Judge Carol Kuhnke's Imbecile Endorsement of A Sexual Harasser for Re-election.

By Iñaki Viggers.

On July 6, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court ("MSC") sanctioned judge Gregg Iddings with a six-month suspension (that is, unpaid and undisturbed vacations) for sexually harassing his secretary in the course of three years. This is one of the rare instances where the Judicial Tenure Commission ("JTC") reacts to judicial misconduct, and it is even rarer from the standpoint that the MSC increased the suggested sanction as opposed to reducing or eliminating it: Let's not forget the Michigan Supreme Court's gross leniency toward furious judge Gorcyca's jailing of three innocent kids.

When describing Mr. Iddings's misconduct, the Michigan Supreme Court refers to his victim/secretary as "Ms. [*****]". See In Re Iddings, 897 N.W.2d 169 (2017):


(side comment: the court's label of essentially Ms. Five Stars is bad taste and a poor choice when addressing a judge's uncontrollable showings of sexual attraction to her)

Although several men are falsely accused (and even falsely prosecuted) for sexual harassment, according to In Re Iddings, respondent Iddings himself "stipulated to [the] findings of fact and conclusions of law". Also, it was Mr. Iddings who reported himself with the JTC, but apparently only after the EEO ruled in favor of the secretary. Mr. Iddings must have calculated that the publicity and repercussions of his misconduct would be lower if he reported himself with the JTC.

I will minimize neither judge Iddings's harassment of his secretary nor his nonsense in the subsequent mea culpa. But his self-denouncement at the JTC inevitably elicits a comparison with felon Carol Kuhnke (another Michigan judge). I just cannot picture felon Kuhnke denouncing herself at the JTC for any of the following:

  • her illegal possession of narcotics (see, for instance, the last page of this police report);
  • her chain of inept decisions leading to the tragic overdose of her adopted son; or 
  • her vexatious insistence to continue presiding Washtenaw County case 16-870-FH (where the police who busted her is a witness in that case) and which she keeps delaying and rescheduling two years later.

Rather than felon Kuhnke, it was the special prosecutor who reported Kuhnke's narcotics felony (and only that misconduct) to the negligent Judicial Tenure Commission.

Judge Iddings's six-month suspension became effective July 5, 2017. This means that he must have been back on January 5, 2018, or shortly thereafter. By January 19, 2018, he had already filed for re-election, thereby showcasing judges' addiction to power.


On or around October 24, 2018, few days prior to the November elections, judge Kuhnke could not dissimulate her love of "anybody who's powerful" (her words on the bench, not mine, at a hearing in 2016) when she publicly endorsed judge & school buddy Gregg Iddings for re-election.


Notice this felon's need to remind us that she is a "judge", as if the five-letter word sufficed to legitimize someone's nefarious preferences. Or was it Mr. Iddings who added the judge prefix? Feel free to ask him via facebook or at info@iddingsforjudge.com.




Felon Kuhnke's endorsement serves to highlight her hypocrisy and multi-faceted contradictions. When this criminal was pandering for votes back in 2012, she underlined the importance "that a woman's voice be heard in all of the matters of society, including on the bench".



If she wanted, female Kuhnke could have advanced that importance by contending against male incumbent Timothy Connors in 2012. Instead, she came up with that babbling in her quest to replace a female retiring judge in that same electoral process. And for that same vacant spot there was another contender who was female and democrat, just like felon Kuhnke. But that is water under the bridge. What matters is that nonsense Kuhnke's endorsement of a male judge who sexually harassed his female employee from 2012 to 2015 clearly contradicts her feminist pledge during the debate at the League of Women Voters.

I doubt that felon Kuhnke would risk with that endorsement if her re-election were at stake in the elections of November 2018. But since no eligible attorney in Washtenaw County dared to contend against either of these two incompetent crooks (Kuhnke and Connors), Carol Kuhnke feels the liberty to cheer the judicial ambitions of a sexual harasser. That is one of Carol Kuhnke's "values".

Based on the debauched lecture felon Kuhnke gave me from the bench in one of my cases, I can imagine this pathetic judge explaining her reasons for endorsing her judicial buddy. Compare


with this plausible adaptation to today's topic:
Dear Ms. [*****],
Now that I feel totally safe milking the system as judge, I "hate" to tell you that MI-chigan (actually meaning ME) loves employers and it loves anybody who's powerful. Okay? So if you are not in those groups, you just kind of have to stay out of the way
I don't care if my buddy judge incurs multi-year misconduct, because so do I with all the alcohol and illegal narcotics I have stashed till the police busted me. But I am not biased against you. It's all about who earns high income and who can help my career ambitions, and I just perceive that you are in neither category. 
For these reasons, I am definitely siding with an abusive judge rather than with some secretary who shall endure this multi-year sexual harassment in order to make a living. That's my ruling. 
Criminally,
Judge Felon Kuhnke

No wonder why inept judge Kuhnke favored defendant Maria de la Merced Viggers, the psychopath who kept harassing the University of Michigan over and over again (also by email) prompting it to irreversibly suspend my hire process there, and who is known for her troubling habits such as videotaping her neighbors as she drives and "beating on neighbors doors in the middle of the night [...] on a regular basis waking up the neighborhood at 4-5am". Many of Carol Kuhnke's pathetic decisions show her fondness of harassers and criminals.

The good news is that judge Iddings lost his bid for re-election. He was defeated by candidate Catherine Sala. Given the circumstances, though, I find it appalling that Ms. Sala won only by a very small margin: 17,278 to 17,171. That is one aspect reflecting the unfortunate traction by Michigan's unfit judiciary. Regardless, future judge Sala is strongly encouraged to be an exception to the judicial debauchery and instead be a judge who actually follows the law.

Now judge-elect Sala can expect, sooner or later, some kiss-up gesture by Carol Kuhnke in an attempt to mend the embarrassment of unavailingly siding with Sala's male opponent. The day that uncomfortable exchange takes place, Kuhnke's 30-year acquaintance Gregg Iddings will be a 'nobody' in Kuhnke's priorities. Ridiculous.


Peril, treason, retaliation, ineptitude: All in one judge

By Iñaki Viggers.

What do judges Carol Kuhnke and Glenn Devlin have in common? Aside from their names having same length, that both Glenn Devlin and Carol devil release defendants strictly guided by these judges' own perversity.

Last week Texas judge Glenn Devlin released several defendants shortly after losing his bid for re-election. In other words, he had one of those Carol Kuhnke episodes which was induced by enough voters not liking him.

Unlike Harris County, where judge Devlin failed to secure his judicial perpetuity, felon Kuhnke's re-election in Washtenaw County, Michigan, was not at risk this time. That is because every eligible lawyer inexplicably declined to contend against felon Kuhnke, whose deplorable history includes --but is not limited to-- getting busted for illegal possession of narcotics while her adopted son overdosed and was dying elsewhere (coincidentally, another victim of Carol Kuhnke's pattern of inept decision-making).

According to various sources reporting on this post-election issue, judge Devlin contented himself with the defendants' bare statement that they do not intend to kill anyone. That opposite of "judicial scrutiny" reminds me of the criminal contempt hearing for Personal Protection Order 15-941-PH (Washtenaw County Trial Court, Michigan), where incompetent judge Timothy Connors asked his dear respondent Maria Viggers, my father's second wife, whether she intended to continue messing up with my employment (as judge Connors "diligently" clarified: "I'm just saying. Going forward.").

(Side note: Three months later, in March of 2017, judge Connors inexplicably entertained that respondent's renewed attempts to unlawfully harm me.)



That is funny because I actually briefed on appeal (on page 23) my criticism of that aspect of Connors's incompetence. Judge Devlin's decision to personify two years later the absurdity I criticized back then is not a prophetical skill of mine, but a sign of the judiciary's relentless unfitness exacerbated by their corruption and excessive power.


Interestingly, judge Connors was the other incumbent in Wasthenaw County with the same luck as felon Kuhnke in these elections of November 2018: No eligible lawyer contended against him either. Something very bad must be dominating the Michigan courts that leaves these crooks' judicial ambitions completely and bizarrely undisturbed.

Glenn Devlin's reaction epitomizes the resentful tenant who purposefuly destroys the apartment from which he is about to get evicted. And the analogy is hard to miss: voters in Harris County decided to evict judge Devlin from the bench. But Devlin's pro-criminals retaliation is much more harmful than a resentful tenant's because thereby this judge has irresponsibly subjected the public to unwarranted danger by those who are being prosecuted for violent crimes including aggravated robbery. This not only constitutes unlawful retaliation against those voting for another candidate, but also treason against those who voted for him.

It will be ironic if it turns out that anyone who voted for judge Devlin has been or becomes a victim of the defendants that he capriciously released. This is the type of crooks who, abusing the absolute protections of judicial immunity, keeps dismantling the rule of the law. If this guy goes back to practice law, I think any prospective clients should seriously assess the chances that this resentful lawyer would deliberately mess up their cases if/when he gets sanctioned or disbarred.

Given the currently putrid state of the judiciary in the U.S., one has to concede that at least judge Devlin "tried" suggesting the defendants not to kill anyone. By contrast, felon Kuhnke is fond of releasing defendants without making even the slightest attempt to discourage them from resuming their unlawful activity. Of the two lawsuits I filed that were presided by this felon, she dismissed one of them and rushed out of the courtroom; and on the other one, she admittedly stayed in the courtroom but only to openly express her deplorable view that Michigan loves anybody who's powerful and that the rest of us have to stay out of the way as she favored the fraudulent and inconsistent defamer Al-Azhar Pacha.

Best wishes to Harris County voters with their new judge. Meanwhile, six more years of judicial debauchery await Washtenaw County inhabitants with reelected-by-default Timothy Connors and felon Kuhnke.

Judge Joan Larsen in SCOTUS, a Big No-No

By Iñaki Viggers.

Justice Kennedy's recent announcement of his retirement from the United States Supreme Court has sparked foreseeable speculation as to who will replace him. One of the individuals allegedly shortlisted as potential replacements is Joan Larsen, former "Justice" in Michigan's top and corrupt court. Records show that this shortlisted member of the judiciary falls short of meeting the moral requirements to sit on bench.

Over a year ago, while my two cases were in the Michigan appellate queue, there was in my mailbox a midsize flyer (~ 12in. x 7in.) about Justice Larsen and Justice Viviano "working hard to protect children". I threw the advertisement in the trash can without taking the precaution of scanning it first (back then I had not envisioned the initiative One Club Of Justicides). But the wasteful propaganda looked somewhat like this:


Months later, on July 28, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court released the deplorable decision In Re Gorcyca, 500 Mich. 588; 902 N.W.2d 828 (2017). The Gorcyca decision single-handedly unveils the hypocrisy of former Justice Larsen. That decision showcases that Ms. Larsen in reality is not so determined to protect children, at least not to protect them from judicial abuse and perversity to which children are vulnerable (and suffer) in Michigan courts.


Judge or "Honorable" Lisa Gorcyca gained notoriety in the Hall of Judicial Infamy back in 2015, when her decision to jail three innocent kids caught the attention of the media nationwide. This unfit judge thought that jailing three innocent kids was the proper way to cure her gross incompetence in a multi-year divorce & child custody case that has featured a regrettable parade of for-profit attorneys (Disclaimer: I don't know how many of those attorneys took part in the embarrassing Amicus Brief that the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers filed in support of respondent judge Gorcyca).


Infamous judge Gorcyca jailed the Tsimhoni siblings for seventeen days for not having "a normal, healthy relationship with [their] father". She made her nefarious decision during her attempt to force these kids to have lunch with their father in the "intimacy" of the courthouse cafeteria. To read excerpts of the court hearing transcripts, see In Re Gorcyca, at 385-836.

I would characterize the Tsimhoni's "day in court" as an act of judicial brutality, judicial terror targeting three faultless kids, and of judicial extortion that borders on human trafficking. During the litigation of my cases in Michigan courts, I have heard adults' voices trembling when they show up in court under much calm or peaceful conditions. Thus, I cannot conceive what a terrorizing experience this explosive and despotic judge must have caused to the three children.

This court "incident" (an euphemism for judicial tragedy) was one of the rare instances prompting the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) to file proceedings against an unfit judge. Let me be clear: Judicial corruption is very common in Michigan (felon Carol Kuhnke is a clear example of that); what is rare is that the JTC decides to address that judicial corruption. The subsequent hearing in the Michigan Supreme Court on March8, 2017, was rather a mockery of judicial "grilling", where the Justices repeatedly entertained the obstinate and ridiculous allegations made by respondent Gorcyca's lawyer.

Despite the circus of that hearing, the Michigan top court discarded the sanction of 30-day suspension that the JTC proposed. Instead, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that the sanction of "public censure is proportionate" to the brutal acts committed by Gorcyca in court. The Michigan Supreme Court even "reject[ed] the Commission's request to impose costs", In Re Gorcyca at 854, which further deters the JTC from proceeding against other inept judges.

One clear sign of these Justices' ineptitude is palpable in their repugnant excuse that because
"[n]one of the lawyers or trained professionals in the courtroom suggested that respondent's actions crossed the line nor did they offer alternative actions for the court's consideration [...] we cannot conclude that respondent's decisions are fairly characterized as 'willful failure[s] to observe the law.'", Gorcyca at 844.

This is tantamount to a conclusion that a judge is allowed to commit any act of brutality --including extortion and other crimes-- as long as the "trained professionals" present around stay quiet.

Moreover, the Michigan top court ignores that lawyers are wary of protesting the judicial abuse they witness for fear that they themselves would get blacklisted in that court. The vast majority of attorneys are too fearful to even contend against an incumbent/judge in elections even where the judge is busted for a drug-related felony (e.g. Carol Kuhnke) or is embroiled in a pattern of judicial bias (e.g., Carol Kuhnke). The average lawyer is much more affectionate to his law practice than to the principle that innocent kids are entitled to their dignity, that they --like any righteous person-- are entitled to be respected by the most powerful judge.

In the matter of judge Gorcyca, only one Justice had the integrity to issue a dissenting opinion, and it was not judge Larsen. The dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Bernstein and without the support of any of his colleagues. Quite the contrary, Ms. Larsen is listed among the Justices who concur in the decision that "public censure" is sufficient sanction for Gorcyca's abuse of judicial power. That is how Justices in Michigan purport to "protect" children.

I don't know whether or not other individuals shortlisted as potential replacements of Justice Kennedy are worse than judge Larsen, but judge Larsen cannot reasonably explain how her worn out speech about protecting the children is any compatible with her reluctance to duly sanction Gorcyca's judicial abuse of children. I could only imagine judge Larsen telling the Tsimhoni siblings:
"Dear kids, 
I will only join a public censure against judge Gorcyca because I don't think that terrorizing you in court and unjustifiably throwing you in jail for seventeen days are enough reasons to impose on judge Gorcyca a greater sanction. Why would we remove her from judicial office? She and I are judges after all. 
But hey, to show we care about you, when we call you "blatant" in our published decision (Gorcyca at 844) we are writing only your initials instead of your full names, because I am all about protecting you and every children. That makes you whole, right?".
This might be a deleterious effect of being in the Michigan judiciary, but a judge who endorses or proceeds too leniently on another judge's perversity does not deserve being promoted.

As a person who has repeatedly and directly experienced the corruption and gross incompetence of various Michigan judges, the prospect that one of their complicit superiors is eyed for a spot in the SCOTUS appalls me; I am sure such prospect shocks the conscience of any other reasonable person. It goes against the much needed crackdown on Michigan's unfit judges, a crackdown that --realistically speaking-- only Michigan legislators and the SCOTUS could conduct effectively. But if Michigan's inept judiciary is allowed to swarm into either one of these two institutions, it will defeat the often mentioned notion of checks and balances.

Particularly in the context of protecting children, judge Larsen's leniency on Gorcyca's brutality against three kids seems detrimental to President Trump's efforts to mitigate the recent, international outrage about the children being separated from their parents at the U.S. border.

I haven't scrutinized judge Larsen's decisions in other cases. But the United States Supreme Court needs Justices who possess integrity, and my assessment of In Re Gorcyca is that judge Larsen fails that prerequisite.

Felon Carol Kuhnke Seeks Reelection as Trial Judge

By Iñaki Viggers.

Carol Kuhnke, the judge who in November of 2016 was busted for illegal possession of drugs, filed as incumbent in the election(s) that will occur later this year. This judge intends to persuade people that five and a half years of her judicial ineptitude aren't enough. Carol Kuhnke is adamant that if there's a spot in court that even a corrupt judge could hold, it has to be her.

Back in year 2012 Carol Kuhnke was just a populist candidate playing the celebrity card of being openly gay. By year 2018, incumbent Carol Kuhnke has repeatedly embarrassed herself through her notorious history of incompetence, misconduct, and miscarriage of justice in civil as well as criminal cases. Worrisome signs of her delusion in social networks don't help her either.

The bulk of Carol Kuhnke's features makes it easy for any decent candidate to leverage the electorate's once-in-six-years opportunity to fire her from the bench. In that sense, Carol Kuhnke's judicial office can be considered as vacant as when a judge's retirement is imminent. But serious non-incumbents need to file before April 24 to make this happen, because also in a democracy it is true that when scumbag is the only option on the ballots, scumbag takes all.

Carol Kuhnke's Narcotic(s) Felony
Judge Felon Kuhnke or felon judge Kuhnke (the order of the factors does not alter the product) gained shameful notoriety when Detective Raisanen discovered that Carol Kuhnke knowingly possessed narcotics that were neither prescribed to her nor to any person from her household. MCL 333.7403 makes it a felony to knowingly and intentionally possess a controlled substance that is not prescribed to that person. Relevant excerpts of the police report are available here. A copy of the full report can be found as exhibit in the motions for disqualification in cases 16-870-FH and 16-945-FC in the Washtenaw County Trial Court (provided this judge hasn't made these files disappear), although printing this gem of judge's misconduct costs $2 per page.

The detective's findings earned Carol Kuhnke, J.D., what we may call a certificate of Juris Drugstore: a letter where the special prosecutor who was assigned to this matter certifies to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) that "the evidence supported the filing of criminal charges for the possession of controlled substances that were not prescribed to her".

The prosecutor also wrote a letter to Carol Kuhnke with similar terms. If she puts her mind to it, this ridiculous judge could post that letter on the fridge, just like when mommy and daddy do with the kid's report card.

And since Carol Kuhnke supposedly is a grown-up, she gets to decide if she prefers to put it on the tool chest where she used to store liquor and the controlled substance(s) not prescribed to her. Whether on her fridge or her tool chest, a magnet works just  fine.


The Washtenaw prosecutor subsequently filed motions asking judge Kuhnke to disqualify herself from both criminal cases 16-870-FH and 16-945-FC, where Detective Raisanen is expected to be a witness. Too arrogant and proud to be fired from cases, judge Kuhnke denied both motions. This judge's sake of presiding these cases despite her drug-related crime reminds us that Carol Kuhnke has no dignity. I dissect the vexatious spirit of judge Kuhnke's excuses in Segment 7 (minute 36:00-41:52) of the series Corrupted from Ed to Judge.

Much to the prosecutor's frustration, judge Kuhnke has been postponing the trial in 16-870-FH since then:


With the exception of Joke Carol Kuhnke, everybody else understands the importance of punishing those who lie to a police officer during the investigation of a murder. We who have been victims of a defendant's criminal conduct need the judge to ascertain the truth. Reluctant to do her job, Carol Kuhnke is fond of allowing witnesses to commit perjury and of allowing them to avoid testimony.

Now we must thank the defendant to 16-945-FC for pleading guilty. Otherwise we would see Carol Kuhnke juggling also there to do her thing: obstruction of justice, obstruction from the bench.

Carol Kuhnke's Reckless Endangerment of a Child
The discovery of Carol Kuhnke's narco-felony unveiled other serious issues that demonstrate her unfitness for judicial office, given her inept decision-making in and out of court.

Carol Kuhnke's felony was discovered as a result of her adopted son's drug overdose. John Kuhnke, the adopted son, had been released from rehab for substance abuse just two days earlier (November 23, 2016). The police report reflects that, after depriving John of the company of his cousins on Thanksgiving Day, judge Carol Kuhnke left this teenager completely alone and unsupervised in her apartment so that Carol Kuhnke could go "holiday shopping" on Thanksgiving at 10PM. It appears that erratic Carol Kuhnke "forgot" what she told John just few hours earlier: that she "wanted things to be more low key since he just got out of rehab".

In light of John's overdose and his prior access to the drugs and alcohol that Carol Kuhnke stashed in her apartment, this "smart" judge presumed that it's ok to leave John alone and unsupervised if she just locks in a tool chest her liquor and all drugs. The problem is that an approach that works well with pets is a quite stupid idea when applied to a rehab teenager who (1) knows where exactly Carol Kuhnke stashes her liquor and substances, (2) "abuses anything he can get his hands on" (these are judge's words in the police report, not mine), and (3) "has been in and out of residential treatment for most of this year" (same). Compared to animals, a teenager can make a much, so much smarter use of his force, of his hands, and even of tools so as to overcome Carol Kuhnke's petcare mentality.

Just because a teenager has been released from rehab two days earlier, it doesn't mean that his sobriety is already consolidated. It is not rocket science that a person battling drug abuse endures for several years a strong temptation to resume his addictions, and that the company of his loved ones can prevent him from relapsing. But instead, this judge ensured that the teenager would have no company and then she left him under the alleged pretext of "holiday shopping" while knowing that a tool chest packed with drugs and liquor was nearby him. Only the devil does that: Devil Carol.

Indeed, John Kuhnke gained access to the alcohol and drugs soon after Carol Kuhnke went to her so-called "holiday shopping", during which John overdosed. At 2:52AM it was tragic that John was not responding to the deputies' efforts to revive him. And it was likewise outrageous that Carol Kuhnke was not responding to the deputies' efforts to contact her. John subsequently died.

The several hours of Carol Kuhnke's "low key" holiday shopping must have been a heck of fun. But had this irresponsible judge bothered to check on the vulnerable teenager, or at least to arrange some supervision or company to him (such as the one of which she deprived him hours earlier), John might still be alive. In terms of judge Crumble Kuhnke's low scale of values, today she would not be the criminally busted judge that she is since late 2016.

Despite the prosecutor's letter and openness toward the JTC, the latter disregarded the matter. Unfortunately, the JTC takes action only when politics are heavy in the court chambers of Michigan or when judicial misconduct gets wide coverage by the media. Even when the JTC proceeds against a judge, the Michigan Supreme Court is keen on making a drama-circus at hearing without really sanctioning the unfit judge. The latest instance of the Michigan Supreme Circus is the matter of Lisa Gorcyca: a hearing remarkable for the court's tolerance to respondent's blatancy, followed by the court's overly lenient decision.

Carol Kuhnke's incompetence in these affairs translates to incompetence on the bench. It is ironic that felon judge Kuhnke remains entrusted with ensuring the victims' safety simply because she hasn't yet been charged and because the JTC ignores the "high standards" to which judges are supposedly held.

Carol Kuhnke's Concealment and Judicial Bias
The police investigation also reflects Carol Kuhnke's domestic involvement with the teenager's mental illness. There is nothing wrong about it, but such involvement makes it improper for Carol Kuhnke to preside cases where one of the parties resorts to the excuse of being mentally ill. When a judge is as obtuse as discussed above, a wrongdoer can manipulate that "compassionate" judge by resorting to pretexts of mental illness.

One instance of Kuhnke's judicial bias happened in one of my lawsuits (15-799-CZ), where the defendant (my father's 2nd wife) sometimes resorts to the pretext of her mental illness, other times denies it altogether, but either way she manages to inflict harm to her victims. Given a judge's domestic involvement in a situation of mental illness, a minimum of integrity would prompt that judge to disqualify him-/her-self from cases where a party exploits her own mental illness as a path to impunity. At the very least, a judge with integrity would ask the parties to weigh in on the issue of her disqualification from the case. But Carol Kuhnke does not have that minimum of integrity: She at all times during my litigation concealed from me that "some personal issues" of hers may (and certainly did) impair her ability to adjudge impartially.

Carol Kuhnke's intentional concealment in 15-799-CZ only reinforces her awareness of impropriety. While Kuhnke's inept rulings clearly signal her bias, it is pathetic that external evidence of her judicial bias emerges when she is caught with illegal possession of drugs. Can wronged litigants and unsuspecting voters afford to wait till the police renewedly busts Carol Kuhnke for something else that could unveil more of her hidden agenda and corrupt interests? Surely the felon would try being more cautious to avoid getting caught again.

Candidate Kuhnke Promises Fairness, Judge Kuhnke Delivers Injustice
Another troubling issue is Carol Kuhnke's double speech. Her inconsistency amounts to having multiple personalities.

In year 2012, candidate Kuhnke campaigned with the babbling that she has "represented working people as an attorney, and as a judge she would take pride in making sure everyone got a fair hearing".

But in year 2016, fraudulent Carol Kuhnke took pride in doing the exact opposite as a judge. After allowing the defendant employer in 15-1193-CZ avoid his deposition for three months, ordering me to produce irrelevant documents as a condition for taking the defendant's deposition, and turning a blind eye on the defendant's inconsistencies, judge Carol Kuhnke summarized her rogue mindset as follows (page 21 of the transcript of the hearing on August 17, 2016):

    • "The State loves insurance companies and it loves employers and it loves oil companies and it loves anybody who's powerful. Okay? And it doesn't say that anywhere in our Constitution. But if you're not in those groups, the[n] you just kind of have to try and stay away --stay out of the way."




Carol Kuhnke's blatant departure from the equal protection of the laws epitomizes her monumental hypocrisy as candidate. While never a bright person, Carol Kuhnke surely knows that expressing her actual mindset during campaign would have placed her at the lowest position in the 2012 primary election.

In an era where courts all over the country are telling President Donald Trump that he is not above the law, Carol Kuhnke's debauched rule of thumb is appalling. Who would have imagined that charlatan Kuhnke has more in common with President Trump than with the Ann Arbor Democrats before whom she pandered for votes in the 2012 campaign?

Later on, at that same hearing, I asked this judge how the defendant employer was going to clarify his wrongful statements of fact. The question is important because (1) the defendant refuses to retract his disproved statements of fact; (2) judge Kuhnke stated minutes earlier "I can make someone swear to tell the truth" (page 18 of the transcript); and (3) the ascertainment of the truth is actually at the core of a judge's obligations. But judge Kuhnke answered my question with "That's not up to me" and "It's not up to me" (pages 24-25 of the transcript). Simply put, Carol Kuhnke's advanced erraticism and moral decomposition impede her to hold judicial office.

What personality will Carol Kuhnke adopt this time as incumbent? She cannot have it both ways. Clearly she will have to pick one personality or the other. Will she paraphrase her fraudulent promise about the working electorate? Or will she cut to the chase and promise "anybody who's powerful" that she will lecture the rest of us "to stay out of the way"? Once ousted, it will be interesting to see whether attorney Carol Kuhnke will tell future her working clients what she in her capacity as corrupt judge has stated so blatantly.

That Funny Judge Who Mistakenly Believed She Works at the University of Michigan
Social networks are a platform where some people boast of something they are not; maybe it gives them a sense of self-accomplishment, maybe it's delusion. But one of those people is Carol Kuhnke, who used to post on her Facebook profile the false allegation that she works at the University of Michigan since 2015.

Looking at the University's annual lists of employees for years 2015, 2016, and 2017 suffices to disprove Carol Kuhnke's delusion.


Granted, there is at least one judge who works at the University of Michigan, whose salary at the University for his 11% part-time is greater than the salary of many full-time employees at the University, and who fails to disqualify himself from cases where their employer the University of Michigan is a party. That judge is Timothy Connors, another decadent and inept judge in the Washtenaw County Trial Court and incumbent in the upcoming election.

There might be other judges who supplement their judicial salary with some juicy income from the University in the form of part-time jobs, but Carol Kuhnke isn't one of them.

Interestingly, judge Kuhnke amended her Facebook profile soon after I pointed to that oddity in a motion (item 57) I filed in the Michigan Court Of Appeals in year 2017. It is uncertain whether anybody advised judge Kuhnke to delete anything about her imaginary employment, or whether she realized that a delusion of that sort looks quite unbecoming of a judge, or whether on this matter Carol Kuhnke decided to stick to one of her multiple personalities.

It is worrisome that a judge tasked with fact-finding shows signs of delusion about her an imaginary employer. Moreover, this helps explaining why judge Kuhnke refused to address the avoidance and multiple inconsistencies that managers/directors from the University incurred during the depositions in 15-799-CZ and 15-1193-CZ: she just didn't want to get in trouble in her imaginary job.

It is not always true that the "reviewing" court will reverse erroneous rulings from a lower court. Both Michigan appellate and supreme courts rubber-stamping of unreasonable rulings. In my experience, the appellate panel even resorted to making fraudulent statements for the sake of filling the blanks from Carol Kuhnke's inept rulings. That increases the importance of removing people like Carol Kuhnke from judicial office.

Final Remarks
As a defrauded litigant, it is outrageous that my cases were presided -and systematically sabotaged- by a crook who should be prosecuted for illegal possession of narcotics and maybe also for reckless endangerment of a child. But this is not an exhaustive list of Carol Kuhnke's misconduct and devotion toward "anybody who's powerful". Other reports about her suspicious leniency in multiple cases have caused public indignation.

Not every attorneys eligible for judicial office commits drug-related crimes, and the fact that Carol Kuhnke hasn't been prosecuted does not make her any "honorable". However, it remains uncertain whether anybody will challenge this incumbent plagued with irregularities and nefarious conduct. While someone could aid Carol Kuhnke by creating a false appearance of contending for the spot, the truth is that a serious candidate has a great chance to replace this failed judge.

In the meantime, the most important question is: How many additional cases will this felon preside?


Federal Court Punishes Fraud. What about Michigan Courts? They FOSTER Fraud.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge sentenced 34-year-old Martin Shkreli to seven years in prison for defrauding investors. The fallout of this young and enterprising guy has gotten wide coverage by the media.

Ironically, on the same day of Shkreli's sentencing to imprisonment, the Michigan Supreme Court showed its latest sign of reluctance to remedy unlawful conduct. It doesn't matter how clearly the illegal activity is proved in Michigan, state court is just uncomfortable about having to do its job. Via a dull, short statement denying my Applications for Leave to Appeal in MSC# 156447 and 156495, Michigan courts reinforce their commitment to side with the criminals and the wrongdoers.

The news of the sentence of Shkreli's imprisonment inevitably reminded many of us of a congressional hearing in February of 2016, where Shkreli defiantly and with a deliberately funny-faced attitude refused to answer all but one of the questions made by congressmen.



The insignificant and only exception to Shkreli's evasion occurs at minute 8:26: With Shkreli looking and smirking elsewhere, congressman Cummings asks "Are you listening?", a bored Shkreli sighs and -only upon his attorney's advice to "say yes"- Shkreli pleases the world by uttering the word "yes". That congressional hearing was quite brief, as it was pointless to continue conducting the hearing in light of Shkreli's use and abuse of the Fifth Amendment.

Congressional hearings are different than court hearings in several aspects. For instance, testimony in Congress does not necessarily retains its full evidentiary weight in judicial proceedings. Also, whereas a crook's attorney (himself another crook) often resorts to his babbling so as to obfuscate judicial proceedings, it is notorious how at minute 5:00 of the congressional hearing Shkreli's attorney was prevented from derailing it. But most important: To federal court's credit, this time justice somehow is catching up with Shkreli.

Shkreli's mockery during his congressional hearing further reminded me of the deposition of Al Pacha, the rotten intermediary whom I brought to court for his fraudulent representations about me. Resembling Shkreli's avoidance of all questions by sticking to the Fifth Amendment, Al Pacha was remarkably evasive when testifying about what he likes to call his "interpretation" of the proverb what goes around comes around. Al Pacha clings to that proverb in his attempt to justify his fraudulent narrative(s) to the University of Michigan.

By alluding to his so-called "interpretation" of a proverb, Al Pacha made of his mental state a fundamental aspect in the lawsuit against him. There was conclusive evidence stacked against him by the time he brought at issue his mental state, yet Mr. Pacha's answers at deposition in this regard (page 52, starting from line 13) reflect his flagrant mockery and his disregard of justice:
- I don't recall.
- I don't know.
- [I] Explain it to a kid at the age that the kid can understand and comprehend that phrase.
- Right now I don't have a kid here so I don't know.
- You are not a kid.

Busted Al Pacha and busted Martin Shkreli might think that testifying under oath just makes insolence funnier.

Another resemblance is Al Pacha's laughable characterization of himself in his ALPAC website as "young, single and enterprising", as if this clown's marital status were any relevant to the industry ...



Of course, posing as young, enterprising, or -in the case of Al Pacha- single are harmless. The problem happens when these phony "entrepeneurs" indulge in fraudulent representations in a desperate attempt to keep their business floating. Whether it is a deceitful overpricing of a stock or the act of defaming an employee who retains prospective employment elsewhere, courts ought to remedy all acts of fraud and blatancy from individuals like Martin Shkreli or Al Pacha. Federal court took care of Mr. Shkreli, whereas Mr. Pacha remains off the hook because Michigan judges are too corrupt to follow the law.

As reflected in the hearing transcript of August 17, 2016, and in Segment 6 of Corrupted from Ed to Judge, crook Carol Kuhnke's lecture as judge is that Michigan "loves employers [...] and anybody who's powerful" and that the rest of us "have to stay out of the way". That degradation in the Michigan judiciary is so appalling that Martin Shkreli would have wished that his case were presided by corrupt Carol Kuhnke and the rubber-stamping courts above her.

Mr. Shkreli has been even ordered to give up an album auctioned at $2m , which is presumably aimed at restoring funds to the defrauded investors. By contrast, Michigan judges lack the integrity to ensure that a defamed plaintiff's reputation gets duly restored. The courts' decadence is illustrated by their absolute leniency toward Al Pacha's disproved narrative(s) and his subsequent blatancy at his deposition. Dignity and reputation are unknown concepts to many of Michigan judges.

Iñaki Viggers

Amicus brief: Expiration of a Personal Protection Order does not render an appeal moot.

The Michigan Supreme Court invited the public to submit amicus briefs to argue whether or not an appeal related to a personal protection order ("PPO") is rendered moot (that is, becomes pointless) if that personal protection order has expired. The hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2018. I am proud to announce that I submitted my Amicus Brief today (with the corresponding motion), supporting the position that expiration of a PPO does not justify the appellate court's dismissal of the appeal "as moot".  The background is given in the Application Brief and the appellant's Supplemental Brief.

Holding that expiration of a PPO justifies dismissing its related appeal(s) would only encourage harassment and corruption. That is because the backlog in Michigan Court Of Appeals is such that almost all PPOs expire by the time the appellate panel schedules the "review" of the case. Actual stalkers would benefit from an incorrect holding from the Michigan Supreme Court because they would be free to engage in stalking, knowing beforehand that their unlawful conduct will remain unpunished.

Another danger of dismissals as moot is that abusive petitioners of PPOs who are friends with the trial judge could obtain PPOs for the sake of unduly restraining others' rights. This would afford to corrupt individuals (including rotten judges and other elected officials) a quick and powerful tool for retaliation, or to silence a civilian whose denouncement of uncomfortable truths poses risks to their illicit dealings.

Iñaki Viggers

Justaguyguy and the blocking of guidance that could have helped him

Yesterday I ran into an inquiry submitted in early November of 2017 by a musician of username Justaguyguy from Nashville, TN. He states that, as a result of false and defamatory statements made about him, he lost a valuable spot in a rotation of performances. He points out that it took him significant effort to earn that spot. Being harmed in his reputation and in his profession, he asked for some guidance on whether or how to proceed.

How many replies has he gotten as of yesterday? Only two: One of them anticipating him to "be prepared to pay attorney fees" unless he finds an attorney open to work on contingency. The other one, posted by the forum Administrator, pointing out the rarity of working on a contingent basis (due to the complexity of defamation lawsuits). There's a little bit of additional information in those two replies, but definitely not enough for a starting point other than the typical "get an attorney".

Note: Because the Terms and Rules of that forum prohibit to display "their" content, I am playing safe by not publishing the screenshots I took now of that thread.

This musician's hardship resembles what I endured and which led to the lawsuits I filed in 2015. That unfortunate resemblance and the experience I have gotten as a pro se litigant prompted me to sign up in that forum and post my reply. I outlined some preliminary aspects to consider in case Justaguyguy decides to sue the person he refers to as the slanderer.

Because of my sympathy toward meritorious pro se litigants, I wish my videos and briefs would help them avoid the strategic and procedural mistakes that a novice litigant is prone to make. I directed Justaguyguy to the series Corrupted from Ed to Judge and the briefs I've filed in the Michigan Supreme Court. The former addresses what to watch out for during litigation; the latter reflect my most matured knowledge and handling of legal matters. I also directed him to leagle.com/leaglesearch , an invaluable, free resource for any litigant's research on USA case law.

In preparation for my reply to Justaguyguy's thread, I searched the Tennessee statutes. It surprised me that in Tennessee the statute of limitations for defamation lawsuits is six months only (Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-103), half of what it is in many other jurisdictions! His inquiry being made over two months ago, this means that Justguyguy has less than four months to prepare and commence legal action against whoever caused him unlawful damages.

Given the "rarity" (?) and complexity of defamation cases as depicted in the second reply of that thread, I thought that my informed advice would be welcome there. But no, it wasn't. Not everyone likes the forthcoming Do-It-Yourself alternative I promote in regard to litigation. Some so-called "moderator" of that forum banned me under the generic pretext of "spam". Since then I have asked the administrator to restore my profile and my posts, but to no avail. If you open that thread, you won't see any traces of my post.

The lawyers who own and set up a blog or forum have the right to manage it as they please. However, that style of forum "moderation" (aka banning) is misleading and quite unfortunate. People approach those forums when they feel lost and are in need for orientation. They approach those forums with the belief that they'll find well-intentioned guidance, something more useful than "consult an attorney", something above and beyond the sarcasms and trolling that abound in those sites. Many of those people don't even have enough resources to persuade an attorney to take their case. In these instances, a pro se litigant's sincere and informed advice wouldn't cause this handful of lawyers to lose business anyway.

It will be a shame if the banning of useful guidance prevents Justaguyguy from obtaining through Tennessee courts whatever remedies to which he is entitled.

Iñaki Viggers

Comments on "Rebooting Justice", a book authored by Barton and Bibas

I  saw a review of the book Rebooting Justice, by professors Benjamin Barton and Stephanos Bibas (henceforth "the Professors") . I did not read and do not plan to read the book, but I believe my litigation experience qualifies me to address some key points of the book as highlighted in the article by Mark Pulliam.

Quoting a reader of name gabe in the comments section of that blog, "it sounds like another 'Lawyer Full Employment Act' ". The reader as well as the author of that blog palpably disagree with the Professors' suggestion that funds for the defense of felony cases be increased to match the resources assigned to prosecution. I join them in their criticism. I dispute the Professors' position that the under-funding of public defenders and court-appointed counsel is a major issue. One just needs to look at all those represented parties who disburse fortunes to their lawyer only to realize that the lawyer was overly negligent.

The Professors' other suggestions such as "mediation alternatives" and "inquisitorial judges" are somehow already provided in the legislature and/or procedural law. Purist debates aside, where's the line between an inquisitorial system and the judge's OBLIGATION (in an adversarial system) to ascertain the truth? The sad reality is that many judges disavow that cornerstone obligation and other duties they acquired since the moment they are sworn.

Except for vexatious litigants, filing a complaint in court is not done out of boredom. By the time a complaint is filed in court, the plaintiff is persuaded that other mediation-like venues were futile or he justifiably believes that they will be so. Both mediation and negotiation are premised on mutual willingness to reach a solution, and in most situations the adversaries are free to negotiate on their own. Therefore, the Professors' suggestion of creating "mediation alternatives" means additional overhead to the disputes between parties.

Best case scenario is that a "mediation alternative" will do no harm other than delaying the course of justice. In reality, mediation "alternatives" sometimes end up being compulsory just because some judge arbitrarily came up with that "interpretation". By doing so, the arbitrary judge crafts an additional tool to deny justice under the pretext that the plaintiff "failed to exhaust administrative remedies". One example of this type of fraud by judges is discussed on pages 47-49 of my Application for Leave to Appeal pending in the Michigan Supreme Court, also explained at minute 36:55 in the 6th segment of my series Corrupted from Ed to Judge.

The Professors' proposal of "a court system designed for pro se litigants, with simplified procedures" is redundant, demagogic, and impractical. For example, what if one party is pro se but the opponent insists to be represented? In such instances, how will a judge balance between the long-standing procedural law and the "simplified procedures" that the Professors suggest? In other words, what will due process entail in those scenarios?

Current procedural law in one or more jurisdictions contains gaps and discrepancies that the jurisdiction's top court leaves unaddressed. One real-life example is developed on pages 38-41 of the Application for Leave to Appeal, regarding my other case pending in the Michigan Supreme Court. There, the Application Brief denounces (1) how judge Carol Kuhnke abused that gap in the Michigan Court Rules to enforce her miscarriage of justice (in doing so, judge Kuhnke repeatedly violated another Court Rule), and (2) how judge Mark Cavanagh and the appellate panel he presided looked the other way regarding that gap, inconsistent with judge Cavanagh's approach in an unrelated appeal (COA# 256051). With this sort of unsolved gaps in the existing procedural law, imagine the multitude of new loopholes that judges would exploit if a parallel court "for pro se litigants" is implemented.

Furthermore, how will case law be applied or adapted to the "simplified procedures"? will prima facie elements be different and also more useful in the simplified procedures? I doubt it. Courts will inevitably end up reinventing the wheel in many situations, thereby rendering the already slow judicial system even slower ... and perhaps more inconsistent.

People need to know that, whatever room there is for simplification of procedures, their best way to achieve them is by putting pressure on the legislators. After all, appellate and supreme courts repeatedly acknowledge (albeit often disavowing) that the judiciary must yield to the legislature. Of course, the negligent or rotten judge ignores his/her jus dire job and instead indulges in jus dare.

The only realistic solution to the judicial mess requires that people educate themselves on legal matters. Education does not necessarily involve enrollment in overpriced Law School programs. Nowadays, printed resources and the Internet greatly facilitate this essential element for when we are harmed by rotten individuals. Comparing that realistic, low-budget solution versus the gigantic funds required for the implementation of the new procedures and new courts hosting additional corruptible judges is a no-brainer.

Learning about legal matters is certainly boring. Moreover, it feels wasteful for us who have other intellectual interests. There is an undeniable cost of opportunity in having to study law just because many judges refuse to do their actual job. But knowledge is power, and there is simply no other long-term antidote to the undeniable corruption of the judiciary. The Professors are right in that the "legal" system is a cartel (I am adding the quotation marks), and I assure you that it will remain that way for as long as people continue to delegate any and all legal/judicial matters to "a lawyer".

The solution I promote places the victim in a better position to demand justice and to realize as well as denounce when a judge or attorney is defrauding him. That education is also likely to discourage wrongful conduct, since many potential offenders would think twice before engaging in unlawful or inequitable acts.

Iñaki Viggers

Presenting the complete series "Corrupted from Ed to Judge"

In nine segments, I present in video format the background and litigation experience which inspired my initiative One Club Of Justicides.

Because the defamatory publications by Maria Viggers need to be heavily redacted, I'll be updating and uploading those files in the corresponding section of this site as time permits.

Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 1 of 9): Shady, shady University of Michigan.
Background, because normal people don't happen to file proceedings in court just out of boredom.


Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 2 of 9): A fractal of court-endorse fraud.
Let me tell you a little story about a lawyer who attempted to commit fraud and got busted by me ... only to be rescued by his buddy judge ... yes, this is the "law" in Michigan.


The University of Michigan and Al-Azhar Pacha duck and cover upon my scrutiny because ... well, that's what scumbags do when they got something to hide.


Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 4 of 9): Directly relevant evidence? Now see the judge preclude it.
Mostly addressing my lawsuit against María Viggers, my father's second wife.


Covering the early stages of my lawsuit against Al-Azhar Pacha.


Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 6 of 9): judge Corrupt Kuhnke depicts Michigan as mafia.
This is the continuation of the fifth segment, as it covers the latter portion of my judicial proceedings against Al-Azhar Pacha in trial court. Also, judge Carol Kuhnke featuring the antithesis of candidate Carol Kuhnke.


Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 7 of 9): judge Carol Kuhnke is a disgrace to the judicial system.
Some interesting events took place during the backlog in the Michigan Court Of Appeals.
If you'd like to read further:

Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 8 of 9): MCOA, the Michigan Fraud Of Appeals.
The rubber stamping of judicial incompetence. Since that's all they got, that is an implicit acknowledgment that the judiciary ought to rule in my favor.


Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 9 of 9): Epilogue ... as of this point in time.
Not strictly an epilogue, since the matters are pending in the Michigan Supreme Court. Albeit a foreign concept to the "Fantastic Four" ... will the Michigan Supreme Court exercise integrity? Time will tell.


Bloopers occur in many series, and this was not the exception.



Latest briefs in my Application against Al Pacha in the Michigan Supreme Court

The attorneys representing defendant/appellee Al-Azhar Pacha have filed the Appelle's Brief and I submitted my Reply Brief. Despite using the extended deadline granted by the Michigan Supreme Court, his attorneys ended up doing copy/paste from motions they've been filing since trial court ... slacking till the last hour? panic attack? Goebbels' big lie theory? Who knows!

Comprising in 10 pages my refutation of vexatious, disproved allegations which Al Pacha's attorneys spread in 37 pages is hard, but I achieved it (for the most part).

It is funny that these attorneys' pretext in their motion for an extended deadline was the authorities I cited from other jurisidictions: "decisions from outside Michigan, requiring significant research".But now, as I pointed out in my Reply Brief, these attorneys in their brief ended up advancing the mediocre allegation that "foreign states' own iteration of defamation law [...] is not necessarily the same as that in Michigan". They didn't even try to explain what differences (if any) they "think" exist. That was hilarious. These attorneys must have realized that the appellate reviews from honest jurisdictions really don't help Al Pacha.

Another remark is these attorneys' reliance on various unpublished decisions (that is, appellate opinions that don't constitute legal precedent) to refute the arguments I support with opinions issued by the Michigan Supreme Court and other binding decisions by the Court Of Appeals.

Ignacio Viggers

Request for retraction of inaccurate post by Demorest Law Firm (Updated)

Now I just submitted to info@demolaw.com the following request for retraction regarding the lawsuit I filed against Al-Azhar Pacha.


Attorney Lisa Okasinski, Nezar Habhab and to whom it may concern:

I am the plaintiff in Viggers v. Pacha. I just read the post http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2017/09/22/former-employers-disclosure-threats-new-employer-not-create-liability-defamation/ allegedly written by Nezar Habhab. Hereby I request you to retract the inaccuracies in your post. I do not blame you for the distorted and fraudulent "review" released by the Michigan Court Of Appeals, but your post confuses issues by unduly adding some false and misleading statements. Please be more responsible when you write about appellate decisions.

Your article falsely portrays that I "stated" that ALPAC's failure to sponsor me [for a greencard] "may result in some kind of revenge". That is not what I wrote (see page 2 of the COA's opinion). Your paraphrasing or juxtaposition of statements is substantially false and misleading. Moreover, from the entirety of my email to defendant  Al Pacha it is clear that my expression "some kind of revenge" refers my fear that defendant Al Pacha was retaliating for my decision to retain the University's offer of employment (see Exhibit B in my complaint against Al Pacha). Documents of this case are available at  http://www.oneclubofjusticides.com/p/viggers-v-pacha_74.html .

It is noteworthy that, during his deposition, defendant Al Pacha was embarrassingly unable to articulate his alleged interpretation of the proverb ("what goes around comes around") upon which he belatedly justified his false accusations. This is relevant to the matter of a defendant's state of mind (actual malice).

Also your clause of "Acting quickly to save face" is unduly prejudicial. For over three months, defendant Al Pacha as well as the nonparty University of Michigan incurred silent fraud as recently defined by the Michigan Supreme Court (see my Application for Leave to Appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court). Al Pacha's silent fraud constitutes circumstantial evidence that Al Pacha made his false and defamatory statements with actual malice ... I am sure that you are acquainted with the concept of a defendant's consciousness of guilt, which also constitutes a mental state.

In the brief I filed in the Michigan Supreme Court, I am pointing to multiple proofs (supported by the existing case law) I submitted as evidence of Al-Azhar Pacha's  actual malice at the time he made his false and defamatory statements. There, you will notice that I proved actual malice not only under the aspect of knowledge of falsity, or with a reckless disregard for the truth of the statements, but also under criteria including but not limited to: 
(1) Al Pacha's purposeful avoidance of the truth; 
(2) his refusal to retract statements that have been proved false; 
(3) his consciousness of guilt (see his aforementioned silent fraud); 
(4) his "entertaining serious doubts" regarding the "veracity" of his defamatory statements (Al Pacha waited twenty days before he urgently asked to meet with the University "as soon as possible"); and 
(5) Al Pacha's deliberate choice not to show the University employees the allegedly "threatening" emails upon which he fabricated his fraudulent stories.

To avoid repeating content, I encourage you to read my recent post from October 26, 2017, at http://www.oneclubofjusticides.com/search/label/Viggers%20v.%20Pacha, where I dismantle a number of inaccuracies of fact and of law that the Michigan Court Of Appeals incurred in its so-called "appellate review". That post is in response to an article by LegalNews.com discussing the decision.

Please be aware that I am posting the instant request for retraction at http://www.oneclubofjusticides.com because your potential clients and the public deserve to know whether or not members of Demorest Law Firm conduct themselves with honesty when their false statement(s) is (are) disproved.

Kind regards,

Ignacio Viggers

UPDATE on 10/31/2017 at 1:40 PM (EST)

Demorest Law Firm has corrected the inaccuracies I reported. Thank you attorney Mike Hayes for the follow-up.