|
A Case for Impeachment Editorial The classic case of legal audacity is the man who kills his parents and demands sympathy because he is an orphan. A close second is the federal judge who pleads guilty to a crime against the justice system — and then insists on continuing to draw his salary from prison. That is the galling position of Judge Samuel Kent. The House should impeach him if he does not have the good sense to leave office. Judge Kent, a federal district court judge from Texas, pleaded guilty in February to obstruction of justice for lying to officials who were investigating sexual harassment charges against him. As part of a plea deal, he admitted that he had had nonconsensual sexual contact with two female court employees. He was sentenced to up to 33 months in prison and is scheduled to enter jail next week. That does not, however, remove him from the bench. Federal judges serve for life, unless they give up their positions or are impeached. Judge Kent submitted his resignation this month, but he made it effective June 2010. That means that for the next year, even while he is behind bars, he will draw a salary of $174,000, plus benefits. There seems no doubt that he doesn’t deserve to be paid. He has violated his oath to uphold the law, and he will not be doing any judging from prison. What he may have decided is that it would take Congress about a year to complete impeachment and a trial — so why not keep getting paid as long as possible. Things may move faster. The House Judiciary Committee this week voted 29-to-0 to approve articles of impeachment. The full House could act soon, and if it votes to impeach, the case would be sent to the Senate for trial. Judge Kent can save Congress time and himself more humiliation by resigning effective immediately. If he refuses, Congress should not delay in exercising good sense and its constitutional prerogative to stop his undeserved paychecks from being delivered.
Colleagues Say Federal Judge Should Be Impeached By Tony Mauro WASHINGTON - In a one-two punch made public today on its web site, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has recommended that U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent be impeached and ordered that he not be given disability status. Kent had pled guilty to obstruction of justice in connection with an investigation into charges that he sexually harassed court employees. He is scheduled to begin serving a 33-month prison sentence next month. Claiming alcoholism and mental illness, Kent sought disability status so he could continue drawing a salary while in prison. But Chief Judge Edith Jones, in a letter today to Kent's lawyer Dick DeGuerin, said no, asserting that "a claimant should not profit from his own wrongdoing by engaging in criminal misconduct and then collecting a federal retirement salary for the disability related to the prosecution." Jones did note that until he was indicted, Kent "continued to handle a high volume of cases expeditiously," so he did not appear to be disabled or impaired. On the question of
impeachment, the circuit's judicial council formally urged the
Judicial Conference to "take expeditious action" toward impeachment
proceedings before Congress. The House of Representatives has
already begun its investigation of Kent with an eye toward
impeachment. Judge Discloses $2.4 Million Previously Unreported The Associated Press Presiding Judge Sharon Keller revealed the assets in an amended report on her personal finances filed this week with the Texas Ethics Commission in Austin. The Dallas Morning News reports in Saturday's editions that Keller explained that she had omitted the assets from previous disclosures because her father, Dallas landowner and hamburger restaurateur Jack Keller, hadn't told her of them. The amended filing is aimed to correct previous filings that had drawn ethics and criminal complaints from the nonprofit liberal watchdog group Texans for Public Justice. The group accused Keller of failure to disclose nearly 42 million in commercial and residential real estate holdings. "If a defense attorney in a death penalty case before Judge Keller's court filed briefs as carelessly as Keller filed her financials, the client in question already would have been executed," said Andrew Wheat, the group's research director. The Morning News had reported in late March that Keller hadn't complied with legal requirements that she disclose her ownership interest in seven residential and commercial properties in Dallas and Tarrant counties Keller did not return telephone messages left Saturday by The Associated Press. However, she wrote in her ethics filing that her father, "over a number of years has acquired and managed, without input from me, all of these properties." Her attorney, Ed Shack, told the newspaper that "we're not saying she is excused. She is at fault. But she wasn't trying to deceive anybody." Keller already faces misconduct charges from the state Judicial Conduct Commission for not keeping her office open past 5 p.m. on Sept. 25, 2007, the night Michael Wayne Richard was executed. His lawyers have said that prevented them from filing an appeal. Keller has said that attorneys for Richard, who raped and murdered a woman in 1986, had other options to appeal. Keller has argued that the commission's misconduct charge violates her constitutional right to counsel. She has said the state refuses to allow attorney Chip Babcock to represent her at taxpayer expense and paying for her defense herself would be financially ruinous. Babcock has said he's willing to represent Keller for almost nothing, but that the ethics commission has not clarified whether that was an ethics violation. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6404569.html Ex-Judge
Pleads Not Guilty to Courthouse By The Associated Press MOBILE, Ala. — Former Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Herman Thomas has pleaded not guilty to 57 counts of kidnapping, sodomy, sex abuse, extortion and ethics violations. In a court filing Tuesday, Thomas waived his arraignment and submitted his plea in writing. He remains free on bond. Defense attorney Robert Clark says Thomas will not seek to move his trial away from Mobile. Retired Marengo County Judge Claude Neilson will preside at the trial, expected to be held this fall. Thomas is accused of paddling inmates from Mobile County jail and forcing them to perform sexual favors in exchange for leniency in the courtroom, but the former judge, who resigned from the bench in 2007 when the allegations first surfaced, has denied all of the charges. Judge
Accused of Routinely Leaving Cheryl Miller A Riverside County, Calif., judge accused of regularly skipping out of work early will resign and accept a public censure from the Commission on Judicial Performance, according to an agreement announced Wednesday. Commissioners concluded that Superior Court Judge Christopher Sheldon, who handled juvenile dependency cases in Indio, Calif., "routinely" left the courthouse for the day after his calendar concluded -- usually before noon. The judge didn't clear his early exits, going back to early 2007, with superiors and he didn't volunteer for other work despite the Riverside court's notorious backlog of cases, the commission said. "Judge Sheldon's routine of working part-time while being paid a full-time salary is utterly unacceptable and casts disrepute upon the judicial office," the commission wrote. In a January response to the charges, Sheldon denied that his supervisors didn't know what he was doing. And when a superior complained in September 2008, he said, "I conformed my hours to their expectations." The commission publicly admonished Sheldon in 1998 for similar behavior, including leaving the courthouse and jogging on the courthouse stairs during his pretrial calendar. "Unfortunately, the issuance of a public admonishment did not deter Judge Sheldon from abandoning his judicial responsibilities in the future," the commission wrote. As part of a deal with the CJP, Sheldon agreed to step down from the bench on May 12 and to use his accumulated leave time until Oct. 23, when he will officially resign and never seek judicial office again. In exchange, the commission will not pursue a more immediate dismissal. The resignation date will leave Sheldon with 20 years of service, making him eligible for a full judicial pension. Overexposed: Stripper Strips Judge of His Career By The Associated Press Thomas E. Stringer spent more than three decades quietly building his legal career in Florida. He was the first black graduate of his law school. He worked his way onto an appeals court in the Tampa Bay area. Then last spring, the well-respected, married judge suddenly found his face splashed beside that of a troubled exotic dancer in a kimono. She went on TV to claim they'd been romantically involved, and that he helped her hide money from creditors, even putting a rent-controlled New York City apartment under his name for her. Newspaper columns were written. Jokes were made. Stringer's 35-year legal career was tarnished. "It is axiomatic that 'Judge' and 'Stripper' showing up in a headline is never a good thing, especially if you happen to be the 'Judge,'" then Tampa Tribune columnist Daniel Ruth wrote after the story broke. Criminal charges are possible, though the FBI declined to comment. The state agency that oversees judges dropped misconduct charges after Stringer, who stepped down in February and draws monthly retirement benefits of $8,069, agreed never to be a judge again. To his friends and the legal community, the speed of Stringer's fall was shocking. Many are reserving judgment, while others feel their trust in him was misplaced. Delano Stewart, a Tampa attorney who calls himself a former friend of Stringer, said Stringer's conduct "disrespects all of what I have worked for all of my life." "I am so deeply angry with him," Stewart said. Stringer, who has said he had a friendship and business relationship with stripper Christy Yamanaka, declined to comment for this story. His attorney did not return repeated messages left at his office. Yamanaka also declined to comment. Stringer, 64, graduated from Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport in the 1970s. He became an assistant state attorney and later a circuit judge in Tampa's Hillsborough County. There, in the family law division, he built a reputation as a judge who insisted that all sides be heard. "I can tell you, the family lawyers idolized Tom Stringer," said Chief Judge Stevan T. Northcutt of Florida's 2nd District Court of Appeal. In 1999, Stringer was appointed to that court, where judges make $153,140 a year. Fast forward to March 2008. Yamanaka, 48, showed up on a local TV station, dressed in a yellow kimono with burnt orange flowers, her long, dark hair flowing. She said she met the judge at an Italian restaurant in 1995, when she was a stripper in Tampa. Five years later, she was deep in debt and turned to him for advice. Later, she said she went public after Stringer refused to repay money he owed her. Yamanaka had tried to file for bankruptcy in Nevada in 2000 and court documents show she owed American Express more than $78,000, racked up from stays at expensive hotels in Las Vegas and airline tickets. She owed Bank of America another $236,000. She listed her occupation as housewife and said she had just $450 in assets — family pictures, clothes and a wedding ring — and no income. The bankruptcy court denied her request, meaning she would have to repay the debts. Yamanaka, who is divorced, said the judge helped by allowing her to deposit tens of thousands of dollars she made from stripping in Las Vegas and New York into his accounts so creditors wouldn't know she had an income. "Judge suggests to me to put the money into his account," Yamanaka told WFLA-TV in Tampa. "Due to his position nobody bothered him so it would be safe." Stringer told reporters he let her use his accounts because she had terrible credit but denied helping her hide money. The Judicial Qualifications Commission, which oversees judges in Florida, investigated and found probable cause to believe Stringer had opened bank accounts in his name and let her use them from 2003 to 2007 to hide assets. The commission's inquiry does not say how much money might have passed through the accounts. The allegations listed by the commission only get worse: Stringer listed himself as the sole owner of a home in Hawaii for her. He accepted a trip from her to Las Vegas, a gift he did not disclose though judicial canons require reporting all gifts over $100. He went to New York to sign a lease on an apartment for her, putting it under his name, and allowed her to treat him to a stay at The Waldorf-Astoria hotel. He asked her to buy two Rolex watches, one for him and one for his wife. He borrowed $50,000 from her in a no-interest loan that he failed to repay. None of the transactions was included on the financial disclosure report required of judges. The alleged acts "constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary," the commission concluded. When the commission charged Stringer with ethical violations in January, his lawyer called it "tragic." "The time comes when the process demands that it be proven before someone's career is permanently stained or in some fashion affected by this," attorney J. David Bogenschutz said. Celene Humphries, a former staff attorney at the appeals court where Stringer was a judge, said she can imagine him trying to help someone, without thinking of the personal cost. "Everybody is subject to lapses of judgment," she said. "It's just that not everybody gets punished as severely as he did." Judge Says Bribe Was Meaningless Judicial Watch Corruption
Chronicles Blog A Mississippi judge federally indicted for bribery insists the charges should be dropped because he didn’t receive anything of value but rather a "meaningless courtesy call" from the lawmaker who tried to influence him. The suspended Hinds County Circuit judge (Robert DeLaughter) has been charged with five felonies for exchanging favorable rulings for consideration to the federal bench. Prosecutors say that a millionaire attorney (Richard Scruggs), serving a seven-year prison sentence for bribing two judges, influenced DeLaughter by promising to help him get the federal appointment through his brother-in-law who at the time was U.S. Senator (Trent Lott). Scruggs, a major political donor, made a fortune from asbestos litigation and brokering multibillion-dollar settlements with tobacco companies in the 1990s. DeLaughter presided over a multi million-dollar asbestos fee dispute between Scruggs and his former business partner when he was bribed. His ruling saved Scruggs $15 million. Lott, the Republican senator who abruptly resigned in 2007, has acknowledged calling DeLaughter and telling him that his attorney brother-in-law (Scruggs) had told him what a "fine judge" DeLaughter was. As a U.S. senator one of Lott’s duties was to recommend nominees for federal judgeships and DeLaughter had already thrown his name into the pool. In a motion to dismiss the charges this week, DeLaughter claimed the senator’s phone call did not meet the criteria of a bribe because it was nothing of value. Therefore, according to his legal team, no crime was committed. The case boils down to a judge who received ex parte contacts on one hand and a litigant who arranged a meaningless courtesy call on the other, according to the judge’s attorneys. The trial is scheduled for later this year. Judge
Accused of Routinely Leaving By Cheryl Miller SACRAMENTO — A Riverside County judge accused of regularly skipping out of work early will resign and accept a public censure from the Commission on Judicial Performance, according to an agreement announced Wednesday. Commissioners concluded that Superior Court Judge Christopher Sheldon, who handled juvenile dependency cases in Indio, "routinely" left the courthouse for the day after his calendar concluded — usually before noon. The judge didn't clear his early exits, going back to early 2007, with superiors and he didn't volunteer for other work despite the Riverside court's notorious backlog of cases, the commission said. "Judge Sheldon's routine of working part-time while being paid a full-time salary is utterly unacceptable and casts disrepute upon the judicial office," the commission wrote. As part of a deal with the CJP, Sheldon agreed to step down from the bench on May 12 and to use his accumulated leave time until Oct. 23, when he will officially resign and never seek judicial office again. In exchange, the commission will not pursue a more immediate dismissal. The resignation date will leave Sheldon with 20 years of service, making him eligible for a full judicial pension. Charges
Dropped Against By Diana Moskovitz The state agency that investigates judicial misconduct has dropped charges of wrongdoing against Broward County Judge Terri-Ann Miller. Miller was accused of misrepresenting herself as a sitting Broward judge during the 2006 campaign for the judgeship she now holds. On Monday, the Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a notice saying the charges were dismissed. The notice did not say why. In October 2007, the JQC filed charges that Miller purposely implied she was an incumbent during the election by using signs and mailers that described her as a judge, claimed ''eight years as a County Judge,'' and showed her in a judicial robe. When Miller did put disclaimers on her campaign literature, the JQC charges said they were difficult to read. Miller had been a judge in Miami-Dade County for eight years but at the time of the election she was not on the bench. Miller's lawyer, Mike Catalano, said his client made the signs and mailers with no ill will. Previously, Broward's Fair Campaign Practices Committee cleared her of related ethics violations. The Florida Ethics Commission found no probable cause that she had violated campaign laws. ''It was an Easter present for Judge Miller and myself,'' Catalano said on Monday of the JQC dismissal. ``We are thrilled.'' Panel:
Seminole County Judge Should Be Reprimanded Rene Stutzman NY Judge,
55, Resigns From Bench By Joel Stashenko Joseph G. Makowski submitted his resignation Feb. 20 under an agreement with Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III in which the judge recanted an affidavit and agreed to testify against attorney Anne E. Adams about her drunken-driving arrest last year. Authorities said she attempted to falsify evidence purporting to show her blood alcohol level was well below the legal limit. Mr. Makowski had been with Ms. Adams at a Buffalo restaurant in the hours proceeding her arrest and his versions of events in an affidavit were at odds with those of eyewitnesses. Mr. Makowski, 55, had five years remaining on his term when he resigned. Mr. Sedita said in an interview yesterday that he normally would not seek to have a witness who has presented false testimony but later tells the truth give up his job. But he said he feels wrongdoing by a judge is a special case. "He is the kind of person we are supposed to be looking up to, who we expect nothing but honesty and integrity from," Mr. Sedita said. "I felt that given the nature of the conduct, he should no longer be a jurist." Mr. Sedita said he has notified the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, of Mr. Makowski's actions and is cooperating with a Commission on Judicial Conduct probe of Mr. Makowski. Ms. Adams, 46, pleaded
guilty to misdemeanor charges of drunken driving, offering a false
instrument for filing and attempted tampering with physical evidence
last month. The next day, she was fired from her job overseeing the
trial technique program at the State University of New York at
Buffalo Law School.
Filing in
Court Scandal Claims Judge By Leo Strupczewski and
Hank Grezlak PHILADELPHIA - A former Luzerne County president judge used to hold bimonthly meetings with a reputed mob boss and a common friend -- also an admitted felon -- to discuss pending court cases, according to a supplement to a King's Bench petition scheduled to be filed with the state Supreme Court this morning. The owners of the Wilkes-Barre-based newspaper Citizens' Voice wrote to the court that a friend of William "Billy" D'Elia, Robert Kulick, has detailed his relationship with former Luzerne County Judge Michael T. Conahan and D'Elia. According to the supplement, the three men once met in Conahan's chambers, when they were located in the main courthouse, to discuss a case in which D'Elia and Kulick "were both interested." That meeting happened prior to a hearing in that case, Kulick alleged. Kulick did say that the meetings usually occurred at a restaurant, which was not named, and began with a "general conversation," the supplement claims. They generally happened around breakfast. When talk would steer toward pending cases, D'Elia would leave the table so Kulick and Conahan could talk in private, the supplement claims. Kulick would leave the table when D'Elia and Conahan would talk in private. "If Kulick or someone he knew 'had an interest in a particular case pending before that court,' he would 'ask Judge Conahan to consider that the party [Kulick] supported got a 'fair shake,' or a 'second look,'" the supplement claims. According to the supplement, Kulick was interviewed by the newspaper's attorneys on Tuesday. The filing, first reported by the Citizens' Voice, confirms what The Legal first reported on line Feb. 20 and in print Monday -- that Kulick was the company's witness. It also supports a claim made by another source to The Legal weeks ago: that another person had told the source he had seen Conahan, Kulick and D'Elia meet at the courthouse to discuss business. The source portrayed the relator of that information as someone other than Kulick. The source who related the story had no knowledge of what the alleged meeting covered. The newspaper's supplement is its second filing to the state Supreme Court in which it asks the justices to vacate a $3.5 million defamation award issued against the newspaper and reopen discovery in the case. In Joseph v. Scranton Times, Thomas Joseph, a Luzerne County businessman, argued that articles published by the Citizens' Voice during its coverage of a 2001 federal investigation that targeted D'Elia and his alleged business partners damaged his reputation and business. A source told the paper that federal officials were investigating Joseph to see whether he used his direct mail and advertising business to launder money for D'Elia and that his taxi and limousine service was used to traffic guns, drugs and prostitutes between the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton and Lehigh Valley international airports and Atlantic City, N.J., New York City and Philadelphia. Joseph was never charged with any wrongdoing. Conahan handled the pretrial matters and, despite voiced concerns from the newspaper company, worked with William T. Sharkey, the former court administrator who has pleaded guilty to embezzling funds, to steer the case to Ciavarella for a 10-day non-jury trial, according to the petition. The supplement also includes a declaration by attorney J. Timothy Hinton, who searched about 4,600 of the county's disposed cases. Only Joseph v. Scranton Times had a note indicating Conahan and Sharkey were involved in assigning the case, according to the supplement. "Kulick's Declaration and the Database Records are additional evidence that the corruption in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas infected Joseph v. Scranton Times and likely predetermined its outcome in favor of Thomas A Joseph," the supplement claims. "This additional evidence along with the evidence previously submitted by Petitioners provide ample basis for this Court to vacate the $3.5 million in Joseph's favor or, at a minimum, authorize a period of discovery to be followed by a hearing, if necessary, and briefing on Petitioner's motion to vacate." Conahan, along with fellow former Luzerne County president judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., have pleaded guilty to charges they accepted $2.6 million in kickbacks from the owner and builder of a juvenile detention center. The government alleges the judges steered juveniles to the facility. A former Luzerne County judge previously told The Legal that Conahan and Kulick were "friendly" and could be seen chatting in area restaurants and bars. Kulick's relationship with D'Elia was described in the same manner. Other sources said Kulick and D'Elia were cooperating with federal authorities in their ongoing corruption probe at the county courthouse. Both men have pleaded guilty in the last year to criminal charges -- Kulick to possession of a firearm by an admitted felon, D'Elia to money-laundering conspiracy and witness tampering charges in March 2008. President Judge Chester B. Muroski confirmed to The Legal earlier this week that he had been interviewed by the FBI about court administration issues. He allowed the investigators to photocopy documents concerning civil court matters without a subpoena, he said. Sources said other judges were interviewed, but none returned repeated calls for comment. Multiple sources have also relayed rumors to The Legal that other judges are being looked at by federal authorities. Those sources have not said whether the rumors include what the possible focus of the inquiry might be or the number of judges. NY Judge
Admonished for Soliciting By Joel Stashenko ALBANY - The state Commission on Judicial Conduct has admonished a Rochester City Court judge for soliciting, from the bench, support from an attorney for the judge's Supreme Court candidacy moments before she presided over a case involving the attorney's client. The commission also announced yesterday the admonishment of an Oneida County Family Court judge who threatened to hold two child advocacy officers and their agency in contempt because the officers arrested a man scheduled to appear before the judge in a child neglect case. The electioneering case renewed the long-standing debate among some members of the conduct commission about whether state Rules Governing Judicial Conduct are confusing and impose unconstitutional First Amendment restrictions on the political activities of judges. Ellen Yacknin, a lawyer and Rochester City Court judge since 2003, was accused of violating conduct rules during her unsuccessful 2005 Supreme Court campaign. According to the commission, Judge Yacknin left a recorded phone message in July 2005 seeking attorney Eftihia Bourtis' support for Supreme Court, though Ms. Bourtis was on vacation and did not receive the message until July 25, 2005. The next day, when Ms. Bourtis appeared in Judge Yacknin's court, the judge asked the attorney to approach the bench, according to the ruling. Ms. Bourtis told the commission that the judge told her again that she was running for Supreme Court, asked for her support and requested that she be allowed to use Ms. Bourtis' name in campaign materials. Ms. Bourtis agreed, but later told the commission that she "felt terrible" after the conversation and realized it was inappropriate. She also testified to the commission that, given the circumstances, "I felt that I had to say yes" to the request. A case was then called in which Ms. Bourtis represented the defendant. Ms. Bourtis' client rejected a plea bargain offered by prosecutors in a case that was later dismissed for failure to prosecute. "By asking for political support from an attorney standing before her in court, respondent severely damaged any possibility that she could handle the attorney's case without an appearance of bias," the commission held. "Regardless of the attorney's response, respondent's impartiality was compromised." Moreover, Judge Yacknin should have recognized that her request also represented a "serious professional conflict" for Ms. Bourtis, the commission decided. Eight members of the commission agreed without caveat to the admonishment: Chairman Thomas A. Klonick, Colleen C. DiPirro, Paul B. Harding, Elizabeth B. Hubbard, Marvin E. Jacob, Jill Konviser, Karen K. Peters and Terry Jane Ruderman. 'Kafkaesque maze' Richard D. Emery dissented, renewing his frequent criticism of what he contends are vague guidelines on judicial electioneering and conflicting rulings on the issue by the U.S. Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals. Mr. Emery argued that the rule the commission decided Judge Yacknin violated, §100.5[A][5], prohibits her from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions at the same time it does not block her from seeking the "support" - "whatever that means," Mr. Emery added parenthetically - from attorneys appearing before her. Mr. Emery said that Judge Yacknin and other candidates must operate within a "Kafkaesque maze." "The entire system of regulating judicial campaigns is riddled with hypocrisy," he wrote. "It reduces judges to supplicants of the lawyers and clients who should hold them in high esteem. Expressing ad hoc outrage when one judge happens to come to our attention for her obtuse behavior feels like fiddling as Rome burns." Mr. Emery said he favored a private caution as the appropriate punishment for Judge Yacknin. Mr. Emery, a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, has issued similar complaints about judicial electioneering rules in other decisions punishing judges for campaign transgressions, including the admonishment of Amherst Town Justice Mark G. Farrell and the removal of Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. Spargo. Commission members Stephen R. Coffey and Joseph W. Belluck concurred with Judge Yacknin's admonishment, but wrote in a brief concurring opinion that they agreed with Mr. Emery's "overall critical observation of the quite incomprehensible application of New York's rules pertaining to judicial political activity." In its determination, the majority declared that the Court of Appeals has upheld New York's restrictions on political activity by judges as "not only constitutionally sound, but fair and necessary," citing Matter of Raab, 100 NY2d 205 (2003). "The alleged anomalies in the rules, cited in the dissenting opinion, do not invalidate the entire body of the rules; nor are they relevant to respondent's conduct in this case, which, as Mr. Emery acknowledges, was clearly wrong," the commission held. Federal Judge Pleads Not Guilty to New Criminal Charges Brenda Sapino Jeffreys After Kent pleaded not guilty before 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edward Prado, prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice asked Prado to consider two issues at sidebar. Kent's defense attorney, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, objected, but Prado overruled him and had the courtroom cleared for the 55-minute hearing. When Kent exited the courtroom, his only comment regarding the hearing was, "It's over." Kent, a longtime Galveston federal judge who has been hearing civil cases in Houston for the past year, has been free on a personal recognizance bond, and Prado continued his bond. DeGuerin told Prado that he wanted the hearing to be held in open court because of a gag order that prevents lawyers from discussing the case. "Simply appearing at sidebar is suspicious," DeGuerin said in court, noting that reporters have expressed frustration to him about the limitations of the gag order. "I don't like secrets," DeGuerin said following the hearing. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, who is presiding over Kent's case, issued the gag order shortly after Kent was indicted in August 2008. DeGuerin and federal prosecutors Peter Ainsworth of Washington, D.C., and John Pearson of New York, each declined to say what happened during the closed-court session, but Pearson says he expects Prado to issue an order. DeGuerin and Ainsworth said the trial is still set for Jan. 26. On Tuesday, a federal grand jury issued a superseding indictment that added the three additional criminal charges against Kent. The superseding indictment in United States v. Samuel B. Kent brings one count of aggravated sexual abuse, one count of abusive sexual contact and one count of obstruction of justice against Kent. DeGuerin's response after the hearing to the additional charges in the superseding indictment: "Not true." In September 2008, Kent pleaded not guilty to the original three charges, which are two counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse. Those charges stem from a complaint filed by Kent's former case manager in Galveston, Cathy McBroom, but the alleged victim in the superseding indictment is only identified as "Person B." The government alleges in the superseding indictment that the new aggravated sexual abuse charge relates to Kent's conduct between Jan. 7, 2004, to at least January 2005. The government alleges that on one or more occasions, Kent, while at the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse in Galveston, "did engage and attempt to engage in contact between his mouth and Person B's vulva by force and did penetrate and attempt to penetrate the genital opening of Person B by a hand and finger by force with an intent to abuse, humiliate, degrade and arouse and gratify the sexual desire of any person." The indictment alleges that conduct violates Title 18, §2241(a)(1) of the U.S. Code. As to the new abusive sexual conduct charge, the indictment alleges that during the same time frame, Kent "did engage in the intentional touching, directly and through the clothing, of the genitalia, groin, breast, inner thigh, and buttocks of Person B with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, and arouse and gratify the sexual desire of any person" in violation of §2244(a) of the code. The government also alleges that Kent obstructed justice when he falsely stated to the Special Investigative Committee of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was investigating McBroom's complaint, that "the extent of his unwanted sexual contact with Person B was one kiss and that when told by Person B his advances were unwelcome no further contact occurred, when in fact and as he well knew defendant Kent had engaged in repeated unwanted sexual assaults of Person B, in order to obstruct, influence and impede" the investigation. The government alleges that conduct violates §1512(c)(2) of the code. In August 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Kent on the three original charges, in which Kent faces a maximum sentence of two years in prison on each of the two counts of abusive sexual contact and up to life in prison on the attempted aggravated sexual abuse charge. The maximum fine on each charge is $250,000. In May 2007, McBroom filed a complaint with the 5th Circuit. In September 2007, the Judicial Council of the 5th Circuit issued an order reprimanding and admonishing Kent, who has been on the bench since 1990. In August 2007, Chief U.S. District Judge Hayden W. Head Jr. of the Southern District of Texas signed an order noting that Kent would be absent from the bench from Sept. 1, 2007, to Jan. 1, 2008, and that U.S. District Judge John Rainey of Houston would take over Kent's portion of the Galveston docket. The maximum punishment on the new abusive sexual contact charge is two years in prison. The maximum punishment on the new aggravated sexual abuse charge is life in prison and/or a $250,000 fine, and the maximum punishment on the new obstruction of justice charge is 20 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. Not
Guilty by Reason of You Are Insanely Hot!: By The Associated Press HELENA, Mont. — The Montana Supreme Court is removing a Libby judge from office following allegations of sexual misconduct. The order confirms an earlier recommendation from the state Judicial Standards Commission. Nine women say that Lincoln County Justice of the Peace Gary D. Hicks offered leniency in exchange for sexual favors. The Supreme Court agreed that Hicks violated judicial ethics. The court ordered his salary terminated Tuesday, and ordered he be removed from office. The court wrote that the bulk of the allegations against Hicks were proven by "clear and convincing evidence." During an August hearing, Hicks was also accused of making inappropriate comments about the women's appearance and stopping by several of their homes. No-Show
Job: By Joel Stashenko A 6-0 Court suspended Ms. Anderson with pay effective Thursday, when the 10-year term she won earlier this year is to begin. The Court gave no reasoning for its decision. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye took no part in the deliberations. Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau will designate an interim judge to fill the opening by early January, said David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration. Ms. Anderson is facing a 10-count indictment that she falsely reported $250,000 that flowed into her campaign in the days preceding her hard-fought primary victory in September over two Democratic rivals. Mr. Morganthau contends the money came in donations and loans from attorney Seth Rubenstein, for whom Ms. Anderson has worked for nearly a decade, but was not reported accurately by Ms. Anderson in filings with the Board of Elections. Both Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein have been free on their own recognizance since their arraignments. Each faces a prison term of 1 1/3 to four years on each of the top six counts of the indictment, all Class E. felonies. In a letter to the Court of Appeals, Ms. Anderson's attorney, Richard Godosky, had argued that the Court was not obligated to suspend Ms. Anderson as she contested the charges against her. He also urged that if suspension was the Court's decision, that it be with pay. Manhattan's other surrogate, Kristin Booth Glen, confirmed to the Law Journal earlier this month that she swore Ms. Anderson in as surrogate about a month after the election. Mr. Godosky argued before the Court of Appeals that because she has already been sworn in, Ms. Anderson cannot legally practice law after Jan. 1, even if she is prohibited from taking the bench as her prosecution unfolds. Mr. Godosky also told the Court that Ms. Anderson contributes $800 a month toward the care of her elderly mother, who has Alzheimer's disease, and her terminally ill brother, who lost his job when the firm he worked for was destroyed when the World Trade Center towers were felled on Sept. 11, 2001. Surrogates are paid $136,700 a year. Mr. Godosky, of Godosky & Gentile, said yesterday the Court's determination to suspend Ms. Anderson with pay is a "decision that they've made consistently" in cases where judges face felony charges unrelated to the performance of their official duties. He declined further comment. Mr. Godosky is handling the disciplinary issues related to Ms. Anderson's case. Gustave H. Newman of Newman & Greenberg is her trial counsel. The Court of Appeals has traditionally suspended judges with pay when they are facing felony charges unrelated to their judicial duties and suspended judges without pay when charges allege official malfeasance. The Commission on Judicial Conduct had urged that Ms. Anderson be suspended at the beginning of her term pending the outcome of the criminal case against her. It took no position on whether she should be paid or not. Commission Administrator Robert Tembeckjian declined comment yesterday. In similar cases, the commission has refrained from initiating its own misconduct investigations until prosecutors complete criminal proceedings. Ms. Anderson captured 48 percent of the 55,000 votes cast in September's Democratic primary to defeat John J. Reddy, counsel to the public administrator, and Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling. She ran unopposed in November's general election. They were vying to replace Surrogate Renee Roth, who is retiring
Newly-Elected Manhattan Surrogate Pleads By Daniel Wise Nora S. Anderson, 56, who is scheduled to become Manhattan surrogate on Jan. 1, yesterday pleaded not guilty to charges that she falsely reported $250,000 pumped into her campaign as her own money when in fact the funds came from Seth Rubenstein, the lawyer in whose office she has worked for the last nine years. (See the indictment.) Mr. Rubenstein, 81, a well known trust and estates lawyer based in Brooklyn, likewise pleaded not guilty to the same charges of making contributions above campaign spending limits and concealing the source of the contributions. With the consent of the prosecution, Acting Supreme Court Justice Bruce Allen (See Profile) released both defendants on their own recognizance. Both Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein were charged in a 10-count indictment and face a maximum prison term of 1 1/3 to four years if convicted of any of the top six counts, all Class E felonies. Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said the "crux of the case" is that the two sought to evade campaign spending limits that apply to Mr. Rubenstein as a contributor but not to Ms. Anderson as the candidate by making it appear that his contributions had in fact come from her. Before her arraignment yesterday, a grim-faced Ms. Anderson was led toward the courtroom on the 11th floor of the Criminal Court building at 100 Centre St. with her hands cuffed behind her. Looking haggard and shell-shocked, Mr. Rubenstein, who wore his long, white hair in a pony tail, also was led toward the courtroom in handcuffs. Both defendants were taken out of the public hallway into the courtroom through a side entrance. They remained handcuffed until their case was called, the first on yesterday's afternoon calendar in Part 1. At the outset of the brief proceeding, Ms. Anderson's lawyer, Gustave H. Newman, asked that the handcuffs be removed, and they were. Outside the courtroom, Mr. Newman disparaged the charges, saying they arose from an election law "about which even election lawyers have disagreements." Mr. Newman added that when all the facts are in, "it will be clear that Ms. Anderson is innocent of any wrongdoing and her unblemished reputation will be restored." Mr. Rubenstein's lawyer, Frederick P. Hafetz, said his client had "acted totally within the election law, and we are confident he will be vindicated at trial." Neither Ms. Anderson nor Mr. Rubenstein answered questions directed to them by reporters. Within the courtroom, their only comment was "not guilty" to the charges against them. 2 Payments at Issue In the indictment filed Monday, Mr. Rubenstein is accused of making two payments in August, one for $100,000 and one for $150,000 from his accounts to Ms. Anderson's personal accounts. Within days of the first Rubenstein deposit, Ms. Anderson contributed $100,000 to her campaign. On the same day as the second deposit, she loaned her campaign $150,000. The two payments were made at a time, Mr. Morgenthau said, when Ms. Anderson's campaign for the Democratic Party nomination in the Sept. 9 primary "was running low on money and did not have sufficient funds to pay for the printing and mailing of campaign materials or to pay people to work on election day." District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announces the charges yesterday. The maximum Mr. Rubenstein could have contributed to Ms. Anderson's primary campaign was $33,122, Mr. Morgenthau said. The district attorney quipped that Ms. Anderson "should have been running in Chicago maybe," a reference to the charges unveiled against Democratic Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to auction off his appointment to fill President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. Both Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein are accused of four counts of filing a false instrument in the first degree and two counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, all Class E felonies. They also are accused of two counts of violating a requirement that campaign contributions be made under the true name of the donor and two counts of willfully violating contribution limits, all misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in prison. Daniel Castleman, chief assistant district attorney, said that no law prohibits an indicted judge from being sworn in. However, because felonies are involved, the Court of Appeals "will address" Ms. Anderson's situation before the end of the year, said David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration. Judicial ethics experts said that invariably the court suspends judges facing felony charges, but that because Ms. Anderson does not become surrogate until Jan. 1, any suspension order would not take effect until then. Ms. Anderson would receive a salary of $136,700 as surrogate. Should she be suspended, Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau could assign another judge to sit in her place until the situation is resolved. Ethics experts said they could not recall another instance of someone being charged with a felony before taking office as a judge. Manhattan's other surrogate, Kristin Booth Glen, yesterday confirmed that she had sworn in Ms. Anderson last week. Ms. Anderson has filed her oath of office, dated Dec. 3, with the New York County Clerk's Office. Led in Fund Raising The $250,000 that Ms. Anderson gave her campaign in the final weeks of the campaign catapulted her into the lead in raising cash for the three-way primary. As of primary day, Ms. Anderson reported raising $615,311. Her two rivals, John J. Reddy, counsel to the public administrator, and Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling raised $600,903 and $110,200, respectively (NYLJ, Sept. 8). Ms. Anderson won 48 percent of more than 55,000 votes cast (NYLJ, Sept. 11). Prior to the $250,000 Mr. Rubenstein allegedly transferred into the candidate's personal accounts, he had donated an additional $25,000 to her campaign and loaned it $225,000 (NYLJ, Aug. 21). Mr. Morgenthau said the $225,000 loan had been retired. Under state Election Law, any amounts loaned to a campaign are treated as a contribution if they are not paid off before the election. In Ms. Anderson's case, the date of the primary was Sept. 9 but one expert said if the funds from the loan had not been spent by the primary, the operative date would become Nov. 4. In any event, Mr. Morgenthau said Ms. Anderson had contributed an adequate amount of her own funds to her campaign to enable it to pay down Mr. Rubenstein's loan, so that any amounts treated as a contribution were within his $33,000 limit. Prosecutors said, however, that the loan was not paid back until after the primary and the investigation of the campaign's fund raising had been disclosed.
Former
In-Law Alleges Judge By Gina Passarella PHILADELPHIA - A retired Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge has been sued by his former brother-in-law for allegedly using judicial influence to have the man fired as a tipstaff and then allegedly falsely charged with forgery. Former Judge John J. Chiovero and other co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction in federal court last week, and the lawyer for Ralph DiFronzo, the former brother-in-law, said his client plans to file an amended complaint this week that would drop two of the defendants and a civil rights claim in hopes of maintaining federal jurisdiction. In his complaint in DiFronzo v. Chiovero, DiFronzo said he was targeted by Chiovero after he announced he was divorcing the judge's sister, Marietta Crimi. Crimi and her daughter Jennifer Crimi McCloud were named as defendants in the case, but will be dropped from the suit in the amended complaint, according to DiFronzo's attorney, Philadelphia sole practitioner Brian E. Appel. In their motion to dismiss, Chiovero, Crimi and Crimi McCloud "vehemently denied" all of the allegations. "The instant action is a patently frivolous lawsuit that has no place in the federal courts, or any court for that matter," according to the motion filed by the defendants' attorney, Walter J. McHugh of McMonagle Perri McHugh & Mischak. He asked that DiFronzo and his lawyer be ordered to pay all of the defendants' attorney fees "in defending this baseless lawsuit." According to the complaint, DiFronzo had worked in Chiovero's chambers as a tipstaff from 1996 through December 2003. His employment included disclosure by Chiovero of personal finance matters and gave DiFronzo the authority to make directed financial transactions with certain checks, according to the complaint. In May 2003, DiFronzo informed Chiovero of his plans to divorce Marietta Crimi, who he had told of the plans the day before. According to the complaint, the judge immediately advised DiFronzo that he was terminated from his chambers and should report to the office that administered the pool of unassigned tipstaffs. Chiovero argued in his motion to dismiss that he had DiFronzo reassigned to avoid any conflict of interest or impropriety. For the next year and a half, DiFronzo worked for several different chambers through the pool of unassigned tipstaffs. On Jan. 28, 2005, he was notified by court administration that he was fired. The reason given, according to the complaint, was that he had put false and misleading information on his employment application concerning prior criminal convictions. DiFronzo argued that he disclosed the conviction in the application and to Chiovero. "The termination of employment was the direct and proximate result of misleading statements and influence, asserted with malicious intent, by John J. Chiovero, as part of his personal scheme, and his conspiracy with the co-defendants, to bring financial, emotional and reputation harm to Ralph DiFronzo," the complaint alleged. In the defense motion, the defendants pointed out that it was the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court administration that fired DiFronzo, not Chiovero. In March 2006, DiFronzo said in the complaint, Chiovero used his influence and "caused a criminal complaint to be initiated" against DiFronzo. The criminal complaint filed with the FBI said DiFronzo had misappropriated "a large amount of money" by forging checks that were payable to Chiovero, Crimi and her daughter, according to DiFronzo's complaint. In August 2006, DiFronzo surrendered himself to the Philadelphia district attorney's office after he received a call that a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was released on his own recognizance after spending two nights in jail, according to the complaint. "Chiovero knew or had reason to know that his long-standing and respected position as a judge of Court of Common Pleas would cause key people with authority in the criminal justice system to give vigorous, unquestioning support to the pursuit of his claims against DiFronzo," the complaint stated. The case was bound over for trial, and a Bucks County judge sitting by special assignment for the case ordered the prosecution witnesses and DiFronzo to submit handwriting samples to the FBI for evaluation, according to the complaint. The handwriting examiner determined "several" of the signatures alleged to have been forged were, in fact, the signatures of Chiovero, Crimi and her daughter, according to the complaint. In November 2007, court papers said, the district attorney's office made an "ex parte application for nolle prosequi" of all 42 counts of the complaint against DiFronzo. That application, according to DiFronzo's complaint, was granted by Philadelphia Common Pleas Court President Judge C. Darnell Jones II. DiFronzo was notified of the dismissal in January 2008. In his complaint, DiFronzo is alleging claims of violation of civil rights, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination and civil conspiracy. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argued federal question jurisdiction is not available in this case because there is no proof that any of the alleged improper actions by Chiovero were performed while he was acting in his role as a judge. DiFronzo and two of the three defendants are residents of New Jersey, furthering the argument that federal question jurisdiction doesn't exist, the motion stated. The defendants also argued that a civil rights claim needs to be a substantial element of a case to meet requirements for federal jurisdiction and that such a violation can only be committed by a governmental actor. "The fact that defendant Judge Chiovero was a public official does not transform these state law claims into a civil rights action, especially where the plaintiff himself alleges that the actions were undertaken for personal reasons," the defendants stated in the motion. Appel told The Legal Intelligencer that dropping Crimi and Crimi McCloud from the suit along with the civil rights claim should allow the case to remain in federal court because DiFronzo and Chiovero live in different states. DiFronzo resides in New Jersey and Chiovero in Pennsylvania. The defendants argued in their motion that DiFronzo's claim was based on the pressing of criminal charges which would amount to the state claim of malicious prosecution. "However, this (allegedly) malicious prosecution was not a case of filing a civil complaint for which anyone has direct access to the courts," the motion stated. "This claim of malicious prosecution is based upon bringing criminal charges that had to be vetted by numerous persons and agencies." As to the filing of criminal charges against DiFronzo, the defendants argued in the motion that there was no assertion that Chiovero acted in his official capacity, but that public officials gave more credence to the criminal complaint because it had been initiated by a judge. Further supporting the defense argument, according to the motion, is the fact that Chiovero was not involved in the arraignment or preliminary hearing and a judge was brought in from another county to preside over the hearings. When it comes to the claim for false imprisonment, the defendants argued DiFronzo should have sued the Philadelphia district attorney's office or the Philadelphia prison system. In a similar argument, the defendants said the wrongful termination claim could not have been brought against the defendants because they did not fire DiFronzo. Fortunato Perri of McMonagle Perri told The Legal that he and his clients "categorically deny" all of the allegations made in the complaint. He said Chiovero has been a well-respected member of the judiciary for decades. Chiovero resigned from the bench in December 2007, at which point he was a senior judge in the court's criminal division. NY Judge Ousted From Bench By Joel Stashenko ALBANY - An upstate Family
Court judge has been removed from the bench for putting "onerous and
unfair" barriers in the way of some parties appearing personally in
his court. Judges Scuffle Over Office Equipment, Cops Called In By Billy Shields Dennis accused Miller of assaulting her during a squabble about a fax machine in her chambers Oct. 7. Miller was "in an irate manner," demanding to know where Dennis' fax machine was, according to a Miami-Dade police report. The alleged altercation was first reported Tuesday by the Miami Herald. Dennis' judicial assistant told Miller the machine was broken. After Dennis told him the same thing, she told police that Miller "grabbed her by her shoulders and pushed her toward her office in an attempt to close the door behind them." Dennis' bailiff jumped between them, and police arrived in response to the office panic alarm. Chief Circuit Judge Joseph Farina ordered both parties to leave the building and not contact each other for the rest of the day, the police report said. "We're urging the state attorney's office to treat this as any other case. He battered her. He put his hands on her," said her attorney, David H. Young, a former judge who now has his own TV show. "An unlawful touching is what happened, and he should be treated like any other individual." Court spokeswoman Eunice Sigler declined to comment on the incident but confirmed Miller's office changed floors afterward from Room 414 adjacent to Dennis' chambers to Room 511. In a letter to prosecutor Joseph Centorino last Thursday, criminal defense lawyer Milton Hirsch, who is representing Miller, said the judge "did not act willfully or maliciously to touch, batter or come into contact with Judge Dennis." He maintains Dennis overreacted and was dead set on bringing in the police. "It is a source of profound disappointment, both to me and to my friend and client David Miller, that a judge would choose to bring the judiciary into disrepute by the publication of such bathroom tittle-tattle," he wrote. State attorney's office spokesman Ed Griffith said his office is "reviewing the matter" and would not comment further. Centorino has not issued a closing memorandum. Judge
Accused of Offering Leniency for By The Associated Press The state Judicial Standards Commission in Montana has recommended that a Libby judge accused of offering female defendants leniency in return for sexual favors be removed from office. The commission heard testimony in August from victims, law enforcement officers, court officials and a statistics expert. It found that Lincoln County Justice of the Peace Gary D. Hicks' conduct with eight of the nine women who filed complaints violated Montana's code of judicial ethics. The recommendation reached last week by the five-member commission must be reviewed by the full Montana Supreme Court, which could hold a separate hearing, announce a decision or allow Hicks a chance to respond to the commission's recommendation. Hicks has been suspended with pay from serving as a judicial officer pending the Supreme Court review. No date for that review has been set. During the August testimony, nine women accused Hicks of soliciting sexual contact in exchange for leniency. Hicks also was accused of making inappropriate comments about the women's appearance and stopping by several of their homes. "Based on the evidence and credibility of the nine women, supported by the testimony of others, including the counselors of two of the women ... I thought this was a very strong case and I'm not surprised by the outcome," prosecuting attorney Stephen C. Berg said. The Associated Press reached a disconnected phone number when trying to call Hicks on Monday night. Attorney Tammi Fisher, who is representing Hicks, also was unavailable for comment Monday evening. She had produced a statistics expert who said that based on a study of cases from 2005-2008, Hicks did not favor men or women in a large majority of 32 categories of various offenses. Earlier this month, Hicks sued Lincoln County, accusing the board of commissioners of persecuting and harassing him between Aug. 20 and Sept. 26. The lawsuit seeks punitive damages and charges the county with intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander and the alternative liability under a legal doctrine that states that in some circumstances the employer is responsible for the actions of employees. Hicks also filed a lawsuit against the county on Aug. 13, arguing that it was responsible for paying his legal fees. Flathead County District Judge Katherine Curtis ruled that Lincoln County must pay those fees and the two sides negotiated a $40,000 settlement. Foul-Mouthed Judge Disciplined for Harangues From Bench By Michael Booth The New Jersey Supreme Court on Monday followed the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct's recommendation that Giles not be suspended, based on findings that he was suffering from health problems and personal family tragedies at the time his outbursts occurred. Giles did not contest the ACJC's presentment, issued July 30, and waived his right to a hearing before the court, which issued its order without opinion. The ACJC found that Giles, 64, a judge since 1991, used expletives, vulgarity and disrespectful language in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct; that his intemperate conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice; and that his sarcastic and disrespectful comments about a pending ethics grievance impugned the integrity of and demonstrated disrespect for the judiciary. "Moreover, the Committee cannot consider Respondent's conduct to have been aberrational," the ACJC said. "Similar prior incidents involving intemperate, insulting and offensive behavior demonstrate that the recent misconduct was not isolated or exceptional." The ACJC focused mainly on three recent instances of vitriolic behavior: • On April 10, 2006, Giles erupted at Sebastian Bio, of Bio & Laracca in Orange, N.J., who was representing Altereek Dunne on a bench warrant. Before the case was heard, Bio escorted Dunne to the Essex County Sheriff's Department for processing. Bio later learned from the public defender's office that Dunne had been remanded to the sheriff's custody for outstanding municipal warrants. When Bio appeared in Giles' courtroom, the judge said he could do nothing about the incarceration on the municipal warrants. Bio asked Giles to address only the Superior Court warrant. Giles, after making sure he was off the record, said: "I said get the [expletive] out of my courtroom. What the [expletive] don't you understand? Shut the [expletive] up and get the [expletive] out of here. I have a meeting this afternoon." • On Dec. 12, 2007, at a settlement conference in a suit against Spencer Savings Bank, Giles railed at bank lawyer Diane Bettino, of Reed Smith in Princeton, "Did you wake up on the wrong ... [expletive] ... side of the bed?" • On Feb. 5, 2008, after the ACJC's initial ethics complaint was filed, Giles heard arguments on pretrial motions in the bank suit. Off the record, he asked the lawyers whether they had read news articles about the complaint, which had prompted Assignment Judge Patricia Costello to transfer him from the Criminal Part to the Civil Part. When they said they had, Giles said he had told Costello he could just as easily curse at lawyers in civil cases as in criminal ones. Bettino reminded him he had cursed at her in the Dec. 12 incident, and Giles replied that he would call her as a witness at his ethics hearing since she seemed to have survived the incident and was faring well before him. The ACJC also recounted a prior disciplinary action. In 1998, the ACJC sent Giles a warning letter based on two complaints about his discourteous conduct toward litigants in landlord-tenant cases. Giles acknowledged that he had been discourteous and assured the panel he would not repeat the conduct. In its July presentment, the ACJC found that Giles' prior transgressions and the more recent ones "demonstrate a pattern of improper conduct that calls into question his judgment and his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct." However, the ACJC noted that Giles had been under considerable stress for a period of time. His 40-year-old daughter died in late 2004, leaving him and his wife in charge of their 5- and 10-year-old grandchildren. His mother-in-law died at about the same time. In January 2006, he lost sight in his left eye due to glaucoma. Doctors performed a brain angiogram in 2007 due to concerns that the glaucoma was due to a growth in the brain. Asked about the state of his health at a ACJC hearing in June, Giles said he was feeling better and undergoing counseling but had rejected a suggestion by his wife that he go on disability. He apologized for his behavior. In urging a reprimand, the ACJC followed in Matter of Sadofsky, 98 N.J. 434 (1985), which imposed that discipline on a judge for intemperate, offensive language. Like Giles, Joseph Sadofsky blamed his outbursts on stress -- specifically, dealing with a heavy case load. The court accepted the ACJC's findings that Giles violated Canon 1, requiring high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved; Canon 2A, which requires judges to respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; Canon 3A(2), requiring judges to maintain order and decorum in judicial proceedings; and Canon 3A(3), requiring judges to be patient, dignified and courteous. He also violated Rule 2:15-8(a)(4), barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and that brings the judicial office in disrepute. Giles' lawyer, Thomas Ashley, was away from his Newark office and could not be reached for comment. Federal Judge Slammed by 5th Circuit in Disciplinary Action Pamela A. MacLean U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana, already faced with a recommendation for impeachment and suspended from the bench since the spring, got more bad news Thursday from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The circuit's Judicial Council ordered all his cases removed for two years, or until Congress acts on the impeachment request, removed Porteous' staff and issued a public reprimand, along with hundreds of pages of previously secret documents in the investigation. The judicial complaint against Porteous alleges he "solicited and received" cash from lawyers with cases pending before him, lied on financial disclosure documents and committed perjury by signing false statements in his personal bankruptcy case. In re Complaint for Judicial Misconduct against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., 07-05-351-0085. He was not been charged with any criminal conduct by the Justice Department. Chief Judge Edith Jones released hundreds of pages of previously secret documents that include Porteous' own response to the allegations, a 49-page dissent by four circuit judges who opposed the impeachment recommendation in April and an account of psychiatric and medical evaluations showing Porteous was severely depressed after the loss of his home in Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the death of his wife a year later. Porteous' attorney, Lewis Unglesby, of Baton Rouge's Unglesby & Marionneaux, called Thursday's action, "pure meanness. There is no good reason to do that now. He is already suspended and facing impeachment." Unglesby said that he filed an affidavit with the Judicial Conference of the U.S. that accused Jones of interfering in the case by calling Justice Department prosecutors and pressing them to know when Porteous would be indicted. "Why is the chief judge calling on a grand jury matter?" he said. "From the legal perspective, normal people don't get to call and ask those questions, nor do they get anyone to answer their calls. I've never heard of this before and it scares the heck out of me," Unglesby said. Jones could not be reached at her chambers office Thursday, but has declined to comment on judicial discipline cases in the past. The 5th Circuit recommended an impeachment action be brought in an April letter to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the policymaking body of the judiciary. The Conference agreed and passed its own recommendation on to Congress June 23. In a dissent from the 5th Circuit action, four judges wrote, "A careful and judicious analysis of the evidence in the present case fails to demonstrate that Judge Porteous committed possible treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor." Those are the only grounds for considering impeachment, they said. Unglesby said he learned Thursday that Congress would not take up the impeachment question until 2009. He called the latest reprimand "either wonderful because it negates the whole impeachment because he has now been punished, or it is demonstrative of some kind of personal animosity for reasons we don't understand." If Porteous is ultimately impeached by Congress, "he would be the only judge in the history of the Republic to be recommended for impeachment, but never indicted criminally." In his own defense, Porteous responded to the 5th Circuit's investigation saying in December 2007 that he has a genetic pre-disposition to depression, shown by his father's suicide. That he has been dependent on alcohol and worsened his financial problems by gambling. He said he has not gambled in two years and is beginning to get his life "back in order." Unglesby accused the 5th Circuit of "over punishing" Porteous because it is "embarrassed" by the light punishment of U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent, in Houston. Kent was suspended four months after a former clerk complained he fondled her and made inappropriate sexual comments. Kent was indicted on Aug. 28 on three criminal counts of sexual abuse of a female employee. Former NY Judge Admits Providing Prostitutes for Pals By Joel Stashenko NEW YORK - Ronald H. Tills, a retired acting Supreme Court justice and Court of Claims judge, pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court in Buffalo to violating the federal Mann Act by transporting a prostitute across state lines. Mr. Tills, 73, admitted before Judge William Skretny of the Western District of New York that he recruited prostitutes to service members of a fraternal club, the Royal Order of Jesters, at gatherings in Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky and Ontario in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In his plea agreement with Western District U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn, Mr. Tills also acknowledged arranging for women to attend a meeting of the Buffalo chapter of the Jesters in 2001 in Dunkirk, N.Y., to have sex with members of the club. He faces from 27 months to 33 months in prison during sentencing, which Judge Skretny scheduled for Jan. 12. Mr. Tills' lawyer, Terrence M. Connors of Connors & Vilardo in Buffalo, said in an interview yesterday that Mr. Tills "accepted responsibility for his actions and admitted in court that he committed a crime, that his conduct was wrong and his judgment was horrible." Mr. Tills also agreed to aid in the prosecution of others involved in the procurement of prostitutes, a role that could earn him a shorter prison sentence, Mr. Connors said. Mr. Tills, of Hamburg, Erie County, was a judge from 1995 until his retirement in 2005. He resigned in March as part-time judicial hearing officer for the state as the FBI and U.S. Border Patrol agents investigated allegations of his involvement with prostitutes and the Jesters' organization, Mr. Connors said. Mr. Tills was also a Republican state assemblyman from 1969-77. One NY Judge Resigns, Another Disciplined Over Misconduct By Joel Stashenko A town court justice has resigned and another has been admonished following separate investigations by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission said Jewett Town Justice Rebecca McGowan resigned as of July 31 for misconduct that included dismissing two dog control charges against her brother-in-law. She was also accused of failing to disqualify herself in several other cases involving friends or family members and of failing to deposit court funds within the prescribed three-day period after receipt, the commission contended. A non-lawyer, Ms. McGowan had been a town justice since 2005. The commission also announced yesterday that Cairo Town Justice Thomas W. Baldwin has been admonished for allowing "significant" delays in three small claims cases, including one matter in which he did not issue a decision, apparently because the file in the case had been lost. Mr. Baldwin, who is also not an attorney, has been a town justice since 1982. Both Jewett and Cairo are in Greene County. Judge
Again Accused of Rudeness, By Pamela A. MacLean The Washington state Commission on Judicial Conduct, issued an order Thursday setting a fact-finding hearing for Nov. 18 in Olympia, Wash. The commission sanctioned Eiler in 2004 for engaging "in a pattern and practice of discourteous, intemperate and undignified behavior" and ordered her to undergo behavior and sensitivity training. In June, the commission found probable cause to believe Eiler again engaged in a patter of "rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating treatment" of lawyers and self-represented litigants in court. She threatened to fire court personnel if litigants spoke to them and prevented some pro se litigants from fully presenting their testimony in court, according to the 12-page statement of charges. The statement lists 15 specific cases by number from 2006 through 2008. In addition, Eiler was accused of reversing an order and dismissing a traffic infraction in a way that suggested it was motivated by self-interest, according to the complaint. The earlier complaint identified nine cases between 2002 and 2003 in which she was also angry, abusive and threatening to litigants, according to the complaint. Eiler was elected to the state bench in 1992. She has served on the executive committee for the statewide District and Municipal Court Judges Association. The judge could not be reached Friday to comment on the charges. Editorial: Phony Court Order - Judicial Arrogance The Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge James M. DeLeon could benefit from an extended lesson in humility. DeLeon is facing disciplinary action for an outrageous abuse of his authority. The state Judicial Conduct Board has accused him of misconduct for issuing a bogus "stay-away" order against a man who displeased one of the judge's pals. The episode unfolded like this: DeLeon, a judge since 1988, attended a Center City social event in August 2005 with members of the city's Romanian community. There he met George Sfedu, a Rittenhouse Square resident who was Romania's honorary consul general to Philadelphia (who knew?). Sfedu told the judge that a neighbor was having "unwanted verbal contact" with Sfedu's teenage daughter. He wanted the neighbor, Lee Corley, to stop. DeLeon suggested that Sfedu's wife, Center City lawyer Susan Satkowski, call the judge's chambers to obtain a "stay-away" order. The judge had his secretary prepare a legal-looking document accusing Corley of "unlawful activity." DeLeon signed it on Sept. 7, 2005, and sent the document to Corley, ordering him not to have any contact with Satkowski or her daughter. "Violation of this order will result in your arrest," it stated, on a sheet of paper captioned "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lee Corley." But this order was not docketed in court records, nor was it issued in connection with a pending criminal case. It wasn't valid. Before it was issued, Corley wasn't notified or given a chance to attend a hearing. DeLeon might have gotten away with this stunt, but Corley hired a lawyer. They sent a letter to the judge on Sept. 29, 2005, questioning the validity of the order. At this point, you can almost see the judge starting to sweat. For four months, the judge apparently didn't respond. So Corley's lawyer sent another letter to him on Jan. 30, 2006. This time the judge arranged to meet Corley and his lawyer in court. DeLeon signed a new "order" on Feb. 2, 2006, vacating his earlier "stay-away" decree. It, too, was not filed in court. The judge now faces a hearing before the Court of Judicial Discipline, which can impose punishment ranging from a reprimand to suspension to removal from office. DeLeon's lawyer says the judge doesn't dispute the charges, and will essentially throw himself on the mercy of the court. He said DeLeon had an exemplary record prior to this incident. DeLeon's actions merit at least a suspension. His lawyer points out that the judge didn't benefit from his "major error in judgment," but that's not the only consideration here. He abused his office to help an acquaintance. That's egregious. And the four-month gap between Corley's letters suggests that the judge was hoping he could get away with it, rather than own up to his serious misconduct. By doing so, he turned his small corner of the city's justice system into a mockery. Sexual
Harassment Probe of Federal Judge New York Lawyer HOUSTON (AP) - A probe of a federal judge being investigated for sexual harassment is now looking into whether he accepted gifts without reporting them and if rules were violated in a home sale deal arranged by a lawyer with dozens of cases in his court, a newspaper reported Sunday. The Justice Department began investigating U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent last year after a female employee accused him of repeatedly harassing her over four years. Cathy McBroom has said the harassment culminated at the judge's Galveston chambers in a March 2007 incident in which the judge allegedly pulled up her blouse and bra and tried to escalate contact until they were interrupted. Kent's attorney, Dick DeGuerin also has called any alleged sexual contact between Kent and his former case manager, McBroom, "enthusiastically consensual." Since the federal probe into the allegations began, several prominent attorneys have been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors to appear before a Houston grand jury involving other allegations of judicial misconduct, according to documents and interviews obtained by the Houston Chronicle. Lawyers and former co-workers said investigators are looking into parties, a 2001 trip to London and meals attorneys had bought for Kent at Galveston restaurants. DeGuerin, Kent's attorney, confirmed prosecutors requested records about a real estate deal in which attorney Kurt Arnold helped convince his mother to buy Kent's home in 2006 in Galveston. The home was valued by the county at $224,090 and sold for $339,500. Kent also was able to negotiate a reduced real estate commission, saving him more than $15,000. The judge had actively solicited offers from several lawyers who practiced in his court. Kent sold the home to Arnold after getting a legal opinion from his law clerk that concluded the sale to a lawyer who practiced in his courtroom was not "expressly prohibited." DeGuerin said the house deal was legitimate, that Kent always treated all attorneys fairly and the judge has done nothing improper or illegal. He claims investigators are going all out because a federal judge "is a big pelt." "I think they're trying to find anything that they can, and this should be a dead end," DeGuerin said. Randy Schaffer, Arnold's attorney, said his client violated no laws. He refused comment about the judge's conduct. Tom Fitton, president of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Judicial Watch, said the sale "has all the hallmarks of something that's not on the up and up. ... A full investigation may exonerate (Kent) — but a full investigation must be done." Investigators are also looking at gifts Kent might have received while on the bench. Kent's disclosure forms for 2001-2006 show he reported receiving no gifts since 2002. But in interviews with the Chronicle, former court employees and attorneys say that Kent continued to receive expensive lunches and drinks from other lawyer friends. In 2001, an insurance company reimbursed Kent an unspecified amount for "round trip transportation only" to appear at a London conference. The same year, Richard Melancon, an attorney friend who had dozens of cases in Kent's court, gave the judge a catered wedding reception valued at $1,000. A few months after the party, Kent's supervising federal judges abruptly reassigned Melancon's cases to another court. McBroom's attorney, Rusty Hardin, said he is frustrated that it has taken so long to review a sexual molestation case he calls a "slam dunk." He said he does not understand why federal prosecutors seem more interested in gifts and real estate. The Judicial Council of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded Kent in September, ordering him on paid leave for four months. He was also reassigned from Galveston to Houston. Who's
Laughing Now?: Judge's "Joke" By The Associated Press Magistrate Judge Linda C. Peterson faces up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines after being found guilty Monday. A U.S. District Court judge will sentence her at a later date. Prosecutors said at Peterson's trial last week that she lied under oath to a grand jury when she denied having ever suggested to criminal defendants that they hire her father as a bail bondsman. She was also charged with making false statements to FBI agents investigating possible corruption in the rural south Georgia county. Peterson's lawyers said she was joking when she recommended an FBI informant hire her father. The Daily Report contributed to this story. Ethics
Flap Surrounds Judge Who Presided By Shannon McCaffrey ATLANTA — A Paulding County judge who initially said he did not handle the divorce of Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson has reversed himself, telling The Associated Press on Monday that he did dissolve the Republican lawmaker's marriage. Superior Court Judge James Osborne is a former law partner of Richardson and Osborne's daughter is an associate at the speaker's law firm. Ethics watchdog George Anderson filed a complaint against Osborne with the state Judicial Qualifications Commission arguing that he should have recused himself from Richardson's divorce proceeding in February. Questions have surrounded Richardson's uncontested divorce from his wife, Susan, since Osborne sealed all records in the high-profile case. Sealing divorce files is unusual in Georgia, lawyers said. And Osborne's ties to Richardson have raised eyebrows. In February, Osborne told The Associated Press that he only signed an order sealing the records and did not handle the actual divorce. He said the case was in the hands of fellow Paulding County Superior Court Judge Tonny Beavers, who was in line to handle the case under the court's rotation system of assigning cases. But on Monday, Osborne said it landed back in his lap after Beavers and Ken Vinson, another Paulding County Superior Court judge, recused themselves from the proceedings. "I granted it (the divorce) after the appropriate waiting period," Osborne told the AP. Neither Beavers or Vinson immediately returned a phone call seeking comment Monday. While the uncontested divorce has been finalized, Anderson still has a motion pending seeking to unseal the records. "Our whole case is that Speaker Richardson should not get special treatment because he is a public official," Anderson's lawyer Gerry Weber said. Weber said questions about what role Osborne played merely reinforce the argument that the records should be open to public inspection. As first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Osborne recused himself from hearing Anderson's motion questioning the decision to seal the divorce records. Walter Matthews, chief judge of the Rome judicial circuit, has now been assigned to handle the motion. Osborne said Monday he stepped aside because he "did not want the public to feel any degree of uncertainty that there would be an impartial judgment in the case." Asked why he did not also decline to handle the divorce, Osborne said he did not feel he needed to. "I never felt, and I still don't feel, that I have any partiality or prejudice to anyone involved in that case," he said. A spokeswoman for Richardson did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Monday. The status of Richardson's marriage had been the topic of speculation at the state Capitol since Georgia Democrats filed an ethics complaint against him in January 2007 alleging that he had an "improper relationship" with a female lobbyist at Atlanta Gas Light. The complaint alleged that the relationship took place at the same time Richardson was co-sponsoring a pipeline bill being sought by her employer. A legislative ethics panel dismissed the complaint. Editorial: How Do We Rebuild Trust in the Justice System? Shreveport Times That blindfold on Lady Justice is no doubt damp with tears of sorrow — and anger — now that federal prosecutors have proven two Caddo Parish judges were willing to sell their judicial power for cash. State District Judge Michael Walker and Juvenile Judge Vernon Claville were convicted of taking bribes in exchange for lowering bonds for criminal suspects. But the public's logical question is whether such criminal behavior could have extended into the courtroom through verdicts and sentences. As one law enforcement official observed, if you're willing to cross one ethical or legal boundary, crossing the next one becomes all that much easier. To say the guilty verdicts cast a shadow of public cynicism, if not outrage, over the criminal justice system is both sad and accurate. No longer is the issue simple judicial competence or work ethic, but that within the legal purview of two robed jurists, an uneven playing field existed that favored those with means or connections. How do you restore confidence in the system, particularly one that is cloaked in judicial privilege? How do you rebuild trust in a process where sheer volume of cases and record-keeping can make oversight virtually impossible for the average citizen, taxpayers who have little contact with the system save for the occasional jury summons? Rather than accountability, the current system of electing judges can promote complacency, even unchecked power: once elected, judges seldom face challengers let alone public criticism from the local bar or the law enforcement establishment. Note that federal authorities had to prosecute this corruption case. Honest and hardworking members of the criminal justice system should feel a burning rage at this betrayal of two of their own. Consider the undercover officer who works long and risky hours to make a case against a drug dealer, the judge who diligently chops away at backlogs to provide both fair and speedy justice. And consider it's an election year for members of the Caddo justice system. Are there any administrative fixes that can begin repairing public trust? It would be a good question posed to judges on the stump this fall about whether Caddo judges should return to a system of rotation between the civil and criminal sections of the court. The system that year after year found Walker presiding over drug cases is in part a function of seniority. Does the expertise-through-tenure argument outweigh the public wondering if periodic shakeups on bench assignments could provide a safeguard against abuse of power? Certainly, the issue of criminal court efficiency will get an airing as Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator makes his case for more jail space. His statistics show Caddo Correctional Center approaching prisoner overload, exacerbated in large part by so many detainees awaiting trial. An acquittal, of course, turns over a CCC bed. Convictions either send the inmate to a state prison or result in more revenue to run the taxpayer-supported Caddo prison since the Louisiana Department of Corrections pays sheriffs almost seven times more for housing its prisoners than what the Parish Commission pays for parish detainees. Digging into the incarceration numbers will help determine if justice is grinding slow because of more aggressive policing, inefficient judges or sluggish prosecution. Or combination of all three? For now the public owes a debt to investigators and U.S. Attorney Donald Washington's prosecution team for ferreting out this judicial corruption. Caddo Parish voters should now expect their court officials to seriously address how best to kindle public confidence and assure integrity in the system. Drunk-Driving, Cross Dressing Federal Judge Quits for Real By Sheri Qualters In a two-sentence press release issued on May 30, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Somma is "leaving to pursue other endeavors" and that "the court appreciates the service that Judge Somma has rendered." Somma's attorney Robert B. Carpenter of Carpenter & Associates in Boston declined to comment but said his office may make a statement later this week. Somma was arrested Feb. 6, while wearing a cocktail dress and high heels, according to Associated Press reports. He pleaded no contest in Manchester District Court in Manchester, N.H., to a misdemeanor charge of allegedly driving while intoxicated on Feb. 13. The court also suspended Somma's driver's license for one-year and he paid $600 in fines and penalties. Somma notified the court system on Feb. 15 that he would resign on April 1, but the date was later pushed back to May 15 when Somma attempted to rescind the resignation. Somma was initially on paid leave, but court officials have declined to discuss his pay status since April 1, the date his resignation was originally slated to take effect. Support from the bankruptcy bar and other local attorneys and professionals prompted Somma's change of heart. More than 200 bankruptcy lawyers sent a letter on his behalf to the 1st Circuit. Groups of non-bankruptcy lawyers and financial advisors and consultants had their own letter writing campaigns, said Paul D. Moore, a Duane Morris bankruptcy partner in Boston who participated in the bankruptcy bar letter. Family Court Judge Abused Contempt Power June 3, 2008 TROY—Linda C. Griffin, a Rensselaer County Family Court judge since 1994, has been censured by the state Commission on Judicial Commission for abusing the contempt power. The judicial disciplinary panel found that Judge Griffin "abused the contempt power" by holding litigants in three different cases in contempt of court without explicitly warning them of the consequences of their behavior and without an order stating the facts justifying the contempt citation, which is necessary to enable appellate review. "Regardless of whether the parties’ initial behavior provided sufficient basis for a contempt holding," the commission said that, pursuant to Judiciary Law, Judge Griffin had an obligation to warn the litigants "explicitly that their conduct could result in a summary citation for criminal contempt resulting in incarceration," and to give the litigants a chance to "desist from the conduct."One litigant was held in jail for less than an hour, and the other two were held for seven days. One of those two, a 16-year-old, had already been remanded to a juvenile detention facility and did not spend any additional time in custody as a result of the contempt. The commission noted that Judge Griffin was "contrite," acknowledged that she did not comply with statutory mandates and was cooperative throughout the proceeding. In addition, after the three incidents in this case, the judge attended a judicial education and training program on contempt run by the Office of Court Administration.Griffin has been an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court since 2001. Her current term expires in 2013. Family
Court Judge Slammed Coastal Post Bolinas, CA. Ulf Carlsson has won his appeal against a shocking action by Sacramento Family Court Judge Peter McBrien for violation of fundamental fairness in a divorce trial. The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal justices unanimously agreed: "We shall conclude that the trial court's actions deprived the husband of his due process right to a fair hearing." The three justices determined that the "...trial court
essentially ran the trial on a stopwatch, curtailing the parties'
right to present evidence on all material disputed issues. Using the
constant threat of a mistrial, Judge McBrien pressured (Mr.
Carlsson's) Attorney Huddle into rushing through her presentation
and continuing without a break." Judge Disciplined for Ruling in Cases of Hubby's Bank New York Lawyer MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court reprimanded one of its own Wednesday, giving Justice Annette Ziegler the lightest possible punishment for hearing cases involving a bank where her husband was a paid director. It was the first time the state high court has taken such an action, and her colleagues could have suspended her or removed her from the bench. Ziegler ruled in favor of West Bend Savings Bank in several cases she heard as a Washington County judge between 2001 and last year. The court said Ziegler's "serious and significant" offense diminished public confidence in the legal system. The state's judicial code requires judges to withdraw from cases in which they have a significant financial interest that could raise questions about their impartiality. Ziegler called her hearing of the cases an "inadvertent error." "I appreciate that this matter is now concluded," she said in a statement. "I look forward to continuing to serve the people of Wisconsin." Mike McCabe, director of the watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which filed the complaint, argued that suspension or removal from office would be more appropriate. "The discipline will be seen by the public as nothing more than a slap on the wrist," McCabe said. "Clearly the court is operating under a cloud right now." Ziegler, 44, began her 10-year term on the Supreme Court in August. Judge's
Pre-Retirement Ruling for Firm By Michael Booth It was pretty clear on Tuesday that the state Supreme Court didn't approve of what Judge Gerald Escala did just before retiring in 2005: rule for the client of a firm he was negotiating to join. The quandary is whether the misstep warrants a new trial. "This was two years of contentious litigation," argued James Keegan, representing a dissatisfied party in Denike v. Cupo, A-61-07. "Before the ink was dry, negotiations were on-going." "A judge cannot have progress toward a relationship with one side of the case and persuade the other side he can fairly hear the case," said Keegan, of West Orange's Bendit Weinstock. Escala became of counsel to Herten, Burstein, Sheridan, Cevasco, Bottinelli, Litt & Harz in Hackensack, a little more than a month after he signed the final order of judgment in the case. But Escala and firm partner Thomas Herten insist there was no conflict of interest or other ethics violation. While Rule of Professional Conduct 1:12(c) says a lawyer cannot negotiate for employment with a party with whom he is involved in litigation, the Code of Judicial Conduct is silent on how a judge should handle a pre-retirement job hunt. The Appellate Division sided with Herten, Burstein, saying Escala probably should have followed the rule federal judges must follow - waiting a reasonable amount of time before negotiating with the firm - but noting that New Jersey judges face no such restrictions. A Supreme Court ad hoc committee, chaired by retired Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, is reviewing the Code of Judicial Conduct in response to the American Bar Association's revisions to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct last year. In the meantime, there are real dollars at stake for Keegan's client, Michael Cupo, who claims he came up short due to Escala's actions. Cupo and Lawrence Denike were cofounders of a Maywood mortgage company and Cupo, who left the partnership, sued for the payout he claimed was due. On Jan. 20, 2005, after a bench trial, Escala awarded Cupo $731,682 plus interest. He signed the final order on Feb. 1, 2005, making no changes. At some point between those dates, Denike's attorney, Herten, talked with Escala about a job upon his imminent retirement. On Feb. 3, Escala told his clerks he was joining Herten, Burstein. Cupo appealed, declining to pursue post-trial motions as Passaic County, Assignment Judge Robert Passero had invited. (The case was transferred to Passaic County after Escala ruled.) "Why not take all this up with Judge Passero?" asked Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto. Keegan said a post-judgment hearing would have served no purpose. "You can't address the appearance of impropriety with a factual hearing," he said. Justice Barry Albin observed that Keegan was seeking a "complete redo." "I don't think that's an extreme remedy," Keegan replied. Rivera-Soto said it was a "bit of a stretch" to suggest that Escala made changes beneficial to Denike just because Escala was negotiating with Herten, Burstein before signing the order. Albin interjected, "I don't know why you have to make that argument. The attorney approached the judge with a job opportunity before the end of the case. That should be your argument." Justice Jaynee LaVecchia added, "Worse, the judge did not rebuff him." Herten said Escala's verdict should stand since nothing changed between the time Escala reached his decision and the time he formalized it in the final order. "Mr. Keegan's argument is based on speculation. That argument should crumble," he said. Rivera-Soto told Herten to "assume the worst-case scenario" and advise what the appropriate remedy should be. "There already was a remedy," said Herten. "Judge Passero said, 'Come back before me. I will be Judge Escala for all intents and purposes.' Mr. Keegan had the opportunity and he made a knowing, purposeful and willful waiver of the opportunity." Keegan rejected Passero's offer because he knew any appeal would be more difficult to pursue if Passero made the same rulings as Escala, said Herten. Keegan's strategy is to make the appeal revolve around an appearance of impropriety so the parties "have to go back to the Book of Genesis," he said. Rivera-Soto suggested that may be the course to follow to maintain confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. "It's what golfers call a Mulligan," he said. "They [all of Escala's rulings] are bad because they're all tainted." Albin applied his own sporting metaphor: that of a judge sitting on a case and "before the final bell rings he may be jockeying for a position. We can't permit that, don't you agree?" Herten said the Court should view the case as would a reasonable person who knew all the facts and looked at Escala's handling of it from beginning to end. "This was a well-reasoned decision, a process with integrity." Chief Justice Stuart Rabner asked whether Herten believed the Court should adopt the ABA model or place post-retirement restrictions on state judges similar to those faced by federal judges. "I don't, frankly, know what the standard should be," said Herten. New Traffic Judge Accused of Hitting Up Bikers for Cash By Amaris Elliott-Engel The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board has initiated formal proceedings against Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Willie F. Singletary and has filed five counts of misconduct against Singletary. According to the notice of formal charges filed Tuesday by the conduct board in the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline, Singletary allegedly brought the judicial office into disrepute by promising favorable treatment while soliciting donations from bikers last year at an event held to raise donations for his campaign and to conduct a blessing on motorcycles ahead of the warm road season. Quote Time "There's going to be a basket going around because I'm running for Traffic Court Judge, right, and I need some money. I got some stuff that I got to do, but if you all can give me twenty ($20) dollars you're going to need me in Traffic Court, am I right about that?" 0:32 "Now you all want me to get there, you're all going to need my hook-up, right?" 2:17 "It costs money. I have to raise $15,000 dollars by Friday, I just hope you have it, because I have to raise $15,000 dollars by Friday." 2:23 Singletary told the bikers, among other alleged statements, according to the notice: "'Now you all want me to get there, you're all going to need my hook-up, right?'" Singletary allegedly made the statement at a "blessing of the bikes" event held April 22, 2007, by the Philadelphia First State Road Rattlers at Malcolm X Park at 52nd and Pine streets in Philadelphia, the notice said. "These actions clearly and unequivocally intimate that in exchange for . . . soliciting funds that he would grant favorable treatment in court cases," said Joseph A. Massa Jr., chief counsel of the Judicial Conduct Board, in an interview. "In doing so, we allege and charge and are prepared to prove that he brought disrepute to the judicial office that he now holds." Massa said the formal charges Singletary faces are only the second time that his office has filed charges against a Traffic Court judge. Singletary's counsel John W. Morris and Singletary could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Traffic Court President Judge Thomasine Tynes declined comment through an aide until she has had time to review the situation. According to the notice, at the event, Singletary approached a group of people wearing the motorcycle club colors, offered a blessing and then asked if "'you're all going to help me out?'" According to the notice, Singletary then continued and said: "'There's going to be a basket going around because I'm running for Traffic Court Judge, right, and I need some money. I got some stuff that I got to do, but if you all can give me twenty ($20) dollars you're going to need me in Traffic Court, am I right about that?'" Singletary then stated, according to the notice, "'Now you all want me to get there, you're all going to need my hook-up, right?'" In closing, according to the notice, Singletary said, "'It costs money. I have to raise $15,000 dollars by Friday, I just hope you have it, because I have to raise $15,000 dollars by Friday."' According to a campaign report filed last year for the period between June 15 and Oct. 22, Singletary's total monetary contributions were $3,935, his total expenditures were $3,320 and his unpaid debts and obligations were $3,110. His expenditures included a $2,000 Democratic City Committee dinner. The actions that Singletary is alleged to have committed in the notice, according to count one in the notice, violated the Pennsylvania Constitution by bringing the judicial office into disrepute. Singletary's alleged actions also violated the rule prohibiting candidates for magisterial district judgeships or their equivalents from engaging in "partisan political activity," including delivering speeches, making or soliciting "political contributions (including purchasing tickets for political party dinners or other functions)" or attending political party gatherings, according to count two in the notice. The actions violated the rule requiring candidates for magisterial district judgeships or their equivalents to maintain the "dignity appropriate to judicial office," according to count three of the notice. According to count four of the notice, the alleged conduct violated the rule that candidates for magisterial district judgeships or their equivalents must not make pledges of their conduct on the bench "other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office." According to count five of the notice, the alleged conduct violated the rule prohibiting candidates for magisterial district judgeships or their equivalent to not personally solicit campaign funds. The rule allows candidates to "establish committees of responsible persons to secure and manage the expenditure of funds for their campaign and to obtain public statements of support for their candidacy," the notice said. Massa said his office "received complaints from various sources" regarding the allegations Singletary faces. Singletary, who has only been on the bench since Jan. 7, is considered not guilty of any infraction until the Court of Judicial Discipline rules that the conduct board has met its burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence, Massa said. The judge will have 30 days to file a formal omnibus motion response once the complaint is received. Then Court of Judicial Discipline President Judge William H. Lamb will appoint a conference judge. After the pleading stage of the case is completed, a three-judge panel will conduct a public hearing regarding the charges. If Singletary is found to have committed misconduct and violated the "Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges," as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution, the court will schedule a sanctions hearing to determine what sanctions Singletary could possibly face. The board
receives 550 complaints a year, and formal charges are filed in 1
percent or less of those complaints, Massa said. By Joel Stashenko ALBANY - Marital
problems and a heavy caseload helped create the "perfect
psychological storm" for a city court judge who began jailing
defendants for not taking responsibility for a ringing cell phone in
his courtroom one day in 2005, his attorney told the state's highest
court yesterday. "If there is no venal intent, there is no dishonesty or fraud or efforts to try to improve your own personal gain, then, where you have an aberration - in this case, an hour and a half - you don't impose the judicial death penalty on a judge," Mr. Connors argued. "He has so much more to give. He is regarded so highly." Judge Restaino failed to recognize the "stressors" in his life that led to his outburst on March 11, 2005, when the judge ordered 46 defendants in a Domestic Violence Court detained because no one would own up to having the cell phone, Mr. Connors said. Fourteen defendants were eventually sent to the Niagara County Jail because they could not make bail. All the defendants were released by the end of the day. Mr. Connors cited Judge Restaino's heavy caseload as one of his major stressors. The judge typically handled between 100 and 125 cases a day in court and from 1996 to 2006 he was responsible for some 90,000 cases, his attorney said. In addition to his full-time assignment to the Niagara Falls City Court bench, Judge Restaino also accepted temporary assignments as acting Buffalo City Court judge, acting Niagara County Court judge and acting Niagara County Family Court judge. Medical experts who worked with the judge after his outburst also suggested that working on domestic violence cases raised his personal anxieties about the growing rift in the judge's own marriage, according to Mr. Connors. Mr. Connors told the Court of Appeals that Judge Restaino's case presents them with an opportunity to address an issue the Court has never written about: "judicial burnout and stress." "Judges need to know, just like lawyers need to know, that you can come forward with these individual stress problems that you have and that are likely to experience in the type of profession that you're in," Mr. Connors argued. "You can come forward and you can seek help. It is not a stigma. It is not a sign of weakness. It is not a character flaw." Judge Restaino has undergone counseling and learned to better recognize and cope with stress, his attorney said. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Robert S. Smith and Susan P. Read all noted yesterday that heavy dockets are the norm for state court judges. Judge Read observed that if Judge Restaino is returned to the bench, "I don't suppose that his caseload is going to get any lighter." "We've got to deal with a judge, a very hard-working judge with an excellent record," Judge Smith said. "Well, we have a lot of very hard-working judges with excellent records. He [Judge Restaino] went completely off the rails. He victimized several dozen harmless, innocent people, or at least innocent of anything that would have justified his conduct. How can we say to the community, 'Well, we understand why he did it and he's not going to do it again?'" Amici Support Mr. Connors said the 10 amici curiae briefs filed on Judge Restaino's behalf by bar, civic and government groups in the Niagara Falls region show the community's confidence that the judge will not repeat his behavior. Commission on Judicial Conduct attorney Edward Lindner sought to downplay the significance of the amici briefs supporting the judge and urged the Court to give them a "very limited role" inits deliberations about Judge Restaino's judicial fate. "They are simply unsworn character references," Mr. Lindner said. "Well, they're more than that, Mr. Lindner," Chief Judge Kaye replied. "They are the expressions of people who dealt with him over an 11-year period or more as a judge." At another point yesterday, the chief judge remarked that the "outpouring of support" for Judge Restaino made his appeal unusual. Mr. Lindner urged the Court to look past the local backing Judge Restaino enjoys and consider the message about appropriate judicial conduct it wants to send to the state as a whole with its ruling. "How are people on Long Island and New York City, how are people in the Capital District who read your decision going to take this?" Mr. Lindner asked. Mr. Lindner argued that Judge Restaino's case is analogous to that of former Supreme Court Justice Laura D. Blackburne of Queens, who was removed from the bench in 2006 for helping a robbery suspect evade arrest. The Commission on Judicial Conduct's removal recommendation was upheld by the Court in Matter of Blackburne, 7 NY3d 213 (2006). Mr. Connors, of Connors & Vilardo in Buffalo, argued that censure is the appropriate sanction for Judge Restaino, not removal. The judge has an otherwise spotless judicial record. The commission voted for removal by a 9-1 margin, finding that Judge Restaino's behavior "transcended poor judgment" and brought the judiciary into "disrepute." The former chairman of the commission, Raoul Felder, disagreed in what he called the most difficult decision in hisfour years on the panel. Mr. Felder wrote in a dissent that "two hours of inexplicable madness" should not cost Judge Restaino his judicial career. He favored censure. Judge Restaino was appointed to a part-time city judgeship in Niagara Falls in 1996 and elected to a 10-year full-time term in 2001. He has been suspended with pay since December as he challenged the commission's removal recommendation before the Court of Appeals. Since the inception of the commission in 1983, the Court of Appeals has upheld 63 of the panel's 72 removal recommendations. The other nine were reduced to censure, most recently Lockport City Court Judge William Watson's recommended removal for making inappropriate campaign promises to be tougher on criminals than his predecessor. Mr. Connors successfully argued for a reduction in sanction for Judge Watson before the Court. Judge Claims "Diminished Capacity" in Judicial Ethics Probe
New York Lawyer Circuit Judge Stuart DuBose, who serves Washington, Clarke and Choctaw counties, could be ousted from office if convicted by the Court of the Judiciary. The Judicial Inquiry Commission made 60 separate allegations against DuBose in January, covering his conduct on the bench and as a private lawyer before he took office in January 2007. They included claims that he told lawyers at a party after he won the Democratic nomination for circuit judge in September 2006 that they would have a "homefield advantage." DuBose filed his formal response to the allegations Wednesday. He has been on paid leave since the complaint was filed. It's unclear when the commission will rule on the case. John Wilkerson, the secretary of the Court of the Judiciary, told the Press-Register he can recall only one similar case in the last 30 years. In that case, a Talladega County judge resigned amid allegations of impropriety and requested disability payments because of diminished capacity, Wilkerson said. DuBose's lawyers denied the charges and claimed he was suffering from an unspecified diminished capacity during the time covered by the allegations and the investigation of them. Farley Moody of Calera, a lawyer representing DuBose, declined to provide details about his client's condition. DuBose's filing states that his "treatment and evaluation concerning his health, both mental and physical, is ongoing." Among other allegations in the judicial ethics complaint, DuBose is accused of drafting a will as a private attorney for a wealthy, dying man, giving the entire estate to a caregiver seeking the will, without ever meeting the dying man. He also is accused of making threatening remarks to a group of lawyers in an apparent attempt to keep them from cooperating with the judicial inquiry commission's investigation Panel Seeks Reprimand for Judge Cheryl Aleman By Diana Moskovitz and
Hannah Sampson Broward Circuit Judge Cheryl Alemán also was ordered to pay for the cost of the proceedings, an amount unknown on Monday. In February of last year, the Judicial Qualifications Commission filed ethics charges against Alemán, saying she had unprofessional courtroom conduct and unfairly held, or threatened to hold, lawyers in contempt of court. Ultimately, a commission panel found her in violation in one case and not guilty in the second. The 31-page recommendation goes to the Florida Supreme Court, which will decide the final punishment. Assistant Public Defender Sandra Perlman, an attorney in the case where the panel faulted Alemán, said on Monday she was pleased. ''I'm very happy she will finally be held accountable for her arrogant and discourteous conduct,'' she said. Alemán's attorney, David Bogenschutz, said he would have preferred that she be fully exonerated. But he said he was grateful that she was found in violation in just one case and that the panel recommended only a reprimand -- the least severe punishment -- as opposed to removing her from the bench. ''It's certainly gratifying that they think she's the kind of judge that should remain on the bench,'' Bogenschutz said. ``I happen to think that myself, and I think a lot of people think that.'' Bogenschutz said he and Alemán will decide whether to appeal the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. The panel's finding was related to the 2006 case of a Hollywood man, Lawrence Braynen, who faced the death penalty in a first-degree murder case. His assistant public defenders, including Perlman, tried repeatedly to have Alemán removed from the case. In one instance, Perlman asked for at least an hour to prepare a motion. Alemán instead handed her paper and a pen and gave her 15 minutes. She threatened to hold Perlman in contempt when she missed the deadline. The panel called Alemán's conduct in the Braynen case ``arrogant, discourteous, and impatient to the lawyers appearing before her.'' ''She acted in a manner that erodes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,'' the panel continued. Braynen later went to trial before a different judge and was convicted. ''We will never know the answer to whether the pen and paper step would have resulted in the reversal of a death sentence, but it was a step that should have not been taken,'' the panel wrote. However, the panel said it was ''troubled by the Public Defender's numerous motions for disqualification,'' but adding that those did not excuse Alemán's conduct. Perlman said on Monday that the motions were a result of Alemán's conduct. In the second case, the concern was Alemán's refusal to disqualify herself in criminal cases involving clients of Fort Lauderdale lawyer Michael Gottlieb, even though she had disqualified herself from a case of his before due to their interaction when she was an assistant statewide prosecutor. The panel found Alemán not guilty ''due to a lack of clear and convincing evidence,'' the opinion said No Stay
of Complaint Proceedings for The Associated Press The Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission has rejected a request from suspended Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Halverson to stay proceedings on its 14-count complaint accusing her of improper conduct, sexual harassment and sleeping on the bench. Halverson's attorneys also were told Thursday to respond to a commission subpoena, issued in October, to turn over documents sought by the discipline panel. The judge also was given 20 days in which to amend the formal response to the commission's complaint that she filed on Tuesday. In the response, Halverson's lawyers said the accusations should be dismissed because she has "absolute immunity by virtue of her elected position as a Nevada district court judge." The attorneys also said Halverson is entitled to protections under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and some of the counts against her violate the judge's federal rights "to be free from discrimination based upon an accepted qualifying disability." Lawyers Dominic Gentile, John Arrascada and William Gamage also said the charges don't include any "allegations of severity or pervasiveness," or show any "willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of office, or habitual intemperance." The attorneys also said the discipline panel was going beyond its jurisdiction with its complaint, which alleged, among other things, that Halverson fell asleep during three trials early last year. The complaint also says the judge improperly talked with jurors impaneled to decide a case she was handling, sexually harassed a bailiff and harassed other employees, and improperly hired her own security guards. The complaint also states that Halverson refused to communicate, except through a lawyer, with Chief Clark County District Judge Kathy Hardcastle about various administrative court functions. I
Object! I Sustain Me!: Local Judge Suspended By Douglas S. Malan Guliani admitted wrongdoing in August, nearly one year after he had served a 30-day suspension for failing to communicate with a client regarding an irrevocable trust worth more than $100,000. His term as probate judge ended in January 2007 after he declined to seek re-election. Judge James J. Lawlor, the state's probate court administrator, filed the grievance after Guliani's successor in Portland, Stephen E. Kinsella, discovered Guliani's unethical behavior when reviewing a matter involving the late Vincent W. Olson's estate, which remains open. "It was a huge disappointment to me," Lawlor said. "We still have outstanding issues" because of Guliani's misconduct. Kinsella found that in 1998, Guliani represented Olson's daughter, Shirley, who was executrix of the estate. Guliani granted the daughter real estate from her father's will without "a finding that it was in the best interests of the parties" involved, according to the determination of probable cause by the Middletown Judicial District grievance panel. In the Olson case, Guliani ruled that his $15,000 in legal fees were "presumptively reasonable." He based the figure on a fee schedule that stated the reasonable fee for the work he performed "would be an amount not more than 4.5 percent of the gross taxable estate." "This schedule is used by some Probate Courts to determine if fiduciary and legal fees claimed in an estate are reasonable and not subject to further question or inquiry by a Probate Court," he explained to Olson in a November 1998 letter. The local grievance panel also determined that Guliani used the probate court office for his own private practice. Letterhead for Guliani's law firm that he used in correspondence with Olson includes a telephone and fax number that connects to the probate court offices in Portland. Lawlor also charged, and the grievance panel confirmed, that Guliani involved himself in two other files as both attorney and judge. These included an estate for which he improperly rescinded an admission of the will to probate and an estate for which he served as witness to a will and had a claim filed for $650 in legal services. Guliani, who was admitted to the bar in 1977, did not respond to a message left on his answering machine seeking comment. His disciplinary history includes three reprimands in 2004 for failing to pay fees associated with real estate closings and failing to respond to a grievance. Guliani did not respond to Lawlor's complaint but did sign his name last August to the presentment order that led to his suspension. Lawlor said recent legislation has empowered his office to remove cases to other judges if he determines it necessary, though he does not have the power to sanction judges. "We have more ability to intercede and ensure that services are being delivered properly," Lawlor said. Portland attorney George A. Law was appointed trustee for Guliani's clients. He filed a motion in late December asking the court for guidance in handling the matter because Guliani has failed to communicate or cooperate with him. Federal Judge Should Be Impeached, Peers Says By Janet McConnaughey The Judicial Council of the 5th U.S. Circuit said U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. "has engaged in conduct which might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment." The same group of judges said it will wait at least three months before deciding whether to reconsider allegations that U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of Texas harassed a female employee, groping her in his court chambers in Galveston. Its report goes to the federal Judicial Council headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, which will decide whether to recommend that the U.S. House consider impeaching Porteous. Porteous, 61, was in a meeting Thursday afternoon and not available for comment, his office said. His attorney, Kyle Schonekas, did not immediately return a call. "Impeachment of a federal judge is very rare in American history. Not that he's necessarily going to be impeached," said Richard Carelli, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The U.S. House has impeached 13 judges; the Senate convicted seven and an eighth resigned, according to the Federal Judicial Center's web site. The most recent convictions, in 1989, were of U.S. District Judges Alcee L. Hastings of Florida and Walter L. Nixon of Mississippi. Hastings was convicted of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Nixon of lying to a federal grand jury. The council, which did not describe the allegations, reprimanded Porteous in September, ordering him on leave for four months. Thursday's order said the employee asked it to reconsider possible impeachment and said she had additional evidence. That would require a hearing which would be inappropriate because the U.S. Justice Department is investigating the allegations, the council wrote. The 5th Circuit Council's report about Porteous, posted on the Web site of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said investigators have substantial evidence to back up allegations against Porteous, who filed for bankruptcy in 2001. It said those include: • Filing
"numerous false statements under oath during his and his wife's
Chapter 13 bankruptcy, including filing the petition under a false
name." The report said U.S. District Court may not assign Porteous any bankruptcy cases or appeals, or cases in which the United States is a party. He may continue with other civil cases and administrative duties until he has to spend most of his time on his defense, it said. The allegations against Porteous were uncovered during the FBI's Operation Wrinkled Robe, an investigation of the relationship between state judges in Jefferson Parish, La., where Porteous served until he was appointed a federal judge in 1994, and bail bondsman Louis Marcotte. Schonekas said in late May of this year that federal prosecutors had told him they did not intend to indict Porteous, who was then asked to return to work at the court. Thursday's order will have little effect on Porteous' caseload. He stepped aside from all civil cases involving the federal government and all criminal cases in 2003 after a relative of Marcotte said the bondsman -- sent to prison for racketeering -- had paid for Porteous' car repairs and arranged another favor. "He hasn't been in the federal government docket for some time, so the only impact is the order requires he be taken out of the bankruptcy appeals," said Chief Judge Helen G. Berrigan of Louisiana's eastern federal district. "He'll have a regular civil docket, which is the vast majority of the docket." In May 2006, while dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and his wife's death, Porteous took medical leave. He returned to the federal bench in June. Porteous lost the roof of his Metairie home to Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. His wife, Carmella, died of a heart attack in December of that year. "I think it's a very sad time for him and his family and for us and our court," Berrigan said. "I consider him a friend and I hope it turns out well for him." Federal
Judge Lawyers Up, Requests Meeting By John Council and Brenda
Sapino Jeffreys DeGuerin, a partner in Houston's DeGuerin Dickson & Hennessy who was retained by Kent on Nov. 26, says he has read the undisclosed findings of the Judicial Council and of a 5th Circuit Special Investigatory Committee that looked into McBroom's complaint against Kent. "What the panel and the judicial council found was there was not enough evidence to rise to probable cause that a crime had been committed," says DeGuerin who adds that he is not quoting or paraphrasing the findings. "Had there been probable cause, they would have been obligated to turn that over and authorize a prosecution. But what they considered was evidence and sworn testimony from all sides — the major issues being the credibility and motives of the complainant." DeGuerin declines to comment specifically on McBroom's allegations. "Sexual harassment in the workplace can take many forms. Many don't rise to the level of a crime," DeGuerin says. "As an example, inappropriate comments, jokes with sexual overtones and even a pat on the shoulder could be considered sexual harassment." DeGuerin says Kent, on his own, "solicited the interview" with the FBI, answered all of the agents' questions and agreed to further interviews if requested. DeGuerin says he did not sit in on Kent's interview with the FBI. "Of course the FBI agents don't let on what they're thinking when they interview witnesses," DeGuerin says. "But he felt like they asked all of the right questions. "I think if they interview the same people that the 5th Circuit interviewed, they'll come to the same conclusion they did — that there wasn't any crime." A U.S. Department of Justice spokesman and Galveston County Criminal District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment. Rusty Hardin, a partner in Houston's Rusty Hardin & Associates who represents McBroom, disagrees with DeGuerin's contentions. "You can say I laughed when I heard that," Hardin says. "There was much more than probable cause, and in my view, there's much more than necessary for an indictment." "The short answer is stay tuned," Hardin says. In August, Chief U.S. District Judge Hayden W. Head Jr. of the Southern District of Texas signed an order noting that Kent would be absent from the bench from Sept. 1, 2007, to Jan. 1, 2008, and that U.S. District Judge John Rainey of Houston would take over Kent's portion of the Galveston docket. Edith Jones, chief judge of the 5th Circuit — which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi — wrote in the Sept. 28 order reprimanding Kent that a Special Investigatory Committee appointed to investigate McBroom's complaint had expanded the original complaint under Rule 9(A) of the 5th Circuit Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability. The committee investigated other "instances of alleged inappropriate behavior toward other employees of the federal judicial system." The committee recommended that Kent be reprimanded "along with the accomplishment of other remedial courses of action," and by a majority vote the Judicial Council accepted the recommendations. The council concluded the proceedings "because appropriate remedial action had been and will be taken, including but not limited to the judge's four-month leave of absence from the bench, reallocation of the Galveston/Houston docket and other measures," wrote Jones, who signed the order. In October, an executive session of the judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District decided to transfer Kent's Galveston Division to the Houston Division. Kent, a judge in the Southern District of Texas since 1990, will receive civil cases in the Houston division when he returns to the bench. McBroom filed a motion last month with the Judicial Council asking it to reconsider its decision not to refer her complaint to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference, which is comprised of federal judges from all of the circuits, could refer the Kent matter to the House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings, among other options, which is what McBroom wants. A person close to Kent's disciplinary matter who requested anonymity told Texas Lawyer last month that the Judicial Council was considering whether to honor a subpoena from the DOJ asking for transcripts and documents related to Kent's disciplinary action. The Judicial Council's vote to issue the September order admonishing Kent was not unanimous; some of the judges believed the punishment was not harsh enough and that the order did not adequately describe Kent's alleged conduct, according to the person close to the Kent matter. While McBroom's initial complaint filed with the Judicial Council contained "vague" allegations of sexual harassment, some judges on the council became alarmed after reading about more serious allegations relayed by McBroom's family and friends in a Houston Chronicle article after the Judicial Council released its September disciplinary order, according to the person close to Kent's disciplinary matter. "The more serious allegations that have come out in the press, [Judicial Council] members have said, ‘I don't remember that,' " said the person close to Kent's disciplinary matter. According to the Chronicle article, Kent asked McBroom to come into his chambers for a hug, and when she was there, he allegedly pulled up her shirt and bra, touched her breast with his mouth and pushed her head toward his crotch. The alleged incident was interrupted when another staff member approached the room, the article noted. Hardin says he doesn't know what information the Judicial Council had, but McBroom was "fully interviewed." Last month, Hardin said the characterization of Kent's actions as "sexual harassment" is a "totally inappropriate term. It's worse than that." DeGuerin says Kent retained him after Hardin told several newspapers, including Texas Lawyer, that McBroom wants the DOJ to consider criminal charges against Kent. Hardin said last month, "Our position is we want a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice — I think there will be. . . ." Hardin also said he expects the DOJ to consider several criminal statutes in its investigation, specifically 18 U.S.C. §2241(a)(1), which is a charge of attempted aggravated sexual abuse, and §§2244(a)(1) and 2244(b), which are under the heading of abusive sexual contact. Notes DeGuerin, "When Rusty Hardin became involved and started saying a crime had been committed . . . it became obvious that he [Kent] needed some advice about that." Judge
Refuses Recusal Over By Anthony Lin A New York judge has declined to recuse himself from a case in which evidence spoliation allegations have been made against the law firm where his son works as an associate. The recusal motion against Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn arose in a compensation dispute between two former hedge fund partners, in which the defendant is represented by Greenberg Traurig partner Leslie D. Corwin. The plaintiff has accused Mr. Corwin of helping his client cover up the destruction of a key document in the case. The judge's son Samuel, a 2005 graduate of New York University School of Law, joined Greenberg Traurig as a corporate associate last year. But Justice Cahn ruled in a Nov. 19 decision that this family connection to the firm was insufficient grounds for him to recuse himself. The judge said such a step would be necessary only if his son would be "substantially affected" by the case. "While young associates are a vital part of the structure of large firms, they do not normally, at this point in their careers, have a substantial stake in the cases and clients that the law firms represent," he said in Melcher v. Apollo Medical Fund, 604047/03. Though the judge noted it was reasonable to assume that junior associates cared about their firm's reputation, he said that the instant case did "not rise to the level of affecting Greenberg Traurig on such a grand scale that it would have any significant impact on its associates." The judge also noted that he had overseen the case for four years and had promptly informed the parties at the time that his son had accepted an offer to join Greenberg Traurig. He pointed out that both parties agreed then that he should continue with the case. Judge Accused of Moonlighting, Faces Disciplinary Charges By Denise Lavoie BOSTON -- A state commission filed misconduct charges Monday against a Plymouth County probate and family court judge, accusing him of violating judicial rules by running a real estate business and collecting fees as an attorney while serving as a judge. The Commission on Judicial Conduct said Judge Michael Livingstone engaged in a pattern of misconduct that also included sending an improper letter threatening to evict a tenant and failing to disclose income from his business activities to the State Ethics Commission. Livingstone admitted he made some errors but denied he ever acted dishonestly. "Judge Livingstone is a very hard-working, conscientious probate judge who is widely respected. None of these charges have anything to do with what he did on the bench," said Livingstone's attorney, Michael Mone. The commission cited Livingstone's role in High Low Properties, a real estate partnership that owns properties in New Bedford. The commission said that after Livingstone was appointed a judge in December 2002, he remained a general partner of High Low but asked his business partner, Raymond Hotte, to take over managerial responsibilities for the two apartment buildings owned by the partnership. Livingstone filed a sworn affidavit saying he had not been actively involved in the management of the properties for years and that Hotte was responsible for all tenant-related matters. The commission said both those statements were false because Livingstone had had an active role in managing the properties since late 2004, when he and Hotte had a falling out and Hotte quit. The charges against Livingstone grew out of the investigation of two complaints — one filed by Hotte and one filed by the Supreme Judicial Court. The commission cited a letter Livingstone wrote to a tenant in which he said he would not pay her utility bills and would have her evicted from her unit if she did not pay her rent. The commission said that it is against state law for a landlord to intentionally fail to provide water, heat, light power or gas. "The fact that Judge Livingstone is a judge makes his improper threat to (the tenant) even more serious, given the potentially coercive effect of his letter," the commission said in its written charges. In a written response, Mone said Livingstone acknowledges that the wording of the letter "may have been inappropriate" but said it "was never intended by him to be a threat." Livingstone, who had his own law practice in New Bedford before he became a judge, entered into an agreement with another attorney, Jane Warren, who said she would pay him 25 percent of the fee she received from his divorce clients and 50 percent of the fee from his estate clients. Under the arrangement, Warren paid Livingstone approximately $49,000 from 2003 through 2006. The commission said the agreement and his failure to disclose that he shared fees with an attorney violated the rules of conduct for judges. Livingstone said payments he received from Warren were part of a buy-out of his law practice and not a fee-sharing arrangement. Mone also said that Livingstone performed some management duties for High Low only because his partner had quit. "Judge Livingstone attempted to maintain the High Low properties so that tenants would receive utilities and services that they required and did so only because Mr. Hotte, without notice, had abandoned his duties with regard to the management," he wrote in the response. The commission has asked the state Supreme Judicial Court to appoint a hearing officer to preside at a public hearing on the charges. The hearing officer will then make a recommendation to the commission on possible sanctions, which could include a fine, reprimand or censure. The Supreme Judicial Court makes the final decision on judicial sanctions. Libeled Judge Faces Ethics Charges By Denise Lavoie BOSTON -- A judge defended himself Monday against ethics charges for sending letters to the Boston Herald after a jury found the newspaper had libeled the judge, in part by quoting him as having said a 14-year-old rape victim should "get over it." Superior Court Judge Ernest Murphy, who denied making the remark, said he wrote the letters after he won a $2 million judgment because he wanted to end the case without years of appeals by the Herald. But a lawyer for the Commission on Judicial Misconduct said Murphy violated the code of conduct for judges when he wrote the letters, including one on Superior Court letterhead. "Judge Murphy committed misconduct the moment he licked the stamps on those envelopes and put them in the mail," said Howard Neff, a lawyer for the commission. On Monday, Murphy said he felt "demonized" by the Herald's coverage, which portrayed him as lenient toward defendants and quoted him saying of a 14-year-old rape victim, "Tell her to get over it." "I didn't say 'tell her to get over it.' I said, 'How can we help her get over it?'" he said. Murphy became choked up and had to pause several times when describing how the libel case took a severe physical and emotional toll on him and his family. After Herald columnist Howie Carr criticized him, a posting in a Herald chat room suggested "maybe my daughters ought to be raped," Murphy recalled. The judge said after that, his 14-year-old daughter began wetting the bed and both of his daughters required therapy. He said he wrote the letters to Herald Publisher Patrick Purcell because he wanted to spare his family a lengthy legal battle. "It was killing me and my family," he said. "I did whatever the hell I had to do to stop it — because my family was dying." In his first handwritten note, Murphy asked for a private meeting with Purcell. "You will bring to that meeting a cashiers check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000," says the letter, dated two days after the jury awarded the judge $2 million. "No check, no meeting." A separate single-page post script dated a day earlier warns Purcell that telling anyone about the letter would be, "a big mistake." The word "big" was written in all capital letters. Murphy could face a fine, reprimand or censure. Fire at
Texas Supreme Court Justice Medina's Home By Emily Ramshaw, HOUSTON -- The fire that tore through Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina's suburban Houston house last summer left his family without a home, under a cloud of suspicion and with their financial difficulties out in the open for the world to see. "We lost, essentially, everything in the home," he said Thursday. "While we were able to salvage some things, it will never be the same." And while his lawyer said Thursday that Justice Medina had been cleared of suspicion, the investigation goes on, and the mystery remains. Harris County fire officials believe the blaze, which also destroyed one neighboring house and damaged another, was intentionally set, and the initial investigation focused on people close to the justice. It has been fueled by a substantial trail of financial troubles for his family, including foreclosure proceedings and a tax lien against the fire-ravaged home, according to court records and other documents. Adding to the drama: campaign finance irregularities, discovered by The Dallas Morning News, that the judge pledged to correct. No residents were injured in the June fire in the suburb of Spring, which did nearly $1 million in damage. Firefighters sustained minor injuries. No one has been charged in the blaze, and prosecutors would not confirm that Justice Medina has been cleared. They said he would need to testify before a grand jury as a witness, not as a suspect. Justice Medina, a 49-year-old former Harris County state district judge who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Rick Perry to fill a vacancy in 2004, said: "[I am] confident that no friend that we know, no member of my family would be involved in anything like this." "We have, from the get-go, cooperated fully with the investigator and answered every one of their questions truthfully and completely," he said in an interview in criminal defense attorney Terry Yates' Houston office. Asked whether he had any theories about who might have started the fire, Justice Medina indicated he did but declined to say anything further. Justice Medina also said Thursday that he would return some funds to his campaign finance account to correct an irregularity. Records filed with the state show his campaign paid the justice unusually large reimbursements for mileage. Between 2005 and 2007 -- the same years the family was dealing with the tax lien and the foreclosure -- the justice received more than $52,000 for mileage. That's equivalent to more than 107,000 miles driven for work purposes over two years, or more than 350 drives to and from Austin. State ethics rules don't allow for reimbursement of judges' commuting expenses. Justice Medina said he doesn't fly often and prefers to drive everywhere he goes. He said that he was unaware about the rule on commuting expenses, but that he has an ethics lawyer who reviews all of his expenditures. 6 people of interest Fire investigator Nathan Green said this week that he could not elaborate on the inquiry other than to confirm previous statements to news media. The fire marshal's office has identified six people of interest -- all relatives or friends of Justice Medina. Officials have said that they are factoring the foreclosure into the investigation. And they have also revealed that the Medinas' home insurance policy had lapsed because of unpaid premiums. Justice Medina confirmed Thursday that family members had been interviewed by the fire marshal's office, and that the home was not covered by insurance at the time of the blaze. The fire follows at least three years of apparent financial problems for Justice Medina and his wife, Francisca. Their failure to pay nearly $10,000 in county and school district taxes in 2004 resulted in a tax lien on their home. It was resolved in mid-2005 by a property tax loan company, according to public records. A year later, a mortgage company attempted to seize the couple's home, claiming they had not made a payment in four months. That suit was resolved out of court in December, court documents show. Justice Medina, who previously worked as Gov. Perry's general counsel and was elected to serve a full six-year term in November, said the questions about his family's finances are unwarranted. He said he was unaware of any lien on the property and called the foreclosure a "miscommunication with the bank we used at the time." "We weren't, in my view, in any financial difficulties to any great extent," said Justice Medina, who makes $150,000 a year in his current position. "Once I learned about [the mortgage problem], I took care of it immediately." The fire wasn't the first for the Medina household: The family's garage burned a decade ago in a blaze Justice Medina said started because one of his sons was playing with matches. The June fire also started in the garage, which had been rebuilt. Justice Medina, who didn't get home until after the fire was out, has said he was on his way back from Austin that night. Spread to other homes Little has changed at the Medina home since the fire. The roof sits sodden and sunken into the 15-year-old house, the bare rafters a charred skeleton. The front door gapes open, exposing more than a foot of black ash in the foyer. The back yard is now a junkyard -- a blistered saxophone sits in cinders next to a murky, frog-infested swimming pool. The house next door to the Medinas is similarly destroyed. And the neighbors who live behind the Medinas have paid $12,000 to replace a melted roof and windows shattered by fire hoses. Claudia Higginbotham said she found Mrs. Medina's mother's wedding picture on her back lawn. The neighbors, many of whom have, like the Medinas, lived in the community since the mid-1990s, have heard rumors about the blaze. And while they admit the two fires are a strange coincidence, they tend to believe the Medinas and their four children are simply the victims of bad luck, or even of pranksters who have plagued the neighborhood. Heather Livingston, who lives across the street, said there's no way the blaze was the family's idea. Mrs. Medina and her son -- the only family members who were home at the time of the fire -- were clearly traumatized, she said, racing from their house after a window-shaking explosion without any of their personal belongings. "They were totally panicked, 100 percent shocked," Ms. Livingston said. In Thursday's interview, Justice Medina spoke about his home of 15 years, growing most emotional when he talked about the family's recent move to Austin. The Medinas are "making the best" of their "small, two-bedroom, one-bath home" as they try to sell their destroyed Houston home, he said, and their two youngest children, ages 12 and 16, are slowly adapting to new schools. "It's been devastating," he said. "We hope one day to come back home to Houston -- where our family is, our friends, our community. ... It's been very stressful on the entire family, but we're making the adjustment." Staff writer Amy Rosen and staff researcher Molly Motley Blythe in Dallas contributed to this report. Ousted Judge Sues, Says He Was Cheated on His Pension By Dan Nephin Larsen, 73, of Pittsburgh, says he has been wrongly denied his full pension benefits by the State Employees' Retirement System and its board. In 1989 — before Larsen was removed from office — the retirement system enacted a "secret" management directive that enabled terminated state employees to file for conditional retirement status while challenging their firings, according to the suit. If a fired employee lost the challenge, the directive provided pension benefits retroactive to the filing of the conditional application, the lawsuit states. According to the suit, Larsen did not learn of that until 2002. Larsen did not apply for pension benefits until 2001 because he had been challenging his removal from the bench, Larsen's attorney, Lawrence Fisher, said Tuesday. Had Larsen applied earlier, Fisher said, he would have lost standing in his challenges. "Just because a justice has been removed, it doesn't reason that justice should be denied," Fisher said Tuesday. "Former Justice Larsen had been patient in seeking his full pension benefits. He has no choice now but to resort to the judiciary for relief." The suit was filed Tuesday in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg. A SERS spokeswoman said the agency had not seen it and could not immediately comment. The suit also maintains that SERS failed to include unvouchered expense allowances of about $120,000 for about four years in calculating his pension. The suit does not specify a dollar amount, but Fisher said Larsen had been improperly denied more than $1 million in pension benefits. Larsen also seeks punitive damages. Larsen was convicted in June 1994 of conspiracy in Allegheny County Court for using the names of court employees on his own prescription drug purchases. He said at the time he wanted to keep private his treatment and medication for chronic depression. Larsen was also impeached by the state Senate in October 1994. Those actions, and a February 2000 decision by the Court of Judicial Discipline, removed him from office. He was also barred from holding public office. Two
Judges Charged With New York Lawyer SHREVEPORT, La. (AP) — Two judges face charges that they took bribes from a bail bondsman in exchange for getting suspects out of jail quickly, officials said Thursday. State District Judge Michael Walker, Caddo Parish Juvenile Court Judge Vernon Claville and bail bondsman Larry N. Williams were named in the federal racketeering indictment made public Thursday. Each faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, according to U.S. Attorney Donald Washington's office. Walker, 57, is accused of taking cash or goods in exchange for actions such as reducing bonds or making himself available to quickly set bonds for suspects. Claville, 56, is accused of taking cash in exchange for helping remove roadblocks to the release of juvenile defendants. Both judges are accused of accepting bribes from Williams, 41, owner of A-Instant Bail Bond company in Shreveport. In announcing the charges, officials did not specify how much money was involved. Walker did not immediately respond to a telephone message left at his office seeking comment. A woman in Claville's office said he would have no comment. A message seeking comment also was left at Williams' business office. Washington is U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, which includes Monroe, Shreveport, Lafayette and Lake Charles. Ala.
Judge Resigns Amid Spanking Allegations Associated Press The resignation of Circuit Judge Herman Thomas ends what was once viewed as one of Alabama's most promising legal careers, although his legal problems continue. "We do have a criminal investigation going on," Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson said after Thomas' resignation Monday. Thomas had been suspended with pay since March when a state judicial panel filed the first of a series of charges accusing him of unduly helping relatives and friends with their legal troubles and taking cases away from other judges — without permission — to change the defendants' legal status or reduce sentences. Thomas resigned shortly before 5 p.m. Monday, which was the deadline for judicial prosecutors to file any additional charges before his Oct. 29 trial. His resignation probably means there will be no trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary because the harshest punishment it can hand down is removal from office — an action that last happened in 2003 when Alabama's Ten Commandments judge, Chief Justice Roy Moore, got kicked out of office. "While I do not believe that I ever intentionally violated any canon of judicial ethics, I recognize that the controversy surrounding me has been disruptive and unproductive for the life of this community," Thomas said in a resignation statement. Accused of taking inmates to private room After the ethics charges were filed against Thomas, allegations arose that he had removed several male inmates from the Mobile jail and taken them to a private room in the courthouse, where he spanked them. The president of the local NAACP chapter accused investigators of coercing inmates to make allegations against Thomas, who is black. Also, a six-year-old lawsuit surfaced in which an inmate accused the judge of offering to provide help with inmates' cases in return for sexual favors. "Judge Thomas categorically denies all of that," defense attorney Dave Boyd said. Judicial prosecutors did not file any additional charges Monday involving the allegations of spankings or the inmate's lawsuit, which was dismissed by one of Thomas' fellow judges shortly after it was filed. Irate
Judge Asks Jurors, "Anybody Else Want to Mess By John Hanna The Kansas Supreme Court criticized District Judge Rebecca Pilshaw's conduct in April, when it considered the appeal of the defendant in the murder case. The ethics complaint is separate and could lead to disciplinary action against the judge. The complaint was filed by an examiner for the state's Commission on Judicial Qualifications. It became public last week when the commission notified Pilshaw that a panel planned to collect evidence and take testimony. The commission reviews allegations of judicial misconduct and recommends potential sanctions to the Supreme Court, which has the final word. The court can suspend or remove a judge from the bench, or impose lesser or no punishment. The complaint alleges that Pilshaw violated parts of the state's code of judicial conduct requiring judges to avoid impropriety, to perform judicial duties "impartially and diligently" and uphold the judiciary's integrity. She has until Oct. 11 to file a response, and her attorney, Stephen Joseph, of Wichita, said she will do so. He said her behavior needs to be put into the context of what was happening in her courtroom that day. "All I can say is the judge looks forward to being able to explain what happened and why it happened," Joseph said. "It's all based on a simple principle: The first duty of a trial judge is to control a courtroom." The complaint stems from jury selection in the trial of Dewey A. Gaither, convicted in 2004 of shooting another Wichita man from whom he had tried to obtain drugs. He eventually was convicted of five felonies, including first-degree murder. In its ruling on Gaither's appeal, the Supreme Court said Pilshaw yelled at prospective jurors. The court gave the following account: One prospective juror said she wouldn't believe anything the police said. Pilshaw dismissed her from service, but ordered her to attend every day of the trial because, "You need an opportunity to be exposed more to our law enforcement personnel." Then she asked, "Anybody else want to mess with me?" Later, a juror said her religious beliefs made it uncomfortable for her to judge someone else and that anyone on trial must be guilty of something. Pilshaw said she thought the woman simply didn't want to serve on a jury, but had "said the magic words" to be dismissed. Pilshaw added, "And I feel sorry for the next person that ends up going, because I am going to hit the roof, I think." The next day, Pilshaw apologized, acknowledging that she had been "a little cranky." She told any jurors who had been selected they could leave if they felt intimidated, and two did. "She failed to control her temper and frustrations, declined to exercise control over her conduct and utterances, and allowed prospective jurors to embroil her in conflict," Justice Eric Rosen wrote for the court. But the court upheld Gaither's convictions, concluding Pilshaw's comments had not deprived him of a fair trial. "We believe the judge's apology and offer to excuse prospective jurors purged the taint of the misconduct," Rosen wrote. Judge Indicted on Federal Perjury Charge By Russ Bynum SAVANNAH, Ga. -- A magistrate judge from rural Clinch County has been charged with perjury in an indictment that says she lied to a federal grand jury investigating judicial corruption. The indictment says Magistrate Judge Linda C. Peterson lied to grand jurors June 13 when she denied, under oath, ever suggesting to criminal defendants in her court that they use her father as a bail bondsman. In addition to perjury, Peterson was also charged one count of making false statements to the FBI. The indictment was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Valdosta. Firm Lures Judge From Bench With Partnership By Billy Shields MIAMI -- Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jorge J. Perez is leaving the bench to become a partner with the Miami-based law firm Tew Cardenas. Gov. Charlie Crist’s office received his resignation letter Thursday. It is effective Nov. 1. In a statement e-mailed to the Daily Business Review, Perez said he was stepping down to care for an elderly parent, meet other family obligations and make more money. His salary as a judge is $145,000 a year. “I am the sole provider for my extended family, and that role has proven difficult to sustain on my current salary,” he said. He said his resignation was not strictly about money but is due in part to an “excellent opportunity with one of Miami’s top law firms.” Perez said he has nothing but fond memories of his time on the bench and chose to work for Tew Cardenas because of its sophistication and “cutting-edge approach to the practice of law.” Partner Al Cardenas said the firm was “delighted he decided to call Tew Cardenas his professional home.” He said Perez began talking to the firm about a month ago. His practice will focus on complex commercial litigation. Perez resigned more than three years before his term was set to expire at the end of 2010. Former Gov. Jeb Bush appointed Perez in 2003 to one of two newly created circuit court judgeships. Most recently, he has presided over criminal cases. Perez earned his undergraduate degree magna cum laude at the University of Miami and is an honors graduate of the University of Florida law school. He became a member of The Florida Bar in 1988. He was in private practice for more than six years as a commercial litigator before joining the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He served as assistant district counsel for the federal agency that was later folded into the Department of Homeland Security. A Crist spokesman declined comment on potential candidates to replace Perez. Under Florida’s system for filling judicial vacancies between elections, the Bar’s judicial nominating committee sends recommendations to the governor, who may select a name from the group submitted or request other names. One name floated as a Perez replacement is that of Florida Bar counsel Barnaby L. Min in Miami. Reached at his office late Friday, Min denied the speculation. “I don’t know where that rumor’s coming from, and it’s not true,” he said. Ousted NY
Judge Loses Again By Mark Fass Courting
Fame Tart-tongued By Jose Martinez
Tinseltown star-makers
think the no-nonsense Bronx Family Court judge could be the next
"Judge Judy" - even though she's under fire from the state
Commission on Judicial Conduct for her alleged courtroom antics. A spokesman for Shelton said he's gotten calls from other TV types as well, but the Shelton show isn't going west just yet. "Judge Shelton's priority is to her oath and the Bronx community she serves," said her spokesman, Adam Herbsman. "A third-generation lawyer, she intends to return to the practice of law at the end of her term." Shelton's 10-year term expires at the end of the year. She could be bounced sooner if the commission gives her the max for allegedly making rude courtroom cracks. She allegedly ordered a law guardian to "go to therapy" and called an accused wife beater "a pig." She wouldn't be the first city Family Court judge to go from robes to riches. Judge Judy Sheindlin was earning $113,000 a year in Manhattan Family Court when her outspoken style led to fame and a fortune estimated at nearly $100 million. New York Family Court judges now earn $136,700. Several other judges have also made the jump to TV, including former Tennessee Judge Joe Brown and one-time Georgia Judge Glenda Hatchett. Former Mayor Ed Koch was never a judge, but that didn't keep him from presiding over "The People's Court." Shelton's supporters contend she is a straight shooter who has been the victim of a smear campaign from the court officers union. Judge
Busted for Bilking Insurers By Ramesh Santanam PITTSBURGH — An appeals court judge was indicted on charges of scamming $440,000 from insurers by claiming he suffered debilitating injuries in a car crash, even while he golfed, skated and went scuba diving, federal prosecutors said. In announcing the indictment Wednesday against Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Michael Thomas Joyce, prosecutors said he claimed the fender-bender left him in constant pain and unable to exercise, but then he played golf, went inline skating and received his pilot's license. "The bodily injury he says he sustained we believe was fraudulent," U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said. Joyce said he is innocent until proven guilty and he promised to press ahead with his campaign for a second 10-year term. He is up for re-election in November. In a statement to the Erie Times-News, Joyce, 58, said: "I'm disappointed in the grand jury's decision, but I am more confident that when the facts are laid out, it will be clear that these charges have no merit." Joyce, charged with mail fraud and money laundering, is due in court for an initial appearance Monday. On Thursday, his office referred calls to his lawyer, David Ridge, who was unavailable, according to a person answering his office phone. Prosecutors said Joyce's car was rear-ended at about 5 mph in August 2001 and no police or medical personnel were called. Joyce received $390,000 from his insurer, Erie Insurance Group, and $50,000 from State Farm Insurance, which insured the other driver, the indictment said. He later opened a brokerage account through which he bought a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and interest in a Cessna airplane, prosecutors said. Joyce complained of debilitating injuries, anxiety and difficulty sleeping and claimed they prevented him from pursuing higher judicial office, prosecutors said. During the same period in 2002 that Joyce made these claims, he played several rounds of golf in Jamaica, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, went scuba diving in Jamaica and renewed his diving instructor's certificate, prosecutors said. Joyce, a Republican, was elected to the state Superior Court in 1997 after serving as an Erie County judge. He will be paid $165,342 this year. Joyce is not legally required to step down because of the indictment since the charges do not directly involve his court-related duties, said Joseph A. Massa Jr., chief counsel for the state Judicial Conduct Board, which investigates and prosecutes charges of misconduct by judges. Associated Press Writer Peter Jackson in Harrisburg contributed to this report. Judge,
Accused of Buying Seat on Bench By Daniel Wise Brooklyn Justice Francois
Rivera has no libel claims against a local all-news channel for
having referred to charges reported in two newspaper articles he had
paid $50,000 for his judgeship and had testified before a grand jury
under a grant of immunity about other allegedly "dirty" judges, a
state judge has ruled. Bx. Judge Is a Real @S$ Act By Denise Buffa Family Court Judge Marian Shelton screamed at the woman, "He'll leave when he's finished his work, not when you tell him!" before ordering court officers to take her to a holding cell for the weekend, witnesses said. The bizarre example of alleged judicial abuse, which occurred in 2004, is the first of 13 charges levied against Shelton. The state Commission on Judicial Conduct is considering bouncing her from the bench for bad behavior. On Dec. 10, 2004, according to legal papers, Shelton was working late in her courtroom, signing documents at about 6:45 p.m. The wife, identified as Michelle Nusser, was sitting in the spectator gallery, waiting for her husband, Ben, an intake clerk, to finish work. Michelle Nusser stood up and motioned that she wanted to speak to her husband, prompting Shelton to scream at her to leave the courtroom, according to the court papers. Nusser turned to leave, muttering "a- -hole" under her breath. An incensed Shelton then ordered a court officer to bring her back and found her in contempt. "Shut up!" the judge allegedly screamed at the wife before telling the officers to take her to the holding cell for the weekend. As his wife was taken from the courtroom, witnesses said, Ben Nusser begged the judge, "Please, don't lock her up!" Michelle Nusser was released minutes later, after she agreed to apologize to the judge, the papers said. Shelton purged the contempt finding but told the shaken woman, "You will never enter my courtroom again." In court documents, Shelton claims that she is a victim of the president of the state Court Officers Association, Dennis Quirk, who she says is on a witch hunt because she criticized courthouse security lapses. Quirk yesterday called Shelton "a f- - -ing lunatic." The judge retorted that his statement "is, with respect, entirely consistent with his attitude toward the judiciary." Shelton's lawyer, Dean Yuzek - also her husband - said, "You can't call the judge an a- -hole." Additional reporting by Leonardo Blair NY Judge Takes Fight With Ethics Watchdog Public By Daniel Wise NY Judge
Faces Removal From By Joel Stashenko The commission unanimously deemed Jerome Ellis "unfit" to continue holding the Leon Town Court bench in Cattaraugus County. Mr. Ellis, who is not a lawyer, has been a justice since 1990. The commission determined that his impartiality was compromised by presiding over an eviction proceeding brought in 2004 by a man who was living with his ex-wife's daughter. Mr. Ellis showed bias against defendants Allen and Lori A. Haskins through a series of procedural missteps that included a summons requiring Ms. Haskins to appear in court within three days, not the 22-day notice required for a small claims hearing, the commission found. At a hearing in which the two sides said they had agreed to settle the dispute, the commission said Mr. Ellis turned off the court's tape recorder and told the Haskins to "stop jewing other landlords." In later testimony before the commission, Mr. Ellis described "jewing" as swindling or cheating people out of money. He apologized to the commission for his actions in the eviction case, but added, "As far as kicking the Haskins out of town, I am not sorry." The commission said in a decision released yesterday that Mr. Ellis could not continue on the bench. "Whether respondent's conduct was the result of incompetence or a deliberate intent to benefit his relative's interest, the record in its totality demonstrates conclusively that he is unfit to serve as a judge and that his continued retention on the bench is inconsistent with the fair and proper administration of justice in his court," the commission concluded. Mr. Ellis is the 154th judge the commission has recommended for removal since 1978. Like Mr. Ellis, 117 of them were part-time judges. NY Judge
Refuses to Recuse Herself By Mark Fass A Manhattan Supreme Court judge has refused to recuse herself
from a lawsuit over an apartment in her co-op building. "I conclude, unambiguously, that there is nothing in the facts, circumstances or law that would cause me to be anything other than fair and impartial in this case," Justice Goodman wrote in Avery v. Caldwell, 108829/06. Plaintiff Dennis Avery's daughter Halina (a non-party in the present suit) purchased a co-op apartment with her then-partner, defendant Molly Caldwell, a Manhattan real estate broker. Following the couple's breakup, Mr. Avery, a California attorney, initiated the present action to determine his rights and interests in the co-op. After Justice Goodman informed the parties that she owned an apartment in the 150-unit building, Mr. Avery's attorney, Yetta Kurland, moved for her recusal. In a letter characterized by Justice Goodman as "accusatory," "wholly unprofessional" and "ungrammatical," Ms. Kurland wrote, "You have a financial interest in the outcome of this matter i.e. sale of shares of a corporation which You are an owner of, and because Defendant Molly Caldwell is a real estate broker who sells apartments in the building." Ms. Kurland later denied writing that letter - notwithstanding that it appeared on her stationary and bore her signature - then admitted writing it, though she claimed that "she hadn't really meant to send it to the Court," according to Justice Goodman's decision. Reached by phone yesterday, Ms. Kurland said the letter was a first draft not intended for the court. Ms. Kurland filed a motion for recusal, pursuant to both the Judiciary Law and then Canon of Judicial Ethics. "The circumstances in which the court and the parties find themselves does provoke thought and scrutiny," Ms. Kurland wrote in her memorandum in support of the motion. "It is conceivable that there is a statutory ground for recusal, namely the shared ownership issues raised herein and in Plaintiff's affidavits. However, it seems the more compelling reason for recusal comes from this Court's ability to recuse itself out of a conscientious efforts to avoid any appearances of impropriety or unnecessary discomfort." But according to Justice Goodman, Ms. Kurland failed to submit law or facts in support of her motion. There is no "explanation or analysis as to how the dispute between attorney Avery and his daughter's former live-in partner could possibly effect me in a positive or negative way, or have any impact on me, the building, the corporation or the shareholders," Justice Goodman wrote. "The only issue [in the matter] is the relative interests of the parties in the funds used to purchase the apartment, following the dissolution of a personal relationship to which the plaintiff is not a party, but, perhaps, a lender or investor." Justice Goodman rejected each of Ms. Kurland's arguments, describing them as "vapid," "extraneous" and "frivolous" products of "poor, or no, research." Contrary to the plaintiff's claim, the judge noted that she would not profit from the exercise of the building's "flip tax" because not only is the sale of the subject apartment not at issue, but the building in fact does not maintain a flip tax. "In another frivolous argument, Kurland suggests that a conflict of interests would exist in the event that I served on the Board of Directors of the building," Justice Goodman wrote. However, "I do not serve on the Board, have never served on the Board, and have no intention of serving on the Board at any time." Justice Goodman also rejected the notion that she might already interact with the parties, and simply not realize it. "[W]hat if the Court knows them, not by name, but as the loud neighbor, the pushy neighbor, or the nice neighbor," Ms. Kurland wrote in her motion. To which the judge responded: "My apartment is at the top of the building in virtual isolation from most of the other apartments. I have only a few neighbors in total and they are not these individuals." The court denied the recusal motion. "Judge Goodman's decision is certainly disappointing as it seems to have missed the opportunity to consider the importance of protecting client's right to impartiality in legal proceedings in this very unusual situation where the party and the Judge live in the same building," Ms. Kurland said yesterday via e-mail. Adam L. Aronson represented Ms. Caldwell. He said that the decision spoke for itself and declined further comment. Ex-NY Judge Admits He Quit Bench Over Ethics Gaffes By Joel Stashenko ALBANY - Former Supreme Court Justice Lawrence I. Horowitz used his status as a judge to seek preferential police treatment for his girlfriend and to have authorities investigate the woman's estranged husband, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct said yesterday. The commission announced that Mr. Horowitz, who resigned on June 20, has signed a stipulation acknowledging that he could not defend himself against the disciplinary charges. He also agreed not to serve again as a judge or judicial hearing officer. Mr. Horowitz, 56, was a Westchester County Supreme Court justice who has been assigned to Orange County for the past two years. In a formal complaint also released yesterday, the commission charged Mr. Horowitz with two counts of judicial misconduct, and it dated his wrongdoing to Jan. 1, 2004, when he joined the Supreme Court bench. The commission contended that from the beginning of his tenure, Mr. Horowitz used Supreme Court stationery to write letters concerning personal or family business matters. The correspondence included letters to the schools his children attended to comment on school policies, to his house of worship to discuss his membership dues and to Verizon, contesting an unpaid bill of $14,707 for a phone number associated with his former law practice, according to the commission. Mr. Horowitz also violated judicial canons beginning on Feb. 3, 2005, when his girlfriend, Michelle Nolan, was stopped for speeding in Yorktown, Westchester County, the commission charged. A police computer check indicated Ms. Nolan's estranged husband, Christopher Angiello, had reported the vehicle stolen. Mr. Horowitz called the officer investigating Ms. Nolan's case and identified himself as her friend and assured him Ms. Nolan would respond to any traffic summonses, the commission charged. Several summonses were issued against Ms. Nolan, though the officer's supervisor had recommended she be charged with a crime and that bail be set, the commission noted. Mr. Horowitz then accompanied Ms. Nolan to the Yorktown police station to file a complaint against Mr. Angiello for having made a false report about the car. At that time, he identified himself as a judge and demanded that police investigate Mr. Angiello and his brother, Yorktown Police Officer Dominic Angiello, for allegedly working together to improperly report the vehicle as stolen. On Feb. 7, 2005, the commission said Mr. Horowitz called Mount Pleasant Police Chief Louis Alagno, Westchester County Assistant District Attorney Vincent O'Connell and Chief Assistant District Attorney Richard Weill, identified himself as a judge and urged them to investigate Ms. Nolan's complaint. The commission charged Mr. Horowitz with violating the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Governing Judicial Conduct §100.1, for failing to maintain high standards of conduct; §100.2(A), for failing to act in a way that upholds public confidence in the judiciary; and §100.2(C), for lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of another. In his answer to the complaint, Mr. Horowitz wrote that whenever he used the official court letterhead for personal correspondence, he typed "Personal and Unofficial" in the upper righthand corner and believed that was sufficient to indicate he was not writing in his official capacity as a judge. He acknowledged making the calls to the police chief and prosecutors on Ms. Nolan's behalf, but denied that he identified himself as a judge or that he "persisted" in pressing for investigations of Mr. Angiello and his brother. In the stipulation with the commission, Mr. Horowitz acknowledged his inability to defend himself against the charges in the complaint and that he has resigned from the court. While the commission has 120 days under Judiciary Law §47 to complete an investigation against judges if they resign, commission administrators and Mr. Horowitz agreed that all matters in his case should be closed. The stipulation made reference to the commission's notification to Mr. Horowitz that it was also investigating "additional allegations" against him unrelated to the 2006 complaint, but the nature of the other allegations was not revealed. Response to Charges In his verified answer, Mr. Horowitz noted that his misconduct came in his first 18 months as a "relatively new" judge. He also made reference to a series of personal setbacks dating from his 2003 campaign for Supreme Court, when his wife, Alexis Furer, began a bitterly contested divorce proceeding against him. Mr. Horowitz also said his mother was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, his finances were strained by joining the judiciary and fighting his divorce, he required hospitalization with abdominal problems and his son was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He denied that his personal issues had interfered with his work on the bench throughout the period. "The actions which formed the basis for the Judicial Conduct Commission's proceedings were an anomaly, were not undertaken for personal or financial gain and were unrelated to matters he presided over," said Mr. Horowitz's attorney, Deborah A. Scalise of Jones Garneau in Scarsdale. "Unfortunately, he had more than his share of personal issues and ultimately decided to resign from the bench." Mr. Horowitz "looks forward to putting this episode behind him" and returning to private practice, Ms. Scalise said. In 2001, Mr. Horowitz ran as the Republican challenger to Democratic Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. Mr. Spano won easily. Mr. Horowitz is the 18th judge to enter into a stipulated resignation or retirement since the Commission on Judicial Conduct introduced that method of disposing of cases four years ago. Commission Administrator Robert Tembeckjian said yesterday it allows the commission to more quickly remove judges whose cases are likely bound for formal removal judgments, and judges are able to save the resources they would spend if the adjudication process were completed. In cases like Mr. Horowitz's, where the former judge is seeking to return to private practice, the commission routinely forwards its decisions and supporting documents to attorney screening panels for possible review of whether ex-judges violated legal canons, Mr. Tembeckjian said. In Mr. Horowitz's case, that would be to the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Appellate Division, Second Department. Ms. Scalise said her client is not aware of any grievance proceedings against him. Mass. Panel
Files Ethics Charges
|
Hollywood
is calling for Judge Marian Shelton, who could be the next New York
jurist to go from robes to riches.
One
of Miami-Dade’s best known and longest serving judges quietly
resigned amid allegations that he made inappropriate comments in
court to a young female prosecutor. |
Web
Extra: |
Miami-Dade Senior Judge
Gerald J. Klein, who was regularly seen on local TV reports setting
bond for those accused of committing newsworthy crimes, stepped down
in late May after the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office complained
about his conduct.
In a letter to Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina Jr., chief assistant
state attorney Don Horn protested Judge Klein’s conduct in his
longtime post as bond hearing judge, according to Ed Griffith, a
spokesman for the prosecutor’s office.
"A female assistant state attorney has brought to my attention a
problem with Senior Judge Gerald Klein," Horn wrote in a letter
dated April 25. "The information, which was only recently related to
me, has been ongoing for an extended period of time and includes
allegations of inappropriate comments and actions that could support
a possible claim of sexual harassment.
"Due to the serious nature of these allegations I wanted to bring
this to your attention as soon as possible in order that it could be
dealt with appropriately."
The letter did not identify the assistant state attorney or provide
more specifics about Klein’s alleged conduct. Klein sent Farina a
resignation letter May 22, officially stepping down and withdrawing
his application to continue to serve as a senior judge.
There had been much speculation about Klein’s sudden departure from
the bench, but judges and court officials refused to discuss it. A
court spokeswoman would provide only limited information about
Klein’s resignation after being pressed for several days.
Klein, who served for almost 48 years, is the latest South Florida
judge to come under fire for alleged misconduct, but the first
recently in Miami-Dade. Broward judges have faced a barrage of
criticism that resulted from a number of high-profile incidents,
including a judge caught smoking pot in a public park and another
who made racially tinged comments from the bench.
Court spokeswoman Eunice Sigler, in written responses to questions
from the Daily Business Review, said Klein was not asked to resign.
When asked about Horn’s letter to Farina, Sigler contended it was
not a public record and refused to provide a copy of the document.
Sigler would not comment further on the letter from Horn to Farina.
Farina referred questions
about Klein to Sigler, and administrative Judge Stanford Blake did
not return calls seeking comment.
Klein, through his judicial assistant, declined to comment. He was
admitted to The Florida Bar in 1948 and first donned judicial robes
in Miami on July 7, 1959.
He was a circuit court judge until December 1990 and became a senior
judge in January 1991.
Klein’s sudden departure immediately drew comment on legal blogs.
But follow-up calls from news reporters asking the court for basic
biographical information and a short interview with the departing
judge were met with silence, rather than the usual enthusiastic
send-off retiring judges receive.
Sigler wrote in an e-mail that court employees don’t usually get
involved in organizing receptions or send-offs for judges.
"Judges, whether active or senior, typically organize their own
send-offs for colleagues," Sigler wrote. "Neither the Court
Administrator’s Office nor the Office of Government Liaison and
Public Relations coordinates or publicizes these events. Last year,
for example, Judge Fredricka Smith retired and my office did not
issue a media release. Likewise with Judge David Young, who retired
recently."
But a well-attended reception was held to celebrate Young’s move
from the bench to his own TV show. The gathering was held at La
Loggia, a restaurant directly across the street from the Dade County
Courthouse that is popular with lawyers and judges.
Klein, generally known as an amiable presence on the bench, held
bond hearings Monday through Thursday. Criminal defense attorney
Richard Sharpstein, of Jorden Burt in Miami, said Klein was among
the most respected Miami-Dade judges.
"Judge Klein has been on the bench for as long as I’ve been
practicing law in this town, or close to it," Sharpstein said. "His
job at the bond hearings was to separate the wheat from the chaff,
and I think he did a great job." Sharpstein said he was surprised to
hear about Klein’s departure.
Barry Wax, president of the Miami chapter of the Florida Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers, also said he was startled to hear of
Klein’s resignation when he returned home from a conference last
week. "I’m a great fan of Judge Klein, and I felt he did a good job
dealing with bond hearings, which are an enormously important part
of the judicial process," Wax said.
As anonymous posters on legal blogs speculated about Klein’s sudden
disappearance, it became clear that Wax’s sentiment wasn’t shared by
everyone. Some blog posters and sources in the state attorney’s
office said many prosecutors considered Klein too lenient, and that
his courtroom was referred to by some as "the gravy train."
When asked about whether or not Klein’s departure had anything to do
with complaints about his perceived leniency, Sigler indicated there
had been previous complaints about bond court.
"We will not comment on rumors," she wrote. "However, the state
attorney’s office did raise a general issue, and not related to any
specific judge, relating to pleas being taken without an adequate
plea colloquy. This has come up recently as a result of prosecutors
requesting enhanced sentencing on misdemeanor offenders."
Sigler said that beginning June 25, bond hearings would be held by
Senior Judge Tom Peterson on Mondays and Tuesdays, and County Court
Judge Fred Seraphin on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Senior judges will
hold bond hearings on Fridays on a voluntary basis, and on
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays trial judges from circuit and county
court will hold bond hearings on a rotating basis.
Criminal defense attorney H. Scott Fingerhut said Klein’s speedy
plea colloquies were a fixture in Miami’s judicial process. "From
his seat on the bench he has seen this town’s complete
transformation," Fingerhut said. "I don’t know the circumstances of
his departure, I don’t know if he was ousted, but I do know he is
worthy of our respect for all his years of service."
FBI Reportedly Investigating Judge Over Car Crash Claims
By Peter Hall
The Legal Intelligencer
New York Lawyer
June 12, 2007
/Superior Court Judge Michael T. Joyce, who faces a retention election this year, is the subject of an investigation by the FBI and Internal Revenue Service into insurance payments he received after an automobile crash in 2001, an Erie newspaper has reported.
A friend of Joyce, auto body shop owner Daniel Strong, told the Erie Times-News he testified before a federal grand jury about physical activities in which Joyce partook in the years following the August 2001 crash that brought the judge a $440,000 insurance settlement.
The grand jury questioned Joyce’s ability to fly a plane, scuba dive and ride a motorcycle after the crash, according to The Associated Press. Strong testified Joyce’s ability to ride his motorcycle or scuba dive for extended periods has been restricted since the crash, the AP reported.
In the accident, a Ford Explorer rear-ended Joyce’s state-leased Mercedes-Benz at a traffic light in Erie, according to the newspaper.
Joyce’s attorney, David Ridge of Ridge & McLaughlin in Erie, confirmed the judge is aware of the federal investigation but would not say whether Joyce has received a target letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
"He feels that it is important and appropriate that he cooperate, and he is doing so. He is confident that the federal investigation will conclude that he did nothing wrong with regard to obtaining his insurance settlement," Ridge said.
Judicial ethics experts said the investigation itself has no impact on Joyce’s role as an appellate judge.
"Unless there are any charges filed and charges proven … there wouldn’t be any immediate ethical or judicial conduct considerations," said James C. Schwartzman, of Schwartzman & Associates, whose practice primarily involves legal ethics and disciplinary matters.
While there is no clear indication either from the newspaper report or sources as to what the subject of the investigation is, some have speculated that it could center on insurance fraud.
For example, white collar criminal defense attorney Ellen C. Brotman, of Montgomery McCracken in Philadelphia, said the questions Strong answered regarding Joyce’s activities appear to fit a "classic investigative technique" to establish an individual was not injured as severely as he or she claims.
However, given the facts of the case reported by the newspaper, the U.S. Attorney’s Office would be hard pressed to prove that Joyce had fraudulently obtained the settlement, Brotman said.
"The fact that a grand jury is investigating, doesn’t lead me to believe the judge has done anything wrong," Brotman said. "Grand juries investigate and sometimes they find there has been no malfeasance."
Brotman added that the IRS is likely involved in the investigation because insurance settlements obtained as the proceeds of a criminal scheme are taxable and an individual who fails to report such proceeds could be charged with evasion or filing a false return.
The Times-News reported Joyce underwent surgery in 1992 for injuries to his back he suffered in a car crash then. Brotman said people with pre-existing conditions often suffer more as a result of what might be a minor car accident for anyone else.
The newspaper reported that Joyce’s friend said the judge continued his activities including motorcycling and scuba diving but that he can’t ride or dive as long as he could before the 2001 crash and must wear a brace.
"They have pain," Brotman said of people injured in car crashes and other mishaps. "They have a choice of giving in to their pain, or trying to enjoy life through their pain."
Samuel C. Stretton, of West Chester, Pa., described Joyce as a good judge with a reputation for handing down tough sentences at the common pleas court level, where he served for 12 years before his election to the Superior Court in 1997.
"When he first came to the bench, we were all a little worried because of his reputation as Maximum Mike," said Stretton, who has argued before Joyce at the appellate level. "I have found him to have really evolved into a very sensitive judge who is attuned to the issues before him."
A finding of guilt on insurance-related charges — if they were filed against Joyce — would almost certainly result in disciplinary action, Stretton said.
"If it was false or fraudulent doings, it would be federal wire or mail fraud and could have a serious impact on his ability to sit on the bench," Stretton said.
Stretton questioned the motivations of the individual who revealed the investigation.
"Perhaps that witness has his own problems and is trying to make hay," Stretton said.
Schwartzman said it’s not too farfetched to suspect the witness who revealed the investigation had political motives.
"What happens if nothing ever comes of this, and it has an adverse effect when you tell me he’s running for retention. It’s a pretty devastating effect," Schwartzman said.
Patrick Deck, Joyce’s retention campaign spokesman, said he is confident there will be no findings of wrongdoing at the conclusion of the investigation and that Joyce plans to continue with his retention bid.
Art Heinz, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, said court officials learned of the investigation recently but had no other comment. Joyce’s office referred inquiries to Ridge.
Justice
Apologizes, Admits Actions
Had Appearance of Impropriety
By Jeffrey Gold
Associated Press Writer
June 1, 2007
NEWARK, N.J. -- State
Supreme Court Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto apologized on Friday
for helping his teenage son in a dispute with a teammate, admitting
that some of his actions created an "appearance of impropriety."
In a letter to a panel considering disciplinary action against him,
Rivera-Soto said "that at no time did I intend to use my office to
influence anyone" and was not interested in revenge for his son, who
was involved in an incident with another teen on their high school
football team.
"In hindsight, I realize that some of these actions have had the
effect of creating the appearance of impropriety. Although I took
those actions with innocent intent, I underestimated the capacity
that my position has to influence others," wrote Rivera-Soto, the
first Hispanic on the state's highest court.
He added that he should have "refrained" from such actions, which
led to an ethics complaint against him _ only the second against a
sitting justice since 1990.
"For my actions, and the effect they may have had, I am profoundly
sorry," Rivera-Soto wrote to the Advisory Committee on Judicial
Conduct, which issued the complaint May 11.
Rivera-Soto's lawyer, Bruce P. McMoran, said the justice's letter
does not reverse their argument that Rivera-Soto did not misuse his
office.
"I think the letter speaks for itself," McMoran said.
The ethics complaint charged that Rivera-Soto violated a court rule
barring conduct "that brings the judicial office into disrepute,"
and three aspects of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
including one that "requires judges to avoid lending the prestige of
their office to advance the private interests of others."
The alleged misconduct stemmed from a series of incidents last fall
between Rivera-Soto's son, a sophomore, and a senior who was the
captain of the Haddonfield Memorial High School team. The justice's
son said the other teen harassed and struck him, according to the
panel's complaint.
Rivera-Soto last month admitted that he spoke with school officials,
the police chief, and court officials, but said he asked for no
special treatment.
The justice signed a complaint of simple assault on behalf of his
son against the other boy on Sept. 28. The matter was settled after
a hearing before a state judge on Dec. 15, with agreement that the
complaint would be dismissed if the teens had no further exchanges
until June 19, according to the judicial panel.
In a formal response May 18 to the ethics complaint, Rivera-Soto
denied misusing his position and urged the judicial conduct panel to
recommend that his colleagues on the court dismiss the matter.
Rivera-Soto "insisted at all times that (the) matter be treated in
the ordinary course," according to that legal brief.
But on Friday Rivera-Soto waived a hearing before the committee to
"prevent any further harm to the court's reputation."
In a joint filing with Rivera-Soto on Friday, the lawyer for the
judicial conduct panel also agreed to have the committee make its
recommendation to the Supreme Court without a hearing, which would
have been public.
If the six other justices on the state's highest court substantiate
the ethics complaint, they could remove Rivera-Soto from the bench
or impose a lesser penalty, including a public reprimand, censure or
suspension.
Rivera-Soto, 53, a Republican, was named to the court in 2004 by
then-Gov. James E. McGreevey, a Democrat. The cross-party
appointment came about because New Jersey governors have adhered to
an informal understanding over the past six decades that no party
would have more than four members on the court.
Rivera-Soto's term expires in 2011, after which he can be considered
for tenure until mandatory retirement at age 70.
Hon.
Deadbeat Dad: Ex-NY Judge Jailed
Over $250,000 in Unpaid Child Support
By Samuel Maull
The Associated Press
New York Lawyer
May 25, 2007
NEW YORK -- Several people in court cheered when a judge ordered sheriff's deputies to jail Reynold Mason, a disgraced former judge accused of failing to pay more than $250,000 in child support.
Mason was taken from a courtroom in handcuffs and jailed Thursday after being arrested on a warrant. The warrant for Mason, a former Brooklyn judge now living in Hampton, Ga., was valid, Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis said."At this point I have no alternative but to direct that the order of arrest be executed," Lobis said.
The cheers came from people who had accompanied Mason's former wife, Tessa Abrams Mason, to court. She said she was very surprised that her ex-husband had shown up.
Mason, a native of Grenada and reportedly the first Caribbean-born judge on the Brooklyn Civil Court, was elected in 1994. He was elected to the state Supreme Court in 1997. Soon afterward, he left his pregnant wife and their two children, Abrams Mason said, and she has been chasing him for child support since.
Abrams Mason, 47, said she married Mason, 57, in 1993. She said they separated in 1997 and divorced in 2004.
In 2003, Mason was kicked off the bench after the state Commission on Judicial Conduct found that the former landlord-tenant lawyer had improperly taken money from a client's escrow account.
Abrams Mason and their children _ a daughter, 16, and two sons, 14 and 9 _ live off monthly workers' compensation she gets after being injured on the job at Wal-Mart. Outside court, she showed an eviction notice she said she got Thursday.
Abrams Mason said she believes her ex-husband, now a real estate broker in Georgia, owes her about $267,000. She said she was surprised and disappointed that he went to court, apparently with no intention of paying anything.
Her lawyer, Robert Z. Dobrish, said she had received child support payments totaling a few hundred dollars over the past couple of years.
Dobrish said Mason can spring himself from jail if he comes up with even a fraction of what he owes and a plan to pay the rest. He said Abrams Mason believes her ex-husband has hidden assets.
Mason's lawyer, Homer Richardson, told the Manhattan judge his client had tried everything he could to raise some of the money he owes, including reaching out to friends and relatives for loans, but had failed.
Richardson said outside court later that his client, "a very depressed man," was arrested because he failed to follow up on his Jan. 5 application in a Brooklyn court requesting a reduction in $2,600 monthly child support payments.
Bully
Pulpit: Local Judge Accused
of Misusing Office to Aid Picked-On Son
By Mary Pat Gallagher
New Jersey Law Journal
New York Lawyer
May 14, 2007
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto has been
charged with abusing his position to influence police actions and
court proceedings over the alleged bullying of his teenage son by a
high school football teammate.
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct filed a formal complaint on Friday, In the Matter of Roberto Rivera-Soto, ACJC 2007-097.
Rivera-Soto allegedly interceded on behalf of his son, Christian, a 15-year-old sophomore at Haddonfield Township High School, who was being harassed and/or hit by a teammate.
Rivera-Soto complained to school personnel after the teammate, denoted as C.L. in the complaint, got off with a warning. Things escalated after Christian's mouth was injured in a head-butting incident at practice on Sept. 28, 2006, and the school deemed it accidental.
Rivera-Soto allegedly threatened to go to the state police and file a criminal complaint against the vice principal and football coaches personally. He then called the Haddonfield police chief on the chief's cell phone about pressing charges against C.L. When an officer showed up at his home, Rivera-Soto handed him a card with his job title and said he wanted C.L. arrested that night, the ACJC alleged.
The next day, Rivera-Soto allegedly called Camden County Assignment Judge Francis Orlando and Acting Camden County Prosecutor James Lynch, advising them of the complaint against C.L. and asking that it get no special treatment. But he also allegedly asked Lynch to make certain the complaint received attention.
When a Nov. 27 court hearing was postponed at the last minute at the request of C.L., Rivera-Soto allegedly called Orlando about the lack of notice and told him C.L. had been in school that day. He also allegedly wrote to Presiding Family Judge Charles Rand about the need for a prompt new date and for C.L. and his father to be "called to task" for their "bona fides" in asking for a postponement.
On Dec. 15, the parties met with a hearing officer and agreed to let the matter rest if there were no more incidents by June 19, 2007.
Rivera-Soto, who did not return a call for comment, is charged with violating Judicial Code of Conduct Canon 1, requiring high standards of conduct; Canon 2A, which bars actions that undermine "public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," and Canon 2B, which says judges should not lend the prestige of their office to advance the private interests of others. He is also accused of violating Rule 2:15-8(a)(6), which prohibits conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute.
His lawyer, Bruce McMoran, of Manasquan's McMoran O'Connor & Bramley, says "the justice firmly believes he did nothing wrong. At all times, he was acting as a father in taking action on behalf of his son, who's a minor."
Rivera-Soto, a Republican, was appointed to the Court in 2003 by Gov. James McGreevey and will be reviewed for full tenure in 2010.
Only once before has the committee filed a complaint against a member of the state Supreme Court. Justice Robert Clifford was publicly reprimanded in 1990 after a drunken-driving conviction.
NY Judge,
Facing Ethics Probe,
Quits After Just 18 Months On the Bench
By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
May 11, 2007
Brooklyn Surrogate Frank A. Seddio will leave his post today after less than 18 months on the job, the Office of Court Administration has confirmed. Surrogate Seddio had been facing a probe by the Commission on Judicial Conduct into whether he violated rules limiting the amount of contributions judicial candidates may make.
He also had reportedly told associates he was bored with the job and concerned about the low pay.
Surrogate Seddio did not return calls for comment.
Keith Kantrowitz, president of Power Express, a Nassau County-based bank with 30 of its 40 branches within New York City, said yesterday that Surrogate Seddio would be a vice president in charge of the mortgage lending operations within the five boroughs.
Political sources said four candidates met Wednesday with Assemblyman Vito Lopez, the Brooklyn Democratic leader, seeking to line up support to succeed Surrogate Seddio: Supreme Court Justice Diana A. Johnson, who came within a whisper of winning the 2005 race won by Surrogate Margarita Lopez Torres; Robert J. Miller, a commercial litigation partner at the New York office of Reed Smith, who has twice run unsuccessfully for City Council and who has organized legal defense funds for three prominent Brooklyn politicians, the most recent being ex-Assemblyman Clarence Norman; Civil Court Judge Bernard Graham, who was elected in 2005; and Leo D. Beiter, who heads the surrogate's law department.
Surrogate Seddio resigned his Assembly seat in 2005 after seven years to run for the borough's newly created second Surrogate seat.
NY Judge
Disciplined
for Stiffing Former Clients on Old Debt
By Joel Stashenko
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
May 10, 2007
ALBANY - Acting Supreme Court Justice Alan L. Honorof of Nassau County has been admonished by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct for failing to pay $21,000 of a settlement he entered into before he joined the bench.
The commission decided 8-1 in an opinion released yesterday that Justice Honorof "violated the high ethical standards required of judges, both on and off the bench" during a long-standing disagreement over payments to men the judge once represented as a practicing attorney.
The decision drew strong objections from commission member Richard D. Emery who chided the other members for being "manipulated" by Justice Honorof's creditors into acting as a debt collector.
However, the commission majority noted that judges "are held to stricter standards than 'the morals of the market place,'" and suggested that the judge had not been candid with the court in his attempts to avoid the judgment.
Justice Honorof faced further disciplinary action if he did not act to settle the debt, according to a stipulation reached with the commission. The judge acknowledged that his conduct violated the ethical rules and agreed to pay the judgment by May 15, according to the commission.
Mr. Emery argued that the matter was none of the commission's business and insisted that Justice Honorof should not have received any sanction.
"This unseemly pressure applied by us, even with the best of intent, is outside the proper function of this Commission," Mr. Emery, of Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady, wrote in his dissent. "In my view, this flawed result not only created an unsound precedent that may be used to charge misconduct whenever a judge fails to pay a debt, or even is merely dilatory in debt repayment, but also ensnares the Commission in the muck and mire of the debt-collection process."
Settlement Challenged
Justice Honorof was appointed to the Court of Claims in 1996 and designated as an acting Supreme Court justice the same year.
Before joining the bench, he represented Peter Beck and Dominic Sergi, who were the defendants in a corporate dissolution proceeding involving their company, ASF Glass.
In 1998, Mr. Beck and Mr. Sergi brought an action against Justice Honorof, contending that while he was their attorney he failed to advise them that the recommended purchase of shares of stock from another ASF shareholder was irrevocable and that they faced potential personal liability if they bought the shares in their personal capacities, according to the commission's decision.
In 2000, the parties reached an agreement and Justice Honorof signed a stipulation of settlement and confession of judgment in which he agreed to pay Mr. Beck and Mr. Sergi $55,000, including a lump sum of $25,000 and 60 $500 monthly payments. The commission's decision indicated that Justice Honorof paid the $25,000 and about a year's worth of monthly payments but did not pay anything between May 2001 and November 2001.
A $3,500 payment in November 2001 for the previous seven months was apparently the last payment Justice Honorof made to Mr. Beck, who had become the sole assignee of the justice's obligation under the settlement. In July 2004, Mr. Beck demanded judgment under the terms of the 2000 settlement.
Two months later, Justice Honorof responded with a verified answer claiming that the settlement and the confession of judgment were secured by "fraud and duress."
Specifically, Justice Honorof testified before the Commission on Judicial Conduct that he became aware sometime after the summer of 2003 that Mr. Beck and Mr. Sergi had filed their action against the justice in 1998 because he had failed to inform them about their personal liability for payments to the ASF shareholder. Mr. Beck and Mr. Sergi had intended to bankrupt the corporation and leave the shareholder "out in the cold," Justice Honorof testified.
"They were using me to defeat somebody else's lawful position and that's not a position that I would have allowed," Justice Honorof testified. "This new knowledge, which I didn't have when I signed the original stipulation, now left me with a very sour taste in my mouth and I no longer felt obligated. That's what I meant when we used the term 'fraud.' I didn't think the agreement was fair to me, based on that."
Justice Honorof also conceded that he misused the term "duress" and that no one forced him to do anything in the case. He said he used both "fraud and duress" on the advice of his attorney at the time, whom he testified also told him incorrectly that the payments he owed Mr. Beck were suspended.
Mr. Beck complained to the commission. It concluded that as judge and officer of the court, Justice Honorof should not have asserted the defenses of fraud and duress because they represented contentions that he could not verify.
The commission stated that the judge "was especially obliged to be candid in the litigation process."
"A judge, who is sworn to uphold the law and seek the truth, has a duty to respect and comply with the law and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary," the commission concluded.
'Benefit of the Doubt'
Mr. Emery, the dissenter, wrote that Justice Honorof "deserves the benefit of the doubt" about what his state of mind was at the time he verified his answer about "fraud and duress" being used to compel him to reach the original settlement.
"The judge's explanation of his legal position at the time supports the view that he only recognized retrospectively that his defenses were invalid," Mr. Emery wrote.
While in the past the commission has punished judges who were in debt, Mr. Emery wrote that in all previous cases there was "significant aggravating and independent bases" for disciplining them other than the fact they owed money to others.
"It is unprecedented for this Commission to find misconduct, and to act as debt collector for private litigants against a judge, when the judge's alleged misbehavior is limited to failing to pay a private debt and defending a collection lawsuit," Mr. Emery wrote.
Robert H. Tembeckjian, administrator of the commission, said yesterday, "As the Commission makes clear, a judge's failure to abide by a valid judgment is a failure to respect and comply with the law, in violation of the Rules."
He added, "Any judge would therefore be subject to discipline for conduct similar to Judge Honorof's."
William S. Petrillo of Rockville Centre, Mr. Honorof's lawyer, said yesterday, "This civil dispute where the judge relied upon the advice of previous counsel will not affect his long-held reputation for integrity and professionalism. "
Deadbeat Ex-judge Gets Break in Court
By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
May 7, 2007
A Manhattan judge dropped her arrest warrant last week against a deadbeat dad who owes $250,000 in child support because the father - a former judge himself - said he was poor and depressed.
Justice Joan Lobis' decision, just a month after approving the warrant, enraged the ex-wife of disgraced former jurist Reynold Mason."There is no justice! There are no laws!" fumed Tessa Abrams Mason, who has had to raise three kids without her ex-husband's help and now faces eviction from her Long Island home. "He knows how to work the system, and she's letting him do it. She's failing my kids."
Lobis refused to explain her actions to the Daily News.
Mason, now a real estate agent in Georgia, said in court papers that he had declared bankruptcy and become depressed after he was kicked off the bench in 2003 for dipping into a legal client's escrow account.
"All of my resources and energy were given to coping with the shock of the life-altering events swirling around me," Mason whined.
He claimed he earned $68,000 over two years selling real estate - far less than his $136,700 annual salary as the first Caribbean-born state Supreme Court justice.
That prompted Lobis to revoke the warrant Wednesday, ordering him instead to post $150,000 bond.
Lobis was far more harsh the following day - ordering sheriffs to her courtroom in an unrelated case to arrest a mom who owed $5,000 in child support. The woman dodged jail by borrowing the cash.
Jury
Finds Prominent Attorney,
Two Ex-Judges Guilty of Bribery
Holbrook Mohr
The Associated Press
April 3, 2007
A prominent attorney and two former judges he was accused of lavishing gifts and money on in exchange for favorable rulings were convicted of bribery.
Paul Minor, who amassed a fortune from asbestos, tobacco, medical malpractice and car safety litigation, was found guilty of all 11 counts against him, which ranged from racketeering to bribery. He faces up to 95 years in prison.
The jury found former Circuit Judge John Whitfield and former Chancellor Wes Teel guilty of bribery and mail fraud. Whitfield could get a 50-year jail term and Teel could get 25 years.
Sentencing for all three was set for June 14.
All three had pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys vowed to appeal Friday's ruling.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Dave Fulcher said during closing arguments that Minor guaranteed $140,000 in loans to Whitfield in 1998, then used cash, a third party and a backdated promissory note to try to conceal the fact that Minor paid off the loan. Whitfield awarded Minor $3.6 million in a lawsuit, Fulcher said. The Mississippi Supreme Court later reduced the award to $1.6 million.
Fulcher said Minor guaranteed a loan to Teel for $24,500 the same year. Teel "forced through" a $1.5 million settlement in one of Minor's cases before his court, he said.
Minor acknowledged guaranteeing loans for the judges but claimed he was only helping friends who had fallen on hard times and expected nothing in return.
Besides Whitfield and Teel, Minor was also accused of bribing Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr.
The four were tried in U.S. District Court in Jackson last year. A jury cleared Diaz of all charges and deadlocked on some charges against the other three.
Whitfield and Teel are free on bond pending an appeal. Minor has been jailed since September for violating the terms of his bond for alleged excessive drinking and not adhering to the rules of his house arrest. He was ordered to remain in jail.
Jogging Cops: We Saw Judge with Pot
By Kathleen Mcgrory
The Miami Herald
March 20, 2007
Broward Judge Lawrence Korda was just 20 paces from a group of kids
-- and closer still to a ''drug-free zone'' sign -- when police
spotted him puffing weed in a Hollywood park, according to a police
report released Tuesday.
The family court judge, known nationally for his brief role in the Anna Nicole Smith hearings, was charged with marijuana possession.
Here's how the arrest happened, according to the report:
About 2 p.m. Sunday, three Hollywood police officers were jogging through Stanley Goldman Park as part of a physical training exercise. Clad in gym clothes, they were not identifiable as police.
During their jog, the officers were struck by the unmistakable smell of marijuana. They followed the aroma to a tree on the southwest side of the park's hockey rink.
Sitting there, underneath that tree, was Korda, puffing away on a joint. He wasn't far from a group of young children or a sign proclaiming the park a drug-free zone.
At first, Korda made no efforts to conceal the cannabis. But he quickly changed his attitude when the men identified themselves as police. At one point, the judge tried to toss the pot, the report says.
The officers, who were not carrying handcuffs, had Korda lay face-down on the ground. The report reads: ``For his safety and ours, Korda was asked to lay on the ground in the prone position until other officers could arrive with handcuffs.''
A short while later, two additional officers and a lieutenant showed up at the scene. One recovered Korda's cigarette and field-tested it for pot.
Korda was issued a citation and told not to return to the park. He'll appear in court next month to face the drug charges.
Panel Drops Charges Against Former Judge
Staff Report
News Report Online
March 3, 2007
Charges have been dropped against a Volusia County judge who resigned last month amid accusations of fixing traffic tickets.
Judge Steven deLaroche stepped down from the bench Feb. 9 after months earlier being accused by the state Judicial Qualifications Commission of illegally dismissing traffic tickets for people he knew, including his fatherlaw.
According to a document filed by the state judicial panel Friday with the Florida Supreme Court, the inquiry and charges of breaching judicial ethics were dismissed because Gov. Charlie Crist accepted deLaroche's resignation.
The nominating process to replace deLaroche of Ormond Beach -- who was elected in 2000 and heard civil cases -- ends Tuesday. County judges are paid $137,020 a year.
Judge's
Firing Cited in Motion
Because He Was Later
Deemed Unfit, Defense in a Murder Trial
Wants Evidence Tossed.
By Jamal Thalji,
St. Petersburg Times
February 2, 2007
NEW PORT RICHEY - The Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender's Office plans to argue today that the evidence in the first-degree murder case against Lawrence Kenneth Tener - the body, the weapon, the confession - should all be excluded.
Among several arguments, the defense says that the search warrant should be thrown out because of the signature on it:
John Renke III.
As in former Circuit Judge John Renke III, unceremoniously kicked off the bench last year by the Florida Supreme Court.
Renke "lacked legal authority to sign the search warrant," the motion says, because he was "unfit to hold office."
"It's novel," was all Assistant State Attorney Mary Handsel would say about that particular defense argument.
Renke's controversial 2002 campaign led the state's highest court to fire him after 3 1/2 years on the job. He was the 16th judge removed since 1970.
In the Tener court file is the Supreme Court's scathing May 25, 2006, opinion declaring that Renke's campaign "perpetrated a fraud on the electorate" by making "flagrant misrepresentations" about his experience and using an illegal $95,800 contribution.
The motion says that before Renke signed the Dec. 17, 2004, warrant in the Tener case, he had already agreed with the Judicial Qualifications Commission that he had broken campaign rules.
"Such a person holding judicial office following such admissions is, therefore, unfit to hold office as a matter of law," the motion says.
Does this mean public defenders intend to challenge every warrant ever signed by Renke? A call to Public Defender Bob Dillinger was not returned Thursday.
But if everything a fired judge did was erased because he was fired, a legal expert told the Times, there would be chaos.
"Every case that a removed judge was involved in would be thrown open for re-litigation," said Stetson University College of Law professor Robert Batey. "Appellate courts seek to avoid that kind of result."
Batey said there is ample precedent that lets the actions of deposed judges stand after they're gone.
The defense motion also argues that the search warrant should be suppressed because the informant who implicated Tener is unreliable and because the Pasco County Sheriff's Office misidentified the property on the warrant and tricked the defendant's mother into allowing the search.
But last year a judge denied a similar defense motion in a drug case related to the murder investigation.
Authorities say Tener, 24, confessed to killing 43-year-old Tammy Lee Bowles with an axe handle to the head because she tried to leave his home with his marijuana.
Her body was found Dec. 18, 2004, according to authorities, buried under a foot of dirt near the Moon Lake trailer of Tener's mother.
|
Court Rips Deadbeat Ex-judge |
||
|
A former Brooklyn judge was found in default yesterday for stiffing his kids out of nearly $230,000 in child support, setting the stage for a judge to order his arrest. Former Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason was ordered last month to appear in a Manhattan courtroom and explain why he hasn't paid court-ordered support for three years for his three children with his former wife, Tessa Abrams Mason. "Mr. Mason has not appeared," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis said yesterday after she ordered him to appear from Georgia, where he now sells real estate. "I declare him in default today." But the judge also told Abrams Mason to instruct Georgia authorities to fix their paperwork to demonstrate her ex-husband was properly served - and said she would then issue an arrest warrant. In an exclusive Daily News .exposé on Tuesday, Abrams Mason said her ex-husband paid $5,000 in cash to Carl Andrews, a Brooklyn political operative, to win Democratic support for his election to the Civil Court bench in 1994. Andrews, a former state senator, is now an aide to Gov. Spitzer and denies the story. Abrams Mason described a systemic scheme of payoffs demanded by the Brooklyn Democratic machine in exchange for getting her husband on the bench. The deal is similar to other alleged bribery schemes being investigated by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes. Reynold Mason has denied any wrongdoing. "I can't believe he didn't show up!" said Abrams Mason, who has tried for years to get the court to enforce the payments. "It shows he still thinks he is above the law and doesn't care about his children. But I still feel victorious." Abrams Mason faces eviction from
her home in a New York suburb, where she is raising two teens
and a 9-year-old on the wages she makes at Wal-Mart. |
|
|
A Feast
|
