Arizona Drug Firm Insys Makes Synthetic Pot

Oct 24, 2016 | Blog, Legalization, News

Arizona Drug Firm Insys Makes Synthetic Pot Compound, Spends Big to Defeat Legal Pot

Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 2:53 p.m.

A Chandler-based drug firm under investigation for its aggressive sales of a lethal painkiller claims that the large donation it made to a group that opposes marijuana legalization was an attempt to protect the public’s safety.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., which has made billions selling a fentanyl-based drug called Subsys, expects to soon launch a pharmaceutical version of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

But first, it aims to eliminate the competition.

On August 31, Insys made a $500,000 donation to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, (ARDP), a group that’s trying to convince voters to reject Proposition 205 in the November 8 election. The ballot initiative, if approved, would grant adults 21 and older the freedom to use, possess, and grow marijuana, and would set up a limited system of cannabis retail outlets.

Prop 205 “fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children,” according to a statement Insys provided to New Times on Thursday in response to a message left for CEO John Kapoor. “Our stance is consistent with our company’s goals. We strive to develop pharmaceutical products for the supportive care of patients while taking patient safety very seriously. To that end, we believe that all available medicines should meet the clinical standards set by the FDA.”

Yet while Insys holds itself out as the savior of Arizonans’ health, the company is reportedly under investigation in four states, including Arizona, for marketing practices related to Subsys that have allegedly resulted in patient deaths.

According to numerous published reports, Insys salespeople pushed the highly potent drug on doctors for uses beyond cancer pain, for which it was designed. A favored Wall Street buy until critical news stories caused its stock price to plummet in 2015, the publicly held company was most recently sued over its practices by the state of Illinois.

“The consumer fraud lawsuit follows an investigation by the state into allegations that Insys was marketing Subsys broadly for chronic pain in non-cancer patients, despite the lack of Food and Drug Administration approval for such use,” according to an August 26 article in the Chicago Tribune.

J.P. Holyoak, chairman of the group behind Prop 205, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Arizona, says that by accepting the Insys donation, ARDP can no longer claim to represent “responsible drug policy.”

“They’re knowingly accepting money from one of the worst actors in the business,” Holyoak says. “This is a company engaged in illegal marketing schemes, that is intentionally hooking people on opioids.”

At a news conference in Phoenix on Thursday morning, Holyoak gave reporters a list of news-story headlines that paint Insys in a harsh light: “Murder Incorporated,” “Nurse Pleads Guilty to Taking Kickbacks From Drug Maker,” “Using Doctors With Troubled Pasts to Market a Painkiller,” among others.

The company is focusing on the upcoming launch of its synthetic THC product, Syndros. An oral version of the generic, THC-imitation drug dronabinol, Syndros would be used to treat anorexia associated with AIDS patients, as well as the nausea and vomiting that typically accompanies chemotherapy, according to the Insys website.

“Approximately 9,500 prescribers account for 70% of current dronabinol prescriptions,” the company asserts on its website. “Insys expects to convert a large portion of the market to Syndros as well as expand the market through direct detailing to physicians, highlighting the improved product profile of Syndros.”

J.P. Holyoak, chair of the Prop 205 campaign, blasted an anti-legalization group for taking $500,000 from a Big Pharma company that’s under investigation for the way it markets an opiate-based drug, and which hopes to produce a pharmaceutical alternative

Insys tells New Times that it “firmly believes in the potential clinical benefits of cannabinoids.” In addition to Syndros, Insys is conducting research on how cannabinoids — the compounds found in cannabis plants — might possibly treat epilepsy, anxiety, and PTSD.

Marijuana advocates claim that ingesting marijuana might be able to do the same thing — only less expensively and without as many side effects. Arizona already has a robust medical-marijuana program with about 100,000 patients and 99 dispensaries. The state’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimates that Arizona has a total of about 600,000 regular cannabis consumers who are 21 or older. Except for the medical-marijuana patients, who pay about $300 for their freedoms, Arizona law states that possession of any amount of marijuana, or simply a pipe to smoke it in, is a felony.

Though the American public has become more tolerant of marijuana in recent years, opponents to legalization in Arizona have the establishment on their side. The ARDP has taken money from the alcohol industry, chambers of commerce, construction companies, and medical groups. State campaign-finance reports show that since May, the ARDP has collected about $1 million in contributions, including the half-million check from Insys.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey has played a big role in soliciting donations for the ARDP, Holyoak says.

Steve Sanghi, CEO of Microchip Technology, told the press in July that he made a $25,000 contribution to the ARDP after receiving a personal phone call from the governor asking for money.

Insys declined to answer follow-up questions, including whether Ducey had urged its recent donation.

Ducey’s office didn’t return a message seeking comment for this story.

The CRMLA, meanwhile, has raised more than $223,000 since May — all from local dispensaries or the national Marijuana Policy Project.

US court upholds ban on selling guns to marijuana card holders

Oct 16, 2016 | Blog, News, USA news, Your Rights

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.

It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who said she tried to buy a firearm for self-defense in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card. The gun store refused, citing the federal rule banning the sale of firearms to illegal drug users.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Wilson said she was not a marijuana user, but obtained the card in part as an expression of support for marijuana legalization.

She challenged guidance issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2011 that said gun sellers should assume people with medical marijuana cards use the drug and not sell them firearms.

It’s illegal for a licensed firearm dealer to sell a gun to an Oregon medical or recreational marijuana consumer, said Portland lawyer Leland Berger. He noted that the ruling is focused on sales and doesn’t affect medical marijuana consumers who already have guns.

The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said it was reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder was more likely to use the drug.

The court also said Congress had reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”

“The notion that cannabis consumers are violent people is absurd,” Berger said, calling the notion that classifying medical card holders who use marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions as violent people is “even more absurd.”

Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, a nonprofit that works to reform marijuana laws, called on Congress to “amend cannabis’ criminal status in a way that comports with both public and scientific opinion, as well as its rapidly changing legal status under state laws.”

“Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as do other citizens,” he said in a statement published on the nonprofit’s website.

Wilson’s attorney, Chaz Rainey, said there needs to be more consistency in the application of the Second Amendment. He planned to appeal the decision and his options include submitting the appeal to the same panel of judges that issued the ruling, a larger panel of the circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,” he said.

The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson, including her argument that her gun rights were being stripped without due process.

Armentano said the idea that marijuana users were more prone to violence is a fallacy.

“Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as other citizens,” he said.

Alex Kreit, a marijuana law expert at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said the ruling was significant — but may not be the last time the 9th Circuit addresses medical marijuana and gun rights.

“It seems like the court did not foreclose the possibility of a challenge by actual medical marijuana users that they shouldn’t be lumped with other drug users in terms of concerns about violence,” he said.

— The Associated Press

September 01, 2016

Inside the Legal Struggles of Michigan’s Medicinal Marijuana Industry

Oct 15, 2016 | Blog, News, Recent Victories, Uncategorized, Victories Project

Last night’s episode of VICELAND’s Weediquette focused on how police forces in Michigan are using civil asset forfeiture to target legally run medicinal marijuana businesses in the state.

Weediquette host Krishna Andavolu – about his reflections after filming the episode; an edited and condensed version of his comments are below.

READ THESE REGARDING SHATTUCK
Komorn Law – Shattuck Case

In Michigan, medical marijuana is legal—but last year, arrest rates were on the rise. Why? It seems like marijuana legalization is meant to at least take the drug out of the realm of the criminal justice system, but while doing research for this season of Weediquette, we found out that there’s still a strong incentive for police officers to go after legal marijuana growers in Michigan. The doctrine that the incentive is based off of is called civil asset forfeiture—which means that if a cop busts you, he or she can take your stuff in addition to throwing you in jail and charging you.

Even though medical marijuana growers have cards that say that they’re legally allowed to grow, civil asset forfeiture incentivizes police departments in Michigan to pursue really small technical violations

—For instance, if there’s a lock on a door that isn’t secure enough, or a key to a room in your grow house or dispensary is left on a counter when it should’ve been in a safe space. So law enforcement targets medical marijuana growers, finds enough evidence to justify a raid, takes all the growers’ stuff, and then makes an excuse for it after the fact.

It’s tough for Michigan cops. The state’s economy is pretty bad, and a lot of their police departments aren’t funded particularly well—so the police are using the doctrine of civil asset forfeiture to target mom-and-pop businesses. One of those businesses was run by the Shattucks, a family we visited who decided to go into the medical marijuana business because they saw people using it and thought it would be a good business to try for a couple of years to raise some capital to go into real estate. They were after the American dream, small business ownership.

However, the St. Clair County drug task force got wind of what they were doing, raided their grow facility, dispensary, and home, and took more than $80,000 worth of their goods. Losing the money and goods was bad enough—but their kids were also at home when the SWAT team came through the door, so their nine-year-old daughter is the one who saw the door broken down and men with guns rushing in.

You could look at the Shattucks and say, “I’m sure they were doing something wrong.” But a SWAT team seems like a disproportionate reaction. It’s an issue of how you implement medical marijuana legalization, but also of what we ask for in our community policing. What’s the relationship between those who are being policed and the police themselves? How do you balance making sure that the marketplace is legitimate while also respecting the people who are already operating legitimately in the marketplace? The Shattucks did everything they could to show the cops that they were doing the right thing—they met with the police department and showed the cops all their paperwork—but that didn’t stop the police from going after them two months later.

Another family we talked to, the Fishers, were in a hearing about a similar criminal case against them, and under cross-examination, the police officer who conducted the raid was asked if he questioned the family about whether they had medical marijuana cards—and he said no. There aren’t lawmakers who are trying to crack down on this stuff, so in a lot of cases drug task forces have no legislative oversight, meaning it’s up to individual cases in court to set any sort of precedent.

On Weediquette, we cover a lot of different stories—stories about medicine and recreational drug use—and this story is about how pot has always made it easy for law enforcement to go after vulnerable communities. We’re on a trajectory where medical marijuana and marijuana in general is going to become legal—it feels inevitable and that the war on drugs will also inevitable fade away—but stories like this bring to light that there’s a lot to still fight for.

WATCH THE TV EPISODE

https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/weediquette-tv

WILSON V. LYNCH

Oct 15, 2016 | Blog, News

S. ROWAN WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; B. TODD JONES, as Acting Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; ARTHUR HERBERT, as Assistant Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 21, 2016
San Francisco, California

Summary

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a
complaint challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and
guidance that prevented plaintiff from buying a gun because
she possesses a Nevada medical marijuana registry card…

Read the Full Opinion Here

Judge lets Internet giveaway proceed

Oct 4, 2016 | Blog, News

A federal judge in Texas who was appointed by Barack Obama, George C. Hanks Jr., on Friday refused to delay the president’s planned giveaway of U.S. oversight of a key piece of the Internet, setting up the transfer when a critical contract expires heading into the weekend.

The states of Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas had sued to block the U.S. from giving up oversight of the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which maintains databases for Internet domain names, the Internet’s phone book.

At the tech site Arstechnica, the concerns about the loss of U.S. control were discounted.

“Remember the projected Y2K bug disaster? The world’s computers would supposedly go haywire as the clock ticked to January 1, 2000, thus destroying the world and ensuing widespread panic. Didn’t happen. Fast forward to today, however, and another doomsday scenario is afoot (albeit with much less fanfare),” said the blog.

“If many politicians are to be believed, an Internet disaster is set to commence this Saturday. That’s when a tiny branch of the U.S. Commerce Department officially hands over its oversight of the Internet’s ‘address book’ or root zone – the highest level of the domain naming system (DNS) structure – to a nonprofit, a Los Angeles-based body called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).”

But others were raising concerns.

It was the late Phyllis Schlafly who, earlier this year, characterized Obama’s plan as “like telling the fox to guard the chicken coop,” trusting the likes of Cuba, Venezuela and China to ensure the continued freedom of the Web.

The transfer of oversight to an obscure non-profit called the Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, set for Saturday, “could be the most dangerous use yet of Obama’s now-famous pen,” the conservative icon said at the time.

The states’ lawsuit against the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Department of Commerce and others sought a halt to the transfer.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Galveston, Texas, the lawsuit argued the U.S. funded the foundations of the Internet and for decades has been managing it appropriately, including through contracts such as the NTIA’s agreement with ICANN to perform Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.

But the lawsuit wasn’t the only opposition that has arisen in the fourth quarter.

A coalition of 77 national security, cybersecurity and industry leaders wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just days ago asking for intervention.

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter said.

“Indeed, there is, to our knowledge, no compelling reason for exposing the national security to such a risk by transferring our remaining control of the Internet in this way at this time. In light of the looming deadline, we feel compelled to urge you to impress upon President Obama that the contract between NTIA and ICANN cannot be safely terminated at this point.”

The signers included former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney Jr., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (Ret.), former Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, former Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency Vice Adm. Robert Monroe (Ret.) and former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy, among others.

They warned: “In the absence of U.S. government involvement in IANA, it seems possible that, over time, foreign powers – including potentially or actually hostile ones – will be able to influence the IANA process. Even coercing the delay in approving IP addresses could impact military capabilities. From a broader view, given the well-documented ambition of these actors to restrict freedom of expression and/or entrepreneurial activity on the Internet, such a transfer of authority to ICANN could have far-reaching and undesirable consequences for untold numbers of people worldwide.”

Just a few days earlier, GOP senators, including Chuck Grassley, Ted Crux, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr and Ron Johnson, released a statement opposing the giveaway.

“It is profoundly disappointing that the Obama administration has decided to press on with its plan to relinquish United States oversight of crucial Internet functions, even though Congress has not given its approval. For years, there has been a bipartisan understanding that the ICANN transition is premature and that critical questions remain unanswered about the influence of authoritarian regimes in Internet governance, the protection of free speech, the effect on national security, and impacts on consumers, just to name a few,” they said.

“Without adequate answers to these questions, it would be irresponsible to allow the transition to occur in 15 days simply because of an artificial deadline set by the Obama administration.

“In fact, Democrats at both the state and national level have echoed many of these concerns. For example, former President Bill Clinton has warned that ‘[a] lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. want to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empower[ing] their people.’

“The issue of Internet freedom should unite us Americans – Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. Partisanship and political gamesmanship have no place when it comes to the Internet, basic principles of freedom, and the right of individuals in our great nation and across the globe to speak online free from censorship.”

In the lawsuit, the states warned that .gov addresses are at risk.

“The NTIA currently has the authority to authorize changes performed by ICANN. Should NTIA fail to renew the contract and relinquish its approval authority, ICANN could take unilateral actions adversely affecting the .gov address. The sole control that the U.S. government would have to safeguard .gov and .mil is through an exchange of letters, which are non-binding and lack the certainty of a legal contract that would guarantee U.S. control and ownership in the future.”

ICANN could, for example, the letter noted, “eventually delete the .gov top-level domain name or transfer it to some other entity, cutting off communications between the states and their citizens and forcing the states to use ordinary top-level domain names (such as .com) to try to community with their citizens.”

ICANN also “could charge additional fees,” the states noted.

Congress already has acted twice to prevent the move, adopting “appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds ‘to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration … with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.’”

Is this move going to strengthen America, or is this move going to weaken it? I think it’s very clear that if we do what President Obama wants to do, it’ll weaken America’s stance again,” said Yoho, who is a strong supporter of the DOTCOM Act.

That bill passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly last year but didn’t get action in the Senate.

“The U.S. has been in control of the domain names of the Internet since its inception. If we relinquish this control, it goes possibly to the U.N. Then you have countries like Russia, China and Iran and any other country that wants to play, and [they get to] determine how to regulate those domain names within their countries,” Yoho explained.

He warned of authoritarian leaders controlling what their people can access.

“I think you’re going to see a decrease in access to the Internet, a decrease of freedom over the Internet to an extent we have never experienced before,” he said.

Judith Bergman of the Gatestone Institute said the move could “spell the end of the current era of free speech on the Internet, as well as free enterprise.”

Authoritarian governments around the world already have bolstered Bergman’s case. China issued a statement saying, “It is necessary to ensure that United Nations plays a facilitating role in setting up international public policies pertaining to the Internet.”

The Russians weighed in, arguing, “We consider it necessary to consecutively increase the role of governments in the Internet governance, with strengthening the activity of the International Telecommunications Union [the UNs telecommunications arm] in this field … in the development of ethical aspects of Internet use.”

Last month, a coalition told leaders of both parties in Congress that it already has ordered the NTIA “not to let lapse the government contract.”

But the Obama administration is doing exactly that.

“It is, by its own admission, doing so as part of a drawn-out process resulting in the decision to let the IANA contract lapse – precisely what Congress forbade NTIA to do,” coalition members said.

“If NTIA allows the contract to lapse, it will have violated federal law,” the letter said. “The decision to abandon an 18-year contractual relationship governing the Internet has obviously consumed significant NTIA resources, both to fund outside experts and to pay for time spent on the issue and on NTIA employees making a decision about whether the extend the contract.”

When judges need disciplining

Oct 3, 2016 | Blog, News

DETROIT — They lied, stole, forged bank documents, padded expense accounts, drove drunk, slept with litigants and jailed innocent people.

Michigan judges have been in big trouble in recent years. The number of judges disciplined — about 35 per year — has not gone up, but the level of chicanery has soared.

Four judges have been removed from the bench and a fifth was forced to retire in the last three years. National experts who are watching the state’s troubled judiciary say the trend is perhaps an aberration, but others say the state’s judges need remedial education on judicial ethics.

Judges who have been disciplined in recent years range from a Wayne County Circuit judge who was carrying on an affair with a woman involved in a divorce case he was deciding to a Jackson County judge who dismissed traffic tickets against his wife to a Hudsonville judge who threw a defense attorney in jail for advising his client not to answer potentially incriminating questions.

The problems have even reached up to the state’s highest court. Diane Hathaway, a Michigan Supreme Court justice, chose to retire from the bench in January 2013 rather than face removal as she was about to be indicted on a federal mortgage fraud charge. She eventually served nine months in a federal prison and was released in May 2014.

On Monday, proceedings will start to remove yet another Michigan judge from the bench.

Officials say Detroit 36th District Judge Brenda Sanders is seriously mentally ill, a danger to herself and others. Sanders, on the bench since 2008, wrote the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Detroit in 2013 that her fellow judges were being murdered to stop them from revealing wrongdoing and that she, too, was in imminent danger. People were hacking into her phone and e-mail. Supreme Court justices had evicted her from her home.

A psychiatrist who later examined the letter for court officials said it showed classic symptoms of “psychosis” marked by “insane delusions” and warned that Sanders, who has been known to carry a handgun, could be dangerous.

Her attorney, Cyril Hall, in court filings, said the letter was meant to be private and that a psychiatric examination would show that she was not mentally ill.

Sanders has been suspended from her duties without pay. At Monday’s hearing, the Judicial Tenure Commission will gather evidence and decide whether to recommend her dismissal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the only authority to remove judges.

“I think you can make the point that this is a troubled judiciary,” said Charles Gardner Geyh, a professor of law at Maurer School of Law at Indiana University and a national expert on judicial ethics. “But there is a counterpoint to be made. Michigan is doing a fairly aggressive job of rooting out misconduct.”

A message to all judges

Paul Fischer, executive director of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, will prosecute the case against Judge Sanders.

Fischer said the number of complaints about misbehaving judges have remained steady, though recent cases have garnered much more attention, likely because they have involved titillating behavior like sex, theft and lying that ended up in headlines.

“It’s been pretty steady the last several years, but it does seem like there’s been more,” he said. “I think people are paying more attention.”

The Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts serves as a clearinghouse for judicial discipline and tracks misdeeds nationwide. Their records show that removing a judge from the bench is rare.

In 2013, only five judges were removed from the bench nationwide, and 17 resigned or retired in lieu of removal. Michigan, in just three years, has removed four judges and forced two to retire.

Cynthia Gray, the director of the center and considered one of nation’s experts on judicial ethics, has been watching the Michigan judiciary with interest. “Perhaps in a year or so, it will be back to the typical thing, like drunk driving,” Gray said. “When you take a snapshot, you sometimes get an aberration, and I hope, for the sake of Michigan, that’s what this is.”

The public punishment of judges may prompt those remaining on the bench to behave, she said.

“Part of judicial discipline is to remind them that people are watching, so whatever they might be struggling with, hopefully they resist.”

Leslie Abramson, a professor at the Louis Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville, said the nature of the transgressions should prompt the state to look hard at how judges are elected and retained.

“Even if the numbers are stable, the nature and severity of what these people are doing would suggest a cultural problem,” said Abramson, who lectures extensively on judicial ethics.

Noting Hathaway’s forced retirement from the Michigan Supreme Court, Abramson said: “It sounds like a top-down problem and should prompt the question of whether there needs to be a cultural change, either through education, or a reminder that these people are held to a very high standard, and not just on what they do on the bench.”

Others say that while the trend is troubling, Michigan residents should be encouraged by the prosecution of bad judges. “But for the discipline, some of this behavior might have continued,” said Geyh. “I tend to see this as the glass half-full.”

The ‘black robe disease’

Judges, by the very nature of their work, are very powerful, and some get into trouble by wielding that power inappropriately.

Dennis Wiley, a district court judge in Berrien County in southwest Michigan, was publicly censured in 2012 after he found a woman in contempt and threw her in jail for 10 days because she muttered a profanity in the clerk’s office while trying to take care of traffic tickets.

And Kenneth Post, a district court judge in Hudsonville, was given a 30-day suspension in 2013 after he jailed a defense attorney for advising his client not to answer incriminating questions.

Professor Abramson calls it the “black robe disease.”

“It seems to be an affliction that overtakes judges perhaps because of the tremendous power they have,” he said, noting that judicial canons require judges to be courteous to all litigants.

Michigan is not the only state with judges committing jaw-dropping behavior.

In Wisconsin, Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley claimed fellow Justice David Prosser put her “in a chokehold” during a heated argument in her chambers regarding the timing of an opinion. A special prosecutor was appointed but brought no charges. The Wisconsin Judicial Tenure Commission recommended sanctions against Prosser, but the matter was dropped when three of the Supreme Court justices who had witnessed the altercation recused themselves.

And in California, two county judges were publicly censured in September in separate cases for having sex in their chambers, one with his clerk, and the other with two of his former law students. The state’s Commission on Judicial Performance declared that Orange County Judge Scott Steiner and Kern County Judge Cory Woodward showed “utter disrespect for the dignity and decorum of the court.”

Policing the judiciary

The majority of the state’s 1,259 judges, magistrates and referees never face discipline. But once a judge breaks a law or violates one of the strict judicial canons that dictate behavior, they can face sanctions.

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, made up of five judges, two attorneys and two citizens oversees the complaints, investigates and holds hearings. If the commission determines wrongdoing, it makes a recommendation to the Michigan Supreme Court. Sanctions can include a private censure, a public reprimand, paid or unpaid suspension, mandatory retirement or removal from office.

The process is secretive and often lengthy. The commission does not provide information about investigations or allegations unless they take action, and private censures are sealed. The commission is not subject to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.

Critics of the system say citizens should have more access to complaints about judges. Michigan’s secrecy prompted the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization, to give the state a failing grade in “judicial accountability” in a 2012 survey of states. Several other states received failing grades.

Michigan is among 39 states that elect their judges. Voters can be dispassionate if not outright uninformed when it comes to electing judges in Michigan. Once a judge wins election, it can become a job for life.

Judicial elections tend to be about name recognition and the special incumbent designation that sitting judges get on the ballot. And few practicing attorneys want to risk an election challenge against a judge whom they have to face in court regularly.

On occasion, voters will hold judges accountable.

After Inkster District Judge Sylvia James was removed from the bench in 2012 for misusing public funds, including money meant for crime victims, she ran for her old seat in the following November election. But James lost to Sabrina Johnson, who was appointed by the governor to finish James’ term and now had the incumbent designation.

Some states have tried to provide more citizen access and greater policing.

Arizona has a “judicial review commission,” made up of mostly nonlawyers, that queries jurors, litigants, attorneys, court staff and witnesses about their experiences in front of judges.

They then rate the judge as qualified or not and make the information public on the secretary of state website and in paid advertising. There are no studies showing the impact, but the experts say it likely keeps judges behaving.

“I would regard that form of accountability as reliable,” said law professor Geyh.

Judges recently punished by Michigan Supreme Court

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission typically receives about 600 complaints a year. Many are complaints about rulings, out of the jurisdiction of the commission. Some legitimate complaints are resolved through private admonishments and warnings. The more serious end up before the Michigan Supreme Court.

Some of the judges most recently punished by the high court:

Deborah Ross Adams, Wayne County Family Court, removed from the bench in 2013 after lying under oath. She repeatedly contacted an Oakland County judge regarding her divorce pending in that court and forged a document, then lied about it.

Sheila Ann Gibson, Wayne County Circuit Court judge, issued a public censure and 30-day suspension without pay after a Detroit television crew followed her and filmed her arriving late to the courthouse and leaving early on several days. Some days she worked as little as four hours.

Diane Hathaway, a Michigan Supreme Court justice, retired from the bench rather than face removal following her 2013 conviction on mortgage fraud. She served nine months in a federal prison and was released in May 2014.

Sylvia James, Inkster district court judge, removed from the bench in 2012 for misusing public funds meant for crime victims, then lying to the Judicial Tenure Commission about it. She was ordered to repay $16,500.

James Justin, a district court judge in Jackson, removed in 2012 after dismissing traffic tickets for his wife and members of his court staff without notifying prosecutors.

Wade McCree, Wayne County Circuit Court judge, removed from the bench in 2014 after carrying on an affair with a female litigant appearing before him, then lying about it to the Judicial Tenure Commission. He also was ordered to pay $12,000 in costs. He made headlines in 2010 after he sent a shirtless photo of himself to a county employee, and when questioned by reporters said, “There’s no shame in my game.”

Bruce Morrow, Wayne County Circuit Court judge, 60 days suspension in 2014 for mismanaging cases, including his refusal to lock up a convicted rapist pending sentencing.

Kenneth Post, Hudsonville district court judge, public censure and 30-day suspension in 2013 after he jailed a defense attorney who was advising his client not to answer the judge’s potentially incriminating questions from the bench, a professional obligation all defense attorneys have.

Dennis Powers, Novi district court judge, retired in September to avoid removal from the bench after investigators found thousands of dollars of improper mileage reimbursement. Powers also was accused of golfing, and attending real estate seminars when he should have been on the bench.

Kirk Tabbey, Ypsilanti district court, public censure and 90-day suspension without pay in 2014 after being arrested on charges of drunken driving while towing a boat out of a lake. His blood alcohol was 0.17, more than twice the legal limit.

Dennis Wiley, Berrien County district judge, issued a public censure after he found a woman in contempt and jailed her for 10 days over Christmas because court clerks told him she had muttered an obscenity in the clerk’s office while attempting to take care of traffic tickets.

Removal of Judges

Michigan judges may be removed in one of three ways:

Judges may be impeached by a majority vote of the house of representatives and convicted by a two-thirds vote of the senate.

The governor may remove a judge upon the concurrent resolution of two thirds of the members of both houses of the legislature.

On the recommendation of the judicial tenure commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend, retire, or remove a judge. However, the Judicial Tenure Commission cannot deal with Supreme Court Justices. There is currently no mechanism to deal with misbehavior by Supreme Court Justices.