An attorney who was not at the meeting accused the elected county prosecutor of statements nobody present says were made, and threatened to sue over them. The prosecutor answered with the court rules, the libel statute, and a retraction demand of his own. Clutch Justice reviewed both documents in full.
On November 4, 2026, Allegan County attorney Thomas D. Siver emailed Prosecutor Michael Villar a “Demand for Retraction,” accusing Villar of making two statements at an Allegan County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting: that Siver had been the subject of eight attorney grievances in three years, and that Siver had made a crude remark comparing women’s anatomy to “roast beef.” Siver was not at the meeting. Villar says he never made either statement, accounts from people who were present do not support them, and neither allegation appears in the meeting minutes.
On November 9, Villar answered with a flat denial, the court rule governing what an attorney’s signature certifies, Michigan’s frivolous action statute, and a retraction demand of his own. Because Siver copied another attorney, Eric Delaporte, on the accusations, Villar demanded that Siver retract them by Monday, November 16, 2026, or face a libel action under MCL 600.2911 seeking punitive and exemplary damages. No court has found that either man committed libel or defamation.
What did Siver accuse Villar of saying?
Two things: that Villar told Allegan County Republican Party Executive Committee members Siver had been the subject of eight attorney grievances in three years, and that Villar attributed a crude remark comparing women’s anatomy to “roast beef” to Siver. Siver denied making the remark and demanded Villar retract both statements, with the retraction emailed to the committee, threatening legal action if he refused.
Was Siver at the meeting?
No. Siver did not attend the Executive Committee meeting his email describes. His demand relies on secondhand information, and it repeatedly uses the phrase “it is my understanding.”
Did anyone present hear either statement?
According to the accounts relayed to Clutch Justice by people who were at the meeting, no. Neither statement appears in the meeting minutes, and Villar has denied making either one in writing.
What did Villar demand, and by when?
Villar demanded that Siver retract the accusations to Eric Delaporte, who was copied on the November 4 email, and to any others, by Monday, November 16, 2026, and that Siver disclose who supplied him the allegations. If Siver does not retract, Villar wrote that he will proceed under the Michigan Libel Statute, MCL 600.2911, requesting punitive and exemplary damages.
Has a court found that anyone committed libel here?
No. No court has found that either man committed libel or defamation. Whether Siver’s demand created defamation exposure for Siver is an open legal question that Villar’s November 16 deadline now puts to the test.
What Siver Alleged
In all my time as a journalist, this may be the most crass, bizarre, and factually inaccurate demand for retraction I have ever encountered.
And of course, it came from Tom Siver.
On November 4, 2026, Siver sent Allegan County Prosecutor Michael Villar an email titled “Demand for Retraction,” accusing Villar of making statements during an Allegan County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting that supposedly resulted in Siver losing the committee’s endorsement.
What statements? Well, buckle up.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| From | Thomas D. Siver <tsiver@siverlaw.com> |
| Sent | Wednesday, November 4, 2026, 19:52:14 |
| To | Mike Villar <MVillar@allegancounty.org> |
| Cc | Eric@Delaportelynch.com |
| Subject | Siver & Associates, PLLC: Demand for Retraction |
Siver alleged that Villar told committee members he had been the subject of eight attorney grievances in three years. He also claimed Villar attributed an extraordinarily crude remark comparing women’s anatomy to “roast beef” to Siver.
Siver denied making the remark himself. In his email, he suggested it originated with a former employee who, according to Siver, had subsequently been reprimanded and separated from his law firm.
Staff in Siver’s office confirmed to Clutch Justice that Siver made the “roast beef” remark himself. According to staff, he said it after the story about his retraction demand broke, while he was showing a woman’s picture around the office.
So the remark Siver pins on a former employee is one his own staff say came out of his own mouth, after he had already put his denial in writing. What nobody says happened is Villar repeating it to the Executive Committee, and that is the part Siver built his demand on.
Then he demanded that Villar retract both statements, insisting the retraction be emailed to the Republican Executive Committee, and he threatened legal action if Villar refused.
There’s Just One Little Problem
None of it was said. Not by Prosecutor Villar. Not by anyone else at the meeting.
Not in the record. Neither allegation appears in the meeting minutes. Not heard by anyone present. According to the accounts I received from people who were at the meeting, nobody heard Villar or anyone else make either statement. Categorically denied. Villar has denied making either statement, in writing, in the strongest terms available to him. Siver was not there. Siver did not attend the meeting he wrote to Villar about.
And here is what makes this particularly ridiculous: Siver accused the elected county prosecutor of making statements without personal knowledge while relying on his own secondhand account of a meeting he did not attend.
Throughout his demand, Siver repeatedly used phrases such as “it is my understanding” while accusing Villar of fraud, falsehood, and defamation. He insisted that Villar email a retraction to the Republican Executive Committee and threatened litigation over the alleged damage to his reputation and political campaign. All over statements that Villar says he never made.
And rather than first establishing what actually happened, Siver put those accusations in writing and copied another attorney, Eric Delaporte, on the correspondence. That detail matters, and Villar’s response explains why.
Then Prosecutor Villar Responded
On November 9, 2026, Villar sent his response from 128 Hill Street, Allegan, Michigan, addressed to Thomas Siver at Siver & Associates, PLLC, under the heading “RE: Your Request for Retraction.” It is quite possibly one of my favorite pieces of legal correspondence I have encountered this year.
Villar denied making either statement, pointed out that Siver had not attended the meeting, and challenged the factual basis for the allegations. He did not stop at a denial. He opened with the rules that govern what an attorney certifies when he puts his name on a document, and the statute that defines a frivolous action in Michigan.
“I did not make, nor have I ever made, the statements that you have attributed to me.”
| Citation | What it says |
|---|---|
| MCR 2.114(D) and (E) | An attorney’s signature certifies that a document is well grounded in fact after reasonable inquiry and is not interposed for an improper purpose. A document signed in violation of the rule is sanctionable. |
| MCL 600.2591 | An action is frivolous when a party had no reasonable basis to believe the facts underlying the legal position were true, or the position was devoid of arguable legal merit. Fees and costs can follow. |
| MCL 600.2591(6) | A libel or slander action based on a communication involving public officials or public figures must be sustained by clear and convincing proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. |
| MCL 600.2911 | The Michigan libel statute Villar invoked for his own retraction demand, including punitive and exemplary damages. |
Villar Turned the Tables
Villar issued his own DEMAND FOR RETRACTION, asserting that Siver’s accusations were themselves false and defamatory. Because Siver had published those accusations to Eric Delaporte by copying him on the November 4 email, Villar demanded that Siver retract his statements to Delaporte and any others by Monday, November 16, 2026. If Siver does not, Villar wrote, he will proceed under the Michigan Libel Statute requesting punitive and exemplary damages.
Villar also demanded that Siver disclose the person or persons who informed him of the alleged statements, so that Villar may demand a retraction from them as well.
And as for Siver’s threatened lawsuit? Villar was not exactly intimidated.
“I am very willing to accept service on any lawsuit that you attempt to initiate. There is no need to hire a process server or waste money on certified mail. I will gladly sign for your complaint and any other litigation documents you wish to serve on me, because any lawsuit that you file will be sanctionable as frivolous.”
Now that is a response.
Court records, FOIA requests, research databases, document access, technology and hundreds of hours of investigation make this work possible. Clutch Confidential is how readers who value that work can help sustain it, and get more from Clutch in return.
$10/month →The Endorsement Excuse
Villar disputes the statements. He also disputes Siver’s entire explanation for losing.
Villar challenged Siver’s assertion that the alleged statements cost him the Republican endorsement or the election. According to Villar, the Executive Committee rescinded its endorsement by a 12 to 4 vote, and it did so following numerous publicly reported controversies involving Siver, including his own conduct and interactions with court personnel. The publications Villar was talking about are the ones that ran here, at Clutch Justice, clutchjustice.com.
According to Villar, those Clutch Justice publications showed Siver’s own inappropriate communications with past staff, Siver being escorted out of a Zoom meeting by officers, Siver being chastened by at least one judge, and Siver being removed from court-appointed public defender contracts for failures to appear, ineffectiveness, and other reasons.
The point he was making stands on its own: in Villar’s account, Siver’s political losses have an explanation that has nothing to do with statements Villar says he never made. In other words, Villar disputes not only the statements attributed to him but also Siver’s entire explanation for his political losses.
Siver demands a retraction
Siver emails Villar a “Demand for Retraction,” copies attorney Eric Delaporte, alleges two statements at an Allegan County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting Siver did not attend, and threatens legal action.
Villar answers, and counters
Villar denies both statements, cites MCR 2.114 and MCL 600.2591, and issues his own retraction demand under MCL 600.2911.
Villar’s deadline for Siver
The date by which Villar demands Siver retract his statements to Delaporte and others, and disclose who supplied the allegations, or face a libel action.
So Let’s Consider What Actually Happened Here
An attorney received secondhand information about a meeting he did not attend, accused an elected prosecutor of making inflammatory statements, and threatened litigation unless those statements were retracted.
The prosecutor denied making them and responded with a retraction demand of his own.
Leave it to Tom Siver to turn a demand for retraction into a potential defamation dispute about his own correspondence.
The irony is difficult to overstate, particularly coming from an attorney who should understand the importance of verifying allegations before threatening legal action.
I have reviewed both Siver’s November 4 email and Villar’s November 9 response, and the contrast between them is remarkable. One is built on “it is my understanding.” The other is built on court rules, statutes, and a flat denial. Both documents are published below, in full, so you can read them yourself.
The Evidence
The documents I reviewed. Read Siver’s demand and Villar’s response for yourself, in full, and compare them. Tap any page to enlarge it, and tap again to close.
Siver’s November 4 demand and Villar’s November 9 response, together in one file.
Download the PDF →It Was Not the First Letter
On the night of November 9, while Villar’s response was still landing, a reader sent Clutch Justice an older piece of Siver correspondence through the Clutch Intel Tip Portal.
It is a cease and desist letter on Siver & Associates letterhead, dated September 13, 2022, and it arrived by mail. The reader had stopped working with the firm. Afterward, a client reached out to the reader by text. The reader answered that they no longer worked there and that the client should contact Tom directly.
That reply is what earned the letter. According to the reader, it told them not to communicate with the firm’s clients, and in the same breath asked them to refer those clients to Siver’s office.
“Cease and desist states don’t communicate with clients, but please refer them to my office… which I’m not sure how I can do without communicating with them.”
Read that one more time. The offense was telling a client to call Tom. The remedy was a demand to stop doing it, paired with an instruction to keep doing it. Four years apart, the shape is familiar: a letter on firm letterhead, a threat built around something that did not happen the way the letter says, and a recipient left to sort out what is actually being demanded.
I Want to Hear From Anyone Else
One reader has already come forward. I want to hear from anyone else who has received this kind of correspondence from Tom Siver.
If you have received a demand for retraction, a cease-and-desist letter, a threat of litigation, or similar correspondence from Tom Siver or Siver & Associates, I encourage you to come forward.
I am interested in reviewing these communications to determine whether this incident is isolated or whether there is a broader pattern worth investigating.
You do not need to share your experience in the comments or identify yourself publicly. I am especially interested in the original correspondence, including emails, attachments, and any subsequent communications. I will evaluate the documents and allegations independently before making further reporting decisions.
Received this kind of correspondence from Tom Siver or Siver & Associates? Submit it privately through the Clutch Intel Tip Portal: https://intel.clutchjustice.com/tip
A Right That Comes with an Obligation
There is a legitimate place for demands for correction and retraction. People have a right to defend themselves against false statements, and attorneys have a responsibility to represent their clients’ interests.
But those rights come with an obligation to take the facts seriously, particularly when an attorney is threatening someone with litigation. A demand built on secondhand information, about a meeting the writer did not attend, accusing an elected official of statements that appear in no minutes and that no attendee recalls hearing, is not a defense against false statements. On Villar’s account, it is the source of one.
Whether it crosses the legal line is a question Villar has now formally raised, with a deadline attached. No court has decided it. It is an open question, and Siver’s own letter raised it.
And I would like to hear from the attorneys following Clutch Justice: at what point does an unsupported demand for retraction create potential defamation exposure for the person making the demand?
If you have had a similar experience with Siver, please reach out. And share this post, because someone else may have received a threatening letter and assumed they had no choice but to comply.
This article is based on two documents reviewed in full by Clutch Justice: Thomas D. Siver’s November 4, 2026 email to Michael Villar, and Villar’s November 9, 2026 written response. Both are published above as evidence figures. Staff in Siver’s office confirmed to Clutch Justice that Siver made the “roast beef” remark himself; they are not named. The account of the September 13, 2022 cease and desist letter comes from a reader who submitted it through the Clutch Intel Tip Portal and asked to remain anonymous. Siver’s allegations about the Executive Committee meeting are reported as his allegations; Villar denies them, and accounts from people present at the meeting, relayed to Clutch Justice, do not support them. Villar’s characterizations of prior published controversies involving Siver are attributed to Villar. The headline is the author’s characterization of the exchange. No court has found that either man committed libel or defamation, and whether Siver’s demand created defamation exposure for Siver is an open legal question that Villar’s November 16, 2026 deadline now puts to the test.
