Wayne County Probate Court Corruption

Subject: Formal Complaint Against Judge David Braxton – Case No. 2010-752507-TV

Dear Michigan, Judicial Tenure Commission,

I am writing to file a formal complaint against Judge David Braxton of the Wayne County Probate Court in connection with his conduct in case number 2010-752507-TV. Specifically, his backdated order regarding February 27, 2023, hearing.

Judge Braxton, through his actions, has committed fraud as defined by Michigan Compiled Laws. My specific complaint is as follows:

1. MCL 400.612, which prohibits fraud and misrepresentation:
Judge Braxton, by entering an order in this case and then backdating it, has committed an act that constitutes fraud and misrepresentation. This act has directly affected the due process of my sister’s case by preventing a timely appeal. The court has accepted payment for the processing of this order, as evidenced by the cashing of our check, yet has procedurally barred me from exercising my right to object to the order due to the manipulation of the dates involved.

2. Judicial Canon 2, which requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety:
Judge Braxton has violated this canon by engaging in conduct that not only constitutes actual impropriety but also severely damages the appearance of propriety and fairness essential to the public's trust in the judicial system.

3. Judicial Canon 3, which mandates that a judge performs the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently:
The backdating of the order demonstrates a lack of diligence and impartiality required of a judge. This action has deprived me of the legal recourse to which I am entitled and has cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial proceedings.

The consequences of Judge Braxton's conduct are severe. By backdating the order, the court has improperly denied me the right to argue my objections. Moreover, because of this action, I have missed the critical 21-day deadline to file for a third appeal, effectively denying me access to justice and due process.

In light of the serious misconduct, I urge the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission to promptly investigate Judge Braxton's conduct in this matter. The integrity of the Michigan judiciary is at stake, and it is imperative that all judicial officers adhere strictly to the laws and ethical standards which govern their positions.

I am enclosing relevant documents and evidence, including proof of the cashed check and the backdated order, to support my complaint. I am prepared to provide further information and cooperate with any investigation into these matters.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this grave issue. I trust that the Commission will act swiftly to investigate the Judges’s misconduct and ensure that justice is upheld.

On February 27, 2024, Judge Braxton failed to hold GAL James McCann and trustee Lynn Marine Adams accountable for their actions, including committing perjury, both verbally and in a GAL report and trustee reply to an answer to a petition, allowing Kim Marie Edwards and family to go two weeks without heat, and the judge denied Melissa her due process rights. Additionally, Judge Braxton verbally stated that Melissa had no rights and denied her the opportunity to have complete legal representation because he only let her attorney speak “briefly,” ignored the facts and law he (the attorney) presented, and abused his power by making a ruling against the attorney and his client with no legal basis. His bias against people with disabilities, his anger against Melissa for her advocacy work on behalf of her sister Kim Marie Edwards, and his denial of the facts influenced his decision in this matter. He continues to violate both Kim and Melissa’s rights.

Moreover, Melissa has third-party standing to intervene in this case because:

Under the doctrine of third-party standing, individuals who have a close relationship to the party directly affected by the legal issue at hand may bring a claim on behalf of that party. In the case of Kim Marie Edwards Special Needs Trust, as Kim’s sister, Melissa has a close relationship with her and a vested interest in ensuring that her needs are met. Also, Melissa suffers emotional pain every time Kim is mistreated by this court because she cares deeply about Kim’s well-being. Furthermore, Melissa is Kim’s caretaker and if the trustee, Lynn Marie Adams, fails to fulfill her duties in providing for Kim's needs, Similar to what former trustee Mark A Haywood did, Melissa steps in and cover those expenses. This demonstrates her third-party standing in this matter and her right to intervene on behalf of her sister.

This misconduct by Judge Braxton is a violation of the following cannons and laws:

1. Violation of Canon 2A of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

2. Violation of Canon 3B(2) of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.

3. Violation of Melissa Edwards' constitutional rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Also, a violation of Melissa’s Fifth Amendment rights to due process.

4. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242, which prohibits any person acting under color of law from depriving individuals of their rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

5. Violation of Judge Braxton's oath of office under Michigan Constitution Article XI, Section 1, which requires judges to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of Michigan.

Melissa respectfully request that the Judicial Tenure Commission thoroughly investigate these violations and take appropriate action to ensure that justice is served and the rights of Melissa Edwards and Kim Marie Edwards are protected. It is imperative that Judge Braxton, GAL James McCann, and Trustee Lynn Marie Adams are held accountable for their actions in this case to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and protect the rights of the individuals involved.

If the investigation and disciplinary action for the two attorneys involved are out of your jurisdiction, Melissa requests that you make a recommendation to the Attorney Grievance Commission to investigate the two attorneys involved, Lynn Marine Adams and James McCann.

On October 2, 2023, there was a hearing regarding Kim Marie Edwards Special Needs Trust (SNT), case number 2010-752-507-TV. During this hearing, two petitions were heard:
Former trustee Mark Haywood (“Mark”) petitioned the court to have his 14th final annual accounting accepted and;
Former trustee Mark, along with the nominated trustee Lynn Marie Adams (“Lynn”) petitioned the court to request that the judge allow them to both to take $25,000 out of Kim Marie Edwards SNT to pay for their defense in an appeal case. The appeal is based on the judge’s decision that occurred on June 23, 2023.
My sister and I, through our attorney objected to the final 14th annual accounting for several reasons including but not limited to:
The need for amendments in the accounting for mathematical error
Attorney’s Mark and his attorney Jospeh Budiguri (“Joseph”), charged for legal services, which we believe is double billing.
Mark charged attorney fees for trustee duties and so on.
My sister and I, through our attorney disagreed with the second petition that requested that the Judge allow the former trustee Mark and nominated trustee Lynn to take $25,000 out of Kim’s special needs trust to defend the Judge’s erroneous decision and to defend their misconduct.
We object to the petition for the retainer fee because it charged to much, they petitioned the same judge we are appealing to, and they want Kim to pay for their misconduct against her and the trust.
The Judge refused to listen to our attorney’s argument against the petition.
The Judge stated that in the “last court hearing we indicated that you could not represent them” he told our attorney several times that our attorney could not act as our attorney in this matter. In other words, he is saying that my sister, Kim Marie Edwards (“Kim”) who is a ward of the state and myself, who is not a ward of the state have no right to any attorney.
My attorney told him that he (Judge) keeps saying that but he never put it in the order that he couldn’t be our attorney.
Judge stated that he would put it in an order and that he thought he was clear when he said that our attorney could not be our attorney and represent us. .
My attorney informed him that he didn’t show us any legal authority that says that he can rule that we have no right to be represented by our attorney.
My attorney stated that he submitted more than one brief about 8 months ago that states that we have a right to an attorney. Our attorney also stated that the Judge never responded to the brief he submitted.
The judge told him again that our lawyer cannor represent us.
Our attorney stated that he doesn’t agree with the judge’s decision and that he will never agree with the judge’s decision.
Judge told the lawyer that he can appeal it and do what he like, but the way he sees the law he “cannot represent her its a conflict.”
Our lawyer asked “what’s the conflict.”
Judge stated that he is “not going to debate this over and over.”
Opposing party presented their argument for the retainer fee for appeal work, the Judge just agreed to it before our attorney said anything.
Our attorney objected to the $25,000 retainer fee that the opposing parties want Kim to pay out of her special needs trust for both the former trustee and the nominated trustee.
Judge mentioned that Mark said he didn’t get objections.
Our attorney said he sent it to his attorney
Judge reiterated that he believes that our attorney should not represent us because of the conversations they had at the previous hearings.
Argument
The following are the Michigan Judical Conduct Canons that was violated by Judge:
CANON 1.
A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.
“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.
A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should
personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary may be preserved. A judge should always be aware
that the judicial system is for the benefit of the litigant and the public, not the
judiciary. The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further
those objectives.”
CANON 3.
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Office Impartially and Diligently.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judicial
duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of
these duties, the following standards apply:
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities:
(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence
in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear
of criticism.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official
capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court
officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.
(7) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are
likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that
are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of
judicial office.
A judge should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to
clarify their positions, and should not be tempted to the unnecessary display of
learning or a premature judgment.
(13) A judge should adopt the usual and accepted methods of doing justice;
avoid the imposition of humiliating acts or discipline, not authorized by law in
sentencing and endeavor to conform to a reasonable standard of punishment
and not seek popularity or publicity either by exceptional severity or undue
leniency.
(14) Without regard to a person’s race, gender, or other protected personal
characteristic, a judge should treat every person fairly, with courtesy and
respect. To the extent possible, a judge should require staff, court officials, and
others who are subject to the judge’s direction and control to provide such fair,
courteous, and respectful treatment to persons who have contact with the court.
B. Administrative Responsibilities:
(1) A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain
professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the
performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court
officials.
(3) A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a
judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become
aware.
(4) A judge should not cause unnecessary expense by making unnecessary
appointments. All appointments shall be based upon merit.
(5) A judge should not approve compensation beyond the fair value of services
rendered.
C. Disqualification:
A judge should raise the issue of disqualification whenever the judge has cause to
believe that grounds for disqualification may exist under MCR 2.003(C).

Sincerely,

Melissa Edwards