State High Court hears Servaas case

LANSING, Mich. (WOOD) - Attorneys for 63rd District Judge Steven Servaas and the state's Judicial Tenure Commission battled Wednesday before the Michigan Supreme Court over whether Servaas "vacated" his post by moving outside the Rockford-based district court division he served.

That battle is far from new, but the questions posed by the justices may point to the issues they will hone in on as they decide the case.

At the heart of that case lies the vacated post issue. But the most pointed exchanges between justices and attorneys centered on the actions of Paul Fischer, the JTC executive director who brought the charges against Servaas. Fischer recorded the conversation he had with Servaas in which he said "you're up for election this year ... this will all be public before March."

Fischer went on to tell Servaas that if the commission "has your resignation letter by 9 a.m. this matter will be gone."

During oral arguments Wednesday, Justice Robert Young, Jr. told Fischer, "I want you to understand how troubling it is to have an agent of this court go and essentially threaten horrible things to anyone."

Justice Maura Corrigan said she was "very concerned to understand, sir, what the commission and you were thinking when you made that 'swoop-down' visit."

After Fischer told the justices he had notified some court officials, including 63rd District Chief Judge Sara Smolenski, Justice Elizabeth Weaver accused Fischer of telling everyone but Servaas about the situation and then "dump"ing it on him.

Weaver also questioned Fischer about obtaining a piece of the Servaas' stationary in order to draft a letter of resignation for the judge. Fischer said he had asked for it during the course of his investigation and it was provided, though he did not disclose by whom.

Servaas has admitted that in 2005 he moved outside the boundaries of the 63rd District's first division, the division he serves. But the judge stayed within the 63rd District boundaries, moving to second division territory.

His attorney, Jon Muth, contends the law is at best unclear on whether that is legal.

"At worst what we are looking at here is an innocent, good-faith mistake upon his part," Muth argued.

Fischer and the tenure commission contend Servaas moved earlier than he admitted and tried to deceive people, including the tenure commission, about it. Documents show, Fischer argued, that Servaas listed a landline phone number in the second division as his "on-duty" number as early as 2000.

The JTC executive director claimed the judge's actions have affected the administration of justice.

"If you have a non-judge masquerading as a judge, that's prejudicial," Fischer said.

Servaas' attorney pointed out that voters, knowing all about the charges, re-elected him, a point also noted by Justice Young. Fischer says Servaas' presence on the ballot as a sitting judge was not proper based on the commission's contention that Servaas vacated his office.

The judge's attorney questioned whether the tenure commission has authority to make that judgment, something he said should have been handled by the state attorney general. In apparent agreement, Justice Weaver told Fischer, "I don't think it's your authority to decide that."

The dual role of the JTC as the entity that brings charges and rules on those charges was also raised by Muth as a violation of Servaas' due process rights.

Servaas is also accused of two inappropriate drawings and a comment to a female staffer about chest size. Justice Young admonished the behavior, asking Servaas' attorney "when is it ever appropriate to comment on the size of a woman's breast?"

Justices asked attorneys for both parties what punishment would be proper were those behavior issues to be the only ones considered.

The commission has said it should be public censure, and Fischer added he believed a suspension would be appropriate in addition. Muth, Servaas' attorney, said a private reprimand would be the most severe penalty reasonable.

Leaving the courtroom, Fischer said only "we'll see" when asked how Wednesday's proceedings went for him. Servaas said he was happy with what occurred during oral arguments and was impressed by the justices' questions.

"The justices seemed to know what they were doing and they were interested," he said. "So I'm sure I'll get a fair shake."