My old friend Horace Middlemier called recently. He was ranting about the judiciary and our failings. Horace keeps me from the malice and malaise of Black Robe Disease, and I thank him for it. See Honest Critics - Invaluable (November 2018). As an aside, it is tough to catch the disease if you don't put on the robe. I can hear Horace still: "pompous," "arrogant," "privileged," and on, and on, and on.
The reference was to a story from the Detroit Free Press regarding a couple of judges who got out to enjoy some recreation and exercise (I highly recommend this to all, get outside, get moving).
The story began in 2019 when two judges rented bicycles at a resort in Michigan. When they returned the bicycles, they had a complaint about one of the bikes and requested a price adjustment. Things devolved from discontent to disagreement, and words were said. One of the judges accused the bike shop personnel of being disrespectful and racist. The two customers apparently told the merchants that they wanted the police summoned, and then dropped the other shoe with "I am a judge." That, I will say, is a phrase I assiduously avoid even when asked. My family makes fun of my answer when asked about my occupation: "I work for the state." It is true, vague, and incomplete. And, I think it is best.
Some of the incident here was captured for posterity. There is video. Unfortunately, there is apparently no audio to accompany it (though shop owners may be moving in that direction as technology changes). Cameras are ubiquitous and more sell every day. Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). There is thus some disagreement regarding exactly what was actually said in the heat of the moment regarding the $12.00 (approx.) that was in dispute. Hint: judges - if you find yourself on the verge of angry or untoward words regarding a disagreement over $12.00, walk away. Call me, and I will send you the $12.00.
The incident escalated and "police arrived at the shop." They asked the judges to step outside and then reviewed the video with the shop owner. At some point, apparently, the "tiny . . . island police department" summoned backup. After the video review, one officer, with "two other (officers) . . . standing by," informed the judges that it appeared they or one of them "did the assault" on the shop personnel. The whole incident ended with the judges getting a 100% discount on their rental, "negotiated" by the police. The negotiated agreement also included the judge and the shop personnel agreeing not to pursue assault charges against each other.
Thus, the shop owner/management apparently thought the whole $24.00 issue was not worth all the hassle? I would suggest that was wise (perhaps she/he should be the judge?). The Free Press seems critical of the judges' pursuit of a refund. The article notes that the judges were in the resort town for a judicial conference, and that "most expenses are covered by taxpayers." This is perhaps a suggestion that this whole tempest over $12.00 was even less worthy of the alleged escalation, assault, and words?
All is well that ends well, or so they say. But then there was a complaint to the Judicial Tenure Commission. The "I am a judge" was apparently enough to cause an inquiry into the propriety of "judges announc(ing) their status in commercial dealings." Then, as too often happens, there was allegedly some doubling down. The article reports that when the judges were questioned by the state investigators, there were "numerous false statements." See No Reply (January 2023); Respond Before the Trouble Starts (September 2022); and Don't Double Down (June 2017). Of perhaps more general judicial interest, see Conferences and Consequences (November 2019). At least this was a simple bike dispute and not a shooting after a night of drinking.
The Michigan allegations include citation to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 2(A) and (B). These are focused on the avoidance of "all impropriety and appearance of impropriety," and "conduct that tends to erode confidence in the integrity of the judiciary." There is also mention of Michigan rules that forbid any lawyer from "conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentations . . .," and misrepresentation, and "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." When at first you misstate or deceive, there is a seeming litany of rules against that.
The Michigan Supreme Court will assign the issue to another judge to hear the complaint and make "disciplinary recommendation(s)." The Court will then decide whether the complaints against the judges have merit or not. If meritorious, the Court can impose punishment that may include a warning, suspension, or removal.
The Free Press article includes responses from the two judges. They allege, essentially, that they are being unfairly and disproportionately mistreated. Time will tell which view prevails with the judge assigned to hear the complaint, and ultimately the Michigan Supreme Court. In retrospect, however, one really does wonder if all of this was really worth $12.00?
Anytime one feels the urge to utter "Do you know who I am," or worse "I am a judge," the slope will become slick rapidly. In the best of situations, such verbiage is unfortunate and unwise. And the "best of situations" are few and far between. P.T. Barnum once said "There is no such thing as bad publicity," but I would suggest he is wrong. And to Horace, I would add - this case has not been decided as yet, so let's see how it plays out before we are too critical. After all, presumed innocent until proven guilty (Horace is a lawyer and should know this instinctively).
Ed. note: Horace Middlemier is not a real person. He is a literary device of no relation to any human living or dead. Any similarity to any living person of any description is purely coincidence.
