Defendants, as did the trial court, contend that only those judges elected in Wayne County are "regularly holding court there". Defendants cite as controlling the case of Lamb v Board of Auditors of Wayne County, 235 Mich. 95; 209 N.W. 195 (1926). In Lamb, a circuit court judge from the 28th circuit was temporarily assigned to serve in the Wayne County circuit.
As for defendant's point that the May 9th order was served on him at 2:30 p.m. on May 12th, too late to allow him to present himself during court hours on that day in the third circuit and that the order to show cause was served upon him at 10:30 p.m. on that day, suffice it to say that the defendant did not on any of the succeeding days present himself to serve as judge in the third circuit and that at the hearing before us on May 16th, upon invitation extended by this Court before the adjudication of contempt, he declined to do so. Citing Lamb v. Board of Auditors of Wayne County, 235 Mich. 95, defendant says that the people of the tenth judicial circuit are entitled to his service as judge. To that may be added that they are entitled to efficient and effective judicial service and to courts which discharge their business promptly.
People v Maynor, 256 Mich App 238, 240; 662 NW2d 468 (2003). Specific intent "may be inferred by the jury from circumstantial evidence," People v Fields., 64 Mich App 166, 174; 235 Mich 95 (1975), or from "the facts and circumstances established beyond a reasonable doubt," People v Brown, 159 Mich App 428, 431; 407 NW2d 21 (1987). "Because of the difficulty of proving an actor's state of mind, minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient."