You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 11:18 a.m.

University of Michigan modifies order barring Assistant AG Andrew Shirvell from campus

By David Jesse

The University of Michigan has modified its order barring Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell from campus, spokeswoman Diane Brown said this morning.

Effective today, Shirvell will be allowed back on campus under the following conditions:

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Andrew-Shirvell.jpg

Andrew Shirvell, pictured in this Michigan Daily photo taken at a Michigan Student Assembly meeting, can now be on campus under certain conditions.

• He can have no physical or verbal contact with University of Michigan student body president Chris Armstrong.

• He cannot be anywhere that he can reasonably expect Armstrong to be.

An exemption allows Shirvell to attend U-M intercollegiate sporting events even if Armstrong is there.

If Shirvell violates the modified order he can be arrested and charged with trespassing.

The university barred Shirvell from campus Sept. 14 following Armstrong's request the day before for a personal protection order against Shirvell. The assistant attorney general had been attacking Armstrong on a blog accusing him of promoting a "radical homosexual agenda" and had shown up at events on campus to criticize Armstrong. Shirvell also showed up at Armstrong's house to heckle him, Armstrong said.

Armstrong has since dropped the request for the personal protection order. Last week, Shirvell's lawyer threatened to sue the university if the trespass order was not lifted. On Friday, Armstrong filed a request seeking to have Shirvell disbarred.

Shirvell and his lawyer met with U-M Department of Public Safety officials Friday. DPS issued the ruling modifying the order today.



Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 11:19 p.m.

"Shirvell successfully appealed a University of Michigan order that barred him from any U-M owned property last week. But he was fired yesterday because he repeatedly violated office policies, engaged in borderline stalking behavior, and inappropriately used state resources, our investigation showed." My friend, the female research staff at U-M has never able to get her "trespass warning" lifted. She has appealed 4 time in last 3 years. She is still holding her job at U-M because "she is too much trouble". My friend filed a discrimination complain against DPS to OIE this morning. But she was told her case is not comparable with Mr.Shirvell's case, just as we can not compare Apple with Orange. My friend asked: "Are you telling me that I am a tangerine, yellow, small, "made in china", and Mr. Shirvell is a Big American "Red Delicious" Apple?


Fri, Nov 5, 2010 : 3:13 a.m.

this all has the markings of a potential hate crime. does anyone know what triggered this animosity?


Thu, Nov 4, 2010 : 2:07 a.m.

Try to sue the UofM and see how quickly you an banned from the property.Suing them is akin to suing the state of Michigan.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 10:54 p.m.

@DBH: You're right....once you hit the send button it's too late.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 8:53 p.m.

a2citizen: I believe you have confused Shirvell with Armstrong.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 5:40 p.m.

Paul Rubens? haha, i thought it was Bob Saget!


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 5:18 p.m.

@Matt Cooper- the difference between private property and the property of a public university has been recognized by the state legislature in 1970 when they passed a statute entitled "PROHIBITED CONDUCT AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION" mcl-752.581 "Colleges and universities; wilfully remaining on premises, misdemeanor, penalty" This was enacted in response to the BAM strike in 1970 where the Ann Arbor Police would not throw the students off campus for excersizing their rights of free speech and assembly. The difference between this law and the general trespass statute of 1931 is the the person must be proven to be "in violation of the properly promulgated rules of the institution". Also, when the person is no longer violating those rules, they are no longer trespassing. This allows a person so charged a "due process" to show that they are not violating such rules. This is the law that the UM should be following in the Shirvell case and in any other case where the person has a right to be on the property because they are an employee, staff or student or because they are excercising their constitutional rights. It is only since 1992, when the UM was allowed to establish their own police department that they began to enforce the 1931 statute. This is why we need a professional police department, like the Ann Arbor Police, and not the pseudo-professional security guards that are the UM campus police.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 5:17 p.m.

Hallelujah everyone is going to neutral corners on this one. This is one whacked out issue, you can't go there because I will be there on this date and that. So, they have written agendas and planners to go with this? Glad this is resolved. Sort of.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:58 p.m.

And another thing, if Armstrong is now free to attend football games does he have to pay for parking?


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:55 p.m.

I wonder how Shirvell will respond to his critics if he ever runs for a "real" office. Will he try to have personal protection orders against his critics? If ever elected to a "real" office, will Shirvell have local or state police try to enforce trespass orders? How thin skinned can a person possibly be?


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:17 p.m.

Just another lovely example of an elitist administration. Does this barring hold any water in the real world- I think not. It seems Mary Sue cannot stay out of anything. I believe if there was a case of true harassment; Mr. Armstrong would have filed the PPO and the court would have granted it. Problem solved. I believe that there is some "game playing" going on here (by one, or both parties). But don't worry, taxpayer supported President Coleman is here to save the day again. Here's a funny thought. Since U of M is performing the duties of a judicial, can the county sue U of M? It is working for President Obama, in his case against the state of Arizona.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4:12 p.m.

U-M police will not tell the bulling professor to stay away from his former staff. absolutly not! The only thing that the U-M police will do is to read the staff member a trespass and block her from the research buiding she had worked there for many years.

David Cahill

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 4 p.m.

I expect Shirvell won't be a lawyer much longer.

Oscar Lavista

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 3:49 p.m.

In case any of you missed it, USRepublic would like to say: Mary Sue.... Please accept this post as notice that if you step foot on Ferdon (between Packard and Stadium) you shall be summarily arrested for being in violation of My Order that you cannot be in proximity to where one might reasonably consider I would be. Who do these idiots think they are? It won't be long......until anybody with a viewpoint that differs from the viewpoint of the U of M's Progressive Left will be detained and questioned at the campus gates. Natural Selection takes care of many of the world's problems.......such a shame it takes so long.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.

That is a picture of Shirvell? I thought it was paul Reubens.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.

david briegel...Point taken. I agree shirvell is in no way a benign "character", although he is still a funny one, as many such obsessive fanatics often are as long as they remain influence-less. Sadly the election here indicates that's not always the case, and in certain regions overseas they call the shots! Anyway, apologies shakey.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.

Every picture I've seen of Shirvell, he has his mouth open. How about that? I expect that he'll be working for AG elect Schuette.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.

As far as I'm concerned, there are already too many lawyers on the campus. Keeping a lawyer "on a mission from GOD" away from campus can only be a good thing. A self righteous lawyer, imagine that.

David Briegel

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.

bedrog, Shakey Jake was nice, harmless, and bothered nobody! He was always "on the move". Shirvell helieves he is a messenger of god on a missionary expedition. Nobody would pay attention to Shirvell's loser agenda so he is attempting to gain a larger audience!


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.

This seems like a reasonable compromise. Harrassment is not protected speech. UM's modified order doesn't actually restrict Shirvell's speech, it just reduces Shirvell's ability to harrass Armstrong. He can go express his opinions anywhere else. @UtrespassM Maybe the officer was wrong about what could be done about the bullying professor? It happens. Or maybe, given that this was a manager-(i.e. boss)-staff relationship issue, the police was not the way to approach that problem.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.

After his hysterically entertaining turn on THE DAILY SHOW shirvell will probably be so mobbed by authograph seekers ( but not in a complimentary way!) that he'll stay away of his own volition. Either that or become the new 'shakey jake'...i.e. a quirky but not -to-be taken seriously public character, sort of like a few others hereabouts who could also be 'Daily Show" -ized with comedy -gold results..


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 2:31 p.m.

Has Chris Armstrong dropped restraining order request against Andrew Shirvell last week? Why does U-M police give Mr. Shirell a personal protective order and keep him away from Chris Armstrong? I was told by the U-M police that they had no right to tell a professor to stay away from a staff member who was bullied by her boss.

Matt Cooper

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 2:28 p.m.

I'm wondering why some of you just don't get the fact that simply because UM is a 'public' university doesn't mean that anybody that happens to be here has any right to go where they damn well please, when they please regardless of any other factors. Public university or not, the UM Department of Public Safety is charged with, and has the legal authority to, regulate who is allowed (or in this case disallowed) to be present on campus generally, or in specific areas, and who is not allowed. There is no abuse of any civil rights contained in this case, regardless of what Shirvell's own twisted mind might tell him or what his mouthpiece attorney might threaten. And for those that think the PPO was unecessary let's remind ourselves that Shirvell has "protested" outside Mr. Armstrongs residence at 3 o'clock in the morning and videotaped the goings on inside Mr. Armstrong's house. This is not a free speech issue. This is harassment. And this is not to mention that Shirvell has reportedly followed Mr. Armstrongs friends and family and harassed them as well. Shirvell has also called Mr. Armstrong every name he can think of short of using profanity, and were I Armstrong I would file slander and lible suits against Shirvell seeking every penny he's got. All this under color of a "political campaign" run by Shirvell (even though Armstrong is NOT running for any office, nor seeking any governmental seat. Clue: He's already won election to the student gov't., that campaign is long over). Shirvell needs to get over himself, get some counseling and move on with his life.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:59 p.m.

Who did Shirvell and his lawyer meet with U-M Department of Public Safety last Friday? I was told that Ken Magee was (is) on a silk leave and has no clearly returning date. Did Shirvell attack Armstrong physically? No, at least I haven't heard about. Should U-M police ban Chris' Blog? instant of read him a trepass? can U-M do that?


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.

I have no use for a public official acting the way Shirvell has. However it is apparent that the U of M realized they have overstepped their bounds and because this was such a public case they thought better to back down a little before all of their (or most)trespass orders are rescinded.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:53 p.m.

Mary Sue.... Please accept this post as notice that if you step foot on Ferdon (between Packard and Stadium) you shall be summarily arrested for being in violation of My Order that you cannot be in proximity to where one might reasonably consider I would be. Who do these idiots think they are? It won't be long......until anybody with a viewpoint that differs from the viewpoint of the U of M's Progressive Left will be detained and questioned at the campus gates. Natural Selection takes care of many of the world's problems.......such a shame it takes so long.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:12 p.m.

@trespass, perhaps you are correct, but I am not sure the U dodged a lawsuit. It appears there is an attempt of stifling a person who wants to contest the opinions of an elected official. However I do think that a person must have standing to contest, and since Shirvell is not a student, he has no standing in re to what the UM student govt does. He should however be completely free as a Michigan alumni and a taxpayer to bicker appropriately with the UM board of regents if they appear to be considering anything proposed by Armstrong. Since the beginning of all this I have found it very odd that Shirvell cares what the student govt is up to. Guess he can't get his head out of college life.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:09 p.m.

The current order is clearly more reasonable. I think they are taking corrective measures to avoid a civil rights lawsiut by Shirvell. It makes one wonder how many of these U-M police "trespass orders" there are out there that are unduly overbroad and trample upon the civil rights of others who had no hearing.

David Briegel

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 1:01 p.m.

DavidJesse, thanks. Barb, I wish they could "put him in the game" if you get my drift.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 12:58 p.m.

I'd love to know what Mr. Shirvell is hiding deep in his psyche! Why does a gay man in a position of power disturb him so much? It makes one wonder....Hmmm


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 11:40 a.m.

Thanks goodness he can still go to football games.

David Jesse

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 11:40 a.m.

@David: The hearing before the state Civil Service Commission isn't until Friday.

David Briegel

Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 11:28 a.m.

Good move U of M. Armstrong deserves peace. Ignatz, Shirvell is welcome to do whatever he wishes. Just not around Armstrong. Makes perfect sense to me! Didn't Shirvell have his meeting with Cox? Results please?


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.

Shirvell surely is a "piece of work." He obviously feels threatened by Armstrong or he wouldn't pursue this as he has done. Aren't there bigger issues to tackle as the assistant AG? Note to Mr. Shirvell - brush up on your English,Grammar and interviewing skills. The Daily Show parody was an embarrassment to you.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.

If the U allows Armstrong to pursue his "radical homosexual agenda", then why won't they let Shirvell pursue his radical loser agenda? This is America, after all.


Wed, Nov 3, 2010 : 10:53 a.m.

This sounds a lot like a personal protective order. The UM police are substituting their judgement for that of a court. The University modified the order in order to avoid a federal lawsuit that would have ordered the University to stop abusing the trespass order.