Detroit, Michigan – Andrea Bradley-Baskin, a judge in Metro Detroit, has been charged with corruption by federal prosecutors. They say she used her position in the conservatorship system to obtain money from people who couldn’t protect themselves.
A federal indictment says that the 36th District Court judge took money from people who were unable to care for themselves and whose finances were supposed to be protected by conservatorship. The case shows how court-related financial control can be weak when the people involved are accused of taking advantage of it.
Authorities said that the scheme depended on the cooperation of many people who were involved in conservatorships and related care. The indictment says that three other people from the Detroit region who were involved in the conservatorship process worked together to move money for their own purposes instead of keeping it for the wards.
Mike Morse, a lawyer who is not involved in the lawsuit, said that the claims show more serious issues with systems where weak individuals depend on others to handle their money. He said that not keeping an eye on things can lead to abuse and called the claims “disgusting” if they are true. He also warned that people can spend money inappropriately for a long time without anybody noticing.
Bradley-Baskin is accused of money laundering, wire fraud, and lying to federal authorities. The indictment also gives specific examples of how prosecutors say the conservatorship funds were spent. The claims say that $70,000 was taken to invest in a local bar, $200,000 was taken from one victim and none of it went to the individual it was supposed to help, and more money was reportedly used to lease an SUV.
Former U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider said the federal case appears strong, pointing to what he described as a paper trail and an identifiable group of victims. He expressed concern about how restitution would work in a case where the alleged misuse involves spending money instead than just keeping it. He said that if the money ran out, recovery might be limited.
The judge’s father, Avery Bradley, 72, was also indicted, along with a woman who controlled a guardianship business and a man who maintained group homes. The charges make it sound like more than one official did something wrong. Instead, they describe a network that prosecutors say affected many aspects of the system that was supposed to care for wards who “couldn’t fend for themselves.”
The Michigan indictment comes at a time when there are more general arguments about trust in institutions and the limits of enforcement and accountability. The Detroit case is about supposed abuse of court power that affects the daily lives of vulnerable residents. Two other recent prosecutions, covered in separate reports, show how legal authority and federal action are being challenged in very different settings: public protest coverage and courtroom behavior.
Local Sacramento news outlet News Sickle Arrow reported that the former CNN anchor Don Lemon appeared in federal court in Los Angeles after being jailed overnight and charged by a federal grand jury over a protest that disrupted a church service in St. Paul. The report says that the incident happened at Cities Church on January 18, when protesters came in during service after finding out that one of the pastors was an officer for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Read also: Michigan expands lead hazard workforce with free March training in Flint
Lemon was let go at the Los Angeles court hearing on his own recognizance. He didn’t enter a plea, and the judge said he wouldn’t have to go to probation or pretrial services. He was told not to talk to potential victims, witnesses, or known co-defendants. Except for a scheduled vacation to France in June, the court would have to approve all trips outside of the country. The next hearing for him is set for February 9 in a federal court in Minneapolis.
Prosecutors said that Lemon and eight other people worked together to violate religious freedom and scared, threatened, or otherwise made it hard for people to practice their religion at the place of worship. The indictment alleges that the protest was planned ahead of time and that people who were going to be there shared instructions while keeping the location secret. Court filings also say that Lemon streamed parts of the gathering before the protest and called it a “resistance” event, while urging participants not to reveal details.
The report says that prosecutors claim the group blocked the main aisle, sat near the front, refused to leave when asked, and acted in a menacing way toward churchgoers and clergy. The indictment also asserts that Lemon blocked exits and made it hard for people to leave.
CNN, Lemon’s old employer, said the case brought up serious concerns about press freedom. The story also mentioned Julius Nam, a former federal prosecutor, who said that the case might have big effects on journalists that cover protests or talk to the groups they are writing about.
In Texas, another judge is facing criminal charges, but not for financial abuse or covering protests. Instead, they are accused of misusing restraint in a courtroom. Bexar County Judge Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez was charged with a felony for illegally restraining a judicial officer and a misdemeanor for official oppression after an incident in which a defense counsel was allegedly restrained and held in the jury box.
Gonzalez, who is 60 years old, is in charge of Reflejo Court, which is a treatment program for those who have never been charged with domestic violence before. The piece says that the indictment is connected to a disagreement during a hearing over whether or not to revoke probation in a case. After the defendant pleaded “true” to one allegation, the defense attorney, Elizabeth Russell, asked to confer with her client, according to a transcript cited in the report.
Read also: Michigan targets foreign investment with high-profile Switzerland economic tour
The report added that the argument got worse when Gonzalez supposedly told Russell that lawyers can’t coach their clients and then went forward with the plea. The court then told Russell that she could not argue. The indictment said that the judge told someone to arrest Russell and put her in the jury box.
Russell later filed a criminal complaint against Gonzalez, saying that he had limited her movement without her permission and greatly violated her freedom. According to the San Antonio Express-News, Gonzalez turned herself in, was booked into jail, and then freed after posting a $40,000 bond. Gonzalez had previously been fined for bringing a loaded, rainbow-painted gun through San Antonio International Airport, and quoted her telling The Post she could not comment further on the case while following her attorney’s advice.
Taken together, the three prosecutions described in these reports reflect a period in which accusations against judges and high-profile public figures are colliding with broader debates over accountability, institutional legitimacy, and the reach of enforcement.
In Detroit, the claim is that the court’s power to safeguard individuals who couldn’t speak for themselves was used to make money for the people who worked there. In California, prosecutors and a defendant are openly arguing about whether federal charges are meant to hold someone accountable for a disruptive protest or to stop the press from covering immigration enforcement issues. The issue in Texas is whether a judge’s influence over how people act in court went too far and became illegal.
The settings and actions in each case are different, but they all have to do with the same question: what happens when people say that authority—whether it’s financial, prosecutorial, or judicial—is being used in ways that hurt public trust?