Former Michigan House Speaker and wife heading to trial on embezzlement charges
Former Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield and his wife were bound over for trial on embezzlement felonies and other criminal charges Friday, after an investigation by the Michigan Attorney General's Office found the pair funneled money from their political nonprofit to fund their personal purchases.
Ingham County Judge Molly Hennessey Greenwalt heard arguments from the defense for Lee and Stephanie Chatfield and the Michigan Attorney General's Office in February, determining this week that there was probable cause for the charges and the case should proceed to trial.
The Michigan Attorney General's Office contends that through investigatory efforts by authorities beginning in 2021, it was discovered that the Chatfields had for years used nonprofit money to reimburse themselves for purchases at souvenir shops at Universal Studios during a family trip, transactions at retail stores like Coach and expenses at a strip club, amongst other expenditures.
The Chatfields' attorney Mary Chartier has asserted that the charges brought against the former House Speaker, a prominent Republican in Michigan who raised millions of dollars while he was Speaker, are rooted in the political agenda for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat.
The investigation into Lee Chatfield began back in December 2021, when his sister-in-law, Rebekah Chatfield, reported to police in Lansing that he had sexually assaulted her for years, starting when she was 14 or 15 years old. Michigan State Police opened an investigation into the report, also looking into financial behavior, which was later taken over by Nessel's office which did not find sufficient evidence to pursue charges for criminal sexual conduct.
Lee Chatfield faces 13 felony counts of crimes related to conducting a criminal enterprise, conspiracy and embezzlement, while his wife faces two felony counts.
Nessel released a news statement Friday expressing gratitude that the efforts of her office led to the case moving forward to trial after a long investigation period and legal process.
'Our investigation uncovered extensive evidence of elaborate schemes to embezzle and misappropriate private and public funds to bankroll Lee Chatfield's lifestyle during his time as Speaker of the House,' Nessel said in the statement. 'My office will continue to pursue public corruption with every tool at our disposal and push for stronger transparency and good governance in our state.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
NEW YORK — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. He's also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom on Texas Republicans: ‘We're gonna punch these sons of b—-es in the mouth'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) took another swing at Texas Republicans amid the mid-decade redistricting battle, accusing them of 'cowering' to President Trump. 'Look at these Republicans, cowering to this guy,' Newsom said on Tuesday's episode of 'The Siren Podcast,' referring to Trump. 'Look at your Republican governor, used to claim to be a conservative. What a farce. Nothing conservative about this. I mean, by definition, nothing conservative about — this is radical rigging of a midterm election.' 'Radical rigging of an election, destroying, vandalizing this democracy, the rule of law,' Newsom continued in the comments, highlighted by Mediaite. 'So, I'm sorry, I know some people's sensibilities. I respect and appreciate that, but right now, with all due respect, we're walking down a damn different path.' He added, 'We're fighting fire with fire, and we're gonna punch these sons of b—-es in the mouth.' On Wednesday, the Texas state House passed a proposal to update the state's congressional lines, which could give Republicans an opportunity to nab up to five more House seats. The state Senate is set to take up the measure Thursday. Democrats across the county have criticized the move, accusing Texas Republicans of attempting to give the GOP an unfair advantage ahead of next year's midterm elections. 'Tonight, Texas Republicans delivered Donald Trump the rigged map he demanded,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said in the wake of the measure passing. 'Trump, Greg Abbott and their allies know they can't win on their record of stripping health care, tanking the economy and making families pay more with less.' 'This is a last gasp of a desperate party clinging to power,' she added.
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Students face new cellphone restrictions in 17 states as school year begins
Both Democrats and Republicans have taken up the cause, reflecting a growing consensus that phones are bad for kids' mental health and take their focus away from learning, even as some researchers say the issue is less clear-cut. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Anytime you have a bill that's passed in California and Florida, you know you're probably onto something that's pretty popular,' Georgia state Rep. Scott Hilton, a Republican, told a forum on cellphone use last week in Atlanta. Advertisement Phones are banned throughout the school day in 18 of the states and the District of Columbia, although Georgia and Florida impose such 'bell-to-bell' bans only from kindergarten through eighth grade. Another seven states ban them during class time, but not between classes or during lunch. Still others, particularly those with traditions of local school control, mandate only a cellphone policy, believing districts will take the hint and sharply restrict phone access. Advertisement Students see pros and cons For students, the rules add new school-day rituals, like putting phones in magnetic pouches or special lockers. Students have been locking up their phones during class at McNair High School in suburban Atlanta since last year. Audreanna Johnson, a junior, said 'most of them did not want to turn in their phones' at first, because students would use them to gossip, texting 'their other friends in other classes to see what's the tea and what's going on around the building.' That resentment is 'starting to ease down' now, she said. 'More students are willing to give up their phones and not get distracted.' But there are drawbacks — like not being able to listen to music when working independently in class. 'I'm kind of 50-50 on the situation because me, I use headphones to do my schoolwork. I listen to music to help focus,' she said. Some parents want constant contact In a survey of 125 Georgia school districts by Emory University researchers, parental resistance was cited as the top obstacle to regulating student use of social and digital media. Johnson's mother, Audrena Johnson, said she worries most about knowing her children are safe from violence at school. School messages about threats can be delayed and incomplete, she said, like when someone who wasn't a McNair student got into a fight on school property, which she learned about when her daughter texted her during the school day. 'My child having her phone is very important to me, because if something were to happen, I know instantly,' Johnson said. Many parents echo this — generally supporting restrictions but wanting a say in the policymaking and better communication, particularly about safety — and they have a real need to coordinate schedules with their children and to know about any problems their children may encounter, said Jason Allen, the national director of partnerships for the National Parents Union. Advertisement 'We just changed the cellphone policy, but aren't meeting the parents' needs in regards to safety and really training teachers to work with students on social emotional development,' Allen said. Research remains in an early stage Some researchers say it's not yet clear what types of social media may cause harm, and whether restrictions have benefits, but teachers 'love the policy,' according to Julie Gazmararian, a professor of public health at Emory University who does surveys and focus groups to research the effects of a phone ban in middle school grades in the Marietta school district near Atlanta. 'They could focus more on teaching,' Gazmararian said. 'There were just not the disruptions.' Another benefit: More positive interactions among students. 'They were saying that kids are talking to each other in the hallways and in the cafeteria,' she said. 'And in the classroom, there is a noticeably lower amount of discipline referrals.' Gazmararian is still compiling numbers on grades and discipline, and cautioned that her work may not be able to answer whether bullying has been reduced or mental health improved. Social media use clearly correlates with poor mental health, but research can't yet prove it causes it, according to Munmun De Choudhury, a Georgia Tech professor who studies this issue. 'We need to be able to quantify what types of social media use are causing harm, what types of social media use can be beneficial,' De Choudhury said. A few states reject rules Some state legislatures are bucking the momentum. Wyoming's Senate in January rejected requiring districts to create some kind of a cellphone policy after opponents argued that teachers and parents need to be responsible. Advertisement And in the Michigan House in July, a Republican-sponsored bill directing schools to ban phones bell-to-bell in grades K-8 and during high school instruction time was defeated in July after Democrats insisted on upholding local control. Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, among multiple governors who made restricting phones in schools a priority this year, is still calling for a bill to come to her desk. Associated Press writers Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan, and Dylan Lovan in Louisville, Kentucky, contributed.
