Borrello Recuses from SLAPP Suit: What the Order Says and What Comes Next

What the Order Actually Says

The order is five pages. It addresses the disqualification motion I filed May 5, 2026, which argued that Borrello had personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts from the December 15, 2025 proceedings, had become a material witness to the circumstances surrounding the stipulated order entered that day, and had improperly pressured me into agreeing to that order.

Borrello denied each of those grounds. His reasoning: the December 15 proceedings occurred entirely on the record, in open court, and his knowledge of them derives from his judicial role presiding over the hearing, not from any extrajudicial source. The relevant events are, in his framing, objectively preserved in the official transcript. On that basis, he found no mandatory disqualification under MCR 2.003.

He also addressed the coercion argument directly, and at length. The order walks through the December 15 transcript: that I was given time to review the proposed order, that the court recessed specifically to allow that review, that I raised objections, and that I ultimately said on the record that I was “okay with” the stipulated order. His conclusion: the transcript does not reflect coercion, intimidation, or improper judicial conduct.

I have a significantly different read of what happened in that courtroom on December 15, considering I had a five-hour round trip and was under legal attack on multiple fronts. So, that read is preserved in my motion, my filings, and my pending emergency application for leave to appeal. The order does not resolve those disagreements. It only records one version of them.

The recusal itself comes in the order’s final section. Borrello acknowledges that I have made his conduct during the December proceedings “a continuing subject of collateral litigation and administrative complaint,” and that continued participation may increasingly focus the case on allegations about the court rather than the merits of the dispute between the parties. He concludes that reassignment is appropriate under the broader appearance and administration-of-justice principles in MCR 2.003(B) and (C)(1)(b)(ii), and that it will preserve the orderly flow of the case and maintain public confidence in future proceedings.

He is explicit that this is not mandatory disqualification. He characterizes it as a discretionary election, made for administrative and institutional reasons.

What Recusal Means for the Record

Recusal and disqualification produce the same immediate result: the judge leaves the case. What distinguishes them is what the record says about why.

Mandatory disqualification under MCR 2.003 means a court found a legal requirement to remove itself: actual bias, personal knowledge of disputed facts, a prior relationship with a party that creates a conflict, or conduct that violates the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. That finding becomes part of the appellate record and can be reviewed.

Voluntary recusal, by contrast, is a judge’s discretionary choice to step aside without a mandatory finding. It typically signals one of two things: the judge assessed that continued involvement would damage the case’s appearance of fairness, or the judge recognized that managing the collateral challenges to their own conduct had become a case management problem regardless of the merits of those challenges.

Borrello’s order reflects both. He declined to find mandatory bias. He did find that ongoing litigation about his conduct would distort the proceedings. His recusal is a management decision, documented as such.

For the public record, that distinction is not academic. A denial of the disqualification motion is now a permanent document in Case No. 25-2441-CZ. Whatever the successor judge does, whatever the appellate courts do, that denial is part of what this case produced. The recusal does not erase it. It sits beside it.

The UPEPA Motion and Why It Matters Now

Michigan’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws sections 691.1851 through 691.1863, took effect March 24, 2026. The legislature passed it 103 to 0 in the House and 36 to 0 in the Senate. Governor Whitmer signed it December 23, 2025.

The law’s core mechanism: once a defendant in a qualifying case files a UPEPA special motion, all proceedings between the parties, including discovery, are automatically stayed until the court rules on the motion. The burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Fee-shifting applies if the motion succeeds.

I filed a UPEPA special motion in this case. Borrello never ruled on it. He issued contempt proceedings, denied my emergency motion for injunctive relief, and signed show cause orders. The UPEPA motion sat.

The recusal changes that only in the sense that a different judge will now be the one to address it. It does not resolve it. The motion transfers with the case file, as do all pending matters. The successor judge will inherit it, the full record behind it, and the automatic stay mechanism the statute provides.

What Happens Next

Reassignment proceeds through normal Tenth Circuit Court procedures. Neither party controls the selection of the successor judge. Once assigned, the new judge will review the case file, receive the adjourned motions, and schedule proceedings as they see fit.

The first question the successor judge will face is the UPEPA motion. Its automatic stay provision is not contingent on the judge who receives it. The law’s mechanics apply from the moment of filing. What has been absent is a ruling. The successor will have to provide one.

The appellate track runs separately. My emergency application for leave to appeal was filed before Borrello’s recusal and remains pending. Appellate courts review on their own timelines. The recusal does not moot that application. Depending on what the appellate court does, it may affect the successor’s ability to proceed at the trial court level.

Trial is currently set for July 28, 2026. That date was set under Borrello. Whether it survives reassignment depends on the successor judge’s assessment of the case posture, the pending motions, and the appellate proceedings.

I can’t imagine that any Judge wants to be the one known as the one who excused facilitated stalking and harassment of a mother and her two children, so honestly, I am not sure what happens next. Whatever it is, I hope that everything comes out on the side of right, and that this doesn’t happen to anyone else. No one should be punished for legitimately protecting their children from stalking and exploitation. The court has a very long way to go when it comes to its due diligence, it seems.

I have been a pro se defendant in this case since November 3, 2025. I have filed motions, appeared at hearings, requested emergency intervention, and placed personal protection orders into the record the same day the court ruled against me. The judge who held all of that record has now stepped away. The record remains.