By Milton Allimadi
The $12 million default judgment awarded by a Michigan jury to Dr. Greg St. Claire on July 22, 2026 — without a trial on whether I had actually defamed him — should be set-aside or vacated and ultimately it should mark the beginning of the unraveling of this former University of Michigan Health Sparrow anesthesiologist’s years of alleged scheming, by inviting more media scrutiny on his activities.
Dr. St. Claire: His defamation claims are refuted by court records, the police report, hospital records, a video and his own divorce court testimony.
Dr. St. Claire sued me and my publication, Black Star News, for defamation in July 2024.
I will show with documentation, including his own divorce court testimony and a police report recommending his arrest, that I did not defame him.
On February 28, 2024, after more than three decades of employment, Dr. St. Claire was fired by the University of Michigan Health Sparrow. Although he and the University executed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), he testified during his divorce proceedings that he was terminated after his Haitian immigrant wife, Cassandra Fameux, informed the university that he had illegally accessed her medical records.
Ms. Fameux also filed a criminal complaint with the Meridian Township Police alleging that Dr. St. Claire, together with his colleague, psychiatrist Dr. Dominic Barberio—whom she alleged falsely diagnosed her as schizophrenic— had “poisoned” her with antipsychotic drugs intended to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder over a period spanning nearly a decade, from 2014 to 2023. Several psychiatrists later determined she is not schizophrenic.
She further alleged that while under the influence of those drugs, Dr. St. Claire induced her to sign a Judgment of Separate Maintenance (JOSM) on February 20, 2018 transferring millions of dollars in marital assets, including two homes, into his name. The agreement designated Dr. Barberio as the psychiatrist responsible for determining her mental fitness to co-parent the couple’s three minor children.
Ms. Fameux also reported to police that the side-effects of the Invega Sustenna injections were: a pituitary brain tumor; a heart condition—she has a loop monitor inserted in her chest; infertility following surgery to stop excessive bleeding during her monthly cycles; and, diabetes.
Years earlier, in 2015, the Ingham County Probate Court had granted Dr. St. Claire’s request to have Ms. Fameux declared legally incapacitated. She maintains that her condition resulted from the ongoing alleged drugging. Michigan law required the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for an incapacitated person before she could execute an agreement such as the JOSM.
No Guardian Ad Litem was ever appointed. That fact lies at the heart of this case.
I will show why neither I nor Black Star News defamed Dr. St. Claire, and why the default judgment—granted because my interrogatory answers were 48 hours late—that prevented a jury from ever hearing the merits of the defamation claims should be vacated so the case can finally be tried on the evidence.
The facts demonstrate that I did not—and could not—defame Dr. St. Claire. Ironically, much of the evidence that exonerates my reporting comes from Dr. St. Claire’s own testimony under oath.
One of his principal claims was that I falsely reported he was under investigation by Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA).
That allegation is demonstrably false. In my reporting, I quoted a LARA spokesperson Abby Rubley stating that the agency could not comment on an “open investigation.” Months later, on October 4, 2024 LARA investigator Norm Naimy interviewed me by telephone as part of that investigation.
There is even more.
Linda Wenzel, Ms. Fameux’s social worker at Community Mental Health (CMH), documented in her case notes that LARA confirmed to her that Dr. St. Claire had altered Ms. Fameux’s medical records at the University of Michigan Health Sparrow and advised that such conduct constituted a crime that should be reported to police, along with a recommendation that she seek a Personal Protective Order (PPO). Yet, somehow, Dr. St. Claire still holds his medical license.
Dr. St. Claire also alleged that I falsely reported he was under criminal investigation by the Meridian Township Police for allegedly poisoning his wife. Again, the record tells a different story. My reporting quoted Meridian Township Police Chief Richard Grillo confirming that an investigation was underway. That investigation ultimately resulted in police recommending criminal domestic assault charges against Dr. St. Claire, even though prosecutors later declined to file charges. Ms. Wenzel herself accompanied Ms. Fameux to the police station when the criminal complaint was filed.
Dr. St. Claire also challenged my reporting regarding the administration of Invega Sustenna, an antipsychotic medication intended to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. His own divorce attorney, Jessica Larson, denied in an email that Dr. St. Claire personally injected Ms. Fameux with the drug. Although that email later disappeared from my Gmail account after what I believe was a hacking incident, its complete contents survive because I published it in a Black Star News article.
Subsequently, four psychiatrists concluded that Ms. Fameux did not suffer from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. One of them, Dr. Rita Aouad of CMH, testified during the divorce proceedings that Ms. Fameux suffered from severe PTSD resulting from what she described as an abusive marriage. Ms. Fameux also provided investigators with an audio recording she secretly made of a conversation with Dr. Barberio in which he acknowledged that she was not schizophrenic and only “maybe” bipolar.
Then came Dr. St. Claire’s own testimony.
Judge Carol Koenig: Apparently involved with Dr. St. Claire and his former lawyer Ms. Larson in a scheme that fabricated a Guardian Ad Litem to uphold a void JOSM.
During the divorce trial before Judge Carol N. Koenig, Dr. St. Claire admitted that he had personally administered the monthly Invega Sustenna injections to his wife—from 2017 to 2021—although he claimed it occurred only “occasionally.” He further testified that the remaining injections were administered by Dr. Barberio and his nurses. But Dr. Barberio testified differently during his own deposition, stating that Dr. St. Claire personally administered approximately ninety percent of the injections and that his nurses gave the remainder.
Those two sworn versions cannot both be true. If Dr. Barberio’s testimony is accurate, then it means Dr. St. Claire committed perjury.
Ms. Fameux told police that Dr. Barberio only injected her when Dr. St. Claire became angry with her and summoned him to their home as punishment. Dr. St. Claire kept hand-written notes. Dr. Barberio denied that allegation, asserting that the only home visit occurred during the COVID pandemic after Ms. Fameux had missed scheduled injections at the hospital.
The inconsistencies did not end there.
Ms. Fameux alleged prescriptions were not written for the Invega Sustenna. According to Detective Ian Mandernack’s investigative report, Dr. Barberio claimed prescriptions were written. Yet Dr. Barberio printed notes for only one prescription, November 6, 2020, even though the injections covered four years.
Even more troubling, Ms. Fameux’s University of Michigan Health Sparrow medical records identify Dr. Barberio and his nurses as administering the injections. They do not document a single occasion on which Dr. St. Claire injected his wife. Yet Dr. St. Claire admitted under oath that he did inject her; and Dr. Barberio said it was ninety percent of the time.
Domenico Grasso: What is the University of Michigan covering-up with the NDA involving Dr. St. Claire? Source: Sparrow Hospital Website.
That discrepancy alone raises profound questions about the accuracy of the medical records and the testimony surrounding them. They should be of serious concern to the University of Michigan’s top officials, including President Domenico Grasso.
The university has failed to comply with a FOIL request for information filed by Black Star News on October 14, 2025 even though the $25 fee it requested has been paid. Instead the university has postponed the dates it set by when information would be provided on at least seven occasions, going on 10 months now. This raises more questions about what the university hopes to shield with the NDA it executed with Dr. St. Claire.
Dr. St. Claire claimed I defamed him by reporting that during the period he was allegedly drugging his wife Ms. Fameux, he was also having an affair with a married nurse at the University of Michigan Health Sparrow, even though a video of him and the former co-worker in the back seats of his car is available and he admitted to the affair in divorce deposition.
These are the facts of the reporting that documented allegations, interviewed witnesses, obtained court records, quoted public officials, and reported what the evidence showed.
The deeper I dug, the more disturbing the picture became. The evidence surrounding the missing Guardian Ad Litem did not point to an innocent mistake. It pointed to what appears to have been a concerted effort to preserve a void Judgment of Separate Maintenance that transferred millions of dollars in marital assets to Dr. St. Claire.
The roots of the apparently fabricated GAL appear in a December 20, 2017, pro confesso hearing overseen by Judge Janelle A. Lawless who presided over the litigation at the time.
Neither Ms. Fameux nor the attorney she believed was representing her interests, Robin Omer, was present. During the hearing, even though Ms. Larson, Dr. St. Claire, and Judge Lawless all knew no GAL had been appointed, the lawyer asked her client:
Q: “Have you and Ms. Fameux and her guardian ad litem executed a mediation agreement?”
A: “Yes.”
Eight years later, Judge Koenig cited that transcript exchange in her 2025 ruling as evidence that a GAL had participated and assisted Ms. Fameux.
In her September 3, 2025 decision upholding the JOSM, Judge Koenig invoked a fictitious GAL: “Defendant also was fully represented by three advocates… The court finds that the defendant’s guardian ad litem and attorney and her sister-guardian (Jenny) all participated… Her guardian ad litem also happened to be an attorney who was sworn to represent the defendant’s best interests…”
No GAL existed. Therefore, Judge Koenig’s statement was false.
In that same September 3, 2025 ruling, Judge Koenig also failed to disclose that the second attorney she claimed represented Ms. Fameux’s interests—Robin Omer—was formerly the law partner of Jane Radner. Ms. Radner represented Dr. St. Claire in his 2003 divorce from the late Dr. Marcy Street, whom he had also accused of being mentally ill. Dr. Street reportedly died of cancer in 2019.
Judge Koenig’s reference to Ms. Fameux’s sister, Jenny Smith, was also misleading. Ms. Smith was appointed Guardian—not Guardian Ad Litem, which is a separate legal role—at Dr. St. Claire’s request. Dr. St. Claire’s own attorney, Ms. Larson, also became Ms. Smith’s attorney.
Talk about a total fix.
When Black Star News asked Judge Carol N. Koenig’s chambers by email about the court’s repeated references to a Guardian Ad Litem who never existed, the response from judicial assistant Bethany Wilson avoided the question entirely. Instead, she replied: “A judge has a duty not to initiate or permit ex parte communications.”
That was not an answer to the question.
The question was simple: Where was the Guardian Ad Litem that Michigan law required before an individual previously adjudicated incapacitated could execute an agreement transferring away millions of dollars in marital property?
No one has answered that question because no truthful answer exists. The transcript, the court file, and the subsequent rulings all point to the same conclusion: there was no Guardian Ad Litem.
That is why Black Star News reported what appeared to be a fraud upon the court. We reported the matter to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the FBI.
That is not defamation.
That is what investigative journalism is supposed to do when the evidence points to possible judicial misconduct and an apparent fraud on the court.
In a functioning democracy, exposing evidence of possible corruption within the justice system should be encouraged—not punished with a multi-million-dollar judgment designed to silence a news organization.
The First Amendment exists precisely because powerful people do not get to decide what journalists may investigate or publish.
The questions surrounding Dr. Greg St. Claire did not end with the Guardian Ad Litem controversy.
On May 12, 2026, I reported that Dr. St. Claire’s divorce attorney, Ms. Larson, had parted ways with her law firm, Mallory Lapka Scott & Selin.
Less than two weeks later, I reported that the firm itself had apparently shut down.
Dr. St. Claire has accused both Ms. Fameux and his late second wife, Dr. Marcy Street—both Black women—of suffering from mental illness.
Yet, according to Ms. Fameux, Dr. St. Claire’s own sister told Ms. Fameux’s first divorce attorney, Janet Hamilton, that it was actually Dr. St. Claire who had been treated for schizophrenia while attending medical school at Michigan State University during the 1980s. When Timothy Young, one of Ms. Fameux’s divorce attorney’s asked him about his past mental health diagnosis during deposition he refused to answer the question.
Questions about Dr. St. Claire’s mental health were also raised during his earlier 2003 divorce from Dr. Street.
Marcy Street: Dr. St. Claire claimed the late Dr. Street also had mental illness.
In court papers, Dr. Street’s attorney, Nan Elizabeth Casey, wrote: “Testimony will also be presented showing that defendant St. Claire was in a mental institution for over three weeks some years ago. His behavior is not only bizarre but inappropriate.”
During that same divorce proceeding, the couple’s housekeeper, Shelley Van Epps, submitted a sworn affidavit describing what she characterized as Dr. St. Claire’s “bizarre” and “frightening” behavior.
Ms. Van Epps stated that she observed Dr. St. Claire “eating cat food and swigging wine from a gallon jug” during the morning hours while working in the family home. She further alleged that he repeatedly asked her sexually explicit and deeply personal questions, including whether her husband rubbed her “clitoris—I mean back,” whether she was “horny,” and whether her husband would ever kill her and her children.
She concluded her affidavit by writing:
“I was frightened by his behavior which I found bizarre and unexplainable… I called Dr. Street and explained what had happened because I was fearful of his behavior and afraid for Dr. Street and her children.”
More than two decades later, during Dr. St. Claire’s deposition in his divorce from Ms. Fameux, her attorney Young, questioned him about Ms. Van Epps’ affidavit.
Over the objection of his attorney, Jessica Larson, Dr. St. Claire acknowledged under oath that he had, in fact, sampled dog food.
According to the deposition transcript, he testified: “Yeah, but anyhow, I remember her saying that I ate dog food. I don’t deny that I tried dog food a couple times, a little piece of it… Yes, sir, I have tried my dog food to see what it tastes like, a little pellet. I don’t deny that. I don’t eat it for lunch.”
So how did we end up with a $12 million judgment against me?
When my defamation case was scheduled for trial before Judge Morgan Cole, I was actually looking forward to it. Yes, it was the same Ingham County Circuit Court in Lansing, MI, where I had reported what I believe was a fraud upon the court involving Dr. St. Claire, his then-attorney Ms. Larson, and Judge Koenig over the fabricated Guardian Ad Litem.
But this was a different courtroom before a different judge.
I believed the evidence supporting my reporting was overwhelming, and I welcomed the opportunity to present it to a jury.
I never imagined that the jury would never be allowed to decide whether I had defamed Dr. St. Claire.
Instead, they were prevented from hearing any of the evidence I have outlined here.
On June 22, 2026 while preparing my responses to interrogatories served by Dr. St. Claire’s attorney, Chris Newberg, and due June 24, 2026, I made a disturbing discovery.
Every email I had exchanged with Ms. Larson over approximately two years had been deleted from my Gmail account.
These were not random emails.
They were communications directly related to the reporting at issue in the defamation case.
Believing this could constitute evidence tampering, I immediately reported the matter to the FBI by email. I also notified my attorney at Butzel Long and asked that Judge Cole be informed in the hope that I would receive additional time to complete the interrogatories.
A few days later, on June 26, 2026, I went to FBI headquarters at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City, and completed a formal complaint.
Then, later that very same day, I made another alarming discovery. Every email I had exchanged with Mr. Newberg himself over many months had also disappeared from my Gmail account.
That was beyond coincidence.
I immediately reported that discovery to the FBI as well and later notified the New York Police Department about both the Larson and Newberg e-mails in a letter emailed to Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch.
One of the deleted emails was particularly significant. It was my May 4, 2024 letter offering Dr. St. Claire an opportunity to be interviewed so he could challenge anything he believed was inaccurate in my reporting. He never accepted that invitation. Instead, he chose to sue.
I understand that, with appropriate law-enforcement and court intervention, Google can recover deleted emails and even determine how they disappeared and the source of the breach.
Despite spending countless hours searching for emails I eventually realized had been deleted, I still completed a seventy-three-page response to the interrogatories and delivered it to my attorney for forwarding to Mr. Newberg. It arrived only two days after the deadline.
Mr. Newberg nevertheless sought a default judgment based on that brief delay.
At about the same time, my attorneys at Butzel Long informed me that they could no longer continue representing me on a pro bono basis after I declined a proposed settlement; more on that later.
I requested that they withdraw so I could retain new counsel. My attorney later advised me that she would ask Judge Cole to allow me additional time to secure new representation, while warning that she could still enter a default against me.
I later learned through a letter Mr. Newberg sent to a New York journalist who had written a column on the St. Claire case—threatening him with legal action—that Judge Cole had, in fact, entered the default on July 8, 2026.
To this day, I do not know anything that transpired during that July 8 proceeding or what representations were made to the court.
I was informed by a court clerk that the proceeding was not recorded.
The result was extraordinary.
The proceeding that began on July 20, 2026, was not a trial on whether I had defamed Dr. St. Claire.
That question had already been decided by default. The jury was asked only to determine how much money to award Dr. St. Claire.
I traveled from New York to Lansing and personally asked Judge Cole, before opening statements, for a brief continuance so I could retain counsel for myself and Black Star News.
The request was denied. The damages trial proceeded.
The jury ultimately awarded Dr. St. Claire $12 million.
I have already filed a motion asking the court to set aside the default, and once the judgment is entered, I intend to seek relief from both the default and the monetary judgment.
This case deserves what it has never received: a jury trial on the actual defamation claims.
Dr. St. Claire should have to prove, before a jury, that my reporting was false.
I welcome that trial. My reporting on the case is tight.
For too long, Dr. St. Claire has, in my view, successfully gamed the system.
He should not be permitted to wield a multi-million-dollar judgment as a cudgel to silence Black Star News and punish investigative journalism.
If that can happen, then every investigative reporter should be concerned.
The First Amendment must still count for something.
Note: Since I no longer have pro bono representation I will need to retain counsel to help me and Black Star News remove the default and money judgment so that we can take this defamation case where it belongs. Before a jury. Consider supporting my crowd-sourcing for a legal defense fund.
Also support the “Justice for Cassandra” campaign which now has more than 1,000 signatures.
