STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 19-2340-SM

v.
JONATHAN VANDERHAGEN

HON.

Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________________/
NICHOLAS P. SOMBERG (P80416)

SOMBERG ZIELINSKI, PLLC
Attorney for Defendant
1133 West Long Lake Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
C: 586.222.6849
F: 248.590.0166
__________________________________________________________________________/
EMERGENCY APPEAL OF THE PEOPLE’S EMERGENCY BOND REVOCATION
DECISION
The defendant, JONATHAN VANDERHAGEN, by and through his attorney, Nicholas
P. Somberg, moves this Honorable Court to appeal the district court’s decision to raise his bond
from $10,000 10% to $500,000 cash or surety and restore his 10% bond or impose other
reasonable conditions. We do not object to additional conditions to be placed upon him
including not using Facebook or any social media or a GPS tether. This motion is made for the
following reasons:
(1) Defendant was arraigned over video-teleconference before the Honorable Ryan
Zemke on July 11, 2019 for the misdemeanor charge of Malicious use of

1

 Telecommunications Device MCL 750.540e against the complaining witness The
Honorable Rachel Rancilo.
(2) A person violating this section may be imprisoned for not more than 6 months or
fined not more than $1,000.00, or both. MCL 750.540e(2)
(3) Mr. Vandenhagen has no criminal history.
(4) Bond conditions were never provided in-writing to Defendant but were set and
included “no personal contact, no third-party contact, and no contact or inadvertent
messages by way of Facebook or other media”.
(5) On July 24, 2019 the people argued an emergency motion to modify Defendant’s
bond attaching several screenshots of Defendant’s Facebook posts. (Defense
Exhibit 1)
(6) This appeal is decided on an abuse of discretion standard.
(7) Defendant has a constitutional right to redress his grievances against the
government. The First Amendment prohibits government officials from punishing
individuals for engaging in protected speech and secures the right to petition the
government for redress of grievances. Holeton v City of Livonia, No. 341624, 2019
WL 2016252 (Mich Ct App, May 7, 2019)
(8) Defendant has a grievance with friend of the court for the death of his son two years
ago and has been posting on Facebook his grievances for the last two years.
(9) First, in their motion the people inappropriately included as Exhibit 1, a Facebook
post that was made on July 8th, prior to the imposing of bond conditions and told the
court that it was posted after the bond conditions which is was not. In this post
Defendant states he is going to “Dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet”.
(10) The other Exhibits (2) and (3) in the people’s motion contain no threatening or
harassing language whatsoever and are in no-way a violation of the bond condition
of “no personal contact, no third-party contact, and no contact or inadvertent
messages by way of Facebook or other media”. The do not mention Rachel
Rancilio or elude to her in any way whatsoever. The posts are clearly criticism of

2

 Friend of the Court as a whole and have nothing to do with Judge Rancilio. The nocontact order has been complied with.
(11) Defense counsel asked what about those exhibits were threatening or violated the
no contact order. The court’s response was “they speak for themselves” stating
nothing in the way my client violated his bond. (Transcript attached as Defense
Exhibit 2)
(12) The amount of bail is largely a matter of judicial discretion. It should be fixed with
consideration of the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal
record of the defendant and the probability or improbability of his appearing at
the trial of the cause. 1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure (2d ed.), s
271, p. 311. People v. Dawson, 29 Mich. App. 488, 496, 185 N.W.2d 581, 585
(1971).
(13) Bail was raised Money bail is excessive if it is in an amount greater than reasonably
necessary to adequately assure that the accused will appear when his *748 presence
is required. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951). People v
Edmond, 81 Mich App 743, 747–48; 266 NW2d 640, 642 (1978)

I.

Seriousness of the Offense Charged
Mr. Vanderhagen is charged with a misdemeanor offense punishable by for not

more than 6 months or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.
II.

Previous Criminal Record

3

 Mr. Vandenhagen has no criminal record as verified by ICHAT.
III.

Probability of Appearing
Mr. Vandenhagen has retained counsel and posted a $1,000 bond. He has set this

matter for a Jury Trial on September 13th, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. He fully intends on
appearing and fighting this charge against him.

For all of the reasons above we ask this honorable court to immediately consider this
emergency appeal regarding bond at soonest available date and restore Mr. Vandenhagen’s
original bond of $10,000 10%.

Respectfully submitted,

Nicholas P. Somberg
NICHOLAS P. SOMBERG (P 80416)
SOMBERG ZIELINSKI, PLLC
1133 West Long Lake Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
248/270-5979//248/590-0166 fax
NickSomberg@gmail.com
DATED:

July 30, 2019

4