Michigan Dominion Emails

STATE OF MICHIGAN
6TH CIRCUIT COURT

COUNTY OF OAKLAND
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff/Appellee,
vs.
Lower Court Case No. 2023-285759-FH
Hon. Jeffrey S. Matis
STEFANIE LAMBERT,
Defendant/Appellant.
Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY STEFANIE LAMBERT (P71303)
D.J. Hilson (P57726) PRO SE
HALL OF JUSTICE 400 RENAISSANCE CTR, FL 26
FIFTH FLOOR DETROIT, MI
990 Terrace Street 48243-1502
Muskegon, MI 49442 (313) 410-6872
(231) 724-6435 attorneylambert@protonmail.com
hilsonda@co.muskegon.mi.us
DEFENDANTS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING

INTERLOCUTORY APPELLATE REVIEW
Now Comes Defendant, Stefanie Lambert, pro se, and hereby submits this
Motion for an Emergency Stay of Proceedings pending appellate review.
1
1. A motion for bond or a stay pending appeal may not be filed in the
Court of Appeals unless such a motion was decided by the trial court. MCR
7.209(1) and (2).
2. Where a trial court incorrectly chooses, interprets or applies the law, it
commits legal error that appellate courts are bound to correct. Bracco v Michigan
Technological University, 231 Mich App 578, 585 (1998), citing Fletcher v
Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 881 (1994) (Brickley, J., joined by Cavanagh, C.J., and
Boyle, J.).
3. The order requiring Defendant to submit to fingerprinting without
probable cause and without having had an independent hearing and determination
of the mandate is unconstitutional and ultra vires of this Court’s power to enforce.

4. The decision ordering Defendant to submit to such process by 5 p.m.
today, March 8, 2024, constitutes significant legal error.
5. First and foremost, as explained in Ms. Lambert’s prior motion to
suppress and / or to quash indictment (Exhibit 1), a fundamental principle of
constitutional law is that a defendant cannot be accused of a crime, where such
crime is “created” specifically, and purposefully, for that defendant, and then
sought to be applied to that defendant. See, e.g., Mich Const 1963 Article I, § 10;
U.S. Const., art I, § 10.
2
6. A law is considered ex post facto if it “(1) seeks to punish an act that
was innocent when the act was committed; (2) makes an act a more serious
criminal offense; (3) increases the punishment for a [committed] crime; or (4)
allows the prosecution to convict on less evidence.” People v Earl, 495 Mich 33,
37; 845 NW2d 721 (2014). See also, People v. Betts, 507 Mich. 527, 542, 968
N.W.2d 497, 504 (2021).
7. The prohibitions on ex post facto laws “assure that legislative Acts give
fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their meaning” as well
as prevent the government from imposing arbitrary and vindictive legislation.
Weaver v Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28-29; 101 S Ct 960; 67 L Ed 2d 17 (1981).
8. If a single judge or prosecutor manipulates a “grand jury” and creates,

i.e., makes up a criminal law, or, more insidiously, “interprets” an existing criminal
law in an erroneous manner, in a single proceeding targeting specific individuals,
and especially, where that “advocated erroneous interpretation” is advanced by
political opponents of those that are sought to be prosecuted, the manifestation of
tyrannical political assassination through ex post facto application of criminal
statutes twisted to be applied to specific individuals comes to fruition.
9. Further, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S.
Const., amend. IV, as well as the Constitution of the State of Michigan, 1963
Mich. Const. Art. I, § 11, require a prior determination by a detached and
3
disinterested magistrate that probable cause exists which includes detentions for
the sole purpose of obtaining fingerprints and obtaining of other evidence.
10. “[T]he Fourth Amendment’s scope of protection extends beyond the
sphere of criminal investigations. The Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity,
and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the
government, without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime
or performing another function.
11. The Fourth Amendment applies as well when the government acts in its
capacity as an employer. City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746; 130 S. Ct. 2619
(2010).
12. A grand jury indictment does not automatically entitle the prosecution

to acquire fingerprints in Michigan and it does not substitute for the independent
assessment required to be made by an unbiased judicial officer. People v. Ware, 12
Mich. App. 512; 163 NW2d 250 (1968).
13. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures generally requires probable cause as a minimum requirement for a
reasonable search People v. Esters, 417 Mich. 34; 331 NW2d 211 (1982), People
v. Thomas, 106 Mich. App. 601; 308 NW2d 170 (1981); Ft. Wayne Mortg. Co. v.
Carletos, 95 Mich. App. 752; 291 NW2d 193 (1980).
4
14. The general rule for obtaining fingerprints for a conviction is that the
fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused must have been found at a crime
scene under such circumstances that they could only have been impressed at the
time when the crime was committed. Ware, supra.
15. Therefore, a separate probable cause inquiry is required and the return
of an indictment by a grand jury, standing alone, will not establish probable cause
Ft. Wayne Mortg. Co., supra.
16. Here, the Special Prosecutor now wants to use the fingerprints for
actual comparison to evidence on the tabulators.
17. That would require a separate probable cause inquiry. He cannot
pretend to be acquiring the fingerprints for one reason and then use them for

another where such would require a separate and independent probable cause
determination.
18. As stay is warranted where “(1) the applicant has made a strong
showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
interest lies.” Nken v Holder, 556 US 418, 434; 129 S. Ct. 1749; 173 L. Ed. 2d 550
(2009), quoting Hilton v Braunskill, 481 US 770, 776; 107 S. Ct. 2113; 95 L. Ed.
2d 724 (1987).
5
19. In the instant case, there has been no predicate probable cause hearing,
nor any articulation from the “Special Prosecutor” why or how he intends to use
the fingerprints he seeks to obtain from Defendant. Without this, Defendant has a
nearly 100-percent chance of succeeding on the merits because obtaining physical
fingerprints from an individual who has not been before an independent magistrate
or judge with the benefit of due process and a full probable cause hearing is
unconstitutional per se.
20. Subjecting Defendant to this procedure will result in irreparable injury
because she will necessarily have surrendered her constitutional rights of due
process and her fundamental constitutional rights, including those under the Fourth
Amendment will have been violated. That cannot be undone.

21. Other than the improper purposes for which the Special Prosecutor
seeks the fingerprinting of Defendant, which, again, has not been articulated to a
magistrate or judge in a proper probable cause proceeding, and which is de facto
unconstitutional and erroneous, there is no harm to the prosecutor for having a stay
entered while the constitutional rights of Defendant are vindicated on appeal.
22. Public interest lies soundly in the principle of not subjecting American
citizens to violations of their rights of personal privacy and security embodied in
the Fourth Amendment, and other constitutional provisions, including Due Process
of Law. There is no doubt that the public interest in protecting American citizens
6
from invasive criminal examination without due process and in violation of
fundamental constitutional rights is of primordial importance. This factor weighs
heavily in favor of obtaining a stay.
23. Defendant has demonstrated that the request to submit to fingerprinting
before this Court without having had any separate and independent probable cause
hearing, where the prosecution seeks the “evidence” for a purpose different than
that which has ever been stated to a jury, magistrate, or judge in such a separate
and independent proceeding is unconstitutional and legal error. Defendant has
further shown to have satisfied the requisite elements for a stay in this court
pending appellate review of the trial court’s erroneous order.
24. Defendant has also just filed an appearance in this case to represent

herself, and she currently and has represented since December of 2020 Sheriff Dar
Leaf of Barry County. (Exhibit 1). Sheriff Leaf has been subpoenaed by the
Special Prosecutor to produce files that are protected by attorney-client privilege
and subject to other protections afforded by law. Id.
25. Defendant is therefore required to file motions to quash said subpoena
in the course of defending herself in these proceedings.
26. Moreover, Defendant has just retained new counsel in the case that will
not be available to file an appearance until Monday.
7
27. Defendant is required to take over the defense of her case in the
meantime due to having had to relieve her prior attorney of his duties.
WHEREFORE, based on the statements and arguments presented in this
motion, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court to issue an immediate stay
of all trial court proceedings pending interlocutory review by the Court of Appeals.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stefanie Lambert

STEFANIE LAMBERT (P71303)
PRO SE
400 RENAISSANCE CTR, FL 26
DETROIT, MI
48243-1502
(313) 410-6872
attorneylambert@protonmail.com

Dated: March 8, 2024
8
Dar Leaf
Exhibit 1
Affidavit of Barry County Sheriff


Michigan Dominion Emails

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan Dominion Emails

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan Dominion Emails

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF MICHIGAN

6TH CIRCUIT COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

DEFENDANTS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING

Motion for an Emergency Stay of Proceedings pending appellate review.

7.209(1) and (2).

2. Where a trial court incorrectly chooses, interprets or applies the law, it

3. The order requiring Defendant to submit to fingerprinting without

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

today, March 8, 2024, constitutes significant legal error.

5. First and foremost, as explained in Ms. Lambert’s prior motion to

suppress and / or to quash indictment (Exhibit 1), a fundamental principle of

constitutional law is that a defendant cannot be accused of a crime, where such

U.S. Const., art I, § 10.

N.W.2d 497, 504 (2021).

as prevent the government from imposing arbitrary and vindictive legislation.

Weaver v Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28-29; 101 S Ct 960; 67 L Ed 2d 17 (1981).

8. If a single judge or prosecutor manipulates a “grand jury” and creates,

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

law in an erroneous manner, in a single proceeding targeting specific individuals,

and especially, where that “advocated erroneous interpretation” is advanced by

political opponents of those that are sought to be prosecuted, the manifestation of

tyrannical political assassination through ex post facto application of criminal

statutes twisted to be applied to specific individuals comes to fruition.

9. Further, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S.

Mich. Const. Art. I, § 11, require a prior determination by a detached and

the sole purpose of obtaining fingerprints and obtaining of other evidence.

10. “[T]he Fourth Amendment’s scope of protection extends beyond the

sphere of criminal investigations. The Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity,

government, without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime

or performing another function.

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

assessment required to be made by an unbiased judicial officer. People v. Ware, 12

Mich. App. 512; 163 NW2d 250 (1968).

13. The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches

and seizures generally requires probable cause as a minimum requirement for a

Carletos, 95 Mich. App. 752; 291 NW2d 193 (1980).

time when the crime was committed. Ware, supra.

Ft. Wayne Mortg. Co., supra.

actual comparison to evidence on the tabulators.

17. That would require a separate probable cause inquiry. He cannot

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

nearly 100-percent chance of succeeding on the merits because obtaining physical

unconstitutional per se.

20. Subjecting Defendant to this procedure will result in irreparable injury

Amendment will have been violated. That cannot be undone.

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

magistrate or judge in a proper probable cause proceeding, and which is de facto

entered while the constitutional rights of Defendant are vindicated on appeal.

citizens to violations of their rights of personal privacy and security embodied in

fundamental constitutional rights is of primordial importance. This factor weighs

heavily in favor of obtaining a stay.

23. Defendant has demonstrated that the request to submit to fingerprinting

and independent proceeding is unconstitutional and legal error. Defendant has

pending appellate review of the trial court’s erroneous order.

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

Special Prosecutor to produce files that are protected by attorney-client privilege

and subject to other protections afforded by law. Id.