Even after the abominable scandal of Larry Nassar, the Michigan-based USA Gymnastics doctor found guilty of multiple cases of sexual abuse against female gymnasts and imprisoned, Michigan legislators refused to be stampeded into signing off on Hamilton’s demands. They kept their wits about them, taking a well-informed approach to the issue—and challenging Hamilton.
For good reason. As the evidence shows, Hamilton’s appeal to the House Standing Committee on Law and Justice, and her answers to lawmakers’ inquiries, were filled with half-truths, omitted facts and misrepresentation.
When Hamilton appeared before the Michigan House Law and Justice Committee, then Rep. Lana Theis openly called out Hamilton for what “is actually an intellectually dishonest approach.”
For perhaps the first time, Hamilton found herself under pointed questioning about her testimony, and about herself. And she did not like being challenged, turning huffy and taking “great exception” to being called dishonest.
“I have never been asked those questions at another hearing in my life,” Hamilton complained to the media.
She should have been.
What came to light in Michigan serves as a cautionary tale of how Hamilton and her Child USA wage an ill-informed and dishonest campaign, which continues to this day.
The exposure began when Hamilton’s letter of April 2018 to Michigan legislators found its way to former State Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan. A former state and federal prosecutor and the only judge to serve as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court, Corrigan has been described as “a trailblazer, visionary and thought leader” in the field of law. She is also a published author in the fields of poverty and child welfare issues.
Corrigan’s experience and expertise bring gravitas to the unusual action she took upon review of Hamilton’s letter. She felt compelled to write her own letter to the legislators advising them that, in her opinion, Hamilton’s proposals were only intended to begin an avalanche of litigation, which would incur significant costs to the state, the people and the institutions of Michigan—while showering significant financial rewards on the civil attorneys who would suddenly be involved.
“I disagree with many of her claims of fact and law,” Corrigan wrote in her opening paragraph.
Hamilton falsely testified she had not associated with the group [SNAP] for “decades”….Freedom discovered that Hamilton had, in fact, enjoyed an uninterrupted, active affiliation with SNAP throughout the entire preceding decade.
And while “punishing sexual predators and protecting victims are vital obligations of our government,” Corrigan further wrote, “[m]aking sweeping changes to longstanding laws, however, is fraught with unintended consequences.”
The former chief justice warned that Hamilton’s suggested legal changes “will entice attorneys to bring claims against employers and other entities, public and private, based on allegations of decades-old conduct, wherein the evidence necessary to mount a defense may be gone and the witnesses and alleged perpetrators may have moved on or passed away.”
In her three-page letter, Corrigan breached Hamilton’s Ivy League wall of insuperability. The probing questions and astute observations of lawmakers widened the gap, in which a clear-cut pattern of deception emerged.
To begin, Hamilton claimed that the age of 48 was the median age at which victims of child sexual abuse finally find the courage to speak up about their assault, and therefore the age limit for filing civil child sex abuse claims in Michigan should be raised to 48.
It was important to Hamilton, because if she can convince legislators that sex abuse victims do not reveal their abuse until they are over 40 or 50 years old, she has a strong argument for drastically altering or eliminating SOLs to enable an open season for lawsuits on behalf of tort lawyers.
Apart from Hamilton’s prevarications to legislators on questions pertaining to bias, conflicts of interest or financial motivation, there was the more fundamental problem that her proposal did not meet important standards of law.
“Ms. Hamilton’s suggestion that it be extended to 48 years is troubling. It is not supported even by the articles she cites,” former justice Corrigan wrote. “She does not cite any authority for the claim that the median age to disclose is 48. Instead, she seems to be saying that the median age of any adult is 48 years, as that is the halfway point between the age of majority and average life expectancy. A meaningless statistic to say the least.”
On May 15, 2018, when Hamilton appeared before the Michigan House Law and Justice Committee, then Rep. Lana Theis openly called out Hamilton for what “is actually an intellectually dishonest approach.”
Committee vice chair Rep. Stephanie Chang said, “We were presented this number as if it was the number and it forms the way the bill was written, with the 30 years being on top of the age of 18.
“If we’re talking about creating public policy based on this age of 48, I think that we need to really understand where that comes from.”
But that was just the tip of Hamilton’s mountain of misrepresentations, which cascaded around the legislators like bubbles in a mountain stream.
-
Hamilton was asked by legislators if she was being paid for her testimony, and she denied it. She apparently did not mention the $130,000 annual salary she receives as CEO and founder of Child USA, a group almost entirely funded by law firms who directly benefit from the SOL changes that Child USA creates—including hundreds or thousands of new clients, and average 30 to 40 percent contingency fees in lawsuits that routinely reap millions in settlements.
In 2017, the year before her testimony in Michigan, Hamilton’s salary from Child USA comprised 73 percent of the group’s total revenue.
-
In ascertaining potential bias or conflicts of interest on Hamilton’s part, legislators asked her if she was affiliated with SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. SNAP had come into disrepute in 2017 when a whistleblower sued the organization and stirred up a scandal about SNAP accepting “kickbacks” from lawyers in exchange for client referrals.
Hamilton falsely testified she had not associated with the group for “decades.”
The Detroit News rapidly discovered and reported that Marci Hamilton had not been truthful—that she was a featured speaker at the 2016 SNAP conference.
Freedom discovered that Hamilton had, in fact, enjoyed an uninterrupted, active affiliation with SNAP throughout the entire preceding decade:
- Hamilton was keynote speaker at SNAP’s 2008 annual conference.
- Between 2010 and 2015, Hamilton filed five amicus briefs on behalf of the SNAP organization.
- In 2013, SNAP publicly thanked Marci Hamilton for “endorsing and supporting” a SNAP fundraising event in New York.
- In 2010, 2011 and 2017, Hamilton was listed on SNAP press releases and spoke in SNAP’s defense.
(And in 2018 and 2019, after her testimony, Hamilton again spoke at SNAP’s annual conference.)
-
In response to concerns of severe litigation consequences in the wake of SOL reform legislation, Hamilton told the Michigan lawmakers that there was no “flood” of lawsuits filed after similar legislation was implemented in other states.
The record already showed a trend in several states of a thousand or more lawsuits filed as a direct consequence of SOL reform, along with institutional bankruptcies in the wake of that litigation.
But the lawmakers’ concern, which was also raised in Corrigan’s letter, foreshadowed what remarkably happened after Hamilton pushed through legislation in New York the following year. The New York Child Victims Act opened a one-year “lookback window” starting in August 2019, suspending civil SOL on child sex abuse cases; the window was extended for a second year during the pandemic. When the window closed in 2021, nearly 11,000 civil suits had been filed, requiring 45 judges to be designated to deal with the avalanche of cases—more than 90 percent against deep-pocket institutions, and many claiming decades-old childhood sex abuse. Half the plaintiffs are represented by attorneys that donate to Child USA, including the attorney who chairs Child USA’s board of directors and is one of the organization’s top donors.
Apart from Hamilton’s prevarications to legislators on questions pertaining to bias, conflicts of interest or financial motivation, there was the more fundamental problem that her proposal did not meet important standards of law.
“Ms. Hamilton misstates the burden of proof in a civil case,” Corrigan wrote in her letter to legislators, addressing Hamilton’s attempts to dodge concerns about unwarranted litigation.
“Ms. Hamilton incorrectly claims that ‘[w]ithout corroborating evidence, the case does not go forward.’” As the former chief justice pointed out, the bill Hamilton was hawking contradicted that statement: “a plaintiff’s word alone—even if based on a decades-old memory—could be sufficient to bring a lawsuit under the proposed legislation.”
The [new] proposed legislation raises the age of eligibility for filing civil lawsuits to 52 years old…based solely on Hamilton’s false “science” that fraudulently identifies 52 as the average age at which an adult is prepared to discuss their assault.
Hamilton had also neglected to make clear to the Michigan legislators that her proposed bill would eliminate immunity protecting government and public entities, such as public schools, from being held liable for the actions of their employees.
That means that in civil cases resulting in liability, or reaching settlement, the public school, hospital or other public or government entity would be largely responsible for paying that compensation—funds that would come directly from taxpayers, not perpetrators.
Corrigan dismissed Hamilton’s claims that insurance would cover half the cost of state settlements, pointing out that “the State, school districts, and local governments will still be exposed to untold liabilities.”
In the end, among other outcomes of the bill, Michigan legislators declined to extend the civil statute of limitations in Michigan to 48 years and instead allowed child sex abuse victims to file lawsuits until they turn 28 years old, or within three years after they find that they were assaulted.
As Justice Corrigan warned legislators…Hamilton’s proposals would incur significant costs to the state, the people, and the institutions of the state, while showering significant financial rewards on civil attorneys.
But that was not good enough for Hamilton. She and her Child USA returned to Michigan in 2022 and 2023 with a package of bills. The proposed legislation raises the age of eligibility for filing civil lawsuits to 52 years old—up from the “meaningless statistic” of age 48 that Hamilton was called out on in 2018.
The new number is based solely on Hamilton’s false “science” that fraudulently identifies 52 as the average age at which an adult is prepared to discuss their assault. As all evidence proves, her “science” is an invention.
A press representative for one Michigan legislator sponsoring Hamilton’s bill admitted the age of 52 was chosen based solely on the advice of Hamilton and Child USA’s “research.”
As those willing to look behind Hamilton’s and Child USA’s campaign concluded in 2018, Hamilton’s approach, in the words of one lawmaker, is “intellectually dishonest.”
And as Justice Corrigan warned legislators in 2018, Hamilton’s proposals would incur significant costs to the state, the people, and the institutions of the state, while showering significant financial rewards on civil attorneys.
Which has always been the plan for Hamilton and her Child USA.
Watch for Part VII of this Investigative Series: HAMILTON’S UNHOLY CRUSADE
