Hatchet Job And Belly Display

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission has filed a complaint alleging misconduct by a district court judge.

One allegation involves disclosure of a mental health evaluation that had been ordered by the commission

Respondent’s persistent refusal to provide the report of the psychological evaluation that respondent had undergone pursuant to MCR 9.220(D), which report was part and parcel of the exam itself, violated the requirement of MCR 9.220(D) that respondent comply with the Commission’s demand that she be examined.

The Commission’s demand that respondent provide a copy of the evaluation she had undergone at the Commission’s direction was a reasonable request within the meaning of MCR 9.202(B). Respondent’s withholding of the report from the Commission for six months from its completion and for four and a half months from the extended deadline the Commission gave for producing it was a failure to comply with a reasonable demand by the Commission, in violation of MCR 9.202(B)(1)(f)

A second charge alleges false statements to the commission

In that reply, respondent stated to the Commission that “The Request for Investigation was filed by Ms. Dana O’Neal, who was subsequently fired for incompetence by the Honorable Joseph Fabrizio.” The italicized portion of respondent’s answer is false.

Respondent knew the statement…was false because on March 28, 2024, the Commission sent respondent a request for comments that included a copy of the request for investigation that identified the two persons who initiated the investigation as the respondent’s then chief judge, the Honorable Joseph Fabrizio, and then regional administrator for the State Court Administrator’s Office, Jennifer Phillips.

Respondent further stated in her December 5, 2024 response to the Commission that “Judge Hartig is a well-respected 3-term member of the judiciary, who is similarly well respected by her past and present staff, none of whom were interviewed as part of this investigation.” The italicized portion of respondent’s answer is false.

Mistreatment/abuse of court staff

Notwithstanding her awareness of the limits of her authority, throughout her judicial tenure respondent has repeatedly attempted to assert control over departments and employees over whom she has no authority and has thereby repeatedly obstructed the administration of her court despite efforts by chief judges and court administrators to prevent her from doing so.

Among the allegations

On January 7, 2021, respondent commented to John Taylor, a public defender representing several defendants, words to the effect that his argument was not his best argument and that his statements made her want to put a hatchet in his neck.

During a snowstorm in February 2021 respondent demanded that [court administrator] O’Neal provide a substitute for respondent’s law clerk, whose vehicle was stuck in the snow, though respondent was aware that O’Neal was under no obligation to assign court employees to do the job of respondent’s staff.

In spring 2021 respondent disrupted a bench meeting by repeatedly and excessively demanding that the court administrator come up with a plan to provide substitute staff when her staff took a vacation, even though it was not the court administrator’s responsibility to arrange for substitutes. Respondent’s disruptive behavior interfered with completion of the agenda items for the bench meeting.

In May 2021 respondent, who knew she did not have authority to establish the duties of magistrates, unilaterally expanded newly appointed magistrate Karen Liddle’s duties by directing that she handle respondent’s civil motions before respondent had to address them.

During a drug court team meeting in July 2021 respondent directed pregnant probation officer Sidorella Arapi to stand up and display her belly to all Zoom participants in the meeting, without Ms. Arapi’s consent.

In late August 2023 probation officers Nichole Crandall and Ashley Powers went to respondent’s chambers to determine whether respondent wanted to issue a probation violation in a particular case. Knowing that she had no authority over probation officers, respondent questioned why Crandall had seen Powers’s probationer that day and repeatedly asserted that Powers should be seeing her own people. Respondent also criticized the probation supervisor’s decision to have Crandall see Powers’s probationer and criticized Powers for following the direction of her supervisor.

When respondent was advised by the court administrator that Powers and Crandall felt bullied by her behavior described in the preceding paragraph, respondent told the court administrator that she no longer wished to communicate with Powers and Crandall and that Powers would no longer be permitted to come to her chambers.

Respondent is also charged with improperly dismissing criminal case during the pandemic.

Respondent dismissed the cases with prejudice. Respondent’s decision chastised the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office for their opposition to holding examinations in-person during the Covid pandemic. Respondent concluded, without foundation, that [prosecutor] Hall’s nonappearance at the Armstrong cases preliminary examinations were a deliberate move by the prosecutor to control respondent’s docket.

Respondent lacked the authority to dismiss the Armstrong cases with prejudice. MCR 6.110(F) provides that in the absence of a probable cause finding, the court must discharge the defendant without prejudice.

Respondent’s dismissal with prejudice in the Armstrong cases was not made in good faith and/or with due diligence.

The circumstances under which respondent dismissed the Armstrong cases demonstrated that she was dismissing to punish the prosecution rather than on the merits of the cases.

The Detroit Free Press reported on the allegations and on a civil settlement of the former court administrator.

A former court administrator at the district court in Troy has reached a confidential settlement in her federal whistleblower and wrongful termination lawsuit.

Dana O’Neal of Waterford, in a secret settlement granted in late May, agreed to accept $100,000 from Oakland County, which funds the court. Of that, $33,000 goes to pay O’Neal’s attorney. The settlement forbids all parties from discussing it, but the Free Press obtained a copy under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act.

(Mike Frisch)