Inkster judge tossed from bench on August ballot

August 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Inkster judge tossed from bench on August ballot

Michigan Supreme Court calls Sylvia James 'unfit,' cites misuse of funds and ethics violations

By Steve Pardo

The Detroit News

32Comments



Zoom

James )

Lansing— Michigan Supreme Court justices ruled Tuesday that embattled Inkster Judge Sylvia James be removed from the bench.



The justices agreed with the findings of the Judicial Tenure Committee and ruled Tuesday in a 17-page document that James misappropriated court funds by spending thousands on self-promotions; committed administrative improprieties, including an improper dress code; violated a court anti-nepotism policy; and lied to investigators working to uncover wrongdoings.



"The cumulative effect of respondent's misconduct, coupled with its duration, nature and pervasiveness convinces this court that she is unfit for judicial office," the justices' opinion said. "Although some of her misconduct, considered in isolation, does not justify such a severe sanction, taken as a whole her misconduct rises to a level that requires her removal from office."



Only seven Michigan judges have been removed by the state Supreme Court since 1980. About a dozen judges have been removed since 1969, when the Judicial Tenure Commission — the investigative body of the high court — was created.



Neither James nor her attorney, Mayer Morganroth of Birmingham, could be reached for comment Tuesday. James, who had served as the lone judge of Inkster's 22nd District Court since 1998, was placed on paid administrative leave on April 13, 2011. The tenure commission filed formal charges of judicial misconduct in October 2011. She officially was suspended with pay that December and found guilty of misconduct in April. The justices'ruling is effective immediately and James is off the payroll.



Judge Richard Hammer of Garden City's 21st District Court took over as chief judge for both courts following her suspension.



Despite the ruling, James could be back on the bench as early as Jan. 1. She is one of eight candidates for the judgeship in the Aug. 7 primary. If she finishes first or second in the primary, she'll be up for re-election in November.



That scenario wasn't lost on Chief Justice Robert P. Young and Justice Stephen J. Markman, who dissented in part with the majority opinion, saying James also should have been suspended for one six-year term.



"Although the majority's ordering removal from office addresses the immediate harm caused by Judge James, it is an inadequate response and fails to address the likelihood of continuing harm," the dissenting opinion read.



"Given Judge James' lack of remorse and continuing refusal to acknowledge that she, too, is bound by the laws of this state, there is no reason to believe that Judge James will not continue to place her own will above the will of the people."



The justices said the most serious of the charges involved the misappropriation and abuse of community service funds — money collected by the court from defendants as alternatives to incarceration. The first 50 percent of the funds collected were supposed to go to crime victims.



But James "expended monies intended for crime-victim restitution and for additional legislative mandated priorities to other sources in a manner that she alone controlled," the opinion said.



Markman said he agreed that James "used several hundred thousand dollars of public funds as her 'personal piggybank' without regard for either the law or the victims of crime ..." but said the sanction imposed on her doesn't properly address the continuing harm that her misconduct has inflicted.



The tenure commission also had recommended that James pay $81,000 in fines, the cost associated with the investigation and hearings. The justices didn't set restitution and instead ordered the commission to submit an itemized bill.



James has maintained she did not take any funds for personal benefit and used the community service funds to benefit the community.



Morganroth argued before the high court in July that James should receive nothing more than a reprimand. The charges against James do not carry any criminal penalties.



Morganroth told the justices that the seven removals of judges since 1980 involved felony cases, and were more serious than those in which James was found guilty.



spardo@detnews.com



(313) 222-2112





From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120801/METRO01/208010362#ixzz242ZUmDnH http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201208011507/METRO01/208010362