TT v. KL

Decision Date29 October 2020
Docket NumberNo. 351531,351531
Citation965 N.W.2d 101,334 Mich.App. 413
Parties TT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KL, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Outside Legal Counsel PLC, Hemlock (by Philip L. Ellison ) for respondent.

Before: Boonstra, P.J., and Markey and Fort Hood, JJ.

Markey, J. Respondent, KL, appeals by right a modified nondomestic personal protection order (PPO) issued by the trial court under MCL 600.2950a following an evidentiary hearing on KL's motion to terminate the PPO. The original PPO had been entered upon request by petitioner, TT. The amended PPO prohibits respondent "from posting defamatory statements about Petitioner on social media and/or from publishing such statements elsewhere." Respondent also appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to disqualify the trial court judge, along with the chief judge's order affirming the denial, after respondent filed suit against the trial court judge in a federal action that challenged the constitutional validity of MCL 600.2950a. We affirm the rejection of respondent's effort to disqualify the trial court judge, but we reverse with respect to the modified PPO and remand for further amendment of the PPO.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OGL is the daughter of respondent-father KL. At the time of the events giving rise to the PPO litigation, it appears that OGL was around four years old. Respondent was in a bitter custody dispute with OGL's mother, who was respondent's former girlfriend. Petitioner TT is OGL's maternal great aunt. Respondent believed that OGL was regularly taken to the maternal grandparents’ farm for visits, that a man, LW, was permitted by the grandparents to live in a shack on the property, and that LW is a twice-convicted sex offender.1 Respondent went on a personal Internet crusade against OGL's mother and her family regarding his view that they were placing OGL in harm's way by allowing her to be in the presence of, or have contact with, LW. Respondent's actions included the use of social media to highlight the situation and, ostensibly, to protect and obtain justice for OGL. Respondent also complained that local governmental agencies and the courts had been of little help to his cause and had actually thwarted his efforts to safeguard his daughter.

It was within this context that petitioner filed a petition for a nondomestic PPO against respondent on March 4, 2019. In the petition, petitioner indicated that OGL's mother had a PPO against respondent, that, apparently, OGL's mother had inadvertently left petitioner's name on some paperwork submitted to another court to show that respondent had violated that particular PPO, and that respondent thereafter began focusing his online attacks on petitioner. Petitioner alleged that respondent sent her multiple messages through Facebook Messenger and began attacking her on social media. She claimed that respondent posted her picture on public Facebook pages with a caption stating that she was helping a violent sexual predator. Petitioner further asserted that respondent accused her numerous times on social media of allowing a pedophile, LW, to have access to OGL. Petitioner attached the Facebook messages and posts to her petition, including a post on a Facebook page for a group started by respondent called "Justice for [OGL]," which stated:

Pictured below is [petitioner]. As you can read, it seems as if [OGL's] maternal family is actively trying to protect the twice convicted violent sexual predator while simultaneously allowing him ongoing access to [OGL].
[Petitioner] has also been putting in great efforts to help the twice convicted violent sexual predator attempt to have [respondent] thrown in jail again due to alleged "violations" of the frivolous PPO the twice convicted violent sexual predator has against [respondent].[2]

Petitioner contended that none of respondent's claims was true. She further maintained that she had never even met or talked to LW.

In the myriad computer screen shots showing communications between the parties and respondent's public posts, which were later admitted into evidence, there were snippets of a transcript from a child custody hearing regarding OGL. LW testified at the hearing, stating that he could not remember ever having any physical contact with OGL, that a couple of times he went to the grandparents’ house to do some work and OGL happened to be present, that he politely responded to her when she spoke to him, and that he was told by a woman from Children's Protective Services not to be around OGL unsupervised. At one point in his testimony, LW indicated that he "was informed by [T] about what was being talked about." "T" is petitioner's first name. LW also testified that his "nephew's wife [T] was on the Facebook and she seen ... a conversation going on between this guy [respondent] and somebody else."3 LW additionally noted that "T" was not in court because she had just undergone surgery. It is evident that LW was not referring to petitioner when mentioning the name "T" at the hearing. And petitioner sent a message to respondent directly informing him that she did not personally know LW, that she had never spoken to him, and that she was not the person LW was referring to at the hearing. The trial court was not presented with any child custody transcript references to petitioner's full name. We also note that the transcript references to "T" do not say anything about "T" engaging in acts or conduct that gave LW access to OGL.

In the PPO petition, petitioner noted that many people had messaged her about respondent's posts and asked her what was going on. She stated that she worked as an interpreter in a school and that she was very concerned that the false social-media posts would affect her employment.4 Petitioner was worried that parents and future prospective clients would not want her to be their interpreter. She implored the trial court to order the removal of the posts and to bar respondent from continuing to lie about her on social media.

On March 5, 2019, the trial court entered an ex parte PPO, which prohibited respondent from stalking petitioner, as "stalking" is defined in MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i. The PPO forbid respondent from following petitioner, appearing at her residence or workplace, approaching or confronting her, entering onto her property, sending her mail, contacting her by phone, placing an object on or delivering an object to petitioner's property, threatening to kill or injure petitioner, and purchasing or possessing a firearm. Significantly, the PPO also prohibited respondent from "posting a message through the use of any medium of communication, including the internet or a computer or any electronic medium, pursuant to MCL 750.411s." More specifically, the ex parte PPO provided that respondent was not permitted to "post[ ] comments about Petitioner on social media."

During March 2019, three orders to show cause for violating the PPO were entered, along with three accompanying bench warrants for respondent's arrest. Another alleged violation occurred in May 2019, resulting in a show-cause order and a bench warrant. The alleged violations concerned respondent's continued computer usage and social-media posts touching on prohibited subjects. At different times, respondent was arrested, jailed, arraigned on the warrants, and posted bond.

On March 13, 2019, respondent moved to terminate the PPO, claiming that petitioner made false statements in the PPO application, that he was not posting anything that was inaccurate, and that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.5 On March 21, 2019, an evidentiary hearing was conducted on respondent's motion to terminate the PPO. The trial court examined petitioner, who was unrepresented at the time, and counsel retained by respondent began cross-examination of petitioner before the hearing was adjourned and scheduled to continue at a later date.6 On June 20, 2019, an evidentiary hearing was conducted on all four of the alleged PPO violations and that hearing was also continued. There were several adjournments with respect to the continuation of the hearing on the motion to terminate the PPO because respondent's attorney was allowed to withdraw. Respondent obtained new counsel, and respondent was sent to jail for 10 days for being held in contempt by a different judge conducting a child custody hearing regarding OGL.

On June 27, 2019, respondent, under 42 USC 1983, filed a federal lawsuit against the trial court, naming the judge in her official capacity as the defendant and challenging the nondomestic PPO statute as violative of the First Amendment. On August 16, 2019, respondent amended the federal complaint, adding a due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, US Const, Am XIV.7 Before the hearing on the motion to terminate the PPO was continued, respondent filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion to terminate the PPO on September 13, 2019, reserving "the right to refile said motion ...." On September 16, 2019, the trial court's judicial secretary e-mailed respondent's attorney and informed him that the court "is not granting your request to withdraw your [m]otion ...." On September 17, 2019, respondent filed an objection to the court's rejection of the notice of withdrawal; he also moved for disclosure of communications and/or to disqualify the trial court. On the basis of assumed communications from the trial court's counsel in the federal lawsuit to the court that pertained to the instant PPO litigation, respondent argued that the court was in violation of Michigan's Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4), for considering these so-called ex parte communications outside the presence of the parties in the case at bar.8 Respondent contended that Canon 3(A)(4) required the trial court to disclose to the parties the substance of those assumed ex parte communications between the court and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Lindke v. King
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • May 24, 2023
    ...did not commit a written defamation through any of his posts,” and (2) the Amended PPO “constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.” Id. at 113-14. Michigan Court of Appeals decided Lindke's appeal on October 29, 2020. The court first noted that Lindke did not challenge Judge Lane's co......
  • Lindke v. Tomlinson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 12, 2022
    ...custody dispute" between Lindke and Moeller that led to Lindke's "personal Internet crusade" against Moeller. See TT v. KL , 334 Mich.App. 413, 965 N.W.2d 101, 104 (2020). The two are the parents of a minor child, whom we will refer to as OGL. In September 2015, Moeller filed a complaint in......
  • Montgomery v. Bauer
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 20, 2023
  • O'Dell v. Singh
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 19, 2022
    ...trial judge is presumed to be unbiased, and the party claiming otherwise bears the heavy burden of overcoming the presumption. TT v KL, 334 Mich.App. 413, 431-432; 965 N.W.2d 101 (2020). III. ANALYSIS As an initial matter, we note that plaintiff failed to produce the transcripts pertaining ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT