THE HILLSDALE CONSERVATIVES
Truth • Liberty • Local Stewardship
• Hillsdale County, Michigan • April 14th, 2026 • 2¢

How local government, local media, and the State worked to bury the County Clerk’s own election-law violations

HILLSDALE, Mich. — In Hillsdale Circuit Court on Monday, April 13, 2026, the State’s case against former Adams Township Clerk Stephanie Scott and attorney Stefanie Lambert took another step forward. But what happened in court only reinforced what many residents have suspected from the beginning: the real scandal here was never Scott.

It was the County Clerk.

It was the admitted election-law violations.

And it was the coordinated effort by local government, local media, and the State to bury that truth beneath noise, procedure, and prosecution.

What Happened in Court

A pretrial conference was held before the Hon. Sara S. Lisznyai in People v. Scott / Lambert, File No. 25-49-6230-FH.

Stefanie Lambert appeared on her own behalf and addressed her failure to appear for the February 23 hearing. Judge Lisznyai accepted her explanation and closed the issue.

David Kallman and Stephen Kallman appeared on behalf of Stephanie Scott. Attorney General Richard Cunningham and counsel for Ms. Scott accepted the stipulated removal of four witnesses previously identified by the defense, while agreeing that Adams Township attorney James Fink would remain as an intended witness in the event of a jury trial.

The hearing then turned to oral argument on the Motion to Quash and Dismiss.

Stephen Kallman argued what many in Hillsdale have known for a long time: this case never made legal sense. He argued that nowhere in FOIA, and nowhere in case law, is the State’s “confidential” theory stretched so far that it becomes a felony for a Clerk to consult an attorney about election records she lawfully possessed as part of her office.

He laid out the obvious consequences if this prosecution is allowed to stand.

A Clerk trying to do her job could face felony charges simply for consulting legal counsel.

The State’s theory would mean Clerks cannot safely consult anyone to understand and carry out their statutory duties.

Attorneys themselves could face felony exposure merely for advising a public official.

And the Attorney General is pretending not to understand what every lawyer in America understands: attorney-client relationships are confidential, and attorney-expert relationships are part of ordinary legal practice, not criminal conspiracies.

Kallman also reminded the court that MCL 168.520 authorizes a Clerk to investigate voter registration issues. It does not require her to run to local police. It does not require her to go ask the sheriff for permission. It does not require retained counsel to become an election “assistant.” And it does not require a lawyer to take an oath of office before advising a client.

Judge Lisznyai asked clarifying questions, then turned directly to Attorney General Cunningham and confirmed that the State’s theory relies on the “confidential” language within MCL 168.509(gg). Cunningham confirmed that it does.

Then, in a moment that did not go unnoticed, he offered no real oral argument beyond the State’s written brief.

Lambert then addressed another critical issue: the State’s attempt to rely on promulgated rules rather than actual statutory law. She argued that you cannot charge felonies based on rules that are not contained in statute, and certainly not on rules that came into effect years after the conduct at issue.

Judge Lisznyai answered that point plainly:

That would make them ex post facto laws.

That statement alone should have made this hearing front-page news in Hillsdale County.

It will not be.

The Story the Local Press Worked to Hide

Because the local media outlets that have spent years helping obscure the real scandal either did not show up or once again failed to do the one thing their job requires: tell the truth clearly.

The real scandal here was never Stephanie Scott.

It was never Stefanie Lambert.

It was never even mainly about Benjamin Cotton, forensic review, or the State’s favorite buzzwords about unauthorized access and security.

The real scandal was and remains that the Hillsdale County Clerk violated multiple election laws, admitted facts in court that should have triggered serious public outrage and criminal scrutiny, and instead of holding him accountable, the State charged Scott and her lawyer.

That is the scandal.

And every institution in Hillsdale that should have exposed it instead moved, in its own way, to bury it.

The press helped bury it.

The sheriff helped bury it.

The county commissioners helped bury it.

And when citizens began pressing too hard and too publicly for accountability, local government even moved to shield itself further by changing its own bylaws and accountability mechanisms so ordinary residents could no longer use longstanding local processes to challenge those in power the way they always had before.

That part matters.

Because this is not just an election case. It is not just a courtroom dispute. It is a case study in how a local government protects itself when one of its own gets caught.

First, the public is distracted from the underlying act.

Then the focus is shifted onto the person who noticed.

Then the machinery of law, media, and procedure is turned against the dissenter.

That is exactly what happened here.

How We Got Here

We have been reporting this progression for months.

Back in Deleted from History, we showed that the State’s clean and simple public narrative did not survive contact with sworn testimony. The testimony made clear that what was being described as misconduct by Scott was inseparable from a much larger problem involving record preservation, election materials, and directives that were administrative in nature rather than grounded in statute.

In Transcripts of a Broken Republic, that picture sharpened further. The public got to see what local power always hopes the public will not bother reading for itself: the actual sworn record. And the sworn record did not tell the tidy story Hillsdale’s establishment wanted told.

Then in When WCSR Claims the Court Record Refutes You and the Court Video Says Otherwise, we dealt directly with one of the ugliest parts of this saga: the role of local media in protecting the official narrative.

WCSR was happy to posture as legal interpreter when doing so helped cover for the County Clerk and dismiss public concern. Suddenly a radio station became a law office, as long as the legal analysis ran in the direction of protecting power.

But when the court itself openly states that the theory being advanced raises an ex post facto problem, where are those voices now?

Nowhere.

Silent.

Missing.

Gone when it mattered.

The same goes for Hillsdale Daily News, which has long since become less a watchdog and more a sedation device for a county government that badly needs watching.

And that silence is not accidental. It is functional.

Because if the public ever sees this case for what it is, the whole script falls apart.

The script says brave officials protected election integrity from rogue actors.

The truth is much uglier: the County Clerk engaged in unlawful conduct, the public record exposed it, Scott acted within the duties of her office to investigate serious anomalies, and the State responded not by prosecuting the source of the violation but by prosecuting the woman who refused to ignore it.

The Larger Pattern in Hillsdale

That is why this case matters far beyond Adams Township.

It is about whether constitutional officers can carry out the duties of their office when those duties threaten the comfort of entrenched bureaucrats.

It is about whether a Clerk may consult an attorney without being accused of conspiracy.

It is about whether election law means what the statute says, or whatever state officials decide it should mean after the fact.

And here in Hillsdale, it is about whether local institutions exist to serve the public or to protect each other.

That broader pattern has been obvious for some time.

In Hillsdale County Fair: Where the Fight for Accountability Begins, we wrote that the struggle in Hillsdale was becoming larger than any one board, office, or controversy. That has only become clearer.

In Board Removals: Acknowledging Criminal Acts and No Kings, we traced the same pattern across local institutions: officials insulated from consequences, citizens treated as threats, accountability mechanisms weakened or stripped away, and power behaving as though public office were private property.

That is the wider frame this hearing now fits into.

Monday’s hearing was not just a procedural step.

It was another crack in the cover-up.

Say It Plainly

In open court, the defense argued what should have been obvious from the beginning: Scott acted within the duties of her office, consulted counsel as any reasonable official would, and did not become a felon because the Attorney General decided to criminalize legal consultation.

Then the court itself acknowledged the absurdity of trying to justify felony charges with rules that post-date the underlying conduct.

And still the people who spent months helping hide the scandal were not there to report it honestly.

That tells you everything.

Hillsdale does not have a misinformation problem because the facts are unavailable.

It has a misinformation problem because too many of its gatekeepers have decided the public cannot be trusted with the facts when those facts threaten the local ruling class.

So let’s say it plainly.

The County Clerk violated election law.

The State charged Scott and Lambert instead.

The sheriff and county commissioners helped cover it up.

The local media helped fog the story so the public would not focus on the real crime.

And when citizens pushed too hard for accountability, the system changed its own rules to protect itself.

That is the story.

Everything else has been theater.

in liberty,