Judge will take additional briefs before deciding on trial for ex-Speaker Lee Chatfield
EAST LANSING – A hearing to decide if former Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield should stand trial over a series of alleged financial crimes related to his use of political funds wrapped up Friday after three days of testimony and argument, although it could be months still before a judge issues a ruling.
Chatfield, a Republican from Levering who led the House in 2019 and 2020, was charged last year with 13 embezzlement, conspiracy and larceny charges in East Lansing 54B District Court. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office claims he knowingly used money from political funds to pay for vacations, dinners at upscale restaurants and other non-permitted items when he was a lawmaker.
State prosecutors made their final pitch to District Judge Molly Hennessey Greenwalt about binding Chatfield — and his wife Stephanie Chatfield, who faces one count each of embezzlement and conspiracy — over for a jury trial. Both Lee and Stephanie Chatfield pleaded not guilty to all charges at an arraignment last year.
But before deciding whether a trial should take place, Hennessey Greenwalt wants prosecutors and Lee Chatfield's lawyers to explain what the former Speaker's role was with the political funds he's accused of embezzling money from. She gave the Attorney General's office until March 31 to submit its brief and the defense until April 30 to respond. The judge's ruling on whether to continue the case and send the Chatfields to a trial will come after that.
Nessel's office argues Lee Chatfield and Stephanie Chatfield spent thousands of dollars on a credit card on things like vacations, clothes and meals at upscale restaurants, and then knowingly used the Peninsula Fund's money to pay off their credit card balance.
On Thursday, a forensic accountant called by the government as a witness said her analysis of the Chatfields' bank and credit card statements found there were likely thousands of dollars spent on things that weren't permissible under the Peninsula Fund's stated goals. The Peninsula Fund, as a 501c(4) social welfare fund, is allowed to pay for certain permissible political activities. For politicians, a 501c(4) fund can be advantageous because the organizations are subject to fewer public disclosure requirements and contribution limits than traditional candidate committees, allowing for greater fundraising and less scrutiny.
Lee Chatfield, through his attorneys, argued Friday that no wrongdoing took place – and if the credit card spending reimbursed by the Peninsula Fund was improper, a law firm contracted by the Peninsula Fund to ensure compliance would have, and perhaps should have, raised alarm.
Construction project to close parts of eastbound I-696 until 2027: What to know
Court: 9 stalled bills should have been sent to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for signature
Earlier in the hearing on Wednesday, Renae Moore, a senior compliance specialist with the Dykema law firm who was the assistant treasurer/secretary of the Peninsula Fund, testified that some spending reimbursements paid to Chatfield were questionable, including a receipt from a strip club which was eventually filed under meeting expenses.
Lee Chatfield's attorneys have argued it was the responsibility of Moore and the Peninsula Fund's former president to ensure compliance, not the former Speaker's. Anne Minard, a former aide of Lee Chatfield during his time in the Capitol, was the Peninsula Fund's president. Minard faces felony financial charges of embezzling political funds. Her husband, Rob Minard, also faces charges in the case.
Mary Chartier, Lee Chatfield's lead defense attorney, told reporters following the hearing she's encouraged the judge asked the parties to submit more briefs. At preliminary exams, the standard of evidence the prosecution has to prove is lower than it is at a jury trial. Instead of needing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, at a preliminary exam, the prosecution only needs to prove probable cause that a crime took place to bind a defendant over for trial.
'The fact that the judge is taking the time to go through the evidence, the fact that she is asking for additional briefing on one of the elements, is quite a really important point, and one that we view extremely favorably,' Chartier said outside the courtroom.
The most serious charge Lee Chatfield faces carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence, if convicted. Stephanie Chatfield's charges each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, if convicted.
Along with seeking improper reimbursements from political nonprofits, the state also alleges Lee Chatfield falsified mileage reimbursement forms while he was a lawmaker, claiming reimbursements for trips he didn't take. Prosecutors also claim Lee Chatfield profited by subletting a Lansing apartment where rent was paid for by the Peninsula Fund.
Lee Chatfield has denied the charges.
As a lawmaker, Lee Chatfield was considered a prolific fundraiser. Chartier noted the Peninsula Fund, at one point, had raised 'millions and millions' of dollars.
In Dec. 2021 Rebekah Chatfield, Lee Chatfield's sister-in-law, told Lansing police she had been sexually assaulted by Lee Chatfield from the time she was 15 years old and a student at the northern Michigan religious school where Lee Chatfield taught. She also reported misuse of campaign funds at the time, according to her court testimony Thursday.
Lee Chatfield has denied any sexual assault. Chartier previously said a years-long consensual affair took place between Lee Chatfield and Rebekah Chatfield when both were adults.
Michigan State Police began investigating Lee Chatfield, and were later joined by Nessel's office in the investigation. When Nessel announced the financial charges against Lee and Stephanie Chatfield in April, she said the investigation into the sexual assault allegations was closed without charges.
An investigation into the Chatfields' finances remains open and ongoing, according to documents filed by prosecutors in court Feb. 19.
This story has been updated.
Contact Arpan Lobo: alobo@freepress.com
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Judge to rule whether ex-Speaker Chatfield, wife, should stand trial
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
JD Vance says it was a 'huge mistake' for Musk to go after Trump with Epstein accusation
Vice President JD Vance told comedian and podcast host Theo Von on Saturday that Elon Musk made a "huge mistake" by accusing President Donald Trump of being implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein files. Vance warned that Trump and Musk being embroiled in a "blood feud" with one another will be bad for the country and will likely not end well for the Tesla CEO either. "I think it's a huge mistake for him to go after the president like that. And I think that if he and the president are in some blood feud — most importantly — it's going to be bad for the country, but I think it's going to be, I don't think it'll be good for Elon either," Vance argued. 'Gone Too Far': Gop Lawmakers Rally Around Trump After Musk Raises Epstein Allegations Musk referenced Jeffrey Epstein in relation to Trump on Thursday as part of a larger attack against the president and Republican leaders over their budget reconciliation bill. "Time to drop the really big bomb. [Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" Musk wrote on X. "Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out." Read On The Fox News App Vance told the comedian Trump "didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein" and that his loyalties will always be with the president. He noted that he hopes Musk will eventually "come back into the fold," but doubted the possibility of that coming true after his tweet accusing Trump of being involved with Epstein. Click Here For The Latest Media And Culture News When asked by Von why he believed Musk's "feelings were hurt," Vance speculated that the culmination of the violent threats against him and his company, paired with Congress' budget reconciliation bill, may have pushed him over the edge. "His businesses are being attacked nonstop. They're literally like firebombing some of his cars," he pointed out. "So I think part of it is this guy got into politics and has suffered a lot for it. But I mean, and I get the frustration there… Congress, you got this spending bill. But the main purpose of the bill is not actually spending or cutting spending, though it does cut a lot of spending." The vice president acknowledged Musk's concerns over the spending bill that allegedly started the feud between the two and noted that disagreements over its contents likely caused some "frustrations." "The main purpose of the bill is to prevent the biggest tax increase, but I understand — it's a good bill — it's not a perfect bill," Vance said. "The process in D.C., if you're a business leader, you probably get frustrated with that process because it's more, you know, bureaucratic. It's more slow-moving. So I think there's just some frustrations there." Fox News' Elizabeth Elkind, Deirdre Heavey and Alex Miller contributed to this article source: JD Vance says it was a 'huge mistake' for Musk to go after Trump with Epstein accusation
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk jokes about reconsidering stance on Big Beautiful Bill after Schiff's praise
Elon Musk appeared to jokingly reconsider his stance on the Big Beautiful Bill after a California Democrat came to his defense. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote on X that "I can't believe I'm saying this – but [Elon Musk] is right." However, that seems to be the last point on which the two agree. They both object to the Big Beautiful Bill, viewing it as full of pork. Musk opposes the bill because he believes it raises government spending too much, while Schiff objects to what he calls its "far-right" content, which he describes as "dangerous." Republican Lawmakers Stand Firm Against Musk's 'Kill The Bill' Assault On Trump's Agenda Musk fired off a response rejecting Schiff's alleged praise of the tech billionaire's position on the bill. "Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!" On May 30, Musk's time with the administration came to an end, and he seemed to leave things on good terms. President Donald Trump thanked Musk for his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and gave him a symbolic "key to the White House" as a parting gift. Read On The Fox News App Following his departure from the White House, Musk said he was looking forward "to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president." However, things took a sharp turn as a feud between Trump and Musk quickly heated up after the Tesla founder began publicly criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill. Inside The Musk-trump Fallout After the legislation passed the House, Musk said that the "massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." Musk's criticisms received mixed reactions from Republicans, with some — such as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — agreeing with him. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was "surprised" by Musk's reaction and claimed the two of them had a good discussion about the bill. Trump and Musk then began slugging it out on their respective social media platforms — X and Truth Social — as well as TV. The president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was "very disappointed" with Musk and claimed that the former DOGE head knew what was in the bill, something that Musk denied. Trump Not Interested In Talking To Musk: 'Elon's Totally Lost It' The heated exchange led to two explosive tweets, both of which were later deleted. In one post, Musk claimed Trump was mentioned in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased sex offender and disgraced financier. In his other post, Musk endorsed a message that called for Trump's impeachment and said that Vice President J.D. Vance should take over. While it's unclear whether Trump and Musk will reconcile, for now it seems unlikely. Trump told Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier that he was not interested in talking to Musk and that "Elon's totally lost it."Original article source: Musk jokes about reconsidering stance on Big Beautiful Bill after Schiff's praise
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Florida Libertarians, meeting in Daytona Beach, sense opportunity in Musk-Trump breakup
DAYTONA BEACH − Fallout from the week's nuclear-bomb-level blowup between President Donald Trump and his billionaire buddy Elon Musk had yet to settle when a few dozen true believers in absolute freedom and small government gathered to map out plans for the 2026 election. The Libertarian Party of Florida held its annual convention at The Daytona Hotel June 6-7, and attendees were energized by the opportunities presented by the Trump-Musk spat and skepticism about Trump's spending plan, aka the "Big, Beautiful Bill," that's being hashed out in the Senate. Steven Nekhaila, national chair of the Libertarian Party, is from Key West and was in attendance at the Daytona convention. He described a Republican-Democratic "duopoly," two boots of the same creature that continue to kick the American public that keeps electing it. "We have a saying. There's nobody more Libertarian than a Republican who's running for office until they get in power," Nekhalia said in a June 7 interview. "And we've seen that with the GOP over and over again at the federal level." Following Musk's break with Trump, the world's richest man posted to X, his own social-media platform: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Smelling an opportunity, Nekhaila pounced, posting: "We've been building this party for the 80% who are tired of being ruled by liars, spenders and tyrants. The door is open. The Libertarian Party isn't new, but it's finally impossible to ignore." While Nekhalia worked at a national level, other Libertarians at the Daytona convention were eying positions at the local and state level. Two Libertarians elected at the local level in Seminole County led a candidate training session. Altamonte Springs City Commissioner Jim Turney and Winter Springs City Commissioner Paul Diaz talked about how in Florida, most local elected positions are non-partisan, which creates an opportunity for minor-party candidates to introduce themselves to their communities and build trust without running into the major-party machinery. Turney suggested that when presenting themselves, candidates be Libertarian, authentic and themselves. Diaz said he campaigned in 2024 on a message that much of what is being proposed by government is outside of its role. "Is that really the role of government? Is that really what we should be doing? My line during my campaign was, 'Government's role is not to entertain people.'" Diaz said. "Stick to what we're supposed to be doing, and in my case I go right back to my lane, which is fiscally sound policy, only doing what you're supposed to do, and why on Earth are you even proposing a budget that's going to increase ... a tax increase ... when you still have mismanagement in your books?" As a two-time candidate, Matt Johnson, the state chairman, learned that he had a better shot when he ran for the DeLand City Commission in 2022 than the Florida Legislature in 2024. Even though the City Commission was a nonpartisan race, Johnson said the first question out of most voters' mouths was whether he was a Republican or Democrat. "I was able to take just over 30% away from an incumbent in a heavily Republican district," Johnson said. In the 2024 Florida House District 29 race, incumbent state Rep. Webster Barnaby won 55.6% of the vote over Democrat Rosemarie Latham and Johnson, who managed just 2.8%. "Our messaging and our policies and our methodologies of governing (are) popular, but when it comes down to the machine that is the Republicans and the Democrats, we just don't have the money to compete, and so I would say start small, start local, win there, where your party is not allowed to be a part of the discussion, build a resume of success and fighting for their rights," Johnson said. The Libertarian Party, founded in 1971, has hung on as a minor party because of its core beliefs, Johnson said. "Our principles are more aligned with the founders than either of the two parties as they currently exist," he said. "What keeps me going is I believe if humanity, if Americans, DeLandites, Volusia County citizens are to fully live to their full potential, they have to be as free as possible without government intervention. I think it is purely principles that keeps us going." Libertarian Joe Hannoush, an Ormond Beach resident who has run for multiple offices over the past decade, said he has previously been a member of both the Republican and Democratic parties. "I left for the same reason. They don't do what they actually believe," Hannoush said. "They tell you they're for anti-war and they keep going to war. They tell you they're for fiscal responsibility. They keep raising the debt. Both sides. ... I think we have to have hope because the only other option is another revolution, you know, and I'm not ready for that, so I'm trying to do it the peaceful way, the voting way." Hannoush said he is "hopeful" the Libertarians will soon be on an "upward swing," but he also cautioned that the parties involved in the Trump-Musk clash of titans have self-interest at heart. Musk − owner of Tesla, the electric car manufacturer − has expressed dismay that a Joe Biden-era electric vehicle mandate will be eliminated, while Trump has also threatened to cut Musk's company off from other government contracts. "Libertarians want an equal playing field under government. Not having government pick winners and losers," Hannoush said. "Most people don't want to have that spending, which is what the Big, Beautiful Bill does. The Big Beautiful Debt is what it is." This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Libertarians stand for small government. Can any win in 2026 election?