundy clan.

[GlimDropper]

mpo, thank you for introducing us to such a hard bitten nut job. We Americans need to recognize that voting is every bit as much a responsibility as it is a right and part of that responsibility is to not elect frothing idiots.

Here is a fairly astounding list of local coverage of Ms. Spanger's 15 months in public office, my personal favorite is when she was caught on tape hiding moving boxes because she didn't want her clerk's offices moved across the street to a new building.

More recently from the Detroit News website:

Mount Clemens – The recently ousted Macomb County clerk is asking officials — from county leaders to President Donald Trump — to investigate whether her removal by a judge last week violated her rights and state law.

<Snip>

“My request is for an immediate investigation and audit to detect these possible crimes against the clerk of courts office and the return of my elected position and the return of all illegally removed files by those public officials who are in insurrection and rebellion and who have gone on strike against the constitution,” Spranger wrote.

Neither Spranger nor her attorney could be reached for comment Tuesday but Macomb County’s chief corporation counsel, John Schapka, dismissed Spranger’s claims — filed in federal court — as “meandering gibberish” and something out of a comedy film.

“It is delusionary and without any merit,” Schapka said. “I can’t imagine anyone reading it and taking it seriously. It’s gibberish … a series of unrelated events run together and combined with about seven cut-and-paste pages of the state constitution with no explanation on how or why they apply to her case.”

“Meandering gibberish,” yep, that's our Rod Class all right.

[mpo]

Yeah, Spranger was a piece of work. She became the clerk to the third largest county (by population) with very little experience. Plus, her idea of what the clerk did differed substantially from what the actual duties were.

From the outset, her first task seemed to be a dual-task of union busting and sticking it to the county executive's office.

Within a few weeks of taking office, her computer privileges were suspended for allowing unauthorized persons to use her county computer. One of the unauthorized users eventually became her deputy clerk.

Then, the basics of budgeting (and basic management) were beyond her.

She totaled a county-issued car.

She decided it was a good idea to sue anyone who did not agree with how she was handling the office.

The county sheriff was called to her office numerous times to resolve petty grievances.

In the end, she and her deputy were sure Trump was going to come in and save the day.

I don't think she went in as a sov. I think she got so over her head (I would hate to know what her legal bills are). The sovereign legal gibberish may give her hope that her personal crusade can continue.

[notorial dissent]

She sounds like a died in the wool Tea Party whackaloon. People don't just suddenly become sovcits, I'm pretty sure she started out that way but it didn't really come out of the closet until her total incompetence came screaming out of the closet when the adults stared challenging her. It also sounds like she had "issues" long before she got in to politics. She does seem to have some cognition problems with what her official "constitutional" duties and actual responsibilities, as well as a tenuous grasp on reality.

[mpo]

Spranger filed her appeal to the ruling that removed her from office. No surprises, she is representing herself.

She filed a single, hand-written page response with a lot of filler.
https://media.freep.com/uploads/digital ... appeal.pdf

[Pottapaug1938]

I've been out of the practice of law for 25 years, now; but it seems to me that, since there is no genuine issue of fact or law, in this case, and since a jury is charged with determining the facts of this case, Spranger is either too dense to understand what the trial court said, or is proceeding on the basis of "this is all I've got, so no harm is done in trying to use it." At any rate, I look forward to a one-page dismissal of her appeal.

[KickahaOta]

I've never been in the practice of law; but based on the circuit court's ruling and the notice of appeal (such as it is), it appears that Spranger's beef is basically the Michigan-state-law equivalent of a frequent sovcit refrain -- that there should be no such thing as a motion for summary judgement (or, in the case of Michigan's court practice, a motion for summary disposition), because a jury should always determine the facts. That's been pretty comprehensively rejected at the federal level (you're only entitled to a jury trial if there's a "genuine" dispute of "material" fact, though there's still lots of room for argument about what factual disputes are "genuine" and "material").

I don't know how settled this is in Michigan. But I would say that Spranger would be in a lot better position to argue that summary disposition is inappropriate if she hadn't herself moved for summary disposition in her favor.

[Pottapaug1938]

I've never been in the practice of law; but based on the circuit court's ruling and the notice of appeal (such as it is), it appears that Spranger's beef is basically the Michigan-state-law equivalent of a frequent sovcit refrain -- that there should be no such thing as a motion for summary judgement (or, in the case of Michigan's court practice, a motion for summary disposition), because a jury should always determine the facts. That's been pretty comprehensively rejected at the federal level (you're only entitled to a jury trial if there's a "genuine" dispute of "material" fact, though there's still lots of room for argument about what factual disputes are "genuine" and "material").

I don't know how settled this is in Michigan. But I would say that Spranger would be in a lot better position to argue that summary disposition is inappropriate if she hadn't herself moved for summary disposition in her favor.

Perhaps; but I shudder to think of the imact upon our courts and the taxpayers' wallets, if (for example) even a simple "I say that I am immune from paying taxes; the government says that I have to pay them, so I am entitled to a jury trial on the subject" tiff required a jury trial.

[mpo]

A small update for Spranger.

In a related matter, the state Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied Spranger’s legal motion related to her appeal of her removal. Spranger’s appeal can still go forward, although she has not yet filed a supporting legal brief.

Attorney Frank Krycia, assistant corporation counsel for Macomb County, said Spranger’s motion and the wording of it were unique, requiring the appeals court to rule.

She sought the ruling based on a request for a jury trial. County attorneys responded that a jury trial wasn’t needed because there were no issues of fact in question. Spranger didn’t contest the significant amount of evidence supporting the assertion she wasn’t residing at the Warren address she claimed to live at when she filed.

“The overwhelming evidence established that the residence (Spranger) claimed on her affidavit of identity was vacant and uninhabitable,” county attorneys wrote in the three-page brief.

http://www.macombdaily.com/government-a ... -employees

That is one way of putting it--'the wording was unique'.