Lori Shemka

@lorishemka.bsky.social

279 Followers 579 Following

Curiosity, care, and courts. Accepting ownership is accountability. Endless excuses are the alternative.

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration and for emergency stay of eviction proceedings are GRANTED. We order that all eviction proceedings are STAYED pending further order of this Court. The application for leave to appeal the May 11, 2026 order of the Court of Appeals and the motion to waive requirements remain pending.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 8, 2025 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(I)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs in accordance with MCR 7.312(E), addressing whether the Calhoun Circuit Court properly scored Offense Variable (OV) 1 (use of a weapon) at 10 points when it concluded that the scalding water that touched the victim was a “weapon.” See MCL 777.31(1)(d). The Clerk of the Court shall place this case on the April 2026 session calendar for argument. The appellant’s brief and appendix must be filed no later than February 17, 2026, and the appellee’s brief and a separate appendix (if any) must be filed no later than March 3, 2026. The appellant may file a reply brief no later than March 17, 2026. Motions to extend the time for the filing of briefs will not be considered.
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT March 2026 Session Calendar Notice of Cases to be Argued 168335-9 Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians v MPSC 2 168346 For the Love of Water v MPSC 3
ORDER DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. "The integrity of judicial proceedings depends upon the ethical obligations of candor and honesty being strictly observed by all parties." Liteky_v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 [114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 4741(1994) (Scalia, J., concurring).!1] Two things: (1) The above statement is absolutely correct. (2) the great Justice Antonin Scalia did not write this anywhere in his Opinion of the Court (not concurring) in Liteky. A quick review of the U.S. Reports confirms that. But ChatGPT, with the slick, cool authority of instantly-generated pixels on a screen, declares otherwise. Artificial intelligence, indeed. The proliferation and availability of artificial intelligence ("Al") tools presents a challenge to the legal profession. Lawyers have duties both to their clients and to the courts to present accurate facts
The trial court instructed the court clerk to place that arraignment and Bennett’s three pending cases on the docket for that day, but was unsure of the date. The court clerk advised the date was June 13, 2024. The following occurred on the record: The Court: June 13, okay, I’ll see everyone then, thank you. The Clerk: Thank you. [Appellant]: Judge - - thank you. F****** c***. (Court in recess at 10:21 a.m.) On June 5, 2024, the trial court issued an order to show cause, which read: This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s own motion. The Court finds that [appellant - Marshall S. Tauber (P34547)] directed obscene language to the Court thereby engaging in a willful disregard of the authority of the Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that [appellant] is to appear on WEDNESDAY, June 12, 2024, at 1:30 PM at Oakland County Sixth Circuit Court, 1200 North Telegraph Road, Pontiac Michigan 48341 – Courtroom 1B, to show cause why he should not be found in direct criminal contempt of court for his conduct pursuant to MCL 600.1701(a). An arraignment on the charge and/or pretrial may be conducted in lieu of the hearing. Failure to appear for a contempt hearing may result in a bench warrant being issued for arrest.
By order of April 4, 2025, the plaintiff was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2024 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(I)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs in accordance with MCR 7.312(E) and shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv)’s provision that a trial court may impose “the expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant” violates Const 1963, art 8, § 9; (2) whether attorney fees can be assessed against an indigent criminal defendant, see the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act, MCL 780.981 et seq.; (3) if so, whether the trial court must first hold an evidentiary hearing to assess the fee in light of the defendant’s ability to pay, see Const 1963, art 1, § 16; US Const, art VIII; and (4) whether the trial court in this case made adequate factual findings to support the fees imposed, see People v Lewis, 503 Mich 162, 163, 168 (2018). The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case who are not exempt from the motion requirement under MCR 7.312(H) may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
During a panel discussion, Judge Edith Jones held up a manila folder that she claimed was full of blog posts, tweets, amicus briefs, and other writings of Steve Vladeck that she took issue with.
Administrative Order No. 2025-2 – Appellate Courts and Court of Claims Operations During Government Shutdown Until further order of the Court, if a government shutdown occurs, filing deadlines in the Michigan Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Claims will be extended by the same number of days as the government is shut down. For purposes of this order, “filing deadlines” in the Court of Claims do not include statutory deadlines for filing a notice of intent or a complaint. The extension of filing deadlines applies to any document required to be filed with the court in order to preserve or facilitate a case or an appeal. If the government shutdown ends before the business day begins, that business day is not considered a shutdown day. The business day in these courts is Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Highlighted excerpts from court opinion: Defendant’s texts largely pertained to his employment, housing, a probation monitoring fee, suspected criminal activity that he witnessed, and someone posting information about him on social media. the communications in question did not contain inappropriate or disturbing language, arise in the aftermath of domestic violence, violate a PPO, or follow a lengthy period of harassment. none of defendant’s messages were threatening. defendant’s text messages were all sent to Myers’s work-issued cell phone, he did not physically approach or follow her, and he did not contact her on a personal device or over social media. Nor do we think that the sheer number, frequency, and length of defendant’s messages would cause a reasonable person in Myers’s position “significant mental suffering or distress” under MCL 750.411i(1)(c). Although defendant did send Myers a large number of lengthy text messages, under the circumstances we are unpersuaded that this is sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction. all of the texts defendant sent to Myers were related to her supervision of defendant and lasted only a few days, from April 22 until April 26. On April 26, Myers met with Chitwood, it was decided that Myers would block defendant’s number and defendant’s supervision would be transferred to another probation agent, and the contacts ended at that time.
Separately, terms like “monkey butt” refer to a common condition among athletes—especially cyclists and runners—describing skin chafing, redness, or rash on the buttocks caused by sweat and friction during prolonged activity. This non-offensive meaning is entirely unrelated to the derogatory usage.
The concurrence cites a ChatGPT inquiry asking, “What does monkey ass mean?” Conc. op. at 22. ChatGPT functions as a consolidator of information, synthesizing patterns from a vast body of text, but it does not independently verify the accuracy of any material or its unknown sources. The information provided in the concurrence’s permalink to Urban Dictionary speaks for itself.
Case in point, Prill recalled, was a motion filed challenging the search of an individual who had a foil package in his pocket. The belief of the officer who searched the individual, locating the foil package, brought the officer to one conclusion: possession of a controlled substance. "While I made that argument based upon the testimony of the police officer, I recall Judge Kraus taking a Life Savers candy from the foil container it was in while I was making my argument," Prill said. "What a lesson both I and the officer learned.”
Sept 18 (Reuters) - Meta Platforms' (META.O) C former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg said in a court filing C that she should not be forced to testify at a trial next month in San Francisco, where a group of advertisers is seeking billions of dollars in damages from the tech giant. Sandberg asked U.S. District Judge James Donato on Wednesday to quash a trial subpoena from the plaintiffs, arguing that she doesn't have unique and relevant knowledge to the claims in the class action.
Excerpt from a federal court memorandum and order. "Here are some examples of the abstruse (but important) questions that the . . . "
For example, recent assessments of law students - who have grown up as digital natives - have found that only around 1/3 of law students can perform the following tasks in Microsoft Word: • Accept/Turn-off track changes. • Cut & Paste. • Replace text. Format font and paragraph. Fix footers. Insert hyperlink. • Apply/Modify style. Insert/Update cross-references. • Insert page break. • Insert non-breaking space. • Clean document properties. • Create comparison document (i.e., a redline).51 A study that looked at attorneys and their staff found similar technological deficiencies. 52 For example, while greater than 85% of lawyers and staff are able to convert an item to a PDF file, only 4% can perform that task successfully when asked to create a PDF file that maintains active hyperlinks and converts internal headings into bookmarks.53 50 Casey Flaherty, Developing Technological Competency as a Lawyer, 96 Mich. B.J. 70 (June 2017). 51 Darth Vaughn & Casey Flaherty, Tech comes naturally to 'digital native' millennials? That's myth. ABA Journal (October 13, 2016) https://www.abajournal.com/legalrebels/article/tech_comes_naturally_to_digital_native_mi lennials_thats_a_myth. 5 Flaherty, supra note 44. 53 Id. at 72 (noting other disappointing statistics, including the fact that only 25% of lawyers and staff can correct agreement numbering within a reasonable timeframe and only
Order from Google Scholar "plaintiff's counsel is hot . . ."
Missed catching a baseball.
If modern tools such as AI are going to be brought into the practice of law, the attorneys and pro se litigants who use it must do so with more than a modicum of caution or else they may fall into the trap of relying exclusively upon technology and not the skill, carefulness, and creativity which have always been hallmarks of competent lawyering.4 There can be no substitute for actually reading, analyzing, and distinguishing cases in fulfilling one’s obligation as a litigant to ensure that the pleadings that are filed assert “claims, defenses, and other legal contentions [that] are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Fn 4: 4 See, for example, Omer F. Ahmed, Endoscopist deskilling: an unintended consequence of AI-assisted colonoscopy, Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology (forthcoming in print, published online Aug. 12, 2025), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(25)00164-5/abstract, suggesting that continuous use of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe or AI) might impair endoscopic performance in non-AI assisted colonoscopies. The study revealed that specialists who used CADe experienced deskilling, potentially affecting patient-related outcomes as their detection rate for polyps declined significantly in just a short amount of time after using AI. By comparison, there is no AI equivalent for when an attorney or pro se party may be required to stand up in open court and advocate or defend an argument based on cases he or she has presumably researched and read. The human element is still essential. And an attorney’s duty to know his or her arguments and the cases, rules, and statutes relied upon remains at the heart of the practice of law, no matter what technology is used to advance a client’s case.
Turtle in someone’s lawn with its head peeking out of its shell.
A full-page legal exhibit divider titled: Exhibit A (Emphasis Added)
126 Jul 23, 2025 TEXT ORDER - The Court is in receipt of Defendants counsel's letter dated July 22, 2025. (ECF No. 123 .) On June 30, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order. (ECF Nos. 114, 115 .) That Opinion and Order were entered in error. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to remove the Opinion and Order at ECF Nos. 114 and 115 from the docket. A subsequent Opinion and Order will follow. So Ordered by Judge Julien Xavier Neals on 7/23/2025. (kd) (Entered: 07/23/2025) Main Doc­ument 125 Jul 23, 2025 TEXT ORDER: The Court will hold a teleconference on 11/19/25 at 11 a.m. using the Webex platform. Parties are to use the teleconference dial-in: 855-244-8681 and Access Code: 23021816037. An attendee ID # is not needed. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 7/23/2025. (qa, ) (Entered: 07/23/2025) Main Doc­ument Jul 23, 2025 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor: Telephone Conference held on 7/23/2025. (qa, ) Jul 23, 2025 Text Order Jul 23, 2025 Telephone Conference 124 Jul 23, 2025 NOTICE of Appearance by ANDREW JOSHUA LICHTMAN on behalf of PAULO F. COSTA, JANET DILLIONE, GREG DUNCAN, ALAN W. DUNTON, MYRON KAPLAN, STEVEN LEFKOWITZ (LICHTMAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/23/2025) Main Doc­ument Notice of Appearance 123 Jul 22, 2025 Letter from Andrew Lichtman on behalf of the Defendants to the Honorable Julien X. Neals, U.S.D.J. re 114 Opinion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(LICHTMAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/22/2025) Main Doc­ument Letter
Additionally, unrelated to the merits of the termination of respondent’s parental rights, this court issued a rule to show cause against respondent’s attorney, William T. Panichi, as to why he should not be sanctioned for citing eight nonexistent cases in the briefs he filed on behalf of respondent. For the reasons articulated below, we find that Mr. Panichi violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and order that (1) Mr. Panichi disgorge the payment of $6,925.62 he received for his work on this appeal; (2) Mr. Panichi pay $1,000 as monetary sanctions to the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court; and (3) the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court send a copy of this opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
MDOT Final Notice: Enforcement Penalties Begin on July 17. Our records show that as of today, you still have an outstanding traffic ticket. In accordance with Michigan State Administrative Code 15C-16.003, If you do not complete payment by July 16, 2025, we will take the following actions: 1. Report to the DMV violation database 2. Suspend your vehicle registration starting July 17 3. Suspend driving privileges for 30 days 4. Transfer to a toll booth and charge a 35% service fee 5. You may be prosecuted and your credit score will be affected Pay Now:
Judge Matthews also denied Crumbley's request for bond, which she has done numerous times over the last three years, but offered no detailed explanation. Previously, the judge has cited Crumbley's actions in the days after the shooting as a reason for denying her bond. According to trial testimony, Jennifer Crumbley and her husband, James, were hiding out in an art studio in Detroit in the days after the shooting, and were not found until a massive manhunt tracked them down in the studio, which was located in a commercial building.
Court of Appeals June 23, 2025 order: The motion for bond pending appeal is DENIED.
This leads to what I see as two key vulner­a­bil­i­ties: Law itself. Above, I asked what anti­dote we have to the horde of bull­shit-gener­ating machines we’re putting in the hands of lawyers at basi­cally zero cost. Did you think of one? No? Then maybe you will join me in believing that LLM output, as it grows expo­nen­tially, will gum up the law in ways small and large, leaving behind toxic, untrust­worthy slop in the form of bull­shit-filled docu­ments. Not in elite prod­ucts like U.S. Supreme Court briefs, which will always be tended to by highly dili­gent humans. Rather, the slop will increase as you get closer to the courts of first resort, closer to the huge number of crim­inal, family, land­lord-tenant, juve­nile, and probate cases that affect the liberty and prop­erty rights of millions. In short, the costs of the slop will fall on those least able to bear it. Not for the first time. Legal prac­tice. Because they currently lose gargan­tuan sums, AI compa­nies will be selling hard to anyone who still makes money on writing. As I’ve noted else­where, the legal industry is the biggest publishing industry in the US. I expect that the tran­si­tion to AI within law offices will proceed as Hemingway described the descent into bank­ruptcy: grad­u­ally and then suddenly.
Finally, this Court turns to Mr. Kachouroff’s statement that “Doc. 283 represents a clear deviation from what my practice has been, and given the number of errors, it is just as reasonable to presume that the document could have been a mistake, especially when I commented during the hearing that this must have been a draft.” [Doc. 311-6 at ¶ 22]. But this assertion is belied by similar conduct before a different federal court. The Court takes judicial notice that, just seven days after this Court issued the Order to Show Cause, the same defense counsel team quietly filed two Notices of Errata9 regarding their briefing in Pelishek v. City of Sheboygan, No. 2:23-cv-01048-WED (E.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2025), ECF Nos. 160, 162. [Doc. 383-3; Doc. 383-4]. Those errata demonstrate the same type of errors in the filed Opposition, including citations to cases that do not exist. See Pelishek, ECF No. 125 at 9 (quoting Swetlik v. Crawford, 738 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2013) as discussing “falsified government records affecting taxpayer funds” when no such quote exists in the case); ECF No. 160 at 2 (correcting the Swetlik citation); ECF No. 143 at 23 (citing Bohannan v. Doe, 527 F. App’x 638, 744–45 (7th Cir. 2013),10 28–29 (citing Gomez v.
The overlapping errors between the “final” version of the Opposition, [Doc. ___-2], and the filed version, [Doc. 283], also undercut several of defense counsel’s representations.
Honestly don't know how to describe this screen shot image of the .pdf file's metadata. Apologies.
Defendants have not fully engaged with the multiple inaccuracies, legal errors, and improper authorities advanced in Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction reply. That relative silence should not be taken as accepting such inaccuracies. For example, several of Plaintiff’s cited authorities do not withstand scrutiny. Aside from the fact that Plaintiff largely relies on out-of-Circuit law and fails to grapple with the law that is binding here, Plaintiff also cites a decision that does not exist. See Pl. Opp’n (ECF No. 22) at 3 (purporting to cite a case called “Moms Against Poverty v. Dep’t of State, 2022 WL 17951329, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2022)”).2 Plaintiff similarly incorrectly asserts 2 Government counsel searched this Court’s PACER system and was unable to find any lawsuit filed in this district involving a party called “Moms Against Poverty.” Similarly, counsel searched the “All Federal” database on Westlaw for “Moms Against Poverty” and found no such
2. Use of Artificial Intelligence Before addressing the merits of Schoene’s motion, the Court notes that Schoene cited several cases in her reply brief to support her motion to amend, including Butler v. Oregon, 218 Or. App. 114 (2008), Curry v. Actavis, Inc., 2017 LEXIS 139126 (D. Or. Aug. 30, 2017), Estate of Riddell v. City of Portland, 194 Or. App. 227 (2004), Hampton v. City of Oregon City, 251 Or. App. 206 (2012), and State v. Burris, 107 Or. App. 542 (1991). These cases, however, do not exist. Schoene’s false citations appear to be hallmarks of an artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool, such as ChatGPT. It is now well known that AI tools “hallucinate” fake cases. See Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024) (noting, in February 2024, that the issue of fictitious cases being submitted to courts had gained “national attention”).6 In addition, the Court notes that a basic internet search seeking guidance on whether it is advisable to use AI tools to conduct legal research or draft legal briefs will explain that any legal authorities or legal analysis generated by AI needs to be verified. The Court cautions Schoene that she must verify the accuracy of any future citations she may include in briefing before this Court and other courts.
A joyful family gathers around a picnic table outdoors, celebrating as Uncle Bobby raises a glass to announce his engagement to Jamie. Plates of pie and glasses of lemonade sit on a checkered tablecloth, while loved ones smile, laugh, and embrace, sharing in the happy moment beneath a bright, sunny sky.
On order of the Court, the petition for injunction under MCR 9.108(E)(4) is considered, and it is GRANTED. We ORDER that Matthew E. Exton (P86072) is enjoined from practicing law in the State of Michigan until the felony charges pending against him have concluded. If the respondent is acquitted of all felony charges, this injunction shall automatically dissolve.
¶ 15 In addition, Gbolahan’s appellate brief mentions only two case decisions, both of which are incorrectly cited. The first, In re Marriage of Zells, cited at 138 Ill. 2d 437 (1990), is cited for the simple proposition that the trial court’s decision must be fair and reasonable. We note that the 5 correct citation for that case is 143 Ill. 2d 251 (1991) and that the decision does not assert the proposition for which it is cited. We were unable to locate the second case cited by Gbolahan, In re Marriage of Amland, 2015 IL App (1st) 142683. The brief reads as though Gbolahan conducted his legal research through ChatGPT rather through reliable resources like Westlaw or Lexis. ¶ 16 Regardless, we conclude that Gbolahan has failed to produce a sufficiently complete record to support his claim that the trial court erred in denying his request for a modification of child support payments. He did not provide this court with any income numbers showing a decreased ability to pay. He did not provide a report of proceedings, bystander’s report, or agreed statement of facts describing what occurred at the July 12 hearing, even though the trial court’s written order expressly relied on “the reasons stated of record” to support its finding that the change of circumstances was not involuntary. Without that record, we have no basis for reviewing either the factors the trial court believed to be important or the basis for any of its legal determinations. ¶ 17 Gbolahan’s failure to support his position with any valid legal authority or an adequate record violates Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), requiring the appellant to provide this court with “[a]rgument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on” and to refer to “the pages of the record on appeal where evidence may be found” (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 20206)). The failure to present legal support for a position o…
I have served as a judge for over 23 years. I have never had to write an order like this, and I never dreamed that I would have to do so. But, unfortunately, I do. Yesterday morning, I held a hearing on Defendant’s motion to stay. The hearing was uneventful and concluded around 12:45 p.m. Then, at 1:00 p.m., I had a criminal sentencing hearing in the same courtroom. That hearing too was uneventful—or so I thought. After the sentencing hearing, I was informed that the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) who was sitting in the chair in which Plaintiff sat during the morning hearing got gum on her skirt when she brushed her leg against the underside
Traffic sign for the new Gordie Howe International Bridge in Detroit, but the sign abbreviated International as “Intl” instead of “Int’l”
= ChatGPT > • Creative (and borderline) tactics While not Bluebook-sanctioned, the following passive-aggressive academic jabs show up in law review footnotes and may signal to an astute reader that a source is subpar: • "See generally [source] (providing an idiosyncratic view of...)" •"[Source] (noting, without support, that...)" •"[Source] (a controversial take, largely dismissed by later courts...)" These dance close to editorializing, so use judiciously-especially in formal publications.