|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Is Flint one of the only court systems that has their bailiffs escort the jurors down the street to one of several restauants downtown? Does this even involve common sense when so many restaurants will deliver?
It was bound to happen sooner or later that an incident would rise to an unacceptable level of stupidity. And in a Halo Burger no less.
I was at the Flint chamber of Commerce meeting yesterday. A female member was with her attorney at the halo Burger discussing her case when the jurors entered the restaurant. She states she and her attorney were unaware of the juriors presence until her attorney told her he felt she was aggrieved and the person she was filing against was guilty. I know the attorney and he often speaks loudly, especially when he is excited.
They were both surprised when the Bailiff came over and told them they could not speak as the jurors were present. Thyey were even more surprised when a letter came regarding an Attorney Grievance Commission complaint being filed against the lawyer. |
|
|
Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:01 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Who is to blame for this incident? The legal system that parades jurors down public streets to public restaurants or the uninformed restaurant patrons?. Could an advance notice to the restaurant had cleared a more private seting for the jurors?
What are the rules for bailiffs and should the bailiff have announced the presence of the jurors?
The damage of an exaggerated complaint is the same as a lie. This lawyer is at odds with much of the downtown political culture, so is this political payback-a form of revenge?
What if someone not in the legal system been in the restaurant discussing loudly a televised court case? |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:08 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
I was in another local restaurant and heard this story last week. The lawyer telling the story had only heard about the incident, but felt the attorney involved should be disbarred. So obviously someone is getting a lot of mileage about this story.
That makes me believe the story is political. Had this been anyone else, there would not have been such a story.
This attorney had also been helping the owner of Brenda"s Best dry cleaners. Her water bill escalated to $17,000 from an average $100 per month. Brown promised to investigate, but they are demanding the $17,000 payment or they will shut the water off. This will destroy what is left of her business. |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:16 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Welcome
The Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) is the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Michigan Supreme Court for allegations of attorney misconduct. The AGC serves to maintain and promote the integrity of the Bar and to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. The AGC has jurisdiction over all attorneys licensed to practice law by the State Bar of Michigan and attorneys otherwise permitted to practice law in the State of Michigan.
In exercising its investigative and prosecutorial powers, the AGC strives to promptly and efficiently hold attorneys accountable for their misconduct or determine that the allegations do not merit formal disciplinary action. The basis for AGC action is a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and/or limited applications of the Michigan Court Rules.
The Attorney Discipline Boardis the adjudicative arm of the Michigan Supreme Court for matters in which the AGC has initiated formal proceedings.
The AGC does not have primary jurisdiction over the Michigan Judiciary. Complaints regarding Michigan judges should be sent to the Judicial Tenure Commission at:
The Judicial Tenure Commission
3034 West Grand Boulevard
Suite 8-450
Detroit, MI 48202 |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:18 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN!
Allegedly Brian from Judge Hayman's court was accompanying the jurors to the Halo Burger. When he heard the remarks he informed the attorney that he should not be speaking as the jury was present. A bailiff from Yuilles court was said to be bringing up the last of the jurors.
They allege it was an issue of jury tampering.
1. Did this attorney being accused have anything to do with the case in Hayman's court?
2. Did the attorney in question even know the jury was entering the restaurant?
3. Did he bailiffs or court clerks enter first to ensure there would no chance encounters or uncomfortable situations? Did they announce the jury was about to enter?
4. What if they had entered the restaurant and friends and/or relatives of the defendant in Hayman's case had been there?
5. is there a vehicle to transport jurors to a restaurant further from the courthouse where chance encounters can occur? Is it even wise to walk them dwn Flint streets to have lunch? |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:47 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Attorneys (and Judges) are the first ones to tell the public that an individual is "innocent until proven guilty". Attorney grievance matters and Judicial tenure matters are supposed to be confidential up until a discipline is issued or denied. In this instance it seems the majority of lawyers in the community have judged this individual to be guilty.
Whether or not they like an attorney who represents someone on the other side of the political fence, that does not mean they should be crucified. |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:51 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
It appears the incident took place in Tommy Z's and not the Halo Burger.
Attorneys all over town have been discussing the incident and some attorneys received faxes that detailed the allegations.
Flint attorney facing criminal contempt charge after alleged incident at Flint Original Coney Island
Published: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:00 PM
By Gary Ridley | gridley@mlive.com
FLINT, MI -- A Flint attorney is facing criminal contempt of court charges after a Genesee Circuit Court law clerk accused him of making improper comments in front of a jury at Tom Z's Flint Original Coney Island restaurant.
Testimony was heard today in Genesee Circuit Judge Archie L. Hayman's courtroom on charges that attorney Anthony Lubkin made improper comments in front of a seated jury that was at the restaurant eating lunch.
A number of other Flint attorneys observed Thursday's proceeding, with some commenting on the rarity of an attorney facing criminal contempt charges.
Hayman's law clerk and bailiff, Brian MacMillan, informed Hayman that he heard who he believed to be Lubkin say "guilty" in front of the jury at the restaurant on April 12.
The jury was hearing the murder trial of Thomas Lee Jones in Hayman's courtroom. The jury convicted Jones in the murder of Amanda Lamson on April 18.
Executive Director of the Flint Area Chamber of Commerce Lydia Simon, who was at the restaurant with Lubkin at the time of the alleged incident, testified that Lubkin said, "She's guilty," in reference to a legal discussion she was having with him.
She denied that Lubkin directed the comment toward the jury.
MacMillan testified that he confronted Lubkin in the restaurant after he heard the "guilty" remark.
"I made it clear to him that he should not be speaking to the jurors," MacMillan testified.
"What, I can't say the word guilty?" Lubkin responded according to MacMillan. "What if I say the word innocent?"
When she was questioned by Hayman today, Simon testified she could not recall Lubkin responding in such a way to MacMillan.
The hearing is expected to continue Friday morning with Lubkin's attorney, Robert Fleming, saying his client could possibly take the witness stand. |
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 9:30 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
One concern that I had during the proceeding was that Judge Hayman refused to recuse himself from the case. MacMillan indicated he spoke to Hayman when he returned from the restaurant, but Yuille's law clerk indicated MacMillan called from the court. There was an in camera review when the jury returned and some jurors were questioned.
PARDON ME JUDGE, BUT YOUR BIAS IS SHOWING!
Hayman insisted he could remain impartial, however he questioned the witnesses in a far more demanding fashion than the prosecutor assigned to the case. Also in the beginningn assistant prosecutor Gwinn was assigned to the case, but in todays proceedings the Prosecutor sen his number 2 guy, Randy Petrides. at oe point the judge seemed to be reading a comment that I don't believe was discussed in today's proceedings.
Another judge should have heard the case. In the court of public opinion, Hayman did not fare well in the courtroom today.
One question is why were we even there? Also, did Brian MacMillin really sign affidavits that he waited two weeks to file a complaint because he had discussed the case with a number of attorneys and been advised to pursue the issue?
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Sat May 19, 2012 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 9:43 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| In the past the court hired retired police and sheriff deputies to be bailiffs. Since that position has been cut for budget reasons, the Judicial Advisory Assistants (law clerks) are being deputized as sheriff deputies and allowed to do bailiff duties without much training. Under questioning from Hayman, it appeared that Hayman did not believe his bailiff/law clerk understood his bailiff responsibilities completely. |
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 9:48 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Order in the Court - Michigan Courts
courts.michigan.gov/lc-gallery/order-in-court.htm
The judge must see that the trial is conducted in an orderly manner and according to prescribed rules and laws. ... The clerk is an officer of the court and records a summary of what happens in a case as well ... The bailiff opens and closes the court each day and attends to the jury by sitting ...
COURTROOM CLERK
The clerk sits to one side of the judge. The clerk is an officer of the court and records a summary of what happens in a case as well as orders made by the court during the trial and the verdict at the end of the trial. The clerk also administers the oath or affirmation to jurors and all witnesses before they testify and marks all exhibits when they are received in evidence.
BAILIFF
A bailiff is a police officer who is charged with keeping order in the courtroom during a trial. The bailiff opens and closes the court each day and attends to the jury by sitting outside the jury room while the jury is deliberating on a verdict. Jurors should comply with requests of the bailiff while in the bailiff's charge. |
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The judge has placed himself in a precarious position. By refusing to recuse himself when the courtroom proceedings revealed his role as such an active one in the case has placed him in a possible situation for a Judicial Tenure Commission complaint.
This will not be the first time Judge Hayman has been in a confrontational situation. There were complaints filed against him over the Flint District Court magistrate issue and whether or not he violated the law when he appointed a non Flint resident to be magistrate.
The issue has been discussed all over the city and faxes were distributed, allegedly by someone in the prosecutors office, that gave details of the allegations.
Hayman was dismayed theat newspaper owner Mike Killbreath had read the complaint to the Atorney Grievance Commission and called MacMillan a liar. The testimony of Collison also tended to dispute any allegations that an entire table had continuously used the guilty word. Hayman was also surprised when he was told the Flint Journal was present.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri May 18, 2012 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 6:30 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Judicial Tenure Commission investigates Judge Kenneth Post
.
By PEG MCNICHOL
The Holland Sentinel
Posted May 11, 2012
Holland —
The fallout from 58th District Judge Kenneth Post’s decision to jail a Stanton lawyer in December continues
.
Stanton attorney Scott Millard and 58th District Chief Judge Bradley Knoll formally have asked Michigan’s Judicial Tenure Commission to investigate the incident.
Knoll said his request was “the only real vehicle I would have for passing along facts that I had that perhaps attorney Millard did not have, so that the Judicial Tenure Commission would get the full story and give them a basis for proceeding with their investigation.”
Knoll mentioned the investigation request during a court hearing to review whether Post, judge at the Hudsonville district court, should continue to recuse himself from hearing Millard’s cases. Knoll told Post not to preside over any of Millard’s cases until the commission’s investigation is done.
Knoll said his investigation request is the first in his career.
“As chief judge and after consulting with other judges, I thought that it would be appropriate to pass along information that I had to the Judicial Tenure Commission in the form of a request for an investigation,” Knoll said Friday.
Millard landed in jail on a contempt of court charge after he and Post tangled in court over whether Post’s questions to Millard’s client violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights — the right to remain silent so as not to incriminate oneself and the right to have proper legal representation
.
Miriam Aukerman, a Grand Rapids-based ACLU attorney who in December filed a legal brief supporting Millard, said criminal defense lawyers are very interested in the outcome of the commission’s investigation of Post because “it’s a real dangerous precedent if defense attorneys are worried about getting thrown in jail for doing their jobs.”
She said the Judicial Tenure Commission exists as part of “a system to make sure judges are accountable to the public for their conduct.”
Those who request commission investigations are barred from discussing the details, but Knoll said the reason for his filing was “the incident itself and the notoriety associated with it. I thought it was appropriate that the Judicial Tenure Commission receive the knowledge I have regarding it so they would have the full story, in fairness to Judge Post and the other parties involved.”
Calls and an email to Millard’s attorney, Josh Blanchard, were not returned as of press time.
— Follow this reporter on Facebook and on Twitter @SentinelPeg. |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 6:40 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
THERE IS SPECULATION BY SOME INVOLVED IN THE CASE THAT THE AGGRESSIVENESS OF THE PROSECUTION IS IN PART RELATED TO THIS CASE WHERE A PASTOR ALLEGES EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND FALSE ARREST.
OPEN CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 05/18/12 PAGE 1
12-097918-CZ JUDGE FARAH FILE 03/30/12
GENESEE COUNTY
P 001 TYLER,GEMALE, VS D 001 TOWNSHIP OF MT MORRIS,,
5447 BICENTENNIAL DRIVE
MT MORRIS MI 48458
ATY:LUBKIN,F. ANTHO
P-32740 248-496-5222
P 002 TYLER,GENERAL, VS D 002 ASHLEY,ALBERT,
C/O-MT MORRIS TWP POLICE,,
5447 BICENTENNIAL
MT MORRIS MI 48458
ATY:LUBKIN,F. ANTHONY
P-32740 248-496-5222
P 003 TYLER,NAPOLEON, VS D 003 HITE,DOUGLAS,
C/O-MT MORRIS TWP POLICE,,
5447 BICENTENNIAL
MT MORRIS MI 48458
ATY:LUBKIN,F. ANTHO
P-32740 248-496-5222
P 004 TRUE TEMPLE OF GOD,, VS D 004 JOHNSON,DAVID,
C/O-MT MORRIS TWP POLICE,,
5447 BICENTENNIAL
MT MORRIS MI 48458
ATY:LUBKIN,F. ANTHO
P-32740 248-496-5222
D 005 BRECKENRIDGE,DIANE,
C/O-GENESEE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT,,
420 W FIFTH ST
FLINT MI 48503
D 006 CENTERS,RODNEY,
4760 N JENNINGS
MT MORRIS MI 48458
D 007 MC CURDY,PAUL,
C/O-MT MORRIS TWP POLICE,,
5447 BICENTENNIAL
MT MORRIS MI 48458
D 008 GENESEE COUNTY DEPT OF,,
420 W FIFTH AVE
FLINT MI 48503
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri May 18, 2012 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 6:53 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
This case is related and another part of the allegations of false arrest by the Mt Morris Township police and the prosecution by Leyton that was dismissed.
This case is a going to a hot topic for Genesee County in the future.
Case number: FYO1000288
Plantiff: STATE OF MICHIGAN , VS Defendant: TYLER , GEMALE MONDEZ
Attorney: P35086 LEYTON ,DAVID S Attorney: P NOT ON ATTORNEY FILE
Judge/Magistrate: CHRISTOPHER ODETTE
Circuit Judge: ARCHIE L HAYMAN
FELONY CRIMINAL Page 01 of 03
Case Register of Actions
04/06/2010 COMPLAINT SWORN - WARRANT AUTHORIZED
04/06/2010 ORIGINATING AGENCY MI2584500
04/06/2010 DATE OF OFFENSE 04-01-2010
04/06/2010 PLACE OF OCCURRENCE MT MORRIS TWP
04/06/2010 COMPLAINT NUMBER 10-1301
04/06/2010 FELONY CT I ASSAULT WITH DANGEROUS
04/06/2010 WEAPON (FELONIOUW ASSAULT) 750.82
04/06/2010 INVESTIGATING OFFICER-DEPT OFC MCCURDY , MT MORRIS TWP
04/06/2010 RACE/SEX B,M
04/06/2010 WARRANT CHARGE 1399
04/06/2010 TRANSACTION CONTROL NO. EO10102542M
04/03/2010 ARRAIGNED BY JUDGE ODETTE
04/03/2010 RETAIN ATTY.
04/03/2010 PRE-TRIAL 04-09-2010 08:30 FEL ASSLT
04/03/2010 PRELIMINARY EXAM 04-13-2010 08:30 FEL ASSLT
04/03/2010 BOND SET 10,$2000
04/03/2010 NO CONTACT WITH VICTIM
04/07/2010 PAID CASH BOND 10% R# 018123136, $ 200.00
04/09/2010 PRE-TRIAL 04-23-2010 @ 8:30
04/09/2010 PRELIMINARY EXAM 04-27-2010 @ 8:30
04/23/2010 LEAVE ON EXAM 04-27-2010 09;00 -----
04/27/2010 CASE DISMISSED CT I/W/OUT PREJUDICE
04/27/2010 NO OUTSTANDING BONDS
04/27/2010 NO OUTSTANDING WARRANTS
04/27/2010 DISPOSITION TO LANSING CT I
04/28/2010 CHECK ISSUED $ 200.00 0148866 TYLER /K2
04/29/2010 CASE CLOSED |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 7:12 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
In the order to show cause for criminal contempt of court Brian MacMillan said: "verbally communicated with the jury by stating "guilty". After I advised him not speak to the jury he continued to speak"
One reason Judge Hayman may have been angry is Lubkin filed complaints with Barbara Menear and Sheriff Pickell regarding the alleged inappropriate conduct of the law clerks .
The letter to Menear is 4 pages long and contains allegations referencing the two cases I previously mentioned. More importantly, there is what could be construed as a veiled threat involving the media and an un-named publisher.
Sheriff Robert Pickell
Genesee County Sheriff's Department
1002 S. Saginaw
Flint, MI 48503
Re: Complaint About Recent Mishandling of Jurors by Court Staff; False Claims of Comments “To” Jurors, #11-28110 FC
Dear Sheriff Pickell:
Enclosed please find correspondence directed to Barbara Menear, Court Administrator for the Seventh Circuit Court, whose duties include providing protection and security for jurors. The correspondence sets forth my concerns and complaint regarding how jurors and interactions between
them and the public were handled in one recent specific instance, as well as generally. I believe that there has been a misfeasance or malfeasance of duty on the part of certain court affiliated persons, and/or acts of public corruption which merit your department's investigation. I believe it is my professional duty to bring these pervasive deficiencies, as well as specific acts / omissions to your attention, not only to probe and address irregularities in this particular case but also to work toward reforms of practices and protocols to prevent recurrences of episodes such as the one addresses herein.
Undersigned is joined by several witnesses who were present, as well as interested media investigators and/or publishers following developments as to these issues. Thank you for your
consideration of the foregoing.
Sincerely. |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 6:10 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
