Culture Wars Come To Court: Michigan Judges Required To Use Litigants' Preferred Pronouns

The Michigan Supreme Court, currently dominated by Democrats, has passed an edict that, come 2024, all judges in Michigan must address the parties before them using the parties preferred pronouns.

MLive: Michigan judges must use preferred pronouns in court come 2024

All involved in state court cases are now required to use an individual’s preferred pronouns and corresponding honorific when referring to them in court according to a new rule passed down by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The only safety valve if a judge does want to use a ridiculous Ze, Xim, Xer or other ridiculousness is to address the participant by their role such as juror, attorney, defendant, etc.

In short the potential for stupidity and making a mockery of the court system is obvious with the Michigan Supreme Court deciding to go woke.

Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. 

As such, starring in 2024 my preferred pronouns in court will be M'Lord and His Majesty.

Trials, Tribulations, And Managing An Unknown Contact

So this afternoon I went to Pontiac District Court for the case that never ends.

The case was originally set for trial in 2020.  Since then it has been adjourned over 8 times. We're now on our third judge: The first judge who did the adjournments retired, so we had a stand-in for one hearing, and now are assigned to the newest judge on the Court who appears to be a pretty bright judge who actually reads the briefs and follows the law.

The original judge who retired did not want to hear the case and adjourned it every single time Defendant came up with any excuse including refusing to do it by Zoom and demanding the trial be live when the court was closed for Covid etc.

Defendant had then got counsel, expensive counsel I might add, and then the judge adjourned the case yet again, and they filed a ridiculous motion for summary disposition to dismiss the case - 3 years after it was first set for trial and 4 years after it was filed. That motion was what we were fighting about today. 

This was a continuation from the last fight over the same motion  from the stand-in judge who over two months ago had asked for supplemental briefs on an issue neither side cared about or thought was a problem, because it was not a problem, but this judge thought it was and wants us to adjourn and brief it.

In short, my argument, and a correct argument it was, was they had waived the opportunity for even doing a motion for summary disposition as they did not raise the issue in their answer which means it doesn't get heard so we don;t even need to bother responding to their nonsense in their motion.

Much fun ensued with them trying to dodge the fact that they had failed to raise it. But the judge pointed out that they had failed to raise it and the contract, such as it was, attached to their motion and my response and the supplements, didn't even say on it what they claimed it said.

Long story short, I won, their motion went down in flames, and we have yet another trial date for June of this year.  So, we may just get this thing heard 3 years after it was first set for trial.

Sheesh.

On the way out I chatted with my client and heard a bit of noise ahead.

Client went to his car and I walked on to mine a little farther up.

A guy a solid head taller than me started to approach, clearly sizing me up, and setting off some alarm bells, started with the "Can I ask you a question?" line.

I  gave him a quick once over and said "Sorry man, can't help you", and carried on my way keeping some distance.

He started again, I repeated the "Sorry man, can't help you" while keeping him in sight, and he then backed off and went on to bug the next person around. So that worked out well. Thanks to Lawdog for his teaching that technique quite some time ago.  Always something.

Will It Stay Or Will It Van Gogh?

The Van Gogh at the DIA case continues.

In Federal District Court in Detroit, the Judge dismissed the case by the Brazilian collector against the DIA. The judge ruled against his claim that the DIA need to surrender the artwork by Van Gogh, “The Novel Reader” on the basis that it had been stolen from the collector under still unclear circumstances.

The Court properly ruled that the Immunity from Seizure Act prevented the work from being seized from the museum.

Interestingly, the Brazilian Collector had apparently failed to even report the $3.5-$5 million dollar painting had been stolen.  The story of the dismissal of the case doesn't reveal if there is even any record that he had purchased it in the first place. The collector has filed an appeal.

So, it would seem that now the painting could indeed Gogh on its way now that the exhibit is coming to a close.

But wait, there's more.

The 6th Court of Appeals has just released an order that The Novel Reader is to remain at the DIA pending the appeal: The Detroit Free Press: Appeals court to DIA: Hold onto disputed Van Gogh painting, despite end of exhibit

While great art moves you, this piece of great art isn't moving for now.

Don't Give Me That Juris-My-Diction-Crap

Actually jurisdiction matters, a lot. Jurisdiction controls where you file your case, resolve your disputes, and how your claim is going to be handled.

And talk of jurisdiction leads to this fun example of lawyers not exactly being competent outside their own area.

Opposing counsel in this case is a prime example of why you shouldn't dabble outside your actual competencies. 

Case 1:  Lawyer sues my client for not paying rent for their store.  That Landlord has not been doing repairs promised since 2019, including a leaking roof damaging my client's stuff. My client finally got fed up and said the company isn't paying rent until the place is fixed.  Hilariously, aside from one nasty-gram in early 2020, which I responded to, landlord and his lawyer did nothing until October 2022.  No repairs were ever made, and there are 14, count 'em 14, distinct leaks into the space. No attempts to collect the rent were ever made either.  Client has been looking for replacement space, but it's difficult finding the right spot for what the client does.

Lawyer files a landlord-tenant casein District Court, but names the owner and not the company and doesn't even attach the proper lease. She insists she can because she wants to go for personal liability so she's ignoring the limited liability company and suing the owner personally.

That doesn't work well for her, I file a motion noting the lease is with the company not the owner, there's no personal guarantee, and the owner has no liability, and I get it dismissed.  Case is done by the end of the second hearing.

Case 2:  Lawyer tries again in District Court, this time naming the company, but re-using the old notice to quit with the owner's name on it and demanding a supplemental complaint of $144,000 in damages for unpaid rent.  I again file a motion to dismiss for both these reasons.

In the first court hearing in Round 2, as Michigan's process now since Covid is that the first L-T hearing isn't really a hearing, its a compulsory meeting where the parties are to try and work things out.  If they can't it goes to the second hearing. I point out that she can't do that. The District Court's jurisdictional limit is $25,000.00 and $144,000.00, last time I checked, even though math isn't my forte, is greater than $25,000 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

She loudly insists she can do it, she's right, I'm wrong, and my client better settle.

Well, no, she's not right at all.

In the second court hearing, today, the judge starts by looking over my motion and the complaint and immediately states she does not have jurisdiction over the supplemental complaint of $144,000 in damages for unpaid rent. 

Ruh Roh Shaggy.

Yes, jurisdiction matters.  You need to know where and how to properly file your case.

I agree with the court that there's no jurisdiction, but state I'm certainly willing to be helpful and stipulate to keep it in the district court, so long as the maximum damages are properly restricted to a maximum of $25,000. Yes, that can happen if you mess up your jurisdictional limit like that and try for more than $25k in a court that can only award $25k. 

For some strange reason, opposing counsel does not agree to that. 

No idea why she's not happy staying in District Court, as she was so insisting she could do at the last hearing.  Ah, well.

Case dismissed for a second time. My client has also moved out in the meantime as well and sold the business to another company.

She may get this right eventually, but not right now.   Turns out, asking around, this lawyer is a family lawyer and doesn't do commercial litigation or commercial landlord-tenant litigation, and it really shows.  

Consensus is she's not very agreeable, bombastic, and likes to try and intimidate other lawyers, put on a show for her clients, and throw her weight around. 

Consensus is correct, but she's really the opposite of intimidating, as arrogance without the competence to back it up is just entertaining to watch.

Now she has to file in Circuit Court, we then get to answer that, counter-claim for damages and point out that her client is the first breaching party to the contract and at the end of it she can go after a company that now has zero assets even if she wins.

Where The Process Is The Punishment

Just finished up representing a friend's girlfriend, who we will call Y,  in Detroit District Court on a misdemeanor charge and got the case successfully dismissed.

The problem is the uphill battle it took to get there, and  it is part of why I really detest going to Detroit District Court.  At least it was by Zoom so we saved travel time and parking.

The scenario:   Y was an employee at a restaurant.  Y was the only person there when A City of Detroit Inspector came in in January 2022.  They ask for her ID, likely she thinks to verify she is of age to serve alcohol at a restaurant, and nothing else is stated and the inspector leaves.

Y thinks nothing of it, and a few months later gets a ticket in the mail for having an unlicensed restaurant, which is a misdemeanor.

Turns out that while all the state permits are in order, and the City of Detroit Annual Health department license is in order, the City of Detroit annual Building License is not, but we could not know that from the ticket and indeed didn't even know that until today, the second pretrial.  Note the sheer number of license and permits you need to just run a restaurant in Detroit (never mind the hundreds of dollars in licensing fees) - and people wonder why businesses aren't exactly flocking there.

Small problem, by the time she gets the ticket she doesn't even work there anymore.  The owner who we will call O is not exactly super cooperative in trying to figure out what is going on but after being talked with agrees to help her out and is eventually is willing to step up and say substitute him on the ticket for her as she really should have this ticket in the first place.  Oh, and to top everything off, the restaurant is currently out of business. She also never had the authority or ability to apply for a license for a business she does not own, and she's not an employee surely couldn't now even if she wanted to do so.

All of my efforts to contact the City attorney prior to pretrial result in a null response.  They don't call me back and no one will tell me even who is the prosecutor assigned the case.

So at the first pretrial I check in with the court on time and ask to speak with the prosecutor to figure this out. Court Clerk says ok and then pops me and my client in a Zoom room where we wait.  Prosecutor doth not cometh.  

Over an hour passes. I pop out of the room and ask the Court clerk what's going on.  The judge then asks me if we have a plea and I state no we're still waiting on the prosecutor to discuss and try to get this figured out.  The judge says its up to me to find the prosecutor - on Zoom.  I reply that's truly great but could I get a hint first such as perhaps the name of the prosecutor and some contact information please so I have a shot at finding him/her? The judge is like - that's on you and is rather unhelpful.

Court clerk actually gives me a hint at that point by at least giving me the prosecutor's last name, and then the prosecutor shows up.

Prosecutor does not believe anything and thinks my client is trying to con him and is secretly the owner.  No kidding.  Refuses to dismiss against her and file against the owner.  Says it's up to me to prove who the owner is and to contact the Health Department and Building department.  So we set it for a second pretrial today.

Ok then.  I call both  the Health Department and Building Department, and get no responses to multiple calls and emails,  I find a Health Department inspection website where I download their record which shows the owner is indeed O and not my client.  That's as far as I get, no one returns my calls or emails.

Second pretrial is today.

O and Y are both online with me which is nice.  O agrees he's good with having Y out of it and put it all on him to figure out what the problem is. I talk to the prosecutor and he again first thinks I'm lying when I say I didn't get any response back from the Health Department and Building department as I have the report showing who the owner is - which he still doesn't believe.   I note I got the report.  as I had already told him two weeks ago when I emailed it to him, from a publicly available city website not from the departments directly and I had sent him the link so he could do his own search already to prove I'm not making it up.

I then finally find out this is about the Building License not the Health Department license and he then offers a plea deal of Y pleading guilty with a deferred sentence that drops if she can have the building properly licensed within a certain amount of time.

I note she can't accept that as again, as I told him before, she's not an owner, she doesn't work there, and she certainly can't get a license for it, and the place is closed down.  But, I state the owner is present today and willing to be subsituted on the ticket so could we dismiss and then he can refile if need be.

He doesn't want to do that and still claims that I might be trying to make things up to trick him.  FFS.

I send the Prosecutor a copy of O the Owner's driver's license at that point so he can see the name exactly matches that on the ownership records and other licenses, and it turns out O has the receipt for the 2022 Building license he paid for in February 2022, but the City is dragging its heels issuing it. In short the Building license is already applied for and there's really nothing my client Y could do now even if she wanted to do so.

He says no we should take it to trial and the building inspector will show up at trial and decide then what to do.

I note calmly that it sounds like a rather bad idea from my perspective and I'm not having my client go to trial in the hope the inspector might change his mind at trial.  Trials get kinda expensive and this is going off into never-never land.

Finally, after again my going over all the evidence and the again stating the situation he finally agrees to dismiss the case against my client, two and a half hours into the second pretrial.

The prosecutor and I enter our appearances on the record and then enter the dismissal on the record before a different and far nicer judge than the first one. (note - always, always have your dismissal entered on the record so there's proof it happened)  and my client is fionally done with no risk of a misdemeanor on her record.

A great result, but it took about almost 5 hours of court time total to get done what should have been wrapped up in 30 minutes to at most an hour.  Sheesh.

FFS, Get It Together Wayne County Circuit Court

So this morning I'm doing work and got a call a couple minutes ago from opposing counsel on a case, wanting to discuss the status conference from this morning on a case we have in Wayne County Circuit Court.

"What status conference from this morning?", I ask, somewhat perturbed.

Apparently there was one, and the court did not send me any notice of it at all, and thus I did not know and did not Zoom in accordingly.

Not the first time this has happened on this case, and it seems the only case I never get notices on, but it's getting well past ridiculous.

How ridiculous?

The Commercial landlord-Tenant case is running under two different files in the court:

It has both an Appeal from District Court (landlord-tenant possession only filed by the tenant after losing to me there) and a Circuit Court case (filed by us for the money owed from that landlord-tenant case) in front of the same judge.  

It's been going on since July 2020.  Yep, you read that right, it's over two and a half years old now.

I have a motions for summary disposition on their counter-claim in the money case that was filed over 2 years ago that the judge has still not set a hearing on or ruled on.  To put it in perspective, that should take around 28-60 days max to get heard, not 2+ years!

Two other summary motion,s and the appeal brief itself have been filed over a year and a half ago with no hearing or ruling in sight. Again, way outside appropriate timing for decisions to be made.

And for some reason, whenever the judge issues a status conference on the Appeals case, the court does not send me a notice.   Even though I show up on the electronic file and docket as the attorney of record, have an appearance in, and have filed a response to their appeal brief, I get nothing. Thus has happened at least three times now.

Rather disconcerting.

Even better, at the status conference held under the Circuit Case (which I actually got a notice and appeared for)  in early September, the court after noting we were there then stated they would call us for the conference.  But, the court  never got around to actually contacting us, so it never actually happened and nothing has moved even an inch in the case.

Still no dates on any of the motions, no action at all, no trial date -- which is probably good considering the motions should get rid of most of the case without a trial if they ever get heard.  

The cases just sits out there, waiting for the court to do its job.

A little notice while it considers doing its job may be too much to ask for though.

Putting The Mental in Judgmental

Ah, Detroit is a place that is run in a demonstrably poor fashion by Democrats, and its 36th District Court is even worse, which is why I try to avoid practicing there as much as possible. 

The Detroit News: 36th District judge 'unfit,' should be removed from bench, state commission says

The commission determined each of 36th District Court Judge Kahlilia Davis's multiple acts of misconduct are "egregious in their own right," according to the organization's decision and recommendation for discipline that was released Friday night. Davis was accused of failing to record court proceedings, refusing to abide by a performance plan the court set up for her and blanketly dismissing cases from a specific process server because she did not trust him.

Of course she then attempted to sue playing the race card.  The hard part about playing the race card in Detroit, however, is most of her superiors are Black themselves, and her many egregious mistakes were rather prominent, and the case was dismissed.

As for the mental part, she:

Routinely showed up late, missed days of work and performed the job poorly, according to the report. The State Court Administrative Office stepped in to make a performance plan for her, in which Davis refused to participate. Instead, she attacked the people assigned to help her "with discourteous and unprofessional written threats and barbs, including biblical quotes insinuating that her colleagues and the administrators should or would go to Hell."

Not exactly showing a proper judicial temperament there at all.

Well That Sucked

Had a trial today live in Wayne County Circuit Court.  first live appearance down their since Covid started.  Had to wear a mask going into the building and it was rather hot and unpleasant.

Getting there was more than half the fun.

Due to Joe Biden being in town to visit the auto show, the highway exit I normally use to exit the highway and get to the courthouse was closed off.  No notice until I was right at the exit and saw it blocked with police cars.

So I had to navigate a rather roundabout way to the parking structure near the courthouse in rather heavy traffic that also had a really high percentage of police and DHS vehicles of all types around.  Upside, crime in downtown Detroit probably dropped significantly.

So I get there and we start.

Right off, I lose a motion I had filed to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as I point out even if we total all their alleged damages and apply the law, it still doesn't reach the Circuit Court's $25,000.01 floor. 

Plaintiff cunningly argues we can ignore the law and facts that would fix their damages below the limit. and in a bizarro world ignoring the facts of the case, that they even admit to, they could be able to get over the limit if those facts are ignored.

The Court agrees and on to trial we go. It would be one of those trials.

In short, I knew going in that cannot win this trial in the normal sense of the word. 

There's not too many trials where I on the defense side get to say that we admit and stipulate to my clients breaching the contract (that is an uncontested fact), but the clients don't owe all the damages the Plaintiffs claim we do, but do owe some damages.  Plaintiffs refused to settle the case at all.

Clients were residential renters and had economic hardship due to Covid and lost their income.  They were evicted and now Landlord who is a complete dick, is suing for the entire Lease amount. They failed to re-rent the property and instead decided to list it for sale at a high amount and sold it after months of doing not much to sell it.

I argue they failed to mitigate and for at least four of the six months they seek additional damages, as they didn't even list the property at the time. I have the MLS listings(form them in discovery no less) to prove they didn't.

At trial, for the first time ever, they claim they put it up for sale as a FSBO without an agent and placed a sign out front during those 4 months.

I note they never produced any evidence of this in response to my discovery requests pre-trial, and  have no evidence they actually did it, and not even a picture of the sign to introduce as evidence.

The judge rules their claim that they did the FSBO, with no evidence but their testimony that they did it and nothing more, as credible to her, so we get slapped with those months as well.  Not happy about that ruling.

But the judge now wants me to do a brief on whether their choice not to try and rent it for those months at all affects their damages and if it could be considered a failure to mitigate.

Ugh. 

Well, at the very least, I saved my clients $1,000.00 when I get Plaintiff's claim of damages to the premises (there were none, it was a complete BS with a suspicious invoice for work allegedly done 3 months after they left) dismissed due to their not following Michigan law.

Oh yes, even if the damages are fully applied now they are still well under the jurisdictional limit.  Sheesh.

A Quick Tip For The Average Person To Stay Out Of Jail

I was Downriver (Areas south of Detroit along the shore of the Detroit River is colloquially known around here as Downriver) in a District Court today waiting for a scheduled trial.

Sadly for me and my client, the Judge adjourned our trial even though we had shown up ready to go.  

Scheduling conflicts bumped us and criminal cases beat civil cases in order of precedence.  So, I will get to do the trial soon and it's going to be EPIC.  Will blog about it once done, but suffice to say it has already been rather entertaining in the lead-up to trial.

But, as we were waiting to see if we got to go, the judge was going through criminal case after criminal case.

There was a clear ongoing set of commonalities amongst practically every criminal case called:

1. Drugs or excessive alcohol usage (or both) was involved; then

2.  Someone couldn't keep their hands to themselves, and/or off the steering wheel.

On top of that, many compounded the problem by stupidly failing to appear for their first hearing without any notice to the court causing them to catch new fun, expensive, and jail-able penalties now that they got caught after failing to show up.

For almost all of the people called it wasn't their first criminal call rodeo. 

One lady had 4 concurrent cases running right now in front of three different judges for 4 separate recent incidents. Sadly for her, judges can see your current proceedings even in another court and they're not impressed that you're trying to earn frequent court customer points. In fact it's rather the opposite as they can see you're really not learning and now they have to teach you a lesson.  

You will not like that lesson.

There was a very clear pattern of a lack of impulse control amongst all defendants.

So quite simply if you can both:

1. Stay off drugs and keep your alcohol usage under control so you don't get stupid drunk/drugged in public and then do stupid things; and

2.  Handle your inter-personal relationships while keeping your hands to yourself and not on a steering wheel if drunk or stoned,

Then, you're likely not going to be on the receiving end of the criminal justice system.

Should you choose to fail to do steps 1 and 2, then A) Get a lawyer; and B) Show up when you're scheduled to show up. 

Failure to do A and B is going to make things a whole lot worse for you.  

You really don't want a judge to say to you as a defendant: "You're just not getting this are you?"

Wayne County Family Court Goes Bass Ackwards

Let's set the stage for the latest Wayne County follies.

It's Covid so you close down in person filings.

You tell everyone instead to file by email.

Since it's Wayne County, a backlog is inevitable.

So, how do you handle the backlog? Do you increase service efforts? Increase efficiency? Workout a case-flow strategy? Perhaps use the Civil Circuit Court's e-filing system that works rather well for handling non-family court filings?

Well, unlike what anyone might do by doing any of these reasonable solutions the Family Court decides to do none of those things and instead decides to stop accepting emailed filings and demand everyone file in person again.

The Detroit Free Press: Wayne County Family Court to ditch email filing system in effort to clear backlog

It's a Wayne County solution all right: Clear the backlog not by working harder or more efficiently, but by making it harder for people to access the Court.

Coronavirus And The Courts - The Which Was Easy Is Becoming Hard

Oakland County Probate Court as of today is no longer accepting in person filings.

Now, instead of filing a matter in person, having it issued right there at that moment and then being able to serve it on interested parties that day, we now have to file it via mail, wait for the court to mail back the issued notices and go from there.

That's going to seriously slow things down, including some very time sensitive activities.

They are likely going to a fax-based system. I'll note the Oakland County Probate Court's last short-lived attempt at an e-filing program went down in computer-generated flames, so I suspect they won't be jumping on the circuit court's e-filing program (which actually functions quite well) any time soon.

This is going to pose some definite hassles and legal problems for clients, the courts, and lawyers as well.

In short, if you have a pressing legal matter, don't wait to the last minute to see your attorney. For example if the statute of limitations runs out on Day X, seeing an attorney on Day X (please don't do this even in normal times either - it causes massive problems) and hoping they can get your matter filed that day will likely not be possible.

Courts And The Coronavirus

This morning arrived at Court for a matter. Went through security and then everyone was required and used hand sanitizer. Again, not a bad idea to practice good hygiene and make it required in any case.

So far so good.

Still no local cases reported, but now 3 more in the county being presumptively infected due to travel.

Then down to the prosecutor's office to discuss the matter, as does everyone else.

Interestingly, there's now an second desk between you and the prosecutor for additional space. Not a bad idea.

But there's a little flaw on the anti-community spread plan - everyone handled and used the same pen when signing the plea sheets.

Oops. Head Desk, and you can use either of the two desks as you may choose.

Well, at least they're trying.

I, on the other hand, had brought my own pen, and was complimented on doing so.

How about a hand sanitizer sheet to wipe the pen between users?

Rumors are they may shut down the courts in the county completely except for emergency hearings and criminal sentencing, which would suck hard and pose some serious issues especially for clients with pending hearings on things that are not considered emergencies but are darn important to them.

Scenes From Court: NO Madam, Babies DO NOT Go Through The X-Ray Machine

A quick tip, when going to court and bringing your baby along in a car seat, please do not try to run the baby through the X-ray machine on your way in. This should not be hard to figure out, but one woman tried to do just that as I was in line this morning.

Deputies were quite unamused by the rather dumb lady trying to do just that today.

Remember it is keys, wallets, change, belts, purses, bags and anything metal through the x-ray machine, not your baby.

My bet is we're going to see a new sign at the courthouse entrance: Do Not Place Babies into the X-Ray Machine.

You would think this would not be needed, but some criminals, and some people in general, really are that stupid.

Scenes From Court: That Really Needed Some Popcorn

So I was in court yesterday doing some Guardian Ad Litem work.

A case of ahead of mine became rather entertaining.

It was the first hearing in what looks like a very contested case over who gets to be guardian over X.

You have V and W who are represented by an attorney I've gone up against in trial and who is a very disagreeable personality, we'll call him D, short for well, Dumbass, and we'll see why in a moment. He's an older attorney that seems to think he walks on water.

There's also Y who wants to be X's guardian as well, and she's probably wondering why V and W have hired Dumbass. The GAL on that case is another attorney I know well and is a great guy with lots of experience, very professional and cordial, and has an impeccable reputation. We've dealt with each other before in cases and get along well.

The judge happens to have a lot of experience, likes to keep a smooth and efficient docket, and expects the attorneys to be prepared.

So, the judge has the GAL give his report. GAL is pissed at V and W, and I don't think I've ever seen him this disgusted before. V and W actually gave him tapes that showed V and W belittling X, attacking Y and basically beclowning themselves. How the heck they thought the recordings would help them is rather puzzling, though Y apparently doesn't take it lying down in those tapes and does respond, properly so in the mind of the GAL. So the GAL says that he's rather disgusted by V and W's behavior as evidenced by the tapes and recommends Y be the guardian/conservator based on their treatment of X and Y.

Dumbass then objects and states the GAL is misconstruing things on the tape.

The judge is rather bemused as she knows the GAL is a straight-shooter.

Judge: "So you're saying my GAL is not giving an accurate report?"

D: "No, he's not understanding what's on the tapes."

Judge: So did you listen to the tapes yourself then Mr. D?"

D: No.

Judge (a short and rather dangerous pause): Then how is it that you can claim my GAL is mistaken and attack his report when you haven't listened to them yourself, are you really just relying on your clients and not listening to the evidence yourself before the hearing?"

One wishes the deputy was around to hand out popcorn at this stage as this is now getting good. For whatever reason the deputy is not in the courtroom which is a shame as it could really have enhanced what happened next

D: No I didn't listen to them as this is the preliminary hearing and we're not at an evidentiary hearing yet.

Judge: You know I could rule on this right now had you listened to those tapes, but now we have to waste time with an issue that you can't even discuss at first hand.

D raising his voice: Judge this isn't my first rodeo.

Judge: Blink.

Judge: "What?"

D: (acquires shovel and begins to dig in deeper): I don't even need to listen to those tapes yet, this isn't my first rodeo and I know how this works.

Judge: "So you're basically wasting the court's time when we could resolve this right now but you don't even listen to the tapes your own client provided, why the heck not?"

D: Don't tell me how to practice Judge, in any case I was in a trial before and too busy to listen to them and don't need to now anyways.

Judge:"Is there a deputy available?, Why the heck did you take this case then if you were too busy?"

D: Pointing his finger at the judge, "This isn't my first rodeo, I know how this works!"

Judge: You don't ever point a finger at me. You've disparaged my GAL and wasted the court's time. I'm setting this for an evidentiary hearing and I expect you to be ready and there will be no adjournments, is that clear?"

He then gets his order and leaves. As he leaves a deputy shows up and chats with the judge for a sec and heads out of the courtroom following him. Didn't see him get hit with contempt but it would certainly be fitting.

In the case I had with D previously he had the stupidity to yell at the court's attorney, which certainly did not help his case. At that trial, all evidentiary rulings that could have possibly gone either way were solidly in my favor. Not saying his yelling and acting like a jerk was the main cause but it's likely. Clearly he didn't learn form that experience.

Meanwhile, his current clients need to get a new attorney asap, as I can guarantee that the judge will remember this incident and D's name is now mud in front of that court and anything he does from now on in front of that judge will be not very kindly received and his clients who apparently are not the sharpest tools in the shed anyways are hosed.

A Successful Restoration of My Client's Firearms Rights

Happy to report a very successful outcome for a client in a difficult action for restoring his firearm rights.

While no one wants the mentally ill that are determined to be a threat to themselves or others to have easy access to firearms, the current method of classifying people is casting far too wide a net. My client was denied his right to purchase and own firearms under Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(4): as “A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution.”

The problem is the FBI’s NICS Section takes a very expansive view of “adjudicated as a mental defective”, and currently has a practice of including anyone who has ever had an adult guardianship or conservatorship entered on their behalf, for any reason, on the grounds that it shows that the person “lacks mental capacity to manage his own affairs”.

My client, a male in his middle 60’s with no criminal record, had a guardianship in place to make decisions for him when he went in for some serious surgery five years ago. Given the pain he was under at the time, he was unable to manage his own affairs. Even as the court entered it as a limited guardianship, and the guardianship was terminated in a year when he was fully back to health and capabilities, he found out to his dismay that he was unable to purchase a firearm when he was denied under the NICS system.

Never having been adjudicated to have been a threat to himself or others, and never involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution, my client now found himself lumped into that category and without any means of being removed from the NICS denial list.

There currently is no federal program to administratively be removed in the case of a mental health based denial from NICS, nor does Michigan have a federally recognized program to allow for such a removal. In short, there is no way to get off the “no buy list” once you’ve been placed on it for a 922(g)(4) classification. Even if you were properly classified that way years ago and are now not a threat to yourself or others, once disqualified under 922(g)(4) you cannot get it removed.

The only recourse is to sue on behalf of the client, and indeed I did sue the United States and its relevant agencies for violations of his Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights.

We have now reached a successful resolution of the case, quite quickly in no small part due to the very professional Assistant United States District Attorney assigned to the case, who read my complaint and understood we had a very viable claim and cause of action.

My client now has been removed from the NICS denial list and his firearms rights are now fully restored.

Scenes From Court - You Can Take The Gal Outta Detroit But You Can't Take Detroit Outta The Gal

In Oakland County Probate Court this morning and it's a very busy docket.

Lots of interesting cases with lots of people not behaving properly. Quick tip, taking out a large whole life insurance policy on your very elderly mother payable to you the daughter will likely cause her to lose her Medicaid benefits and really make the judge angry - very angry in fact, just saying.

So, with that fun drama done, a case gets called, and another, and another, and another.

What gives, four cases being called at once is rather weird, all with different names.

Well, it seems this one Detroit Gal, who now lives in Section 8 housing in Oakland County, happens to have 4, yes 4 kids. By 4, yes 4 different fathers and has just happened to have dumped them all off on her aunt.

Two of the fathers live in Detroit but current whereabouts are unknown, one is in prison for statutory rape of the Detroit Gal in question and for a probation violation since his initial release, and one is present who wants custody of his 14-year-old daughter, who apparently doesn't want to be with him and wants to stay with the other siblings (all with different last names) with the aunt.

Detroit Gal does not show up to the hearing, because not as the aunt says she "had to work", but as it turns out, as the judge rather blithely comments, she has a bench warrant and would arrested if she showed up.

The judge has to go with the Family Court's order on custody for the 14 year old and arranges for the aunt to get her to her father, and for the rest she orders the aunt as full guardian of them all as the mother has basically abandoned them.

The family tree here is definitely not a straight line, but Father's Day must be confusing as all get out.

The Moynihan Report was certainty prescient.

Meeting With Mongo

Had an emergency court appointment as a Guardian Ad Litem today.

Turns out Mongo, who has a Traumatic Brain Injury, wasn't behaving himself at his current care facility and needed to be moved to a more restrictive facility. A court order was needed to get the Police or Sheriffs involved in the move as he had declared he wasn't going anywhere peacefully.

Mongo is well, Mongo-sized, and is currently off and refusing to take his meds, and becoming more and more aggressive and more unstable, mercurial, and threatening as a result with no apparent concern for the consequences his actions.

So far he had threatened to body-slam staff at the facility, his guardian, the guardians agent and probably anyone else he decides he doesn't like.

Even last night he was out on the streets (its not a locked down facility and people there have their own apartments and freedom to move about, yelling and threatening passers by, local police when called decided not to arrest and take him in on a mental hold, apparently for the reason that they can't arrest just every crazy person going around carrying on and yelling and they refused to do anything without a court order. Nice. After the police left he pounded on some car roofs and windows and then went on his way.

Guess who gets to meet Mongo and tell him the good news about the emergency petition to move him?

Yep, me.

First, after discussing things with the guardian, who warns me about him and wishes me good luck, I meet with the staff at the facility and they are all unanimous that he is now a threat to others if not himself and needs to go to a more restrictive setting ASAP. He's threatened the psychiatrist, the clinical director, other staff and other residents in the program.

I head off to meet him with the other clinical director, the one he apparently likes so far.

He starts off the meeting by threatening to cause severe bodily harm to the clinical director he doesn't like and it gets better from there.

He does decide he likes me, because I'm tell him I'm there to help him and I understand he's had issues with his current guardian and would he like to go to a different location? Would he like me to tell the court how he's feeling? I go over his rights and serve him with the petition accordingly.

He's all over the place, sometimes calm, sometimes agitated, unstable, and often threatening multiple people and he switches in a matter of microseconds between these moods and is clearly operating quite a few Froot Loops short of a full cereal box. Thankfully, he decides he likes me the entire time.

So I finish up my discussion, get everything complete and head on my way to get my report in ASAP. He really cannot be in a non-restrictive environment as you can tell by spending any time with him that he's all sorts of unstable and dangerous to boot and the man is a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off.

Report went in, Judge granted the order, and Mongo is on his way to a nice restrictive facility (thankfully there was a bed available) that can handle someone of his size and issues in a therapeutic environment.

Also in all this I learned that this has literally been a crazy week. Apparently all local psych wards are full up and have no available beds for admitting new mental patients right now. This of course means that our largest mental care facility will have to be used - yep, you guessed right, that's jail.

Sheesh, I really deserved some danger pay on that one.

Scenes From Court Today - "No. You Can't Be A Little Bit Attorney"

So I'm in court to represent my client on a traffic ticket. While waiting first to discuss the matter with the prosecutor at the pretrial conference and then to put the arrangement on the record I get to observe some cases.

First, a lady is arguing with the prosecutor over her ticket. Since she was caught on LIDAR, her claim that she wasn't speeding probably won't go very well and there's some related issues as well. He offers her a reduction from 4 points to one point and getting rid of the other charge. She wants to see the dash-cam footage of her being pulled over. He notes she should have asked for that before, as today is the day of the hearing if it is not resolved. He nicely explains how the hearing will likely go not in her favor and she can take the deal as offered or have the hearing. She keeps arguing and he says fine, we'll go ahead with a hearing on it. Not exactly smart on her part.

Then, after I acept a rather nice deal on behalf of my client, I get to wait in the courtroom.

First up, a case is being adjourned as the court-appointed lawyer is withdrawing due to "communication breakdown wit the client". I.E. in this case the client isn't listening to the attorney at all. But it gets better.

The lady indicates she dosn't want another court appointed attorney, she wants her father to represent her.

"Is her father an attorney?", the judge asks.

"He's an attorney but not on paper" she replies.

The judge asks if he is or isn't, for just like being pregnant, you can't be a little bit attorney.

She finally admits the father is not an attorney. Not that anyone really thought otherwise.

The Father then asks to talk and he then tries to start arguing the case. The judge kindly explains that he can’t be her attorney as he isn't actually an attorney, and now is not the time to discuss case as it is a motion hearing. He states the case will be a jury trial if she doesn't resolve it so he can't hear factual arguments right now. Father doesn't get it and he wants to keep arguing. Judge kindly tells him no, grants the appointed attorney's motion to withdraw and says the lady really needs an actual attorney, either at her own cost, or a court-appointed defense attorney. Fun to watch.

Next up is yet another winner. Charged with with driving while on a suspended license and possessing drug paraphanelia. Fellow had been charged with driving while suspended by the same judge in 2008, and here he is in front of him again for the same thing. In the meantime, he's had a multitude of tickets and his driving record is littered with unpaid fines and offenses. tickets. But he keeps driving anyways. The judge carefully explains using very small words that a suspended license means you cannot drive. I don't think the lesson sunk in.

Next up is yet another driver, a lady, who has been zipping along on a suspended license with over $1,000 in unpaid tickets. She similarly gets the "What part of suspended license and you may not drive do you not understand?" lecture.

Yet another driver caught driving on a suspended license is next. Again it's not his first rodeo, and again the judge has to explain that a suspended license means you cannot drive.

Some people don’t learn. And they’re still out there driving, badly.

PPO Fun in Court Today

Today was Personal Protection Order day in court.

Oftentimes and as was seen in court today, a Personal Protection Order is sought sometimes just because some people can't communicate effectively nor take "No" for an answer, or for some serious and actual threats or acts of violence. We got to see both examples while I was waiting for my client to be called.

We had EXs sparring over nasty emails sent to each other and the court told them to play nice or else but did not enter the PPO in that case.

We had a case where a dingbat separated from his wife broke down her door and punched a visitor at the house thinking he was involved with his ex, and yes a PPO was justly entered in that one.

My client had a higher end threat to deal with and quite the story to tell. You see, he was in a romantic relationship with a lady who apparently liked having ongoing multiple yet separate relationships with her being the part of multiple couples and couplings so to speak. He was ok with the non-exclusivity part yet it turned out another boyfriend, who we shall name Mongo for both his intellect and overall size, was not.

Said boyfriend Mongo gets liquored up one night, buys some knives and ammo and starts heading to my clients' place where he knows my client and the lady are located. Oh, and he was wearing a skull mask while driving there, and it sure wasn't Halloween.

Luckily for all concerned, Mongo was stopped by police on his way to carry out his plan and they have him clearly and cleanly for DUI....and then they find the knives and other accoutrements in the vehicle. The police, being rather perceptive police and on the ball after stopping a drunken masked man with knives and ammo, after Mirandizing him ask Mongo what that's all for.

Remember the line from Ron White that he had the right to remain silent but lacked the ability? If you haven't seen that clip, click and go forth and watch it, it is worth it.

Mongo sure lacked the ability.

At the roadside Mongo says he was heading over there to kill them. This definitely piques the police's interest. After further custodial interrogation and after he's Mirandized yet again Mongo again states he is heading over to kill them and doesn't care if he goes to jail. Mongo does not wax poetic on being a pawn in the game of life, Mongo instead wants to go kill people.

So why yes, he does go to jail.

Then he pleads guilty to two felonies, one of which is carrying a weapon with unlawful intent - said unlawful intent being to do in my client, and the DUI. But, Mongo gets time served while waiting to be sentenced, and is released on probation upon entry of his plea and is now out on the streets.

This makes my client a little concerned so we file a PPO and have the hearing today.

After making a record of the incident to the court and other procedural niceties, relaying the facts and circumstances and the very credible nature of the threats and subsequent felony convictions that arose from the incident, the court has no problem entering the PPO against Mongo.

I also advised my client that getting a firearm, a CPL and appropriate training would likely be a valuable option in case Mongo decides to get frisky again and shows up at his house to carry out his threat.

Scenes From Court: Learn To Quit While You’re Behind

People will often talk themselves into more trouble than out of it during a traffic stop. They’ll also talk themselves into more trouble than not at court.

So I’m waiting for my clients case to be called and I get to listen in on a case. The fellow in question being represented by a public defender for his DUI offense. This isn’t his first, he has two other DUI charges pending in two other courts which means he was driving drunk a lot in a very narrow space of time. Including one of the DUIs, as it turns out, being when he was on the job, which led him to be fired as a delivery driver.

Of course, he has a compelling story of tragic recent loss of his wife that led him to both depression and the bottle, and you can feel for him and hope he turns his life around. The judge is sympathetic, decides she wants not to send him to jail but instead to a sobriety court program. Sounds like a good resolution and an opportunity for him to get his life back on track. Then he opens his mouth and it all starts to go downhill.

The Judge asks him how he got here and he said his friend who dropped him off. Ok, the judge says his ride needs to check in with the court before he leaves and he’ll be all set. He then instead of saying a simple "Yes Judge, thank you.", says he needs to go to the parking lot to his van to get his phone to call his friend to come pick him up.

His van.

The judge is suddenly rather interested in how the van got there and why his driver would not be with it. The judge notes that as they have video of the parking lot if he gets in and drives away on a suspended license he's going to jail.

He starts to give a story about the van belonging to his dad who is now too old to drive, and that his ride lives close by and walked home after dropping him off and the judge doesn't buy it at all. There's way too many inconsistencies and he's a lousy liar. He finally admits he drove to court himself.

The quickest way to get yourself into more trouble for any offense involving a suspended license is to drive to the court for your hearing about the offense leading to your suspended license yourself. Take a cab, take an Uber, take a reliable friend (hopefully not driving on a suspended license themselves), but whatever you do, don't drive yourself to court, it never works out well.

The judge lets him know that the van is going to be clubbed in place and he's not to drive and lets him know that the rules apply to everyone including those with a tragic loss and drunken driving offenses. She defers his sentencing to decide what to do with him and lets him know if he drives at all in the meantime before his new sentencing, including the fact that he did drive on a suspended license and tried to deceive the court, he will go to jail.

Don't drink and drive, don't drive yourself to the hearing, and don't lie to the court. One would think that all of this should be pretty easy to figure out and it would be easy to avoid the resultant snowball of stupidity, but for some people, not so much.