IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DEBORAH K. RUSSELL, et. al., 

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:14-cv-13134 

vs. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

SANILAC COUNTY, et. al., 

Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

DEBORAH K. RUSSELL JOHN B. MCNAMEE (P27939)

In Pro Per Plaintiff John B. McNamee, P.C.

3250 N. Banner Rd. Attorney for Defendant Borkowski

Sandusky, MI 48471 1423 Pine Grove Ave.

(810) 710-7076 Port Huron, MI 48080

(810) 982-2020

GREGORY T. STREMERS (P45006) JOHN G. FEDYNSKY (P65232) 

Touma Watson Whaling Coury Michigan Dept. Of Attorney General 

Castello & Stremers, PC Attorney for Defs. MI Dept of Human 

Attorney for Defs. Sanilac County, Russell Services, Heidi Krause, Kris Kreger, Jaymie 

Clark, Heather Zang, David Clabeusch, Reinke, Shelley Marnar, Jodi Shinn, 

and Eric Scott Deborah Walbecq, William Weston, and 

316 McMorran Blvd. Steve Yeager 

Port Huron, MI 48060 525 W. Ottawa Street 

(810) 987-7700 Lansing, MI 48933

(517) 373-1110 

BRIAN D. EINHORN (P13130) 

Collins Einhorn Farrell PC 

Attorney for Defendant Judge Ross

4000 Town Center, Suite 909 

Southfield, MI 48075-1473 

(248) 355-4141 

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF DEBORAH K. RUSSELL’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ELAINE 

BORKOWSKI’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11

NOW COMES Plaintiff Deborah K. Russell and hereby respectfully requests this court deny 

Defendant Elaine Borkowski’s Motions for Sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 11(b) and states as 

Case 4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH ECF No. 30, PageID.265 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 6
follows:

That Defendant Elaine Borkowski’s “Motion For Sanctions” must be denied by this court due to 

failing to provide legally acceptable evidence of her claims that Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit with this 

court to harass her and all other defendants. While Mr. McNamee on behalf of his client Defendant 

Borkowski, chose to entertain this court with inaccurate, belittling, abusive and derogatory statements 

against Plaintiff Russell, they fail to provide evidence supporting their claims on any level to meet the 

requirements for Rule 11 sanctions. The defense cannot substantiate a claim with personal opinion and in 

the attempt to provide dilatory defense to distract this court from seeing that the intentional devious and 

deceptive acts committed by Defendant Borkowski and all other defendants, did in fact deprive Plaintiff 

and most importantly the Minor Plaintiffs’ of their constitutional rights to due process and equal 

protection of the laws. Wallis v Spencer, 202 F. 3d. 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000); Government Code 820.21 

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 CFR 2635, Sec. 101 parts (a), (e), (h), (k), (m) and (n); 18 U.S. Code § 241, 242, 

and 2384; and 42 U.S. Code § 1985, 3617, and 12203.

Let it be known that Plaintiff on behalf of herself and most importantly the minor Plaintiffs, filed 

this claim with this court for reasons of holding Defendant Borkowski and all other defendants 

accountable for their illegal and unethical intentional actions that intentionally deprived Plaintiff and most 

importantly Minor Plaintiffs’ of their First Amendment Constitutional Rights entitling them to the Right 

to Familial Association, Schultz v Wilson, 304 Fed. Appx. 116, 120 (3rd Circuit 2008); Zablocki v 

Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978); Elrod v Burns 96 S Ct 2673; 427 U.S. 347 (1976); Santosky v

Kramer, 102 S Ct. 1388, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); Smith v Org. of Foster Families for Equality and Reform, 

431 U.S. 816, 845 (1977); their Fourth Amendment Rights entitling them to the right to not be seized 

without probable cause, Robinson v Via 821 F. 2d. 913 (2d. Cir. 1987); and their Fourteenth Amendment 

Rights entitling them to due process and equal protection of law. Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 

(1965); Moore b City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S Ct. 1932, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531 (1977) 

Defendant Borkowski admittedly having her own practice should be educated in all laws of the 

State of Michigan, the U. S. Constitution, including and most vitally important the Federal Fostering 

Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, since that is what she was entrusted to 

provide to Minor Plaintiffs, and to prevent any error on her behalf. However, due to her need for 

financial gain and total disregard for the laws and most importantly to defraud the Minor plaintiffs’ of 

their rights to appropriate and proper representation as their AGAL she did in fact deprive Plaintiff and 

most importantly Minor Plaintiffs’ of their First Amendment Rights to Familial Association, and their 

Fourteenth Amendment Rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. There is no question that 

Defendant Borkowski’s acts were not a mere oversight but an intentional fraudulent act committed with 

malice for a financial gain and also committed without regard to the laws of the State of Michigan.

Case 4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH ECF No. 30, PageID.266 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 6
Defendant Borkowski admits that she was paid to be the Minor Plaintiffs’ GAL, making her a 

state actor and employee pursuant to 5 CFR 2635, Sec. 503. However Defendant Borkowski fails to make 

it known to this court that she was dismissed from the appointment when it was made known eighteen 

(18) months later by defending father’s attorney Mr. VanNorman, that she knowingly had a conflict of 

interest and should have declined the appointment. However, as it is customary in Sanilac County, due to 

the unethical practices of Sanilac County DHS, Sanilac County court officials and conspiring court 

appointed attorneys fearing loss of income, proper representation, acknowledgement of parties’ 

Constitutional Rights and the concept of total regard for the laws of the State of Michigan do not exist. 

Therefore Defendant Borkowski did in fact violate 18 U.S.C. 1001(a) (1-3). At the time that Defendant 

Borkowski’s deception was brought before the court she did state that “this discussion had been brought 

before the court and it was agreed to not being a problem by any party.” The hearing was adjourned by 

Referee Heather Zang until court staff could find where this “discussion” did take place on record. 

However, it was determined that no such “discussion” was found on record resulting in dismissal of 

Defendant Borkowski without any sanctions or punishment for her obvious intentional deception, fraud 

and perjury to obtain a financial gain. 

Plaintiff does not doubt that Defendant Borkowski did have a discussion with other defendants 

but as it is customary in Sanilac County, it was outside of the courtroom and off the record to 

intentionally deprive individuals of their Constitutional Rights. In fact, Plaintiff had previously witnessed 

Defendant Borkowski talking with County Clerk staff about a case and seeking advice to handling it when 

Plaintiff, her Granddaughter and other patrons were in the Sanilac County Clerk’s office. 

Pursuant to FRCP 11(c)(1) and as stated in Gross v State Of IL, 312 F. 2d 257, and I quote, 

“State Judges as well as Federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of 

Federal Constitutional Rights” and 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v Lord 456 F. 2d 257, it is quoted, “ Judges 

must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting 

litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality”. Therefore, this court has the legal obligation to levy 

sanctions against Mr. McNamee and his client Defendant Borkowski, for so arrogantly admitting that they 

have in fact used this court to harass, intimidate and instill fear of financial loss towards Plaintiff Russell 

by abusively threatening her with sanctions if she did not dismiss her claims, all without providing 

factual evidence to support their inaccurate claims and statements and to deter any further dilatory 

defenses.

Mr. McNamee on behalf of his client did in fact violate 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3) and FRCP 5 by 

certifying that the 13th day of November, he did in fact serve upon Plaintiff Deborah K. Russell by regular 

mail, a copy of Defendant Borkowski’s Motion For Sanctions along with a letter. Rule 5(b)(2)C, requires 

that such service be made to parties last known address. However, Mr. McNamee failed to review 

Case 4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH ECF No. 30, PageID.267 Filed 01/07/15 Page 3 of 6
previous documents on file which does provide Plaintiff Russell’s address as being 3250 N. Banner Rd., 

Sandusky, MI 48471 and not 6957 Burns Line Rd., Lexington, MI 48450. Plaintiff did in fact inquire 

about such mailing be received by her son who lives at the Lexington address and she was told that no 

mail has came for her at that address. Plaintiff did not receive it at her current address as well. Therefore, 

Plaintiff assumes such mailings were not served as required. Also, Mr. McNamee provided this court with 

certifications that contain conflicting dates and documentation titles compared to those listed on the 

PACER system. Therefore, Defendant Borkowski’s Motion For Sanctions must be denied for failure to 

serve and improper service. 

Mr. McNamee and his client Defendant Borkowski have in fact, filed this frivolous Motion for 

Sanctions to further harass Plaintiff and to cause unnecessary delay, FRCP 11(b) (1). Plaintiff’s claims are 

in fact warranted by existing law, FRCP 11(b) (2). Plaintiff’s factual contentions do in fact have 

evidentiary support and will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 

investigation or discovery, FRCP 11(b)(3). Mr. McNamee and his client Defendant Borkowski have 

failed to provide accurate specific conduct of Plaintiff pursuant to FRCP 11(c)(2), instead making 

inaccurate statements of Plaintiff’s reasoning and thought process, which cannot be assumed, 

substantiated or determined by Mr. McNamee or Defendant Borkowski. Therefore, Defendant 

Borkowski’s Motion For Sanctions must be denied.

QUESTIONS:

1. Did Defendant Borkowski’s intentional illegal and unethical acts deprive Plaintiff and Minor 

Plaintiffs’ of their First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights?

Plaintiff answers: YES

2. Does Plaintiffs have supporting evidence to support all claims against Defendant Borkowski 

and all other defendants?

Plaintiff answers: YES

3. Are court transcripts legally binding evidence?

Plaintiff answers: YES

4. Is it obvious that Defendant Borkowski’s Motion For Sanctions is nothing more than an 

attempt to intentionally harass, intimidate and instill fear of financial loss towards Plaintiff Russell and to 

delay proceedings?

Plaintiff answers: YES

Case 4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH ECF No. 30, PageID.268 Filed 01/07/15 Page 4 of 6
CONCLUSSION 

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court deny Defendant Borkowski’s Motion For Sanctions 

due to Defendant Borkowski failing to meet the requirements necessary under FRCP 11(b) and lack of 

service and improper service pursuant to FRCP 5(b)(2)C; to order sanctions against Mr. McNamee and 

Defendant Borkowski for intentionally using this court to harass, intimidate, and instill fear of financial 

loss towards Plaintiff Deborah K. Russell in the amount equal to what Defendant Borkowski illegally 

received as payment for services provided merely for a financial gain as Minor Plaintiffs’ GAL, plus $500 

to deter further dilatory defenses; and to proceed to trial in a timely manner without further delay.

Dated: January 3, 2015

Deborah K. Russell

3250 N. Banner Rd.

Sandusky, MI 48471

(810)710-7076

Case 4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH ECF No. 30, PageID.269 Filed 01/07/15 Page 5 of 6
Certificate Of Filing and Service

I certify that on January 7, 2015 I electronically filed the forgoing PLAINTIFF DEBORAH K. 

RUSSELL’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ELAINE BORKOWSKI’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11, using the ECF 

system which will send notification of such filing to John B McNamee Attorney for Defendant 

Borkowski mcnameelaw@msn.com , and counsel of record, Gregory T. Stremers 

(gtstremers@twwcc.com), John G. Fedynsky (fedynskyj@michigan.gov), and Brian D. Einhorn 

(brian.einhorn@ceflawyers.com). 

I hereby further certify that on January 7, 2015, I mailed by United State Postal Service the same to 

the following non-ECF participants: 

Elizabeth V. Weisenbach 

Attorney at Law 

128 W. Huron Avenue 

Bad Axe, MI 48413 

Heather Main 

Attorney at Law 

48 S. Elk Street 

P.O. Box 286 

Sandusky, MI 48471 

Deborah K. Russell

Plaintiff, Pro Per

3250 N. Banner Rd.

Sandusky, MI 48471

(810) 710-7076

debkruss@yahoo.com

Case 4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH ECF No. 30, PageID.270 Filed 01/07/15 Page 6 of 6