Tag: michigan

Viral Story About Bogus Viral Story Was Also Bogus

Corey Harris attracted widespread news coverage—including from Reason—when a video showed him behind the wheel during a court hearing about a suspended license. Except he never had a license at all.

The topsy-turvy legal odyssey concerning a Michigan man’s driving privileges, which has captivated the nation, took another turn yesterday when he reappeared in court not long after a video showed him behind the wheel of a car while he Zoomed into a hearing that was allegedly for driving with a suspended license charge.

“This is for driving on a license suspended,” said Judge J. Cedric Simpson of the 14A District Court in Washtenaw County on May 15. “That is correct, your honor,” a public defender replied.

It turns out that was not, in fact, correct. At least not in the literal sense, because the defendant, Corey Harris, apparently never had a license to begin with.

“He has never had a license, ever,” Simpson said Wednesday. “And has never had a license in any of the other 49 states or commonwealths that make up this country.”

That revelation is just the latest twist in a story that has attracted massive national coverage and had more loops than a Six Flags death wish. The initial viral narrative—that Harris had a suspended license—was covered in outlets from USA Today to The Washington Post to Fox News, CNN, NBC, and on.

Keep reading

The Viral Story About a Defendant Driving With a Suspended License Was Fake News

A Michigan man swept the internet last week after a viral video showed him attending a court hearing via Zoom after he appeared to park his car. That quickly became a national story.

Should it have been?

The footage, which first made the rounds on social media, showed Corey Harris calling into a hearing before Judge J. Cedric Simpson of the Washtenaw County District Court. “I’m looking at his record. He doesn’t have a license,” Simpson says about a minute into the hearing. “He’s suspended and he’s just driving….I don’t even know why he would do that.” Harris’ bond was promptly revoked and he was ordered to turn himself in to the local jail.

Neither of those repercussions would have anywhere near the lasting impact that the forthcoming news cycle did, which was deemed a significant enough event to merit coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, NBC, BBC, USA Today, and the New York Post, among other outlets. 

It turns out all those stories, however, were based on a falsehood. Harris’ license had been reinstated years prior and was only registering as suspended due to a clerical error. As of this writing, there has been no spate of additional articles, corrections, or a reinvigorated news cycle based around this information, because the truth here doesn’t lend itself to virality and engagement.

That’s a good indication that this never should have been a national story to begin with, which would be true even if Harris had been driving on a suspended license. A man in Michigan driving allegedly when he wasn’t supposed to is not newsworthy enough to deserve coverage in the most influential outlets in the U.S. (and beyond). Good for a social media laugh? Sure. Justifying its own news cycle? No.

That idea may seem weird in a media landscape where social media virality has for several years been seen as a metric for measuring newsworthiness. What that means in practice, though, is that some of the largest publications in the world—across the political spectrum—routinely blow up small stories that are of no import to society, simply because they may be good for clicks and shares. But while those stories may offer little to no benefit to readers, they do have real impacts on the people at the center of them, like Harris, because the internet never dies.

Keep reading

Michigan Supreme Court Allows Evidence Collected by Drone, Without a Warrant

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled unanimously that evidence collected illegally could still be used to enforce civil penalties.

Todd and Heather Maxon keep cars on their five-acre property in Long Lake Township. The township sued in 2007, alleging that the Maxons were violating a zoning ordinance by keeping “junk” on the property. When the Maxons fought back, the township agreed to drop the charges and reimburse attorney fees, and in exchange, the Maxons would not expand the number of cars on the property.

Township officials heard that the Maxons’ collection was growing, but the cars were hidden from the road, so they had no way to verify it without a warrant—or so you would think. Instead, officials hired a company to surveil the property with aerial drones on three different occasions. Finding that the collection had indeed expanded, the township sued the Maxons for violating the agreement.

The Maxons filed to suppress the drone evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation, since the township never obtained a warrant. The case made its way to the Michigan Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October. The court had previously remanded the case back to the Michigan Court of Appeals to determine “whether the exclusionary rule applies to this dispute.” The exclusionary rule holds that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced at trial.

Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Michigan Supreme Court sided with the township. “The exclusionary rule may not be applied to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances,” wrote Justice Brian Zahra, adding that “the costs of excluding the drone evidence outweighed the benefits of suppressing it.”

“Generally, the exclusionary rule operates to exclude or suppress evidence in certain legal
proceedings if the evidence is obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights,” Zahra wrote. “Caselaw, however, has never suggested that the exclusionary rule bars the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. Given the history of the rule, it is only applicable when the objective of deterring wrongful law enforcement conduct is most effectively met.”

The court of appeals originally determined that the search had violated the Fourth Amendment before the higher court sent it back for further consideration. “Because the Supreme Court limited our review to the exclusionary rule’s role in this dispute, we proceed by assuming that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred,” wrote Chief Judge Elizabeth Gleicher of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

But the state supreme court punted on that issue: “Because the exclusionary rule did not apply in this civil proceeding to enforce zoning and nuisance ordinances,” Zahra wrote, “the Court declined to address whether the use of an aerial drone under the circumstances of this case was an unreasonable search or seizure for purposes of the United States or Michigan Constitutions.”

In other words, the state’s highest court decided that it was irrelevant whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the evidence would not be excluded either way, so long as the search was conducted to investigate civil and not criminal violations.

Keep reading

Michigan Offering Citizens $500 Per Month To House Illegal Immigrants

The state of Michigan is offering $500 per month to residents who agree to house illegal immigrants in their homes.

The so called ‘Newcomer Rental Subsidy‘ would provide the payment for up to a year for any homeowner willing to take part, equating to a total of $6000.

The state those says those eligible for the program include refugees, asylees, special immigration visa holders, victims of human trafficking, Cuban and Haitian entrants, Afghan nationals, and Ukrainian humanitarian parolees.

The program also states that illegals who have been processed as part of the ‘Family Reunification Parole Process’ from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Colombia, individuals with a pending asylum application, and other immigrant individuals on a case-by-case basis are also eligible.

Basically anyone who crosses the border then.

Keep reading

Michigan Lawyer Stefanie Lambert Arrested by US Marshals in DC Following Court Appearance — for Submitting “Evidence of Numerous Crimes” Including Internal Emails from Dominion Voting Systems to Law Enforcement

Michigan attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila was arrested in Washington, D.C., on Monday following a court hearing after she gave the “evidence of numerous crimes” to law enforcement containing internal emails from Dominion Voting Systems, AP reported.

Lambert attended a court hearing in Washington, D.C., for a defamation case involving Patrick Byrne, whom she represents. Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock, is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems over his claims of election fraud.

Lambert’s arrest occurred after it was revealed that she had leaked confidential documents from Dominion to Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, who has been actively investigating claims of voter fraud from the 2020 election, according to CNN.

The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf has made a bold move by sending a letter to U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, urging a congressional investigation into what he claims as evidence of “foreign interference” in the 2020 election.

Sheriff Leaf alleges that electronic voting machines were accessed by foreign nationals across the United States, including Michigan, to manipulate election results.

Keep reading

No, Imprisoning a School Shooter’s Parents Isn’t Justice

A jury on Thursday convicted a Michigan man of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop his son from killing four of his peers in November 2021, putting an end to a closely watched prosecution that broke new ground in its attempt to punish the parents of a child who committed a school shooting.

James Crumbley faces up to 60 years in prison, as does his wife, Jennifer Crumbley, who was found guilty of the same charges last month. Prosecutors posited the two bore responsibility for allegedly ignoring signs that their son, Ethan Crumbley, was depressed, and for gifting him the gun he ultimately used to execute Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling, and Hana St. Juliana at Oxford High School.

It may be hard to find sympathy for the Crumbleys, who have, unsurprisingly, been a magnet for backlash. It’s plausible they were negligent parents. But it can simultaneously be true that punishing them criminally for that sets a very troubling precedent, no matter how much you dislike them.

The prosecution’s argument hinged on a few key points: Ethan Crumbley had mental health issues, which the government said his parents did not do enough to address—a point they emphasized more during Jennifer Crumbley’s proceeding. During James Crumbley’s trial, the government zeroed in on the gun he purchased for his son as an early Christmas present: He was allegedly careless, prosecutors said, with how he stored the weapon, creating a perfect storm that cleared the way for Ethan to carry out that shooting about two and a half years ago.

But, no matter how ruinous their parenting, the case against the Crumbleys in some sense hinged on what the government wanted the law to say—not on what it actually said. As I wrote last month:

Despite the fraught subject matter, and the absolute tragedy of those deaths, Michigan law still appeared inept to apply to the Crumbley parents. Michigan lawmakers have had the opportunity to pass “child access prevention” legislation authorizing criminal charges against adults “who intentionally or carelessly give minors unsupervised access to guns,” noted Reason‘s Jacob Sullum in 2021, but they have on multiple occasions rejected the idea. And while the state has since enacted a “secure storage” law pertaining to safely securing firearms, it was not on the books at the time of the murders.

It may shock some consciences that the Crumbleys enjoyed going to the gun range as a family activity. I can understand the queasy gut reaction—it’s not my idea of a good time, either. But how someone feels about guns generally or politically shouldn’t factor into whether or not a parent is criminally responsible for their child’s actions.

Keep reading

Pfizer Chemical Spill in Michigan Causes No Contact Advisory of Kalamazoo River

A no-contact advisory was issued for the Kalamazoo River after a chemical spill occurred at Pfizer’s manufacturing plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

According to city health officials, Pfizer released over 1,057 gallons of methylene chloride in its manufacturing facilities processing area, which was then discharged into the Kalamazoo River.

Methylene chloride is a colorless liquid that Pfizer and other pharmaceutical manufacturers use as a solvent in their pharmaceutical medicines.

After the chemical spill occurred, Kalamazoo County Health Officials warned residents not to come into contact with the Kalamazoo River.

Kalamazoo County Health Officer Jim Rutherford stated, “We decided to issue a no-contact advisory for the stretch of river impacted by the methylene chloride release as a precautionary measure.”

“This advisory will remain in effect until further investigation and sampling indicates that there is no risk to public health,” added Rutherford.

Keep reading

Social media platform X bans account promoting a forthcoming documentary about FBI’s role in Whitmer ‘kidnapping plot’

In yet another example of how alleged “free speech” platform X (formerly Twitter) is anything but, a small team of independent documentary filmmakers have had their account “permanently” suspended this week as they prepare to release a documentary that they’ve been working on for over a year.

The topic: The 2020 “plot to kidnap and kill” Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, and the FBI’s extensive involvement therein.

The account was set up to promote the film, entitled Kidnap and Kill: An FBI Terror Plot, 14 months ago, in January of 2023.

“I paid for the account for over a year and even paid to promote the trailer on X buying twitter ads,” said director Christina Urso (also known as Radix Verum) in a post on Saturday.

“No email – nothing saying we violated TOS. We only used it to promote the trailer for the documentary.”

Keep reading

Sheriff Dar Leaf Announces Investigation into Michigan 2020 Election: Claims Possession of “Sensitive Documents” Tied to Dominion Employees and High-Profile Figures Including Jocelyn Benson and Dana Nessel — Accuses Muskegon County Prosecutor of Attempting to Usurp His Ongoing Investigation

Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf announced that he has launched an investigation into the handling of the Michigan 2020 election, implicating Dominion Voting Systems officials, Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Attorney General Dana Nessel, computer scientist J. Alex Halderman, and others in potential misconduct.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported in 2022 that Sheriff Dar Leaf filed a lawsuit against the lawless and obstructive actions of Attorney General Dana Nessel, who regularly mocks and threatens her political opponents, together with Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who’s blocked the efforts of citizens and law enforcement to investigate voter fraud and voter irregularities related to the 2020 election.

The Barry County Sheriff is also suing MI Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s henchman, Jonathan Brater.

Jonathan Brater is Michigan’s Director of Elections, a member of the executive branch of state government, and an employee of the state. As director of elections, Mr. Brater is “vested with the powers and shall perform the duties of the secretary of state under his or her supervision, with respect to the supervision and administration of the election laws.”

The lawsuit states that Attorney General Nessel, who has no accountability to the Barry County Electorate, and even less authority to encroach upon the law enforcement functions of a constitutional sheriff, has committed a flagrant violation of constitutional and statutory laws by usurping the power of Sheriff Dar Leaf by obstructing, impeding, prejudging the ability of a duly elected official to conduct a criminal investigation into allegations of criminal acts related to the 2020 election and voting.

Keep reading

Hospital Pays Job Applicant Who Refused Mandated Flu Shot

A hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., has agreed to pay a settlement to a job applicant who had been offered a position, but then was arbitrarily rejected because he declined to take a flu shot hospital officials demanded.

News of the settlement comes from Liberty Counsel.

The fight involved Trinity Health Grand Rapids, which previously was known as Mercy Health St. Mary’s. The resolution includes a consent decree that allows paying of some $50,000 to the worker who was rejected.

The case originally was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and charged the hospital improperly denied a job applicant’s request for a religious exemption to the flu shot.

The requirement for such shots later was dropped by the hospital, which agreed to train leaders on religious rights in addition to paying the settlement.

“According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, even though the hospital’s former flu shot policy allowed for a religious exemption, the hospital determined the applicant’s articulated religious beliefs were ‘insufficient’ to grant the exemption and denied it without an explanation. Trinity Health, which had made a conditional job offer to the applicant, then rescinded that job offer and did not give the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns with his request.”

The EEOC accused the corporation of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The report explained federal law insists that employers make reasonable accommodations for religious employees – unless those accommodations create an “undue hardship” on the company.

Keep reading