Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters accuse local courts of record and security failures; commissioners urged to act
Summary
Two public commenters told the Oakland County Board of Commissioners they could not get records or meaningful responses from court administrators and alleged Zoom‑hearing and record‑keeping failures; the board did not take immediate investigative action during the meeting.
Margaret Gupta and a later commenter, Margaret Gooch, used the board’s public‑comment periods to press Oakland County officials for answers about court administration and court records.
Gupta, who identified herself as “with Oakland County,” said court administration had failed to investigate what she described as “fraud upon the court” and alleged that Judge Lisa Langton corrupted multiple Zoom hearings by removing statements without corresponding investigative files. She also questioned the statutory basis for a court appointment and criticized proposed training and coordinator positions for judicial staff as insufficiently responsive to her concerns.
Gooch later told the board she believes local oversight of the courts has broken down, claimed the State Court Administrative Office exerts controlling influence over county court IT and operations, and warned of potential civil‑rights implications. Both speakers said they had tried to obtain records and meetings and that formal FOIA requests remained open.
At the same meeting, Chris Barnett, another public commenter, said his FOIA requests had not been answered and alleged a confirmed $111,000 accounting “true‑up” error that he said favored the county; he asked the board to add the FOIA response to the next board agenda. Chair and staff did not commit to a board investigation during the session.
The public comments prompted questions and requests for better communication from several commissioners, but no new formal action or vote to open an investigation was recorded during the meeting. The board continued with the agenda and later approved routine and policy items.
The record of these allegations is limited to what the commenters stated during public comment; the county’s staff presentations on other agenda items at the same meeting described routine financial and programmatic business. The commenters identified particular complaints (missing investigative files, removed Zoom content, an alleged true‑up error), but did not produce on‑the‑record evidence to the board during this meeting. Commissioners to whom the speakers directed requests did not announce follow‑up steps at the session.
