A plastic surgeon out of Toledo, OH with an office in Taylor, MI has been indicted with illegally dispensing controlled substances, aggravated sexual abuse, and sex trafficking. He is accused of drugging multiple women, raping them and recording the acts on camera. He was arrested by the FBI and has been booked at the Lucas County Corrections Center. The doctor is licensed in both Michigan and Ohio and has three offices between both states. His case now goes before a federal grand jury as he has waived his preliminary hearing. He will remain in custody pending his appearance before the federal grand jury. He did not challenge his detention on this court date. stethoscope-1-1080174-m

Original Case Details

The original accusation against this doctor came from a woman who shared that she worked as a high-end escort and engaged in sexual activity for money with the doctor. This event allegedly took place at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Los Angeles back in September of 2016. She alleged that she first performed consensual oral sex on the doctor before dinner but would not allow it to be recorded. After the dinner, she believed she was drugged, raped and recorded without her consent. The woman left the hotel room in the morning and sought the help of a client who was an anesthesiologist who found that the woman tested positive for benzodiazepine in her urine. This drug is a type of tranquilizer. Other women have since made similar accusations against the doctor. The FBI obtained a search warrant and found five thumb drives that allegedly contained 5 different videos of the doctor engaging in sex acts with four different women, who were all unconscious. The FBI also seized large amounts of controlled substances from the doctor which included valium, fentanyl and morphine. The doctor had also received a shipment of ketamine two weeks prior to the first alleged incident. The Assistant United States Attorney handling this case stated in court that they believe they have found over 20 different victims recorded on different devices.

In the era of the “MeToo” Movement and with the fear of COVID-19 spreading, we see that charges of rape (CSC) are on the rise in the state of Michigan. There are several reasons for the upswing in these charges. Overzealous prosecutions, the nuance of delayed reporting, more victims come forward, and an array of other issues all played a vital role in the amount of CSC allegations. One point that has been overlooked is Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). hand-cuffs-300x199

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a type of behavior disorder. It is mostly diagnosed in childhood. Children with ODD are uncooperative, rebellious, and hostile toward peers, parents, teachers, and other authority figures. They are more troubling to others than they are to themselves. ODD is typically diagnosed around early elementary school ages and stops being diagnosed around adolescence. Kids who have ODD have a well-established pattern of behavior problems. Symptoms include:

• Being unusually angry and irritable

The University of Michigan-Dearborn Police Department is under fire for an alleged cover up involving the reporting of a sexual assault on campus recently. This allegation involves a student claiming that she was sexually assaulted by her instructor in his office in the science faculty building on the University of Michigan-Dearborn campus. It is alleged that the proper protocol was not followed in investigating this case by not taking the alleged victim’s statement and not interviewing the instructor under normal conditions where the police would be able to record the statement with both audio and video. It is not currently known how much the lawsuit is seeking in damages, but it is likely to be a large number. The possibility also remains that the instructor could still be criminally charged if the police and prosecutor’s office come up with enough evidence. Media coverage like this may change the prosecutor’s position on this case. iStock_000023802012_XXXLarge-2-300x200

Original Case Details

University of Michigan-Dearborn police officer William Ashford is the plaintiff in this case. He was suspended allegedly because he was trying to uncover the truth relating to a sexual assault case involving a teacher and student on campus. His lawsuit claims that “he exposed the fact that they intentionally refused to act on the incident and attempted to cover up this wrongdoing.” A University of Michigan-Dearborn student underwent a rape test kit at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Ypsilanti. She claimed that her instructor forced her to perform oral sex on him and subsequently raised her grade after she did as evidenced by an email that allegedly said “the next time you want to work on your grade, you know what we can do.” It is alleged in the suit that her grade was raised from a ‘D’ to a ‘B’ after the assault. It is also alleged that the instructor actually admitted to committing this act but was allowed to resign without any violations and now has found employment at another university.

Original Case Details

A Kalamazoo man was arrested on February 13, 2020 in connection with a bank robbery that occurred in Kalamazoo. The man allegedly went inside the downtown Kalamazoo Chase Bank unarmed and demanded money from a bank employee. He was given an amount of money by that employee and then took off. Surveillance footage was release by the police not long after the robbery. Detectives recognized the man from the footage and tracked him down to a residence and arrested him roughly 24 hours later. According to a federal complaint filed in U.S. District Court, the man admitted to robbing the bank and leaving with about $7,000 in cash. He also told the officer than he had already spent approximately $2,000 at a local strip club. He is facing a maximum prison sentence of up to 20 years and/or up to a $250,000 fine. Michigan-High-Court-Considers-the-Term-“Possession-of-Child-Pornography”-Pic-225x300

Where Is The Child Pornography Connection?

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Cleland issued a decision that invalidates parts of the Michigan Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA). His ruling has stated that parts of SORA are actually unconstitutional and must be rewritten. This ruling affects some 44,000 people that are currently on the registry. This is a fight that has been raging on since the same Judge making a similar ruling back in 2015. The state legislature has been pushed to rewrite SORA legislation so it can fall back under constitutional rules, but as of this writing they have not done so. iStock_000000341623_Large-2-300x200

What Parts Were Declared Unconstitutional?

Most of the issues relating to SORA have to do with the residency exclusions that people on the registry face. These restrictions are overbroad and vague. Other areas that have been ruled unconstitutional deal with requirements related to registration, restrictions on loitering, and reporting and registration requirements. The judge stated that the court recognizes that his ruling will “fracture” the existing structure of SORA. One of the biggest claims against SORA is that many of the requirements in SORA have been changed and retroactively applied to everyone on the registry after the fact, in effect further punishing those who have already been punished for their crimes.

What Is Human Trafficking?

Human trafficking as defined by the Michigan Human Trafficking Task Force is a form of modern-day slavery. It is the containment and forcing of different types of labor of both adults and children. Women that are victims of human trafficking are often forced to work in sex trades like prostitution or strip club work, while men are more forced into jobs involving physical labor. It is a real problem where awareness has recently grown. This awareness has led to more arrests and a stronger dedication towards the goal of eradicating human trafficking. The statistics regarding human trafficking in the state of Michigan are both eye opening and tragic. sad-silhouette-1080946-m

Human Trafficking Statistics

An Oakland County Circuit Court Judge has awarded a judgement of $100,000 to a plaintiff who claimed her ex-boyfriend falsely told her that he secretly recorded sexually explicit videos of her and posted them online. It was never proven that the videos were ever posted, and the Court specifically reasoned that it didn’t matter if the sexually explicit videos were posted or not. It was the threat of posting the videos that resulted in this judgement. In 2014, the state of Michigan enacted what is commonly known as the “Revenge Porn” statute. Revenge porn, also known by its more legalese term, “non-consensual pornography,” generally outlaws people sharing sexually explicit images or videos without the consent of the subject in the images or videos. What is evident here is that the false threat of sharing these types of images or videos can lead to a criminal conviction under the statute and can cost you a boatload of money. Michigan-High-Court-Considers-the-Term-“Possession-of-Child-Pornography”-Pic-225x300

Case History

Back in April of 2018, the defendant in this case allegedly sent text messages to the plaintiff, his ex-girlfriend, telling her that he secretly recorded sexually explicit videos of her and shared them online. He claimed that he took these videos of them having sex while they were together, and he shared the videos online on a pornography website without ever seeking consent. The defendant also told her that the video went viral, being watched hundreds of thousands of times, even being viewed by her co-workers and friends. The plaintiff in this case then sought a personal protection order from the defendant, and ultimately moved out of state in an effort to get away from all of potential social consequences of what had allegedly been posted online. The plaintiff in this case stated that due to the information that this video was posted online she suffered from severe mental anguish, was at one point bed ridden, and also sought professional help in the form of therapy. What makes this case different from others, however, is that no sexually explicit material had ever actually been posted. The plaintiff’s attorney found during his investigation online doing reverse google image searches that the defendant never actually posted anything as he claimed. What they learned was that the defendant simply lied about it in order to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress, and he succeeded. This discovery obviously led to a change in the legal approach and strategy that the plaintiff’s attorney took. The plaintiff’s attorney then sought to have the legal theory changed to that of an intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defense’s simple argument was that the plaintiff didn’t experience enough emotional distress to rise to the level needed to win a money judgement. The defense then filed a motion for summary judgement asking for a dismissal of the case stating that there was not enough evidence for the case to continue forward to a trial. The Oakland County Circuit Court Judge disagreed, stating that there was an issue of fact that a jury should hear to determine if money damages should be awarded. The defendant’s attorney claimed that shortly after that, he started to lose contact with his client, and ultimately, in November of 2019 which was one week before trial, the defendant’s attorney was allowed to withdraw as counsel because he had allegedly lost contact with his client. When the trial date came and neither the defendant, nor an attorney showed up to defend the case and conduct a trial and default judgement in the amount of $100,000 was entered against the defendant.

What Is The Michigan Sex Offender Registry?

In the state of Michigan, if you are convicted of a sex crime, then you are likely facing some repercussions involving the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. The Michigan Sex Offender Registry Act is a statute that prohibits a few things if you are convicted of a sex crime: cuffs-keys

• Offenders are not allowed to live, work, or even stand within 1,000 feet from a school

The State of North Carolina like Michigan has what’s called a satellite-based monitoring as part of their arm of punishment for repeat sex offenders and other specific offenders. This is essentially a GPS tether that someone must wear every day for the rest of their lives, even if they have completed probation or parole and are not otherwise being supervised by the state. As such, the government has essentially “tagged” someone and will always have their whereabouts available to law enforcement. This tagging becomes automatic in North Carolina once it’s shown that the violator is a repeat offender. iStock_000000341623_Large-2-300x200

How did we even get here?

This issue was made possible when the United States Supreme Court ruled that satellite-based monitoring systems like the one in North Carolina constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court described the system as attaching an ankle monitor to a person’s body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual’s movements. The court remanded the case and directed the lower court to determine whether the State of North Carolina’s satellite-based monitoring system was reasonable when viewed as a search subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Watching the news recently I saw that Michigan State University was fined $4.5 Million for failing to protect the victims in the Larry Nassar case and it got me thinking, I wonder what laws may be changed because of this? iStock_000011602905_Large-2-300x200

In June of 2019, the criminal case involving Larry Nassar prompted Michigan House Representatives to pass House Bill 4374. For those of you not familiar with the Larry Nassar case, Larry Nassar was a former sports doctor who was sentenced to a great deal of time in prison for numerous counts of criminal sexual conduct while working for Michigan State University and the United States Gymnastics team. Because of his actions while working for the university, House Bill 4374 was proposed and passed in the Michigan House of Representatives.

This bill amends Michigan Compiled Law (MCL 750.483a) to include “a person shall not use his or her professional position of authority over another person to prevent or attempt to prevent the person from reporting a crime listed in section 136b, 520b, 520c, 520d, 520e, or 520g, that is committed or attempted by another person.” By doing so the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by one year or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.

Contact Information