STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GENESEE

THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Case No.: 21G00047 – SM
Plaintiff;
Hon. William H. Crawford, II
v.

HOWARD D. CROFT, Defendant’s Reply to the

People’s Response to
Defendant. Defendant’s Motion for
Disqualification and Proof of
Service

______________________________________________________________________________
Fadwa Hammoud (P74185)
Bryant Osikowicz (P72377)
Michigan Department of Attorney General
Attorneys for the People
525 W. Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Ph.: (517) 335-7628
E: HammoudF1@michigan.gov
E: osikowiczb@michigan.gov
W: www.michigan.gov/AG
Kym L. Worthy (P38875)
Molly Kettler (P59877)
Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney
Attorneys for the People
1441 Saint Antoine Street, Floor 12
Frank Murphy Hall of Justice
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Ph.: (313) 224-5777
Fax: (313) 224-6948
E: kworthy@waynecounty.com
E: mkettler@waynecounty.com
W: www.waynecounty.com/elected/prosecutor
H. James White (P56946)
Alexander S. Rusek (P77581)
Daniel Sturdevant (P82936)
White Law PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant Croft
2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
Okemos, Michigan 48864
Ph.: (517) 316-1195
Fax: (517) 316-1197
E: jameswhite@whitelawpllc.com
E: alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com
E: danielsturdevant@whitelawpllc.com
E: discovery@whitelawpllc.com
E: flint@whitelawpllc.com
W: www.whitelawpllc.com

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CASE CAPTION ............................................................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... ii

REPLY TO RESPONSE ................................................................................................................................. 1

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 5

REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................................... 6

PROOF OF SERVICE .................................................................................................................................... 7

ii
 DEFENDANT HOWARD D. CROFT’S
REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TO
HOWARD D. CROFT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

NOW COMES Defendant Howard D. Croft (“Mr. Croft”), by and through his attorneys H.

James White and Alexander S. Rusek of White Law PLLC, and for his Reply to the People’s Response

to his Motion for Disqualification states:

Mr. Croft brought his Motion to Disqualify because Judge William H. Crawford, II should be

disqualified from hearing this case for two reasons: (1) Judge Crawford, II is an alleged victim of the

crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Croft; and (2) Judge Crawford, II is a potential claimant in civil

litigation wherein Mr. Croft is a settling defendant and is a potential member of a class action against

Mr. Croft, should a class or classes be certified in In re Flint Water Cases, Case Number: 5:16-cv-

10444-JEL-MKM, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan (“In re Flint Water Cases”).

In general, and in essence, the People have responded to Mr. Croft’s Motion for

Disqualification by asserting that Judge Crawford, II is simply a member of the public and not a

“victim” of Mr. Croft’s alleged crimes, thus disqualification is not required. For example, the People

have stated that “Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s relaxation of the common-law prerequisite of

a “direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in the case, all of these cases have something in

common that should guide this Court’s decision. That is, one can readily identify and articulate some

interest that might upset the judge’s ability to look at the case neutrally.” People’s Response at 5.

The People further state that “Simply put, Judge Crawford has no interest to speak of; given

the diffuse nature of the harm that Defendant allegedly wrought, there is no “clear affiliation” between

Judge Crawford’s role as judge and his membership in the community.” People’s Response at 6

(citations omitted). The People also set forth that “There is no allegation that they [Judge Crawford,

1
II and Mr. Croft] are anything other than strangers; no reason to believe that Judge Crawford feels

some personal grievance toward Defendant that he could not set aside easily as he does for any other

crime affecting ‘society in general.’” People’s Response at 7. The People also cite to Cain v Michigan

Dept of Corrections for the proposition that the risk of bias must be personal, but contend that

because the crime alleged is one against the public trust, that the connection to this Honorable Court

is too attenuated. People’s Response at 7.

However, based on the People’s public comments related to this matter, the People’s argument

in their Response is disingenuous, at best. Shortly following Mr. Croft’s arraignment on January 14,

2021, the People held a nearly 40 minute press conference to discuss this prosecution. The press

conference is still posted on the People’s public website at https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-

359-82917_97602---,00.html and can also be viewed on numerous other websites, such as:

• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-michigan-attorney-general-holds-

newsconference-on-charges-in-flint-water-crisis; and

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY7SP2_0Wa8&feature=emb_logo.

During that press conference, the People made no qualms publicly declaring every citizen of

the City of Flint a victim of the events known as the Flint Water Crisis and declaring that those same

citizens were continuing to suffer. For example, Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud stated that:

The Flint water crisis is not some relic of the past. At this very moment,
the people of Flint continue to suffer from the categorical failure of
public officials at all levels of government who trampled upon their trust
and evaded accountability for far too long. Government power is not
granted as a blank check. It is borrowed by those who swear an oath to
faithfully discharge their duties and service of the people. That is why we
have specific laws governing the conduct of public officials. Because a
seat in government comes with extraordinary powers and equally
extraordinary responsibilities. When an entire city is victimized by the
negligence and indifference of those in power it deserves an
uncompromising investigation that holds to account anyone who is
criminally culpable. That is what all citizens of this state are entitled to
regardless of their zip code.

2
See https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-82917_97602---,00.html (emphasis added). A

screenshot of Solicitor General Hammoud reading her prepared statement is below:

Further, during the same press conference, Solicitor General Hammoud also stated that:

Finally, we may never know all the names of those who had their lives and
livelihoods destroyed by this man-made crisis. And, although the
criminal justice system alone cannot remedy all the suffering that
every person endured, we took our parts seriously, and we hope others
will do the same to ensure that this never, ever happens again. (emphasis
added).

Id. (emphasis added). In addition to the statements made by Solicitor General Hammoud at the press

conference, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy also stated that:

The impact of the Flint water crisis cases and what happened in Flint will
span generations and probably well beyond the way others will live our
lives. This case has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with
human decency, resurrecting the complete abandonment of the
people of Flint, and finally, finally holding people accountable for
their alleged unspeakable atrocities that occurred in Flint all these
years ago. Pure and simple this case is about justice, truth, accountability,
poisoned children, lost lives . . . and simply giving a damn about all of
humanity . . .

Id. (emphasis added).

3
 Importantly, the press conference was planned and scripted by the People. The People had

ample time to reflect on what they were going to say and the message they intended to deliver. Given

the premeditated nature of their statements, this Honorable Court should not give any deference or

benefit of the doubt to the prosecutors as to their arguments in their Response to Mr. Croft’s Motion.

By their own claim, the prosecutors are seasoned, experienced attorneys who are uniquely qualified to

handle what they call the “largest prosecution in Michigan history” – they should be treated and held

accountable as such. Their own public statements in this matter establish that disqualification is

appropriate in this matter.

Further, to the extent that the People claim that Mr. Croft’s assertions in his Motion for

Disqualification are “speculative,”1 that is through no fault of Mr. Croft. At this time, Mr. Croft has

been denied the most basic notice as to the allegations against him. He has not been provided a single

investigative report from the People’s over two year investigation nor any testimony or exhibits from

the so-called “one man grand jury” proceedings that resulted in the Indictment in this matter. Mr.

Croft has also not been provided the name of a single witness against him, not even the name of any

alleged res gestae witnesses.2 Mr. Croft has only received the barebones and vague Indictment in this

matter despite his right to “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” against him, his

rights to due process and fundamental fairness, and his rights to prepare and present a full defense to

the charges against him. US Const, Ams VI, XIV; Const 1963, art I, §§ 17, 20.

For the reasons set forth more fully in Mr. Croft’s Motion for Disqualification and above,

Judge Crawford, II should disqualify himself under MCR 2.003, et seq. Further, should this Honorable

Court decide that no grounds for disqualification exist under MCR 2.003(C), et seq., then this

Honorable Court should disqualify Judge Crawford, II to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to

1
People’s Response at 2.
2
See MCL 767.40a(2).

4
ensure that Mr. Croft’s due process rights are protected for the reasons set forth above. See Code of

Judicial Conduct, Canon 2(A); In re Haley, 476 Mich 180, 195; 720 NW2d 246; Cain v Dep’t of

Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 497; 548 NW2d 210 (1996). In the alternative, Mr. Croft requests that his

Motion be referred to the Chief Judge of this Court pursuant to MCR 2.004(D)(3)(a)(i).

CONCLUSION

Mr. Croft has the fundamental right to a fair trial free from bias. To ensure that Mr. Croft’s

rights are protected, this Honorable Court should grant this Motion. First, Mr. Croft requests that

Judge Crawford, II be disqualified from hearing this case because Judge Crawford, II is an alleged

victim of the crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Croft. Second, Mr. Croft requests that Judge

Crawford, II be disqualified from hearing this case because he is a potential claimant in civil litigation

wherein Mr. Croft is a settling defendant and potentially a member of a class action against Mr. Croft,

if a class or classes are certified.

Therefore, there exists multiple reasons for Judge Crawford, II to be disqualified from hearing

this matter. Mr. Croft respectfully requests that Judge Crawford, II be disqualified and this matter

assigned to another judge that also should not be disqualified for the reasons set forth in this Motion

to Disqualify.

5
 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant Howard D. Croft now requests that this Honorable Court grant

his Motion to Disqualify and:

A. Enter an Order disqualifying the Honorable William H. Crawford, II from hearing this

matter.

B. Alternatively, refer this Motion to the Chief Judge of this Court pursuant to MCR

2.004(D)(3)(a)(i).

C. Award Mr. Croft any other relief that this Honorable Court deems equitable and just.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: _February 15, 2021_ /s/ Alexander S. Rusek_________

H. James White (P56946)
Alexander S. Rusek (P77581)
Daniel Sturdevant (P82936)
White Law PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant Croft
2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
Okemos, Michigan 48864
Ph.: (517) 316-1195
Fax: (517) 316-1197
E: jameswhite@whitelawpllc.com
E: alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com
E: danielsturdevant@whitelawpllc.com
E: discovery@whitelawpllc.com
E: flint@whitelawpllc.com
W: www.whitelawpllc.com

6
______________________________________________________________________________

PROOF OF SERVICE
______________________________________________________________________________

I certify that on the date below Howard D. Croft’s Reply to the People’s Response to Mr.

Croft’s Motion to Disqualify and this Proof of Service were filed with the Court Clerk of the 67th

District Court by First Class U.S. Mail, and copies of the same were served on the Honorable William

H. Crawford, II by First Class U.S. Mail and by email to CHawley@co.genesee.mi.us and

JFranklin@co.genesee.mi.us, and on the People by email as follows:

Fadwa Hammoud (P74185) Kym L. Worthy (P38875)

Bryant Osikowicz (P72377)
Gage Wakula (P83866)
Michigan Department of
Attorney General
Attorneys for the People
3030 W. Grand Blvd.,
Cadillac Place, Suite 10-200
Detroit, Michigan 48202
Ph.: (517) 335-7628
E: HammoudF1@michigan.gov
E: OsikowiczB@michigan.gov
E: WakulaG@michigan.gov
W: www.michigan.gov/AG
Molly Kettler (P59877)
Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney
Attorneys for the People
1441 Saint Antoine Street, Floor 12
Frank Murphy Hall of Justice
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Ph.: (313) 224-5777
Fax: (313) 224-6948
E: kworthy@waynecounty.com
E: mkettler@waynecounty.com
W:www.waynecounty.com/elected/prosecutor

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the above statement is true to the best of my

information, knowledge, and belief.

Dated: _February 15, 2021_ /s/ Alexander S. Rusek_________

Alexander S. Rusek (P77581)
White Law PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant Croft
2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
Okemos, Michigan 48864
Ph.: (517) 316-1195
Fax: (517) 316-1197
E: alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com
E: discovery@whitelawpllc.com
E: flint@whitelawpllc.com
W: www.whitelawpllc.com