Creep Takes Advantage of Innocent Woman—Loses It at Sentencing!

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Yes, and legal guardian, and thank you for the opportunity to describe the impact Wayne Farron has had on Tiffany's life, on mine, and on my family. Tiffany is a developmentally disabled adult. Her disability and psychological evaluations are documented in the court record, and she is considered a vulnerable adult. Wayne's grandmother lived across the street from where Tiffany and I lived while she was growing up, so we were familiar with the family. After Tiffany began attending a new church, I accompanied her one Sunday. Wayne and his mother were there, and I overheard him tell Tiffany that they should get together. I immediately warned her against that because he was on parole and I was aware of his criminal history. Without my knowledge, Wayne later contacted Tiffany and within 30 days they were secretly married. I learned of the marriage only because Tiffany shared the news with members of her community mental health peer support group, who then informed me. From that point on our lives were thrown into chaos for more than a year. Instead of being able to focus on protecting my daughter, I found myself struggling to navigate multiple agencies and a legal system that often seems unable or unwilling to act. I struggled to get law enforcement, parole officials, and other agencies to recognize the urgency of the situation. It was not until an attorney became involved that meaningful actions were finally taken, and I have since received an apology regarding how the situation unfolded. While that acknowledgment is appreciated, it does not erase the fear, the frustration, and emotional exhaustion. Wayne had multiple opportunities to make different choices. A pastor refused to marry them, yet Wayne ignored that guidance. He also had the opportunity to speak with me directly, but instead chose to lock me out of Tiffany's home, while he, his mother, and Tiffany remained inside on Christmas Day. Knowing he was on parole and aware of his criminal history, I feared for Tiffany's safety as well as my own. During the brief time they were married, Wayne disrupted Tiffany's bridge card benefits, leaving her without those essential funds for several months until I was finally able to resolve the issue with the Department of Health and Human Services. He also contacted the probate court seeking information about revoking my guardianship and persuaded Tiffany to purchase a phone she did not need. That phone ultimately became evidence in this case. To date, she has spent more than $1,000 on that phone and still does not have possession of it. Although the marriage was annulled, Wayne appealed the annulment, requiring me to spend additional time communicating with the Court of Appeals and seeking legal advice. His continued efforts have prolonged this ordeal and prevented our family from moving forward. Wayne also introduced Tiffany to marijuana products. She is now struggling to stop using marijuana gummies that she began taking because of the stress of this situation. She suffered suicidal thoughts while anticipating having to testify in court and has required increased psychological support. Although she is working hard to recover, Wayne has made that difficult. Even while incarcerated, he continued attempting to contact her from jail, preventing her from finding peace and causing her ongoing fear. Wayne's continued persistence is one of my greatest concerns. I genuinely fear that his attempts to involve himself in Tiffany's life will continue after sentencing. In fact, I have been advised to renew a personal protection order before a sentencing hearing because of the concern that this behavior may continue. His repeated attempts to contact Tiffany, even while incarcerated, make it difficult for me to believe that this conduct will end without firm intervention from the court. I do not speak from hatred. I recognize that Wayne may have a history of harmful choices or personal struggles, but those circumstances do not excuse exploiting a vulnerable adult. [00:04:21] Speaker 2: This case was difficult, primarily because Tiffany struggled in the court can see, based on what her mother talked about today, that she was really struggling with going to trial. So to the extent that Wayne Farron at the very end did take some responsibility for this, it did save her a lot of stress. She was very upset about having to testify. She did come into our office voluntarily at the end and tell us that Wayne was contacting her repeatedly from the jail. So I didn't hear that myself, the defense was that essentially she was able to get into other relationships and they were going to try to bring those people in and say that she could consent. She quite clearly couldn't under the statute. So, I think the recommendation for an MDOC sentence is appropriate at the high end of the recommendation or the guidelines. Mr. Farron has a long history of victimizing people. In fact, we have another case sitting on our desk today, or a pretty brutal assault that happened in the jail, we just got the information on it yesterday, the cameras. He made these choices, he knew she was vulnerable, and I suppose he could have argued at the beginning that he didn't know she was vulnerable, but certainly throughout the case he learned it and continued his behaviors. She struggled with her relationship with with all the people in her life as a result of Mr. Farron's actions, and I think that it's appropriate to sentence him to MDOC, thank you. [00:05:54] Speaker 3: I'm probably going to go outside the guy range today, and it's a foregone conclusion in my mind. You know, I've done a lot of wrong in my life, and there's a lot of choices I'm not proud of that I've done. I regret the hurt I caused, and I feel the pain in my decisions every day. I hung out with Tiffany one time in 1999 when I stayed at my grandmother's, and I've spent close to 20 years in prison since then. I was released in 2024 to Traverse City, and I met Tiffany when she drove up there with the Grayling Church to help with the homeless at the Pines. I've never sought out Tiffany. She asked me to move to Grayling. She asked me to marry her. I received permission from my parole agent, Grayling John Haven, to move into her home. We went out, met with her, okayed to move into her home. She and I were married through a license obtained, approved, and filed with the Grayling Courthouse. She signed it on behalf of herself. Neither of us forged her guardian signature. The marriage was posted on Facebook, and we never tried to be secretive about anything. I should have followed the PPO that the mother and the guardian, Tammy, placed on me. I was just confused because I never threatened, hit, committed to any crime against her or family. I didn't fully understand or agree that a controlling mother in the government should have this much control over both of us as adults. I went about it wrong. Tammy Camprath asked an expert in court her mental age, and the expert replied that her range is 15 to 16 years old mentally. And then after that, Tammy goes on to state that she has the mind of a 13-year-old in a police report with John Capadlo, which is now part of my PSI, and that's just a false narrative. Uh, I have the court transcripts, it's documented. I know none of this looks great, you know, and, uh, this lady's never really liked me. She doesn't like my criminal history, but me and Tiffany have never been married at the age of 44 and 50, so I didn't really want to give up on my first wife at the first signs of problems. I know what it's like to be confused in a legal system with little to no understanding. I know what it's like to be judged by everybody every day for a past that they don't understand, and I know what it's like to feel alone. I've been controlled, I've been made fun of. I'm still bullied by society to this day. I've been in mental health all my life. I've been in special ed growing up at a very young age. I got my GED at the age of 26, you know, and I was taught never to give up. I figured it was my job as Tiffany's husband to not give up on her at the first sign of problems. I thought, isn't it my duty as a man to look past her surface and support her mentally, spiritually, emotionally, financially, and to love my wife for better or worse, you know? I wholeheartedly believe that Tiffany was an adult when I first married her. She was trying to get pregnant with one of her prior boyfriends that lived with her. She went to the doctors alone, had her IUD removed, this is well documented, in court. She's taken ovulation meds to increase her chances of pregnancy. She's lived on her own in her own home for the past 18 years. She votes, she gambles weekly, she smokes cigarettes, she smoked marijuana before me and still does. She has a driver's license, she drives, she drinks, she goes to the bars weekly with her on again, off again boyfriend, Roy Davis. Tiffany Bean told me that she's been in a relationship with Roy Davis for the past 20 plus years. Shortly after our annulment, they announced their engagement, plans to marry. Tammy Camper has known about the relationship the whole time, not only approves of it, but encourages it. So all this has led me to believe that Tiffany is an adult woman and left me very confused. Why is it okay for another man to marry Tiffany, but I got to go to prison for marrying Tiffany? Why is it a crime for me and not for him? Just because I have a prior criminal history, I'm poor, I'm an embarrassment to their family. I believe the law should be applied equally to everybody, not just me targeted because of my past. I appealed this marriage because it's out of principle. I didn't agree legally, Your Honor, as I thought I could be friends with Tiffany still, you know, I don't have any hard feelings towards her. I don't blame her. I'm not mad at her. I don't want to hurt her. None of that, you know, but going forward, I won't talk to Tiffany anymore. I won't talk to her family anymore. I apologize, Your Honor, and I asked the court to look at this as a completely different situation from my past when considering my sentencing today. Thank you. [00:10:57] Speaker 4: This was a difficult case to litigate for both the people and the parents. We hired an expert in this matter. The opinion of the expert test by the probate court, and the expert we hired indicated that the complaining witness was at least in my 16 years of age. I think that's what Mr. Tram was alluding to, that it wouldn't be the age of consent. The complaining witness votes. She's voted in police transactions that we know of. She drives. She gets tender change and goes to the bar, plays bingo. When, when somebody of Mr. Farron's mindset, who's young in the GD at 26, who spent 20 years in prison, looks at all of this. I don't think the first thing they think is, well, is this person in development to be disabled or not. But I think what Mr. Farron really screwed up was once those decisions were made or were pending probate, when these processes started, he should have taken a step back. [00:11:54] Speaker 5: I think that there's so much about, I think, what you said here in court today that I think it's just wrong that I don't even know where to start. I think overall, you know, as somebody who isn't developmentally disabled, as a mature adult yourself. Well, it's on you, I don't care what orders are in place or not in place, understand that this person is not in the position to be able to consent to the type of activity. [00:12:23] Speaker 3: What about Roy Davis and other people? What about them? [00:12:28] Speaker 5: They're not in front of me today. [00:12:29] Speaker 3: They should be. They should be. Harder. [00:12:33] Speaker 5: They're not here today, and if they are, I'll be telling them the exact same thing if they come in and tell me what you have told them. [00:12:43] Speaker 3: Will you give me the 40 months so I can get out of here, please? No, it's my turn. I listen very carefully to you. All right. Did I interrupt you at once? [00:12:51] Speaker ?: Nope. I listened to you. [00:12:54] Speaker 5: That's my turn to talk and you need to hear it. All right. Whether you want it or not. Yeah. You have responsibility as somebody who isn't developmentally disabled, not after what else is going on. Fact is, she wasn't legally able to consent, you knew it. [00:13:11] Speaker 3: Roy Davis should go to prison. [00:13:13] Speaker 5: And you continue to engage in that action, and I think if I could give you a more heart sentence, I absolutely would. [00:13:22] Speaker 3: I know you would. [00:13:23] Speaker 5: You deserve it. That's why I didn't go to trial. Your actions absolutely warrant it, whether you want to accept that or not. If you're somebody who's looking to take advantage of other people, you've done it many times in the past. [00:13:35] Speaker 3: Fuck you. You take advantage of everybody every day. [00:13:38] Speaker 5: Putting people away. Let's know where to be put. What is going to sentence you? To 40 months. Have a good day. To 38 months. Thanks. All right. Because I'm not going to create an appeal issue for two months. The court is going to send you to 38 months to five years in the Michigan Department of Corrections. If you have credit for zero day served. Of course. Or all status. That time is to be served consecutive. The court is going to order a crime victim's assessment of $130, or cost of $25. Attorney fees of $350. [00:14:19] Speaker 3: Murray Davis needs to go to prison. [00:14:21] Speaker 5: The DNA testing fee of $60 and $68 state costs along $90 fee for HIV testing. If you do have the ability to seek an appeal of the sentence, we'll provide you with those appellate rights. [00:14:35] Speaker 4: We've already executed those, Mr. Farron. I'll acknowledge the receipt of those appellate people to the judge. Thank you. [00:14:41] Speaker 5: You are remaining to the custody of the state. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's not right. We're welcome. [00:14:50] Speaker 4: You're welcome.