|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
It became obvious during the show cause hearing that there might have been some real concern about the quality of the training of the law clerks for bailiff duties. Several of us noticed this and commented after the Thursday hearing. It appears that to save money, the law clerks were sworn in as sheriff deputies in order to meet what I am told is a requirement that bailiffs be law enforcement officials.
Both Randy Petrides and Judge Hayman characterized Lubkin and his alleged actions as being those of a "smart aleck". I did not realize many people still used that phrase.
In my opinion, the Judge appeared to be furious when he stated that Lubkin tried to destroy the careers of two young lawyers, referencing the two law clerks. |
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 6:30 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Lubkin, in his letter to Menear, discussed his dismay about this incident being discussed all over the city and even being faxed to some attorney offices. Why is there no concern about Lubkin possibly being slandered before the hearing. I too heard the stories and heard about the faxes. It is true that the "story gets longer along the line". What was being discussed in the community did not match the testimony in the case.
It was said that Lubkin said 15 times or more "guilty", but there was no testimony that I recall that stated this. It was said that Yuilles law clerk also heard the comments, but he didn't testify to that.
Lawyers throughout the community were calling for Lubkin to be jailed. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 6:38 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
I have not seen the complaint to the Attorney Grievance Commission, but I am told the complaint references the word guilty being used numerous times after Lubkin and Simon joined Roscoe Clark and Mike Killbreath. There was a lot of testimony but I did not hear this said in the court.
After hearing Killbreath testify and watching the seemingly contentious interaction between killbreath and the Judge, it was no wonder the Judge seemed to be somewhat apprehensive. I still was not prepared for the Judge to threaten those present with swift action if he were to be slandered. The judge expressed fear that he could be harmed by negative media and stated he did not understand the attention the case was receiving. Killbreath was intimidating, but he had no reporters present other than himself. Several were taking notes, but one was Lubkin's wife and a Flint Journal reporter.
In my opinion Killbreath and his argumentive and somewhat intimidating testimony did Lubkin more harm than good. It also appeared to make the Judge angry.
This testimony and the tenor of the communications to Menear and Pickell were contentious. The Judge addressed slander, but he can't address my opinion. In my opinion he should have allowed another Judge to hear the case. I felt he was too invested in the case. Others may see it differently. |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 6:50 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Coney island comments near jurors get attorney Anthony Lubkin 30 days in Genesee County Jail
Published: Friday, May 18, 2012, 5:00 PM
By Gary Ridley | gridley@mlive.com
FLINT, MI -- An area attorney was ordered to spend 30 days in jail Friday after a judge said comments made in the presence of jurors at a Flint coney island could force prosecutors to retry a murder case in Genesee Circuit Court.
Genesee Circuit Judge Archie L. Hayman said attorney Anthony Lubkin acted like a "smart aleck" for comments Lubkin allegedly made at Tom Z’s Original Coney Island where jurors in a murder trial had been taken for lunch April 12.
Hayman’s law clerk, Brian MacMillan, claimed he heard Lubkin say "guilty" at the coney island where MacMillan and another law clerk had escorted 14 jurors for lunch.
Lubkin said he never directed any comments at the restaurant toward jurors.
MacMillan testified during a contempt hearing Thursday that he was directing the jurors to their seats in the restaurant when he heard a man he believed to be Lubkin say “guilty.”
MacMillan, who serves as the court’s bailiff and is also an attorney, testified that he confronted Lubkin about the alleged 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?"
MacMillan said he was concerned that the comments could influence jurors and reported the incident to Hayman, who was presiding over the murder trial.
A witness called by Lubkin’s attorney, Robert Fleming, refuted MacMillan’s account of the events.
Lydia Simon, who is the executive director of the Flint Area Chamber of Commerce, said she was at the restaurant with Lubkin at the time of the incident and testified that Lubkin said, "She's guilty," in reference to a legal discussion the two were having.
She also testified she could not recall Lubkin responding in such a way to MacMillan.
Hayman expressed concern with the reliability of some of the witnesses called on Lubkin’s behalf and that Lubkin's defense rested on attacking the reputation of the two young legal clerks.
Hayman questioned the objectivity of Flint Area Chamber of Commerce President Mike Killbreath, who testified that he, Lupkin, Simon and fellow Chamber member Roscoe Clark were at the restaurant for a business meeting the day of the incident.
During sometimes-heated testimony, Killbreath -- who said he and Clark arrived after the alleged exchange between Lubkin and MacMillan -- said that MacMillan’s accusations were lies and that he should face prison time for making the accusation against Lubkin.
He also said that Lubkin, who serves as legal counsel for the Chamber and formerly for a group attempting to recall Flint Mayor Dayne Walling, was being “railroaded” by the accusations.
Hayman said that Killbreath’s testimony was not objective, and that it was clear to him that Lubkin and Killbreath were sticking up for one another.
“One hand washes the other,” Hayman said.
Hayman also accused Lubkin of contriving the testimony of his witnesses to cover for his bad judgment, an accusation Lubkin denied.
Prior to handing down his sentence, Hayman said that Lubkin’s actions were not only inappropriate for an attorney, but could have a large impact on the court and jurors.
Hayman said the jurors, who were seated on the murder trial of Thomas L. Jones, had their lives interrupted by Lubkin’s actions.
One juror in particular, who worked as a self-employed hairdresser, was forced to miss another half-day of work because the court had to spend time addressing Lubkin’s comments during the trial, said Hayman.
“(Lubkin) was being a smart aleck, but the ramifications were severe,” Hayman said.
Attorney Jeffrey Clothier, who represents Jones in the trial for the 2010 death of Amanda Lamson, said that he asked Hayman for a mistrial after he was made aware of Lubkin’s comments by the court, but it was denied.
Jones was convicted of murder April 18. He scheduled to be sentenced in June.
But Clothier said the incident would likely be brought up in an appeal.
During his 18 years on the bench, Hayman said he had never sentenced an attorney to jail for criminal contempt. He said he was also unaware of any sitting judge in Genesee Circuit Court making a similar ruling.
“It doesn’t make me feel good,” Hayman said while handing down the sentence. “I’ve never had to jail a lawyer before.”
Lubkin was placed in handcuffs and escorted without a word from the courtroom by sheriff's deputies after the ruling.
Fleming asked Hayman to approve an appeal bond, which would have kept Lubkin free during the appeal process.
Hayman denied the bond, saying he wanted Lubkin to start his sentence today. But Hayman said he he would reconsider the bond issue after Fleming files an appeal
In addition to the 30-day jail sentence for criminal contempt, Hayman fined Lubkin $250.
Also pending is a grievance that MacMillan testified he has filed against Lubkin with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission.
Cynthia Dullington, assistant deputy at the commission, said she could not confirm or deny if a grievance had been filed against Lubkin.
However, Dullington did say that normally following a misdemeanor conviction, such as contempt of court, a judgment of conviction will be forwarded to the Attorney Discipline Board for possible sanctions.
Dullington said any potential sanctions could be more severe when the grievance involves issues such as an attorney’s professional fitness.
“Our duty (as attorneys) is to uphold the court and the administration of justice,” Dullington said.
Imjustsayin May 18, 2012 at 5:06PM
Hah!..The ADB will do nothing. You heard it here first.
Politically Correct May 18, 2012 at 6:12PM
A shyster lawyer getting 30 days! Who says there is no good news on mlive....
KPCJ44 May 18, 2012 at 7:23PM
Hayman is biased and has no business deciding anything regarding the allegations of his clerk in this case. |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 7:13 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hayman stated that no matter what decision he made people would attack him. He said he was afraid of Killbreath, based on the comments made by killbreath. "They can do harm to me publicly", said Hayman. He then reaffirmed his intention to uphold the integrity of the court.
The judge told Lubick that he played the victim very well and that he was a smart aleck. He stated lubick saw the jury and saw two young law clerks and "you took advantage of them".Hayman said it was shameful to accuse and attack the law clerks and called them two lawyers with integrity.
"Your arrogance is what will take you down", said Hayman. Before sentencing Hayman told lubick that had he accepted responsibility there would have been no jail time. He further chastised lubkin for impuning the integrity of the lawyers.
Many came in the court room just to watch, saying the case was unique. The Judge referenced their presence and appeared to be surprised. He said this was not an earth shattering case and referenced the presence of so many reporters as an attempt to itimidate. I am only aware of one Flint Journal reporter and a former national reporter who never took a note. Lubkins wife was taking notes, but I do not believe her to be a reporter.
Hayman threatened that anyone who reported on this case and were not objective and if they were slanderous that he would take action.
But in light of the communications and some of the testimony, maybe Hayman had every right to express apprehension. |
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 8:23 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Genesee County Jail guards missing training in legal dispute; both sides
blame each other
Published: Tuesday, October 05, 2010, 9:13 AM Updated: Tuesday, October 05, 2010, 9:16 AM
David Harris | Flint Journal
Robert Pickell
GENESEE COUNTY, Michigan — Genesee County jail guards are missing out on 20 hours of training because of an
ongoing legal dispute over a $12 prisoner booking fee at county jails.
As a result, the head of the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Michigan said the guards are no longer certified — a claim
disputed by Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell and a state advisory board that oversees jail guard certification.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit by the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Michigan that claims that Genesee County and
other sheriff’s departments around the state have been using booking fees to pay for overtime instead of training for
corrections officers.
The fee has been in place since 2003, but the suit alleges that sheriff’s have misused the funds since the start.
Pickell said his department has used the money properly and would be able to use more if not for a 2007 court
injunction that has put a freeze on about $2 million in fees statewide.
“When they free up the money, I’ll use it for the 20 hours of training,” said Pickell.
Genesee County collected $487,000 in jail fees between 2003 and 2009 but spent only $122,000 on training, said Larry
Orlowski, executive director of the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Michigan.
Orlowski maintains that more than 90 percent of Genesee County’s jail guards were uncertified in 2008 and believes
they have missed out on training that includes classes such as how to spot mental illnesses in inmates.
An official with the board that oversees the training calls the claims unfounded.
Jim Reed, executive director for the Michigan Sheriff’s Coordinating and Training Council, said its record shows that
more than 97 percent of Genesee County’s jail guards are certified and said missing out on the 20 hours of training
would not change that.
Reed, whose group is also named in the lawsuit, said the court injunction is hurting communities like Genesee County
that already don’t have enough money to spend for training.
Aric Watts, president of the Genesee County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, said his group is not involved in the lawsuit,
and he believes the officers are receiving the proper training.
“To me some of the training doesn’t make any sense,” said Watts. “I’m not sure how they’re saying we’re not certified.”
Orlowski said the training is essential for the deputies to complete their jobs and for their safety.
“There are significant incidents in inmate injuries and more significant incidents of corrections officer injuries in jail,”
Orlowski said. “Because the mental institutes are closing, it’s a very dangerous environment, especially if you aren’t
prepared for it. It’s either the inmate that is going to get injured or the corrections officer is going to get injured.”
© 2010 MLive.com. All rights reserved.
Genesee County Jail guards missing training in legal dispute; both sides blame each other Page 2 of 2
http://blog.mlive.com/newsnow_impact/print.html?entry=/2010/10 |
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 8:58 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The Judicial Advisory Assistants assigned to be bailiffs are merely lawyers who have been sworn in and with no or little training in the responsibilities of a bailiff. They are merely jury escorts and perform no other duties that would be expected of a bailiff. They cannot protect the court as they have no training in the use of weapons and do not carry guns. Plus they have other responsibilities during jury trials.
Are these lawyers paying dues to the Deputy unions?
Do the lawyers have clothing that identifies them as bailiffs? |
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 9:02 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Is the use of the Law Clerks as bailiffs as bailiffs an unfair labor practice. The courts are the employers of the bailiffs and in some communities bailiffs are members of AFSCME 25
[PDF]
STATE OF MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION ...
www.dleg.state.mi.us/ham/ber/pdf/2000/c99b24.pdf
Ass'n v State of Michigan, 459 Mich 291, 304 (1998). Now ... hire court officers to perform bailiffs' work, purportedly as independent contractors, and unilaterally ...
STATE OF MICHIGAN
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION
In the Matter of:
DETROIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL,
Respondent-Public Employer,
-and-
36TH DISTRICT COURT,
Respondent-Public Employer,
-and-
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 25 and
LOCAL 917,
Charging Party-Labor Organization in Case No. C99 B-24
Petitioner in Case No. UC99 B-44.
/
APPEARANCES:
David J. Masson, Esq., City of Detroit Law Department, for Detroit Judicial Council
Constance J. Allen, Esq., for 36th District Court
Miller Cohen, P.C., by Bruce A. Miller, Esq., and Eric I. Frankie, Esq., for the Labor Organization
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 16, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Roulhac issued his Decision and
Recommended Order in the above-entitled matter, finding that Respondents have engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist and take
certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Decision and Recommended Order of the
Administrative Law Judge. In addition, the ALJ recommended that this Commission grant the
Union’s petition for unit clarification.
The Decision and Recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge was served on the
interested parties in accord with Section 16 of Act 336 of the Public Acts of 1947, as amended.
The parties have had an opportunity to review this Decision and Recommended Order for a period of at least 20 days from the date the decision was served on the parties, and no exceptions
have been filed by any of the parties to this proceeding.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 16 of the Act, the Commission adopts as its order the order recommended
by the Administrative Law Judge.
MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Maris Stella Swift, Commission Chair
Harry W. Bishop, Commission Member
C. Barry Ott, Commission Member
Date: |
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 9:12 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Although these Law Clerks are sworn in as sheriff deputies, they are not certied law enforcement officers. Their swearing in would appear to be a sham to save money. It is my undrstanding that a real bailliff undergoes a specific training program.
The judge is worried about a mistrial regarding this incident. Should he be worried that use of untrained personnel could also be an issue. Although the testimony from the 2 law clerks was that they did not observe the jury badges being worn by all jurors, the judge asserted they all worw them. No one ever testified as to the weather and whether or not the jurors were wearing jackets or other outerwear. |
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 9:21 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
I was unaware that Hayman and killbreath had a history together-albeit a bad history. I am told Killbreath wrote some unflattering stories about Haymanand that is the basis of the animousity.
I have some serious questions about Killbreaths questioning. The defense attorney could have reined him in and made no attempt to do so. The attorney seemed afraid of the Judge, but he did not limit his line of questioning. To me it was a donnybrook between the Judge and the witness Killbreath. |
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 3:16 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
It appears that bailiffs should be licensed law enforcement officers from the MCOLES site and other sites.
In Act 46 of 2004 that provides compensation for disabled public safety officers injured on the job, bailiffs are listed in 28.632 (e) under definitions as a law enforcement officer eligible for these benefits.
Even private security guards must be licensed.
Training programs are established for bailiffs.
I understand Sheriff Pickell has not responded to the communication outlining the complaint against the 2 law clerks said to be bailiffs. |
|
|
|
Mon May 21, 2012 4:15 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
ARCHIE HAYMAN, J.D. (1991-1994) MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
a lawyer at the time of his appointment,
was chair of the NAACP Grievance
Commission and a member of the State
Bar of Michigan, the Genesee County
Bar Association and the American Trial
Lawyers Association. A former labor
relations representative at the General
Motors Truck and Bus Group in Flint,
he was a board member of the Mass
Transportation Authority. In 1992, Judge Hayman became vicechair
of the Commission. He left the Commission in 1994 after
being appointed a judge. |
|
|
|
Mon May 21, 2012 4:26 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Flint-area attorney free for now after five-day jail stay in Coney contempt case
Published: Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 7:40 AM Updated: Tuesday, June 05, 2012, 7:50 AM
By Gary Ridley | gridley@mlive.com
FLINT, MI -- An area attorney who spent five days in the Genesee County Jail for criminal contempt of court is free on bond while he awaits the outcome of an appeal, his lawyer said.
Attorney F. Anthony Lubkin was sentenced to 30 days in jail May 18 by Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman after the judge ruled that Lubkin made inappropriate comments in front of a seated jury eating lunch at Tom Z's Original Coney Island in April.
Hayman ruled May 23 that Lubkin could be released from jail on 10 percent of a $5,000 bond. Court records show the bond was posted a day later.
Lubkin's attorney, Jill Schinske, of the Lake Orion-based Mogill, Posner and Cohen law firm, confirmed that Lubkin is currently out of jail while she works on appealing his conviction.
Schinske said she is reviewing the case and that there are "strong grounds for appeal."
She declined to identify any specific basis for the appeal since it is still a work in progress.
Hayman’s law clerk, Brian MacMillan, claimed he heard Lubkin say "guilty" at the coney island where MacMillan and another law clerk had escorted 14 jurors for lunch.
Lubkin said he never directed any comments at the restaurant toward the jurors, who were on break from the murder trial of Thomas L. Jones.
Jones was convicted of the November 2010 murder of a disabled homeless woman, Amanda Lamson, on the corner of Leith and Minnesota streets in Flint. He was sentenced to life in prison Monday by Hayman.
Jefferey Clothier, Jones' attorney, has that Lubkin's alleged comments to jurors would likely be brought up in an appeal. |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:53 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The law clerk said he heard the word and went to Lubkin as Lubkin was the only male in the vicinity.
The Circuit Court law clerks are sworn in by the sheriff as bailffs although they are not certified law enforcement officers as required. There are complaints and counter complaints being filed and this will certainly be an ugly mess! |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:56 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Lubkin won some vindication.
Appeals court says Genesee County judge was wrong to send ...
www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/02/appeals_court_says...
Feb 10, 2014 · A Michigan appeals court has ruled that Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman abused his discretion when he found an ... F. Anthony Lubkin MLive.com …
.
[PDF]
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2014/020614/56405.pdf
Genesee Circuit Court ANTHONY LUBKIN, LC No. 11-028110-FC Defendant ... On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in
.
Lawyer jailed for 5 days over comment made at restaurant ...
www.abajournal.com/news/article/test_doc_lubkin
Feb 10, 2014 · A judge's law clerk contended that longtime attorney F. Anthony Lubkin directed a comment including the ... The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the |
|
|
|
Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:12 am |
|
|
|
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
