Embattled Oakland County judge asked to recuse herself in prosecutor's cases
The Oakland County Prosecutor's Office began to pull its cases from under the thumb of embattled District Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig on the morning of June 10 amid fallout from a formal complaint issued by the state's judicial oversight body earlier this month.
During Hartig's June 10 docket at the 52-4 District Court in Troy, the prosecutor's office — which is named in some accusations in the complaint — motioned for Hartig to recuse herself from its first two cases of the day. Hartig declined to do so but was later overruled by her chief judge. So began a dance of repeating the motion on other cases tied to the prosecutor's office and Hartig adjourning them to give the chief judge time to rule, as defendants went back to jail cells or workdays.
There was no immediate indication that morning that Chief Judge Travis Reeds would rule differently on the adjourned cases, though Hartig noted from the bench that he had not reviewed a transcript of the hearing with her reasoning for not recusing herself. Bill Mullan, public information officer for Oakland County, confirmed the chief judge's decisions, which attorneys had relayed to Hartig during her docket. Mullan said that the cases would be reassigned at random to other district court judges.
More: Complaint: Oakland County Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig created 'climate of fear'
Reeds previously said Hartig should be temporarily removed from her docket amid the oversight case, and the county reported he made a request to do so.
Hartig has been under fire in recent years, both by Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald and a former court administrator who got a $100,000 settlement in a whistleblower and unlawful termination lawsuit tied to Hartig.
Then on June 4, the oversight body, the Judicial Tenure Commission, issued a rare public complaint against the judge. The complaint effectively launches a court-like process that, at its most severe, could result in the Michigan Supreme Court suspending or removing the judge.
Key in the complaint: The commission attempted to redact, but left visible in some formats, that a psychological evaluation of the judge in 2024 deemed her at the time to be ''unsafe to practice' due to disruptive behavior and personality dysfunction.' What was deemed at risk was not immediately clear.
The commission openly accused Hartig of misdeeds, including creating 'a climate of fear' among workers at the courthouse, improperly dismissing multiple cases without prejudice due to a grudge with the prosecutors tied to scheduling, and mistreating that former court administrator.
More: Authority got psych report saying Oakland Judge Hartig was 'unsafe to practice' months ago
A spokesperson for the judge, Daniel Cherrin of Royal Oak-based public affairs and communications firm North Coast Strategies, declined to comment on the mental health aspect but issued a statement at the time calling the commission process 'flawed." He said Hartig has patiently waited for the chance to address the allegations against her.
In court on June 10, Hartig spoke out against the recusal motions to start.
Her docket was underway shortly after 9 a.m., with the judge making mostly default judgments in landlord-tenant issues until a case involving the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office came up.
Assistant Prosecutor Bob Zivian came to the podium and when given the chance said for the first time a statement he'd be repeating for numerous cases: that as 'everyone' in the courtroom knew, the Judicial Tenure Commission issued a complaint, that her former and current chief judges were among complainants who could testify against her, and that it was clear the office could not get a fair hearing in the courtroom. 'Respectfully,' he asked her to recuse herself.
Hartig, who had nodded at times during the soliloquy, responded using 'respectfully' herself. She said that the prosecutor's office was aware of the oversight investigation before the formal complaint was issued, and argued there had been no problems or concerns raised.
She said, in the back-and-forth across two cases, that those in the prosecutor's office issued grievances against her and that she had made attorney grievances against them — specifically McDonald and Assistant Prosecutor Jeffrey Hall — within the last several years.
She was unaware of where her attorney grievances landed but said the only thing that changed was the public nature of the complaint against her.
Zivian, however, said there were aspects of the complaint that his office was not aware of before.
Taylor judge called chief judge names, flipped off security cameras, complaint says
'No teeth': Cases of 2 embattled Michigan judges highlight concerns with accountability
Zivian stepped into a private room several times, including with one individual's defense attorney and Chief Public Defender Paulette Loftin. He ultimately relayed to Hartig that he had appealed to Chief Judge Reeds by Zoom and the chief judge ruled in his favor.
Between the back-and-forth of the attorneys and the judge, and the judge checking her computer for responses from Reeds, it was said that the chief judge believed Zivian would need to make his motion on every single case.
And so, he did. Hartig continued to deny the request, sometimes elaborating for defendants who hadn't been in the courtroom. Defense attorneys were given the chance to weigh in, and then Hartig adjourned their cases so Zivian didn't have to repeatedly jump on a Zoom call after each one to get a ruling from the chief judge. He could do that during the one or two-week adjournment, she said.
Zivian was still repeating his refrain for various cases as the clock ticked toward noon.
Following one such hearing, Sterling Heights-based attorney Janet Szpond bemoaned that her client's case might have been dismissed if it weren't for the recusal matter.
She didn't know the ins and outs discussed in court regarding Hartig's complaint but said her client was accused of failing to return a rental car and was due in court for his preliminary examination. She believed a witness hadn't shown up, so she thought the matter may have been dismissed on June 10.
Instead, her client confirmed with her that he could go back to work and jogged off.
'It's just extremely inconvenient,' Szpond said.
Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor David Williams said in a call along with his office's public information officer, Jeff Wattrick, that while matters were still evolving, it was not believed there would be great delays in the court system due to the maneuver.
He also said Hartig's complaint involved more than just the dismissals involving his office, and his office was unaware of that previously. But the complaint also affirmed the office's stance regarding the judge's bias against them.
Wattrick, in a statement, said that people are entitled to cases decided 'based on the law rather than personal animosity.'
'Our only goal in this matter is to ensure justice — that victims' stories are heard and that The People always receive a fair hearing before the court,' he said.
Cherrin, Hartig's spokesperson, said that the prosecutor's office had appeared in front of the judge hundreds of times before and that she continues to sit on the bench. He pointed to her comments on the motion made in court.
Hartig was given 14 days to issue a formal response to the June 4 complaint.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Embattled Oakland County judge asked to recuse self in multiple cases
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
JD Vance boasts Trump will call in National Guard to quell riots ‘again if he has to' following appeals court victory
President Trump will not hesitate to send in the National Guard 'again' after an appeals court ruled the commander in chief can maintain control of thousands of troops he deployed to the City of Angeles in response to anti-ICE riots, Vice President JD Vance declared Friday. 'If you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the National Guard — because it's unnecessary,' Vance said during remarks outside a federal building in Los Angeles. 'But if you let violent rioters burn great American cities to the ground, then of course we're going to send federal law enforcement in to protect people.' 3 Vice President JD Vance visited Los Angeles on Friday, a city that has become the epicenter of anti-ICE riots in response to President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. The Sun 'The president's going to do it again if he has to, but hopefully it won't be necessary,' the vice president warned. Vance noted that the 'rioting has gotten a lot better' since Trump dispatched active-duty service members to LA, but he warned that local officials are 'worried that it's going to flare back up.' Los Angeles has become the epicenter of anti-ICE riots in response to Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Trump deployed troops to the City of Angeles to tamp down clashes between rioters and federal authorities seeking out criminal illegal migrants. The vice president toured a multi-agency federal joint operations center and an FBI mobile command center currently being used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials during his trip to Los Angeles. Vance was briefed by leaders of the 14 different agencies — including ICE, Department of Defense, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles Police Department and California Highway Patrol — using the operations center to coordinate immigration enforcement actions in LA. 3 Vance told reporters outside a Los Angeles federal building that, 'If you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the National Guard — because it's unnecessary.' The veep also met with some of the 200 active-duty Marines deployed to the city and tasked with protecting federal property and federal personnel. They will be joined by an additional 500 Marines and 2,000 more Guardsmen, on top of the 2,000 National Guard troops already active in the city. US District Court Judge Charles Breyer had previously ruled that Trump likely exceeded his constitutional authority by dispatching the soldiers despite opposition from California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — marking the first deployment of a state National Guard by the president without the governor's permission since 1965. The San Francisco-based Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals, however, suggested in its ruling that Trump lawfully exercised his statutory authority in taking federal control of the guard, as the violence and chaos in Los Angeles warranted the administration's decision to do so. 3 Vance also said the rioting has calmed down a bit since President Trump sent the National Guard into the area. The Sun Trump called the decision a 'BIG WIN' in a post on Truth Social. The president has previously suggested that Los Angeles would be 'burning to the ground' if he hadn't sent in the Marines and National Guard to quell the anti-ICE riots. ICE has continued carrying out enforcement operations in LA despite the protests. During his brief remarks, Vance said that he wished Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) — who was thrown out of a Department of Homeland Security press conference last week and handcuffed after interrupting Secretary Kristi Noem — had been present, but he mixed up the senator's name. 'I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't the theater — and that's all it is.'
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Barron Trump made millions from family's lucrative crypto firm: report
Barron Trump, the youngest son of the 47th President, may have raked in millions of dollars from the sale of crypto tokens linked to the family's lucrative venture into digital tokens, according to report. The 19-year-old New York University student could have picked up a cool $40 million — $25 million after taxes — from the sale of digital assets by World Liberty Financial Group, the Trump family firm launched nine months ago after Barron persuaded his dad about the benefits of crypto, Forbes reported. 'Barron knows so much about this,' commander-in-chief said during an interview in September after the launch. 'Barron's a young guy, but he knows it — he talks about his wallet. He's got four wallets or something, and I'm saying, 'What is a wallet?'' Barron Trump, seen here at his father's second inauguration, is listed as a 'co-founder' on World Liberty Financial's website. AFP via Getty Images World Liberty has been a financial bonanza for the family. In March, World Liberty announced that it had sold $550 million worth of tokens. An Office of Government Ethics filing released by President Trump last week declared he had made $57 million from token sales. It also said that the real estate mogul held a 75% stake in his umbrella company, DT Marks Defi LLC, with unnamed 'third parties' holding the other 25%. Barron Trump is listed as a 'co-founder' of World Liberty Financial alongside the president, as well as Eric and Donald Trump Jr, the president's two eldest sons. Forbes, which provided no direct evidence for its claims of Barron Trump's massive digital windfall, suggested that he owned a 7.5% stake in Delaware-based World Liberty. The stake would mirror what the NYU freshman holds in the Trump Organization's Washington, DC hotel, Forbes said. The Post has approached a Trump Organization spokesperson for comment. Trump once derided digital assets such as Bitcoin as 'a scam' but he has since U-turned and embraced cryptocurrencies. REUTERS Barron Trump's name does not appear in the company's solitary SEC filing from October 30 last year. Also listed as business partners in the venture are Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and his son, Zachary. An analysis by Bloomberg, the financial news outlet, estimates the president's net worth has doubled since the start of his 2024 campaign, standing at just over $5.4 billion
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
‘We can't wait forever': GOP frustrated but unwilling to act on Trump's TikTok extension
President Donald Trump's latest move to keep TikTok alive is yet again frustrating congressional Republicans, many of whom object to China's continued involvement in the popular app but just want to be done with the whole drama. 'Not my favorite thing,' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), along-time proponent of the ban, deadpanned, when asked about the president's plan to issue another extension. He spoke a day before the White House confirmed Trump signed a 90-day suspension of enforcement of the law requiring TikTok to divest from ByteDance, its China-based parent company, throwing another lifeline to the short-form video app. By Friday, some House lawmakers registered a note of resigned irritation. The extension — Trump's third since the law went into effect on Jan. 19 — is a unilateral decision not envisioned in the bipartisan law passed by Congress and upheld last year by the Supreme Court. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), a member of the House Intelligence and China committees, told POLITICO. 'The national security concerns and vulnerabilities are still there, and they have not gone away. I would argue they've almost become more enhanced in many ways.' But Trump's extension of the TikTok law largely boxed out Republicans in both chambers who have shown little inclination — beyond stern words — to prevent him from making these postponements almost routine. Many GOP lawmakers saw themselves as granting the president space to cut a promised deal while the White House deals with urgent priorities, like trade negotiations and the Israel-Iran conflict. 'In light of everything going on, I think he did the right thing,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a China hawk who voted for the ban, told POLITICO of Trump. 'I have concerns about all kinds of things — that [the extension] is on the list — but it's not at the top of the list.' Though Trump has promised his TikTok negotiations areclosely tied to trade talks with China, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified last week to a Senate panel that TikTok's sale was not currently a part of the negotiations with China, raising a further potential obstacle to Trump inking a deal in the near future. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of the president and longtime national-security hawk said earlier in the week: 'The sooner we get that issue solved, the better,' without offering any ideas for further enforcement. 'I just want finality,' Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO. 'I want some certainty and just know that the Congress isn't being played when we make a decision [that the app] be sold.' Another member of the House China Committee, Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), told POLITICO, 'No more extensions. It's time to follow through.' Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), also a member of the China panel, noted in a post on X Thursday the law only allows one extension of the compliance deadline, adding, 'I was proud to support the ban of TikTok and believe the law should be implemented as written.' With their comments, the lawmakers echoed House China Chair John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who in early June called for the U.S. to 'let [TikTok] go dark' to bring China to the table to negotiate. He reiterated that stance on Friday. 'Delays only embolden the Chinese Communist Party,' Moolenaar said in a statement to POLITICO. 'I urge the administration to enforce the law as written and protect the American people from this growing national security threat.' Still, observers say Republicans are not exercising their leverage to demand the White House enforce the law they helped write, for example by withholding funding or congressional oversight hearings. 'I keep reading that Republicans are 'frustrated' and 'impatient' about their TikTok law being ignored, but they should stop complaining to reporters and take it up with Trump,' said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the pro-tech Chamber of Progress. Among the Republicans being undercut by the president is his own secretary of state. Marco Rubio — who as senator was one of the loudest critics of TikTok's ties to China, and a huge backer of the app's ban — has been conspicuously silent as Trump has repeatedly granted more time to strike a deal for its sale. 'You have to decide what's more important, our national security and the threat that it poses to our national security,' Rubio told POLITICO in March 2023, as Congress was considering a ban. 'You have to weigh that against what you might think the electoral consequences of it are. For me, it's an easy balancing act. I mean, there is no balance. I'm always going to be for our national security.' A spokesperson for Rubio at the State Department did not respond to a request for comment. Democrats — even those who support keeping TikTok online — say Trump's approach is the wrong one. 'These endless extensions are not only illegal, but they also put TikTok's fate in the hands of risk-averse corporate shareholders,' Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told POLITICO in a statement. 'This is deeply unfair to TikTok's creators and users. I'm prepared to work towards a solution, but Trump isn't coming to the table.'
