University of Michigan 5.09 Section D and Dr. Bradley Foerster — Dean Runge’s “Frauds Upon the Courts” Allegation, the First Amendment Right to Petition, and the Underlying Court Records (2017–2019)

Summary

The records below concern Section D of Dean Marschall Runge’s September 7, 2018 University of Michigan 5.09 charge letter, titled “Improper Conduct in the Judicial System.” Section D relied on two separate court matters: a federal proceeding involving a complaint filed with the signature of attorney Cyril Hall, and a state-court contempt proceeding arising from a dispute concerning two cats.

Runge introduced Section D by alleging that Dr. Bradley Foerster had engaged in “efforts to perpetrate several frauds upon the courts.” He characterized the federal matter as involving submission of a document with “a falsified signature” and titled the state-court portion “Contemptuous Conduct and Attempting to Perpetrate Frauds On the Court, Leading To A No Contest Plea For Criminal Contempt.”

The underlying court records provide additional context for both characterizations.

In the federal matter, U.S. District Judge Sean Cox determined that the complaint bore a false signature of Mr. Hall, but also stated that “It remains unclear who signed the complaint.” The opinion records that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Myria Petrou personally filed the complaint, denied signing Mr. Hall’s name, and apparently believed that Mr. Hall had instructed them to file it.

Although the court strongly criticized the filing, it declined to impose sanctions and expressly stated that it could not conclude that Dr. Foerster, Dr. Petrou, or Mr. Hall had acted in bad faith and did not believe that they had sought to deceive the court.

In the state-court matter, the defense filing states that the cats were returned on March 5, 2018; that Detective Geoff Spickard told defense counsel that the matter was over upon their return; and that counsel for the parties subsequently negotiated a settlement that plaintiffs’ counsel later sought to rescind. The defense argued that the dispute was remedial and civil rather than warranting criminal contempt.

The June 20, 2018 transcript documents the ultimate disposition. Dr. Petrou did not contest the allegations, and Mr. Hall confirmed that he was authorized to proceed on behalf of Dr. Foerster, who was in California because his stepmother was dying of terminal lung cancer. Judge Joseph Burke stated that because the allegations in the Order to Show Cause were not contested, he would find each defendant guilty of contempt of court. He imposed $2,500 on each defendant, for a total of $5,000, and stated that the matter would be dismissed upon payment.

The records below place Runge’s characterization of Section D alongside the underlying federal and state court records on which it relied. They also raise a broader question about the use of litigation and petitioning activity as grounds supporting termination of a tenured faculty member.

First Amendment Speech and Petitioning Rights in the 5.09 Proceeding

Section D raises an issue beyond the outcome of the individual court cases. Dean Runge relied on litigation brought by Dr. Bradley Foerster and Dr. Myria Petrou as part of the University's grounds for seeking termination of Dr. Foerster's tenure, characterizing the conduct as involving “efforts to perpetrate several frauds upon the courts.”

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances, including through the courts. Using a faculty member's resort to the courts as a ground supporting termination of tenure therefore raises a related concern about the potential chilling effect on seeking judicial or governmental redress.

During the November 2018 Bylaw 5.09 hearing, attorney Cyril Hall emphasized that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou were represented by attorneys, did not draft the court filings themselves, and relied on counsel to determine whether claims had a sufficient basis to be filed. Mr. Hall also connected the lawsuits directly to the restraint of their bank funds, testifying that “but for the fact that your account was frozen, none of the litigation would have occurred.”

Mr. Hall's testimony and the underlying AAPD Case 17-3517 records are examined here:

“But for the Fact That Your Account Was Frozen” — “No File in the District Court Indicating a Basis”: Attorney Cyril Hall’s 5.09 Testimony on Dr. Bradley Foerster’s Litigation (2018)

The issue also intersects directly with tenure and academic freedom. The University's later revision of Bylaw 5.09 expressly states that the process “should never be used” for “the diminishment of academic freedom and free speech.”

The governing framework for tenure, academic freedom, and faculty dismissal under Bylaw 5.09 is documented here:

University of Michigan Regents’ Bylaw 5.09 and Dr. Bradley Foerster — Tenure, Faculty Dismissal, and the Mandate That 5.09 “Should Never Be Used” for “The Diminishment of Academic Freedom and Free Speech”

April 13, 2018 — Federal Court Opinion and the “Falsified Signature” Allegation

Runge characterized the federal proceeding as part of “efforts to perpetrate several frauds upon the courts” and stated that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou had submitted a document with “a falsified signature.” Runge also quoted several of Judge Sean Cox’s statements criticizing the filing.

The April 13, 2018 opinion provides the fuller disposition.

Judge Cox determined that the complaint filed by Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou bore a false signature of attorney Cyril Hall. The opinion also stated:

“It remains unclear who signed the complaint.”

The court recorded that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou acknowledged personally filing the complaint but denied signing Mr. Hall’s name. Mr. Hall stated that he had not consented to his name being signed. The opinion further stated that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou filed the complaint “evidently believing that Mr. Hall had instructed them to do so.”

The court strongly criticized the filing and considered whether sanctions were warranted. Its ultimate conclusion, however, was that it could not conclude that Dr. Foerster, Dr. Petrou, or Mr. Hall had acted in bad faith and did not believe that they had sought to deceive the court.

The court imposed no sanctions.

April 13, 2018 opinion of U.S. District Judge Sean Cox addressing the complaint bearing Mr. Hall’s signature, the unresolved identity of the person who signed it, and the court’s decision not to impose sanctions.

2018 State-Court Proceeding — Section D and the Defense Response

Runge titled the second portion of Section D “Contemptuous Conduct and Attempting to Perpetrate Frauds On the Court, Leading To A No Contest Plea For Criminal Contempt.” He described the dispute concerning two cats, alleged that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou had attempted to engage in “a fraud on the Court,” and cited the subsequent no-contest disposition and $5,000 total fine.

The defense’s Answer to Order to Show Cause provides its account of the events leading to that disposition.

According to the defense filing, the cats were returned on March 5, 2018. The filing states that Detective Geoff Spickard then told defense counsel that the matter was over upon their return.

The filing further states that after the cats were returned, counsel for the parties negotiated a settlement, but that plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently sought to rescind the settlement offer. The defense argued that the corrective action had already occurred and that the dispute was remedial and civil in nature rather than warranting criminal contempt.

Those statements represent the defense position submitted to the court.

The Answer to the Order to Show Cause is reproduced below.

Defendants’ Answer to Order to Show Cause addressing the return of the cats, Detective Geoff Spickard’s reported statement to defense counsel, the subsequent settlement discussions, and the defense position concerning civil versus criminal contempt.

June 20, 2018 — No-Contest Proceeding and Contempt Finding

The June 20, 2018 transcript documents how the state-court proceeding was resolved.

Dr. Myria Petrou appeared in court. Dr. Bradley Foerster was not present. Dr. Petrou explained under oath that Dr. Foerster was in California because his stepmother had terminal lung cancer, had recently entered hospice, and was dying.

Dr. Petrou stated that she was not contesting the allegations in the contempt petition. Attorney Cyril Hall, who represented both defendants, confirmed that he had authority to proceed on Dr. Foerster’s behalf.

Judge Joseph Burke stated that because the defendants had not contested the allegations listed in the Order to Show Cause, the court would find each defendant guilty of contempt of court.

The court imposed a fine of $2,500 on Dr. Foerster and $2,500 on Dr. Petrou, for a total of $5,000. Mr. Hall stated that the defendants were prepared to pay, Dr. Petrou confirmed that payment could be made that day, and Judge Burke stated that the matter would be dismissed upon payment to the clerk’s office.

The transcript reflects a contempt finding based on the defendants’ decision not to contest the allegations in the Order to Show Cause. No separate written court order setting forth findings of fact concerning the contempt determination is reflected in the records reproduced here.

The complete hearing transcript is reproduced below.

June 20, 2018 state-court transcript documenting the no-contest proceeding, Mr. Hall’s representation of both defendants, Judge Burke’s contempt finding, the $2,500 fine imposed on each defendant, and dismissal upon payment.

August 2019 — Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou Request Judge Burke’s Signed Contempt Order

No separate written contempt order is reflected in the records reproduced here.

Michigan Court Rule 2.602(A)(1) provides that, subject to specified exceptions, “all judgments and orders must be in writing, signed by the court, and dated with the date they are signed.” The rule further provides that the date of signing is the date of entry and that the signed judgment or order is retained in the court file.

In August 2019, Dr. Foerster and Dr. Myria Petrou wrote directly to Chief Judge Joseph Burke requesting “a copy of your signed order regarding the contempt of court,” stating that “there is no written order on file with the 15th District Court.”

No response from Judge Burke or signed contempt order is reflected in the records reproduced here.

The August 2019 correspondence is reproduced below.

August 2019 correspondence from Dr. Bradley Foerster and Dr. Myria Petrou to Chief Judge Joseph Burke requesting a copy of the signed contempt order after stating that no written order was on file with the 15th District Court.

Selected Reporting

Author Image

Brad Foerster, MD PhD

Brad Foerster is a FOIA advocate documenting requests, transparency disputes, and accountability investigations involving public agencies, universities, police oversight, and Russia-Gate related inquiries. His work compiles original documents, timelines, and analysis of public records and institutional responses. Brad is also a board-certified radiologist, author of Town & Gown, and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles. Brad lives in Potomac, Maryland with his family and is a member of the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.