A letter from JTC Executive Director Lynn Helland has returned all submitted materials to the complainant — the allegations, supporting evidence, and statements compiled across weeks of effort. The reason: the complaint did not include an original, notarized “Request for Investigation” form with an ink signature. Michigan Court Rules do require that a JTC complaint be made under oath. The specific implementation of that requirement — a notarized original, physically mailed — is a documented procedural barrier that resets the process to day zero. The complaint has been resubmitted. Clutch Justice is tracking the new submission in real time.
What Happened
After weeks of tracking the original complaint — through mailing, delivery to the post office, the documented failure to pick it up, and eventual processing — the complainant received a letter from JTC Executive Director Lynn Helland informing them that the Commission will not review the allegations until it receives an original, notarized “Request for Investigation” form with an ink signature.
Every substantive element of the complaint — the details of the alleged misconduct, the supporting evidence, the statements compiled and submitted — has been sent back. Until a properly notarized original form arrives, the JTC’s process does not begin. The judge being accused continues on the bench with no complaint on the Commission’s books.
The Red Tape That Protects Judges
Michigan Court Rules do require that a JTC complaint be submitted under oath. That legal requirement is not in dispute. What is in dispute — and what this experiment is designed to document — is whether the specific implementation of that requirement serves the stated purpose of ensuring sworn accuracy, or whether it functions primarily as a procedural filter that reduces the volume of complaints the Commission has to process by making the process difficult enough that some complainants give up.
Obtaining a notarized signature is not a trivial task for everyone. It requires identifying a notary public, traveling to their location during business hours, presenting identification, paying a fee, and physically signing the document in front of the notary — then physically mailing the original with an ink signature. For someone with a demanding work schedule, this means taking time off. For someone who is incarcerated, it may be functionally impossible without institutional cooperation that is not guaranteed. For someone with a mobility disability, transportation to a notary may be a significant obstacle. For someone in a rural area, the nearest notary may require a substantial trip. The requirement that documents be digitally signed and electronically tracked is standard across virtually every other government process in 2025. The JTC’s insistence on notarized physical originals is a policy choice, not a technological necessity.
The JTC complaint process — which already takes months to years to produce any outcome, and which has a documented 94% dismissal rate — now begins again from day one for this complainant. The judge against whom the complaint is filed has continued to exercise judicial authority throughout the original filing period. That judge will continue to do so throughout the resubmission period. There is no mechanism by which the judge is notified that a complaint has been attempted, rejected on procedural grounds, and resubmitted. The Commission’s process is invisible in both directions: invisible to the public and invisible to the subject. Only the complainant — and now, through Clutch Justice’s tracking — the public who follows this series can see what is happening and how long it is taking.
The Resubmission Is Tracked
The complainant has resubmitted the complaint with the required notarized “Request for Investigation” form. Clutch Justice is tracking the new submission in real time.
The resubmitted, notarized complaint can be tracked via USPS: Tracking Number 9589071052703106212169. Updates will be documented in subsequent installments of this series as the Commission’s response — or continued non-response — develops.
The system depends on people giving up. The documentation of what the process actually requires — not what the JTC’s website describes, but what happens in practice when someone attempts to use it — is what this series exists to produce. The experiment continues.
Rita Williams, Judicial Tenure Complaint Tracking: Back to Square One, Clutch Justice (July 2, 2025), https://clutchjustice.com/2025/07/02/judicial-tenure-complaint-tracking-back-to-square-one/.
Williams, R. (2025, July 2). Judicial Tenure Commission complaint tracking: Back to square one. Clutch Justice. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/07/02/judicial-tenure-complaint-tracking-back-to-square-one/
Williams, Rita. “Judicial Tenure Complaint Tracking: Back to Square One.” Clutch Justice, 2 July 2025, clutchjustice.com/2025/07/02/judicial-tenure-complaint-tracking-back-to-square-one/.
Williams, Rita. “Judicial Tenure Complaint Tracking: Back to Square One.” Clutch Justice, July 2, 2025. https://clutchjustice.com/2025/07/02/judicial-tenure-complaint-tracking-back-to-square-one/.
