Allegation 2: Provided Legal Advice

On 6/16/25 Judge Longsworth held the following bench conference discussion:

Mr. Literski is my counsel. Ms. Pearson is counsel for the defendant. “The Court” is Judge Susan Longsworth.

The conversation is with regards to a forensic interview of my kids.

You’ll note that Judge Longsworth brings up the Fifth Amendment. At no time did either lawyer bring that up. In fact, when Judge Longsworth brings it up, Tara Pearson communicates that the defendant will likely just say that he has no idea what the forensic interviews are about. It sounded like she was making it known that she had a strategy for her client already, which did not involve him invoking his Fifth Amendment right.

However, Judge Longsworth does not leave it alone, and she insists that the defendant “has to invoke his Fifth Amendment on each question. (line 24)” It sounds awfully suspicious, as if Judge Longsworth knows the investigation centers on the defendant, although no one has confirmed that. Common sense dictates it does, and she knows it. This is highly relevant as later this day she changes to joint custody and awards the defendant overnight parenting time outside the country, without so much as a request for any of those things. She can’t really deny knowing she did this while there was a criminal child abuse investigation when she herself is working to protect the defendant from it, can she???? We can’t have it both ways. Either she knew or she didn’t. These transcripts make it crystal clear that she did.

Instructing the defendant’s counsel that he has to invoke his Fifth Amendment goes beyond giving legal information, as no one asked her anything about the correct procedure for invoking the Fifth Amendment (which I assume both lawyers already knew). In fact, no one, other than herself, even mentioned the Fifth Amendment, and Ms. Pearson appears to rebuff the suggestion. Judge Longsworth brought it up, and it was shot down by the defendant’s counsel. Judge Longsworth then brought it up again, saying the defendant “has to…”.

I believe this constitutes giving strategic guidance to the defendant, and promoting a specific course of action. This violates MCL 700.1211. This is another example of Judge Longsworth’s utter lack of ethics and neutrality.

Why would Judge Longsworth give legal advice that could influence the outcome of a criminal investigation into child abuse? Is she capable of at least impersonating an actual unbiased judge rather than reverting to a criminal defense attorney seeking best outcomes for those with PPO’s, who have been accused of domestic violence? PPO, domestic violence allegations… it’s strange how that was my exact situation.

It is also interesting to note that at the end of this brief bench discussion, Tara Pearson said she wanted to get something on the record regarding a car (line 7). Judge Longsworth responds by suggesting they go speak in her chambers. That’s odd. Pearson says she wants to communicate something publicly, and Judge Longsworth says sounds good, let’s go have a private conversation? This makes no sense. But, very expensive transcripts don’t lie. That’s what happened.

Incidentally, the car was not mentioned when we reconvened. It makes one suspect that the car was not what was being discussed at all.

In fact, upon return to court, Judge Longsworth states that they had taken the time to discuss “some procedural matters is how I’d describe them”. Not the car. I’m not sure why a discussion of procedural matters needs to be off the record. That sounds suspicious yet again. Anyhow, she then looks to the lawyers to confirm that she is telling the truth. Ms. Pearson (no doubt happy with her treatment) agrees, but, according to the transcripts, Mr. Literski (my lawyer) has no comment. Interesting.

Yet, we move on.

Why not? It’s not as if anything important lay in the balance. It’s just my life and my kid’s lives, our rights to a fair hearing, and the potential child abuse that Judge Longsworth seems to not want to get to the bottom of. Plus, potential violations of law via a judge urging a particular legal strategy and then making an odd segue to justify a private conversation that was not requested, wherein she perhaps was discussing more legal strategy before pressuring lawyers to put on record that that’s not what she was doing. No big deal.

After all, it’s not as if she ultimately sent me to jail for no reason, took my kids, ordered them into a high-risk situation, in a disgusting display of bias and lack of ethics. Oh, wait, that’s right…. she did.