Key Takeaways
- A man’s prison sentence in Barry County, Michigan reveals serious flaws in the legal process, as restitution figures were disputed and incomplete.
- Judge Michael Schipper proceeded with sentencing despite unresolved facts, highlighting deep systemic issues rather than simple errors.
- Following the sentencing, inconsistencies in court records continue to emerge, indicating a shift from accountability to suppression.
- Charges and probation amendments later imposed severe speech restrictions on family advocates, without due process or justification, aiming to restrain rather than rehabilitate.
- This case emphasizes the importance of accuracy and transparency in the Michigan legal system, as unmitigated failures threaten due process and overall integrity.
QuickFAQs
Michael Schipper is a judge in Barry County, Michigan, who presided over key proceedings discussed in this article, including the January 12, 2023 sentencing that serves as the focal point of the analysis. He has engaged in multiple upward departures resulting in appellate remands.
The central issue is whether a prison sentence 6–10x higher than guidelines before required factual determinations were completed, specifically where restitution figures were acknowledged on the record to be disputed and unverified at the time of sentencing.
If courts proceed to sentencing without verified facts or rely on unstable records, the risk extends beyond a single case. Accurate records and lawful sentencing procedures are essential safeguards that protect all defendants, victims, and the public’s trust in the judicial system.
Yes. The analysis in this article is based on preserved source materials, including court transcripts, administrative correspondence, and official orders. These materials are available for review by counsel, oversight bodies, and appropriate authorities.
Going Back to The Beginning
If you missed Part I, read it here.
There is a moment in every case when the legal process either corrects itself or reveals that something deeper is broken. In Barry County, Michigan, that moment came on January 12, 2023; the transcripts capture due process failure in real-time.
On that day, a man was sentenced to prison even though Judge Michael Schipper and the Barry County Prosecution both acknowledged on the record that the restitution figures ultimately used to justify the sentence were disputed, incomplete, and “subject to a future hearing.”
The victim did not request incarceration. Under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, the Prosecutor is supposed to be the voice of the victim. By going against the victim to push for a 10-20 year sentence on unverified math, they proved that this prosecution was about personal or political agendas, not the victim’s best interests; a theme that reappears again and again in Barry County’s charging decisions.
The math was unfinished; the facts unsettled. But a sentence was imposed anyway; 6 to 10 times higher than what the sentencing guidelines called for. When your guidelines say “months” and your sentence says “decades,” the math alone demands an explanation and a mandatory review1.
What followed next from Barry County was not correction. Not an apology. No attempt to “make it right” let alone follow the appropriate laws. Instead, there would be a steady cascade of errors and retaliation for speaking out.
A system that started with a lie resorted to record manipulation to keep that lie alive.
This piece is not about a single error. It is about what happens after an error is made and the system chooses to protect the outcome rather than uphold the law.
This is not where the Barry County, Michigan system failed.
This is where it chose not to correct itself.
What the Paper Trail Shows
This is not a story told through rhetoric. It is told through documents:
- Not one, but two sentencing transcripts acknowledging completely unresolved facts at the moment liberty was taken.
- Offense Variables intentionally misapplied by Judge and Prosecution
- Retaliatory Charges and a Probation Order imposing broad speech restrictions without lawful justification.
- Deliberate indifference and failure to intervene, even with children at risk
- Administrative correspondence confirming record discrepancies.
When the sequence is laid out, one question becomes unavoidable:
If the sentence was “lawful”, why did the Barry County system behave this way afterward? If County Officials were telling the truth, why was narrative control and fabricating records the sole focus?
The Math Never Settled
In the sentencing transcript, the prosecution itself openly confirms that restitution was disputed and unverified at the time of sentencing. The prosecutor stated on the record that approximately 20–25 percent of the alleged loss was contested and requested that the court enter a higher amount as a placeholder, subject to a later restitution hearing that would never come.
Barry County’s solution was not a forensic accountant. It was printing off paper for the incarcerated person to review and check off.
Intellectual Dishonesty
This decision was, to be kind, intellectually dishonest, as the victim’s own restitution submission forwarded by the Prosecutor’s Office reflects a direct request of $10,000, allegedly corresponding to an insurance deductible. But of course, there was no documentation to prove this, either.
This massive inconsistency between six-figures advanced during sentencing and a five-figure restitution request from the victim, was never reconciled by either Judge Schipper or the Barry County Prosecutor’s office before Schipper imposed a dramatic upward departure.
They knew the numbers were wrong and they did it anyway. They doubled-down on those numbers until being forced to change them in December 2023, and they remain incorrect today.
Judge Schipper also likes to say there was no plea deal or negotiations, but transcripts and the Hastings Banner prove that was a lie. This accompanies two May 2023 Attorney Grievance Comisssion Responses that also aged like milk, meaning they lied to the tribunal and their Municipal Attorney.
The Court Violated Michigan Law
Michigan law requires that restitution be based on proven, actual loss, and that disputed restitution be resolved before sentencing. Proceeding without that determination is not a technical defect; it is a structural, constitutional failure. Sentencing based on speculative or unresolved financial figures undermines the reliability of the entire proceeding and erodes the due process guarantees that depend on accurate information. Schipper later refused to provide any copies of recordings or case files.
Funding Schipper’s Court and Other Political Factors
At the time of sentencing, Michigan trial courts operated under significant local funding constraints, with probation, supervision, and administrative costs borne largely by counties. Against that backdrop, the decision to proceed with incarceration before resolving restitution — particularly where insurance coverage and grossly misrepresented disputed amounts were acknowledged on the record by both Judge and Prosecutor — raises questions not about motive, but about institutional pressure and procedural shortcuts taken at the expense of accuracy.
In addition, Barry County had multiple battles on their radar, incentivizing inflated numbers:
- SCAO intensified its focus on Trial Court Collections Standards. The faulty restitution order would look good on a “Collections Compliance” report and good on paper, regardless of whether the math was verified or the victim ever received a “dime”, which incarceration would make that impossible. Schipper refused to change the amount, because it would look like a loss in court revenue. That funding concept aged poorly due to the exact reasons above, and it is now under fire.
- The 2024 Election Cycle made it attractive, creating a narrative of being a “taxpayer guardian.”
- Tax Foreclosure Surplus Scandal. The county general fund was under fire regarding the unconstitutional retention of surplus proceeds from sales tax. As a result, there was heightened pressure on the courts to lock in other revenue streams.
- Heightened focus on Crime Victims Rights Act: a big restitution gave the false appearance that the court was fighting for justice rather than its own pocketbook. Anyone who stood up for themselves and challenged the faulty math was framed as “attacking the victim.” Prosecution utilized this exact argument at the December 2023 Resentencing Hearing.
A History of Incomplete Records
Seen in this light, the later record irregularities — altered timestamps, missing filings, and proof-of-service discrepancies — do not appear in isolation. They follow an earlier decision to move forward before the factual record was even complete; a terrifying comfort in moving forward without facts. Once sentencing occurred on unresolved numbers, the integrity of the record itself became consequential, not incidental.
This context matters. It explains why the accuracy of filings, dates, and service suddenly carried outsized importance — and why errors in those records cannot be dismissed as harmless clerical mistakes. When the foundation is unstable, the paper trail becomes the only thing holding the structure together.
The Lawful Expectation
Michigan law is not ambiguous on this point. Under MCL 780.767(4)2 and MCR 6.425(D)(2)(b)3, sentencing must be accurate and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence. On top of that, a few other notable points spring forward:
- Sentencing must be based on accurate information.
- Restitution must be proven, not assumed or inflated.
- Plea frameworks must be honored or withdrawn, not ignored.
- Probation exists for rehabilitation and public safety, not for control, suppression, or facilitating third-party harassment.
- Press releases are not intended for character assassination.
Court records are presumed reliable because the system depends on that presumption to function. But between an undocumented plea deal, and faulty sentencing, the record was inaccurate from day one. The Assistant Prosecutor even gloated to the Defense Attorney that he made a procedural error.
This was not a disagreement over discretion; Judge Michael Schipper forced a decision before the factual predicate required by law existed; one they had a legal duty to correct4 and didn’t.
The Defensive Cascade
After sentencing, the record does not show correction. It shows Barry County choosing friction and further harm every time.
- Proof-of-service discrepancies appeared.
- Filings surfaced late or not at all.
- The Register of Actions developed unexplained gaps.
- Writs to Michigan DOC for transportation were lost or never filed at all (a recurring problem in Schipper’s court)
- SCAO investigations confirm inconsistencies that could not be explained away as routine error.
Each issue, standing alone, could be dismissed as clerical. Together, they formed a pattern, and the record itself became unstable.
As inconsistencies accumulated, enforcement actions increasingly detached from rehabilitative purpose and focused instead on restriction, particularly restriction of speech and access.
This is where the story once again turns.
From Record Failure to Retaliation
What followed was not an isolated response to a single filing or statement. It was a shift in posture entirely.
A spouse who had direct, first-hand knowledge of how the plea process unfolded — who witnessed unresolved restitution, shifting representations, and a sentence imposed before the facts were settled — spoke up. That advocacy did not result in correction, clarification, or review. It resulted in criminal charges, probation, character assassination, and eventually, state-assisted third-party harassment.
Rather than address the underlying errors, Barry County redirected its authority toward the person raising them. Each attempt to surface the truth was met with escalating control. Each effort to document what happened produced additional consequences.
The message was unmistakable: advocacy would be punished, not examined.
That pattern matters, because it reframes what comes next. Today, the issue is no longer whether the original record contained errors. It is how the Barry County system responded once those errors were challenged.
The Escalation: Controlling the Narrative
On May 13, 2025, probation was amended to impose sweeping speech restrictions: prohibitions on writing, posting, and blogging. Tighter measures to control the narrative. And it occurred despite no finding of wrongdoing.
- The order contained no articulated rehabilitative findings.
- There was no nexus between the restriction and public safety.
What it did have was timing: the amendment arrived two months after a Barry County Probation Officer infringed upon the whistleblower’s rights.
A March 5, 2025 Motion to Transfer Probation was intercepted; removed from court records and returned to the probationer before a Judge could ever see it, interfering with access to courts and due process rights4. The Probation Officer argued that if the author went forward with the hearing, the PO would make sure the Chief Judge declined it.
The moment someone files a motion naming a Probation Officer’s behavior as part of the problem, they had a Conflict of Interest. Instead of stepping aside, they intercepted the motion, and acted outside of record retention laws.
Even as Barry County court failures were being documented and preserved, threats continued. People v. Miller5 clarifies that the purpose of probation is rehabilitation; that conditions must be “reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the offender.”
In this case, probation became not just a throttle on speech, but a mechanism for harm. Deliberate Indifference exists when a state actor is aware of a substantial risk of harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to address it.
When the probationer was harassed by a third-party, the Barry County PO did nothing to intervene. the Probation Officer knew there were children in the home.
Why This Matters
Courts are entrusted with extraordinary power. That power depends on accuracy, transparency, and the willingness to correct mistakes. Judge Michael Schipper demonstrates none of these things.
When the response to an unlawful outcome is not correction but containment, the damage spreads outward:
- due process becomes non-existent,
- records lose all credibility,
- and enforcement becomes untethered from its lawful purpose.
This is not just about one case. It is about what happens when a system prioritizes preserving an outcome over preserving the law. It is truly disturbing when state actors will decimate a family to protect their insurance premiums.
When the Record Speaks
No system collapses because someone asks questions; it collapses when they can no longer answer them.
What happened in Barry County did not begin with retaliation or conflict. It began with an unlawfully imposed sentence and freedom stolen before facts could be settled.
Everything that followed that day, January 12, 2023, traces back to that choice to go forward with a legally unsound sentencing hearing.
The record has now caught up to the moment it broke.
The Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have officially surveilled the damage; they quietly make their opinions known through remands.
Pending SCAO investigations may soon reveal additional misconduct.
Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority, the entity responsible for Barry County’s insurance pool, may soon have some difficult decisions to make regarding coverage.
A system that started with a lie resorted to bullying and record manipulation to keep that lie alive. And once the record speaks, silence is no longer an option.
Authorities
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) ↩︎
- MCL 780.767: Amount of restitution; order; consideration; order to obtain information; disclosures; resolving dispute as to amount and type of restitution. ↩︎
- MCR 6.425(D)(2)(b): Sentencing; Challenges and Corrections. ↩︎
- MCL 750.491: Public records; disposal; removal, mutilation, or destruction; violation as misdemeanor; penalty. ↩︎
- People v. Miller, 182 Mich. App. 482; 453 N.W.2d 269 (1990) ↩︎
