STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE

3RD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

In re Complaint of ROBERT DAVIS Case No. 19- -PZ

For A One-Man Grand Juror Judicial HON. Chief Judge Kenny
Investigation Against Alexis Wiley,
Ryan Friedrichs, and Sirene Abou-Chaka
Pursuant to MCL §767.3.
_____________________________________________________________________________/

Pursuant to Local Administrative Order 2017-08(1)(e)(vi), this Request for

the empaneling of a one-man grand juror shall be assigned to Chief Judge
Timothy Kenny. There are no previous cause of actions between these parties
arising out the same transaction or occurrence as pled and alleged herein.

PETITIONER ROBERT DAVIS’ COMPLAINT FOR ONE-MAN GRAND

JUROR JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION AGAINST ALEXIS WILEY, RYAN
FRIEDRICHS, AND SIRENE ABOU-CHAKA PURSUANT TO MCL §767.3

.
NOW COMES, PETITIONER ROBERT DAVIS (“Petitioner Davis” or

“Petitioner”), by and through his attorney, ANDREW A. PATERSON, and for his

Complaint for A One-Man Grand Juror Judicial Investigation Against Alexis

Wiley, Ryan Friedrichs, and Sirene Abou-Chaka Pursuant to MCL §767.3

(“Complaint for One-Man Grand Juror”), states the following:

I. JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO CONVENE

ONE-MAN GRAND JUROR.

Pursuant to MCL §767.3, this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether

probable cause exists to order and convene a one-man grand juror to determine

Page 1 of 9
whether Alexis Wiley, Ryan Friedrichs, and Sirene Abou-Chaka, violated any

provision of Michigan’s Penal Code, including but not limited to the common law

offense of misconduct in office (MCL §750.505), perjury (MCL §750.423), and

unlawful removal and destruction of public records (MCL §750.491).

MCL §767.3 provides in pertinent part:

Whenever by reason of the filing of any complaint, which may be
upon information and belief, or upon the application of the prosecuting
attorney or attorney general, any judge of a court of law and of record shall
have probable cause to suspect that any crime, offense or misdemeanor has
been committed within his jurisdiction, and that any persons may be able to
give any material evidence respecting such suspected crime, offense or
misdemeanor, such judge in his discretion may make an order directing that
an inquiry be made into the matters relating to such complaint, which order,
or any amendment thereof, shall be specific to common intent of the scope
of the inquiry to be conducted, and thereupon conduct such inquiry. In any
court having more than 1 judge such order and the designation of the judge
to conduct the inquiry shall be made in accordance with the rules of such
court.

As the Michigan Court of Appeals recently explained in In re Complaint of

Robert Taylor, unpublished per curiam opinion, Docket No. 327893, decided

October 27, 2015: “A request for a grand juror under MCL 767.3 may be made on

“information and belief” and is more likely to be based upon documentary

evidence and hearsay rather than sworn testimony subject to cross-examination.”

In re Complaint of Robert Taylor, unpublished per curiam opinion, Docket No.

327893, decided October 27, 2015 (Exhibit B). In support of the instant

Complaint for One-Man Grand Juror, Petitioner Davis has attached hereto as
Page 2 of 9
Exhibit A his affidavit in support of the instant request based upon “information”

he obtained from the City of Detroit’s Office of Inspector General’s report dated

October 21, 2019 (Exhibit C). It is important to point out for the Court that there

is precedence for the convening of a one-man grand juror pursuant to MCL §767.3

based upon an independent report. Just recently, the Wayne County Circuit Court,

at the request of the Wayne County Prosecutor, convened a one-man grand juror to

investigate possible criminal conduct in the construction of the new Wayne County

Jail. The Wayne County Prosecutor’s request and the subsequent convening of the

one-man grand juror (Wayne County Case No. 13-777-GJ) were based solely upon

the audit report authored by Wayne County’s Legislative Auditor General.

Petitioner Davis’ instant request mirrors the request of the Wayne County

Prosecutor in that case.

II. LEGAL BASIS FOR CONVENING ONE-MAN GRAND

JURY.
Petitioner Davis hereby incorporates by reference, repeats, and realleges the

allegations and findings set forth in the 38-page report of the City of Detroit’s

Inspector General issued and dated October 21, 2019 (Exhibit C), as though they

were fully set forth and stated herein. It is Petitioner Davis’ belief that the 38-page

report of the City of Detroit’s Inspector General thoroughly establishes and

provides probable cause for Alexis Wiley, Ryan Friedrichs, and Sirene Abou-

Page 3 of 9
Chaka, to be charged with the common law felony offense of misconduct in office

(MCL §750.505), perjury (MCL §750.423), and the misdemeanor offense of

unlawful removal and destruction of public records (MCL §750.491). (See

Petitioner Davis’ affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

Notably, as noted in the 38-page report, the City of Detroit’s Inspector

General determined that “Ms. Wiley abused her authority by ordering ODG staff to

delete emails related to M[ake] Y[our] D[ate][;] ODG Chief Development Officer,

Ryan Friedrichs, abused his authority by being complicit in relaying the order from

Alexis Wiley to the ODG staff to delete their respective emails related to M[ake]

Y[our] D[ate][;] and ODG Deputy Chief Development Officer, Sirene Abou-

Chakra, abused her authority by reiterating the same order to the ODG staff to

delete emails related to M[ake] Y[our] D[ate]. (See p 2 of 36 of Inspector

General’s Report attached as Exhibit C).

A. Felony Common Law Offense of Misconduct In Office and

Misdemeanor Offense of Unlawfully Destroying Public Records.

MCL §750.505 provides:

Any person who shall commit any indictable offense at the common
law, for the punishment of which no provision is expressly made by
any statute of this state, shall be guilty of a felony....

Here, it should be uncontested that “misconduct in office” by appointed

executive city employees is an “indictable offense at the common law.” See People

v. Coutu, 459 Mich. 348, 353-355; 589 NW2d 458 (1999). The common-law
Page 4 of 9
offense of misconduct in office has been defined as “‘corrupt behavior by an

officer in the exercise of the duties of his office or while acting under color of his

office.’” Id. at 354, quoting Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (3d ed.), p. 543. A

charge of misconduct is sustainable when it sets forth (1) malfeasance, committing

a wrongful act, or (2) misfeasance, performing a lawful act in a wrongful manner,

or (3) nonfeasance, failing to do an act required by the duties of the office. See

People v. Coutu (On Remand), 235 Mich.App. 695, 705-706, 599 N.W.2d 556

(1999), citing People v. Thomas, 438 Mich. 448, 458, 475 N.W.2d 288 (1991),

citing Perkins & Boyce, supra at 540.

To convict on the charge of misconduct in office, the prosecutor must prove

that the defendant (1) is a public officer, (2) the misconduct occurred in the

exercise of the duties of the office or under the color of the office, and (3) is

corrupt behavior. See People v. Carlin (On Remand), 239 Mich.App. 49, 64, 607

N.W.2d 733 (1999). “‘[C]orruption,’ as an element of misconduct in office, is used

in the sense of depravity, perversion or taint.” Perkins & Boyce, supra at 542.

“Pursuant to the definitions [of depravity, perversion, and taint], a corrupt intent

can be shown where there is intentional or purposeful misbehavior or wrongful

conduct pertaining to the requirements and duties of office by an officer.” Coutu

(On Remand), supra at 706. “If the acts alleged against defendants demonstrate a

tainted or perverse use of the powers and privileges granted them, or a perversion

Page 5 of 9
of the trust placed in them by the people of this state, … they are sufficient to

sustain a charge of misconduct in office.” Id. at 707, 599 N.W.2d 556.

The City of Detroit’s Inspector General’s report thoroughly sets forth how

Alexis Wiley, Ryan Friedrichs, and Sirene Abou-Chaka, abused their powers as

appointed executives within city government by ordering the unlawful destruction

of public property by ordering the deletion of emails. Their actions clearly

violated the state statute that prohibits the destruction of public property. MCL

§750.491 clearly prohibits the destruction of emails by a city employee. MCL

§750.491(1) explicitly provides:

(1) All official books, papers, or records created by or received in any

office or agency of this state or its political subdivisions are public property
belonging to the people of this state. All such books, papers, or records shall
be disposed of only as provided in section 11 of the Michigan history center
act, 2016 PA 470, MCL 399.811, and sections 2137 and 2138 of the revised
judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2137 and 600.2138.

MCL §750.491(2) makes it a crime for a person to “dispose” of public

records prematurely. The emails that the public employees were ordered to delete

were undeniably “public records” as that termed is defined under Michigan’s

Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Attached hereto as Exhibit D, is the

enumerated general rule that local government’s must follow in order to properly

“dispose” of public records in their possession. The enumerated state rule requires

Page 6 of 9
certainly “public records”, like emails to be saved for at least 2 to 5 years after

their creation.

B. Perjury

In an effort to refute the Inspector General’s findings, Alexis Wiley, Rayn

Friedrichs, and Sirene Abu-Chaka each submitted “affidavits of truthfulness” to the

Inspector General. Specifically, each of their “affidavits of truthfulness” attested

to the fact that “the factual statements in the ‘Response to OIG Draft Findings,

Case No. 19-0013-INV’ are true to the best of my knowledge.” Their Response

filed with the Inspector General falsely asserts that Wiley, Friedrichs, and Abu-

Chaka did not abuse their authority when they ordered the emails to be deleted.

Since their defense contradicts the factual findings made by the Inspector General,

their respective affidavits contain false statements constituting perjury.

MCL §750.423(1) states as follows: “Any person authorized by a statute of

this state to take an oath, or any person of whom an oath is required by law, who

willfully swears falsely in regard to any matter or thing respecting which the oath

is authorized or required is guilty of perjury. . . .” See People v Lively, 470 Mich

248, 254; 680 NW2d 878 (2004) (perjury is “a willfully false statement about any

matter or thing concerning which an oath was authorized or required”). The

prosecution bears the burden to prove the falsity of the statement “by establishing

the truth of its contradiction.” People v Cash, 388 Mich 153, 162; 200 NW2d 83

Page 7 of 9
(1972). “It is not enough simply to contradict it, but evidence of the truth of the

contradiction must come from evidence of circumstances bringing strong

corroboration of the contradiction.” Id.

In the case at bar, the Inspector General’s report clearly contradicts the false

statements Alexi Wiley, Ryan Friedrichs, and Sirene Abu-Chaka make in their

respective “affidavits of truthfulness” which falsely attests that the statements

made in their response filed with the Inspector General were truthful.

The City of Detroit’s Inspector General’s conclusions and findings set forth

in its October 21, 2019 report (Exhibit C) clearly provide a basis for a finding of

probable cause to convene a one-man grand juror in accordance with MCL §767.3.

As noted above, it is Petitioner Davis’ belief that the City of Detroit’s Inspector

General’s October 21, 2019 report provides sufficient evidence for a finding of

probable cause to enable the convening of a one-man grand juror to investigate

whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant felony and/or misdemeanor charges

to be brought against Alexis Wiley, Ryan Friedrichs, and Sirene Abu-Chaka for

misconduct in office, perjury, and unlawful destruction and/or disposal of public

records.

Page 8 of 9
 CONCLUSION/PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and for the reasons and findings

set forth in the City of Detroit’s Inspector General’s October 21, 2019 report,

Petitioner Davis prays that this Honorable Court GRANT his instant request and

convenes a one-man grand juror in accordance with MCL §767.3.

Dated: October 28, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ ANDREW A. PATERSON

ANDREW A. PATERSON (P18690)
Attorney for Petitioner
2893 E. Eisenhower Pkwy
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
(248) 568-9712
aap43@outlook.com

Page 9 of 9