Embattled Livingston County
Judge Theresa Brennan

Over the years, lawyers have emerged from Livingston County Judge Theresa Brennan's courtroom with a common complaint: treated by the judge with disrespect.

Many lawyers have reported being profoundly embarrassed and humiliated, often in front of their clients. One of our associates witnessed Judge Brennan berate her own clerk in highly unflattering terms in front of a packed courtroom.

Last week, however, it was Judge Brennan's turn to be profoundly embarrassed. During a court session, Michigan State Police detectives entered her courtroom while Judge Brennan was on the bench and on the record, in order to seize computers from her court and chambers. She is reported to have quickly left the bench, and left the court for the rest of the day.

The following day, electronic devices were removed from her home. Although it is unknown what data is stored on the devices, we here at the Law Blogger have a darn good idea.

The Detroit Free Press surmises that charges from the Michigan Attorney General could come at some point. So what is all this fuss about?

Judge Brennan presided over a double murder trial back in 2013. Subsequent to this murder trial, she went through her own divorce. During the divorce, her former husband asserted that Brennan was having an ongoing affair with a MSP detective; the officer in charge of the murder case.

Brennan did not deny the affair. Both Brennan and the detective claimed in divorce depositions, however, that their tryst did not commence until after the double murder trial was completed.

Now, her assertion in this regard has become the focus of the MSP investigation. Press reports indicate that Brennan made more than 3 dozen calls to her lover during the course of the double murder trial, including one on the day prior to the sentencing hearing.

While criminal charges may be unlikely, Brennan could also be the respondent in a complaint brought by the Judicial Tenure Commission. Those proceedings are civil rather than criminal.

When it comes to judges, like other public officials, the initial sin is one thing; lying under oath to cover-up that sin is another grave transgression. We think that is what the MSP dove into this week.

This bold and pompous judge is now the one who may be judged. Many legal professionals see this as "karma juris".

Meanwhile, Judge Brennan was on the bench yesterday, apparently unfazed by the cloud hovering over her professional standing. Litigants, for the most part, were nonplussed to be on the receiving end of any decision from a jurist under severe scrutiny for perjury or obstruction.

What a complete mess. We here at the Law Blogger believe the best thing for Judge Brennan to do is to immediately step-down while she is under this investigative cloud.

The odds are that once she leaves the bench, she will not be coming back. Most lawyers will not be disappointed to see her go. And if she stays, then the voters get to decide whether she is fit to decide the fate of the citizens of Howell, Brighton and their surrounding communities.

Good riddance as judges must be held to a higher standard. We will keep you posted on the developments of this one.

Post #591

www.clarkstonlegal.com

It is safe to say that healthcare and the availability of benefits are important to all working people in Michigan.  Nothing wreaks havoc on our day-to-day life more than an unexpected illness, especially when we lack the healthcare benefits necessary to secure the proper treatment.  

A recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Civil Service Commission (MCSC) could expand the eligibility of health care benefits for state employees to their co-residents, if those persons are at least 18 years old, NOT relatives, and have resided within the same household as the state employee for at least 12-months (but not as a renter or tenant).  

This potential coverage expansion applies to employees who do not have an eligible spouse. Thus, the coverage would apply to boyfriends, girlfriends, and/or same sex partners, as long as they meet the criteria for coverage.

The issue arose when the MCSC allowed for the additional healthcare coverage, and the Attorney General sued on the basis of a violation of Equal Protection; the expanded coverage discriminated against married state employees by excluding married employees from being able to cover non-spouses or other blood relatives. The Attorney General suggested that the policy was a way to circumvent Michigan’s “Marriage Amendment,” which prohibits the recognition of any “agreement” other than “the union of one man and one woman in marriage.” 

The Court of Appeals found the Attorney General’s argument unpersuasive and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case.  The appeals court held that the new policy, “does not in any way prohibit incidentally benefiting such agreements, particularly where it is clear that an employee here could share benefits with a wide variety of other people.”   The Court further explained that the policy does not, “depend on the employee being in a close relationship of any particular kind…beyond a common residence.”

Further, the Court of Appeals determined that the matter deserved a heightened standard of review, and as such, the policy is “rationally related to advance a legitimate state purpose.”  Specifically, the Court held that as the MCSC drafted the eligibility criteria after negotiating with the unions, “it is not the place of the courts to second-guess the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the state action.” Lastly, the appellate court recognized the Civil Service Commission as having “plenary and exclusive authority” in setting eligibility guidelines for state workers, “because they are provided in exchange for services rendered by state employees.”

In sum, if you are an unmarried Civil Service employee, you may be able to provide healthcare benefits for anyone who has been living with you, as long as they have done so for at least 12 continuous months, they are not a tenant or renter, they are not a blood relative, and they are at least 18 years old.

Apparently, our court of intermediate appellate review does not wish to tread upon the authority of the state bureaucracy when it comes to providing health care benefits for its own.  We here at the Law Blogger think perhaps that is as it should be under our separation of powers.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

By now we've all been shocked by how much information the major search engines collect and store about each of us. The reach now extends into our cell phones and possibly even into our contacts.

On March 1st, Google implemented a new, single privacy policy, replacing it's patchwork of more than 50 separate policies spread across its product line and services. In the wake of Google's new privacy policy, the Attorneys General in a majority of states are calling foul.

Speaking for at least 35 state attorneys general, the National Association of Attorneys General complains that the new policy violates consumers' privacy by sharing personal information across Google's services without providing an explicit "opt in" or a meaningful "opt out" option.  NAAG sent a letter to Google's Chief Executive Officer, Larry Paige, requesting a sit down.  The NAAG letter states, in part:

Google’s new privacy policy is troubling for a number of reasons. On a fundamental level, the policy appears to invade consumer privacy by automatically sharing personal information consumers input into one Google product with all Google products. Consumers have diverse interests and concerns, and may want the information in their Web History to be kept separate from the information they exchange via Gmail. Likewise, consumers may be comfortable with Google knowing their Search queries but not with it knowing their whereabouts, yet the new privacy policy appears to give them no choice in the matter, further invading their privacy. It rings hollow to call their ability to exit the Google products ecosystem a “choice” in an Internet economy where the clear majority of all Internet users use – and frequently rely on – at least one Google product on a regular basis. 

For its part, Google claims the new policy will be easier for all to understand.  For our part, this Blog adheres to a simple basic principle: when conducting search and post activities on line, we keep in mind that we are creating a searchable and reviewable record.

Everyone seems to know the difference between posting content on sites like Google+ and YouTube and having their deepest darkest searches tracked.  In the former context, the user usually intends for the content to be discovered.  For example, we here at this blog wish our Clarkston Legal video on YouTube had more than 45 views in two years; my son thinks that's lame.

In the latter context, on the other hand, folks are sometimes embarrassed by what pops-up in the form of advertisements that the mighty and all-powerful web spider has determined to be relevant to a particular individual.  Such ads are displayed based on the aggregated content and personal information collected by the service provider.

This chapter just lets us know that privacy law is a fast-growing area of law that will take on increasing significance.  Stay tuned for the flow of developments as the lawsuits start to pile-up.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com