AG Office allege election violations

Mohammed Hassan

By Charles Sercombe
During the city’s 2023 city council campaign, there was plenty of talk about possible election cheating.
There was also confirmation by residents who said they were interviewed by agents with the state Attorney General’s Office who were investigating election law violations.
Little did anyone know, the AG’s Office had requested warrants on various election violations against three people, including two councilmembers, back in October of 2024 – a month before the November presidential election.
But arrest warrants were apparently never acted on.
And now the Attorney General’s office, at least through its media contact, is unaware of the warrant requests, and did not respond to a question on why the warrants weren’t acted on.
The attorney who filed the warrant request, Alexandra Peterson, who is separate from the media office, did not return a call from The Review for comment.
The Review has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the case files.

City Councilmember Muhtasin Sadman

According to the online case search posted by the Wayne County 3rd Circuit Court, the following charges were filed against the following people:
City Councilmember Mohammed Hassan: Impersonating another (person) to vote at an election, and absentee ballot tampering.
Councilmember Muhtasin Sadman: Impersonating another (person) to vote at an election, and two charges of inducing an unqualified voter to apply for an absentee ballot.
Shaker Sakead: Impersonating another (person) to vote at an election, absentee ballot tampering, and inducing an unqualified voter to apply for an absentee ballot.
Some of the accusations are felonies. The Review reached out to Hassan and Sadman for comment via email, but neither replied.
Sakead, a businessman, could not be reached for comment.
Hassan has served on city council for several years, and Sadman is in his first term on council.
In a fiery city council meeting on Tuesday when the council considered a resolution by Hassan to remove Councilmember Abu Musa as mayor pro tem and replace him with Councilmember Khalil Refai, Musa accused Hassan of being “corrupt” and had “rigged” the 2023 election.
“He is part of the cancer,” Musa said. “Hassan, ask yourself how corrupt you can be?”
Hassan countered, saying the “community knows who I am. If I am corrupt, they are not going to vote for me.”
Musa was later removed as mayor pro tem.
As for why Attorney General Dana Nessel is taking no further action on the election allegations, those familiar with the matter, say she is holding back in order to not further alienate Muslim voters from the Democratic Party.
A number of Muslim voters shifted their vote to Republicans in November’s presidential election, in protest to President Biden’s ongoing support of Israel and its war in Gaza.
Other sources say the issue has nothing to do with politics, and may involve a legal technicality in the filings.
Posted Jan. 17, 2025

2 Responses to AG Office allege election violations

  1. Mark M. Koroi

    January 18, 2025 at 2:41 pm

    According to the 3rdcc.org website – the official website of the Wayne County Circuit Court – the date of offense alleged for Mr. Sadman’s putative violations were 7/1/2023 and those of Mr. Hassan on 9/4/2023.

    The respective warrant recommendations were apparently dated 10/16/24 and 10/17/24 for Sadman and Hassan on the computer docket – however it is unclear whether that was the date of the warrant recommendations or when they may ahve been filed with the Court. “Non-Capital Felonies” are listed.

    The Court listed as the venue for the warrant on the aforesaid website is the 31st District Court in Hamtramck.

    I checked the statewide MICOURTS database for the 31st District Court for the names of both Messrs. Sadman and Hassan but no criminal cases appear reflecting any such warrant recommendations.

    If an arrest warrant request has been filed or presented to the 31st District Court in Hamtramck, the Court would be expected to have it as a matter of public record.

  2. Mark M. Koroi

    January 18, 2025 at 3:11 pm

    The Michigan Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a process regarding issuance of arrest warrants that needs to be examined here.

    A “warrant recommendation” is typically made by an investigator and directed to a prosecutorial agency for review. That prosecutorial official then decides after review whether or not to “authorize” warrant issuance against a criminal suspect. if so, the proposed arrest warrant is directed to a judicial officer who has a “swear to” hearing where the investigating law enforcement officer swears to the factual basis of the warrant to be issued. The judicial officer then makes a decision whether or not to issue an arrest warrant against the criminal suspect.

    It is unclear from the article above at what stage in the Michigan Code of Criminal Procedure that the arrest warrant proceedings are in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *