Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 58

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 J udicial Tenure Commission (J TC) 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 52
nd
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
Respondents Individual Car Mileage Reports and Travel Expense vouchers for the period of
J anuary 1, 2007 through April 30, 2013.
13. Based on the audit referred to in Paragraph 12, SCAO issued an audit report, dated
J uly 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,
Respondent was only entitled to $1,589.81. Thus, Respondent requested
reimbursement for, and he received, $468.64 to which he was not entitled.
c. In 2009, Respondent received $1,733.62. According to the Reimbursement Policy,
Respondent was only entitled to $1,271.67. Thus, Respondent requested
reimbursement for, and he received, $461.95 to which he was not entitled.
d. In 2010, Respondent received $2,290.00. According to the Reimbursement Policy,
Respondent was only entitled to $1,697.00. Thus, Respondent requested
reimbursement for, and he received, $593.00 to which he was not entitled.
4

e. In 2011, Respondent received $2,522.89. According to the Reimbursement Policy,
Respondent was only entitled to $1,910.09. Thus, Respondent requested
reimbursement for, and he received, $612.80 to which he was not entitled.

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 J udicial 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 J udges 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
J uly 11, 2012 through J uly 14, 2012. He also received a mileage reimbursement of
$23.31 for traveling from Novi to Waterford on J uly 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
J une 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 Respondents 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, J anuary 21, 2013.
20. Respondents 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 J anuary 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 J anuary of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on February 6, 2012.
6

24. The mileage reimbursements for J anuary of 2012 were based on Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 206 miles while on county (court)
business.
25. For J anuary, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
J anuary 4, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles
J anuary 13, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles
J anuary 18, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles
J anuary 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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 175 miles while on county (court)
business.
28. For February, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 577 miles while on county (court)
business.
7

31. For March, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 307 miles while on county (court)
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 J une 4, 2012.
36. The mileage reimbursements for May of 2012 were based on Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 541 miles while on county (court)
business.
8

37. For May, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-business)
related mileage expenses:
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 J une of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on J uly 11, 2012.
39. The mileage reimbursements for J une of 2012 were based on Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 329 miles while on county (court)
business.
40. For J une, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-business)
related mileage expenses:
J une 6, 2012 Novi to Pontiac 58 miles
J une 12, 2012 Novi to Rochester Hills 85 miles
J une 14, 2012 Novi to Troy 70 miles
J une 25, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles
J une 27, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles


7. July, 2012

41. For J uly of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on August 1, 2012.
42. The mileage reimbursements for J uly of 2012 were based on Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 401 miles while on county (court)
business.
9

43. For J uly, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-business)
related mileage expenses:
J uly 5, 2012 Novi to Detroit 74 miles
J uly 9, 2012 Novi to Redford 43 miles
J uly 10, 2012 Novi to Lansing 142 miles
J uly 12, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles
J uly 18, 2012 Novi to Waterford 42 miles
J uly 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 Respondents
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-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 451 miles while on county (court)
business.
49. For September, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 449 miles while on county (court)
business.
52. For October, 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 375 miles while on county (court)
business.
11

55. For November of 2012, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 J anuary 8, 2013.
57. The mileage reimbursements for December of 2012 were based on Respondents
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-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 J anuary of 2013, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report on J anuary 31, 2013.
60. The mileage reimbursements for J anuary of 2013 were based on Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 502 miles while on county (court)
business.
12

61. For J anuary of 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:

J anuary 2, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles
J anuary 15, 2013 Novi to Troy 61 miles
J anuary 16, 2013 Novi to Detroit 74 miles
J anuary 17, 2013 Novi to Royal Oak 47 miles
J anuary 21, 2013 Novi to Waterford 42 miles
J anuary 22, 2013 Novi to Clarkston 53 miles
J anuary 23, 2013 Novi to Clarkston 53 miles
J anuary 28, 2013 Novi to Birmingham 54 miles
J anuary 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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 380 miles while on county (court)
business.
64. For February, 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 398 miles while on county (court)
business.
67. For March of 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 Respondents
representations that he had used his personal vehicle to drive 380 miles while on county (court)
business.
70. For April of 2013, Respondent claimed the following county-business (court-
business) related mileage expenses:
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 J anuary 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. J anuary 13, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

b. J anuary 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. J uly 12, 2012 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

j. J uly 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. J anuary 21, 2013 to prepare for a board of directors meeting.

u. J anuary 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.


72. Between J anuary 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013, Respondent submitted Mileage
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.


73. Between J anuary 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013, Respondent submitted Mileage
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. J une 6, 2012 to attend the 5:30 PM OCBAs 78
th
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 OCBAs 5:30 PM Holiday Gala.


74. On J uly 11, 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report seeking, and receiving,
reimbursement for having traveled to Troy on J une 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
J udges Bowman, Lanford-Morris, McMillen, Potts, and Warren.
75. On J anuary 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 J udges Association
6:30 PM Holiday Party.
76. On J anuary 31, 2014, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report seeking, and
receiving, reimbursement for traveling to Royal Oak on J anuary 17, 2014. That reimbursement
was for non-work related travel to attend the investiture of the then-newly elected 44
th
District
Court J udge 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 brokers 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, J une 17,
2011, and J une 22, 2012.
a. For the August 24, 2010 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent received
$128.00 in reimbursements.
b. For the J une 17, 2011 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent received $120.90
in reimbursements.
c. For the J une 22, 2012 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent received $128.28
in reimbursements.
84. The Middleton Real Estate Training was not related to Respondents 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 J une 17, 2011 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent submitted an
expense voucher that included 90 miles in travel.
88. For the J une 22, 2012 Middleton Real Estate Training, Respondent submitted an
expense voucher that included 96 miles in travel.
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 Policys 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 Policys net actual miles driven.

C. CONFERENCE DESIGNATIONS ON 2012-2013 COURT CALENDARS

1. GENERAL

92. According to the 52-1 District Courts internal calendar (Court Calendar), in 2012,
Respondent attended conferences on 41 work days.
93. Between J anuary 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 Respondents specific direction.
95. Other than on four days, Respondents J anuary, 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 J anuary 5, 2012 through and including J anuary 13, 2012 as
conference days.
97. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
court for J anuary 5 through and including J anuary 13, 2012.
98. Respondent did not attend any conferences on J anuary 5 through and including
J anuary 13, 2012.
99. Respondent failed to come to work on J anuary 5 through and including J anuary 13,
2012.
100. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for the time he was absent from
the 52-1 District Court between J anuary 5, 2012 through and including J anuary 13, 2012.

3. JANUARY 30, 2012 February 3, 2012 CONFERENCE
101. Respondent designated J anuary 30, 2012 through and including February 3, 2012 as
conference days.
102. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
court for J anuary 30, 2012 through and including February 3, 2012.
103. Respondent did not attend any conferences on J anuary 30, 2012 through and
including February 3, 2012.
20

104. Respondent failed to come to work on J anuary 30, 2012 through and including
February 3, 2012.
105. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for the time he was absent from
the 52-1 District Court between J anuary 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.
107. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
court for February 13, 2012 through and including February 17, 2012.
108. Respondent did not attend any conferences on February 13, 2012 through and
including February 17, 2012.
109. Respondent failed to come to work on February 13, 2012 through and including
February 17, 2012.
110. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for the time he was absent from
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
conference days.
112. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
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.
115. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for the time he was absent from
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 Respondents
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 Respondents 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 J une 13, 2012 as a conference day.
124. Based on that conference designation, no docket was created for Respondents
court for J une 13, 2012.
125. Respondent did not attend any conferences on J une 13, 2012.
126. Respondent failed to come to work on J une 13, 2012.
22

127. On J une 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 Respondents judicial
position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.
129. Respondent failed to use a vacation or personal day when attending the Huron Valley
Golf Outing on J une 13, 2012.

8. JUNE 18, 2012 JUNE 20, 2012 CONFERENCE

130. Respondent designated J une 18, 2012 through and including J une 20, 2012, as
conference days.
131. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
court for J une 18, through and including J une 20, 2012.
132. Respondent failed to come to work on J une 18, 2012 through and including J une 20,
2012
133. On J une 18, 2012 through and including J une 20, 2012, Respondent attended the
Credit Union National Association (CUNA) Discover Conference in San Diego, California.
134. Respondent used J une 20, 2012 as a return travel day from the CUNA conference.
135. The CUNA Discover Conference was not the direct result of Respondents
position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.
136. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for J une 18, 2012 through and
including J une 20, 2012.

9. JUNE 21, 2012 CONFERENCE

137. Respondent designated J une 21, 2012 as conference day.
23

138. Based on that conference designation, no docket was created for Respondents
court for J une 21, 2012.
139. Respondent did not attend any conferences on J une 21, 2012.
140. Respondent failed to appear for work and did not use a vacation or personal day for
J une 21, 2012.

10. JUNE 22, 2012 CONFERENCE

141. Respondent designated J une 22, 2012 as conference day.
142. Based on that conference designation, no docket was created for Respondents
court for J une 22, 2012.
143. On J une 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
Respondents position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.
145. Respondent failed to come to work on J une 22, 2012.
146. Respondent failed to use a vacation or personal day for J une 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 J uly 12, 2012 and J uly 13, 2012 as a conference days.
149. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
court for J uly 12, 2012 or J uly 13, 2012.
24

150. Respondent failed to come to work on J uly 12, 2012 and J uly 13, 2012.
151. On J uly 12, 2012 and J uly 13, 2012, Respondent attended the Michigan Credit Union
League & Affiliates (MCUL) Annual Convention & Exhibition in Acme, Michigan.
152. Respondent used J uly 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
Respondents position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.
154. Respondent failed to use vacation/personal days for J uly 12, 2012 or J uly 13, 2012.
155. For J uly of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report seeking reimbursement
for traveling 42 miles from Novi to Waterford, Michigan on J uly 12, 2012.

12. JULY 18, 2012 CONFERENCE

156. Respondent designated J uly 18, 2012 as a conference day.
157. Based on that conference designation, no docket was created for Respondents
court on J uly 18, 2012.
158. Respondent failed to come to work on J uly 18, 2012.
159. On J uly 18, 2012, Respondent attended the 52-1 District Courts 7
th
Annual
Veterans Day and Sobriety Golf Outing.
160. The J uly 18, 2012 Veterans Day and Sobriety Golf Outing was not the direct result
of Respondents position on the bench of the 52-1 District Court.
161. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal day for J uly 18, 2012.

13. AUGUST 9, 2012 AUGUST 10, 2012 CONFERENCE

162. Respondent designated August 9, 2012 and August 10, 2012 as conference days.
25

163. Based on that conference designation, no docket was created for Respondents
court on August 9, 2012 and August 10, 2012.
164. On August 9, 2012 and August 10, 2012 Respondent attended the Michigan District
Court J udges 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 J udges 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
conference days.
169. Based on that conference designation, no docket was created for Respondents
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 J anuary 7, 2013 through and including J anuary 11, 2013 as
conference days.
174. Based on that conference designation, no docket was created for Respondents
court for J anuary 7, 2013 through and including J anuary 11, 2013.
175. Respondent failed to come to work on J anuary 7, 2013 through and including
J anuary 11, 2013.
176. Respondent did not attend any conferences on J anuary 7, 2013 through and including
J anuary 11, 2013.

16. FEBRUARY 4, 2013 FEBRUARY 8, 2013 CONFERENCE
177. Respondent designated February 4, 2013 through and including February 8, 2013 as
conference days.
178. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
court for February 4, 2013 through and including February 8, 2013.
179. Respondent failed to come to work on February 4, 2013 through and including
February 8, 2013.
180. Respondent did not attend any conferences on February 4, 2013 through and
including February 8, 2013.
181. Respondent failed to use vacation or personal days for the time he was absent from
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
conference days.
27

183. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
court for February 28, 2013 through and including March 8, 2013.
184. Respondent failed to come to work on February 28, 2013 through and including
March 8, 2013.
185. Respondent did not attend any conferences on February 28, 2013 through and
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.
187. Based on that conference designation, no dockets were created for Respondents
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

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

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 J udge to ensure
docket coordination and coverage. Respondent is also allowed an additional ten days of annual
leave with the approval of the Chief J udge.
192. Attendance at Michigan judicial conferences is not counted towards Respondents
vacation days.
28

193. Attendance, with the chief judges approval, at educational meetings or seminars is
not counted towards Respondents vacation days.
194. On or about J anuary 31, 2013, Respondent filed his Annual J udicial 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. Respondents 2012 Annual Absence Report was false.
197. Respondent failed to include the following vacation days in his Annual Absence
Report:
a. J anuary 5, 2012 through and including J anuary 13, 2012.
b. J anuary 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. J une 13, 2012 Respondent attended the Huron Valley Golf Outing.
g. J une 18, 2012 through and including J une 20, 2012 Respondent attended the CUNA

Discover Conference in San Diego, California.

h. J une 21, 2012 Respondent failed to come to work at the 52-1 District Court.
i. J une 22, 2012 Respondent attended the Middleton Real Estate Training.
j. J uly 12, 2012 through and including J uly 13, 2012 Respondent attended the MCUL

Annual Convention & Exhibition.

k. J uly 18, 2012.
l. October 1, 2012 Respondent attended the 22
nd
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 J udge J ulie A. Nicholsons
approval for any vacation days he had used.
200. In 2012, Respondent failed to seek, or obtain Chief J udge J ulie A. Nicholsons
approval for any educational meetings, conferences, or seminars.

B. TARDINESS
201. Respondents 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 Respondents docket.
b. On March 13, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:12 AM. There were 21 matters
scheduled for that morning on Respondents docket.
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
scheduled for that morning on Respondents docket.
e. On March 19, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:15 AM. There were 26
matters scheduled for that morning on Respondents docket.
f. On March 20, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:03 AM. There were 19 matters
scheduled for that morning on Respondents docket.
g. On April 16, 2013, Respondent arrived at 10:16 AM. There were 29 matters
scheduled for that morning on Respondents docket.
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
scheduled for that morning on Respondents docket.
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
scheduled for that morning on Respondents docket.

COUNT IV
MISUSE OF COUNTYISSUED EQUIPMENT

A. GENERAL

203. All the preceding paragraphs are repeated herein as though fully set forth.
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. Respondents county-issued cell phone also had the capability to transmit
text/picture/video messages and to provide internet access.
217. Between J uly 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 Respondents position on the bench of
the 52-1 District Court.
32

219. Between J uly of 2012 and J une of 2013, Respondents 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 J anuary 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 J une 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. Respondents 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 J une of 2012 and J une of 2013, Respondent had incurred the following
charges on his county-issued cell phone:
a. J uly, 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. J anuary, 2013 $ 55.08
h. February, 2013 $ 53.89
i. March, 2013 $310.81
j. April, 2013 $712.24
k. May, 2013 $ 53.84
l. J une, 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 1J XDRM1 (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


230. All the preceding paragraphs are repeated herein as though fully set forth.
A. CITY OF NOVI V TYLER
231. On December 6, 2011, J ames 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 Respondents court on December 15, 2011 (Case No.
11-5925).
234. As part of the bond conditions ordered by J udge 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 Courts pre-trial services department. Both bond conditions
were to be complied with within 24 hours of the Defendants arraignment.
235. The Defendant failed/refused to comply with the above bond conditions and on
February 23, 2012, J udge Bondy ordered a bench warrant for his arrest.
236. Respondent signed the bench warrant on behalf of J udge Bondy.
35

237. By February 23, 2012, Respondent was aware that the target of the Defendants
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 52
nd
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 J udge 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
Defendants attorney.
245. By December 3, 2012, Respondent was already aware of the Facebook threats
Defendant Tyler had made against J udge MacKenzie.
246. By December 3, 2012, Respondent was already aware that the Defendants animosity
towards J udge 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 Sheriffs Department because J udge MacKenzie had
violated Defendants probation in the 2006 OWI case.
248. On December 3, 2012, Respondent accepted the Defendants 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 Defendants $5,000.00
personal bond was a GPS and alcohol tether.
251. The Defendants pre-sentence evaluation was set for December 18, 2012, and
sentencing was scheduled for J anuary 14, 2013.
252. Defendants 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 J anuary 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] J udge 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 J anuary 14, 2013, Respondent authorized the Defendant to remove his GPS
tether.
256. Respondent allowed the removal of the GPS tether despite the Defendants history of
difficulties with substance and alcohol abuse, his repeated death threats to J udge MacKenzie, and
his numerous violations of bond conditions.
37

257. Defendants first review hearing was scheduled for April 15, 2013.
258. On March 8, 2013, the 52-1 District Courts probation officer Michael McGlown
conducted an interview with Defendant Tyler.
259. During that interview, the Defendant admitted the November 30, 2012 Facebook
threat against J udge 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 Defendants first post-sentencing
review hearing.
263. Respondent conducted the April 15, 2013 hearing without consulting the 52-1
District Court Probation Department as to Tylers 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 J uly 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 J uly 16, 2013.
269. On J uly 16, 2013, Respondent issued a bench warrant for the Defendants arrest.
38

270. On J uly 17, 2013, the Defendant appeared at the probation department for an
interview with Mr. McGlown.
271. On J uly 17, 2013, Mr. McGlown personally escorted the Defendant into
Respondents courtroom.
272. On J uly 17, 2013, probation officer McGlown advised Respondent that based on the
Defendants hostile statements and his failure to comply with the conditions of his probation, Mr.
McGlown was very concerned about J udge MacKenzies safety.
273. When Probation Officer McGlown reminded Respondent of the Defendants threats
to J udge MacKenzie, Respondent stated that perhaps the Defendants tether should have been
removed sooner.
274. On J uly 17, 2013, the Defendant left the courtroom before Respondent took the
bench.
275. The Defendant appeared in Respondents 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 Courts Probation Department.
278. Respondent did not request the probation department to prepare an updated report on
the Defendants progress and/or compliance with the conditions of his probation.
279. Respondent accepted Lou Tylers representations of the Defendants mental and
physical condition.
39

280. At the time of the August 13, 2013, Lou Tyler was a Sheriffs Deputy with the
Oakland County Sheriffs 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
Defendants failure to appear on J uly 16, 2013. Respondent also:
a. Accepted the Defendants 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 Defendants probation.

d. Reduced the Defendants fines and costs.

e. Closed the case.

282. Respondent closed Defendant Tylers probation 17 months early.
283. By terminating the Defendants 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
Defendants compliance with the psychiatric care or the intervention plan that was represented by
his father and/or by the Defense attorney, Anderson.
285. The Defendants 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 J udicial 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
defendants 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 J uly 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
defendants 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 courts probation
department, as required by MCL 257.625b(5)
308. Respondent accepted the presentence screening and assessment from the Defendants
circuit courts matter which was prepared more than six months before the plea and sentencing date
in Case No. 13-3289.
309. Respondents 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 Respondents
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 Sheriffs 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 operators driving record.
317. Prior to, or on May 29, 2013, Respondent delivered a copy of Ms. Potvins traffic
citation to Dawn Mecklenborg, the 52-1 District Courts traffic clerk, with instructions that she take
it to Magistrate Batchik for dismissal.
318. Magistrate Batchik refused to dismiss Ms. Potvins citation and scheduled the matter
for a hearing date.
319. Ms. Mecklenborg informed Respondent of Magistrate Batchiks decision.
320. On or about May 29, 2013, Respondent personally took Ms. Potvins 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. Potvins citation.
322. At Respondents request, Magistrate Cooper dismissed Ms. Potvins citation.
323. Respondent did not discuss Ms. Potvins ticket with the issuing officer, K. Webber,
and did not have Deputy Webbers permission to have the ticket dismissed.
324. Respondent did not have permission of the Oakland County Prosecutors Office to
have Ms. Potvins traffic citation dismissed.
325. Ms. Potvins citation was reinstated by the Hon. Robert Bondy and reassigned to the
52-4 District Court.
326. Respondents conduct in Ms. Potvins citation case was in violation of the 52-1
District Courts internal policy, MCR 2.003, and the Canons of the Michigan Code of J udicial
Conduct.


44


E. STATE OF MICHIGAN V FERRITER

327. On J uly 29, 2013, Michigan State Trooper Lisa Lucio issued a traffic citation to
J aime Lee Ferriter.
328. Although Ms. Ferriters 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 recipients drivers license.
329. Ms. Ferriters 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
Respondents 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. Ferriters traffic citation to
impeding traffic, an infraction that is not abstracted on Ms. Ferriters Secretary of State driving
record.
334. Respondent assessed a $130.00 fine on Ms. Ferriters ticket and gave her 12 months
to pay it.
335. Respondent disposed of Ms. Ferriters traffic citation without her presence in court
and without conducting a hearing or making a record.
336. Respondent did not discuss Ms. Ferriters ticket with the issuing officer, Trooper L.
Lucio, and did not have Trooper Lucios permission to reduce the offense to impeding traffic.
45

337. Respondent did not have permission of the Oakland County Prosecutors Office to
have Ms. Ferriters citation offense reduced to impeding traffic.
338. Respondents conduct in Ms. Potvins citation case was in violation of the 52-1
District Courts internal policy, MCR 2.003, and the Canons of the Michigan Code of J udicial
Conduct.

COUNT VI
IMPROPER EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES

339. All the preceding paragraphs are repeated herein as though fully set forth.
340. As a judge on the bench of the 52-1 District Court, Respondent is subject to the
Michigan Code of J udicial Conduct (MCJ C).
341. MCJ Cs 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 Polks Motor Vehicle Registration Manuals.

COUNT VII
IMPROPER AND INAPPROPRIATE JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR

346. All the preceding paragraphs are repeated herein as though fully set forth.
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 Respondents court clerk.
351. During 2012 and 2013, Respondent was aware that Mr. Allen was interested in
becoming the 52-1 District Courts administrator when the current administrator, J oyce 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 J une 25, 2013 Respondent advised Deputy Court Administrator J anet
Rehm that Alexandra Black provided Fox 2 News with documents that lead to the news story about
his absenteeism and tardiness.
354. In the J une 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
52-1 District Court.
356. On or about J une 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.
Rehms job.
47

357. On August 15, 2013, Chief J udge, J ulie A. Nicholson, instructed all members of the
52
nd
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 courts civil division
assignment clerk, Kris DArcy, with a request that she create a ghost docket.
359. Respondent informed Ms. DArcy that he wanted to make it appear as though he had
a docket on every Friday.
360. Respondent advised Ms. DArcy 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. Respondents conduct was in direct contravention of the directives of Chief J udge
Nicholson.
COUNT VIII
MISREPRESENTATIONS

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

A. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS

363. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for March 20, 2012 was for attending a
meeting of the 52
nd
District Court J udges.
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 52
nd
District Court judges took place on
March 23, 2012 at the Oakland County Executive Office Building in Pontiac, Michigan.
367. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for April 10, 2012, was for attending a
meeting of the 52
nd
District Court J udges.
48

368. Respondent claimed that the April 10, 2012 meeting of the 52
nd
District Court J udges
was held in West Bloomfield, Michigan.
369. No meeting of the 52
nd
District Court judges was held in April of 2012.
370. In his J anuary 21, 2012 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for J une 12, 2012, was for attending a
meeting of the 52
nd
District Court J udges.
371. Respondent claimed that the J une 12, 2012 meeting of the 52
nd
District Court J udges
was held in Rochester Hills.
372. Those statements were false.
373. No meeting of the 52
nd
District Court judges was held in J une of 2012.
374. In his J anuary 21, 2012 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for March 12, 2013, was for attending a
meeting of the 52
nd
District Court J udges.
375. Respondent claimed that the March 12, 2013 meeting of the 52
nd
District Court
J udges 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.
376. Those statements were false.
377. There was no meeting of the 52
nd
District Court judges held on March 12, 2013.
378. The March, 2013 Full Bench meeting of the 52
nd
District Court judges took place on
March 22, 2013 and was held at the Roadhouse Bar & Grill in Pontiac, Michigan.
379. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for April 9, 2013, was for attending a
meeting of the 52
nd
District Court judges.
49

380. Respondent claimed that the April 9, 2013 meeting of the 52
nd
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.
381. Those statements were false.
382. There was no meeting of the 52
nd
District Court judges in April of 2013.
383. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that the mileage request he had made for J anuary 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.
388. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that on December 6, 2012, he attended the Oakland County Bar Associations
Holiday Gala.
389. That statement was false.
390. For J uly of 2012, Respondent submitted a Mileage Report claiming that on J uly 10,
2012, he drove 142 miles to the City of Lansing.
50

391. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that on J uly 10, 2012, he may have traveled to the City of Lansing to hear
testimony on a pending bill.
392. That statement was false.
393. On J uly 10, 2012, the Michigan Legislature was not in session and no committee
hearings were conducted/held.
394. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that his mileage requests had never been questioned.
395. That statement was false.
396. The Court Administrator, J oyce 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

397. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent denied any knowledge that a conference designation was used on the courts 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
courts calendar was used by the staff of the 52-1 District Court at Respondents direction.
51

400. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that on October 8, 2012, October 9, 2012, and October 10, 2012, he was on
vacation in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
401. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
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.
404. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
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. Respondents 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.
409. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that his conference reimbursement requests had never been questioned.
410. That statement was false.
52

411. The Court Administrator, J oyce Renfrow, questioned Respondent about the
extraordinarily high hotel expenses for which he submitted reimbursement requests
.
C. ANNUAL LEAVE
412. On J anuary 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 J anuary 21, 2014, response to the Commissions Request for Comments
Respondent admitted that his 2012 J udicial 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. Respondents 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

420. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that he was always in court by 9:30 AM.
53

421. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
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. Respondents 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.
424. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
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. Respondents statement to the Commission is false.
426. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
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

432. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that he did not initiate any actions to have Ms. Potvins traffic citation dismissed.
433. That statement was false.
434. Prior to, or on May 29, 2013, Respondent delivered a copy of Ms. Potvins traffic
citation to the 52-1 District Courts traffic clerk, with instructions that she take it to Magistrate
Batchik for dismissal.

G. CITY OF NOVI V. TYLER
435. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that he discussed the reassignment of the Tyler matter to another court with the
Court Administrator, J oyce Renfrow.
436. That statement was false.
437. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that he, or someone from his staff, had made contact with the courts 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.
439. That statement was false.
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 Respondents staff made contact with the probation department before
the April 15, 2013 review hearing in Tyler.
442. In his J anuary 21, 2014 response to the Commissions Request for Comments,
Respondent stated that no relationship existed between him and Defendant J ames Tylers father,
Lou Tyler.
443. That statement was false.
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 J udge J ulie A. Nicholson and SCAOs 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 J udicial Conduct,
Canon 1.
(d) Irresponsible or improper conduct which erodes public confidence in the
judiciary, in violation of the Code of J udicial Conduct, Canon 2A.
(e) Conduct involving impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, in
violation of the Code of J udicial 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 publics confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary, contrary to the Code of J udicial Conduct,
Canon 2B.
(g) Conduct in violation of the Code of J udicial 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 J udicial 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 J udicial Conduct, Canon 3A (1).
(j) Conduct in violation of the Code of J udicial 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 J udicial 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 Respondents 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