(Nine) Friend of the Court and Patricia Lyons

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
AND FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843

FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY HON. JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA
HOWELL, MICHIGAN 48843 Case no. 96-23807-DM
734-250-2734

PATRICIA A. LYONS
1916 NORVELL ROAD
GRASS LAKE, MICHIGAN
Plaintiff
V.

GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679 Defendant
___________________________________/

PROOF OF SERVICE

Defendant George Edward Lyons on day of MONDAY, August 27, 2007has used the U. S. Postal service at Pinckney Post office and mail and served a copy of Defendant EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA FOR BIASNESS. And PROOF OF SERVICE in the action upon: Plaintiff Patricia A. Lyons. Delivery address 1916 Norvell Road, Grass Lake, Michigan

I DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF.



_________________________________,
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679
MONDAY, August 27, 2007




STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
AND FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843

FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY HON. JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA
HOWELL, MICHIGAN 48843 Case no.96-23807-DM
734-250-2734

PATRICIA A. LYONS
1916 NORVELL ROAD
GRASS LAKE, MICHIGAN
Plaintiff
V.

GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679 Defendant
___________________________________/

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR BIASNESS
HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA


Plaintiff George E. Lyons makes this motion and says:

1. Within the past (14) days, Plaintiff has become aware of facts giving Rise to disqualification and therefore this motion has been brought in a proper, timely manner under MCR 2.003 et seq.

2. This Honorable Court and other legal representatives cannot impartially hear any matter involving this case because:

3. That her. JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA is being called on a witness in this case.

a. This Court and other legal representatives is biased or prejudiced for or against either or both of the parties to this action, and biased in favor of past/present Plaintiff’s. Plaintiff’s attorney, which is disqualifying under MCR 2.003(B) (2);

b. This Honorable Court and other legal representatives are disqualified by law for numerous other reasons under the provisions of MCR 2.003(B) (7).

1. That this Honorable Court and other legal representatives and all other Livingston County judicial or Circuit officers and court personnel should be disqualified from acting upon, hearing, deciding or otherwise participating in any further disposition of this case in any manner, except to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003(B) (2) and to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003 (B) (2) and or MCR 2.003 (B) (7), the grounds for which are stated herein are stated herein and in the attached affidavit.

2. That per Plaintiff Witness List the following is included. In previous emergency motion of Disqualification of Judge Susan Reck. Case no.96-23807-DM

5. Charles Widmaier (P-38376) Material Witness Live
Attorney for the Defendants confirm audio
822 E. Grand River Avenue
Brighton, Michigan
(810-229-9340)

6. Employee’s of Harris & Literski Material Witness Live
317 E. Grand River confirm audio
Brighton, Michigan 48116

9. All Judge’s of Livingston County Material Witness Live
Court system District / Circuit confirm audios
And all employee’s

. Honorable Judge Burress Material witness Live

58. Honorable Judge Haggerty Material witness Live

59. Honorable Judge Laterille Material witness Live

60. Honorable Judge Reader Material witness Live

61. Honorable Judge Delvero Material witness Live

62. Honorable Judge Reck Material witness Live

63. Honorable Judge Pickeranin Material witness Live

All employees of Livingston County Material witness Live

64. Magistrate Brown Material witness Live

And if the above would follow under conflict of Interest, and are not used as witnesses in this case and others cases that are being filed in the future. And attorney’s and court referee Gerald Edit, Attorney Coupland and Dr. Richard Zipper, would fall under support of perjury.

The July 10, 1995 amendments of MCR 2.003, and Rules 3A, 3D, 6C, and 7B of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and new MCR 9.227 and Rule 7D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, are based on the proposed revision of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct submitted by the State Bar Representative Assembly. See 442 Mitch 1216 (1993). They are effective September 1, 1995.

(3) Ruling. The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion,

(a) In a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo;

(b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request:

A. That this motion be granted; and,
B. That this matter be thereafter transferred to the State Court Administrator’s office for reassignment to wherefore another circuit as required by MCR 2.003 et seq.

ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands;

A. That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq.,

B. That this Honorable Court to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and
C. That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law.

Procedure:

Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:

“The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.
: MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification. The Judge complained of then holds a hearing and decides the motion. If the motion is denied, then the party or attorney may refer the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion de novo on the record 32/33

Respectfully submitted this Monday, August 27, 2007




By: __________________________________
George E. Lyons, Defendant
P.O.Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679


STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
AND FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843

FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY HON. JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA
HOWELL, MICHIGAN 48843 Case no. 96-23807-DM
734-250-2734

PATRICIA A. LYONS
1916 NORVELL ROAD
GRASS LAKE, MICHIGAN
Plaintiff
V.

GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679 Defendant
___________________________________/



AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF HONORALBE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA


Defendant George E. Lyons, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the following facts are true to the best of his personal knowledge; or are based on information and belief, and as to those he believes them to be true; and if sworn as a witness in this matter he would competently testify and produce other evidence to conclusively prove as follows:

1. HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA, and other legal representatives, and on information and belief, has numerous personal contacts and acquaintances among all of Livingston County judges, court clerks, other court employees and personnel.

2. HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA, and other legal representatives, these allegations beginning many years ago, became directly, indirectly, regularly and routinely involved and enmeshed with all Livingston County and Washtenaw judges and other court personnel in numerous legal, political, fraternal and social organizations. Structures and activities; all of which on information and belief, has provided and continues to provide numerous opportunities for judicial and extra-judicial ex-parte contacts with Livingston County and Washtenaw judicial officers and other court personnel.

3. DEFENDANT believes that the HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA and other legal representatives, acting herein, has and will actively use his/ and their long-time positions, influence, access to judges and access to court records: to make ex-parte contacts with members of the Livingston County bench and /or their employees in attempts to create bias in defendant’s favor; to surreptitiously remove materials from court records to which Plaintiff is a party; and to otherwise deprive Plaintiff of his rights to due process in this case in any manner possible.
4. On information and belief, HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA and Other legal representatives, for past clients has already used his status and connections to misinform and intimidate potential attorneys for defendants in this case and thereby effectively deprived DEFENDANT of legal representation herein.

4. DEFENDANT believes that, from it inception, Plaintiff’s and other past clients has been given special considerations in the handling and treatment of the instant case by 44th Livingston county Circuit court and Friend of the court personnel, due to bias in favor of Plaintiff’s and her attorney.

6. HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA, and other legal representatives, herein is inextricably involved and enmeshed in numerous judicial and extra-judicial matters which include, in general, all Livingston County judicial and circuit officers and other court personnel.

7. All members of the Livingston Judicial and Circuit and Friend of the court County bench would have a natural inclination or tendency, if sitting in judgment, to be biased in favor of Plaintiff’s and/or against DEFENDANT due to the status and judicial connections of Plaintiff’s counsel and her past attorney’s and Friend of the court referee’s .

8. HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA and other legal representatives, WOULD HAVE too many opportunities, and is of a mind, and has already undertaken, to improperly engage in ex-parte communications with Livingston County Judicial and Circuit court and Friend of the court judges relative to this case; And the has repeatedly representation of Due to the circumstances and relationship existing between the HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA and other legal representatives, and all judicial and Circuit court officers in Livingston County; DEFENDANT believes he cannot get a fair trial or hearing in this county.

9. DEFENDANT WILL present to this court, and other courts evidence to support the removal of this Case LYONS VS. LYONS to a de nova hearing to the State of Michigan Administration Hearing to be transfer to another circuit court.

10. Defendant George E. Lyons hereby swears under penalty of perjury that all facts stated in the forgoing Affidavit In Support of Emergency Motion for Disqualification of HONORABLE JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA for Biasness, the Defendant’s are true to the best of his personal knowledge or stated on information and belief, and as to those facts he believes them to be true.



By: _____________________________
George E. Lyons, DEFENDANT
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This 27TH day of AUGUST. 2007

Notary Public: ____________________________.




STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
AND FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843

FRIEND OF THE COURT
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY HON. JUDGE CAROL HACKETT GARAGIOLA
HOWELL, MICHIGAN 48843 Case no. 96-23807-DM
734-250-2734

PATRICIA A. LYONS
1916 NORVELL ROAD
GRASS LAKE, MICHIGAN
Plaintiff
V.

GEORGE EDWARD LYONS
P.O. BOX 226
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-675-1679 Defendant
___________________________________/


BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR BIASNESS


DISQUALIFICATION LAW AND ARGUMENT

These underlying principles of disqualification law are well settled. What the Michigan Supreme Court said almost 125 years ago in Stockton v Township Board is and Peninsular Railway v Howard, it remains valid and binding today:

“It Is among the First objects of civil government, to deprive persons of the power in adjudge finally for themselves, and conclusively assert their own causes; and so fundamental is this rule of justice, so essential to the order, peace, and even stability of government, that however broad the terms of a grant of judicial power may be, this principle remains operative, and gives rise to a tacit exception from the general words of the grant’s…The principle … asserts itself wherever judicial powers are employed by a body appointed by law…the rule is not confined to cases where the person is both judge and party. The principle… applies to the elements and substance of the controversy, and in general, where the case is of such a nature as to make it necessary, in its course or final issue for the trier to pass upon his own implicated rights or interest, the rule attaches and unseats him. Subtle
…
… The court ought not to be astute to discover refined subtle distinctions to save a case from the operation of the maxim, when the principle it embodies bespeaks the propriety of its application. The immediate rights of the litigants are not the only object of the rule. A sound public policy, which is interested in preserving every tribunal appointed by law from discredit, imperiously demands its observance. “10

Exactly what are the: implicated rights or interests”10 which will disqualify a judge? As was held in Stockton, supra, the can be found in the “elements and substance of the controversy:” what the Supreme Court almost a century later referred to as the “circumstances and relationships” of a case when it decided Glass v State Highway Commission, 23 citing the U.S. Supreme Court in Murchison. 2:

“A fair trial is fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationship must be considered. This court has said, however, that every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge…not to hold the balance site, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law, ’23 Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform it high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” 24

The Glass court said, “Such reasoning applies equally to Michigan’s assurance of due process.” Therefore, virtually any “circumstances or relationship existing between a judge and a party litigant which would offer “ possible temptation to an average” person “ not to hold the balance nice, clear and true” between contending litigants denies due process of law and is interest enough to provide grounds for disqualification. ”23”
We expect our judges to be human beings with normal human faults and shortcomings like the rest of us, not angles in robes. We realize there are some situations where it would be extremely difficult for any judge to remain neutral and impartial, the often-quoted opinion in Wayne County Prosecutor v. Doerfler 24

“Justice Cardozo has stated.

“ Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of instincts and emotions and habits and convictions which make the man, be he litigant or judge. “27

A judge is not expected to bring with him to the bench a blank mind and personality. As he becomes, by necessity, a composition of the general experiences of his life, refined and honed by his legal training and legal experience so that the desired judicial temperament will hopefully emerge. “28

To require a blank mind is unreasonable, but to demand an impartial and clear appraisal of each new case is not. A judge may well be subconsciously prejudiced in one way towards the evidence or the parties in a case before him. It is his duty not to permit these prejudices to override his responsibilities in providing a fair forum for the determination of controversy. This duty should ideally motivate the judge to request reassignment of the case if he is aware of any prejudices which he holds which would interfere with his impartiality “29

Modern disqualification rules, grounded in public policy, exist as much for the good of the court as for the good of any litigant; and every judge has a duty to avoid even the appearance of bias, prejudice or partiality. Freely granting disqualification when justified and necessary to achieve that end. As was said in Warren Schools v. MERC: 2

“The object of this rule…is more than guaranties that a legal dispute will be resolved objectively by unbiased and impartial persons. It is also a shield against any suspicion on the part of the litigants and the public that any subjectivity, bias and partiality contributed to the outcome of the dispute. The though behind such was best expressed by Justice Frankfurther in Baker v Carr 22:
The Court’s authority – possessed of neither the purse nor the sword – ultimately rests on sustained pubic confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court’s complete detachment, in fact and in appearance…” 22

The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted a rule stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Withrow:”4 judges and decision-makers should be disqualified without a showing of actual bias where “experience teaches that probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable, “4

Throughout the last century. Courts have slowly but surely broadened the measure by which a disqualification “threshold” can be reached, steadily relaxing the standards for it employment. While early decisions tended more toward requiring concrete evidence of bias such as direct financial or personal interest, there was a gradual movement toward requiring only an appearance of bias, now well-established; and, more recently, the trend is allowing a petitioner’s reasonable belief that bias exists to establish the appearance of bias, to wit:
In a 1981 decision, Pitoniak v Borman’s, 5 the court held:
“A basic requirement of the constitutional right is due process is a hearing before a fair, unbiased and impartial decision-maker. 1/2/3/4/5 A party who challenges the impartiality of a judge need not show actual prejudice; it is one in which: experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. “4/5/6

Then in 1982, the Michigan Court of Appeals held, in People v Lowenstein: 14

“… (Some disqualification cases)… deal with how much of an allowance our courts will make for a judge’s inherent human failings. No human being (even a judge) is completely prejudice-free. But our judicial system requires judges. Therefore we make allowances. Under normal circumstances, we will assume (absent evidence to the contrary) that the judge is free enough from bias to make a tolerably non-partisan decision. For example, a judge will occasionally preside over a case involving a defendant who had earlier pleaded guilty to the offense. Because this situation often enough arises and because the appearance of impropriety is not that high, we allow the trial judge to remain in charge of the case absent a showing of actual bias…A C However, we realize that some situations are just too dangerous. Judges normally are not subjected to such special pressures and “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies in human weaknesses, we find that the appearance of justice requires the judge to disqualify himself. The test is not (just) whether or not actual bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused. “17 In fact, even though a judge personally believes himself to be unprejudiced, unbiased and impartial, he should nevertheless certify disqualification where there are circumstances of such a nature to cause doubt as to his partiality, bias or prejudice. “18/6/2 (emphasis added)

And circumstances of such a nature as to cause doubt can arise from the mind of a petitioner, as was held in1986 by the Florida Supreme Court, which arrived at the Michigan result by applying the same analysis from a different perspective, making several important points along the way as emphasized below:

“ … The facts alleged in a motion to disqualify need only show that the party making it has a well-grounded fear that be or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge. Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge may be biased, and not the judge’s own perception of his or her ability to act fairly. … The sufficiency of the allegations depends upon whether he or she has successfully established the actual existence of prejudice. The letter standard would render the motion for disqualification virtually futile and result in the sort of adversary proceeding between judge and petitioner that create bias or the appearance thereof even where none had existed before. “33 (emphasis added)

And further to that:

“Generally, disqualification of a judge from action in a proceeding in which he is not wholly free, disinterested and independent is intended not merely for the benefit of the parties to the suit, who are entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, but for the general interests of justice, by preserving the purity and impartiality of the courts, and the respect and confidence of the people for their decisions. Moreover, judicial tribunals must not only be, but appear to be impartial, so that where circumstances are such as to create in the mind of a reasonable man a suspicion of bias, disqualification may be warranted although there is no proof of actual bias. “36 (emphasis Case no.96-23807-DM added)

No matter where the evolution of disqualification theory may lead, the eternal catch 22 of disqualification law will always follow: upon any request for disqualification, if there exists even a reasonable suspicion of the presence of bias, prejudice or partiality any failure to grant the request tends to beg the question, lead to more suspicion and possibly create the evil otherwise truthfully denied and sought is be avoided.

A truly independent non-biased judge considering such a situation should not care about retaining jurisdiction of any particular case; but instead rise above one’s self, respect a petitioner’s well-plead request and promptly proceed to remove all grounds for any suspicion of doubt, by granting disqualification.

Procedure:

Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:

“The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.

: MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification. The Judge complained of then holds a holds a hearing and decides the motion. If the motion is denied, then the party or attorney may refer the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion de novo on the record 32/33


Respectfully submitted this August 27, 2007



By ______________________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O.Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679


TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES

1. US Const, Am XIV; Mich Const 1963,art 1,set 17;
2. In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136; 75 S Ct 623( 1955)
3. Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564, 579; 93 S Ct 1689 ( 1973)
4. Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 351 ( 1975 )
5. Pitoniak v Borman’s, Inc. 104 Mich App 718, 722-723(1981)
6. Withrow v Larkin, 421, US 35, 47; 95 S Ct 1455( 1975)
7. Mathews v Eldridge,424, US 319, 335; 96 S Ct 893 ( 1976 )
8. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254, 263-271; 90 S Ct 1011 ( 1970)
9. Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne County, 386 Mich 1 ( 1971)
10. Stockwell v Township Board, 22 Mich 341 ( 1871)
11. Peninsular Railway Co. v. Howard, 20 Mich 18 ( 1870 )
12. People v Houston, 179 Mich app 753, 756 ( 1983 )
13. Clemens v Bruce, 122 Mich App 35, 37-38 ( 1982 )
14. People v Lowenstein, 118 Mich App 475, 481-432 ( 1982 )
15. United State v Grinnell, 384 US 563; 86 S C: 1698 ( 1966 )
16. People v Rider, 93 Mich App 383 ( 1979 )
17. Ungar v Sarafite. 376 US 573, 588: 84 S Ct 841 ( 1964 )
18. Merritt v Munster, 575 P2d 623, 624 ( Okla. 1978 )
19. Strong v Pontiac General. 117 Mich App 143, 148 ( 1982 )
20. Wayne County v Recorder’s Court, 81 Mich App 143, 148 ( 1982 )
21. Warren Schools v MERC. 67 Mich App 58 ( 1976 )
22. Baker v Carr. 369 US 186, 267; 82 S Ct 691. 737 – 738 ( 1962 )
23. Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510; 47 S Ct 437 ( 1927 )
24. Offutt v United States, 348 US 11, 14; 75 S Ct 11 ( 1955 )
25. Glass v State Hwy Const. 370 Mich 482 ( 1963 )
26. Wayne County Prosecutor v Doerfler, 14 Mich App 428( 1968 )
27. Cardozo, Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 167.
28. Utilities Com v Pollak, 343 US 451, 466; 72 S Ct 813 ( 1952 )
29. Mirych v State Fair Commission, 376 Mich 384( 1965 )
30. Consumer Power v Iosco Circuit Judge, 210Mich 572 ( 1920 )
31. Hayes-Albion v Kuberski, 108Mich App 642, 657-658 ( 1981 )
32. Gruprynski v Bay Judge, 166 Mich 118, 123-124 (1988)
33. People v Gauntlett, 134 Mich 737, 757-761 ( 1984 )
34. MCR 2.003 et seq.
35. Caleffe v Vitale,65 ALR 4th 67, 71-72 ( 1986 )
36. See 46 Am Jur 2d, Judges ss. 86; see also ss. C ( 1 ) ( a. b ) of Canon 3 of the Code 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct ( Am Jur 2d Desk book )


EX-WIFE MAKES FALSE DOMESTIC ABUSE CHARGE AGAINST GEORGE LYONS

1. AS DIVORCE PROCEEDING BEGIN, MRS. LYONS WAS DIRECTED BY HER ATTORNEY BRIAN LAVAN TO REMOVE PLAINTIFF FROM THEIR MARITAL HOME LOCATED AT 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI. AND ON FEB. 28TH 1998 FILE A FALSE DOMESTIC ABUSE CHARGE AGAINST PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS. (SEE AUDIO TAPE).

HISTORY OF ATTORNEY BRIAN LAVAN AND HIS COVER-UP OF ATTORNEY DALE COOPER.

2. CASE NO: 94-12621 CK HONORABLE STANLEY J. LATERILLE

ATTORNEY DALE COOPER committed perjury by stating that George Lyons committed Fraud, to enter a law suit into the Livingston County Courts. All building contracts were under the American Arbitration Clause:

Attorney Brian Lavan of Brian Lavan & Associates, at the time of his representation of George Edward Lyons. In addition, Lyons & Associates, Mr. Lavan firm was at 132 E. Grand River, Brighton, and Mi 48116.

1. On November 1st 1991, Attorney Brian Lavan and his wife Karen Lavan Leased 210 East Street, Brighton, Mi 48116, to Lyons & Associates, Inc. ( aka Lyons Builders, Inc ) and George Edward Lyons.

2. On approx. April 1, 1993 Attorney Brian Lavan and his employee Gerald Edit represented George Lyons in a Livingston County Circuit court, case Jim and Betty Steeber vs. Lyons & Associates, and George Lyons for the Steebers, committed breach of building contract. The same Steebers that was in the court case of Storzbach, Friberg, Steeber, etc. The same case that Ex-Wife Patricia Lyons was being represented by Brian Lavan, against Lyons Builders, Inc. vs. Storzbach, Friberg, Steeber, etc.

3. Attorney Brian Lavan held up 3 checks of George Lyons of Lyons & Associates, Inc. after George Lyons renovated the lease office at 210 East Street, Brighton, Mi. 48116 in approx. $ 9,000.00 + of new carpeting, painting etc.

4. Attorney Brian Lavan called George Lyons and requested George Lyons to file a false complaint to Consumer & Industry services, against the commercial leasing agent Richard Baker of the Baker Team of Novi, Michigan. “ I know it was not your fault for the eviction, I have a property in foreclosure, and your on a lease with option to by I cannot wait, Richard has a cash buyer, but I already paid Richard Baker for your commission, I do not want to pay him for this next commission. I want you to make a complaint against Baker with the License, so I do not have to pay the commission; I refused to do any illegal action, Brian Lavan then stated: and then I will contact your attorney (Thomas Brady, George Lyons attorney, and talk to him.)

5.CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Attorney Brian Lavan in the State of Michigan in the Circuit Court for the County of Livingston, Represented ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons and Attorney Brian Lavan filed a Complaint for Divorce April 2nd 1996, Case No. 96-23807 before Honorable Judge Burress, Brian Lavan represented Patricia Ann Lyons, in the complaint of Divorce in the complaint for Divorce, making a false statements against George Edward Lyons that See page 3. Paragraph 13 George Lyons asked Patricia A. Lyons, and audio taped.


That conversation was:

“Patti, on page 3 paragraph 13. Injunction: Making a false statement against Defendant (George Lyons) has physically abused Plaintiff in the past and because of the action now taken by Plaintiff (Patricia A. Lyons), in the filing of this divorce action, Plaintiff is justly fearful for her physical well being and is justly fearful that Defendant will assault, beat, molest or wound her unless he is restrained from doing so by order of this Court. Defendant, asked Patricia Ann Lyons why in this in the complaint of divorce, I never hit you, or strike you, in the 19 years we been together “Patricia it been 20 years”, George why is this in here, Patricia A. Lyons stated, I know you didn’t hit me, Brian said it was for better negotiation.”) This is on audio taped conversation.

6. On 12/4/1996 Brian Lavan then represented Patricia Ann Lyons, in case Livingston County Circuit court system before Honorable Stanley Laterille against the following Storzbach, Friberg, Chelsea lumber and JIM AND BETTY STEEBER AND LYONS BUILDERS, INC. AKA (Lyons & Associates, Inc.)

7. The same Jim and Betty Steeber that Brian Lavan represented Lyons & Associates, Inc. for Breach of contract in the above paragraphs, this writer believes that Attorney Brian Lavan committed CONFLICT INTEREST.

8. Brian Lavan also representing Patricia A. Lyons to acquire illegal funds from this case in a possible embezzling of $ 10,000.00 from Lyons Builders, Inc. by Patricia A. Lyons

9. Attorney Brian Lavan had full knowledge on Lyons Builders, Inc. Lose approx. $ 160,000.00 that was due Lyons Builders, Inc. for work done on 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi, in the Friberg and Storzbach case.

10. There is a possible collusion between Court receiver Attorney Dale Cooper and Attorney Brian Lavan, in the Livingston County Court Circuit before Honorable Judge Stanley Laterille.

11. Defendant request before Judge Burress a motion to remove Brian Lavan for Conflict of Interest and all evidence was presented, Lease agreement, and the Case of: Steeber v. Lyons & Associates, Inc. that Brian Lavan represented George Lyons and Lyons & Associates, Inc etc. Prior to the Steeber’s case prior to ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons case. Motion was denied.

12. EXAMPLE:

A. Brian Lavan Lease with option to buy a commercial property at 215 S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan to George Edward Lyons and Lyons & Associates, Inc. (aka Lyons Builders, Inc.)

B. Attorney Brian Lavan was hired to represent Lyons & Associates, Inc. (aka Lyons Builders, Inc.) And George Lyons against Jim and Betty Steeber for breach of Contract.

C. Attorney Brian Lavan illegal evicts George Edward Lyons from 215 S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan. To purchase a Foreclosure commercial property on Grand River Ave. Brighton, Michigan.

D. Attorney Brian Lavan then was hired by George Edward Lyons ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons to illegal acquire illegal funds from 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. Against George Edward Lyons and Lyons Builders, Inc. and JIM AND BETTY STEEBER THE SAME PEOPLE THAT BRIAN LAVAN, Represented in the Law suit in the Breach of Contract JIM AND BETTY STEEBER.

IMPORTANT: Attorney Brian Lavan then represented Patricia A. Lyons in a divorce against George Edward Lyons. SEE NUMBER 5: THIS IS A HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. But two motion to remove Attorney Brian Lavan in representing Patricia A. Lyons for conflict of Interest. The judge denied the motion.

* IMPORTANT: Friend of the Court Referee GERALD EDIT work for Attorney Brian Lavan on the CASE AGAINST (Lyons Builders, Inc.) V JIM AND BETTY STEEBER BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE, Friend of Court Referee Gerald Edit.


13. Defendant George Lyons presented a motion for Emergency Disqualification of Judge Burress for Biasness; the case was to go to the Lansing Administration office, for a De nova hearing. It was not sent to the Lansing administration office it was sent to a Judge in Jackson, Michigan. The motion was denied. This motion if denied was structured showed that Judge Daniel Burress is Bias against George Lyons.

14. * I have more evidence that include Brian Lavan employee Gerald Edit now representing the Friend of the Court of Livingston County court referee.

15. * George Lyons requested Referee Gerald Edit to be removed as Referee, for conflict of Interest, Before Honorable Judge Susan Reck, overwhelming evidence was given to referee, Gerald Edit, proving that there may be possible collusion, and withholding evidence, and having full knowledge of Patricia A. Lyons through audiotapes, and presented documents shown to Referee Gerald Edit’s collusion, and biasness, Referee Gerald Edit is still representing Lyons v Lyons in the Livingston County Friend of the court.

The following charges against attorney Brian Lavan, trying to forcing George Lyons in making a false complaint to State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services continue Conflict of Interest, and collusion. And charges for Tortuous Interference and Civil Conspiracy. AND RESTRICTION OF TRADE, AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.


BALANCE HISTORY OF COURT RECEIVER DALE COOPER WHO SHOULD BE DISBARRED

Attorney Dale E. Cooper Committed perjury by stating that George Lyons committed Fraud, to support his obstruction of justice actions, in reports to the Livingston County Court system. This is greatly supported by audio tapes.

1. In approx 1997, my ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance committee File no. 1781 / 97:

2. ATTORNEY DALE E. COOPER stated that he never made this statement. That Patricia A. Lyons stated in Attorney Grievance Complaint, that Mr. Cooper was going to give Mrs. Patricia A. Lyons a list because of the reduction in the price for needs of repairs in excess of $ 22,000.00, for 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan 48169.
3. This was a fabrication on Attorney Dale E. Cooper part. I have in my possession audiotape of Attorney Dale E. Cooper acknowledging that he would give Patricia A. Lyons that list of repairs in excess of $ 22,000.00

4. This writer also has an appraisal of 5654 Shoshoni Pass prior to any suit that appraised out for $300,000.00

5. I also have letters from Real Estate One in communities to Attorney Dale Cooper acknowledging that they have two other offers over $ 265,000.00 to $ 275,000.00 that Dale Cooper received prior to the offer of $ 220,000.00.

6. Dale Cooper Court Receiver for Judge Stanley Laterille represent Laterille court, but it seems that he also represented Storzbach and Friberg’s to possibly embezzle funds from George Lyons and Lyons Builders, Inc. and Lyons, Inc. Court receiver Dale Cooper forced George Edward Lyons to sign a Warranty deed, without the legal representation of an a attorney.

7. During a hearing in Lyons v. Lyons divorce proceeding, Court receiver appeared with a Warranty Deed who was invited by Patricia A. Lyons attorney Brian Lavan. For Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision, aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan 48169.

8. Court receiver Dale Cooper stated to Patricia A. Lyons and George Lyons. “I want you two to sign this Warranty deed on Shoshoni Pass. George Lyons stated to Patricia A. Lyons not to sign said Warranty Deed.

9. Court receiver Dale Cooper, ask George Lyons to sign side Warranty deed, George Lyons stated I would want an attorney to review this Warranty deed. “Dale Cooper stated you don’t need an attorney, and if you don’t sign this deed right now; I am going to throw your ass in jail. George Lyons again stated I would want this to be reviewed by my attorney.

10. Dale Cooper stated then your going to jail; we’ll just sit here and wait for Judge Burress. The same Judge that refused to be Disqualify for biasness, and rejected the Motion for Attorney Brian Lavan for Conflict of Interest.

11. George Lyons and Patricia A. Lyons, was threaten to sign said Warranty deed by Court Receiver Dale Cooper, George Lyons stated that I am signing this Warranty deed and stated to the notary republic, and to Dale Cooper who was present. “That I am signing this warranty deed under duress. THIS WAS TAPE-RECORDED.

12. In addition, with the figures at the beginning of these documents that Storzbach only paid Lyons Builders, Inc. $70,400.00 and through the Livingston County Building department, Lyons Builders, Inc. preformed $ 169,000.00 + and Friberg’s through the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry service, in Friberg’s complaint.

13. The Letter from the State of Michigan C & I services state the case is closed and that Lyons Builders, Inc. DID NO VIOLATION. But Storzbach and Friberg’s continue to embezzled funds form Lyons Builders, Inc. and George Lyons

14. . Now because of the illegal actions of court receiver Dale Cooper AND THE DEFENDANT(S)-APPELLEE(S) also caused George Lyons to face fraudulent N.S.F. charges. The above conversation was audiotape by this writer.

Collusion:

HISTORY OF EX-WIFE EMBEZZLING MONEY FROM 5640 SHOSHONI PASS, PINCKNEY, MI

15. Another illegal action of Court Receiver Dale Cooper: was during negotiations Patricia Ann Lyons and Attorney Brian Lavan illegal actions in wrongfully stating that Patricia Ann Lyons was the owner of Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan 48169. This writer can prove that Patricia A. Lyons removed herself as resident agent 1 month after Lyons, Inc. was started. See Letter from Consumer & Industry services in 1993.

16. REAL ESTATE REPRESENTATION DIRECTOR Ann Milburn, ordering Patricia A. Lyons to either become a Real Estate Broker or remove herself from the Corporate records of Lyons, Inc.

17. That only a Licensed Broker could become a resident agent, Brian Lavan had knowledge to this fact. And Patricia Ann Lyons received illegal funds from Lyons, Inc. A Michigan Corporation for stating that she was legal owner of Lot 88 Arrowhead, 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. 48169

18. Other evidence is a letter from Patricia A. Lyons to Consumer & Industry services REAL ESTATE REPRESENTATION DIRECTOR Ann Milburn , Statement in the letter states I Patricia A. Lyons is removing myself from Lyons, Inc. This was done in a corp. meeting, and witnessed in 1993.

19. So Dale Cooper did not get a clear title to Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision. Aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. And that George Lyons is the true holder of Lyons, Inc.

20. And now request the property of 5654 Shoshoni Pass; Pinckney, Mi. back and that Dale Cooper should be responsible to return Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision, AKA 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. And time is of the essence. Or possibly charged along with Patricia A. Lyons and Attorney Brian Lavan and Court Receiver Dale Cooper for Tortuous Interference and Civil Conspiracy.

21. Another possible illegal action of Court receiver Dale Cooper: was during negotiations on 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney and Brian Lavan was stating the Patricia Ann Lyons was the owner of Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision. Patricia Ann Lyons stated to Dale Cooper on the offer to purchase of Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi.

22. “Patricia A. Lyons stated to Dale Cooper on the offer to purchase lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision we had an offer of $ 267,000.00 why am I accepting an offer for $ 220,000.00.

23. Dale Cooper court receiver stated “because their still a lot of things that have to be done to finish the Property. Patricia Ann Lyons, what things. Patricia Ann Lyons requested a list. Dale Cooper promised that he would acquire that List. THEN COURT RECEIVER DALE COOPER: came into the Courtroom as stated before this paragraph and Forced George Lyons and Patricia Ann Lyons to sign the illegal Warranty Deed to the reduce price of the property on Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision, aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi.

24. IMPORTANT: STORZBACH PAID LYONS BUILDERS, INC. $70,400.00 AND LYONS BUILDERS, INC. PERFORMED OVER $169,000.00+ WORTH OF WORK PER LIVINGSTON COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

25, AND FRIBERG’S COMPLAINT TO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES, THERE CASE WAS CLOSED AND FOUNDED THAT LYONS BUILDERS DID NO VIOLATIONS.

26. Patricia Ann Lyons informed George Lyons the rightful owner of Lyons, Inc. A Michigan
Corporation: and informed Him that the offer to purchase Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. the reduction of the property Shoshoni Pass. Pinckney, Mi to $ 220,000.00.

27. After receiving this information George Lyons went to the office of Court Receiver Dale Cooper and asks him if it true about the reduction of the property at 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. And is he not accepting the other two offers on Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. that were $ 265,000.00 and $275,000.00.

28. VERY IMPORTANT: After finding about this problem from the ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons. George Lyons went to Dale Cooper office of court receiver Dale Cooper: George Lyons asked Dale Cooper why you reduced the price of 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi 48169 to $220,000.00 Dale Cooper stated “Because there still has to be a lot of work done on Shoshoni Pass,

29. George Lyons then showed Court Receiver Dale Cooper a copy of an Appraisal for $300,000.00 on Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. Court receiver Dale Cooper had his secretary copy the appraisal.

30. George Lyons asked Court receiver Dale Cooper, “Patti Lyons told me that the reason you’re taking the offer of $220,000.00 because there things have to be done on the property. Dale Cooper stated to George Lyons. George Lyons stated to Dale Cooper “I have a certificate of Occupancy”.

31. Then George Lyons then stated, “There nothing has to be done on Shoshoni Pass, and the Livingston County Building Department does not give out Certificate of Occupancy and thing has to be done.” I have a Certificate of Occupancy Dale. Here it is. There is nothing to be done on the property”.

32. Then George Lyons stated “And that you promise her a list of things to be done on the property”. (5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. 48169”.

33. “Dale Cooper court receiver : Yes and I will get you a copy of those things have to be done, I’ll get a copy of the list to Patti, George I would like to have a copy, I make sure you get copy to”. AUDIO TAPE CONVERSATION.

34. Dale Cooper statement back to Attorney Grievance committee letter on 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. I never heard of a list and I never promised such a list for 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. This letter was support by Patricia A. Lyons Attorney Brian Lavan.

35. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. SEE AUDIO TAPE CONVERSATION AND DOCUMENTS AND APPRAISIAL THAT WAS GIVEN TO COURT RECEIVER DALE COOPER.
36. Dale Cooper: This was a cover-up and possible illegal action on Court receiver DALE COOPER. Also a cover-up letter from Patricia Ann Lyons attorney BRIAN LAVAN. FOOTNOTE: BRIAN LAVAN representing Lyons & Builders, Inc. against Steebers. Now Patricia Ann Lyons Divorce attorney. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

37. FOOTNOTE: TO THE BUILDERS READING THIS EMAIL: George Lyons state what are you saying there nothing to be done, we have a CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY ON THE PROPERTY AND Livingston County Building department would not grant a certification of Occupation without everything being done. “Did you say you’ll get a list of thing to be done to Patti (ex-wife)”?

38. Dale Cooper stated yes and I can you get her a copy. DALE COOPER STATED, AND I’LL SEE YOU GET A COPY TO. BUT A LETTER TO ATTORNEY GREIVANCE COMMITTEE DALE COOPER STATED I HAVE NO IDEA OF A LIST.

39. FOOTNOTE: Evidence shows Storzbach only paid Lyons Builders, Inc. $70,400.00 and through the Livingston County Building Department Lyons Builders, Inc. preformed $ 169,000.00 worth of work on Storzbach’s project a $98,000.00 difference.

40. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: Court Receiver DALE COOPER then came in to Court and force Patricia Ann Lyons and George Edward Lyons to signing a Warranty deed for lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan 48169 under duress. As stated in the audiotape.

41. NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT: Being upset because Patricia Ann Lyons never received a copy of thing to be done on 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan, Patricia Ann Lyons makes a complaint to the ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

42. Court Receiver Dale Cooper reduced the price of Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision aka 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. And then state back to Attorney Grievance committee that he Dale Cooper stated he had no knowledge about a reduction or a List. On 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. This false and misleading on court receiver Dale Cooper part.

43. George Lyons is asking the Attorney Grievance committee to investigate Court Receiver Dale Cooper an investigate the reduction of the price of 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. and that Dale Cooper promised to Patricia Lyons and George Lyons a list that caused the reduction from $ 265,000.00 to $ 220,000.00 That Patricia A. Lyons nor George Lyons never did received said reduction list that was promised from court receiver Dale Cooper.

44. IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: And through the Consumer & Industry services a complaint filed Ronald and Virginia Storzbach WHICH that Lyons Builders, Inc. preformed $ 169,000.00 and WAS approved by Livingston County Building Department, and Ronald and Virginia Storzbach only paid $70,400.00 and Friberg’s complaint to the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services complaint was closed and C&I stated the Lyons Builders, Inc. DID NO VIOLATIONS

45. And on Richard and Ann Friberg’s Complaint to Consumer & Industry services closed complaint stated that Lyons Builders, Inc. DID NO VIOLATIONS. Both suits were fraudulent to embezzle money from Lyons Builders, Inc. See permits history both on Storzbach’s and Friberg’s projects.

46. Honorable Judge Stanley Laterille combined both Ronald and Virginia Storzbach and Richard and Ann Friberg’s suits. Which combined other attorney grievance letters of attorney’s Richard Conlin, Brian Lavan.


Respectfully Submitted



_______________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O. Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan
48169