novi judge accused of work-related transgressions

STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

COMPLAINT AGAINST: Hon. Dennis N. Powers 52-1 District Court Formal Complaint No. 94 48150 Grand River Avenue Novi, Michigan 48374 ________________________/

FORMAL COMPLAINT The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (“JTC”) files this complaint against Honorable

Dennis N. Powers (“Respondent”), judge of the 52-1 District Court, City of Novi, County of

Oakland, State of Michigan. This action is taken pursuant to the authority of the Commission under

Article 6, Section 30 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended, and MCR 9.200 et seq.

The filing of this Complaint has been authorized and directed by resolution of the Commission.

1. Respondent is, and at all material times was, a judge of the 52-1 District Court, City

of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

2. As a judge, Respondent is subject to all the duties and responsibilities imposed on

him by the Michigan Supreme Court, and is subject to the standards for discipline set forth in MCR

9.104 and MCR 9.205.

2

COUNT I FRAUDULENT MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS

A. GENERAL

3. The 52nd District Court has adopted the Oakland County, Michigan, Business

Expense Reimbursement Regulations (“Reimbursement Policy”) to govern travel reimbursements

for all County employees, including elected officials.

4. The Mileage Reimbursement Section of the Reimbursement Policy provides for

reimbursement of employees for their use of personal transportation to conduct “county business.”

5. Section IV, Paragraph 1 provides that reimbursement for using personal

transportation in the conduct of county business is limited to the added expenses beyond those

involved in the standard commute between the employees’ domicile and their assigned work station

which is incurred as a “direct result of work assignments.”

6. Section IV, Paragraph 5b, provides that all mileage must be shown from “point to

point.” Vicinity mileage necessary to conduct official business is allowable but must be supported

by a listing of the vicinity itinerary.

7. Section IV, Paragraph 7a provides that an employee will be reimbursed for miles

actually driven, provided that the mileage reported is the “shortest distance based on official

highway maps” and that the mileage driven is “in excess of that which is ordinarily incurred (known

as the net actual extra miles driven.)”

8. Respondent has made reimbursement requests for mileage expenses by submitting

signed monthly individual Car Mileage Reports (“Mileage Reports”) dating back to at least 2007.

9. Respondent failed to provide the destination “points” on any of his Mileage Reports.

10. Respondent failed to use the “shortest distance based on official highway maps” in

any of the mileage reports he had submitted.

3

11. Respondent failed to limit his reimbursement requests to mileage in excess of that

which he ordinarily incurred between his work station at the 52-1 District Court in Novi, Michigan,

and his home at 1873 Lakeview, Highland, Michigan.

12. In 2013, the State Court Administrative Office (“SCAO”) conducted an audit into

Respondent’s Individual Car Mileage Reports and Travel Expense vouchers for the period of

January 1, 2007 through April 30, 2013.

13. Based on the audit referred to in Paragraph 12, SCAO issued an audit report, dated

July 26, 2013.

B. EXCESSIVE MILEAGE

14. The SCAO audit revealed that between 2007 and 2012, Respondent submitted

vouchers, and received the following reimbursements, for personal mileage expenses:

a. In 2007, Respondent received $1,629.12. According to the Reimbursement Policy,

Respondent was only entitled to $1,203.77. Thus, Respondent requested

reimbursement for, and he received, $425.35 to which he was not entitled.

b. In 2008, Respondent received $2,058.45. According to the Reimbursement Policy,



c. In 2009, Respondent received $1,733.62. According to the Reimbursement Policy,



d. In 2010, Respondent received $2,290.00. According to the Reimbursement Policy,



4

e. In 2011, Respondent received $2,522.89. According to the Reimbursement Policy,



C. DUAL DESTINATIONS MILEAGE

15. Between 2007 and 2012, Respondent submitted false Mileage Reports, claiming to

have incurred mileage expenses when he was actually attending overnight conferences elsewhere.

a. Respondent attended the 2010 Judicial Conference in Grand Rapids from September

15 through September 17, 2010. He received a travel expense reimbursement of

$318.95 for hotel accommodations and mileage for that conference. He also sought

and received a mileage reimbursement of $29.00 for traveling 58 miles from Novi to

Pontiac on September 16, 2010.

b. Respondent attended the Michigan Judges Association Conference in Traverse City

from August 10 through August 12, 2011. He received a travel expense

reimbursement of $754.69 for attending that conference. He also sought and received

a mileage reimbursement of $23.31 for traveling 42 miles from Novi to Waterford on

August 10, 2011.

c. Respondent attended the Michigan Credit Union League & Affiliates Annual

Convention and Exhibition at the Grand Traverse Resort in Acme, Michigan from

July 11, 2012 through July 14, 2012. He also received a mileage reimbursement of

$23.31 for traveling from Novi to Waterford on July 12, 2012.

D. NON-WORK DAY MILEAGE

16. Between 2007 and 2013, Respondent submitted requests, and received

reimbursements, for the following mileage he claimed to have incurred on Saturdays:

5

May 5, 2007 Novi to Detroit 68 miles $32.98 June 14, 2008 Novi to Northville 12 miles $ 6.06 May 30, 2009 Novi to Detroit 74 miles $40.70 May 14, 2011 Novi to Detroit 61 miles $31.11 December 3, 2011 Novi to Detroit 77 miles $42.74

17. Between 2007 and 2013, Respondent submitted requests, and received

reimbursements, for the following mileage he claimed to have incurred on Sundays:

March 16, 2008 Novi to Detroit 71 miles $35.86 March 14, 2010 Novi to Detroit 75 miles $37.50 March 13, 2011 Novi to Detroit 80 miles $40.80 March 11, 2012 Novi to Detroit 80 miles $44.40 March 10, 2013 Novi to Detroit 75 miles $42.38

18. The Saturday and Sunday travels were not the “direct result of” and were not related

to Respondent’s judicial position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.

19. Respondent submitted a request, and received reimbursement, for mileage he

claimed to have incurred on Martin Luther King Day, January 21, 2013.

20. Respondent’s travel on the legal holiday was not the “direct result of,” and was not

related to, his judicial position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.

E. NON-WORK RELATED MILEAGE

21. Respondent submitted Mileage Reports and received “reimbursements” for each

month from January of 2012 through and including April of 2013, in the amount of $3,097.94, to

which he was not entitled.

22. The mileage reimbursements violated Section IV of the Reimbursement Policy.

1. January, 2012

23. For January of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on February 6, 2012.

6

24. The mileage reimbursements for January of 2012 were based on Respondent’s

representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 206 miles while on county (court)

business.

25. For January, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-

business) related mileage expenses:

January 4, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles January 13, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles January 18, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles January 23, 2012 Novi to Birmingham 48 miles

2. February, 2012

26. For February of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on March 1, 2012.

27. The mileage reimbursements for February of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

28. For February, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


February 8, 2012 Novi to Detroit-Pontiac 91 miles February 21, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles February 22, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles 3. March, 2012

29. For March of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on March 30, 2012.

30. The mileage reimbursements for March of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

7

31. For March, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


March 6, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles March 7, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles March 8, 2012 Novi to Ferndale 52 miles March 11, 2012 Novi to Detroit 80 miles March 14, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles March 15, 2012 Novi to Rochester Hills 65 miles March 20, 2012 Novi to Troy 80 miles March 23, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles March 26, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles March 28, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles 4. April, 2012

32. For April of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on April 30, 2012.

33. The mileage reimbursements for April of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

34. For April, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-business)

related mileage expenses:

April 4, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles April 6, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles April 10, 2012 Novi to W. Bloomfield 45 miles April 12, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles April 26, 2012 Novi to Bloomfield 46 miles April 27, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles 5. May, 2012

35. For May of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on June 4, 2012.

36. The mileage reimbursements for May of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

8

37. For May, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-business)


May 1, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles May 7, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 68 miles May 8, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles May 9, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles May 10, 2012 Novi to Pontiac-Novi 58 miles May 10, 2012 Novi to Lake Orion 57 miles May 14, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles May 16, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles May 17, 2012 Novi to Birmingham 48 miles May 24, 2012 Novi to Keego Harbor 52 miles

6. June, 2012

38. For June of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on July 11, 2012.

39. The mileage reimbursements for June of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

40. For June, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-business)


June 6, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles June 12, 2012 Novi to Rochester Hills 85 miles June 14, 2012 Novi to Troy 70 miles June 25, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles June 27, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles 7. July, 2012

41. For July of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on August 1, 2012.

42. The mileage reimbursements for July of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

9

43. For July, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-business)


July 5, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles July 9, 2012 Novi to Redford 43 miles July 10, 2012 Novi to Lansing 142 miles July 12, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles July 18, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles July 19, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles

8. August, 2012

44. For August of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on September 7, 2012.

45. The mileage reimbursements for August of 2012 were based on Respondent’s

representations that had he used his personal vehicle to drive 267 miles while on county (court)

business.

46. For August, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


August 7, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles August 20, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles August 23, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles August 24, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles August 29, 2012 Novi to Clarkston 51 miles

9. September, 2012

47. For September of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on October 2, 2012.

48. The mileage reimbursements for September of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

49. For September, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


10

September 11, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles September 12, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles September 13, 2012 Novi to Birmingham 54 miles September 17, 2012 Novi to Waterford 39 miles September 18, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles September 19, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles September 21, 2012 Novi to Southfield 33 miles September 26, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles September 27, 2012 Novi to Farmington/

Pontiac 67 miles 10. October, 2012

50. For October of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on November 2, 2012.

51. The mileage reimbursements for October of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

52. For October, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


October 1, 2012 Novi to Rochester Hills 72 miles October 3, 2012 Novi to Troy 61 miles October 4, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles October 15, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles October 17, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles October 23, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles October 24, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles October 31, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles 11. November, 2012

53. For November of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on December 3,

2012.

54. The mileage reimbursements for November of 2012 were based on Respondent’s


business.

11

55. For November of 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


November 6, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles November 7, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles November 8, 2012 Novi to Livonia 27 miles November 9, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles November 19, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles November 20, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles November 30, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles

12. December, 2012

56. For December of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on January 8, 2013.

57. The mileage reimbursements for December of 2012 were based on Respondent’s

representations that he used his personal vehicle to drive 357 miles while on county (court)

business.

58. For December of 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


December 4, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles December 6, 2012 Novi to Birmingham 54 miles December 11, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles December 17, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles December 18, 2012 Novi to Farmington 26 miles December 19, 2012 Novi to Troy 61 miles December 20, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles

12. January, 2013

59. For January of 2013, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on January 31, 2013.

60. The mileage reimbursements for January of 2013 were based on Respondent’s


business.

12

61. For January of 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


January 2, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles January 15, 2013 Novi to Troy 61 miles January 16, 2013 Novi to Detroit 74 miles January 17, 2013 Novi to Royal Oak 47 miles January 21, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles January 22, 2013 Novi to Clarkston 53 miles January 23, 2013 Novi to Clarkston 53 miles January 28, 2013 Novi to Birmingham 54 miles January 30, 2013 Novi to Detroit 76 miles

14. February, 2013

62. For February of 2013, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on February 28,

2013.

63. The mileage reimbursements for February of 2013 were based on Respondent’s


business.

64. For February, 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


February 12, 2013 Novi to Pontiac 54 miles February 13, 2013 Novi to Detroit 74 miles February 19, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles February 20, 2013 Novi to Clarkston 53 miles February 22, 2013 Novi to Birmingham 54 miles February 26, 2013 Novi to Farmington Hills 26 miles February 27, 2013 Novi to Detroit 77 miles

15. March, 2013

65. For March of 2013, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on March 29, 2013.

13

66. The mileage reimbursements for March of 2013 were based on Respondent’s


business.

67. For March of 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


March 10, 2013 Novi to Detroit 77 miles March 12, 2013 Novi to Berkley 47 miles March 14, 2013 Novi to Pontiac 54 miles March 18, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles March 20, 2013 Novi to Clarkston 53 miles March 22, 2013 Novi to Pontiac 54 miles March 26, 2013 Novi to Detroit 71 miles 16. April, 2013

68. For April, 2013, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on April 25, 2013.

69. The mileage reimbursements for April of 2013 were based on Respondent’s


business.

70. For April of 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-


April 4, 2013 Novi to Pontiac 54 miles April 5, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles April 8, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles April 9, 2013 Novi to Pontiac 54 miles April 11, 2013 Novi to Detroit 72 miles April 17, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles April 19, 2013 Novi to Birmingham 54 miles April 24, 2013 Novi to Livonia 20 miles

71. Between January 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013, Respondent submitted Mileage

Reports seeking, and receiving, reimbursements for repeated travel to Waterford. The

14

“reimbursements” were for non-work-related travel to the Oakland County Credit Union (“OCCU”)

located at 1375 N. Oakland, Waterford, Michigan, on the following dates:

a. January 13, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

b. January 18, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

c. February 21, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

d. February 22, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

e. March 26, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting. f. March 28, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

g. May 14, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

h. May 16, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

i. July 12, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

j. July 18, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

k. August 22, 2012 to attend a 3:30 PM strategic planning and board

of directors meeting

l. September 17, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting. m. September 18, 2012 to attend a 12:00 PM planning and promotions

committee meeting.

n. September 19, 2012 to attend a 5:00 board of directors meeting. o. October 23, 2012 to attend a 12:30 PM planning and promotions

committee meeting.

p. October 24, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

q. November 19, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

r. November 20, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

15

s. December 19, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting

and dinner.

t. January 21, 2013 to prepare for a board of directors meeting. u. January 23, 2013 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting

and to inspect the construction of a Clarkston branch.

v. February 19, 2013 to prepare for a board of directors meeting. w. February 20, 2013 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meting

and to inspect the remodeling of a Clarkston branch.

x. March 18, 2013 to prepare for a board of directors meeting. y. March 20, 2013 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

z. April 17, 2013 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.


Reports seeking and receiving reimbursements for repeated travel to Detroit. The “reimbursements”

were for non-work related travel to attend the meetings of the International Society of Irish

American Lawyers (“ISIAL”) on the following dates:

a. March 11, 2012 to attend a general membership meeting. b. May 9, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

c. September 12, 2012 to attend a 6:00 PM board of directors meeting.

d. October 17, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

e. November 7, 2012 to attend a 5:00 PM board of directors meeting.

f. November 30, 2012 to attend a 6:00 PM Christmas party.


Reports seeking and receiving reimbursements for repeated travel to Pontiac and Birmingham. The

16

“reimbursements” were for non-work related travel to attend the Oakland County Bar Association

(“OCBA”) events on the following dates:

a. June 6, 2012 to attend the 5:30 PM OCBA’s 78th Annual Meeting

and Reception.

b. November 9, 2012 to attend the OCBA-sponsored 4:00 PM Veteran

Program.

c. December 6, 2012 to attend the OCBA’s 5:30 PM Holiday Gala.

74. On July 11, 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report seeking, and receiving,

reimbursement for having traveled to Troy on June 14, 2012. That “reimbursement” was for non-

work related travel to attend a 6:00 PM fundraiser hosted by the Committee to Retain and Re-Elect

Judges Bowman, Lanford-Morris, McMillen, Potts, and Warren.

75. On January 8, 2014, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report seeking, and receiving,

reimbursement for having traveled to Farmington on December 18, 2012. That “reimbursement”

was for non-work related travel to attend the Oakland County District Court Judges Association

6:30 PM Holiday Party.

76. On January 31, 2014, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report seeking, and

receiving, reimbursement for traveling to Royal Oak on January 17, 2014. That “reimbursement”

was for non-work related travel to attend the investiture of the then-newly elected 44th District

Court Judge Derek Meinecke.

COUNT II

FRAUDULENT CONFERENCE REIMBURSEMENTS A. GENERAL

77. All the preceding paragraphs are repeated herein as though fully set forth.

17

78. Section I, Paragraph A, of the Reimbursement Policy, entitled “General

Responsibility,” provides that reimbursement will be made for “expenses incurred by employees in

conducting county business.”

79. Section I, Paragraph D renders the Reimbursement Policy applicable to all

individuals employed by the County, including the elected officials.

80. Section III C, Paragraph 6, limits reimbursements for hotel expenses to the lowest

available single occupant rate charged at the conference hotel.

B. NON-WORK RELATED CONFERENCES

81. Respondent is a real estate broker, licensed by the state of Michigan, under license

No. 6504145213.

82. Respondent attended annual real estate continuing education courses in order to

maintain his real estate broker’s license in active status.

83. Respondent submitted travel expense vouchers and received expense

reimbursements for attending the Middleton Real Estate Training on August 24, 2010, June 17,

2011, and June 22, 2012.

a. For the August 24, 2010 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent received

$128.00 in reimbursements.

b. For the June 17, 2011 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent received $120.90

in reimbursements.

c. For the June 22, 2012 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent received $128.28

in reimbursements.

84. The Middleton Real Estate Training was not related to Respondent’s position on the

bench of the 52-1 District Court.

18

85. Respondent failed to use a vacation/personal day when attending the Middleton Real

Estate Trainings in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

86. For the August 24, 2010 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent submitted an

expense voucher that included 106 miles in travel.

87. For the June 17, 2011 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent submitted an


88. For the June 22, 2012 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent submitted an


89. The 2010, 2011, and 2012 Middleton Real Estate Trainings were held at the same

location: Clinton River Cruise Boat, located at 152 N. River Road, Mt. Clemens, Michigan.

90. The distances Respondent claimed in his 2010, 2011, and 2012 vouchers for the

Middleton Real Estate Training were in violation of Section IV of the Oakland County

Reimbursement Policy’s “shortest distance based on official highway maps” and the “net actual

miles driven” provisions.

91. The distances Respondent claimed in his 2010, 2011, and 2012 vouchers for the

Middleton Real Estate Training were in violation of Section IV of the Oakland County

Reimbursement Policy’s “net actual miles driven.”

C. “CONFERENCE” DESIGNATIONS ON 2012-2013 COURT CALENDARS

1. GENERAL

92. According to the 52-1 District Court’s internal calendar (“Court Calendar”), in 2012,

Respondent attended “conferences” on 41 work days.

93. Between January 1, 2013 and April 30, 2013, the Court Calendar indicated that

Respondent attended “conferences” on 19 work days.

19

94. The “conference” designation on the Court Calendar was used by the staff of the 52-

1 District Court pursuant to Respondent’s specific direction.

95. Other than on four days, Respondent’s January, 2012, through and including April,

2013 work absences were not the “direct result of” and were not related to his position on the bench

of the 52-1 District Court. As such, they did not constitute “county business.”

2. JANUARY 5, 2012 – JANUARY 13, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

96. Respondent designated January 5, 2012 through and including January 13, 2012 as

“conference” days.

97. Based on that “conference” designation, no dockets were created for Respondent’s

court for January 5 through and including January 13, 2012.

98. Respondent did not attend any conferences on January 5 through and including

January 13, 2012.

99. Respondent failed to come to work on January 5 through and including January 13,

2012.

100. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for the time he was absent from

the 52-1 District Court between January 5, 2012 through and including January 13, 2012.

3. JANUARY 30, 2012 – February 3, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

101. Respondent designated January 30, 2012 through and including February 3, 2012 as



court for January 30, 2012 through and including February 3, 2012.

103. Respondent did not attend any conferences on January 30, 2012 through and

including February 3, 2012.

20

104. Respondent failed to come to work on January 30, 2012 through and including

February 3, 2012.


the 52-1 District Court between January 30, 2012 through and including February 3, 2012.

4. FEBRUARY 13, 2012 – FEBRUARY 17, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

106. Respondent designated February 13, 2012 through and including February 17, 2012

as “conference” days.


court for February 13, 2012 through and including February 17, 2012.

108. Respondent did not attend any conferences on February 13, 2012 through and


109. Respondent failed to come to work on February 13, 2012 through and including

February 17, 2012.


the 52-1 District Court between February 13, 2012, through and including February 17, 2012.

5. APRIL 16, 2012 – APRIL 20, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

111. Respondent designated April 16, 2012 through and including April 20, 2012 as



court for April 16, 2012 through and including April 20, 2012.

113. Respondent did not attend any conferences on April 16, 2012 through and including

April 20, 2012.

21

114. Respondent failed to come to work on April 16, 2012 through and including April

20, 2012.


the 52-1 District Court between April 16, 2012 through and including April 20, 2012.

6. MAY 14, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

116. Respondent designated May 14, 2012 as a “conference” day.

117. Based on that “conference” designation, no docket was created for Respondent’s

court for May 14, 2012.

118. Respondent did not attend any conferences on May 14, 2012.

119. Respondent failed to come to work on May 14, 2012.

120. On May 14, 2012, Respondent attended the “Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce

Spring Golf Scramble” (“Lakes Area Golf Outing”) at the Edgewood County Club in Commerce

Township, Michigan.

121. The Lakes Area Golf Outing was not the “direct result” of Respondent’s judicial

position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.

122. Respondent failed to use a vacation or personal day when attending the Lakes Area

Golf Outing on May 14, 2012.

7. JUNE 13, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

123. Respondent designated June 13, 2012 as a “conference” day.


court for June 13, 2012.

125. Respondent did not attend any conferences on June 13, 2012.

126. Respondent failed to come to work on June 13, 2012.

22

127. On June 13, 2012, Respondent attended the Huron Valley Chamber of Commerce

Golf Outing (“Huron Valley Golf Outing”) at the Dunham Hills Golf Course in Hartland, Michigan.

128. The Huron Valley Golf Outing was not the “direct result” of Respondent’s judicial


129. Respondent failed to use a vacation or personal day when attending the Huron Valley

Golf Outing on June 13, 2012.

8. JUNE 18, 2012 – JUNE 20, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

130. Respondent designated June 18, 2012 through and including June 20, 2012, as



court for June 18, through and including June 20, 2012.

132. Respondent failed to come to work on June 18, 2012 through and including June 20,

2012

133. On June 18, 2012 through and including June 20, 2012, Respondent attended the

Credit Union National Association (“CUNA”) Discover Conference in San Diego, California.

134. Respondent used June 20, 2012 as a return travel day from the CUNA conference.

135. The CUNA Discover Conference was not the “direct result” of Respondent’s


136. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for June 18, 2012 through and

including June 20, 2012.


137. Respondent designated June 21, 2012 as “conference” day.

23



139. Respondent did not attend any conferences on June 21, 2012.

140. Respondent failed to appear for work and did not use a vacation or personal day for

June 21, 2012.


141. Respondent designated June 22, 2012 as “conference” day.



143. On June 22, 2012, Respondent attended the Middleton Real Estate Training Course

in Mt. Clemens, Michigan.

144. The Middleton Real Estate Training Course was not the “direct result” of

Respondent’s position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.

145. Respondent failed to come to work on June 22, 2012.

146. Respondent failed to use a vacation or personal day for June 22, 2012.

147. Respondent submitted a Travel Expense Voucher for mileage, registration fee and

meal expenses at the 2012 Middleton Real Estate Training Course, violating the Oakland County

Reimbursement Policy of “shortest distance based on official highway maps” and “net actual extra

miles driven.”

11. JULY 12, 2012 – JULY 13, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

148. Respondent designated July 12, 2012 and July 13, 2012 as a “conference” days.


court for July 12, 2012 or July 13, 2012.

24

150. Respondent failed to come to work on July 12, 2012 and July 13, 2012.

151. On July 12, 2012 and July 13, 2012, Respondent attended the Michigan Credit Union

League & Affiliates (“MCUL”) Annual Convention & Exhibition in Acme, Michigan.

152. Respondent used July 11, 2012 as a travel day to attend the MCUL Annual

Convention and Exhibition.

153. The MCUL Annual Convention & Exhibition was not the “direct result” of

Respondent’s position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.

154. Respondent failed to use vacation/personal days for July 12, 2012 or July 13, 2012.

155. For July of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report seeking reimbursement

for traveling 42 miles from Novi to Waterford, Michigan on July 12, 2012.

12. JULY 18, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

156. Respondent designated July 18, 2012 as a “conference” day.


court on July 18, 2012.

158. Respondent failed to come to work on July 18, 2012.

159. On July 18, 2012, Respondent attended the 52-1 District Court’s 7th Annual

Veteran’s Day and Sobriety Golf Outing.

160. The July 18, 2012 Veterans Day and Sobriety Golf Outing was not the “direct result”

of Respondent’s position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.

161. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal day for July 18, 2012.

13. AUGUST 9, 2012 – AUGUST 10, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

162. Respondent designated August 9, 2012 and August 10, 2012 as “conference” days.

25


court on August 9, 2012 and August 10, 2012.

164. On August 9, 2012 and August 10, 2012 Respondent attended the Michigan District

Court Judges Association Conference at Crystal Mountain Resort in Thompsonville, Michigan.

165. Rather than requesting a standard room, as allowed under the Reimbursement Policy,

Respondent requested, and received, a luxury condo.

166. On or about August 16, 2012, Respondent submitted a Travel Expense Voucher in

which he sought, and received, reimbursement for the $876.98 cost of the luxury condo.

167. Respondent seeking reimbursement for the luxury lodging portion of his expenses at

the Michigan District Court Judges Association Conference violated the Oakland County

Reimbursement policy.

14. OCTOBER 8, 2012 – OCTOBER 11, 2012 “CONFERENCE”

168. Respondent designated October 8, 2012 through and including October 11, 2012, as



court on October 8, 2012, through and including October 11, 2012.

170. Respondent did not attend any conferences on October 8, 2012, through and

including October 11, 2012.

171. Respondent failed to come to work on October 8, 2012, through and including

October 11, 2012.

172. Respondent failed to use vacation/personal days for October 8, 2012, through and

including October 11, 2012.

26

15. JANUARY 7, 2013 – JANUARY 11, 2013 “CONFERENCE”

173. Respondent designated January 7, 2013 through and including January 11, 2013 as



court for January 7, 2013 through and including January 11, 2013.

175. Respondent failed to come to work on January 7, 2013 through and including

January 11, 2013.

176. Respondent did not attend any conferences on January 7, 2013 through and including

January 11, 2013.

16. FEBRUARY 4, 2013 – FEBRUARY 8, 2013 “CONFERENCE”

177. Respondent designated February 4, 2013 through and including February 8, 2013 as



court for February 4, 2013 through and including February 8, 2013.


February 8, 2013.




the 52-1 District Court between February 4, 2013 through and including February 8, 2013.

17. FEBRUARY 28, 2013 –MARCH 8, 2013 “CONFERENCE”

182. Respondent designated February 28, 2013 through and including March 8, 2013 as


27


court for February 28, 2013 through and including March 8, 2013.


March 8, 2013.


including March 8, 2013.

18. APRIL 29, 2013 – APRIL 30, 2013 “CONFERENCE”

186. Respondent designated April 29, 2013 and April 30, 2013 as “conference” days.


court on April 29, 2013 and April 30, 2013.

188. Respondent did not attend any “conferences” on April 29, 2013 or April 30, 2013.

189. Respondent failed to come to work on April 29, 2013 or on April 30, 2013.

COUNT III

ANNUAL LEAVE AND TARDINESS


A. ANNUAL LEAVE

191. Pursuant to MCR 8.110(D) (3), as a judge of the 52-1 District Court, Respondent is

expected to take an annual vacation leave of 20 days with the approval of the Chief Judge to ensure

docket coordination and coverage. Respondent is also allowed an additional ten days of annual

leave with the approval of the Chief Judge.

192. Attendance at Michigan judicial conferences is not counted towards Respondent’s

vacation days.

28

193. Attendance, with the chief judge’s approval, at educational meetings or seminars is

not counted towards Respondent’s vacation days.

194. On or about January 31, 2013, Respondent filed his “Annual Judicial Absence

Report for Calendar Year 2012” (“Annual Absence Report”) with SCAO.

195. In the Annual Absence Report, Respondent claimed that in 2012, he used 12

vacation days and 11 educational days.

196. Respondent’s 2012 Annual Absence Report was false.

197. Respondent failed to include the following vacation days in his Annual Absence

Report:

a. January 5, 2012 through and including January 13, 2012.

b. January 30, 2012 through and including February 3, 2012.

c. February 13, 2012 through and including February 17, 2012.

d. April 16, 2012 through and including April 20, 2012.

e. May 14, 2012 –Respondent attended the Lakes Area Golf Outing.

f. June 13, 2012 –Respondent attended the Huron Valley Golf Outing.

g. June 18, 2012 through and including June 20, 2012 –Respondent attended the CUNA Discover Conference in San Diego, California.

h. June 21, 2012 –Respondent failed to come to work at the 52-1 District Court.

i. June 22, 2012 –Respondent attended the Middleton Real Estate Training.

j. July 12, 2012 through and including July 13, 2012 –Respondent attended the MCUL Annual Convention & Exhibition.

k. July 18, 2012.

l. October 1, 2012 –Respondent attended the 22nd Annual Fall Golf Classic at the Pine

Trace Golf Club.

29

m. October 8, 2012 through and including October 12, 2012.

198. In 2012, Respondent exceeded the number of vacation days as allowed under MCR

8.110.

199. In 2012, Respondent failed to seek, or obtain, Chief Judge Julie A. Nicholson’s

approval for any vacation days he had used.

200. In 2012, Respondent failed to seek, or obtain Chief Judge Julie A. Nicholson’s

approval for any educational meetings, conferences, or seminars.

B. TARDINESS

201. Respondent’s morning docket at the 52-1 District Court is set for 8:34 AM.

202. In 2013, Respondent routinely arrived for his 8:34 AM docket at 10:00 AM or later.

a. On March 12, 2013, Respondent arrived at 9:54 AM. There were 25 matters

scheduled for that morning on Respondent’s docket.

b. On March 13, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:12 AM. There were 21 matters


c. On March 15, 2013, Respondent arrived at 1:34 PM.

d. On March 18, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:06 AM. There were 38 matters


e. On March 19, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:15 AM. There were 26

matters scheduled for that morning on Respondent’s docket.

f. On March 20, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:03 AM. There were 19 matters


g. On April 16, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:16 AM. There were 29 matters


30

h. On April 19, 2013, Respondent arrived at 1:57 PM.

i. On May 6, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:15 AM. There were 30 matters


j. On May 17, 2013, Respondent arrived at 2:20 PM.

k. On May 20, 2013, Respondent arrived at 9:57 AM. There were 32 matters


COUNT IV

MISUSE OF COUNTY–ISSUED EQUIPMENT A. GENERAL


204. The current Oakland County Electronic Communications Policy (“Electronic

Policy”) limits the use of county issued cell phones and computers to “county business.”

205. The Electronic Policy defines “electronic communication” as information sent over

the electronic communications system including but not limited to messages left on voice mail, e-

mail messages, information received and sent over the internet, and data and files maintained on the

network and on individual computers.

206. The Electronic Policy includes, but is not limited to facsimiles, voice mail,

computers and their hard drives, electronic mail (“e-mail”), the computer network, and the internet.

207. Section I of the Electronic Policy provides that “the electronic communication

system is the property of Oakland County and is intended for “County business.”

208. Section I of the Electronic Policy further provides that the system is not to be used

for personal gain or to support or advocate non-county related business or purposes.

209. On November 7, 2005, Respondent signed an Employee Information Form

acknowledging the receipt of the Oakland County Electronic Communication Policy.

31

210. The 2005 version of the Oakland County Electronic Communication Policy is

identical, in relevant portions, to the current Electronic Policy of Oakland County.

211. By signing the Employee Information Form, Respondent acknowledged his

familiarity with the contents of the documents listed therein.

212. By signing the Employee Information Form, Respondent agreed to comply with the

rules and policies contained in each of the listed documents.

213. By signing the Employee Information Form, Respondent confirmed his awareness

that the policies may be updated and/or changed in the future and that he is responsible for being

aware of the changes and for remaining up-to-date on any future changes.

214. The manner in which Respondent used the county-issued cell phone and his county-

issued Dell laptop computer was in violation of the Oakland County Electronic Communication

Policy.

B. CELL PHONE

215. In 2012 and 2013, Respondent was using a county-issued AT&T cell phone, under

number (248) 877-6596.

216. Respondent’s county-issued cell phone also had the capability to transmit

text/picture/video messages and to provide internet access.

217. Between July of 2012 and August of 2013, Respondent used the county-issued cell

phone to send and/or receive over 11,000 text messages, to make over 1200 data transfers, and to

transmit/receive over 250 pictures/videos.

218. Most of the text messages, data transfers, and picture/video transmittals Respondent

made using the county-issued cell phone were not related to Respondent’s position on the bench of

the 52-1 District Court.

32

219. Between July of 2012 and June of 2013, Respondent’s contact with the 52-1 District

Court using his county-issued cell phone was as follows:

a. In the billing cycle ending on August 4, 2012, of the approximate 350 call entries,

only five were to the 52-1 District Court.

b. In the billing cycle ending on September 4, 2012, of the approximate 230 call entries,

only two were to the 52-1 District Court.

c. In the billing cycle ending on October 4, 2012, of the approximate 300 call entries,

only three were to the 52-1 District Court.

d. In the billing cycle ending on November 4, 2012, of the approximate 320 call entries,

only two were to the 52-1 District Court.

e. In the billing cycle ending on December 4, 2012, of the approximately 310 call

entries, only six were to the 52-1 District Court.

f. In the billing cycle ending on January 4, 2013, of the approximate 250 call entries,

one was to the 52-1 District Court.

g. In the billing cycle ending on February 4, 2013, of the approximate 330 call entries,

one was to the 52-1 District Court.

h. In the billing cycle ending on March 4 2013, of the approximate 320 call entries, six

were to the 52-1 District Court.

i. In the billing cycle ending on April 4, 2013, of the approximate 250 call entries, one

was to the 52-1 District Court.

j. In the billing cycle ending on May 4, 2013, of the 330 call entries, three were to the

52-1 District Court.

k. In the billing cycle ending on June 4, 2013, of the nearly 100 call entries, two were

to the 52-1 District Court.

33

220. In February and March of 2013, Respondent requested that an international calling

feature be added to his county-issued cell phone while he was vacationing in Aruba.

221. Respondent’s Aruba vacation was between February 28, 2013 and March 8, 2013.

222. Between February 28, 2013 and March 8, 2013, while in Aruba, of the 23 phone

calls Respondent had made on his county-issued cell phone, none were to the 52-1 District Court.

223. Between February 28, 2013 and March 8, 2013, while in Aruba, of the 86

text/pic/video messages Respondent had transmitted, none were to the 52-1 District Court.

224. Between June of 2012 and June of 2013, Respondent had incurred the following

charges on his county-issued cell phone:

a. July, 2012 $ 0 b. August, 2012 $138.00 c. September, 2012 $116.86 d. October, 2012 $ 0 e. November, 2012 $276.09 f. December, 2012 $166.16 g. January, 2013 $ 55.08 h. February, 2013 $ 53.89 i. March, 2013 $310.81 j. April, 2013 $712.24 k. May, 2013 $ 53.84 l. June, 2013 $ 0

C. LAPTOP COMPUTER

225. In 2012 and 2013, Respondent was in possession of an Oakland County-issued Dell

laptop computer, Model Latitude E 6510, Serial Number 1JXDRM1 (“Dell laptop”)

226. The county-issued Dell laptop provided access to the Internet as well as to the

Oakland County Intranet.

227. The Dell laptop was programmed to provide a notification prompt at the time of the

entry of a password, serving as a reminder that the use of the Dell laptop is limited to authorized

personnel only.

34

228. Respondent did not limit his use of the county-issued Dell laptop to county business

and used it for personal matters and for non-county related business matters.

229. Respondent permitted his county-issued Dell laptop to be used by other individuals

for personal and business matters.

COUNT V

FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES IMPARTIALLY AND DILLIGENTLY FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE LAW


A. CITY OF NOVI V TYLER

231. On December 6, 2011, James Tyler (“Defendant”) was arrested for threatening to

“put a bullet in the head” of the Hon. Brian MacKenzie, a judge on the bench of the 52-1 District

Court.

232. A disorderly conduct/person complaint was filed against the Defendant on December

14, 2011.

233. The Tyler case was assigned to Respondent’s court on December 15, 2011 (Case No.

11-5925).

234. As part of the bond conditions ordered by Judge Bondy at a February 14, 2012

arraignment, the Defendant was to have an in-home alcohol tether/monitor installed. The

Defendant was also to report to the Court’s pre-trial services department. Both bond conditions

were to be complied with within 24 hours of the Defendant’s arraignment.

235. The Defendant failed/refused to comply with the above bond conditions and on

February 23, 2012, Judge Bondy ordered a bench warrant for his arrest.

236. Respondent signed the bench warrant on behalf of Judge Bondy.

35

237. By February 23, 2012, Respondent was aware that the target of the Defendant’s

December 6, 2011 death threats was the Hon. Brian MacKenzie.

238. Consistent with the policy of the 52nd District Court, any action involving an

employee of one of the divisions must be re-assigned to another division.

239. Respondent failed to recuse himself from the People v. Tyler matter and failed to

have it transferred to another division of the 52nd District Court.

240. While the Tyler case was pending on his docket, Respondent became aware that

Defendant repeatedly refused to comply with his bond conditions.

241. On November 30, 2012, the Defendant was arrested after posting “I am going to

fucking kill Judge MacKenzie” on his Facebook account.

242. On November 30, 2012, Magistrate Richardson arraigned the Defendant on the

February 23, 2012 bench warrant. Magistrate Richardson set a $100,000.00 bond.

243. On December 3, 2012, Respondent conducted a pre-trial in the Tyler matter.

244. On December 3, 2012, Respondent appointed Lori Fitzpatrick-Timar as the

Defendant’s attorney.

245. By December 3, 2012, Respondent was already aware of the Facebook threats

Defendant Tyler had made against Judge MacKenzie.

246. By December 3, 2012, Respondent was already aware that the Defendant’s animosity

towards Judge MacKenzie stemmed from a 2006 Operating While Impaired (OWI) case.

247. By December 3, 2012, Respondent was already aware that Defendant was fired from

his job as a deputy with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department because Judge MacKenzie had

violated Defendant’s probation in the 2006 OWI case.

248. On December 3, 2012, Respondent accepted the Defendant’s no-contest plea to

Disorderly Conduct.

36

249. Respondent released the Defendant on a $5,000.00 personal bond.

250. Among the conditions Respondent had imposed as part of the Defendant’s $5,000.00

personal bond was a GPS and alcohol tether.

251. The Defendant’s pre-sentence evaluation was set for December 18, 2012, and

sentencing was scheduled for January 14, 2013.

252. Defendant’s Pre-Sentence Report, prepared by Probation Officer Alyssa Beltzman,

recommended a 90-day jail term in addition to fines, costs, and other conditions.

253. On January 14, 2013, Respondent sentenced the Defendant to a 24-month term of

reporting probation with the following conditions:

a. Defendant must remain off of Facebook. b. Defendant must observe a 9 PM to 7 AM curfew.

c. Defendant must not engage in aggressive/assaulting/threatening behavior “including

[to] Judge MacKenzie.” d. Defendant must participate in Life Adjustment Therapy.

254. As part of the sentence, Respondent imposed the following financial obligations on

the Defendant:

a. $40.00 per month for probation oversight expenses. b. $345.00 in fines and costs. c. $300.00 in attorney fees. 255. On January 14, 2013, Respondent authorized the Defendant to remove his GPS

tether.

256. Respondent allowed the removal of the GPS tether despite the Defendant’s history of

difficulties with substance and alcohol abuse, his repeated death threats to Judge MacKenzie, and

his numerous violations of bond conditions.

37

257. Defendant’s first review hearing was scheduled for April 15, 2013.

258. On March 8, 2013, the 52-1 District Court’s probation officer Michael McGlown

conducted an interview with Defendant Tyler.

259. During that interview, the Defendant admitted the November 30, 2012 Facebook

threat against Judge MacKenzie.

260. Defendant also admitted that he was not participating in Life Adjustment Therapy,

which was a condition of his probation.

261. The Defendant failed to appear for his April 11, 2013 interview with Mr. McGlown.

262. On April 15, 2013, Respondent conducted the Defendant’s first post-sentencing

review hearing.

263. Respondent conducted the April 15, 2013 hearing without consulting the 52-1

District Court Probation Department as to Tyler’s progress and/or compliance with the conditions of

his probation.

264. Respondent held the April 15, 2013 hearing without the presence of Officer

McGlown or any other representative of the probation department.

265. On April 15, 2013, Respondent adjourned the Tyler matter to July 16, 2013 for a

second review hearing.

266. On May 15, 2013, Defendant Tyler appeared for an interview with probation officer

McGlown.

267. As of May 15, 2013, Defendant was still in violation of his probation by not

participating in Life Adjustment Therapy program.

268. Defendant failed to appear before Respondent for a review hearing on July 16, 2013.

269. On July 16, 2013, Respondent issued a bench warrant for the Defendant’s arrest.

38

270. On July 17, 2013, the Defendant appeared at the probation department for an

interview with Mr. McGlown.

271. On July 17, 2013, Mr. McGlown personally escorted the Defendant into

Respondent’s courtroom.

272. On July 17, 2013, probation officer McGlown advised Respondent that based on the

Defendant’s “hostile statements” and his failure to comply with the conditions of his probation, Mr.

McGlown was very concerned about Judge MacKenzie’s safety.

273. When Probation Officer McGlown reminded Respondent of the Defendant’s threats

to Judge MacKenzie, Respondent stated that perhaps the Defendant’s tether should have been

removed sooner.

274. On July 17, 2013, the Defendant left the courtroom before Respondent took the

bench.

275. The Defendant appeared in Respondent’s courtroom on August 13, 2013, for a

probation violation and warrant recall hearing.

276. Accompanying the Defendant was his attorney, Russell Anderson, and his father,

Lou Tyler.

277. Respondent conducted the August 13, 2013 hearing without the presence of Mr.

McGlown or any other representative of the 52-1 District Court’s Probation Department.

278. Respondent did not request the probation department to prepare an updated report on

the Defendant’s progress and/or compliance with the conditions of his probation.

279. Respondent accepted Lou Tyler’s representations of the Defendant’s mental and

physical condition.

39

280. At the time of the August 13, 2013, Lou Tyler was a Sheriff’s Deputy with the

Oakland County Sheriff’s Department and not a trained professional in the area of psychology or

psychiatry.

281. On August 13, 2013, Respondent recalled the bench warrant issued for the

Defendant’s failure to appear on July 16, 2013. Respondent also:

a. Accepted the Defendant’s plea of guilty to violating the terms of his probation. b. Released the Defendant to the custody of his parents for psychiatric intervention. c. Terminated the Defendant’s probation. d. Reduced the Defendant’s fines and costs. e. Closed the case.

282. Respondent closed Defendant Tyler’s probation 17 months early.

283. By terminating the Defendant’s probation and closing the case, Respondent no

longer had jurisdiction over the Tyler matter.

284. After the closure of the Tyler case, Respondent had no authority to ensure the

Defendant’s compliance with the psychiatric care or the intervention plan that was represented by

his father and/or by the Defense attorney, Anderson.

285. The Defendant’s father, Lou Tyler, was a traffic enforcement officer who had made

numerous appearances as a witness at the 52-1 District Court.

286. Respondent knew Lou Tyler since his tenure as a county commissioner from 1993 to

1998.

287. Respondent failed to make an on-the-record disclosure of his relationship with Lou

Tyler, as required by MCR 2.003.

288. Respondent failed to recuse himself from the Tyler case in violation of the Michigan

Code of Judicial Conduct and MCR 2.003.

40

B. CITY OF NOVI V YORK

289. On March 25, 2013, Michael Robert York (“York”) was arraigned on a charge of

Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated in the case of City of Novi v. Michael Robert York,

Jr., Case No. 13-001327 OD.

290. Respondent conducted a pre-trial in the York matter on March 25, 2013.

291. On March 25, 2013, York was represented by attorney George Zemnickas.

292. On March 25, 2013, Respondent sealed the York file by ordering it “suppressed.”

293. On March 25, 2013, Respondent made a handwritten entry in the Register of Actions

of the York court file which stated:

This file is suppressed for good cause – treat like a YTA file – not available to the public.

294. The “YTA ‘treatment’” that Respondent ordered referred to the Youthful Trainee

Act, MCL 762.11 et seq.

295. MCL 762.11 et seq. applies only to guilty pleas to offenses committed after a

defendant’s seventeenth but before his/her twenty-first birthday.

296. At the time of his arrest, York was 35 years old.

297. Operating While Intoxicated and Operating While Visibly Impaired offenses are

specifically exempted from consideration under MCL 762.11 et seq.

298. In sealing/suppressing the York file, Respondent violated MCR 8.119 (I) by:

a. Failing to require either party to file a written motion identifying the specific

interest sought to be protected.

b. Failing to make a finding of a good cause, in writing or on the record

specifying the grounds for the suppression.

41

c. Failing to make a finding that there is no less restrictive means to adequately

and effectively protect the specific interest asserted..

d. Failing to provide any interested person the opportunity to be heard on the

record.

299. Respondent failed to make a record or issue an order embodying the findings

required by MCR 8.119 (I).

300. After sealing/suppressing the York file, Respondent failed to forward a copy of an

order to the Clerk of the Supreme Court or to the State Court Administrative Office as required by

MCR 8.119 (I) (3).

301. On October 14, 2013, York pled guilty to Operating a Motor Vehicle While Visibly

Impaired in exchange for a dismissal of the original charge of Operating a Motor Vehicle While

Intoxicated.

302. Respondent sentenced the defendant on November 25, 2013.

303. Respondent failed to issue/enter any orders before, at, or after the sentencing to set

aside his March 25, 2013 decision sealing/suppressing the York file.

C. CITY OF NOVI V ROSE

304. On July 8, 2013, the Defendant, Daniel Rose (“Rose”) was charged with the

misdemeanors offenses of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated and Possession of Narcotic

Paraphernalia in Case No. 13-3289.

305. At the time of his arrest, Rose was on probation to Oakland County Circuit Court for

the felony offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol, Case No. 12-

243894-FH.

42

306. At the time of the sentence on September 16, 2013, Respondent was aware of the

defendant’s prior felony conviction for Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol

in Circuit Court Case No. 12-243894-FH.

307. Prior to the sentencing, Respondent failed to refer Rose to the court’s probation

department, as required by MCL 257.625b(5)

308. Respondent accepted the presentence screening and assessment from the Defendant’s

circuit court’s matter which was prepared more than six months before the plea and sentencing date

in Case No. 13-3289.

309. Respondent’s conduct is in violation of MCL 257.625b.

D. HIGHLAND TWP. V POTVIN

310. Consistent with the policy of the 52nd District Court, any action involving an

employee of one of the divisions must be re-assigned to another division.

311. In 2013, Mallory Potvin (“Ms. Potvin”) was employed by the 52-1 District Court as

a clerk.

312. Ms. Potvin is also the daughter of Anna Marie Duplessie, who was Respondent’s

personal friend.

313. In 2013, Respondent was aware of the relationship between Ms. Potvin and Ms.

Duplessie.

314. On May 20, 2013, Ms. Potvin received a traffic citation, No. 13 OS 11220, from

Oakland County Sheriff’s Deputy, K. Webber.

315. Although Ms. Potvin was stopped for operating her vehicle at 51 miles per hour in a

posted 35-miles-per-hour zone, Deputy Webber only issued the citation for impeding traffic.

43

316. An impeding traffic offense is a fine-only, no-point, violation which is not reported

to the Michigan Secretary of State for inclusion on the operator’s driving record.

317. Prior to, or on May 29, 2013, Respondent delivered a copy of Ms. Potvin’s traffic

citation to Dawn Mecklenborg, the 52-1 District Court’s traffic clerk, with instructions that she take

it to Magistrate Batchik for dismissal.

318. Magistrate Batchik refused to dismiss Ms. Potvin’s citation and scheduled the matter

for a hearing date.

319. Ms. Mecklenborg informed Respondent of Magistrate Batchik’s decision.

320. On or about May 29, 2013, Respondent personally took Ms. Potvin’s traffic citation

to Magistrate Cooper, another magistrate of the 52-1 District Court.

321. Respondent advised Magistrate Cooper that he had spoken to Deputy Webber and

that Deputy Webber had no objections to the dismissal of Ms. Potvin’s citation.

322. At Respondent’s request, Magistrate Cooper dismissed Ms. Potvin’s citation.

323. Respondent did not discuss Ms. Potvin’s ticket with the issuing officer, K. Webber,

and did not have Deputy Webber’s permission to have the ticket dismissed.

324. Respondent did not have permission of the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office to

have Ms. Potvin’s traffic citation dismissed.

325. Ms. Potvin’s citation was reinstated by the Hon. Robert Bondy and reassigned to the


326. Respondent’s conduct in Ms. Potvin’s citation case was in violation of the 52-1

District Court’s internal policy, MCR 2.003, and the Canons of the Michigan Code of Judicial

Conduct.

44

E. STATE OF MICHIGAN V FERRITER

327. On July 29, 2013, Michigan State Trooper Lisa Lucio issued a traffic citation to

Jaime Lee Ferriter.

328. Although Ms. Ferriter’s actual speed was 84 miles-per-hour in a posted 70-mph-

speed zone, Trooper Lucio issued the citation for 75 mph in a 70 mph zone, an infraction which

carries no points on the recipient’s driver’s license.

329. Ms. Ferriter’s traffic citation provided her with an appearance date (or payment in

full) of August 12, 2013.

330. On August 12, 2013, Ms. Ferriter failed to make a court appearance and failed to pay

her citation, causing an entry of a default judgment on August 15, 2013.

331. In 2013, Ms. Ferriter was a former employee of the 52-1 District Court and

Respondent’s personal friend.

332. On or about August 21, 2013, Ms. Ferriter wrote a letter to Respondent asking him to

dismiss the citation issued by Trooper L. Lucio.

333. On August 22, 2013, Respondent amended Ms. Ferriter’s traffic citation to

“impeding traffic,” an infraction that is not abstracted on Ms. Ferriter’s Secretary of State driving

record.

334. Respondent assessed a $130.00 fine on Ms. Ferriter’s ticket and gave her 12 months

to pay it.

335. Respondent disposed of Ms. Ferriter’s traffic citation without her presence in court

and without conducting a hearing or making a record.

336. Respondent did not discuss Ms. Ferriter’s ticket with the issuing officer, Trooper L.

Lucio, and did not have Trooper Lucio’s permission to reduce the offense to “impeding traffic.”

45

337. Respondent did not have permission of the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office to

have Ms. Ferriter’s citation offense reduced to “impeding traffic.”

338. Respondent’s conduct in Ms. Potvin’s citation case was in violation of the 52-1

District Court’s internal policy, MCR 2.003, and the Canons of the Michigan Code of Judicial

Conduct.

COUNT VI

IMPROPER EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES


340. As a judge on the bench of the 52-1 District Court, Respondent is subject to the

Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct (MCJC).

341. MCJC’s Canon 4 provides that a judge should not serve as director, officer, manager,

advisor or employee of any business.

342. Respondent has been a member of the Oakland County Credit Union since 1993.

343. In 2012 and again in 2013, Respondent applied for, and was appointed as, an

Associate Director of the Oakland County Credit Union.

344. Respondent is also the Vice President and Board Member of the World Data

Corporation.

345. The World Data Corporation is a data processing and distribution company which

publishes the Polk’s Motor Vehicle Registration Manuals.

COUNT VII

IMPROPER AND INAPPROPRIATE JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR


347. On or about May 20, 2013, Fox 2 News Reporter Rob Wolcheck confronted

Respondent about his absenteeism and tardiness from the 52-1 District Court.

46

348. Following his May 20, 2013 encounter with Fox-2 News Reporter Rob Wolcheck,

Respondent called a meeting to address the staff of the 52-1 District Court.

349. Respondent informed the court staff that there was a “snitch” or a “rat” among them

and that when he found out who provided information about him to the news media, he would have

that person terminated.

350. In 2012 and 2013, Danny Allen was Respondent’s court clerk.

351. During 2012 and 2013, Respondent was aware that Mr. Allen was interested in

becoming the 52-1 District Court’s administrator when the current administrator, Joyce Renfrow,

left or retired.

352. During 2012 and 2013, Respondent was aware that Probation Department Supervisor

Alexandra Black, also expressed an interest in becoming the administrator of the 52-1 District

Court.

353. On or about June 25, 2013 Respondent advised Deputy Court Administrator Janet

Rehm that Alexandra Black provided Fox 2 News with documents that lead to the news story about

his absenteeism and tardiness.

354. In the June 25, 2013 conversation, Respondent also advised Ms. Rehm that he would

make sure that Alexandra Black will never become a court administrator at the 52-1 District Court.

355. Respondent told Ms. Rehm that he spoke to the Oakland County Executive, L.

Brooks Patterson about Ms. Black in effort to ensure that she never became the administrator of the


356. On or about June 25, 2013, Respondent also advised Ms. Rehm to “watch [her]

back” because Heather Wrobel, a civil division supervisor at the 52-1 District Court, wanted Ms.

Rehm’s job.

47

357. On August 15, 2013, Chief Judge, Julie A. Nicholson, instructed all members of the

52nd District Court to maintain a record of the cases they handled on each day they worked.

358. On or about August 27, 2013, Respondent approached the court’s civil division

assignment clerk, Kris D’Arcy, with a request that she create a “ghost docket.”

359. Respondent informed Ms. D’Arcy that he wanted to make it appear as though he had

a docket on every Friday.

360. Respondent advised Ms. D’Arcy not to send any appearance notices to the parties or

the attorneys involved in the cases that would be placed on the “ghost docket.”

361. Respondent’s conduct was in direct contravention of the directives of Chief Judge

Nicholson.

COUNT VIII MISREPRESENTATIONS


A. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS

363. In his January 21, 2014 response to the Commission’s Request for Comments,

Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for March 20, 2012 was for attending a

meeting of the 52nd District Court Judges.

364. Respondent represented that the meeting took place in Troy, Michigan.

365. Those statements were false.

366. The March, 2012 Full Bench meeting of the 52nd District Court judges took place on

March 23, 2012 at the Oakland County Executive Office Building in Pontiac, Michigan.


Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for April 10, 2012, was for attending a


48

368. Respondent claimed that the April 10, 2012 meeting of the 52nd District Court Judges

was held in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

369. No meeting of the 52nd District Court judges was held in April of 2012.


Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for June 12, 2012, was for attending a


371. Respondent claimed that the June 12, 2012 meeting of the 52nd District Court Judges

was held in Rochester Hills.


373. No meeting of the 52nd District Court judges was held in June of 2012.


Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for March 12, 2013, was for attending a


375. Respondent claimed that the March 12, 2013 meeting of the 52nd District Court

Judges was held at Vinsetta Garage, 28025 Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak, rather than in

Berkley, as he had reported in his March, 2013, Car Mileage Report.


377. There was no meeting of the 52nd District Court judges held on March 12, 2013.

378. The March, 2013 Full Bench meeting of the 52nd District Court judges took place on

March 22, 2013 and was held at the Roadhouse Bar & Grill in Pontiac, Michigan.


Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for April 9, 2013, was for attending a

meeting of the 52nd District Court judges.

49

380. Respondent claimed that the April 9, 2013 meeting of the 52nd District Court judges

was held at the Roadside Bar & Grill in Bloomfield, Michigan rather than in the City of Pontiac as

he had claimed in his April 9, 2013 Mileage Report.


382. There was no meeting of the 52nd District Court judges in April of 2013.


Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for January 23, 2013 and February 20,

2013 were for traveling to the City of Clarkston to inspect the “construction” and “renovation” of an

Oakland County Credit Union.

384. Respondent claimed that following each of the inspections, he then traveled to the

offices of the Oakland County Credit Union in Waterford, Michigan.

385. Respondent claimed that he “only accounted for the mileage to Clarkston” and not

the distance to Waterford.

386. These statements were false.

387. There was no construction or renovation of any Oakland County Credit Union

branches in Clarkston, Michigan, in 2013.


Respondent stated that on December 6, 2012, he attended the Oakland County Bar Association’s

Holiday Gala.

389. That statement was false.

390. For July of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report claiming that on July 10,

2012, he drove 142 miles to the City of Lansing.

50


Respondent stated that on July 10, 2012, he may have traveled to the City of Lansing to hear

testimony on a pending bill.


393. On July 10, 2012, the Michigan Legislature was not in session and no committee

hearings were conducted/held.


Respondent stated that his mileage requests had never been questioned.


396. The Court Administrator, Joyce Renfrow, had questioned Respondent about the

specific locations underlying his mileage reimbursement requests on numerous occasions. Each

time, Respondent refused/failed to provide the exact locations of his travel, stating only that he

attended “a meeting.”

B. CONFERENCE AND SEMINAR REIMBURSEMENTS


Respondent denied any knowledge that a “conference” designation was used on the court’s calendar

for each day that he was absent from the 52-1 District Court or the reason for the use of that

designation.

398. Respondent denied that he instructed anyone at the 52-1 District Court to use the

“conference” designation for his absences.

399. Those statements to the Commission are false. The “conference” designation on the

court’s calendar was used by the staff of the 52-1 District Court at Respondent’s direction.

51


Respondent stated that on October 8, 2012, October 9, 2012, and October 10, 2012, he was on

vacation in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.


Respondent claimed that he returned from Tennessee on October 10, 2012 and returned to work at

the 52-1 District Court on October 11, 2012.

402. As proof of his presence at the 52-1 District Court on October 11, 2012, Respondent

claimed that he had “located evidence of some of the work he had performed” on that date, and

provided various court documents bearing his signature and the date of October 11, 2012.

403. Those statements to the Commission are false. Respondent did not depart from the

Mountainloft II Resort in Gatlinburg, Tennessee until October 11, 2012.


Respondent stated that between April 29, 2013 and May 1, 2013 he was on vacation in Tennessee,

and that he returned to work on May 2, 2013.

405. In support of that statement, Respondent provided the Commission with two

documents, dated May 2, 2013, bearing his signature.

406. Respondent’s statement is false.

407. Respondent did not depart from the Mountainloft Resort in Gatlinburg, Tennessee,

until May 2, 2013.

408. On May 2, 2013, Respondent drove from the Mountainloft II Resort in Gatlinburg,

Tennessee to Michigan.


Respondent stated that his conference reimbursement requests had never been questioned.


52

411. The Court Administrator, Joyce Renfrow, questioned Respondent about the

extraordinarily high hotel expenses for which he submitted reimbursement requests

. C. ANNUAL LEAVE

412. On January 31, 2013, Respondent filed an Annual Absence Report for 2012 with

SCAO.

413. In his Annual Absence Report, Respondent represented that in 2012, he used 12

vacation days and 11 educational days.

414. In his January 21, 2014, response to the Commission’s Request for Comments

Respondent admitted that his 2012 Judicial Absence Report did not correctly represent his 2012

vacation days.

415. Respondent claimed that the inaccuracy was due to his failure to “take time to go

through [his] records and accurately record the correct vacation days.”

416. Respondent stated that after he had reviewed his records, the correct number of

vacation days he had taken in 2012 was 21.

417. Respondent stated that after the corrections, the number of vacation days he had used

in 2012 did not exceed what was allowed under MCR 8.110 (D) (3).

418. Respondent’s statements to the Commission are false.

419. Respondent failed to include at least 12 additional vacation/personal days in his 2012

Annual Leave Report.

D. TARDINESS


Respondent stated that he was always in court by 9:30 AM.

53


Respondent stated that his tardiness to the 52-1 District Court has only been “occasional,” and that

it was caused by his need to attend to the affairs of his disabled son, Michael D. Powers.

422. Respondent’s statements to the Commission were false.

E. COUNTY-ISSUED CELL PHONE

423. Respondent requested that an international calling feature be added to his county-

issued cell phone while he was vacationing in Aruba in February and March of 2013.


Respondent stated, in part, that he wanted the international calling feature on his county-issued cell

phone because he wanted to “stay connected with the court and [his] staff.”

425. Respondent’s statement to the Commission is false.


Respondent stated that he had “never been told that the use of the county-issued cell phone was to

be limited in any manner.”

427. Respondent stated that he had “never been provided with, or reviewed, a copy of the

[electronic] policy.”

428. Those statements to the Commission are false.

429. On November 7, 2005, Respondent signed an Employee Information Form

acknowledging that he had received several Oakland County Policy Statements and General

Information documents which included the Oakland County Electronic Communication Policy.

430. By signing the Employee Information Form provided Respondent acknowledged his

familiarity with the contents of the documents provided and his obligation to comply with the rules

and policies contained therein.

54

431. By signing the Employee Information form, Respondent confirmed his awareness

that the policies may be updated and/or changed in the future and his responsibility for remaining

up-to-date on any future changes.

F. CIVIL INFRACTIONS


Respondent stated that he did not initiate any actions to have Ms. Potvin’s traffic citation dismissed.


434. Prior to, or on May 29, 2013, Respondent delivered a copy of Ms. Potvin’s traffic

citation to the 52-1 District Court’s traffic clerk, with instructions that she take it to Magistrate

Batchik for dismissal.

G. CITY OF NOVI V. TYLER


Respondent stated that he discussed the reassignment of the Tyler matter to another court with the

Court Administrator, Joyce Renfrow.



Respondent stated that he, or someone from his staff, had made contact with the court’s probation

department prior to the April 15, 2013 review hearing in the Tyler case.

438. Respondent also stated that the probation department advised him or his staff that the

defendant was in compliance with the conditions of his probation.


440. Respondent did not make any contact with the probation department prior to the

April 15, 2013 review hearing in Tyler.

55

441. No one from Respondent’s staff made contact with the probation department before

the April 15, 2013 review hearing in Tyler.


Respondent stated that no relationship existed between him and Defendant James Tyler’s father,

Lou Tyler.


444. Respondent had known Lou Tyler since his tenure with the Oakland County

Commission in 1989 and 1993.

445. Respondent admitted his continuing friendship with Lou Tyler in a 2013 meeting

with Chief Judge Julie A. Nicholson and SCAO’s Regional Court Administrator, Deborah Green,

when he explained his actions in the People v. Tyler matter as part of an effort to help his “friend.”

The conduct described in the above paragraphs, if true, may constitute:

(a) Misconduct in office, as defined by the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as

amended, Article 6, Section 30 and MCR 9.205.

(b) Conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, as defined by

the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as amended, Article 6, Section 30, and

MCR 9.205.

(c) Failure to establish, maintain, enforce and personally observe high

standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the

56

judiciary may be preserved, contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct,

Canon 1.

(d) Irresponsible or improper conduct which erodes public confidence in the

judiciary, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A.

(e) Conduct involving impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, in

violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A.

(f) Failure to respect and observe the law and to conduct himself at all times

in a manner which would promote the public’s confidence in the integrity

and impartiality of the judiciary, contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct,

Canon 2B.

(g) Conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2C, requiring

that judge should not allow family, social, or, other relationships to

influence judicial conduct or judgment.

(h) Conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2C that a

judge should not use the prestige of office to advance personal business

interests or those of others.

(i) Failure to be faithful to the law, and to maintain professional competence

in it, contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3A (1).

(j) Conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 4E (2) by

serving as a director, officer, manager, advisor, or employee of any

business.

(k) Conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 6B by not

limiting expense reimbursement to the actual cost of travel, food, and

lodging reasonably incurred.

57

(l) Conduct which is prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in

violation of MCR 9.104(1).

(m) Conduct which exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy,

contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2).

(n) Conduct which is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals, in

violation of MCR 9.104(3).

(o) Conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct

adopted by the Supreme Court, contrary to MCR 9.104(4).

(p) Conduct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States,

contrary to MCR 9.104 (5).

(q) Lack of personal responsibility for his own behavior and for the proper

conduct and administration of the court in which the judge presides,

contrary to MCR 9.205(A).

(r) Conduct in violation of MCR 2.003.

(s) Conduct in violation of MCR 8.119(I).

(t) Conduct in violation of the Michigan Obtaining Money under False

Pretenses, MCL 750.218.

Pursuant to MCR 9.209, Respondent is advised that an original verified answer to the

foregoing complaint, and nine copies thereof, must be filed with the Commission within 14 days

after service upon Respondent of the complaint. Such answer shall be in a form similar to the

answer in a civil action in a circuit court and shall contain a full and fair disclosure of all the facts

and circumstances pertaining to Respondent’s alleged misconduct. The willful concealment,

58

misrepresentation, or failure to file such answers and disclosure shall be additional grounds for

disciplinary action under the complaint.

JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 3034 W. Grand Boulevard, Suite 8450 Detroit, Michigan 48202 BY: __________________________

Paul J. Fischer (P35454) Examiner __________________________ Margaret N. Rynier (P34594) Associate Examiner F:\pjf\Powers\FC94.docx

novi judge accused of work-related transgressions

Documents

mileage reimbursement

mileage expenses

state of michigan

michigan supreme court

michigan constitution

reimbursement of employees

vicinity mileage necessary

reimbursement requests