Five years of investigation, continued willful misconduct, and a report deeming a judge “unsafe to practice”; that’s what it takes before the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) will act.
Because today, June 4, 2025, the JTC filed a formal, albeit improperly redacted complaint against Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig of the 52nd District Court in Troy, Michigan.
This complaint, designated as FC No. 109, outlines multiple allegations, two of which are of particular interest:
1. Refusal to Provide Psychological Evaluation Report
The JTC initiated an investigation into Judge Hartig’s misconduct, during which concerns about her mental health emerged. Consequently, on April 15, 2024, the Commission ordered her to undergo a psychological evaluation at All Points North, a facility chosen and paid for by the Commission.
APN’s website does not list a single Michigan location, meaning Judge Hartig had a pretty cush vacation on the taxpayer’s dime.
Judge Hartig underwent this evaluation in late May 2024. The resulting report, completed on June 6, 2024, was provided exclusively to her.
Despite multiple requests from the Commission between June and October 2024, Judge Hartig did not furnish the report. Instead, she sought extensions and ultimately objected to releasing it. It wasn’t provided until December 5, 2024; six months after the report’s completion.
The evaluation concluded that Judge Hartig was “unsafe to practice” due to disruptive behavior and personality dysfunction.
REPORTED HERE FIRST: Failed JTC Redaction States Hartig “Unsafe to Practice”
Clutch Justice was the first to break the contents of the report, as I discovered JTC failed to properly redact the document, allowing me to easily highlight the redaction, copy it, and paste the text.
Try it for for yourself below:
Dissecting JTC’s Footnote
The footnote for the JTC’s botched redaction states:
The blacked out portion of this paragraph is sealed at the request of respondent pending a determination by presiding authorities as to whether it should be kept sealed during the pendency of the proceedings.
The JTC failed to use destructive redaction on the report, allowing it to still be machine readable and available for copy and paste.
Many law firms and police departments use destructive redaction to prevent this type of situation from occurring.
The Commission asserts that her prolonged withholding of this report violated Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 9.220(D) and MCR 9.202(B)(1)(f), which mandate compliance with reasonable Commission demands.
2. False Statements to the Commission
In her December 5, 2024, response to the Commission’s October 28, 2024, letter, Judge Hartig lied, claiming the initial Request for Investigation was filed by Ms. Dana O’Neal, a whistleblower that Judge Hartig chose to identify as a “disgruntled” former employee.
However, the Commission confirmed that this statement was false, as Ms. O’Neal was not the complainant. This alleged misrepresentation is cited as a violation of MCR 9.104(1), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.
My Analysis
The entire report is equal parts fascinating and infuriating to me, as one of the JTC Staff investigators, Molly Kettler, was the investigator assigned to my own complaint against Barry County, Michigan Judge Michael Schipper, a man hands down guilty of the same behavior over multiple cases and years, such as:
- Canon 2(C), which provides, in pertinent part, that ‘[a] judge should not use the prestige of office to advance personal business interests or those of others. See this post, where he offered a defendant speaking engagement opportunities.
- Canon 3(A)(3), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to [those] with whom the judge deals in an official capacity”
- Canon 3(A)(14), which provides, in pertinent part, that “a judge should treat every person fairly, with courtesy and respect.”
- …And to say he also has a major personality dysfunction is being kind.
Kirsten has also been in office for roughly the same amount of time as Judge Schipper, and like him, as of today, is still working.
I have contacted both the Judicial Tenure Commission and the Oakland County District Court for comment on why a Judge deemed “unsafe to practice” over a year ago is allowed to have unchecked power over defendants. I have not and do not expect, to receive a response.
It also leaves me to wonder why Judges of their poor caliber are allowed to abuse defendants and staff for years on end before something is finally done about them.
As you may recall, JTC complaints are often private, leaving voters completely in the dark on what’s really happening in court rooms, and arguably, interfering in the ability to make informed voting decisions through an unnecessary shroud of secrecy.
The unsung heroes, like Dana O’Neal, are the people who really make these reports happen; who risk it all to do what’s right. She and others no doubt had to work tirelessly to get the JTC to act.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
The Court and JTC’s complete failure to act should be unacceptable.
We as taxpayers are paying JTC Staff salaries to protect citizens from bad judges and hold them accountable, not allow them to continue overseeing cases when they are deemed unfit to serve.
Implications and Next Steps
Judge Hartig was recently removed from handling felony cases due to allegations of mistreating staff and holding grudges against prosecutors. The JTC’s complaint follows on the heels of this action.
The proceedings will follow the protocols established by the Michigan Supreme Court, and could lead to disciplinary actions, including censure, suspension, or removal from office.
This case yet again highlights the lack of timely mechanisms available to uphold judicial integrity, leaving one to question whether the JTC is willing or even able to act.
As the process unfolds, this can go one of two ways: it will serve as a testament to the accountability measures embedded within Michigan’s judicial system.
Or, it will once again disappoint and fail Michigan voters seeking stronger oversight against unprofessional judges.
Because as we have discovered today, the JTC is not only useless, but they can’t even be trusted to properly redact documents.
Update, 11:53PM:
In a statement made to Todd Heywood of WLNS (several hours after Clutch Justice broke the story at 6:57 PM EST; WLNS has two very different timestamps), JTC Executive Director Lynn Helland blamed the botched redaction on a computer glitch, further saying the commission chose redaction to protect “sensitive medical information.” The statement is disingenuous at best and covers up for lack of action; there was no explicit medical information provided in the report.
WLNS also cited the exact source I used in an earlier article on Hartig’s removal from circuit court.
I have exactly one visit to that article yesterday.
Update, 6/5/2025:
The JTC has removed their formal complaint from their website, presumably to correct the redaction.
Read more here.
