By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
Former House Speaker Lee Chatfield’s trial week began, and then subsequently ended, on Monday after his attorney declared she was appealing an expert witness brought in by the Department of Attorney General that will delay the trial’s start date for weeks to months.
Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement Monday called the delay “outrageous and beyond unusual,” after she first announced charges more than two years ago.
Michelle Gallagher, a certified public accountant with Adamy Valuation, created a report as an expert in forensic accounting to evaluate Chatfield’s transactions as part of The Peninsula Fund, the nonprofit he is accused of embezzling from. The allegations include paying off personal credit card expenses, seeking improper mileage reimbursements from the House for trips that never happened, implementing a check kickback scheme to move PAC money back to Chatfield for his own use, and subletting an apartment.
Gallagher spoke in a 2025 hearing ahead of the trial on her report compiled for the Department of Attorney General.
Gallagher laid out some of the findings in the report of Chatfield’s financial records from January 2020 to April 2021, claiming there were instances of personal expenses not allowed under the policy, questionable expenses that “appeared to be personal” and commingled expenses that could be considered business or personal.
In expenses reported by Chatfield, Gallagher said in many expenses, no personal funds were used to pay a personal credit card off, and only Peninsula Fund dollars were used to pay a personal credit card.
Gallagher noted that the Peninsula Fund had paid “about 99% of the charges” during that time period. She also said the payments were “sporadic” and were odd amounts, not even amounts on a regular basis like a normal credit card balance being paid off at the end of the month.
Mary Chartier, Chatfield’s attorney, asked for a stay on the decision to allow Gallagher’s report to be placed into evidence due to her lack of experience with nonprofits to file an interlocutory appeal. Daniel Gunderson, an assistant attorney general, objected, saying this was “frivolous and no more than an attempt to further delay Mr. Chatfield's day of reckoning.”
Judge Morgan Cole said the court had no other choice but to follow the law and stay the decision.
The trial will then be adjourned until they receive a ruling from the Court of Appeals, which could take weeks to months.
Cole said this will now be oldest case in her docket, and it will take priority over all cases.
“Justice delayed is just justice denied, and so I do intend to put it back on the trial docket as a priority case,” Cole said.
The beginning of the jury selection was slated for Tuesday and is now no longer on the schedule.
Chatfield was first charged in April 2024 and was bound over to stand trial in May 2025 for 13 felony charges of embezzlement.
Nessel said in a statement that she has “never seen a trial delayed like this.”
“If the court hadn't adjourned this case for nearly an entire year, bending over backward to accommodate Lee Chatfield's lawyers in their endless efforts to push this important trial past my last day in office, this simple evidentiary matter would have been resolved months ago,” she said. “This case was charged two and a half years ago, bound over to this court for trial 15 months ago - this case should have been tried by now, and would have been, if not for the court's excessive, needless, and irrational adjournments.”
It is possible now, Nessel said, that the case “may never be tried at all” if the next attorney general dismisses the charges “for political purposes.” Democratic attorney general candidate Eli Savit is in a statistical tie in the latest poll with Republican attorney general candidate Doug Lloyd.
Nessel also blamed the court, saying she was left without faith that the court intends to hear the case this year, and that it was “fair to question whether the Court ever wants to hear this case at all.
“Any lawyer can tell you, the best way to damage a case is to delay it as much as possible, and it's hard to interpret what we've seen here as anything else,” she said. “Over the past seven years I've seen over and over again the same playbook in every one of our public corruption cases, leading to infinite adjournments granted by courts disinterested in these vital cases of public concern. It's a shameful disservice to the Michigan public, who deserve to hear this case and have their day in court, against a defendant who was once one of the most powerful people in their government. The people of Michigan deserve better."
In response to Nessel, Chartier told Gongwer News Service that “Nessel’s comments just show how out-of-touch she is with litigation, as well as how obsessed she is with going after Mr. Chatfield.”
She said there was nothing unusual about the scheduling as the courts were busy, calling Nessel’s anger with the courts “continued disrespect to judges.” She also criticized Nessel for disclosing Gallagher as a trial witness less than a month before the trial, saying if it was earlier, they would have challenged it earlier as well.
“The only thing irrational in this case comes from an attorney general who whines and points fingers every time she doesn’t get her way. She’s right that the people of Michigan deserve better, and that’s what they’ll get when a new attorney general takes over in January,” Chartier said, pointing toward the transfer of power.
Chartier said with the appeal, it will “likely take months for the court to make a decision.”
As to the report being appealed, Chartier questioned some of the findings of the report, including assumptions that car washes and some dinners were labeled as personal. Gallagher said she did not see two monthly car wash subscriptions “for the benefit of a c4 organization.”
Chartier made the argument that Chatfield was driving donors in a vehicle, and that the Peninsula Fund could pay for a car wash to make sure it looks nice. However, Gallagher said that she did not believe two subscriptions were necessary for the purpose of the nonprofit, even if, as Chartier argued, the subscriptions were less money than multiple car washes.
Chartier added that the fund management could have a different opinion than Gallagher on what was appropriate. She also said Gallagher has no experience, specifically, with nonprofit finances, even if Gallagher said these expenses are essentially the same as evaluating any other business.
“The issue with the car wash, I think, highlights how flawed the analysis is,” Chartier said. “A car wash in one scenario might be very different than a car wash in another scenario. So, a car wash, if I'm going on a family vacation and come back, not allowed. A car wash, if I'm going to be driving around a potential fancy donor, is allowed. Same with lunches. Lunch during a trial workday is allowed for people at the firm. Lunch on a Saturday at a ball game is not allowed. So, it's all contextual. She's making these determinations essentially in a vacuum, and the government is trying to wrap that up as qualified expert testimony. That methodology is not reliable.”
Gallagher laid out some of the findings in the report of Chatfield’s financial records from January 2020 to April 2021 during Monday’s hearing, claiming there were instances of personal expenses not allowed under the policy, questionable expenses that “appeared to be personal” and commingled expenses that could be considered business or personal.
In expenses reported by Chatfield, Gallagher said in many expenses, no personal funds were used to pay a personal credit card off, and only Peninsula Fund dollars were used to pay a personal credit card.
Gallagher noted that the Peninsula Fund had paid “about 99% of the charges” during that time period. She also said the payments were “sporadic” and were odd amounts, not even amounts on a regular basis like a normal credit card balance being paid off at the end of the month.
Gallagher testified that it is not her job to speculate criminal intent but instead calculates expenses made based on professional standards of forensic accounting services. Gallagher said she had testified in court 65 times as an expert, and also reviewed the cases of Anné and Rob Minard, both former aides to Chatfield.
Gunderson said it was inappropriate for Gallagher to opine on Chatfield’s intent.
Before the stay, Judge Cole allowed the testimony to be submitted into the record, denying the request of the defense. She said any questioning of the expert’s credibility will lie with the jury.
Cole said Gallagher was qualified and her testimony was “helpful to the jury who doesn't have the specialized knowledge and skill, and it is well beyond an ordinary knowledge and expertise of an average juror to understand what are allowed, unallowed, or purportedly unallowed and questionable expenses.”
Gongwer News Service
Former House Speaker Lee Chatfield’s trial week began, and then subsequently ended, on Monday after his attorney declared she was appealing an expert witness brought in by the Department of Attorney General that will delay the trial’s start date for weeks to months.
Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement Monday called the delay “outrageous and beyond unusual,” after she first announced charges more than two years ago.
Michelle Gallagher, a certified public accountant with Adamy Valuation, created a report as an expert in forensic accounting to evaluate Chatfield’s transactions as part of The Peninsula Fund, the nonprofit he is accused of embezzling from. The allegations include paying off personal credit card expenses, seeking improper mileage reimbursements from the House for trips that never happened, implementing a check kickback scheme to move PAC money back to Chatfield for his own use, and subletting an apartment.
Gallagher spoke in a 2025 hearing ahead of the trial on her report compiled for the Department of Attorney General.
Gallagher laid out some of the findings in the report of Chatfield’s financial records from January 2020 to April 2021, claiming there were instances of personal expenses not allowed under the policy, questionable expenses that “appeared to be personal” and commingled expenses that could be considered business or personal.
In expenses reported by Chatfield, Gallagher said in many expenses, no personal funds were used to pay a personal credit card off, and only Peninsula Fund dollars were used to pay a personal credit card.
Gallagher noted that the Peninsula Fund had paid “about 99% of the charges” during that time period. She also said the payments were “sporadic” and were odd amounts, not even amounts on a regular basis like a normal credit card balance being paid off at the end of the month.
Mary Chartier, Chatfield’s attorney, asked for a stay on the decision to allow Gallagher’s report to be placed into evidence due to her lack of experience with nonprofits to file an interlocutory appeal. Daniel Gunderson, an assistant attorney general, objected, saying this was “frivolous and no more than an attempt to further delay Mr. Chatfield's day of reckoning.”
Judge Morgan Cole said the court had no other choice but to follow the law and stay the decision.
The trial will then be adjourned until they receive a ruling from the Court of Appeals, which could take weeks to months.
Cole said this will now be oldest case in her docket, and it will take priority over all cases.
“Justice delayed is just justice denied, and so I do intend to put it back on the trial docket as a priority case,” Cole said.
The beginning of the jury selection was slated for Tuesday and is now no longer on the schedule.
Chatfield was first charged in April 2024 and was bound over to stand trial in May 2025 for 13 felony charges of embezzlement.
Nessel said in a statement that she has “never seen a trial delayed like this.”
“If the court hadn't adjourned this case for nearly an entire year, bending over backward to accommodate Lee Chatfield's lawyers in their endless efforts to push this important trial past my last day in office, this simple evidentiary matter would have been resolved months ago,” she said. “This case was charged two and a half years ago, bound over to this court for trial 15 months ago - this case should have been tried by now, and would have been, if not for the court's excessive, needless, and irrational adjournments.”
It is possible now, Nessel said, that the case “may never be tried at all” if the next attorney general dismisses the charges “for political purposes.” Democratic attorney general candidate Eli Savit is in a statistical tie in the latest poll with Republican attorney general candidate Doug Lloyd.
Nessel also blamed the court, saying she was left without faith that the court intends to hear the case this year, and that it was “fair to question whether the Court ever wants to hear this case at all.
“Any lawyer can tell you, the best way to damage a case is to delay it as much as possible, and it's hard to interpret what we've seen here as anything else,” she said. “Over the past seven years I've seen over and over again the same playbook in every one of our public corruption cases, leading to infinite adjournments granted by courts disinterested in these vital cases of public concern. It's a shameful disservice to the Michigan public, who deserve to hear this case and have their day in court, against a defendant who was once one of the most powerful people in their government. The people of Michigan deserve better."
In response to Nessel, Chartier told Gongwer News Service that “Nessel’s comments just show how out-of-touch she is with litigation, as well as how obsessed she is with going after Mr. Chatfield.”
She said there was nothing unusual about the scheduling as the courts were busy, calling Nessel’s anger with the courts “continued disrespect to judges.” She also criticized Nessel for disclosing Gallagher as a trial witness less than a month before the trial, saying if it was earlier, they would have challenged it earlier as well.
“The only thing irrational in this case comes from an attorney general who whines and points fingers every time she doesn’t get her way. She’s right that the people of Michigan deserve better, and that’s what they’ll get when a new attorney general takes over in January,” Chartier said, pointing toward the transfer of power.
Chartier said with the appeal, it will “likely take months for the court to make a decision.”
As to the report being appealed, Chartier questioned some of the findings of the report, including assumptions that car washes and some dinners were labeled as personal. Gallagher said she did not see two monthly car wash subscriptions “for the benefit of a c4 organization.”
Chartier made the argument that Chatfield was driving donors in a vehicle, and that the Peninsula Fund could pay for a car wash to make sure it looks nice. However, Gallagher said that she did not believe two subscriptions were necessary for the purpose of the nonprofit, even if, as Chartier argued, the subscriptions were less money than multiple car washes.
Chartier added that the fund management could have a different opinion than Gallagher on what was appropriate. She also said Gallagher has no experience, specifically, with nonprofit finances, even if Gallagher said these expenses are essentially the same as evaluating any other business.
“The issue with the car wash, I think, highlights how flawed the analysis is,” Chartier said. “A car wash in one scenario might be very different than a car wash in another scenario. So, a car wash, if I'm going on a family vacation and come back, not allowed. A car wash, if I'm going to be driving around a potential fancy donor, is allowed. Same with lunches. Lunch during a trial workday is allowed for people at the firm. Lunch on a Saturday at a ball game is not allowed. So, it's all contextual. She's making these determinations essentially in a vacuum, and the government is trying to wrap that up as qualified expert testimony. That methodology is not reliable.”
Gallagher laid out some of the findings in the report of Chatfield’s financial records from January 2020 to April 2021 during Monday’s hearing, claiming there were instances of personal expenses not allowed under the policy, questionable expenses that “appeared to be personal” and commingled expenses that could be considered business or personal.
In expenses reported by Chatfield, Gallagher said in many expenses, no personal funds were used to pay a personal credit card off, and only Peninsula Fund dollars were used to pay a personal credit card.
Gallagher noted that the Peninsula Fund had paid “about 99% of the charges” during that time period. She also said the payments were “sporadic” and were odd amounts, not even amounts on a regular basis like a normal credit card balance being paid off at the end of the month.
Gallagher testified that it is not her job to speculate criminal intent but instead calculates expenses made based on professional standards of forensic accounting services. Gallagher said she had testified in court 65 times as an expert, and also reviewed the cases of Anné and Rob Minard, both former aides to Chatfield.
Gunderson said it was inappropriate for Gallagher to opine on Chatfield’s intent.
Before the stay, Judge Cole allowed the testimony to be submitted into the record, denying the request of the defense. She said any questioning of the expert’s credibility will lie with the jury.
Cole said Gallagher was qualified and her testimony was “helpful to the jury who doesn't have the specialized knowledge and skill, and it is well beyond an ordinary knowledge and expertise of an average juror to understand what are allowed, unallowed, or purportedly unallowed and questionable expenses.”
