Judge Henry Saad

[Wild Bill]

Our old friend Judge Saad of the Court of Appeals apparently doesn't understand the law.

 

Michigan Judge Pleads Guilty to Having Gun at Airport

• By The Associated Press

ROMULUS, Mich. — Mar 8, 2016, 5:26 PM ET

 

A judge on the Michigan appeals court has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor gun charge outside the eyes and ears of the public.

 

Judge Henry Saad reported to Romulus District Court on Tuesday, two weeks after a handgun was found in his carry-on bag at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

 

The prosecutor's office says the case was discussed in the chambers of Judge Tina Brooks Green before Saad pleaded guilty on paper and filed it with the court.

 

Green says Saad didn't appear in open court because his attorney expressed concerns over "death threats" unrelated to the case. She tells The Associated Press that it's common for people to plead guilty in certain cases through signed paperwork.

 

Messages seeking comment from Saad's attorney, John Dakmak, were not immediately returned.

 

 

 

[ilynnboy]

Will he lose his job?

I am a layman and I know it is illegal to attempt to board a plane with a fireararm.

That is STUPID !!!

How is someone that thick headed a judge?

Then he gets a private session with the presiding judge?

Wait a minute, I have been to that courthouse and Know that they have metal detectors when you enter into the courthouse.

So how does his "fear for my life" argument have any standing?

What is the Bailiff going to shoot him?

Just another privileged member of society getting his due.

Move along commoners, no special favors being meted out here.

Other than letting him plead guilty to a lessor charge in chambers.

I just looked it up, it is a Federal crime a Felony no less..

Why the special consideration for this Felon?

As I pointed out above, his fear for my life reasoning falls flat..

Edited March 10, 2016 by ilynnboy

[bobandtorey]

I also agree he must be special  

[phaquetoo]

my pops is a retired cop, he has a special ccw, he can carry it on a plane and in NY state and city!

 

I guess that judge dont have the right ccw if at all!  and hell yea put him in jail for 2 yrs like they would do to us!

 

Peace

[ilynnboy]

All guns must be TSA permitted..

A special dispensation is required to carry aboard an aircraft.

I fly often and do pay attention to the posted signage with warnings and restrictions.

It is Illegal ( a Federal felony ) to attempt to board aircraft with a firearm without preapproval.

There are news stories all over the net stating felony charges were brought against individuals attempting to bring a firearm onto a plane.

Why the Extra-special treatment?

Not just plea deals, judges chambers plea deals.

This individual should be Held to the Highest Standards...

He is a freaking Judge... Throw the Book at Him!!!

If anyone, He should receive the harshest treatment.

Those charged with upholding the Rule of Law, should receive the harshest penalties for breaking it.

No special treatment

Cops, lawyers, prosecutors, judges.

Criminal penalties X 2.

Mandatory minimums for the legal professions breaking of the law...

Why Not?

A CDL drivers bac is .04 for Dui,

Special jobs require special rules,

So Again, Why not?

As evidenced by Judge Greens actions , jurisprudence Sucks!!

[phaquetoo]

my pops can carry his weapon on a plane that is staying in the U.S!

 

What do you think, he just goes and stands in a line and shows the checkers his i.d and weapon?

 

Do a lil more reading, I have been on a plane with him to fl and he had his weapon on him, You have to contact them weeks ahead and send them your info and check in at a dif desk.

 

They want retired cops and marshall's, etc to carry their weapons in case something like 911 happens, there is at least one air marshall on every plane with a weapon also!

 

My pops isnt just some guy who had his ccw most of his life, he is a retired cop, with no record and only good on his back ground check!

 

like I said read up a lil more, Im sure you will find it! or like every one else says go ask a cop bawahahahahaha!

 

Im not trying to be mean, Im just telling you what I know!

 

Peace

[trichcycler]

Those charged with upholding the Rule of Law, should receive the harshest penalties for breaking it.

 

 

 

[Wild Bill]

Will he lose his job?

 

What do you think?

 

In 2012, the 65-year-old Bloomfield Township resident contributed an eye-popping $80,800 — more than half of his $151,441-annual salary — to Republican candidates and causes, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a national organization that promotes transparency in government.

 

The size of Saad’s contributions has raised eyebrows in Michigan where judges, at least in theory, are supposed to be non-partisan

 

.“I think Judge Saad has destroyed any pretense that he is non-partisan,” said Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a non-profit watchdog group in Lansing. “He’s clearly a deeply committed partisan. I think you’d be able to predict his vote on any legal case with a partisan angle.”

 

http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/6107/has_state_judge_henry_saad_stepped_over_the_line_with_campaign_contributions#.VuGV5uZc8Zw

[t-pain]

one of those fearful gun clutching republicans i'm always hearing about in the news.

 

what a making whoopee who-who though. he should have fought for his constitutional right to bring a firearm anywhere with him.

 

i mean, we are talking about a state where the gun toting fuckheads have lobbied to be able to conceal carry in schools. if they can win that battle , carrying guns on airplanes isnt far behind.

[t-pain]

http://www.rockindlaw.com/the-private-plea-of-judge-saad/

The Private Plea Of Judge Saad And What It Means

 

My Thoughts From 20,000 Feet

? Back to Blog

? March 9, 2016

? Blog

 

It was both interesting and sad to read about the case of the State of Michigan v Henry Saad, the court of appeals judge charged with bringing a gun into an airport. Maybe those words don’t best describe the circumstances — hypocritical and maddening are more appropriate.

 

Judge Saad

 

 

 

Judge Henry Saad of the Michigan Court of Appeals has carved out of a reputation as one of the tougher appellate judges in criminal cases. Sometimes reputations are wrong. Sometimes they are well-earned. Recently, Judge Saad participated in authoring two (2) of the most controversial marijuana cases in Michigan appellate history — the cases of People v Tuttle and People v Hartwick. In those cases, Judge Saad authored opinions that for all intents and purposes destroyed the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. While those opinions were overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court, they were in my opinion, representative of Judge Saad’s reputation in criminal cases.

 

Judge Saad made news in other ways in recent years that may have tipped his hand on his feelings towards civil rights, constitutional rights and criminal cases — 1) he was nominated to the federal bench by President Bush, 2) he was critical of Senator Deborah Stabenow for stalling his nomination to the federal bench which criticism was exposed when he accidentally included her on an email/letter that his feelings about Sen Stabenow, 3) he (and his wife) contributed eye-opening amounts of money to the Republican Party and Republican causes and 4) he publicly defended his contributions by proclaiming that it was an expression of his First Amendment right. Of course, while the latter may be true, whether he had the right to exercise his right to free speech was not the issue; rather the issue was whether his expressions revealed his prejudices and bias. Regardless, viewed together, many of my peers viewed Judge Saad as a far cry from a bleeding heart.

 

The Fieger v Cox Case

 

During my representation and defense of Geoffrey Fieger, the Fieger Law Firm and Fieger, Fieger, Kenney and Johnson in the case being investigated by then Attorney General Mike Cox, I learned first hand about Judge Saad. During the case, the Attorney General and his investigators were requesting that a district court judge in East Lansing sign investigative subpoena’s and search warrants for records including a search warrant of the Fieger law firm and a search warrant for records from the Fieger firm’s bank accounts. Our team, Mayer Morganroth, Richard Steinberg, Michael Schwartz and yours truly (Neil Rockind) fought the district court judge’s actions vigorously — we file a Writ of Superintending Control, Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Injunction and Stay in the Ingham County Circuit Court requesting that the Court halt the district court judge’s conduct. While litigating this motion/petition, the district court signed additional orders/warrants prompting the circuit court judge to enter an Order Enjoining the District Court from proceeding further. It was a huge victory that stalled what we viewed as a political prosecution.

 

The Attorney General appealed. Judge Saad was one of the judge’s on the panel that heard the appeal and a participant in the opinion on the case, Fieger v Cox (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1369022.html). The opinion was critical of the circuit court and took aim at Fieger, at times apparently prejudging him guilty of campaign finance violations and interference in a judicial election. Fieger walked away from the case without a single conviction but the Judge Saad’s opinion stood out in my mind — I felt that he prejudged Fieger’s culpability.

 

People v Judge Saad – The Charge

 

So I was particularly interested to learn that Saad was himself being accused of a crime in Romulus — for carrying a firearm in a sterile zone, i.e., the airport. I wish no man the embarrassment and walk of shame associated with an appearance in court and in particular before the media. The same goes for Judge Saad. Surely, the court appearance would undermine what anonymity he had and cause him a degree of chagrin. While I didn’t wish that upon him because I wish that on no one, I hoped that his appearance in court, being charged with a crime, experience in a courtroom as an accused and his view of the court process from the side of the accused would give him much needed empathy towards others as they fight the system and criminal charges. I hoped that his experience would open his eyes more to how hard it is to be accused with/of a crime.

 

The Proceedings In Private?

 

That did not happen. Rather, in a remarkable turn of events that led many of my peers and many in the media to question the process, Judge Saad never appeared in a courtroom, never appeared on the record in court, never had to answer questions in open court, including even giving his name on the record and he never faced the gauntlet of reporters that were waiting for him in court. In virtually every respect, Judge Saad had avoid all the painful experiences and moments that befell the other 99.9% of the people that are charged with crimes and those in whose case the media has taken an interest. Some commentators claimed that there was nothing improper about the proceedings, citing some technical rules regarding a practice called a “plea by mail.” However, in my opinion, their commentary is colored by their position. They are commenting as criminal defense lawyers rather than as a neutral observer or a member of the public. Just as an Ohio State fan would not be offended if the referee moved the ball closer to the goal making it easier for OSU to score against Michigan or Michigan State, we criminal defense lawyers appreciate good lawyering and the use of a process to the benefit a criminal defendant. In that way, our alliance with “the defense” colors our judgment. Yes, Judge Saad’s counsel did an excellent job at protecting his client and deserves all the accolades being laid upon him by the criminal defense bar. However, as citizens we have take a different look — one devoid of our role as “being on one side or the other.” Shedding our alliance with one side, we’d look at the referee moving the ball closer to the goal line for the Buckeyes differently — we’d know it was wrong.

 

My Observations – From 20,000 Feet

 

As a television analyst, I pledged to my reporter/journalist peers that when commenting on cases and events, I’d shed my role as a defender and offer opinions and observations that were neutral and objective. I promised that I’d look at events from 20,000 feet. In my opinion, putting aside our allegiances, alliances and looking at it from 20,000 feet, what happened in Judge Saad’s case is disturbing. Rather than instill confidence in the legal system, the system appeared to favor one of its own. That is a terrible message to send to the public – particularly when the system is supposed to treat each litigant similarly.

 

According to an ABC-Associate Press article, the process used to afford Judge Saad this opportunity was a “Plea By Mail.” A plea by mail is a process by which an accused can enter a plea as charged to the charged offense by mail/by document and document alone. A plea by mail involves the accused filling out a piece of paper indicating that is in fact pleading guilty by his very signature. Some judge’s and courts don’t accept pleas by mail. Some do. While it is possible that Judge Saad and the Romulus Court used a plea by mail process to accept and enter his plea, thus sparing him from having to stand in court and say ‘I’m guilty,” much more transpired that a plea by mail form cannot and does not include. In my opinion, this is where the attempt classify this as a plea by mail fails and more disturbing questions arise.

 

The Plea By Mail

 

The plea by mail form includes only a section for the payment of fines and a place to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Here is the backside of the form:

 

 

 

The form contains no section for any of the following:

the position of the prosecutor;

the imposition of any probation;

any decision by the court as to what an appropriate sentence would be if more than just fines;

any section for the court’s reasoning in handing down the ruling, order or opinion on the outcome; and,

any place for the complainant or complaining witness, if any, to participate.

 

These matters are to be addressed in open court at which each side is given an opportunity to make its argument to the judge about an appropriate sentence and outcome beyond mere fines, for the court to offer on the record its opinion, order and ruling and for the public to be able to participate by watching and witnessing the proceedings. None of these can occur via the simple plea by mail form.

 

Orders Should Be Recorded And Transcribed

 

Because the general public has an interest in being to understand the rulings of a judge, Michigan Court Rule requires that those rulings be placed “on the record.” MCR 8.108(B)(1)(f) requires that opinions and orders of the court be put on the record and transcribed by a court reporter. In the case of Judge Saad, while he may have signed an Plea By Mail form, he was sentenced to more than just fines — he received a favorable disposition pursuant to MCL 771.1, or something similar in the form of an under advisement plea. This means that the judge decided and then ordered that Judge Saad would be on probation for 90 days and that the trial judge reasoned and ordered that at the conclusion of the probation, the conviction would be set aside and dismissed if Judge Saad complied. Pursuant to MCR 8.108(B)(1)(f), these rulings and orders should have been on the record. There does not appear to be any formal record made of these orders and opinions. There would be in a the case of the average citizen, in my opinion.

 

According to media accounts (ABC News Story) this was handled in the judge’s chambers and not in open court. From the accounts received so far, there does not appear to have been a court reporter present although the news accounts could be wrong or simply incomplete. If so, an a court reporter trudged into chambers with a transcription device and transcribed the proceedings in chambers, that could alleviate any violation of MCR 8.108(B)(1)(f). However, if that is the case, that opens up a new set of problems — one that the public relations director of the Michigan Supreme Court revealed to me in a phone call today that he was all too familiar with — the need for proceedings to take place in open court.

 

Public Proceedings

 

According to MCR 8.116, all proceedings must be open to the public. The trial judge in her public comments after the proceeding seemed to be offering reasons for her decision to hold the hearing in private — “death threats” and the clamoring interest of the media created security issues. Without even looking into matters, I’m pretty confident saying that Judge Saad was not in danger of being killed in open court (the courthouse has extensive security and many court officers) and I doubt that any of the media were going to stampede over to Judge Saad exposing him to harm while he stood in open court. I’m sorry but but being faithful to common sense and reason, these reasons just don’t hold up. Judge Saad was not in danger in the courthouse nor were the reporters a threat to him physically. Sure, they were a threat to expose him and record his every move, word and statement. Sure, they were certainly going to capture every word of the judge including her ruling and subject it to public scrutiny. Beyond that however, they posed no harm nor threat.

 

Rule 8.116 Sessions of Court

 

(D) Access to Court Proceedings.

(1) Except as otherwise provided by statute or court rule, a court may not limit access by the public to a court proceeding unless

(a) a party has filed a written motion that identifies the specific interest to be protected, or the court sua sponte has identified a specific interest to be protected, and the court determines that the interest outweighs the right of access;

(b) the denial of access is narrowly tailored to accommodate the interest to be protected, and there is no less restrictive means to adequately and effectively protect the interest; and

© the court states on the record the specific reasons for the decision to limit access to the proceeding.

 

None of these things occurred from what I can tell. The proceedings were most assuredly not in public and the public was limited access to the proceedings without any of the reasons identified in the rule being applicable. In fact, subrule (b) reveals that even if there was a reason to limit access, access could only narrowly limited to accomplish the objective. In other media cases, this is accomplished with a pool reporter, a pool cameraman and a pool video camera. This means that one reporter, photographer and cameraman record the proceedings for everyone and everyone gets to use the feed, images, sound, etc. In Judge Saad’s case, from what I can tell, there were no media representatives in court at all. It appears that MCR 8.116 was violated.

 

An Opportunity Missed – A Lack Of Transparency

 

Unfortunately, the legal system missed an important opportunity to be transparent and to apply its principles to all equally, whether a judge, jurist, journeyman, judo instructor or someone who is jobless. Transparency would have assured all that Judge Saad was not being treated separately and specially. Transparency would have have shown all that the system works for the judge and the judged. Transparency would have afforded us an opportunity to be proud of the process and the system — to say it worked the same as it would have had the accused not been a dignitary. We missed that opportunity today. We got the opposite of transparency — we got a process that raised more questions than provided answers. Sadly, two judges, the presiding and Judge Saad could have put a stop to it and didn’t.

 

Neil Rockind

[medmanmike]

Neil, what recourse do we, " the people" have in a case like this? Is this just an "oh, well", and life goes on?

 

If a violation of MCR 8.116 did occur, would the supervisor of the presiding judge be required to investigate this? Is there anyway to challenge this?

[phaquetoo]

Neil, what recourse do we, " the people" have in a case like this? Is this just an "oh, well", and life goes on?

 

If a violation of MCR 8.116 did occur, would the supervisor of the presiding judge be required to investigate this? Is there anyway to challenge this?

when they sentence him in the judges office he will probably get a spanking and than on his way!

 

Peace

[Restorium2]

I would just love to look the judge in the eye and tell him; Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Guilty as charged. 3 months community service as a public defender.

[t-pain]

Neil, what recourse do we, " the people" have in a case like this? Is this just an "oh, well", and life goes on?

 

If a violation of MCR 8.116 did occur, would the supervisor of the presiding judge be required to investigate this? Is there anyway to challenge this?

file a complaint with the jtc

http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/

[Wild Bill]

when they sentence him in the judges office he will probably get a spanking and than on his way!

 

Peace

 

They probably shared a drink and a good laugh.

[trichcycler]

...at the gun range, by the airport

[Kingpinn]

This Guy is a real piece of work. He's the one that the Michigan Supreme Court had to slap down in my 5 year ordeal.Real piece of work

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Ignorance of the law IS a defense... for some.

[Highlander]

This Guy is a real piece of work. He's the one that the Michigan Supreme Court had to slap down in my 5 year ordeal.Real piece of work

 

Larry, I'm sorry you got jacked by a system that none of us could control.  You got F-ed from day one.  I'm glad to see you are still posting here after getting f'ed by the system.

 

I showed-up for your first court appearance in Corunna in 2009 along with Matt Able, Peanut butter, Taj Majhal, victor vicious, and a couple of other guys.  After the miserable district court ruling, we (those in attendance) had lunch together in Corunna, and I paid for a couple of bills for those in attendance.  Not much, but I tried to give at least something.

 

I guess I was a bit naive at the time.  I was looking for the district court judge to give a smack-down to the cops involved.  But the district court judge bound the case over to the circuit court, saying "this is the stuff trials are made of."   

 

I remember the arrogant cop showing-up to court in a t-shirt, blue jeans, and tennis shoes.  He said something stupid like "we found a hydroponic system with dead plants.  I guess that didn't work out for him."  My guess was that it was a cloner with some struggling cuttings.  There was also some discussion about an UN-locked door to the house. 

 

I also recall that the cop who testified at the DC hearing said that Larry King said that he wanted to grow a huge amount of weed so he could sell it and then buy another house with the profits.  What a farce!!

 

The circuit court ruled that Larry King was his own security system, with cameras installed to monitor the dog-kennel grow.  It should have ended there.

 

But Randy Colbry, the Shiawasse County prosecuting atty, appealed the case.  Months later, Randy got arrested for DWI after causing a traffic accident when he was DRUNK.

[phaquetoo]

Do as I say not as I do!

 

Peace