Isabella County Sheriff's Department Screws Tenants

Isabella County Tenants Beware! Sheriff's Department Can & Will Evict You Without Due Process!

Michigan Family (My Family of 4) Evicted in Isabella County Michigan without Due Process

Against insurmountable odds, we filed a lawsuit as Pro Se' Litigants on September 28, 2011, the one year anniversary of the state seizing our home and our possessions under color of law and color of office. This lawsuit was served personally on the Government Defendants named in this action on October 4, 2011 to which they were required (by operation of existing state law) to answer within 21 days. The 21st day came and went without an answer from the Government.

October 25, 2011 was the 21st day...

November 3, 2011 The Plaintiff's Visner and Smith, after checking the file one more time, filed for a default judgment against the Government Defendants and served this by US Mail on November 4, 2011.

I am starting to wonder if I am really here or if I am simply imagining my own existence! Did I fall off of a roof somewhere and am now lying in a coma in some hospital dreaming all this crap up? (Special Note!!! Regardless of the coma issue I am reserving the movie rights!)

I know that there isn't a Defense that any attorney could mount that wouldn't be frivolous but the Government Defendants didn't even file a Motion for Summary Disposition! They filed nothing! No phone call, no filing, no nothing just more of the same oppression tactics! The only thing of note is that on two different occasions, Sheriff's patrol cars have been seen on our dirt road in the middle of nowhere twice since we filed this action.

We have been waiting for the Government to answer the complaint so that we can mail them our amended complaint and save $150 dollars that we don't have! I guess now that they failed to answer, we have to pay a process server to serve them the Amended Complaint.

Within 21 days after filing our complaint in Circuit Court, we filed by right, an amended complaint and added four additional Defendants. In addition to the original 21 Page Complaint we will also scan and post the 53 Page Amended Complaint as they are a matter of Public Record.

The wrongful and malicious acts of the Government initially and through continued inaction and oppression have led the Plaintiffs Visner and Smith to seek justice through the 21st Circuit Court. As a family we are scared, there is no denying that. We are terrified in fact. These events have been unconscionable. So far outside the scope of what any ordinary person is even capable of comprehending. Parts of our own family cannot even fathom these events and this has caused rifts so great they will most likely never be repaired.

How can or will the Government Defendants named in our complaint be allowed to explain away not answering our civil complaint? They lack the time and resources? The County had plenty of time and resources when they defended Steinert against a simple PPO request. We know that we have the Government dead to rights but why would they elect to not answer a complaint??? Is it for the publicity factor? The negative publicity is the only thing that I can think of outside of the "coma scenario" mentioned above.

Why is the Sheriff's Department doing drive by's? There is a lot of heavy accusations in my complaint that SHOULD effect a lot of different people so might it be easier to snuff us? The reasons for this website and the lawsuit itself is because we are scared as hell. Paralyzed in fear. We don't have law enforcement in fact our law enforcers are out to get us! What is the extent they would or might go to in the name of self-preservation? One sure fire way to have a default judgment Set Aside would be the filing of two death certificates right?

Throughout our history, people with the propensity towards oppression, make their case by making the opposing party a bad guy. The "Bad Guy" in fact. Like the disabled man in Oregon that was chased down and killed by police because he was suspected of urinating in public. Because he was "suspected" the officers that killed this man were within their rights and performing their duty as police officers as determined through an "Official Investigation". So what will my local government use to leverage against me and my family in order to lawfully produce two death certificates? Instead of defending themselves against this lawsuit they might be building charges and allegations and records of active investigation into some concept that we are suspected terrorists or the like in order to justify their actions and inactions. Going to bed every night thinking that I may be awoken by the sound of helicopters and some SWAT team takes us out under some trumped up charge of resisting arrest! What might seem, to some, is an overactive imagination and too many movies, I would urge you to not make those particular assumptions until after you have found yourself in such an unconscionable predicament!

unconscionable: adjective atrocious, blackguard, completely unreasonable, conniving, conscienceless,
corrupt, criminal, designing, dishonest, dishonorable, excessive, exorbitant, extreme, grievous,
grossly unjust, immoderate, impermissible, indefensible, inequitable, inexcusable, inexpiable, inordinate, intemperate,
intriguing, knavish, monstrous, outrageous, preposterous, rascally, reprehensible, tricky, unbalanced, undue, unequal,
unethical, unfair, unforgivable, unjust, unjustifiable, unprincipled, unreasonable, unscrupulous, wrong

Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it.

When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.

Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of Fraud and deceit, where the deliberate Misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. Whenever someone takes unconscionable advantage of another person, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.

Important Note: From the moment of Deputy Steinert's decision to willfully interfere with the possessory interest in our own property we have been without law and exclusively excluded form justice and all things conscionable.

No standardized criteria exist for measuring whether an action is unconscionable. A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjective judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court's "shock the conscience test" in rochin v. california, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952), demonstrates this approach. The Court ruled that pumping the stomach of a criminal suspect in search of drugs offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples." The Court relied on these general historical and moral traditions as the basis for ruling unconstitutional an unconscionable act.

I have had this website up for the better part of a year, and still no answer?!? This site and these allegations posted on the Internet with the County viewing it almost every singe day and still no answer?

A Motion to Set Aside a Default Judgment? I cannot imagine the Court granting a motion to set aside the Government's Default... The Government, breaking it's own Court Rules to suit itself! AGAIN!?! With absolution and immunity! They must have 50 lawyers working from an endless supply of insurance money and knowledge of this claim for the better part of a year and can't answer a complaint, as required by law within the time provided by law? Honestly! Where does it end? When is someone, other than myself and my family going to stand up for what is right and for what is just? Our Judge in this case should be that person. I don't even know who has been assigned to be our Judge but that person needs to stand up and say "NO!" to the Defendant's Motion to set aside their default. This isn't any different than the illegal parking right outside the front door of the Sheriff's Department. Everyone needs to conform to the Michigan Court Rules except the Government? I don't think that the drafters of our Constitution had these allowances in mind! In fact, I would venture to say that the draftsmen of our Constitution would hold the Government most strictly to the language of the law as it is written as it was their intent to protect the people of this land from an overbearing and abusive Government.

The Government had the better part of one full year to prepare for this lawsuit and Defaulted why? Because... Just because the Government gets to do what they want? Default judgments don't mean anything anymore? The Michigan Court Rules don't apply to the government? Against every piece of advise I received I kept this website up and running for the better part of a year because my family and I have wanted answers since September 27, 2010!

I say, my family says... IT'S TOO LATE!!!!

Granting any Motion brought by the defaulted Government Defendants in this action is another slap in the face.

Suit Title: Visner v Isabella County

Suit Filed: Isabella County 21st Circuit Court

Court Case File: 11-9480-CH

Plaintiffs: Theodore Visner & Kathy Smith

Defendants: Isabella County
                   Isabella County Sheriff's Department
                   Isabella County Sheriff's Deputy Clinton Steinert
                   Clinton Steinert (Individual)
                   Shelly Sweet
                   Robert Wheeler

All Defendants with the exception of Shelly Sweet and Robert Wheeler were served personally on October 4, 2011

Defendant Sweet was personally served on October 6, 2011 and Defendant Wheeler was served on October 20, 2011.

None of the Defendant(s) named in this action have filed an answer except Robert Wheeler. Defendant "Robert's" answers are quite humorous and I will post them here after I can get them scanned in.

CHAPTER 2. CIVIL PROCEDURE
MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985
Subchapter 2.000 General Provision"

MCR Michigan Court Rules stated in pertinent part the following:
Rule 2.108 Time

(A) Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings.

(1) A defendant must serve and file an answer or take other action permitted
by law or these rules within 21 days after being served with the summons and a
copy of the complaint in Michigan in the manner provided in MCR 2.105(A)(1).

(2) If service of the summons and a copy of the complaint is made outside
Michigan, or if the manner of service used requires the summons and a copy of
the complaint to be sent by registered mail addressed to the defendant, the
defendant must serve and file an answer or take other action permitted by law
or these rules within 28 days after service

(3) When service is made in accordance with MCR 2.106, the court shall allow a
reasonable time for the defendant to answer or take other action permitted by
law or these rules, but may not prescribe a time less than 28 days after
publication or posting is completed.

(4) A party served with a pleading stating a cross-claim or counterclaim against
that party must serve and file an answer or take other action permitted by law
or these rules within 21 days after service.

(5) A party served with a pleading to which a reply is required or permitted may
serve and file a reply within 21 days after service of the pleading to which it is
directed.

(6) In an action alleging medical malpractice filed on or after October 1, 1986,
unless the defendant has responded as provided in subrule (A)(1) or (2), the
defendant must serve and file an answer within 21 days after being served with
the notice of filing the security for costs or the affidavit in lieu of such security
required by MCL 600.2912d.
(B) Time for Filing Motion in Response to Pleading. A motion raising a defense or an
objection to a pleading must be served and filed within the time for filing the
responsive pleading or, if no responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after
service of the pleading to which the motion is directed.

(C) Effect of Particular Motions and Amendments. When a motion or an amended
pleading is filed, the time for pleading set in subrule (A) is altered as follows, unless
a different time is set by the court:

(1) If a motion under MCR 2.116 made before filing a responsive pleading is
denied, the moving party must serve and file a responsive pleading within 21
days after notice of the denial. However, if the moving party, within 21 days,
files an application for leave to appeal from the order, the time is extended until
21 days after the denial of the application unless the appellate court orders
otherwise.

(2) An order granting a motion under MCR 2.116 must set the time for service
and filing of the amended pleading, if one is allowed.

(3) The response to a supplemental pleading or to a pleading amended either
as of right or by leave of court must be served and filed within the time
remaining for response to the original pleading or within 21 days after service
of the supplemental or amended pleading, whichever period is longer.

(4) If the court has granted a motion for more definite statement, the
responsive pleading must be served and filed within 21 days after the more
definite statement is served.
(D) Time for Service of Order to Show Cause. An order to show cause must set the
time for service of the order and for the hearing, and may set the time for answer
to the complaint or response to the motion on which the order is based.

(E) Extension of Time. A court may, with notice to the other parties who have
appeared, extend the time for serving and filing a pleading or motion or the doing
of another act, if the request is made before the expiration of the period originally
prescribed. After the expiration of the original period, the court may, on motion,
permit a party to act if the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.
However, if a rule governing a particular act limits the authority to extend the time,
those limitations must be observed. MCR 2.603(D) applies if a default has been
entered.

(F) Unaffected by Expiration of Term. The time provided for the doing of an act or
the holding of a proceeding is not affected or limited by the continuation or
expiration of a term of court. The continuation or expiration of a term of court does
not affect the power of a court to do an act or conduct a proceeding in a civil action
pending before it.

Uploaded Files:
The files below are in (.pdf) format and show all of the visitors to this site from March 3, 2011 when this site was first establised.

Where provider says isabellacounty, this designates a visit from www.isabellacounty.org. The purpose of this upload is to show that Isabella County not only knew of these allegations but refused to address them from the date these allegations were known to the County. Of course they will also be used to establish the fact that Isabella County and the Government Defendants named in this action had plenty of time to prepare a Defense and have NO reason or excuse for being granted any Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment entered against them on November 3, 2011.

Please report any broken links! Thanks! =)

Current Total Donations = $0.00

A small donation will go a very long way
for this family as they continue to put
their lives back together!

The family would like to offer you their
sincere appreciation for your considerate
contribution!