Allegation 9:

Summary:

Summary:

On 7/18/2025, Judge Longsworth said, relative to the PPO violations, that the defendant’s “lurking” was not “concerning lurking”[1] and that there was never a threat of violence against me.

“At that time, the -- Mr. Sudds, for whatever reason, didn’t testify and the only information I had in making a finding that he violated the personal protection order, was the testimony that was offered by the petitioner without any explanation as to why he was lurking such that I phrased it and in my mind thought it to be concerning lurking. But when Mr. Sudds testified at trial, consistently with other evidence that I’ve received, he explained that the reason he was near the bus stop for the child or children on that day was because he hadn’t seen his kids since the divorce had been filed months prior, that he was not going to be able to communicate with his kids when summer arrived because the personal protection order barred him from contacting petitioner or going to the residence and he wanted to be able to have an, an interaction with his child or children on that day.”

“this court learned that there was never any physical violence that would support issuance of a personal protection order and there was not threats of physical violence that would support the issuance of a personal protection order. In fact, what there was, was what I’m going to call reactionary behavior as a result of a divorce filing primarily involving property.”

I, on the other hand, find it concerning that she downplays stalking and domestic violence by using subjective, dismissive terms like unconcerning “lurking” and “reactionary behavior…involving property”. And that she invents facts to support her preferred narrative.

She disregarded the role a very large knife and missing guns played in my decision to seek a PPO. She disregarded the defendant hiding in the dark in the neighbors backyard, lying in wait for me. She disregarded that the police urged me to get a PPO based on what they observed. She disregarded verbal threats made to me, telling me I should be scared. She disregarded the defendant sneaking into the home, turning off the lights and hiding from me and the kids[2].

She excused his behavior, in defiance of all facts, saying that he simply wanted to see his kids and that the PPO somehow prevented that. She is factually incorrect, the PPO never prevented him from seeing the kids nor from contacting me to discuss anything about them[3]. This fact had been previously discussed in court, and had been noted by FOC in their recommendation.[4]

The defendant testified in court to having voluntarily cut contact with the kids (voluntarily, upon the advice of his lawyer, who, conveniently had since withdrawn and was not there to dispute this), even going so far as to decline their phone calls[5].

The order granting me full custody did not go into effect until 6/25/2024, well after the “lurking” incident under discussion.

Prior to that order, he had absolute freedom to see the kids. Seeing the kids did not require him to park outside my home and monitor me or follow my boyfriend.

I was the target of the lurking. Wanting to see the kids was a sympathetic cover story. Judge Longsworth misstated several facts in her efforts to legitimize this cover story, even as an arraignment on stalking charges and a hearing for PPO violations were on the schedule. She prejudiced these hearings with her false statements and pre-determined judgements.

(The defendant’s arraignment was held on 7/25/2025 for Case 2025-25-1465-SM, with charges being listed in MICourt as of 5/15/2025. Judge Longsworth made these prejudicial statements on 7/18/2025, after the charges, and just prior to his arraignment.)

Prior to making these prejudicial statements, Judge Longsworth was aware of several criminal investigations against the defendant[6]. In fact, on 6/16/25, she advised on how the defendant should invoke his 5th amendment, being so concerned about the defendant’s rights (but not mine, never mine).

Judge Longsworth’s statements implying the innocence of the defendant were in violation of Michigan Judicial Code of Conduct Canon 3 A(7) as there were alleged PPO violations waiting to be heard, and a pending arraignment for criminal stalking.

[1] Exhibit 66: 7/18/25 Transcript, starting on page 22

[2] Exhibit 67: PPO Application

[3] Exhibit 34: PPO

[4] Exhibit 7: FIGC report and order

[5] Exhibit 2: 6/16/25 Transcripts. Page 62

[6] Exhibit 2: 6/16/25 Transcripts, page 7 and pages 17-18. There were other instances as well, of Longsworth being informed of criminal charges being in the works after disorderly conduct on 6/24/25.