response to verified petition for writ of prohebition …
TRANSCRIPT
FiledSupreme Court of New Mexico
3/2/2018 12:16:33 PMOffice of the Clerk
NEW.NEW MEXICO, ex. re!.
>etitkmers,
V. No.S-l-SC-36879
-CHASE,HON. BARRY SHAKER,LOR! PROCTOR, AND AMY VERHULST,
Respondents.
RESPONSE TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHEBITION ORWRIT OF SUPERINTENDING CONTROL AT
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STAY
The Titus & Murphy Law FinnShellie A. Patscheck, Esq.
H. Steven Murphy, Esq.Attorney for Respondents
4000 East 30th StreetFannington, NM 87401Tel: (505)326-6503Fax: (505) [email protected]
Daniel J. Macke, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners
3777 The American Rd. NW, Suite 100Albuquerqu'e, NM 87114Tel: (505)292-9677dan@browr^lawnm.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex. rel.NEW MEXICO JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION,
— Petitioners,
V. No. S-l-SC-36879
HON. TRUDYREED-CHASE,HON. BARRY SHARER,LORI PROCTOR, AND AMY VERHULST,
Respondents.
RESPONSE TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION ORWRIT OF SUpERINTENDnSfG CONTROL AND
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STAY
The Titus & Murphy Law FirmShellie A. Patscheck, Esq.H. Steven Murphy, Esq.
Attorney for Respondents4000 East 30th Street
Farmington;NM 87401Tel: (505)326-6503Fax: (5ti5) 326-2672hsmurphy@titusmurphylawfirm .corn
Daniel J. Macke, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners3777 The American Rd. T^W, Suite 100Albuquerque, NM 87114Tel: (505)[email protected]
COMES NOW, Respondents, The Honorable Tmdy Reed-Chase, The
Honorable Barry Sharer,-Lori Proctor, and Amy Verhulst, by and t-hrough their
attorneys, the Titus & Murphy Law Firm, and hereby respond to Petitioner's
Verified Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Writ of Supermtendmg Control and
Request for Emergency Stay.
If the New Mexico Supreme Court exercises its power of prohibition or
superintending control in this matter, Respondents respectfully request the
Supreme Court to enter an prder compelling the Judicial Standards Commission to
relinquish, to the Respondents, the recordings at issue in this matter. In the
alternative, Responden
Standards Commission
ts request the Supreme Court to compel the Judicial
to destroy the recordings and certify the same.
Respondents Judge Tmdy Reed-Chase and Judge Barry Sharer are
Magistrate Court Judges in Aztec, New Mexico. Respondent Lori Proctor is the
Court Manager and Respondent Amy Verhulst is the Lead Worker at the Aztec
Magistrate Courthouse.
Petitioner is the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In August of 2014, Connie Lee Johnston became a Magistrate Court Judge
in Aztec, New Mexico. While employed as such, she recorded hundreds of hours
of the Respondents' private personal phone calls and private personal
conversations.
Johnston believes that the other Magistrate Judges and court staff were
engaged in a grand conspiracy against her. In an effort to prove this conspiracy
theory, Jobiston placed covert recording devices throughout the Aztec Magistrate
Court Building which recorded the personal phone calls and private conversations
of the Respondents. Fo,r approximately nine months, Johnston recorder, listened
to, and transcribed the recordings.
Recording devices were placed in the private office of Respondent JudgeI
Barry Sharer, in the private office of Respondent Judge Trudy Reed^Chase, in the
private office of Respondent Court Manager Lori Proctor, m the private work
space of Respondent Lead Worker Amy Verhulst, In the hallways, and even in the
women's bathroom.
The Illegal recordings include Respondents' private telephone conversations
with loved ones arid confidants, with health care professionals, with creditors, with
attorneys, and others. These covert recordings contain intimate details of the
Respondents' personal life that they would not have shared with Johnston or
anyone else. The recordings of the private conversations include information
related to relationships, family, marriage, intimacy, debts, protected medical
information, mental health details, and other personal details.
On February 10, 2016, during a public hearing regarding Johnston's
temporary suspension without pay. Counsel for Johnston admitted to the New
Mexico Supreme Court, on the record, that Johnston had recorded "hundreds of
hours" of oral and telephonic communication within the Aztec Magistrate Court
Building. As with all Supreme Court hearings, this matter was open to the public
and not subject to the confidentiality rules of the Judicial Standards Commission
proceedings. On th^t date, Johnston's attorney, Justin Pennington, advised the
Supreme Court that he had listened to a portion of the recordings taken by
Johnston. Mi*. Pemiington also publicly announced during this hearing that heI
listened to the pijivate communications of Respondents Judge Ba^ry Sharer, Judge
Trudy Reed-Chase, Lori Proctor, and Amy Verhulst. Lastly, Mr. Pennington
acknowledged to the Supreme Court that these recordings had been turned over by
him to the Judicial Standards Commission at 10:00 am on February 10, 2016.
During the same hearing, the Judicial Standards Commission acknowledged that it
did, in fact, takie possession of the secret recordings. (See Tape' Recorded Hearing
in New Mexico Supreme Court on February 10, 2016 in No. S-l-SC-35625).
In Johnston's Response to the Verified Petition For Immediate Temporary
Suspension Without Pay, filed publicly in the New Mexico Supreme Court on
January 27,2016, Johnston admitted that she recorded theTlaintiffs at the Aztec
Magistrate Courthouse. See Exhibit A. Specifically, ^n-page 6 of this response,
Johnston declared her Intent to "tender as evidence to the Court recordings of
conversations occurring between presiding Judge Sharer, Judge Trudy Chase and
the Court Administrator". Id.
After Johnston was suspended and while the Judicial Standards Commission
was conducting its investigation, Johnston began pleading her cause to the general
public. Johnston made numerous social media posts and comments to the news
media regarding the recordings and the Judicial Standards Commission
investigation. See Exhibits B and C. When the Judicial Standards Commission
charged Johr|ston with violating the confidentiality provision of the proceedings,
Justice Chavez commented during the February 10, 2016 hearing that "the
confidentiality [provision] is to protect her [Johnston]." The Judicial Standards
Commission then dismissed the charge related to violating the confidentiality of
the proceedings.
The New Mexico Attorney General has also criminally charged Johnston
with Interference with Communications, contrary to the Abuse of Privacy Statute.
See Exhibit D. These charges are still pending.
A civil lawsuit was brought by the Respondents against Johnston for
Invasion of Privacy and Interference with Communications, among other tortious
conduct. During the course of that civil litigation, District Court Judge Sarah
Backus ordered Johnston to turn over, to Respondents^ali of the secret recordings.
See Exhibit E. Johnston never turned over all of the recordings. During a March
3, 2017 Order to Show Cause hearing. Judge Backus found that Johnston
intentionally and willfully violated the Court Order to turn over the recordings. In
addition, Judge Backus found that Johnston had Intentionally deleted, edited, and
altered recordings. In doing so, the District Court found that Johnston intentionally
perpetrated a jfraud upon the District Court, the Court of Appeals, the Justice
system, the parties, and the attorneys involved in this case. As a result, criminal
contempt proceedings were commenced against Johnston/ See Exhibit F. These
charges ai[-e still pending.
On December 5, 2016, the matter ofjohnston's removal from the bench
came before the Judicial Standards Commission for a merits hearing. Each of the
Respondents testified as a material witness for the Judicial Standards Commission.
On April 10, 2017, the Judicial Standards Commission filed a Petition for
Permanent Removal From Judicial Office agamst Johnst'on in this docket number.
On the same date, the Judicial Standards Commission, filed a 110-page "Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation for Removal from Judicial
Office," attached hereto as Exhibit G.
In its recommendations for removal, the Judicial Standards Commission
-noted that-during the merits hearing, Johnston had concealed "surreptitious
recordings that she was ordered to disclose but kept secret until mid-trial when she
perceived a personal advantage to disclosure." See Page 108 of Exhibit G.
On October 23, 2017, this Court permanently removed Johnston from
Judicial Office. See Exhibit H.
After Johnston's permanent removal from Judicial Office, Respondents
made numerous requests to the Judicial Standards Commission to return the secret
recordings. See Exhibit I. The Judicial Standards Commission, through Executive
Director and General Counsel, Randall D. Roybal, has refused. See Exhibits J and
K.
Respondents have twice petitioned this Court for a Writ ofSuperintending
Control in order to obtain the recordings of their private conversations. See
Exhibits L and M. However, this Court summarily denied the petition both times.
See Exhibit N and 0.
Johnston has not and will not cease attempting to prove her grand conspiracy
theories. For instance, she has filed numerous Inspection of Public Records Act
requests with the San Juan County courts. See Exhibit P. Recently, Connie
Johnston's husband, Brian Johnston, requested copies of all case files regarding
Joseph Reed, the son of Respondent Lori Proctor. Connie Johnston recorded and
listened to the private telephone calls of Respondent Lori Proctor and her son,
-Joseph Reed. Johnston has also disturbingly-requested "a list showing entry and
exit activity for the employee door (back door off kitchen), for the year 2016 from
the Aztec Magistrate Court." See Exhibit P. Respondents have reason to believe
the requests of information are Johnston's ill-fated attempts to intimidate
Respondents and another example of why the tapes should be returned to
Respondents.
"he Magistrate Judges run for reelection every fpur years. Johnston has
vowed to "get even." Respondents have reason to believe the contents of the
recordings will be used against them. Respondents control of the tapes will
ensure that innocent parties, such as the Judicial Standards Commission, are not
blamed by Johnston or others when the recordings are disclosed to the public.
On January 4, 2018, in an effort to obtain possession of the secret recordings
of Respondents' private conversations, Respondents filed a Civil Complaint for
Rlestitution of the Recordings m the 11A Judicial District Court. See Exhibit Q. In
response, the Judicial Standards Commission filed a Verified Petition for Writ of
Prohibition or Writ of Superintending Control and Request for Emergency Stay In
this Court.
ARGUMENT
L Jurisdiction is proper m-the-EIeventIi Judicial District Court.
The New Mexico Supreme Court has stated a number of times that a writ of
prohibition is "an extraordinary writ, issued by a superior court to an inferior court
to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction, either by prohibiting it from
assuming jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no control, or from going
beyond its legitimate powers in a matter of which It has jurisdiction." In re
Extradition ofMartmez, 2001-NMSC-009, ^ 7, 130|N.M. 144, 20 P.3d 126
(mtemal quotation marks and citation omitted).
This Court has defined jurisdiction in thi^ context as "the court's power toI
entertain and hear the suit," see id. at 101 (mterj[ial quotation marks and footnote
omitted), and has further explained that the jurisdictional test is "not whether the
court had a right to decide the issue in a particular way, but did it have the right to
decide it at all." In re Extradition ofMartinez, 2001-NMSC-009, cj 7 (quoting State
ex rel. Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp. v. Larrazolo, 70 N.M. 475, 481, 375 P.2d
118,122(1962)).
Thus, the critical inquiry required in this case is one of subject matter and
personal jurisdiction—l.e., whether the district court has "jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the dispute and over each of the parties to the dispute." Id.
In this matter, Respondents are residents of San Juan County, New Mexico.
Further, the cause of action giving rise to the Civil Complaint for Restitution of
Property arose in San Juan County, New Mexico. Thus, the Eleventh Judicial
District Court retains both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.
Alternatively, the Judicial Standards Commission requests this Court grant a
Writ of Superintending Control. The power of superintending control "is
tampered by no specific rules or means for its exercise." Albuqnerqzie Gas &
Elec. Co. v. Czirtis, 43 N.M. 234, 236, 89 P.2d 615, 616 (1939). This Court has
held that the writ of superintending control is appropriate only when "the remedyI
by appeal seems wholly inadequate. . .or wh^re otherwise necessary to prevent
irreparable mischief, great, extraordinary, or exceptional hardship; costly delays
and unusual burdens of expense." State ex rel Transco. Bus Serv. v. Carmody, 53
N.M. 367, 378, 208 P.2d 1073, 1080 (1949).
The Judicial Standards Commission has failed to show that the remedy by
appeal would be inadequate or would caus^ irreparable harm. It is unclear why the
Judicial Standards Commission wishes to maintain possession of the recordings.
There Is absolutely no legitimate purpose served by allowing Judicial Standards
10
Commission to keep the recordings. They no longer have jurisdiction over
Johnston and she has been permanently removed from office.
Every other commission and court in New Mexico returns evidence or
certifies destruction of evidence at the conclusion of a case. Respondents simply -
ask that the same be ordered of the evidence being held by the Judicial Standards
Commission.
II. The confadenttality provisions of Article VI, § 32 do not apply to thismatter because Johnston waived her right to confidentiality.
IftMs Court grants either a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ of Superintending
Control, the Court should Order Judicial Standards Commission to compel the
Judicial Standards Commission to destroy the recordings and certify the same.
Article VI, § 32 of the N^w Mexico Constitution provides that "[a]ll papers
Ifiled with the commission or lt^ masters, and proceedings before the commission
or its masters, are confidential." This confidentiality provision affords
confidentiality to judges whose conduct is subject to examination by the Judicial
Standards Commission.
The confidentiality provision exists to protect judges. However, Johnston
waived any right to this confidentiality provision when she began discussing the
recordings and the Judicial Standards Proceedings with the news reporters and on
Facebook. See Exhibits B and C.
11
III. The confidentiality provisions of Article VI, § 32 do not apply to thismatter because the Supreme Court has permanentiv removed
Johnston.
Judicial Standards Commission Rule 7(A) NMRA 2005 states that 'c[a]ll
papers and pleadings filed with and proceedings before the commission er-its
masters shall be confidential. Only when a record is filed by the Commission with
the Supreme Court do the proceedings lose their confidential character."
(emphasis added). In the matter at hand, Johnston's proceedings have lost their
confidential character because the matter has been filed with the Supreme Court.
Thus, the papers, pleadings, and proceedings are no longer confidential.
This Court has held that 'tin accordance with the independent watchdog
function of the Commission, the Constitution requires Commission proceedings to
be confidential until they re^ch this Court on Review." State of New Mexico,, ex.
rel., New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission v. Hon. Geraldine E. Rive^a, No.
_S-_l-_SC-29239,_at_15_(emphasisadded)^
While it Is an important constitutional requirement that the Commission
proceedings remain confidential, the proceedings in this matter lost their
confidentiality when the case reached the Supreme Court for review.
12
The secret recordings no longer have any value to the Judicial Standards
Commission, evidentiary or otherwise and the Judicial Standards Commission has
no jurisdiction over Johnston, as she was permanently removed from office.
TV. The Supreme Court should Order Judicial Standards Commission torelinquisli the recordings to Respondents.
Respondents do not seek monetary damages m their civil suit against the
Judicial Standards Commission. Rather, Respondents seek only restitution of the
recordings of their personal private phone calls and conversations taken without
their permission. The Respondents have a right to protect their privacy interests by
obtaining the secret recordings of their oral communications taken without their
consent.
The actions ofJoynston violated State and Federal law. Pursuant fc New
Mexico's Abuse of Privacy statute, Johnston's actions of secretly recording the
Respondents' telephone communications is illegal. Specifically, NMSA (1978)
30-12-1, entitled "Interference with Communication," prohibits "knowingly and
without lawful authority.. .reading, interrupting, taking or copying any message,
communication or report intended for another by telegraph or telephone without
the consent of a sender or intended recipient thereof." Furthermore, "any person
whose wire or oral comraunication is intercepted, disclosed or used in vi61ation of
13
this act shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts,
discloses or uses ...such communications." NMSA (1978) § 30-12-11.
The Judicial Standards Commission cannot use these recordings In any
proceeding without violating this statute and subjecting themselves to civil liability
and liquidated damages pursuant to NMSA (1978) § 30-12-11(A)(1)(2).
Similarly, pursuant to 18 USC § 2511, it is a federal crime for any person to
"intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to
intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. It
1s also a criminal offense under this section to disclose the contents of any illegally
intercepted oral communication.
As such. Respondents are the victims of a crime and seek to have their
private communications restored to them. This Issue here is no different than if a
thief stole the Respondents' purse, money, or even took nude picture^ ofthe
Respondents without their permission. The purse, money, and/or the nude pictures
would be seized from the thief by investigators or police. These physical items
would be placed in evidence and retained until the conclusion of the criminal
proceedings. The evidence may or may not be used during the course of the
proceeding. Regardless of whether or not the evidence is used, the evidence still
belongs to the victim of the crime and would be returned at the conclusion of the
proceeding. If $300 were taken from Respondents would the Judicial Standards
14
Commission be entitled to keep the money? No! The illegal recordings are no
different.
The Respondents should be allowed to protect their privacy rights and
prevent furthe^harm, humiliation, embarrassment, and injury by obtaining the
recordings or ensuring that the secret recordings have been destroyed.
Because Johnston has demonstrated her unwillingness to cease the
harassment of Respondents, Respondents fully expect the contents of the secret
recordings to resurface as part ofjohnston's continual and ongoing plan to retaliate
against the Respondents. Respondents expect that she will attempt to utilize the
contents of the recordings in an effort to prove her delusional conspiracy theories,
and to insult the character of the Judges and staff of the Aztec Magistrate Court.
Requiring the Judicial Standards Commission to relinquish the recordings to
Respondents or destroy the secret recordings and certify the same will limit the
illegal disclosure of the contents of the recordings and protect the Judicial
Standards Commission from further legal action.
If the New Mexico Supreme Court exercises its power of prohibition or
supermtending control in this matter, Respondents respectfully request the
Supreme Court to, enter an Order compelling the Judicial Standards Commission to
relinquish, to the Respondents, the recordings at issue in this matter. In the
15
alternative, Respondents request the Supreme Court to compel the Judicial
Standards Commission to certify that the recordings have been destroyed.
Respectfull^SuHmitted,
TITfTS ^ l?RflHTLAWFIRM
H. St^ve^M^rp^y,\Esq.^ts&heck, Esq.
Attorney for Respondents4000 E. 30th Street
Farmington, NM 87402(505) 326-6503
1fi
I HEREBY certify that a tme and correct copy of the foregoing RESPONSE
STAY was filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court and mailed to the following
parties on this Q^ day of'OT\Q^CfV\ 2018:
Daniel J. Macke, Esq,
Attorney for Petitioners3777 The American Rd. NW, Suite 100Albuquerque, NM 87114Tel: (505)292-9677danf%brownlawnm.com
H. Ste^n M^P^Y. Esq.SheUi^A\P^tschebk, Esq.Attombty for Respondents
17
NAOF THE SJ
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGEwp^a^ ^i
J^f\. 'Z
•- U!- ^r-^^PVffY,
rf /(^l
-/-i?^'""-.
^^y?^^_IVIagistrate Court Judge,San Juan County Masistrate
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO VERIFIED PETITION FORMMEDIATE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY
Respondent, Honorable Connie Lee Johnston, by and through her attorney
of record Law Office of E. Justin Pennington, responds to the Commission's
Verified Petition for Immediate Temporary Suspension Without Pay as follows:
ieeine Reponses to the Allegations of the Petition-
)oadent sdmits to thejurisdictioa of the Court as set fortls in
paragraph 1 of the petition.
2. Respondent admits that she is a Magistrate Court Judge sitting in San
Juan ComMy:, New Mexico as set forth m parag^apis 2 oftiie petitioo.
3. RespQgident admits that the CommissioB alleges she c©mmtted acts
c©0s£s£NxE^ wiUfbl miseoaduct m officei, demossstrates a Mbifualy mtempeifate
de3DaissM©r» snd flack the cfesracteT aEad iitgie
!te KssmnAistt d^As fc' 8llssafa[23 offe- C'o^si^ssi^ ?Es ££t fatli ia ^sirasxaA
3ofiiss-cet!&323.
imnan-vk \ ^
4. Respondent admits that the Commission has issued Notice of
Preliminary Investigation, a copy of which is attached as "Exhibit A" to the
petition. Respondent affinnatlvely asserts that she has responded to the Notice of
I
-Preliminary Investigation and has denied-the allegations as more specifically set
forth below.
A. Respondent generally admits that on or about December 1 ,
2015 she made a statement to New Mexico State Police Sergeant James Rempe
that she believed someone "might go to jail" that morning but denies that she had a
premedlfated Intent to have anyone arrested.I
B. Respondent generally admits that on December 1,2015 she
Ordered Amy Verhulst out of her courtroom and later held Ms. Verhulst in
contempt when she failed to comply with the court's ([lirective, after allowmg her
I .. _ . '.
reasonable opportomty to comply and after warning l^er of the consequences of her
failure to leaf denies that Ms. Verhulst was embarFassed OF
humiliated and deoies that the presence of Ms. Yerhulst in Respondent s
conitroom was for tM arformmg; iudicial duties- Respondesit denies
ist Presiding Judge Barry SliaEer aeted iQ good faith in dlrecSiBg Ms. YerSmlst
remMi rderfs coiMtroom, after
RgspomdeBt geiLeiailly se mt bn December 1,2M5 she
Id] Am j '¥eitesUs£ isa ce.j3£esQpt ofcQ^iist,, seMeisced i^~ tdi ^lAy da^fs iri jail, set
lh'<~^rl r-ft'^1 J?^..^^ cs^th r-^lh? srd c.rde-rsd ther 1-^ Tne ^-^-.^ed^lel^ ssrrestredi.iL'-^li^-m <™^ k^U. ^'L^'^'^hV^/^ ^<w-^^iLi^ ^.^J-LLtJ^ C^.L<-'- ^^iLJ^^^.jl'w,riL^ ^LJ*"lL lc^? L^\^ i\J^.',i>'.! . ^-^^C-w.^-wILJ^ C^J-Lii^.h^.'^^^^—
Respondent denies that her actions m holding Ms. Verhulst were improper, willful
or malicious, that Ms. Verhulst was performing legitimate courtroom duties at the
time she was held in contempt, and that she failed 1;o give Ms. Verhulst an adequate
opportunity to defend or explain her conducts—-
D. Respondent denies the specific allegations of subparagraph D
of the petition.
E. Respondent generally admits that on November 23, 2015 she
engaged in a conversation with Judge Sharer intended to promote coilegiality
bbtween the two judges, but that Judge Sharer refused to speak with her on the
grounds he feared their conversation would be recorded. In response, Respondent
suggested that Sharer could search her person for recording devices. Respondent
enies that she revealed her undergarments or that sexual harassment occurred by
I,er actions. Respondent has msufEcieat knowledge to respond to tlie basis for
Judge Sharer's actioas asid therefore denies the allegations of the petition in that
res
F. n.aent g' OH ser
:dge SIiarer s acfcas as Ina|?pffopEiate
ssagpsd to Ii's'iaiss fa^r asid fbffee ^.er resiggsaiti^B- rteradIisiMts
:!batshsl^1^.caG^s^^GQM^€^^23^2m5^^^€ccB]M^^.sM
^1^=L-—,'i.-'^sl^lLiLL
7.T 'c?T--'ifff' i^Tf3' f-'f-i'T]l;"i?(Tll T'"'~;*'ff' ';'~if:i~~'s^'yt"\ ^"•f^l" VT'f^'^'^'^ ^'T7"""'^'"'' '?i~'l r'°Tl) ''!jT:FT'E?1'r;/'*i'<hcs -H^?.c?ST!fl<Lil'L.^U- i^-LiB-S L*!LJ;LiULEUl -ll-l.UfL l'-2Cr*i_^'L'Jll^Lul B-iK'li i!iL.U^fL.;l'..3^- Ui—imC^L) ^^-iL (/.-iLl (.L'—^.L^i'L.'t—ti.^,; J^^.'^-i.^-.i'iL
Respondent first attempted to discuss her concerns with Judge Sharer but he
refused to speak with Respondent as described in subparagraph E, above.
Respondent also admits that Judge Sharer later called her at home and requested
that she return to the bench,buUhat she declined to do so after speaking with her
doctor. Respondent admits that Judge Chase was not present on November 23,
2015 when Respondent left the courthouse, but denies that she had knowledge of
Judge Sharer's medical appointment. Respondent admits that she provided a note
from her medical provider asking that she be excused from her duties for the
peirlod of November 23 through November 29, 2015 for medical reasons.
G. Respondent admits that the kno\yn complaints filed against her
with the Judicial Standards Commission are unfounded and when asked by the
Farmington Daily Times reporter sh^ said so. Respondent denies that her
istatements to the Farmingfoa Daily ^imes reporter breached any rule of
confidentiality cited by the petition^
la addition to the specific admissions and denials set foith abave^
RespoEident denies any aad all otlier facteal allegations, coEiclusionSy or inferences
set forth ia sfabparag^pli 4 of the petitioB.
^SSSQISfS-CS^ EldlEBtS tO tJl© £€.%rSSSSt£'tioB ISQ.S.^Q MI I3Q^2;IS^sSR ^ ©ftls^\lt^ 'wr~~'^^^ ^ UL^A.--*^J -U-^.^^-^-t-c^-^^^'-1*^-^^-^-"-^^. -^^^—u^ .- li^a*^C^ if
^et&si tet choles l&sf Pe^tlc^ei^s i-eQ^est is sipimrcTOate ©F ^a^ss^edl^Ji Ji n \
4
7. Respondent admits that Petitioner's Certificate to this Court is
attached as {"Exhibit B" to the petition and otherwise admits to the representations
made in paragraph 7 of the petition.i i
8. Respondent admits that a list of exhibits is attached as "Exhibit C" to
the petition as described, except that "Exhibit 9" was not attached
b. Respondent's version of events leading to this petition.
In further response to this petition. Respondent requests the intervention of
this Court in addressing workplace issues occurrmg in the Aztec Magistrate Court.
In a nutshell. Respondent asserts that she has been unreasonably harassed by theI ~ I
two other judges sitting in that court with the cooperation of the court administrator
in a concerted effort to force her resignation or removal. Respondent's actions, as
partlaUy described in the Commission's petition, are m response to this concerted
effort. Because the AdmimstratiYe Office of the Court (AOC) has not :
Judge Johnston's request for assistance,, but latlier appears to have imwitfingly
OEidance and assistance of this Coait-
By way Qfbacfeg^omid, Jadge Jolinstosi Is a new Judge ia tier &st tesm.
she was ongin;
lomrerloneauy;, siie BS a cer£Hag€H fla'w
c-nderMe^7 Mexico las^ is Eeensed to cosiceaied eai^y- A^er ecsaple&g tire
I
^-lT»f-^-/-^F^-t^<nu^7rT[ TT 'n~t/~^7lf~l'~flfT\ \\ ^~17i?"-'?tJW^'!^—^r^r [i'"t^/^^/~~^'^. |!/—L-LLy^*'-'i^-S/,w?="vl ~'~^~>?/~-VT''<~^C';/rt1 E<*^.'^u^1 rn ^'~:~^~i -"Tt/^"'' "^ /~^f^ H^^'f—tf'f^"^r7^1*[""O^TT ^'C'^S£€r7DKT|^jj^QiS.1ic;3il V.I'^.'SJSsD'^ JJi^.-'-J^p JJL/;m3SIlS3IIii £OCil^t;U JCB" c:-ujlfJj-!i;A<_>_J ^U U.c^^M.liLLE^ <2
L--_;r..-'.___,
good judge and promoting the operation of the court she served. In the process, she
discovered that the cash bond procedure implemented by the Aztec Magistrate
Court lacked proper controls and could be subject to mismanagement Including
possible embezzlement.-She reported her concerns to the other judges-as^vell as -
the Court Administrator, Lori Procter. She also discussed her concerns regarding
sentencing improprieties incorporated into the procedures of the court. In response
to Judge Johnston's concerns, her colleagues labeled her an alamiist and rejected
her suggestions. After these complaints her fellow Judges and the clerk's office
engaged in a specific articulated plan' to force her resignation or removal through
complaint to the AOC and the Commission. The petition before this court is part of
the plan to have Judge Johnston removed.
As with all conspiracies, the target is labeled as unstable, paranoid, or linfit
Here, Respondent will tendesj as evidence to the Court recordings ofcQnversati|ons
occurring betweea presidmg Judge Shares Judge Trudy Ctee and the COUF&
Admmistrator discussms a specific plan to use
force her resI^natioB. More si sos fo use
CeiSBBMssioa conspiaint process smd AOC sapei^isioB t® create a IiostiSe
"emcroioimeiot tc leaf have been recorded by Respd
alSegg&sss oftiie CoHismssiahs pe€ti©ss are in feet preHriifiAd aeAias
'•^TWC'^y^ss:^ ^'fflff ^'p'™ 'Ga:1!?i'";T~_7 ^'"^C"'-?'''? ftn> <;71T'7'\'S''^'^*if- ^?eES" F.?^?.'m,''&'f^1i ?^l!-'i/;clh} !",'"F'^r:^Vi^(si~^ yr~~fi'l€7^^U'j;.^iL±^LL'^ii^^\^<^1- <_^V/ i;^J^[ii ij^jLii.^ \t~3!y 11 ^^^"^.-L? ^L^J> LT-<Ur^_j^L^~il 5/ lL:l£;'lL ^.'^ILiiJL^T?7/'-^uiu l^}Eid-^iLy. s-Lf''^^'ll-l'l-~riC^-lLC^iiv- ^-^ C-'LrtiLL^L^Ji^i^
6
should not be a basis for Respondent's suspension, but should be condemned by
the Court.
The conflict between Judge Johnston and her fellow judges has been!
ongoing for months.-The very narrow picture presented by the Commission's
petition is just a part of, but do not adequately describe the conflict. In fact. Judge
Johnstoifs request for a courtroom clerk to assist her in her courtroom duties had
been historically ignored by Judge Sharer and Ms. Proctor. However, on
November 19,2015, Judge Sharer directed that two clerks be assigned to Judge
Johnston's couhroom — one seated at the usual clerk^s station to perfonn Judicial
duties, and the|other seated directly behind Judge Johnston to literally look over
her shoulder and report to Judge Sharer. Judge Johnsfon found the assignment of
two clerks to be a waste olf judicial resource but more importantly, found th!
seating arrangement direqted by Judge Sharer to distract her from herjudic^a:
duties. She directed her concerns to Judge Sharer wlio informed her that tfae two
c!erk assignment was for tiie express •& "• "•"&'
SMS^UQSS Ql y J—U' ^ *<'y
Slsarer- This conversation lead to the
E,e Jdbnsfosfs reddest that tlie seconel.
so. .mmszoiTs coEicenss. memtsiely. Juelge ^is^er irelil
scciiAg her afrecoTdlfngitSi^ir ca:i5T^e£'S£feo« TSiiis cosiTersa^iQa is parfia'Il^
"T'^T'—^^i ^7 ^1-ff' ftinr-r^:i'-"::<-"h'?% 7';e-?f^^;TE. ^-^-'^-^.'-^ ' H-*-^L^1 ii2/ "// 1- ;1 -t—V 't^^^j')._^_,t -' j- IL^.^'I.'.H-Y ^1:11 L.i> ^^^.^ ilil.'.'.'^^T-1
7
Judge Johnston was disturbed by Judge Sharer's actions and found that she
could not concentrate on her dbties. Rather than attempting to perform important
judicial functions while distracted, she instead sought a leave of absence. She also
sought medical attention resultmg in the doctor's note recommending her excusal
from work. In addition. Judge Johnston sought advice from her appointed judge
mentor, retired Magistrate Judge Steve Jones and from an attorney advisor. Judge
Johnsfon was advised that conditions causing distraction from her duties as judge
should be addressed by removing the distraction £rom the courtroom. She was
farther advised that she alone controlled her courtroom and that the power of
contempt was allowed to judges to assure control over courtroom proceedings.
On her return to work on December 1, 201 5, Judge Johnston was
confronted by three N^w Mexico State Police Officers invited by Judge |Sharer to
sn Johns^on's courtroom. As previously rioted, Judge John^foa like
other judges m Saa Juan County is licensed to conceal cany a firearm. On her
amval she was confronted by Judge Sharer and the three New Mexico State Police
officers with an order directing Iier to store her fiireann at toae. Several other
eoBicealed cany licesss.ees preseat at file Aztec Magistrate COBEI QH that date were
s@ Sstoer'
SfairerTs order, Isyt a^isa
xtes6oa complied wsl
®f two clei^s t® Sier
Gf^SSTt^T'C'^TH^ ?T!rs^I cin£e*iif:ic*c.*i1v ^Gi¥S?;^d JlLT^!^^ ^^^'SIT t^!git tlh'S ?r@23il^-o> ?=^'3i>^dlGTt£FJti-^tl—'-^ ii^l-^'tw.''!^''iL^^\*L/^iLli tr/ i^^^—y-T/^^-L^n^^-nci- ij/ ^i."-, "l-",r,.'^y k^ujj-^£-/A "^-2!. U^^fc-n^ fcLii-^'L,^/ v^ '•-^i. t^^^H -1-'4^'. '^—'-^ ^ '»-^^i ^ .•>T^'^^ Ai^' ^+-w. ^— 1
s;d1ensd Ibj biz^ dli£tected te: S'CDSI farj^drcisl cbtSes., J^d^ Shsrsr' was
unresponsive and unbending to her concerns. Judge Johnston advised Sharer that
she could order the clerk out of the courtroom if she found the clerk's presence
distracting. Again, Judge Sharer was unresponsive and unbehding. Judge JohnstonI ;
then told Judge Sharer-that she could utilize the power of contempt to remove
distractions from her courtroom. Judge Sharer was unresponslve and unbending.
Over the course of the morning, Judge Johnston twice told the clerk assigned to sit
behind her that her presence was distracting and asked her to leave the courtroom.
The clerk complied with Judge Johnston's request and proceedings in the court
were not affected. However, this second superfluous clerk would return on order of
Judge Sharer after a short absence. Judge Johnston took recess arid again discussed
her concerns with Judge Sharer. Judge Johnston asked Judge Sharer to not order
she wouldthe second clerk info her courtroom apaln and told Judge Sharer tfaat
old the clerk in contempt if she found her presence distractmg. Not^ithstaadin
Judge JobnstonTs request Judge Sharer ordered the cEerk back iato the courtroom,
a^d directed her to ignore Judge JOJMBSSOH^S orders. 'Judge Sharer then stood by in
Judge Joiiaston^s cosurti-oomto eiaforce r- Judge
foiri her piesence to fee ^latectmg and asfced tier to lea^e- Slie repeated JEer
ifske irefted ti'ie dlicecAe t® lea^e,
Jofasfem toihi contem^ Ap^^eEiSfy ^ EQ^S ^ea^-^^d pl^ Ms-
VeAi^ ir^i cc'^xissl ci3 st^rdb^ s^d ti'e IFtecirjagtteus D^ty Tidies rspCd^er ws
summoned to the courtroom to report on the controversy. Hearing was
immediately held on the contempt order where Ms. Verhulst was represented by
counsel, Mr. Steve Murphy. She was allowed an opportunity to purge the
contempLJMs. Verhulst refused. The order of contempt was entered by Judge
Johnston. Again, by apparent design this Court immediately vacated Judge
Johnston's Order and placed her on leave. Ms. Verhulst was never jailed, nor was
she required to post bond. However Judge Sharer's plan to discredit to Judge
Johnston were supported by this Court, the AOC, and the Commission.
Obviously, the conflict between Judge Johnston and her fellow judgesf
cannot be ignored by this courfcj In that regard, the Commission's petition Is
welcomed. However, to suggest that judge Johnston is solely responsible for the
dysfunction present in the Aztec Magistrate Court is not only unfair, but is untrue.
A proper course for this court would be to order the Judicial Standards
CoromissiQn to undertake an investigation not li£oited to fee allegations of the
current p€titioDs-BM to'faHy investigate the circumst^Bces present wlthia the Azfec
Magistrate Ccmrt, IsicEuding the concerns of Judge Joimstcn. Judge Johnstosi siiould
not
KB OH
m¥es£igali©Es sss-d appropnate actioa should be
is fhllv lofbmie'd ofaEfl circHEssstaaces^
'WE-IEffiFORlL Respondeiat ffes^€£tfeBlT Eeeiisre&ts tot fhi^ c©rj2t vacate its
OlTcltelT QTJ^BHM'ZT & 2016> @T21IQit!m^ ^Ise i^Biisie^ia^s tsiHiscsrsiT^ s^sscseEsicia ©f^ ^2> ^--u--•..—- -.».T^^«»=^ « ^._^_gf <^^ "'^J/ "•^r s
IHteor^N'e Ccz^ib Lee Jefaslc^i Erd ^ss^is Jo^s^ Jsfastei to ter' Fosifxsi a^i ^s
court. Judge Johnston should be reimbursed for all pay lost. Finally, the Court
should order the Commission to undertake a complete investigation of the
circumstances described in the Commission's petition, as well as Respondent's
I
-response-to that petition. The Court should order-appropriate action after an
investigation is completed. Respondent should be reimbursed her costs and
attomey?s fees for responding to this petition.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OFE. JUST(N PimWNGTON'•^—yE. J^fSTll? P^^NGTON11^30 M<Si^LBlvd/NE, Suite 1 11AP.G^Box:Albuquerque, New Mexico 87181
hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fcqI USPS malLto: .._.____. ---_- .—..- --.--.-
soios was served via fax and
)ICEAL STANDARDS COMISSION
Pliyllis A. Domingn&z
AltoqpeirqKe^ NM 87125-F: (505) 222-9353
©a flbis 26 'day ofjMjasj,
-^-1-// . ,A ^~^ ^'.~^~~^_ ..
J^£^2^^S:S3T233^£^C3\^ ~' y
II
-^%^.M3?3?09^^W ' ^'
] am 0-cnj^e Jobns^cn, ^sdg'mg mymnscsncs an?3^•Jenn^ reassurance s^at^ndernsmh the events of)sesmbsr 1,20^ ites s raallslous plan So hnpede ^e
y&tsrs 6'? S:h®1r voie^ with m^ rsmQYsi froTn office^Contrary to wiiat some have hsardi this involves muchmos-e thaR holding a d®r^ an esnt^mp? or the fa^riest©cistory ©f l"by$igm§^ cvanf ioca^on sn She couit,
The Consthu^on of She Un^e<3 Ststss snd ^tsts sffiewNexfeo awas v^rlr^n to pre^st y$u from -the goverDmsntIt wss nsvsr desi^nsd ^o protect ihs govms?nsnt fro?to people. Nor did I give rn^ oafh'Whe governmsn!. 5gave my Qa-Ih to prc^sof^OUj ^h& giso^is andthsConstHu^on. Forstsnding sgainsS the system^ S hsvepaid ^15 ipnce with my ^uspsnslon, being maims^ by th$^i'£ss and havlnsi my families ?same destroyed* ^ sm not^qyes^ng your sympaih^ byt5 am asking you io putactions behind yw frustrations an^ ibecomc snvolvsd,
You, -the people should demsn^ transparency from your^overnm^nt sn^l Esnow tha^ it b not only your r3gh?, Eoytyeu?" obligation to be awsre o? ^heli' actions.
Govsrnmer^ was never fssNonsd to operate in sscr^cy^ftd you should never $feept wor^s like, ^transpareft^without testing ^h© system- To those who have recentlythought orsaid, "oh s^isis so scrswsd", think sboutwhst you ars saying. You ars giving the govsmment
accoumabliity. Instead of saying, she is so screwsd, youshould be asking what is on ihoss rscordangs thst ismaking others 9GtSo ex^rsmes ^o sn^imlda^e, ill® fslssclaims, asl( ^or mj? resignation ©n the ?ii@N!y new^, hsckinto our bank recArds, attempt to unJawfuHy access thisFaceteoo^ ps@e, plus clhers. As ! waich t^e nightiy newsand fsel ^h^mscl, I remind tnyseif <hat I ijshouid be proudto b3V&_a6e^nsQstiQwyiS6W^n6 myr^sTgnaSion sndfeat st is veriftcstwn to you tha^ t was doing my job andnot taking p^irS in-the status ^u$<
The court is a, PUBUG eoVE^N^ENT, worl<pisce* Do no^aHow anyone to "spin" ths Gonstitu^on Jnio a protectionaffsrde^ to Shs govsrni^ersS. The 4ih s^&ndmsnt is togsrotsct the people, not ths govemmsnt,' glvmg thepeople the right to be secure Tn their person, houses,ipapers, and effects, sgamst ynressonsble searches §n^ssTzt^sbsrthe governmsnt
in ?nyo?Jjcs^ I r-^er^sd e&yri ernploysss pHfering - 'trough ss^i'sonah'ismsan^ifVsstoN by the-- - •-• -•- -
Adrnmis-u-slivs om^ of Shs Couns sha^ S did no^ hsvs §r^li to privacy In a g&vsr^rr^nt workpisee. Thsn, ivh^riofnsrs bscome worried that iap^s n-^ht exist eiipo^ng•Ihem^ ihsyshou-Z that crbnss bsvs bssn commh'Isd end
dsmand to be callsd victims. Corns o« p&spis, wa&s tjpsntfs^op acting Biks shsep bsmg Is^tg ^hs siayghtersg^ou naMy give up ^our fresdoms^ you @j'6 ^Inldng^sehwsrd^ ^ is the people's rsspGnsibiJriy So hsk3 thsgoyer^msnt accountable, wtisn and Ifths^ is aEuspScion that £K3y3rnmens has fcrsschsd s^sir ro3s,
either srsyss^ ?ny husband w sister havs ©ommi^edany criTnes snd !iks rriyseif, you shculd be outraged Shsyhave drug rny far/uiy m&mlssrs into this, My sister ssresponsible for every pisc® of svidsnco commg in-lo theShsfi-^s Office snti shs has more Intesrity tthan aIJ of ourseeusers put together. Th® Shsrtf? ss fyiiy swsre of ^helevel of honesty and accountabHity that our parentmstiM m ys. Based Oi^the willangnsss £o do ?hs fia^thing, mysmcsre Sj-atitude goss to ihs Sherif? end hisst£f? for taking a stand against ths a^empts to have mysister disciplined or firee3 ^hsn she has done nothingwrong.
Anyone knowing fcie wi^ account that I would be the firstio admH mistaken and ask forforsavsnsss. This isnothing abouS protecting myself ©rrsy famHy and! canpsromise ^ou ^hs'i ? have gsevsr projected snyo7it©,including fa^ii^ tiismbsrs ?or any uniawfui act. Theerosion of our vsiues as not limited to this county, fouthas spread !He6 a carlcer throughoirt our entirs country,No one esn f^ht this 53a? sione, Ibat through prayer,rs^sntance ^nd ^skfng The lor^ to use us, w@ can havet^eacs whlie y/e fStrap On oyr armor.
In myosss, I am convin&ed the try^h wiit be ®xpose^,J?_not f:?$foi's$ I am ssNorde^ a right to dsfend myss'i^ ii w]t)certamly come ^n th® vjttnsss sSand when shose w}iohsvs imsde falg^ sceysaUons are under <?sth amifoecauss I was for£ed to prfitect myself i?yh6n othsrs
Mow ts the tame to s^artd up. If you sgres, I ask you ?& liketh?& pag^, share h with ethsrs an^ ask them to like !t. Weare ctoss -to a thousand Hkes and with your suppon wscan double ^ha^ number an<3 show ^hat we standtogether for iptsgnty*
Conmejphnston
Top Ccfranenls
Write a comment..
gg-?3 Connie Jotmsfam Conlinuing {rom The Daily Times artide; "She farther claimed^SSl in a supreme court (Hins on Jan 27 that she was targeted by staff after
compiairing Shat the Aziec Magislrate Court's ca^i bond procedure v/asmismanaged and ripe for a&use. She also claims she raised concerns aboutunspeciliad sentencing imp ropris ties."
My response: is it fronicttiatftvowesks before my suspension,! again raporledsuspicions of possible embezzlement occuningfrom our courihouaa? Anexample of what! am fishtlng can be found by putSng pieces of the puzzielogelher. Betow is an wcefpt taken from Judgs Sharer's verified slatementtoJudicial Standards ifying to "justiy my suspension. Judge Sharerwrola, "/Uso,on Wednesday as Lori, Georgia and I were leawng the building, tori checked herceii phons and had a messags from the (iirector of Iha San Juan CountyDetention Center, Tom Havel. Have! said he had Iieen [nformed Judge Johnslonhad called the jail Wednesday morning and was aitempBng (o set bondfnfomialion. I cai!ed Havel bacSt? but only fecetKad his vmcamall, ! ieH a messagefcr him local! me back. Havel called me back at gpproximalely 5:00 pm. He {oldme JudgaJohnston had called the desk swgeant earlier on Wednesday askingfor tnfomiation on cash bonds for tha Aztec Magislfate Court. HB said Uiesergeant contacted the lieutenant vAo in turn contacted him. Have! said he totdthe lieutenanl, Judge JiAnslon was suspended and not !o give berthsinformatiof). He said he toid the lieutenant to refsr any calls from Judge Johnslonto him. He also said Johnston had not cailad back. ! ashed Havel to contact me ifthere v/ere any further calls orifjohnston went to the Jai! for infbmiaiion.*1st response is from ihe 5th aenienca down; Lori (the court managef) checited
her cell phone and had a message from ihsjai! director...*. Question, why wouldthe Jail director call Iha court managar on here^tl phone la report, "JudgeJohnsiod had ca!!ed the Jail ...aEKlv/asa{l8mplmgtogeiboi)dinfop(natIon".
2nd response, from Judge Sharefs siatement, 'Havel ca!led me faadt at 5pm*.Tlie court doses at 4, so is Haycl nov/ communicaling Vfllh Judge Sharerort his
ceil phone, j3rd response? "Havsl (old the lieutenant, Judse Johfiston is puspsnded and not togive her the information*, !wi
•:^om1e ;}.cmns"[on
PJIesEo 'KCtXS
Tims'Sine About Friends 1 v-jsm's Photos More
Intro
Studied aiSaii Juan Colls-ja
lives inA.ztec.MiwMfS'w
iMame<I
FromFarmriSfsn, Hew Mexico
Photos
Friends - 535 (-) Mutual:!
£r.(i;isti (US; Pmgc/ - T.inns • Ccoi'ie? - AA^.fic.ng •
Ad Ctw:i& • Miif--?.tre-A<*?..]1?>
a^ Cotitiiig J&hnstonS3^E3 ^ t-rs •
At v/ofk, you Anov/-that someone Is going yirough personaNteras in youroffice, -wltaE 60 you do? ThatwaBlhe'sceRSrio occurring in jny office at thecourt and regardless of what^s being said, (understand privacy.
With my law enforcement background, } knew what needed tolse done. ipiaced too-hidrfen cameras IN MY OFFICE at the Aztec Magistrate Court.TheVMeos reyeaied our<ourt maRsger and a fe'// ofttie clerks coming ••into fflyoffice iooking through personal Items. TJiere were not just a few occurrences,but a daily routine of coming In before and after woris, even whtfe I was on ?ebench.
So, now what do you do? 1 can say i still had faith in the system, so I reportedmy compfaint to She Magistrate Court Division Director artd [he DirectorofHuman Resources. They watched the ^ideos and agreed the deriCs behaviorwas inappropriats. Then added, regardless how it looked, the cierks had (tonenothing v/rang. Citing Supreme Court case, Oconnor v. Ortega, I v/as toldthere is no right to privacy in a government office. They ssid if would bediscussed vflth the court manager and nothing e!se. Then ne8f!y.a monthlater, during a video conference vAQ) AOC (AdmtniStrative ORice of theCourts), Bie subjeclofvideoinglcams up and AOC advised that the buildingwas already being monitored. !
In conclusion, one issue t have ,continuai!y battled are the fabricaiions andexaggerations coming from oufiCourt and this subject is no different. Contraryto the Daily Times arfide, 1 had [no need to, nor did I record batiirooms,phones or priviteged communications between attorney's and defendants. Theattempis s&ms make to mislead you is ehamefuf and euen more unfortunate 0the facie cf verificatfon/accountability with The Daih/ Times.
There comes a time when each of us must stand up for vAatIs right, if this )syou, ptease share and like our page at Johnston 4 Judge.
Thanfc you.Connie Johnston
Liito
S4
Corn m ant S'rtare
Tap Cammsnts
13 shares
'Ac.te acc'mmeni .
^K Rena Pttcfiford Spglibring ! (ton't Ihink anyone reatly believes The Oaity Times^ at this point and [feel VERY uncomfortable kn awing random pMple can go
through s judges pa rsonat items. Tfial just may account forpeopfe knowing ihingsthsy should NOT know in cases. tE custody batttes, drunk driving cases etc elc..prayers your way
U!>y • Reply 1 he
its 07 Wo rrs 111! is n]C,a So get your side of the sfary, Connie Hanginfiwrs.
^^ Llto - Ropj/ • 45 nuns
'L~"?3 Ccnnw -Joiiiiston updaSsd her pw?R!e pie^re.•-.:^.^i FsfciyaryU3tS:32F.'r.-
bttps://v\T\vw.facebook.conVconnie.johnston.982?fref=£s
^^i%^l^'tB^^liM?^:®^
.JJ^Tl^i:
^^"^TA^.^J. £
^:~2
^s-. .,-^s^^
s^§
•̂•^SM
s^r Jyslgl^fesyN I T
t W^i^fc..;
?e C?^%Uli^
>i^^nyi:s'^pi^ ^ ^^s^^^^Siii-isSsSiSiS' . .- .. ^ — — —i^a
m 'sy^s ^'V^^^y ^ ^-:1^ ^^ - €-'
Nt "teisgt'31 Jn
mf^ipriffe'gi^ ar®ip ppi^-pB^ ^9ia!r^E
:rri! g3(^il^i (?£?*'TI3~?T>laW=VT*-n;B KTT^~C*3 '^'Vt-. ^S^.-^'V^[ I"l ^'tf'^n^EI'BIT'IIIIMri I§i'H'jyLSi ^^i
2 U^p^- ^ CC'P-"-i^r|:, 1 -^^•^^
•f^•:.x^'
^^^^:
^ 1st A'lonth Free
SUBSCRIBE TODAY(HTTP://OJ:FERS.DA1LY-
TiMES.COM/SPEClALOFFER?GPS-SOURCE=BENBMAR&UTM_MED]UM=NANOBAR&UTM^SOURCE=EOUNCE-EXCHANGE&UTM_CAMPA1GN=WELOVE2018)
SPONSORED BY CHILDREN INTERNATIONAL f//EB2.3LIFT.COM/PASS?TL_CL!CKTHROUGH=TRUE&REDIR=HTTPS%3A%2F%2FAD.DOUBLECL1CK.NE
ijp-O/.'5 A OA ^ ^O/. ^is7o'a3Myo^^yoj
SEE MORE (//EB2.3LIFT.COM/PASS?TL CLiCKTHROUGH=TRUE&nEDIR=HTrPS%3A%2F%2FAD.DOUBLECLICK.NET%2FC
,(//eb2.3IJft.com/pass?
tl_clickthrough=tme&redii-https%3A%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fddm%2Ftrackclk%2FN7384.1264338TRIPLEUFTINC3%2FB20578400.21372
Steve Garrison, [email protected] PiibSished 6:53 p.m. MT Dec, 1, 20i5 | Updated 8:20 p,m. MT Dec. 1, 2015
(Photo: Courtesy of Connie
Johnston)
FARMINGTON — Aztec Magistrate Court Judge Connie Johnston was suspended Tuesday by the New Mexico
Supreme Court after ^he ordered a court clerk be jailed for contempt.
Barry Massey, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts, said state Supreme Court Chief Justice
Barbara J. VigEi suspended Johnston pending an investigation by the New Mexico Judicial Standards
Commission.
Johnston ordered that court cierk Amy Verholst be heid in crimina! contempt and jailed for 30 days because she
refused to ieave Johnston's courtroom on Tuesday morning, according to the order of contempt.
Massey said the clerk was in the courtroom to fulfill her job duties, as directed by presiding Magistrate Judge
Barry Sharer. The contempt order was reversed by the New Mexico Supreme Court, Vigil said in a letter sent to
Johnston on Tuesday that her suspension was "En the best interest of the administration of justice in San Juan
County."
Johnston said Tuesday evening that magistrate court clerks have previously harassed her by fiiing frivolous complaints with both the AOC and the
Judicial Standards Commission, and a!S of those complaints have been unfounded.
"This is not something that just started," Johnston said. "It's sorr^ething that has been going on for 10 months. It escaiated into this, unfortur^ateiy."
Johnston said she believed she was being targeted for harassment because she refused to order inappropriate sentences and v/as a witness to ruie
violations at the courthouse. i: -""^
She declined to elaborate on those aISegations.
V£f;".c.!st'3 attornsy, Stsve Murphy, prov;d£c; The Daily Time$ Jchnston's crder cf ccntempt.
|~" iBXHisrrC3
\\I}
@
Murphy said Tuesday thst Johnston hsd vsrbGHy thrsatsned a court de:!< at the Aztsc Magistrate CGLTL End e:(h;;st9d cihsr bizsrre be^.svior. For their
safsty, Murphy said, the clsrks insisted on v/crking with Johnston in pairs. Murphy said the AOC authorized the clerks v/orklng in pairs.
Vemoist refused to lesvs'the courtroom on Tuesday becsuse she did hot want to ieave the other cisrk'alone, according to'Murphy; and Johhsfoh'ordered
, a'stats poSice officer to arrest hsn
Murphy said he beiieved the dispute happened in open court. He said he intends to fiie his own compiasnt with the Judicial Standards Commission.
Johnston will continue to receive her full salary and benefits until further notice, according to Vigil's letter, but she is barred from carrying out any acts as a
magistrate judge.
Johnston is also barred from returning to the Aztec Magistrate Court without prior authorization from the Administrative Office of the Courts, the letter
states. - - -
Steve Garrison covers crime and courts for The Daily Times. He can be reached at 505-564-4644.
Supreme Court offf^ew MexicoChlIF JISTCE
URij?jij.va;i
?TKA ^WiS W^^fi:o-AR3 ^ rasscsBlV.f.f-Q L Cti^VE^
CHJOLES CT. Da.S;El.S
Conni; Joiinsloa
San Juan County Magistraii laSge2()OGo<LseUDrivu,!?IOOAz lee. New Mexico 87410
P.O.S&KtU$Ar(TAFE,f.EWMO;'CO
S7K.KB13
QiCenibct 1, 2013
DEUVERRDBYFAX
RE: rnnwdinte Suswnsion of Dulics n.i Mimi-iiriil!; Judee
(E^l B37-11
• CUE? ilS:
JCEf C. MOY^. E3ta fix SKI tmu
Dear Judge Johnslon;
As Chief Justice of the New Mi'xico Supreme Court and pwuan] to tlic aulhprily e"nlcd[0 nic by )hc New Me.tko Constilution Ariidc Vi, Section 3, and NMSA 197iS, Section 35-7.1(1997), I am suspendisg you from your dulies as a magisltale cuurt Judge in Sin Juan Cnunly.efieclivc immedinlety. This actionis in thi: best inlcrcsl oftIicniifninistriilionjofjiiiiliccinSan
Juan Couniy.
You wil! conlmue to icitive your full salnsy and benetiL'i unlil further solicc. You are no!to rapon for duly or carry ou! any ycis a'i n mngutmte judge, nor are you toalliadacy miiglstTalejudge me clings. Upon liccipt of this ictlir yGHaie toimmcdialtlyrcflioveyourpciEonaleEfcctsfiomihs premiiics, leluro your tifficc keys nEdsccuriljcard'iloPrcsJtIing Judge Sharcr, aiiddcparlftom Ihe San Juan County Magirtiatl: Courthoust;, YnuaTC n^l peimtltisd lortlura to thepcaniist! wilhout priur auihoriCTtion ficm llie Administrative Orficc[of!1ie Courts.
As long as you ate biiiiig compciuatid as a magistnu; judge, you must cnnlinue to nbidcby the provisicuu of Ihs Code ofjudidill CondutL
Read or Share this story: http://wv/w.daily-times.com/story/news/2015/12/01/magEstrate-judge-suspendecf-nm-supreme-court/76634754/
AT ADVANTAGE DODGE<^^w^COOOa-flAW-CmWM.BR-JEU^ftAI
2QTH&MAtNtKFARMtN6TON1-877 •394-SI6a
Aauinwf Dut>a.<au
oo&oe-ftAM - cHfiyw.En-jap •fiht
20TH & ?,WN !N FARMINGTON1-S77-39l-5Jfl3
AsvwiM.i Dat);'.?-i;cu
Steve Garrison, [email protected] Published 2:28 p.m. MT Dec. 25, 2015
(Photo: Courtesy of Connie
Johnston)
alone, according to Murphy.
FARMINGTON -(^^fnpy Pteve ?v^rp^y,,said .Vye^nesday he has filed a complaint againstAztec Magistrateonm .^Y{
Judge Connie Johi^ton with the New lyexfcd 3u"drcfarSTandards Commission.
.S.UBSCRIBEJODAYMurphy filed the corTj^^^o)y^^^^"^]\(ej'ho[st, the court clerk Johnston attempted to jail for contempt onDec. 1. T1MES.COM/SPECIALOFFER?GPS-
SOURCE=B£NBMAR&UTM_MED)UM=NANOBAR&UTM_SOURCE=BOUNCE-EXCHANGE&UTM-CAM^AIQN=WEIQVE2018). ..
Johnston ordered that Verhblsf Be'held in criminal contempt and'jailed for 30 days because she
leave Johnston's courtroom. The New Mexico Supreme Court immediately reversed Johnston's contempt order,
and state Suprenjie Court Chief Justice Barbara J. Vigil suspended Johnston pending an invpstigation.
Administrative Office of the Courts spokesman Barry Massey previously said Verholst was in the courtroom to
fuifiil her job duties, as directed by presiding Magistrate Judge Barry Sharer.
Murphy said Johnston had verbaiiy threatened a court clerk, and the clerks had permission to work in pairs
around Johnston. Verho!st refused to leave the courtroom because she did not want IQ leave the other clerk
Johnston said Wednesday she had received notice from the Judicial Standards Commission that a complaint had been fiied against her. She said she
has not retained an attorney, but she wiil respond to the allegations.
"1 hate that aSi this is happening," Johnston said. "But we wiii work through it."
Johnston previousiy said the clerks had harassed her through the filing of complaints.
Murphy said Wednesday he filed Verho!st's complaint with the commission on Dec.11.
Randy Royba!, executive director of the commission, said Tuesday the New Mexico Constitution prohibits him from discussing the complaint or even
acknowledging it had been fiied with the commission.
"1 could not speak to that at all," he said. "Everything \;ve do is confidential."
Murphy a!so said he could not discuss the specific aliegations made in the complaint, but daimed Johnston's decision to hold Vsrholst in contempt was
nota s3ur-of-ths-morr:2nt decision.
"Her sctions agsinst the court clerk v/ers premeditsted," Murphy said.
Roybs! ssid {he 13-rrierr.ber commission is einpov/i-rsc! by the state Cons^i;t;cn to investicsta cor-ip'sjnts ^^ain^t sls1;, cci:^ty 2nd ;7^;:"-?cipsl juc^es.
Royba! said the commission may conduct hearings or ho;a a friaj to hear e'/icencs of sl'egsd wronaG'oing.
-Jhe commission can thsn make a recornm&ndation to the stats Supreme Court on what action, if sny, to take regsrding the complaint, including the ~~ •
possible removal or retirement of the judge, sccording to Roybai. He said the commission does its best to review compiaints in a timsiy manner, but there
is no Simit to how long the investigation can take.
Artie Pepin, director of the Administrative Omce of the Courts, said in an email James Mosberger, has been appointsd a Judge pro tempore at the Aztec
Magistrate Court. Mosberger retired in June as magistrate judge at the Farmington Magistrate Court.
"AOC has also worked to have other active and retired Magistrates serving as Judges in the Aztec court," Pepin said En an email. "It remains a challenge
to provide adequate coverage by judges to keep up with the court's active caseload."
Steve Garrison covers crime and courts for The Dsily Times. He can be reached at 505-564-4644.
Read or Share this story: http:7/v/ww.daily-times.com/story/news/locai/aztec/2015/12/25/attorney-f!ies-compiaint-agalnst-aztec-judge/77884698/
^-^Ci^i '•^^=i '^ -^=fi- < ^^^-^•'-i^?-^;^'^1-''^ i'=}:£^^^.^^.^i^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^t^-^yi^
1stiV1on'3;h Free
SUBSCRIBE TODAY(H7TP://OFFERS.DAJLY-
T1MES.COM/SPECIALOFFER?GPS-SOURCE=BENEMAR&UTM_MEDIUM=NANOBAR&UTM^SOURCE=BOUNCE-EXCHANGE&UTM_CAMPA]GN=WELOVE2018)
Joshua Kcllogg, [email protected] Publisbed 6:00 p.m. MT March 22, 2017 | Updated 6:27 p.m. MT March 22, 2017
Connie Johnston calls court order incorrect, pledges to fight it
(Photo: Courtesy photo)
FARMiNGTON—A judge has ruled that suspended Aztec Magistrate Court Judge Connie Johnston violated a
court order by failing to provide all recordings and transcripts of private conversations captured in the Aztec
Magistrate Court building, and that Johnston deleted and/or altered those recordings.
Johnston said the order is incorrect, and she plans to fight it.
District Judge Sarah Backus signed the order on Monday that siso found Johnston in civil contempt.
The order directed the San Juan County District Attorney's Office to prosecute Johnston on a criminai
contempt-of-court charge. That charge was fiied Monday in district court.
The actions were part of a civil lawsuit fiied on_Feb. 26,,2016 (/story/news/crime/2016/02/29/coworkers-cla!m-a2te^-Judge-buQ^
in the Eleventh Judicial District Court. The !awsujt alleges that Johnston placed recording devices in several areas around tip courthouse, including the
staff restroom and judges' offices, according to court documents.
Johnston said in a telephone inten/iew today that she plans to file an appea! or a motion for the judge to reconsider the order. She aiso said she did not
delete any evidence that was stored in a D|'opbox foider.
Johnston a!!eged that the plaintiffs' attorney, Steve Murphy, or someone that used his account had deleted files from t^e Dropbox folder.
"The tapes are my defense," Johnston saicj , "Why would I delete them?"
Murphy, the attorney representing the 13 plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said Johnston's claim was faise.
Johnston shared access on Jan. 25 to a Dropbox folder that contained additionai materials, according to court documents. The faider was shared after
Murphy exchanged emails with Johnston's attorneys, stating all the evidence was not included in a hard drive Johnston gave to the court.
Murphy told The Daily Times in February some of the files were deleted a day iater, including several video files.
RELATED; Magistrate judge suspended by NM Supreme Court (/story/news/2015/12/01/magistrate-judge-suspended-nm-supreme-court/76634754/).
In an earlier interview today, he said it was good day for the piaintiffs in the lawsuit after the order was signed. Murphy added it was a sad day for the
judicia! system, expressing his disbelief that Johnston seemed to think she was above the faw.I
The order was the resuit of a March 3 evidentiary heamg (/storv/news/crime/2017/02/25/pjajnJiffs-claim-judQe-disobe\fed-court-order/98376164/)in Aztec
district court. ' '
included in the order w&rs sanctions against Johnston and othsrcisfendants jn the Iswsuit, including Johnston's sister and husband.
As part of the sanctions, specific aliggations in the iawsuit ars now to be treated as facts, according to court documents. It has been ru!ed a fact that
Jch^ston used a dsv:ce in the ccur;hous& bui!d;ng to listsn to and rscQrd CQnvsrsaticns cf the pisintiti's srid other people without thsi7 consent, and that
Vr.e record^ncs wers made b&rAf£'sn Aur:Lst 2014, '//her; she wss acocinted to the bench, and Decsrr.be!' 2015.
P.nLAT,ED;Magistfal3_court judge acc'-issd c?r"s conduct (/3ton//ne\vef'lQcgf/3Zlec/2016/02/12/m?.gistr373-cour-}udge-charged-hiah-cou^/8024175
'The'order also sistss it is fact that Jchnston transcribed ths recc/dings and intsntionally sltered and/or deleted rscordings." '
1>
The defendants are also not allowed to introduce evidence or testimony regarding the recordings, according to the sanctions.
The defendants were ordersd to pay the attorneys' fees and costs for the pEaintiffs that v/sre incurred between April 5, 2016, and March 3, 2017,
according to court documents.
A hearing is set for 9 a.m. on May 24 En district court for the misdemeanor contempt-of-court charge, if found guilty, Johnston could face a fine or jaif time,
according to court documents.
Johnston was suspended by the New Mexico Supreme Court on Dec.1,2015, for ordering a court clerk jailed for contempt. The New Mexico Judicial
Standards Commission is also investigating allegations that she has vioiated the state's Code of Judicial Conduct.
Johnston believes the information about the state Judicial Standards Commission investigation was leaked to try and force her to resign.
Joshua Kellogg covers crime, courts and social issues for The Daily Times. He can be reached at 505-564-4627.
Read or Share this story: http://ww\v.daily-fimes.com/story/news/cr!me/2017/03/22/suspended-j'udge-found-contempt-court/99508492/
District Court Rule 5-201 NMRA
STATE OF NEW MEXICOCOUNTY OF SAN JUANELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
V.
J'5;|?'^oMS7 X 2S ^ °- p9
No.^un^a^'iT?
NAME: JOHNSTON, CONNIE L.LKA: 626 CR 3000
Aztec,NM874lODOB: 08/23/1964SSN: 585-31-9853OLN: 033324618
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS
CRIME(S): Interference with communications (reading or copying a telegraph or telephonecommunication of another) (6 counts); Interference with communications (using apparatus or aiding
another tp violate act) (6 counfs); Governmental Conduct Act: Ethical principles of public service (1count).
The undersigned, u^der penalty of perjury, complains and says thafc on. about an^/or bet\veen
August, 2015. and the 30th day of October. 2015, in the County of San Juan, State of^ew Mexico,the above-named defendants) did:
alvvfbl authorityread, iBterRipt
3-legmph on-
•a message,'
consent of a sem
reci'
iscol ipl[oyee"s gowEramenE posi^iora ss a |
tol?£f@EB fs
sssd mtt t© ©fa.teiBEa p^soiCT^E isegiefflfls ®r pBFSiBEe ^ri^ate iatteiresSs-
.as a iimNfe ©fficer ^Etd eE3iNo>^es f^ed (r® c®£idiiEc6 faseifisa a EEiia'QiEieTr telt ?Ipsliace'gil iimi Brer feiy Ifee ^€®pBgn a£ affll fiisBEes imTjaiiiNafflcTtff
responsibilities of public service.
contraryto Sections(s) NMSA 1978, § 30-12-01(C) (a misdemeanor); NMSA[1978, § 30-12-01(E)(amisdemeanor); Governmental Conduct Act, § 10-16-3(A) (a misdemeanor); Governmental ConductAct, § 10-16-3(B)(amisdemeanor).
PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENTReferral:
In February of 2016, a referral was received by the New Mexico Attorney General's Office regarding
Judicial Misconduct at the San Juan County Magistrate Court. According to the referral notes, locallaw enforcement forwarded a Notice of Formal Proceedings by Judicial Standards Commission
(JSC) regarding conduct of a San Juan County Magistrate Judge for review by our office.
The JSC notice of formal proceeding was filed on February 3, 2016. The notice contains 15
counts against Judge Connie Johnston for violation of the NMRA Code of Judicial Conductconstituting wiUful misconduct in office. Johnston was suspended on December 3,2015, by theJSC. The documepts include an allegation of unauthorized recording of individuals in the Aztec
Magistrate Courthouse. i
Background:
Several Aztec Magistrate Court employees and Judges filed a lawsuit agamst Aztec |Magistrate Court
Judge Connie Lee John^ton, Brian Johnston, aad Michelle Constant. Attorney H) Sfevea Murphy
represents the Aztec Magistrate Court persoBnei iavolved in the lawsuit. As part of the lawsuit Mr.
Muiphy filed a motion fo preserve the evidence, recordmgs^ and transcriptioes ojirecordings from
spoiIatioB.
On April 19,2916, tlie District Cou?£ ordered Comiie Jolmstoa et al., to deliver to ffte Comt Clerk
"any and all reconimgs ofcQ^mismeatiQEisaj^tEaiKciipteGfFeeordmg^^f^^^^ wNcIiwere obtained withm the Az£ec Magistrate Co^sst BTiisIfcg-"
A hard dnve. ptErporfedIy cQQtaming te snateriais described m flse April 19, 20S6, Order was
delivered to tEie Coiurt- The. Isa^d ddve was fSicEB 6EEMed over to the PIsmfj^s OEL ©eeemtier 20,20S 6-
Accordmg to fc PE^iEiiSifts; M^Eis^Ei for Spoilatmns Sancfaos,, fc IraFd dave coBtaiBied ^6 iiEes wills
approximately 44 JIQEIES ofE'ecoirdmgs ssi<^ seva'aB tiraE'scCTpts c&fteeoNiCTgs- T&e Order slso sfaSes tBraS:after irewi&wmg tike eeimfteKt ®f£JEe liaEd drive at was c-legEiT Itiiiaift sfems w£?e BiMssJEag, edited,, asid^Oiir
altered. J©test©ia'°s CQuisEiseI was n®t£Eed SsS to ^LQ Emssms^ edife^ 3Et^/Q£" aiSfieEsd iffeEBea.
Slmmfflj tlkeireafein, ®EB ^edhgs&y, Jaimir'aEy 25^ 2©fl7, mdidii&inEril ffles WEE£ BiM& ^re-aiillable to Nr.
^m -^Box, TEse DiEiqpBox aicc^fisEtE CQiififiaiIsie^ 952 Mes. Ace©]ABg £® a sx£Efti@EB
subsequently filed by the Plaintiffs: "These items were not included in the sealed discovciy provided
to the Court, nor were they ever previously provided to the Plaintiffs." The motion also describes
missing video recordings; "For instance, Counsel for Defendant admitted to Plaintiffs? counsel thatthere were several video recordings taken within the Aztec Magistrate Court Building. See Exhibit 5.
These have not been provided to Plaintiffs."
On February 7,2017, Johnston sent another link to DropBox containing additional recordings thathad been-available on January 25, 2017, but were deleted from DropBox on January 26, 2017.
According to the Plaintiffs Motion for Spoilation Sanctions, Mr. Murphy still has not received all of
the files that had been deleted from the DropBox account.
A motion to show cause was filed by the Plaintiffs and a hearing was held on March 3, 2017. On
March 21, 2017, Judge Sarah Backus signed "ORDER AFTER MARCH 3, 2017 HEARING,FINDING OF CONTEMPT, AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTION." In the order Johnston wasfound to have violated the District Court Order of April 19, 2016. The Order also ordered criminal
contempt proceedings to commence forthwith.
The Order takes the following facts to be conclusively established for the civil case: That between
August 2014, and December 1, 2015, Johnston utilized an apparatus in the Aztec Magistrate Court
building for the purpose of listening to and recording the oral and telephone communications of the
Plaintiffs and other persons, without their consent; that she recorded telephone communications of
F; andfinally that she copied 'and transcribed the recordings of the telephone communications of the
Plaintiffs and others without the consent of the sender or intended recipient fhereof.
Investisation:
On February 14, 2pl7, a USB drive containing audio E-ecofdmg? and doc^meEit^fexf files was
received by the New Mexico Attorney General's Ofliee -&om S. SfeveH Murphy, the aftoniey fer fe
letter Mr. Myrphy notes that the files were
rsuant €o a District Coart discoveiy order-
Mi. MniEpSiyFeeeived fc tiles ¥Ja DropBox
^ongE?a
FeteaEy 7, 2017, slramsg ^ZacIi-Asidios."
prQdKcfess-^ Oia Feb™<My 1!2^ 2©17^ Mr. Mm(c©!Eiin!ic!J®!iiEt's1t®n^l;.?maaES-e0Bitfi) c^E^imBg a ii
.QE^-' ssiimiilcoEEn) ss®£ Emks QE& Sssmssj 25,2© 17 astd
Jaam.sy 25,, 2017^ e-maiB m>tes c1oE®st©o
a DropBox ISuEik from C©E?ic JcElmsteBa folder titled: "Cofflniie Jcfaistm MafteCTaiIls.''s
Aim e-iai'asl ihjiEEiJ9ii!ii?st@Hi''sa!Sfi®m;ey,.Z£SchasyR. CcMfsiasier;,, to S^Br. Mvs^^^^S3mmsj2.€y1W7y
sitaaSes;:
'"JS ES iw^ VGfKeSeysSQijiteSsi^ HksiSjes&ey^^ Ms. Jesk^sEssnyQ^MssSj'mE. w£k es/s. ssniMSsssi Sisy&is^k
the application Drop Box to a folder containing supplemental materials. Ms. Johnstonindicated that there may be duplicates in the file and that you can tell such duplicates from
the file names. Please let us kpow if the Drop Box link is working correctly for you and if this
method of production works. If not, we can make arrangements for another form ifnecessafy.
/ also understand that there are some video recordings in the file of some of the Plaintiffsgo^g through Ms. Johmton 's personal belongings in her old-office at the Magistrate Court
while she was away.
The USB drive turned over to the New Mexico Attorney General's Office contained a file titled"Zach-Audios" where tlie audio and text files were located. In addition to the files contained in the
Zach-Audios" file, lie included screen shots of the DropBox interface where files had been removedand were unavailable for download by his staff.
Upon receipt of the material it was determined that at least three (3) of the audio recordings
contained telephone calls made or received by Aztec Magistrate Court personnel. Follow upinvestigation and victim/witness interviews were conducted. Two (2) of the audio files (R-5I
4hrs22mm!3sec and R-00064 3hr38fnw24sec2) contained a significant number of telephone datls
made or received by Aztec Magistrate Court personnel to which Connie Johnsfon was not a party to,was not present during, and to which neither the sender nor tbe recipient of the call consented to have
their telephone conversation recorded or intercepted by a third party. Bashed on the available
information, these telephone calls were captured/recorded during the time that <
on the bench as a Judge for the Aztec Magistrate Court.
The telephone ^ystem utilized by the Aztec Magistrate Court does not record the audio cootent of
telephone conversations. There is a video surveillance system in the courthouse, it does not recordaudio. The oni^ time audio is recorded at the Aztec Magistrate Courthous^ in the regular course of
business during preliminary hearing^ and/or wheEi a request is made to record a partECiilar hearias^
These recoidisgiS capture coiErtroom activi^f m the comtrooms, th.ey do not extend So individual
office spaces or the Clerk's area-
^oth of these recordings have docamenS/tesS files that are gpjdes to or tmnscripfs for fee audiofiles. Based oa infonnAffii fitom Saa Jnara CouEity SheriST's OfUce Captam Br^ce C'Mrea^
ton's sister), admitted to haviEigtiasiserilsed seyeiail of thereeordiag^. CoisstaaS sEifomsed CnireEst tliat m inost of the recordmgs gt was Jsielge CosEme
JAisto doffig &e majoEilty ©ftlie speaksag. Stie did not isnfoEm CuEreEEt of any recotrdimg^ t®
wMcBa JmSgis ComEie J^Ims.fea was nott att parfy £0 the cQrayeisafiioD-
yesift fctt ©eanse^ ©ins Ne^'saii^eir
2^ 2@K5» 'w}& GJTojime? JsSEinsstosa BES Ifier oiBice £Ett Sfae A^te® M^sfarate C^i^tEli©iase- Aa:@irefec^ tt®PEtsdier's mfies; J®Imstt(?im fesEeBft: &wmi BED fe.imtt ©ffeeir cfes^ EEBtd wss ^efaig gEirssmrd ttBie teteiiBn <ssfvssj
[Procter's] desk." When confronted, Johiiston said that she was picking up a piece of popcorn.
Procter claimed that she was trying to place something under her desk, which Johnston denied. Afterthis exchange Johnston left h.er office and she observed Johnston "...putting something ddwn her
shirt in a panic, she was scrambling around. Procter noted that Johnston may have been removing arecording device from her office.
In one of the guide/transcript files, it is documented that Johnston recorded a conversation with
Judge-S barer- and Lori Procter on November 19, 2015, regarding allegations that Johnston was
recording staff in the courthouse (excerpt from guide/transcript):
st 121119 002, lhour2mmules}4seconds- November 19. 2015"
"1:38, Shares' andLori come in my office.• Sharer,this is not a discussion, this is how it's gonna be from now on.
• There has been concerns brought to me, brought to Lori.
• Still concerns that you are recording people, from now on.effectlve NOW, anyone (Sealing
withyou, there will always be two people, tvvo clerks, tvvo Judges, if, there will be two on the
bench withyoiL
• If one leaves.they will Both leave and per that you will not take it out on the clerks.• Left" \ \
The only court persoimel employed around the fall 2015 timeframe tha^ were not partie^ to the
lawsuit filed against Connie Johnston et al., were Jaime Herrera and Stephanie Betts. Herrera optedout of (he lawsuit because of her relationship with Connie Johnston. Belts opted out because she was
relatively new at the time.
Procter did not suspect that either would have placed Fecording; devices. Based on witRessstatemeats, lit appears that Michelle ConstaBt assisted with the traiiscription of the audio recordiQgs.
At 0sis tmic^ there is no mdication that she assisted \vith the creatiQn ^fte recordiiigs.
Jolmstois, Qrherca-defeRdants, were m pessession ofttie audio reeordmg^ and tFass.CTip^goide Mes
Syraed over to the Court as well
recQir&g? tuimed over In the civil lawsmt, and fiiiFSher appeals £o hare eauied tlon Iser peESQBi m at least OEie E'ecordmg. IEE one recording she is escosted to Iier vehicle by New
Mexico State Police. It is
Ome ©f fee derc^EEienfext iiBes taTEied oyer fo Mr. Mimfphy ^iia BFQpBQx by Jo^mstoss is a Me; tillGWBE 3kfrs 3Smm24s€<s 2. Jhe fat l^^s of test m that Me ireads: "SEPTEMBER 23
OMGfflMALLY RQWt: 3:3^:24 (pEaced m EEalS IjeNEtd boxes,)/" Tfe llikeEy eefess te? tfee pIac^aiieiEsft
©ffilke iTecdirdiias^ dewioe wBfiEasEn filhie c©uEcfeo;tiES'e- TSEe lEaiSEw^refeeiiKred is sEiiiiSEE^Ea1iiEBya;4Js<seaft £0 sss^stores a w^ffll witth l.©d Pir®cfier's oiBee.. Ifae iTecQ.irdiBgs ^escafeesB pEerem s^cssr te N&ve Ibeea
egeoAd wiSNsa tSre secBMTe/stoa-pElbSic airea ©fflie Azfte^ MaigElsMe C^^iAoniise. T&e seciinrAomi-
public area includes individual offices, jury rooms, as well as the main clerk's office. This area is
locked and is not accessible by the general public.
According to the Contempt Order Johnston testified that she copied all of the recordings of
communication and transcripts of recordings of communication taken within the Aztec MagistrateCourt Building to the hard drive and if the hard drive did not contain all of the recordings or
transcripts, it was a computer error. Further, she testified that she did not record the private offices orstaff bathrooms within the Aztec Magistrate Court-Building-^vhen she was not present.
File: R-51 4hrs22mml3secCn
File R-51 3hr38mm24sec2 (I) was contained within the "Zach-Audios" files turned over by Mr.
Murphy. There are also two (2) document/text files from "Zach-Audios" that are transcriptions or
notes that appear to have been created as accompaniments or guides to R-51 3hr38min24sec2.These files are titled R-51 10-30-15 (PDF) and Fmal-R51 Guide 4hrs22minI3sec (Word),respectively.
The conversations and telephone call^ captured on this file appear to have been recorded inside
the secure area of the Aztec Magistrate Courthouse. The recording captured conversations and itelephone calls that occurred within Lori Procter's office as well as the main clerk's office.
Based on the available evidence, this recording appears to have captured conversations and
telephone calls that occurred on Friday, October 16,201 5. Two (2) of the calls on the recording
are betvyeen Procter and the Court's alann company to facilitate Bjii alarm test that occurred onOctober 16,2015, corroborated By calendar notes provided by Lo^i Procter. The transeript/guide
also notes tliat Procter made a call about the a!arm system- ;
E-mail ^on-espondeGce related to Lo'ri Procter's calls with the Ad^nimstraSive OfKce of the
Itomey Jason CIack indicate that the calls oc-cmzed oa OetobeE'
Tfae ^ssEscn^gpiide Mes, 1R-51 S@-3^S5 ss^ Fmesl-MSl GESE^C 4^s22}MmS3sec} top fee oftex6
listEs She dte as 0!d£ob.er 3@- Oe^^er 30>^ 2015^ was also a Friday- St is cciitcEear ifeJBis da€e ce^eeSs
fe? dbte @ftlN? Ee£®r^flE!g; ©r &:e sMte i&e teEEseaipHgiiBJde was eoHaipBetteeI-
IP'EEXtteir ^©^ided a c®py ©flker caiSesdair "fee Oetdbeir, 2015- A ihsM&TmStteEs neefte ©!£D fflh:® caifleEt&arMdiieaSes feft C^ismice J©j]!HiSit©im was ©^©EE Octofeeir 16,2@15. As ssEcii, fcEEnatoia %/'©aiEd E[@£ liisawe
been present during the telephone calls when tliey were recorded.
Instance I:"RECORDING: R51 beginning around 00:57:00PARTIES: Lori Procter, Aztec Magistrate Court Manager
Joseph Reed, Procter's son
Procter listened to the recording beginning at approximately 00:57:00. She identified this sectionof the recording as a telephone call between her and her son, Joseph Reed. She took the call in
her office at the Aztec Magistrate Courthouse. The call was on her personal cell phone, not heroffice phone. Procter described an expectation of privacy while speaking on the telephone in her
office. She deals with personnel issues in her office, and employees speak with her aboutpersonal and professional issues in her office, matters which she feels are conj5denfia5 in nature.
Although there is a video surveillance system, there are no cameras in her office.
Reed listened to a recording of a telephone call with Procter, outside the presence ofinvestigators. He identified the voice on the recording as his own and identified the call as one
with Procter, based 6n how she was speaking. He did not recall the content ofjthe conversation or
the date the call occurred. Reed calls Procter almost every day. E
Reed hais an expectation of privacy when he calls Procter on her cell phone and her office phone.He has no reason to believe that she would record his telephone calls and has no knowledge that
she ever recorded his telephone calls. Reed has not recorded a telephone call, and has never
recprded a call with Procter. Reed has not given Procter, or anyone at the Aztec Magistrate Court
consent fro record his telephone calls.
fostance II:
REtORDING: R51 beginning aroond 91:10:00, 01:54:00, and 02:55:1PARTIES: Lan Procter:, AztecMagEstrate Court MaEiager
JasQEiOack.AQCSt
The recordmg captured tliree (3) calls befweeiii Lod PE-oe£eF and Jasoa C!ack wieh te AOC. Qis.e
fcegmAg at approximately 91 :IO:QO fee second at approxgma&eiy 01:54:00 aEid fc third M^pprox&nafely 02:55:37- All of She calls aee ^astialSy tramseribed ss-d docismeBted by te tiBite
(@1:17:@7^ fDI :54:30, and 0(2:55:37) m fc dQCUEnenfcxfe file FiEial-RSl Gseide 4fafs22miBiOsec.,
Tins cafe between PEBdter sad CIa&k ^re- JES Fg^TeKce to a EK®6ioitE fer defa^lS selifciiieaS ©ffl ai owiif
ease., as well as o.^hss' issmss seSated to simiiBair cases., PrcEC^ psio^i&d am e-iiBEaeafi dhaml "feglweeEa
wasse aiZfiEEM
mS^B C@siiadi£;i©NisstoEEPs SEgCTatere Ifaie ti® Sas.w Oaefe ©BB Oete^ier 25, 2025- T&€ ilastt e-iasaaiB wasSSQ& fnQVSi alZSSBflg^If@ffl®£TO£t&g<[]W:, 'LQUS ¥mct€SyS e-Esri sd^ifisss, (£© Jas®-m Cte^: ©m €lcf®feeir 116,
7
2015.
Procter recalled the telephone conversations with Clack. The calls were placed frcAn her desk
phone inside her office at the Aztec Magistrate Courthouse. Connie Johnston was not a party to
the calls, nor was she present for the calls. Procter did not consent to the calls being recorded.
Jason Clack recalled the telephone call at approximately 01:16:00 as a conversation with LoriProcter, whose voice he identified. He also generally recalled the telephone conversation with
Lori Procter beginning at approximately 01:54:00. Clack confirmed that the dates on the e-mail
chain correspond to the approximate date of the calls. Clack did not record the telephone call
with Aztec Magistrate Court personnel. He did not consent to his telephone calls being recorded.He had no expectation that the Aztec Magistrate Court would record his calls. Clack alsoconfirmed that the AOC does not record telephone calls.
Instance III:
RECORDING: R51 beginning around 02:48:00 and02:57:40PARTIES: Samantha Smith, Magistrate Court Clerk
Lan Procter, Aztec Magistrate Court ManagerJack Partner, Private Attorney
Samantha Smith is a clerk with the Aztec Magistrate Court. Aifter listening to the recordingbeginning at approximately 02:48:00 Smith recognized the call and confirmed that it was her
speaking on the plioiie with Jack Fortner, a private attorney In San Juan County. Smith was in the
main clerk's office during the call. The call is partially transcribed and documented by time(2:48:05) in the guide/transcript file Fmal-R5I Guide 4h\s22minl3sec. In the recording Smithtells Fortner to call Jason Clacfc with the AOC, which is also described in the accompanying
goideAranscript.
SmWs stated expectation of privacy is feat fc\. .anything aEid everything fihat lias gQne tlw
her
iieve
reeocdledl Smifiit does not believe 6ha6 Coniiie Jolinston was present on the day SMs call occarred.
otftce to be pnvate/
telephoae caSJs. She did nQthaYe,
;!ie^e
TSQt recall file dte,
prior to t&e date ofmteEYieWy whicii occ%EKed QES JuEse 15, 2017.
Jacfe FoEtner dees no& Fecord fee!ephoEis calls as
tefiepEioise calls wiitfe Az£ec Magsstlrste Cbm'trli peiSQmiel-
Ijssi PiTEacteir asSso re-we.wed the-Eec©Edliii2g aiisid iFecaflleel fee fteSepJiKEie c^lllis. PiTessfier •was'spe^Ekam!^
wit& Sa^aenfei SIEEIIE^& afeeN: a desnial iiffl Qine ofjae^ FoAeiJ°s caises?- A®er PtosSer aiaid ^EiiBBfJa
&g:es&^ SsmEiffln getts @ia t&e plkosie m^h FoEteT.. F'BBetgr vii^hSfiy albser^eei SiiHiEfEB ®ia ffllEe pteie? wiFmteer. M ^s msrdt®, yoia caBns ails® feear P'mclter iiidte feilt C®BI£ESC JoBiiEEstea w^s nseiS iEEB as tlke ttiBiffie
^
of this call. After the call between Smith and Fortncr, Procter called Fortner. During that callProcter told Fortner to call Jason Clack with the AOC.
Fortner listened to the audio recording beginning at approximately 02:57:40. The telephone call
is bchveen Fortner and Procter. Fortner recalled the conversation clearly because of an issue withthe Aztec Magistrate Court at that time. Fortner did not provide consent for the; call to be
recorded, i i
Procter's call to Fortner is also noted in the document/text file Fmal-R51 Guide 4hrs22mml3sec:
"2:58:00 (1:20:26 edited time), Lori calling Fortner. Should not come over Monday, ex-parte.
Should contact Jason, attorney at AOC..." "Lori, ok got that settled. I just called Jack."
File: R-00064 3hr38mJn24sec2
V\\€R-00064 3hr38min24sec2 was contained within the "Zach-Audios" files turned over by Mr.
Murphy. There are also two (2) documenf/text files from "Zach-Audios" that are
transcripfions/notes Uiat appear to have been created as accompaniments or guides to R-000643hr38min24sec2 tiflctj GUIDE 3hrs 38iwn24sec 2 and R-00064 9-23-15.
I
The conversations and telephone calls captured on this file appear to have been recorded inside
ithe secure area ofthe|Aztec Magistrate Courthouse. The recording captured conversations and
telephone calls that occurred within Lori Procterts office.
The first line of GUIDE 3hrs 38mm24sec 2 states: "£pPTEMBER 23 (1)- ORIGINALLYR00064:3:3S:24 (placed in hall belimd boxes)-" Procter's office is adjacent to and sbares a wall
with the hallway where boxes are stored (between courtroom one and Procter's office). Several
telephone calls captured on this recording occurred ir^ Procter's office aad are plaisly audible.
Based on the relative volume and cianty of the audio captured in Procter's office it woald not be
Esm'easonafole for a recordmg device placed behind the boxes m the hallway near the door to her
office to have captyred the telephone calls described herem.
Based Q£I ^nctim/witncss st&temeQts £ha£ telephone calls captured on fee recordiEig are believed to
!c^meB& the date as
^q^BEssmg aafOtLEEica y^::2y:sjv siffla (Lsz:-se8:ti
FAMTSES: LSSH Prcictter, Aztiee; NaigiisSffMe Csamt Mmager
LeesE^ird Bieiszer, A^See Ma^stoaft® Co^irt LaEid l.ssird
9
This instance covers a voicemail left for Leonard Biemer, the owner of the Aztcc MagistrateBuilding, and his return call to Procter.
Procter listened to the recording beginning at approximately 02:20:00 and recalled placing atelephone call to Leonard Biemer about flooding that had occurred. Biemer did not pick up the
phone, and she left him a message. Procter made this telephone call from her office, on her
landhne desk phone. Connie Johnston was not present when this call was made.
Biemer also listened to the recording beginning at approximately 02:20:00. After listening to the
recording he caught that Lori Procter called him and asked if he was out of town, and requested a
return call. Biemer docs not specifically recall receiving the vokemail from Procter.
In the PDF document entitled R-00064 9-23-15 Procter's call to Biemer is identified anddocumented. The document states: "Ends @ 2:20:20 Lori calling Leonard (end)."
Procter listened to the recording beginning at approximately 02:36:00 identified this as a
telephone call with Biemer. During the call they discuss the ditch, rocks, and lights that need tobe replaced. Procter recalled that it had rained heavily and the ditch had backed up. This resultedin rocks coming into the back parking lot. Procter did n6t recall the date or time the call occurred,
but believed that it would have been in 2015. \
Biemer also listened to the recording beginning at approximately 02:36:00. After listening to the
recording Biemer stated: "Actually I do remember that phone call because it was very unique in
that we had the big rains. And I got, we got hail damage to that building and it over flooded. Butjust that it was more thaa it was just the normal plumbing and lighting." Biemer believed that the
call would have occurred in August of 2015, tho^gH he could not recall a specific date.
Biemer did not provide anyone with coBsent to record the telephone call. He did not record the
felephoEie call, nor does he ever record phoRe cal^s. Biemer described having a reasonableexpectation of privacy believing that felepliOEie calls to the Aztec MagistFate Court are betweenhim and whomever he is speaking with. He bas not been aotitied that the Aztec Magistrate CoBrf
records telephone calls..
lEEstanceV:
RECQRDEMG: R-0QQ64 3fair3toiins24see2 be^Mmg sround 02:47:14PARTIES: Lod Procter,, Aztec Ma^'ste&e C@mi Manager
Ermiifi:edb Rydblfa, Private Afitomey
KioaifaBj ILee.. T&e tiiiiEsl setffasg fe fc case ^as ^^eBffi^eE- 23,2015. Tfae SEe®&iEg to faeEgsdnesMed wss ©CT^hiEaOIlj set fer S'e^tem^eir 29» 2M 5- PE®ctes' casBE
hearing for October 1, 2015. Both Procter and Rudolfo's voices are clearly audible on the
recording.
Procter listened to the recording beginning at approximately 02:47:1 4, and identified it as a
telephone call with Emiterio Rudolfo. The call is a request to change the sentencing date forRudolfo's client Kimberly Lee due to a scheduling conflict with the judge Proctor did not know
the exact date of the call, but noted that it would have occurred prior to September 29,2015, the
date of originally scheduled-hearing. Procter made the call in her office, from her desk phone;
Connie Johnston was not present during the call.
Emiterio Rudolfo listened to the recording begimimg at approximately 02:47:14. He could hear
and recognized his own voice on the recording. Upon reviewing the NM Courts case history heinformed me that the telephone call would have occurred on or after September 23, but before
October 1, 2015. This call would have occurred only after the trial setting for September 23,20 J 6, was vacated due to a plea (motion to vacate filed in Aztcc Magistrate Court on September
23,2015).
Rudolfo had an expectation of privacy when speaking with Aztec Magistrate Court personnel onthe telephone. H^ had no reason to believe that the content of his telephone communication was
being recorded. He did not consent to have his telephone conversation recorded, nor did he
record the conversation himself. Rudolfo does not record telephone calls as a matter of course.
In the documenf/text file entitled R-00064 9-23-15 Procter's call to Emiterio Rudolfo is
identified and documented. R-00064 9-23-15 states: "2:47:17, tori calling Emmitf Rudolfo for
Judge Sharer."
RECORDEHG: R-OOQ64 3hr3Sm|n24sec2 beginning arouad 03:30:03PARTIES: Lori B-ocfrer, Aztee Magistrate Court Manager
Aztec Ma^strate Court Jud^e Sharer
Jasoa Clac^ AOC Staff Attorney
'te recording captyred a tdepBone call betweem Jydge B3££y SliaEer, Lori Pj^oete^ and
Jasem CIacfc. Tlie call ^ras placed regprdiag qsiestiQns about mi!e 6-5C^£dee» aEraJ^m.ent AHI tJEiee
(3) of the voices EEES cleady audible on the recordmg- Ihe. caB was placed iiQsoi L©ri PEOcfeer's: ©^iiee-
Jydge Sharer ssrd PEoc&er caniirm tiiafi Cormie JoEms&oa was Eiot a p-adly ^ fc cNII, r£®r was s&ejHrescEEt WJ£€£B ^Ee caEI ocoiiLredL Noae ©ffc paEticipants ireeordled &e eeIepSio'ne calS or^iivec©;EEseEE(t
for fee eaSl fi® ^e ireeesiFded-
Jsciligje SSsa^rSisfeeELed t® ^jie Feoo^img feegmEBiiisg M appE^^JBEEMely ©3:30:Q©- ^
w fc eesoB&Bg WSSQ Lsd Pw.ctc^s^ ^SSOEH CGac^:;°a, asid fe ®WEE» £!© elid itiott wsaEBI! itlie speeife ^afeor feLe. ©f f&e pfe(3HEe ca'US^ isait sso'tled fet it lEay Eiave ^eesa tees ©IT ttw® aEid a IhaiEfyeaEs ^in®r 6® feBS
lifl
15,2017.
Judge Sharer does not expect to have privacy in the main office or in the hallway. He does expectsome level of privacy in his office. Judge Chase's office, and Lori Procter's office. This expectation
of privacy is greater when the door to the office is closed.
Clack listened to the recording beginning at approximately 03:30:00. He identified the voices on therecording as those of-Judge Sharer, Lori Procter, and his own. The conversation was about the timelimits for arraignment. He did not recall the specific date of the call but believed that it would haveoccurred in the Fall of 2015.
Procter also listened to the recording beginning at approximately 03:30:00. She identified therecording as a telephone call between Judge Sharer, Jason Clack, and herself. The call was in
reference to rule 6-506/video arraignments. Procter noted that the transcript guide listed the date as
September 23,2015. The call may have occurred on that date, but she was not certain.
In the guide/franscript titled Guide R-0064 3hrs38min24sec, Procter & Judge Sharer's telephone callto Jason Clack is identified and documented: "3;30:56 Lori calls Jason/AOC. Judge Sharer in her
office, asked Jason if he remembered conversatiojn concerning "Arraignments within 48 hours". The
question was if they could not get to the arraignment in time, what rule did if fall under. Jason
answers with Rule 6506. Sharer finds it "gets exited [sic]" Jason talks about something "it's not
appropriate eiiough....." 3:32:27 I^ori and Share^- after the call to Jason begin whispernig."
Based on the available mfonnation it appears that all of the telephone calls and messages described
herein oecuFred and were likely Feeordedj within the secured (non-public) area of j the Aztec
Magistrate Courthouse. Were|it not for Jolmston's position as a Judge she would not havethad access
to the secure area of the courthouse to record these telephone calls and messages. JohEstQn was also
held intrafiscripSs.
of coint fpr disobeying a court order to turn over aH of the reco?
fs conduct within the Aztec Magistrate Cour&QEise as a judg^, and her
, direetlyresulting from her conduct in office, Ellusfiafes lieFiiawillisgEiess to act
ace.
I SWEAR OR APMRM BINDER PENAI^Ty OF PERJURY TCAT THE FACTS SETFORTH ABOVE ARK TRBE TO THE BEST OF MY INFQEMATOm ANB BEUKF. 1EBNDEESTATO THAT ET IS A CRIMSNAE. 00FENSE SUBJECT TO THE PmAWY OFmPRISONMMT TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT UN A CRIMINAL CO^SPEASNT.
CutotAitfh^T"
22
^:\^\ (\/A€^'itleTitle
Approved:
Title
(Optional: Criminal Form 9-207A NMRA is available in lieu of completing this section of CriminalForm 9-201 NMRA)
If Probable Cause Oetermination Required:
[ ] Probable Cause Found
[ j Probable Cause Not Found, and Defendant Released from Custody
I Judge: _LI
Date:
Time:
[As amended, effective September 1, 1990; April 1, 1991; November I, 1991; ?sSupreme Court Order No^l 3-S300-020, effective for all cases pending or filed on or (ifti
STATS OF NEW MEXICOCO'ONTY OF SAN ^UAN
FILED .IN MY OFFICEDiSTRECT COURT CLERK
3/21/2017 2:53:32 PIV!WELDONJ.NEFF
Davina Cordova
THE HONORABLE TRUDY.REXD-CCASE,rim HONORABLE BAJRRY SHA-ffi.H,LORI PROCTOR, AMY WRTOLST,SAMANTBA SMITH, CRUm'A CAItCIA,PAIGE MILJSS, EL?^ABF.TI:f WAUACE,REBECCA STOTTS, KRXSTINE KERSCBION,REBECCA ELDRSDGE, JOHN JSQK mid MN:E BOE,
?mtlffs,
V, B-lXi6-CV-20J.M^7i
THE MEXICO SUPREME COURT,CONNIE LEIH: JOHNSTON, BBIAN <IOHNSTON,and MI.CHELLE. CONSTANT,,
0ctendants>
0:8D ER ArTER MARCH 3.2017 H EARING^MNBING OF CONTEMPT,
' AND ^SSE-R I^XPOSmO-SANCTIONS
THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the ^laiR£i0^ Mption for Ofiter to
Snow Cause, 'de Coyrt tedag issued its Order to Show Ca^se; tiis Piasntiffs sppesriBg i?iI
person smd with Co^ase], H. Stevea Mus-phy and Shetlie A. Pafsch.ec^: tbs i|5ef£nda^t Coimie
Lee Johsston appe-armg witfc Cosasel^ Z.achaiy CoFDiier: Mich^lie Coasta^xt app'eansig P^Q Se;
•Bnaa'Jols^ston appsans.g .P^Q'S"e;'~aEEl tfie'K^y'Mexisy S'i.ipreiy£e''CoE^t.^p£ess£5E£d by CoEMsel.'
ddsfopher Sa^ceA The Osssi I^HEsg issued £ls Orte to Slsow Cassse <QSS. Feb?a3£v 15. 2CII7
and JI^ESS ©ffis&iderf the e^teee^ tes^^o^y '^d ^gsme^ts ofC^^ise^ JES^sby FINDS:
?»mss OF
1.. B^s©dl OM igife^a^tsss ^1^ 23'efei^E^s wcse editisEg;, e^^iiiSg,, destei^Bg w^^ l^'ss^eirieBg;
%<i^ te ®£sirf ^pe ^®&^^R^ fc IBJ^Sif^ fc^ @BS IBsteir^sc^ M^ism te? Br^'^^eI
Mdbmesfs^prsl 14,2?,
5XM1B1T\\ r- \\
y
5.
The District Court heard the Emergency Motion to Preserve Evidence on Apri! 15,2016.
On April 19, 2016, the Pistrict Court enlered an order, enutled *<0rdfir After Bearing of
April 15,2016 and Order to S<5al Eyidence/' (teoinairer refeir^d to as Order of April 19,
201.6); w'hich required the Oefcndimts Conme LQQ Jototon; 1^-lan Johnstou, md
Mlchelle Constant to i<dcHvcr to tiu* Chief Clerk or her designes any ai^d all recordings of
Qommumcatipa and transcnpts of recordings ol' communications which were obtained
wixiiin the Azteo Magistrate Court. ]3uildingw no .later than 4:30 pja April 22, 2(U6.
In fee Order of April 19^ 2016, the 'Dhinct Court specifically found that "[t]he recordings
and transcripts of recordings should b^ protected from spoiiaticm, editing aad/or
tampermg.^ Further, the District Court ordered that "failure to deliver iw and all
recordmgs and- Iranscripls of recordings may subject the offendiag party fo t^e cantempt
powers of the Court mcluding fm^ dnd/or impnsonment.^
On April, 22, 201^ file Defeudaats. tbiough Conaie Lee john^toii, delivered to the
Districl CQIIFI a sealed envelope coataimag cue external hard driye wNch pm-ported to
cowply^ftlr &s Order of Apnl 19,2016.
6. The Deie^idanfss Fepreseiitsd lo fe Ois^rict CQiiri they were ia eomplisnee wiib the Oste
The I?EaMns '?d ^eis- .E^isl Co^pi^M for Mosey Dama^s os£ Fetea^-y 2^ 20X6.
ims^efS^efy tSieieater,, Pjaisitif^s ^.Q^SL m^isEg .requests fQ^ disco¥er^ i£a er^' 10 Q;b'ta^
te s^-sst ^e^M^iis^ ¥e£. Oefad^ifs re-^esed to -toi <^er fe ^s^^isifs^ to fhe
§L BdtiAirf CteiM^; L&€ J^?£t@£a fed l^r fa6. Me&® fe ^x^as^e C^rto ©M Apffl 5.I
'I^M m @js. s^pss^S t^ ]pmreigt gH&s: PlbMi^ ihjies Q^tes^ f^ i?gsz^ia^> g^d fe^gf^^
9
of recordings taken within the Aztcc Magistrate Court Building. Pl&^tffi filed their
response to this nuttion. Defendant tiled het| Reply, and briefmg was completed, on-Apri!
25,^016. , . - -
Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Discovery a^d Release of the Secret Recordings on
August 11. 2016. The Dis.tdct Court, comducfed a hearing on both ofttee moUous on
August 19, 2016. The District Court entered aa Order enh'tkd; <l0rder All-er ilearmg of
August 19,2016 Denying a Stay m Discovery"
9. DsfejL%l<mt Conme I-ee Joluiston then filed another Motion for Protectis^e Order on
S-eptemte 2, 2016 in another attempt to prevent the Plaintiffs from obtaimng the hard
drive sad its contents. Plaintiffs filed a resp^Gse to tiiis motion aa<1 the court condusted a
i
hearing on October 7» 2016. On October 26^ 2016, fie Comt eEitered ifs "Order Denying
Defends^fs Motion "isx Protective Older/'
10. On November 10, 2016, Defendant Conme tee Jolmston ifiled aa AppHcation for
denial of the Motion for
;o the HiterlocutQfy appeal
Interloeutory Appeal in the Cemrt of Appeals regsrdmg thei
Pro^tiv^ OA^ Pl^jnti^ file^ their Respoxise ia Ogpositio-a
in the Coort of Appeals on No-verEiber 2^ 2916.
Qs 'Deosmte -14, -201'6,-Tlie "CQISI of Appeals dsme^ Def&sters AppiieaSo^ for
MeAst£fo?y Appeal In 'Dscte N&-: 3S^S8«
Bssod ors fc deBisl of tb^ appNeaiis>^. .Ksr ,E^fe?J©£U!tosy app'e-al, t'l&e.I5isti'ic& C^sst entes-cd
ars ^OAr feaediafeeiy Ret^sisEg IIeEd VMss Sesr-' ^s Beee^fieT 20,20i6.
UiejPhiK£Sl? A^ml fc se^S^. te^l A?% tam fc ©iiss^^ C^zl as:^ eBii^j^sl s^ IT
s.psdair^ Midiri ^'sg^ ^ ^esfesiB a tasesisie ari^sJs s^ffe seh^e^s ©ffc ted te^^
14.
15.
16.
17
18.
t°
2.1.
"3>".3i
The Plamtiifs' tbre&sic analysis revealed fh&i the hard drive contained approximstely
Iforty-fonr (44) 5iours of audio recojL'dings of oral conimanicationB within tlie Aztec
jvfagislrste Court Building.
The i-brensk; analysis revealed t]yai the hard drive contained forty-slx (46) files and six (6)
folder.^ tot^Uag 3.54 gigabytes of data.
The forensic analysis also showed that the hard drive was new snd not coirupted.
On January 2, 20-17 Coimset for l?laint? iMom^ed .Counsel far Defendant Connie Le^
Jolinston that the nard drive did not contam all of&e recofdmgs of commumc^don and
ftll of the transcnpts of recordings witliin the Aztec Magistrate Coun Building, a^
required by the Order of April 19, 2016. Tss conversatlbn ^vas. couOimed by emasl on
January 5, 2017.
The Plaintiffs also nonfled Counsel for DefejidaRl Conme Lee Jobnston ^at fiies had
been altered aiid/or edifsd.
Parsiisat EQ the request of Counsel for Cotuno Lee Johjasion, fe P^nliffs m^iigd the bsrd
difm baek to Cousisel ibr Defadsnt Casme Lee Joteto.
The PlamtitjTs sent nismerQus reqsig^ts to Covnsel for Defestot Comsle Lee Joliaston
denMcIilag the De^n<i3n^~msm€-diately^fQ¥i^e all ofte ^iscovsr^ as required bj the
of April 19,2016.
Os Jawrr 25. 2017 at 5:0? p-^.. Defemte: CemTi-e I..C® Joii-isstoss sw Cmmsei f^- te
Pteiiiiflts s lim^" £© a £^pl?ox ^c0s]^ e-^^t^sinsg ^If-Si^^sl se.c^irdmg^ ®.f
^eoiL-diss^; ^afaa wWm fes Ast'^ MagasteSe C^wi Bmi^^y.
J . . , . ...-._-- __. ... _. I..
'^ toptw &€€^M c^s'ss^ssS. ^ fMes yifled afcZsd^Ae3fcL"
4
25.
26.
23. Plaintiffs i^ad to parcbasc storage spa.ce -Irom dropb.ox m;ordsr to download tlie contents
oftlie "Zach-Audios" folder.
14. On January ?<7. 2()17, Piaindfrs IT spe^ial^t pertbrmed a data analysis o-f the "Zach-
Audios" folder on dropbox snd found tltat several tbkte and files had been <lff1eted by
the creator oftlw drophox accoimt, "Connie Johaston'' on January 26, 2017 at 7:36 P.M,
The deleted files mduded botli audio and video recordings-
On .fa^usry 30, 2017, Haintiffs" ft specialist completed downloadmg the contents of the
"Zach-AudW dropbox folder.
Forensic, analysis of the contents of the dropbox tblder, "Z.acii-Audios." Feve^led lne
undeleted data mc|a<3cd nine tiundred Jr^y-two (952) file's aad twenty-gsved (27) folders,
I
totaling 22.1 gigabytes of data.
27. Tlie files contained on the dropbox folder; ^Zach-Andios" mcluded hui^di-eds pf ho^r$ of
audio Fscordmgs which were not previously disclosed tp tixe PIaintifts-
28.; The majority of ^lie nlrie himted fifty iwo (952) files contamed i?t the eJ^opboK foider,
i<2^ch~Audios'? were iiofe indnded on the li^-d drive, a^ O^ered by the HistneS Court osi
Apdll9,20!6.
29- Q^ Febnsary 1^ 2Qi^ fc PIaiatiits issibsmed Coimsd fcF Defendant Comxie'Lee"
«t®^ss£©iB., by !e;to, fc ^cop^os ssco^^t did BO£ cogE&am 'Nil of fc recor^issgs of os'al
eoiamgmiieatio^ te As^ec M^istete C^^irt sss^ ^ml Comsse lee Jo^sist^Es not:
^itla fc OAs- of ^E?^ I ^ 2016-
3^ l^e pjai[EBt? @Js@ -Mafam^d C<mG®ei fcr WhANt ^©s^ff Lee fcNist^a r^iE^-dsus^ m
kcem ^ifcdl alttedi, a^ii^s-^d^ted.
31, On February 7, 20.1 7 at 4:47 p.rn.. Defendant Connie LQQ Johnston email.ed tho Ptaintiffe
with a new link to the <*2ach~Audio^ foidtT on dropbax.
32. On February ^ 20.17^ Piaintiffs 3T specialist found the creator of the dropbox account^
"Connie Johnsion," had restored several, but -notfill, of the deleted files in the dropb-ox
accoimt
33,
34.
The restored foldens consisted of one folder containing fifteen (15) video files, one (1) zip
folder contaming eleven (I I) audio filcs^ aad one (1) zip folder contaimng twelve (12)
audio files.
Phuntiffs IT specialist detei?nined there reiuained six (6) folders coatainmg an
undifenumable number ofi'Ues wfcielx were deleted on January 26, 2017 by the dropbas}
35.
gccount creator Connie JoEiast&B, wl^ich had not been restored or provided to Plalntffi.
On February Sy 201 ?, Plaintiffs filed s Motion for' Order to Show Cause Against
Defendant Connie Jobnsfon for failure to make d^eovcry and for vioMng tl-ie Court's
discovery Order of Apn!!°, 2016.
?a; -/ .11,20.17 £it 11:23 a.m« Def indant Conssie Us Johnston p?ov?ded
PJamtifis with a Imk,, to a new topfeos foldsr entitled <iiConme Joh^stQH Materials-^
•MQ^eTei^'wl^rPlsJEititts* IT spedlAt atfemple^lo view'^i^ne^ ^fopbos ioldefy access"
£o <t£CoEH3ie Jolmsf^^ M%teii^s'T was de-medl
OB FeteMy 12^ ^17 a£ ^:44 sjsi-, PefcH^mS C^^MS Ue ^Imsto^ p^oti^d
^Asr M£ lo sj^ ^ogi^®^ tsNejr ^C^^Bie Jdiisste M^teriaJs.^ Ho'^^'e-i. .access wsss
dMea t^ fc F2a^E&
'©
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
On Monday February 13, 201 7» Plainiift's' IT specialist fbu^d the dropbox folder "Zach"
iAjudios" had been completely deleted irom dropbox and wa.s no longer available to the
Plamtiffs. - - -
!On February 16^ 2017, Defendant <;onnie Lee Johnston provided Plaintiffs with access to
the dropbox folder "Connie Johnston Matcnals;"
Plaintiffs' IT specialist downloaded all of the files on. fee new dropbox I'btder a^d found
that "Connie JohiiSton Matenai^" contained Ttin^ bandred ei.ghty-seven (987) files ajid
twenty-eight (23) folders, totaling 23,8 gigabytes of data.
In reviewing: t'he an4io recordings provided to Plaintifls via dropbox, Plaintiffs^ IT
specialist was able to qiuckly identify tm-ee audio recordmgs whieli tiad been altered,
I
edited, and/or partmUy destroyed through the use of an au<1io-visual editing so-ftwars
program.
Plaintiffs' IT sp^ci^Iist reviewed (he contents of the hard drive as well as the contests of
the dropbos fbNers. The IT specialist determihed based on- the- file name-s as ^ell @s the
co&tes£ offe foMe^ eopisd to tho hard dm'-e. the files were mfestioiially sei'eened and
••43.
44.
45-
isi.divxiualiy selected for plgeeme^t an fc liri' ^irive.
-Ssa -Na^ch 3^-20!? •a^ Orele-^ lo Siiow Casise HeariBg wss Issld in fes Distsia 'Com. - -
PiainSifls |)ro?sM the tesll-mo&y'ot'IT ^ee-iisSist^ MicNd Pa^a
PIai^iBs slso p£^l4<3ed ^lie e^pest iiesiH^^ssy QfFFedetTsc^' Browa. a roc^^ized e^p.eEt IB
fe ^dd^fco^stot^jiiAgy..
M^ Bs^wn i€&fMss€ fe Ntos s^ied to ^ iBa^l ^te's w-css mte^.m^lj mss
setotisd fe d-Q^^ss.^ ssi^ M^S fc i^s.aiiit ®fa ce^tsl^' e^c.r-
47. Mr. Brovv'n testified, during a data u'artsfer from a coj-i^puter to a hard drive, the con'ipi^ter
will notify ths J-ium^n user, through an error m^ss^ge^ if there| is a computer error
transfemng the data. The computer will requh'e the human, user i to clear the message
bel'bre pmceedmg witn fm.y other action, thereby ensuru-sg that the hunm-Ei user receives
notice of the computer error.
48, The. Court finds the testimony of Michael Page and Frederick Brown credible.
49. Prior .to her employment as a Magistrate Judge, Defendant Connie Lee Jobnston was a
law enforcement officer, sworn to uphold the laws of the State ofNe^v Mexico. Plamtifrg
provided the testimony of Defendant Connie- Lee johnston's fca'mer supen'ising
Sergeants jat the S^ Juan County SnenfPs OfHce, Alan Ja^ison &s^ Scott l?acka.
I f50. Alan Jamiso^ and Scott Packa testified tat Connie Lee Joteton was proficient in die
use of computers. Connie Lse Jo'bnston's job duties rcqmred her to freqaently download
and toisfer audio Fecordm^i i^oxs ^ recording device to a computer tbr distribiillon tc
others.
51. The Com-£ ^n<3s ihs lesdmo&y e|f Alan J^miso^ a?id Scott F^c^ credible.
52. Plaintffi provided f^e testimony of Flamtiffs .Lon Proeifx md Judge Tra^y Reed-Chasa
53. - Lori Pro'cto'r tesftfsed "she listened to '3]J~ot'XMe .^cofdmg?;" pjas:ed oss fe ha^d ^n^ ami hss
Isstsaed to some offe reeo^ags p^ovi^ed to Plajgiliffs ms. fepfm^.
54. Mge Tmesj' Ree^-C^ass tesEitied sli^ 'lsas listened s© &%me ©ftiie reciMA^s ^i-^v-ieted to
^E€ PSa-ii^tiiB; via.'4Jsi0^hQx-
55.. AB of fc arfo1 roiKirfiii^s p-^cgd 0% fe !£
Psfefai OmEdle S^g J®5a^^<®i iE%M&a€ss^
Cteiie Lee; ^ss ^F^M sm^ a. ys^
s^-d €s^€- ^ PeisAsfe w^ce ,ff£€©sdm^ ^f
• <£Wy aaii^iifa; ami ^t. ^ '^mss Q^feg^'^d.
^y to f?Ibs; c@^^3sfeHs-- Bs? cs^tasS. fcl
56.
57,
58.
recordings provided vis dropbox contained audio recordi&gs from devices placed. in
vun-ous places with.in the Azt^c Ma^stmte Courit Buiiding aiui recorded whe'^ Defendant
Connie Lee .lohnston was not present and iiot a psriy to thii conversations, -
tori Pmctor testified slie listened to recordings provided to the Plaimiffs via drop^ox.
Two ofth$ recordings were obtained within her priv^fo office wlien Defendant Coxmic
Leo Joteton was no? present. Theyy z^cordings included pnvate telephone cslls placed
by Lori Procior to ^er ^on and to 3 s.scunty syst??n company. 'Hie recordtxzgs mctuded
Lw'i Proctor giving out the account number and password to disann the Aztec M?.gistrate
Coz^rt Building security system. These recordmgs were not included on the hard drive*
Judge Tmdy Reed-Chase tcs?mc4 she listcaeet to a recordmg provided to th^ Piainti.Qsis
via dropbox which was obtained ^dthin ihe staff bathroom at Etie Aztec Magistrate Court.
De&rxdant Connie Le& Johjnston ^ould uot_be heard on fhs recording, but otiier clerks
could be heard u$mg the facilities and engaging In priv-Me eoimnumcafio^s. This
recording was iiot included o£i &e hard drive.\ I
Fxmlier, Judge Tmdy Reed-phaso tssiiiled slw v^atehed d^g vi^eo recormngs provider to
ths Plamtiffs via drcpfeox- Tlie^e reeofdiia^ coatayied pjmlate cois^inMECStiois^ ofdes-tcs
-•o-t'fc-Aztee-M^stee-Cam'wtes 0efend3£it C(mfsie l^e JdhgistojR'was nG&pesest.
Tte^ video ?ec^diEs5^> %'e^e i^:md^eS oa fee hard dii'i^e.
The. C<imrt .iMs fc ^stsmo^v of L@?i. ^roctoF ^id J^ge Tn?dy Res^-G^^e credibb.
The s^ist^s ssffe ^Iss ^o^ed bf fe De.thAails ^£2 fc iiri ^£$¥€3 wtiLesa eoissj^red t^
fc £®E3£e$SiES ©ffc ®|g& ^^-i<i$al f® ?iii2fiH^ Ysa ^r^ptox, de^lv fc 'Defe^^-gte[
%TflW3^ Mte!fi05§£*^, m4\^^S€^s^j jSEsirtie^ar see^-fcgs %Me ^iUfA^:-J»
i!sieA^dih rf jp^p^d^plj ^iifMiKsU^ G^£ mc^M^s.
•§
61.
62.
63,
64.
rn\s De-feadants. CoTmie Lee Johnsionv Brian Johnston, &nd Michell^ Constantt teStilied
they had knowledge of the Court's Order of April 19, 2016;. the Defendants undsrstood
the Order, find the Defendants bsd the ability to comply with the Orcfer.
The Defendants Conrue Lee .iQhnston and l^rian Jolmston are tmsband and wife.
65.
'His Defendant Michelle Constattf is th^ sister of Coiime Lee Johnston*
At all times herein. Defendant Connie Lee JohnstQn was a Magistrate Judge; sworn to
uphold the United States CcmstitutioHi, the New Mexico Constu-u(ion, snd the laws of the
United States and New Mexico.
Defendant Comus tee Jo-hastoa provkJsd te^timoQy concerning the hard dfive, ihe
dropboK accounts, ih^ recordings, and her con^plia^ce with tEie Coiirt's Order ofApnl 19,
2016.
66. Defendant Connie tee Johriston testified she copied sll recordiags ofcommunicaiioa'aad
transcnpts of recordings of commumeation , taken within the Aztec Magistrate Court
Bmtdisg to the hard dnve and iffc hard dave did ^lot coMsin sll 6ffe recoTdiiigs ot
transcnpts, if 'was a eOBJipufs? e?ro.r.
.Ddtetasit. Comye l_s^ ,Iolmsto^ f^^aed slie dsd not ire^Oixl tire private ^8'iees or stsff
teteoms vdtNn-fe~Aztee-N£Egbimfe Co^£ B^ij^ng •E?teisii% ^ss EOt pressat
The. C'o'm iMs the testm^£sy of Defadasif Cwue I.es ^ohsston ?iot e^II?ia
Tfcs. BisAl CQIE?I'S; O^er of ^?s219,2QI ^ ss clear" snd-^sEsa^Ng^otis.
"l&e .Ddtetels,; C<a§mib Lee J^Nssfe^ B^ia^ Jejms^MS., aad ^lefedlis CsMst^Bi fe^
Ibycwlbige dffc Ge^st^ AgriS S$!s 20116 C^F^' iri ^a^ fe @N2ity to eomipty ^tb i^s
10
/1 The Pefen.d<ints intentionally and wijl.fislly violated the Court's Oi-<ier of April 1.9, 2016.
by failing to disclose all
Court.
recordings of oral commumcadons within the Aztec M<ig?ate
72.
73.
The Defendants in?.ionaUy and willfully violated the Court's Order of April 19; !2016
'by failnig fo disclose all trmiscriptions of recordings of oral commumcatio^s within the
Azt.e.c MsEfish'ate C^ourt.
Tlie Defendants did place reeordmg devices witliin the Azteo Magistrate Com't^ the
devices did record the oral comiTiumcMlon, including tek-phone calls of the Plamlifts and
other persons, without, the consent ofo^s party to the conversation, the recordings were
m tne yol^ custody and ^onlToI of the Defendants. TIie Defendants de-feted; edited, asdt
t i
altered the rscordings thereby eaasmg irreparable hami ajiid prejydlce to the Plamtiffe and
74.
7x
other persons. The Def^hdants> coEduct was ^iliful and mteatlonal.
The Defeirdsnt Connie Lee Johnsfon mtentionally. puxposefi^ly, ^.viilfaliy; ^ith malice
II,and ^brefhought vidtated this Cou?tis Order of Aprii 19; 2016. Tae proof o'f DefeadaBt
Coimie Lee Johnsto^i's ccmdncf Is etear £md coavincing.
The Defes^gnt Cosme Lee Jelmstoa intsationally, ?^il!n?lly. with malice an^ fere^QRglit
-^ifli&elcL CGscealed.-edited.-altes'ed sed -te-iroved seeordm^-oforaS coi^m^mcatiossasid
fea^scsi^ts ofirecordMEgiS' or oral c^mmumcati^sis 'takea wifNa fe Az£ec Magas^'aSs Co?sst
BtaJ!dm^ Tiisse secersJ^gs mAclesl She .mtea^OBast nxi&r&g oi" fe felqsjs^as
eoTiaaHme^tIoBs of ibe PlsmSsfe m'& otte psrseas &rs^^ fe placsssE^sS of ^esef
ifccriissg d^iee^ wifci fc- 'Aziee' ^^stete CbsMt Tise. j^i@f of i Cesme. £^:
Msss'te"® e@mite i3 ^tar m^ £S3a^ig&s^.^
76, The recordings of the pri.vafe conversations ^nd l^lephonic conuTtQn.icatiou? of t1ie
PlamtitTs and other pei.'sons,|was accomplished by &e Defendant Connie Loe Johns^on
through tlw mtenlkmal placement or <?ecre( recording devices mfhin the pri.vMe oft'ices
and/or work stations of the Plaintiffs, within the staff bathroom, 'and in oilier privfite areas
of th^? Azte? Magistrate Court Bulidi.Dg. The recordi.ugs of tylephonic and oral
eommumcatlons vyatliin tl'fe Aztec Magis^fale Coui:t Builmng were made without tbs
consent and/or knowledge of miy persons myolved in the commynkatlon.
77. The Defendant Connie Lee Johnston committee a fraud upon this Court- and the Plaintiffs
wtei she placed the hard ds-ive under seal on April 22, 201^ in alleged compliance with
the Order of Apnl 19, 2016.
?S. The Defendant Connie Lee Jo]mst<m intesUionaily ^erpotrated a fraud upon this Court, the
New Mexico Coyn 'of Appeals. &e Justice system, the paili^s; aiTd tlis a^oni^ys involved
m Oils case.
79. Counsel for Wintiffs ma^e nssme?ou$ good faith aUempts to resolve ^ib issiie prior to
filj^gt!ie^FMoHon;&r Order to Sixo^On'ES&
^3. Defentet Cojiiaie Lee Johs^sto^s coa.diict is reps-ehensibla
S.L Defeitda^t-Coimie-I.eeT-Jolissfon-'li^s perssslsath' extiINted &gr'totsj "disre^M^'for^s
0^^ Qffsia ©isfde£ Coisst
^2. Ttee is SMS jreSSiiicatio^ or e^cpse fcr B-e'te^a^^ C&??m@ te© Jojiiisfea^ MsfsatioESsl asid
dsiiltafe efesa1. of tej'^^M p'-oa^s ^d cosi ESGOS^
IS „ 'Ike. Cm^t M^s B^Ms^t CC.SSBS® tec J&4§iste[B. m dre-ij £<i)^eMA ^€ cmsi fw
i^ei^2^j^ ^pprf^ fas^^. •y.fiUilS^ (ri ^T^ ^ fcA^Nt
-11-^
violating the Distnd Court Order of April 1^ 2016. Civil contempt sanctions shall be
imposed,
Pur.suant.to tlw inlberent and statittory powers of tbe 'E3btr|ct (^ourt, ori-minal contempt
proceedings pursuant to Rxil^ 1~Q93(D)(1). NMRA shall commence fbrthwitb:
a. The Sheriff of San Juan County is hereby ordered to perscmaljy serve upon tlw
Defendant Comue- Lee JohnstOB tl'ie C'riminal Sujnmo^s aitfd Ox'der to ShQW Csz^sc
issued and signed by te Court forthwith.
l\ 'His District Attorney for the Eleyenth Judicial Distdct, Division One, is bereby
appointed to prosecute th<? Defeiidaat Connie Lse Johnston -for the cliarge of
enminal contempt on behalf of the State of New Mexico.
Ic. The defendant shall be prosscuted is accordance with Rul& 1-0-93(D), NMRA, the
Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District CounsJaHd in accQbdanee With fe
laws of die State ofNew Mexico.
d. The cidmiaal coittemps proceeding shall be docketed as a sepdmte cnnsinal iFsatfer
j^ith ^ .£S%r csse assmber snd if the DefeEdasst Coisme X-ee Joh|isto^ ES §?Esnd ^ilty
ofenmmal contempt, te coyrt slsali eGier aj^^a^nt axd-sentgiice.
—-e.-. -If'Defesfcit-Csmgsie-te; JoNlstosi is fe^d-guiIiy-Qf'enmisaI co-silesnpt, t!?^ icoBit-
ay impose |si^i?$ye sa^etioriS i^leEided to p^^lsis EtetWhm? Cbrie Lee Jotes^oja
tr e&EBSiiitfesg es^Migl cdi^issBp^ ©ftNs em^, ^msk sssy.ns.€k^ SQ wt^^iQ^l
or miCGMfassEll. ss?itesK;e ^f i^^nso^aei^ FEss^gisS. ^ Mb $-^^(A}-(^},,
3. CM s^etli^ss; p^ss;aa£ ^ S^2^ H"IB7(B) &M ^ .affi^^^iS fvsr •fc Wa's^ir^J AI;
s€fe Bis^a C^^rfs ^iss^y^y €-!^<^ W fe Ile^s^^ €^^^
13
4. Pursuant: to Ryk-1 ~037(FQ(2)(a)^ the Court hereby Orders that tlw jt-bll.owing facts shail b^
taken as true and conclusively established for aU purposes of this case and no evidence or
testimony shall be iritroduced by the Ddendants opposing of rebutting such tacts to any
extent:
a. That between. August of 2014 and .December 1,> 2015, Defendant Connie E^ee
Jo-hnsioi'i utilised sn a^aratus m the Aztec Magistrate Court Building for the
putpose of listening to and recordmg the oral and telephone communications of
the Piamtiffs snd other persons., without the consent of the parties being recorded
b. That behveen August or 2014 and December !, 2Gi5, Defendant Comiie Lee
Jobnstoa recorded te telephone coammnicadoi^s of the Phmtiffs and other
persons, without the consent of a sender or mtended recipient thereof.
^ Thai between Aug^t 2014 and Decen-sber 1, 26l5, Defindasit Coiuue. L€€-
Jofmstoii copied and transcribed the rccordi»g3 of the telephoue comjs^caSions
bf the PIaintiifg and other persQ^s, w-itho^i the co^e^f of a sender or iEten^ed
^gcipiea? thereof.
d- Tte between A^gsst 2014 asui December I, 20]5, Defesdsnfe Comsie Le&
.-.- Jotmtoa mtenfiofi^ily is£tnsd€<j -iipQa-f!ie--Plam^ns* scelusioa paya&y-by
s'ecQ^di'^ liatimsjS t0» e©p}fh^ '^aEsenNsg, sad sBa^ing fe PIamtiW pn^^te
c^imisistsafio^s %vifesa fe PJ^^-^is* neirssaissioEs.
e. Tlsat fc Oefc^aas C^^sspi® £.€'0, Miiss-t^gs iatafei^ll^ sileri giiEd-^r ^elete^
^©Aiig^i of t^ ¥tssW^i t?i¥afe sss^ asd ts!^StffiiS^e co'^sa^EiiesfeiES tasaES
^M^ fe A^te Ma^s^e Corns' BmM^'wsfas^ fc AMte ir^-miisEsioss-
9.
Paniua^t to Rule 1 -037(B)(2)(b), NMR.A, tb.e Court hereby Orfcs ih^ Defendant C<mmG
Lee Johnston shall not be alloweci to oppose tho dosignated and sub'olaims in paragrap!^
"4^\ above, in any way, or to support ht3r defenses to those claims-
Pursuant to Rule 1 "037(B)(2)(b), NMRA, the Court hereby Or<te thai Defendant Comio
Lee Jolmston is prohibited fro-m. iiitiodud^g ^ny evidence of or testi.moay regardmg th^
recordings that are the subject matter of this motion.
Violation of tills Ordes: will siibject the offending person to the. contempt powers oftfe
Court, which may include fme and/or ii-nprisoame'nt.
Pm'snarit to £uk l"037(B)(2)(d), NMRA, the Court hereby finds Defedani Conme Leo
Jobnston in civil eontsmpt of eo^i" for te ivjUful and intentional faHr:r<5 to obey the
!District Court's discovery order.
Pursisad? to Rule 1-037(B}(2) and the inhet^nt^ power of this C^uFt to impose remedial
sanctions &F civil contempt, the Corn hereby Orders the Defendants lo pay sll of fee
featoable expenses, isclud^g attorney's fees and eoats ino^rred by tlie PIasQti^Ts related
j A^ ^%i^A^ fi,^ .f^^^?to ^hs issues tosia^egmisisig wifh 0efedaBtts Motion fo^ a Stay of Discovei-y OAr
sfid '&>r a Profeetive Orster filed on Apnl 5,2016 mid ^ to and incl^dmg the £?r€^r£?io55
ot @s!s OAr. gEd.relafeel <Msesir^^s the N^ch 3.29S7 hearm.^..- ^Jai.Sifi£fe-are--to llje ^s
aiSite-it of greases,. atfeE5ieyss -lees^ an^ IsSigatio^ costs %-ifh file Bis^ne^ Cm^t
JrtsaitEaS isss^ the Betesd^ts €Qassms Leie j€*ImstoBy Bimita .I^tsssto&. ^mt
.MEdrf^ Cc^sWL, jai^ty ^id se.yei^jfy,, fc fe iswmrd! of aBeme^s fc-ss,. Ct^es as^E
^SjS.€S£Ses.
SCBMICTE0BT:M.^^^^"*"
tE3
/^.Electronic SignatureH. STEVEN MURPHYAttorney for Plamtirfs
APPROVBD AS TO i^ORM:Refused to approve 03, J 5/2011^2A.CHARYCORMIERAttorn£v_fQr Defendant Connie Lee Johnston
1i£s
@!SJRfCT COURTSANDAN^OUHt'V NHt^-.. H^E:0
1W i1AR 17 PN 2i 35
FIsistiffs,
vs.b-H.iG-c^-Zon-^
CBIMINAL SUMMONS AND OR3?ER TO SHOW CAUSE ONFAXLUSE TO COMPLY WlTHCOIJRt-ORDERS
TO: Connie Lee Johnston-Address: 30 Rosd 3063, A^fec, NM, 87410; P.O. Bos 60, Flora VIste, KM S7415
You are hereby notified that you are in flotation of a lawful order of the Court. You are
!nofifjed that you have violated the 'Order After Hearing of April 15, 201$ snd Order to Seal
Evidence', Sled mcause number D-1115-CV-20160027I oaApd! 19,2016, by fajling to deliver
to the Chief Clerk or her designee any and all Eecordings ofcommumcallon siid transcnpts of
rccoKimg ofeommumcatioa wNch were obtained withm &^ Azfeo Ma^stsate Court BuJMmg KQ
IJa£e? flian 4:30 p.m. os Apn! 22,2916 ss ordsred snd by ^RtentIonaJly altering andfer deieSi^
temimgs that were the ssbject of that Order.
This cmmml costempE peoceedmg s&dl be_dos&sted_as a separate cnmlnsl matfer with ^
new case nmnte and If you are fcisad guHfy of cnmisa! costsispt, the eouit sBal! enter a
JudgmsnEsid seEteace-
if JQU are ibusd gisllty of enmTml eontemp6 cf cou^ fe Disfefet Co'ar£ may impos®
gmit^e ssnAms. A ^umfive £snetEQn.'y m-eaHs-a seateac'^ impQSScS t® ptSMsh a gssso® for
csmmAg ss. se^. Qfcmmss^ costem^£ azKl may Wnde a| Eejiir&saud or E2E£Qnd[[K2ss§ J^ne sr
rincoEdfemfi SSEI&SHC^ of Ers^^ESign^ m t^e dfecEgSEora ef she JE-d'ge^ puss.sEr.i to §:u!e S-5%i
'S^SA. s^d tSs ^H 3^^icQ R^I^3i cfCbihi^S Psec^d^cg; IST& IH^S'^i Cbi'^s,
^os\\ T|— ^
An adjudication of guilt on a chsrge of criminal contempt constitutes a crimmal
conviction, which may result in collateral consequences and may have other implications for
you* As such, you are entitled to the duo process protections of ths criminal law and may bei
entitled to a jury trial as provided by-iaw. -
You are ordered to appear before ths undersigned on the f^U^- day of
1^- . , 2017 at ^ 00 ^£3h3.m. at the EIevsr.th Judicial District Court, m
the Coimty of San Juan, City ofAztec, State of New Mexico.
If you fai! to appear at ths tims and place specified, a warrasf may be issued for your
aiTest,
Ths District Attorney for fa& Eleventh Judieisl District Division One, ss h&rebyI
appointed to prosecute Connie Lee Johnston for the charge of criminal contempt on behalf the
State of New Mexico.
The Sheriff of San Juaa County iSjhsEeby ordered to personally servs upon Consie Lee
Jobnston, a copy of this Crmmial Summons and Order to Show Cause forthwith.
Honorable; Sarah C- BacfeusDistdct Court Jedge
Foms 9^6^, Rule 1^93®; Bale 5-112
-——--m'^Q-SSQ'? ~-tQ^2 NrSUiRREHE ©QW- ^..- -„ „.-._-_ ___,__.______p^^^^ _______ -._- -_.
.^-n-^n-^^^-^'.
TOM M^TIBRCIF IiO?COMiNIE LEE JO^.stote Coxir^ NEW M©d
WTONf
tftl
INQUIRY COIslCERNING HON. CONNIE LEEJOHNCTOIs?JSC Inquiry Nos. 2015-05B, 2015-059, 2m5-06D/ 2015-061^ 2015-952,
2D,15-m 2035-0% 2m5-143/ 2015-M6
V"
PETITION FOR PERMANENT REMOVALFROM TUDICtlAL OPPICE
JUDICIAL STANDARDSCOMMISSION |Post Office Box 27248Albuquerque/NM 87125-7248Tel: (505)^2-9353- - - -
Fax: (505) 222-935E
RANDALLUROYBALExeaiHve Director 6i Geneml Counsel
PHVLUS A. DOMJNGUEZInvestigative Trifil Counsel ;
Counsel for Petitioner
LAW OFFICES OF <5ARY C.MFTCHELLLLC |Gary CMitchell, Esq.P.O, Box 2460Kuidoso/NM 88355-2460Tel: (575)257-3070Fax: (575)257-3171
Counsel for Responflent
SUPREME COURT OF N^W MEXICOFILED |
APR 10 2017
TO^
3UE.T
'^^ -^'r'-TO??'^.—ttJ^J-vJf^UJ^s.
IN THE MATTER OQF HON. €X3^NNIE DOE JOONSIONSanJaairGoimty Magistrate Courl^ N-ew Mexico
NGINQlJSC iiiqimy Nos. 2015-058,2015-059, 2015-060,2015-061,2015-1
E~ -f~K^n 3rt-F>-< :'T"' -1 ,'f 0 :r~ir~l-j ^~ -I ..'63^ 2015-098^ 2015-143,2015-146
PETITION FOK PERMANENT REMOVALFROM JUDICIAL OFFICE
JUDICIAL S^TANDAEpSCOMMISSION IPost Office Box 27248Albuquerque/ NM 87125-7248Tel: (505)222-9353Fax: (505) 222-9358
RANDALL D, ROYBALExecutive Director & General Counsel
PHYLUS A. DOMINGUEZInvesligatwe J^riaJ Counsel
Counsel for Petitioner
LAW OFFICER OP GAI^Y CMITCHELLLtCGary C Mitchell/ Esq.PX), Box 2460Ruldoso/NM 88355-2460Tel: (575)257-3070Fax: (575)257-3171
Counsel for Respondent
OF {TME STATE 01
Na.M-SC-35525 : • - --
IN THE MATTER C^ HON. 03MNIE IJEEJOHNB^^Juan County Magisfcnaite Gour^ New Mexibo ''
INQUIRY 033SICEENING HON, CONNIE LEE ;Juan Coimt}7 Magistrate Court/ M-e~w Mexico
JSC Inquhj Nos. 2015-058^ 2(315-05% 2015-060,20152015-063,2015--09B, 2015-143,2015-146
g ^-U-L^-UU,-/
PETITION FOE PERMANENT KEMOVALPROM TUDICIAL OFFICE
1. Petitioner Judicial Standards Commission/ upon al unanimous vote
of participating Commissioners/ and pursuant to art yi/ g ^2 of the Ne^-v
Mexico C^onstitution and ArUde 4/ gg 27-401, ei secj^ of ]:he Supreme Court s
Rules Gdverhirig Review of Judicial Standards Conm[ussion Proceedings/
hereby _p_etidpns die Supreme Court to saiictioxi Respondent Hon. Connie
Leejohnston/ San Juan County Magistrate Court Judge/ as follows:
A. PERMANENT REMOVAL PRQM_ OFFICKRespondent shall be Iminediately and permaneiitlyremoved from judicial office/ and barred from everholding judicial office m the State of;New Mexico.
2.' Jimsdlclion is am^.oked piii'sumitS: ^o fee Peffioiiers power to
r'eamiBnmd judicial disdplme an'ti ^h'e Snpreaw Coirfs power to
disdpUine judges imder N.M. Con'st. art ¥1^ §31^ a-s .aii-teaided^ and e-iie
I
Coiirfs'power of sniperlntenTdm^ contotXii^erT^M. Coiis-t iart ¥1, §3,
3. The Rrounds for removms Eespondent are set faith completely in
the ]^idicM Sifindnrds dwmiisswn's Fmdm^s ^fFnd, Cvndn-swns rfLmv, ami
Recvmmendntlon for Permfment Removn] from Jz^k-wl Office^ attached hereto as
Exhibit A and mcorpprated iierem by reference. Followmg are tlie
adjudicated bases for the recommended sanction taken fcom the
Comxnisstons findings and coi^clusions at page 108-10C!:
j j The Coxnn-ussion's recomxnendaHon i^ teased upon its
boiisideration of the nature of Respondents ^Ulful misconduct
^n iliglnt of the following specific factors; the iperyasive pattern^f conduct defiant to pix>per judicial authorityl ai^d disruptive ofthe proper operation of the Aztec magistrate court; multipleinstances of ex pnrfe communication persistmg even after
training and.CQrrection; the official _nature of all aspects pf_the
wlUftil misconducfcy including the use of the official Judicialpower of contempt in commission of the most egregious acts;
the commission of most of the acts of willful misconduct inside
the Aztec magistrate cozirthouse with direct impact upon thestaff and judges of the court as well as the public patrons;Respondent's use of the contempt power to impose criminal
punishment including violation of civil rights upon an innocent^•d party solely to demonstrate her personal s^ite toward her
presiding magistrate judge; Respondent's dishonesty shown in:o^UTdttmg various acts of willful misconduct and throughout
fe'e CoHimisEiari's pr^oeBdui^s.^ -in'dudioM ^^ iaise s^ateinei-its
Biider wttli as wd as hrer oDirc-Scifo'ieitiit ©f surrepMoasj
recoi-diags iliai ste was ordered l:o <dis-dois,e tot fept s'^:rei mutai
mld-liial MTlum s.he p.Bnceived "a- p.ers'QnaI ad^ai^fcage te
disdteuire,; Bespaadei'rf's co3i1feDi.ed deSanc^ ©f proper l-adicM
mifeotlty tihrouglimt itese prooeediings/ her ©bsence cf geirfnea^emojse^ and her l£ick iDf nnderstBnQIng of tlie w^on^Aiess
and damage doae by her actions; fee notoiious aiatoe of lier
conduct encoiiraged by her own attempts to garner publicity^
and ttie resul&ig liarm to tlie percelyed integdiy of theju didru-y. See Rule JSC^O(B) NMRA (2010).
WHERE] Petito-ier prays for an Order from the Court for
Respondents PEEMANENT REMOVAL F3 JUDICIAL OFFICE and
such other relief as the Court deems right^ just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted/
JUpICIAL STAND,
i/...
COMMISSION
RANDALL D. ROYBAtExecutive Director ^/General^ounsel
PHYLLIS.A. DOMINGUEZ
Senior Im^esUgntive Trial CounselPost Office Box 27248Albuquerque/ MM 87125-7248Tel: (505)222-9353F^x: (505)222-9358
I HEREBY CERTIFY HIB& a tae and coiTBct copj of fee foregoing ^^as
•y7lShseni via eBiail and cerllSed aaiail/ retard i^eoelpt requested on tins / da^̂
of April 2017 to fee Eesp.rmdenl flirougliboms'el as Mlcms:
Lmv Offices ofGnr^ C MlichellGQH] C Mifchd'^ Est].
P.O. Bar 2450VM
Tel: (575)257-3070BIT: (575)257-3273
/ ) / /
^ AYLUS kl DO^NG^EZ
]BEFOJ?E:IHEJU0ICi[ALSTAND^EDS GOMJMUSSKMyg ^ ^' ^•! OR™E5TA13EO^WWMMX'[OOi
i ^QU3R¥ OCMOBRiNWG HON. CONNKE VEESanJ^^n'Coinnlyl^agis'fcra'l-eCoiB-^ Aztec/ New Mexico
aaqalrj HQS. 2015-058,2015-059,201541611 2015-B61,203^^62,2Q25-©63,2015W8,2015-143,2015-146
JUDJCIAL STA^BAEDS COMMISSIONSMNDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 0^ IAW AND
EimMMENDATrON FOS REMOVAl, ^ROM IU03CIAL OEFICE
THIS MATTER came before the judicial Standards Commission ("Comnussion")
for a itierlts hearing on December 5^ 2Q16^ pursuant to Article/ 32, Section VI of Sie New
Mexico Constitotion; NMSA 29% Section 34-10-2.1; smd, the Judicial Standards
Ccmunission Rules. The hearing was held in the ^ormlnisslon's hearing room located at
311 Lomas Blvd. NW/ Suite 220, Albuquerque^ New Mexico. The following eig5it (8)
Commissioners participated in the hearing, delibei-aiions/ decision/ and adoption of the
findings/ conclusions/ and recoinmendation:
Hon. Jerry H. Ritter/ Jr./ Presiding OfficerJoyce Busies/ Chair
Malinda Williams/ Vice-CkairJaune Chavez
Norman L. Gagne/ Esq.
Hon. Steven Lee
William LeslieRuth M. Schifani, Esq.
Judicial Standard CojTjjrij'ssion's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of La^v and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-05S, 20] 5-059,2015-&50/ 2015-06^ 20-15-C62, 2015-063, 2015-09S, 20I5-143/ 20l5-]46 Page I
Tii'e foll0Ai^ ff3V£ $5^ Cbimriissi-assrs uyer ' 33£i gxnes"en;t eirad c£[^ iraot pHf^mpate m
'ih'e pwioeeding.s:: H'on. J-ohn A. Qesr^ Jir^ wlho ^^as reraassfl; Han. Ma^riBe I^aiRE^ •%v3^o
w05 recusedi; Jo5im Bo^.e; Bliza'bEtii Pagz,; ;a^'d,/ U-Cimbejii Fasn^iL
BxjEm-am'e^, FhyHis A. BoBtin^gus^ Esq.,,!^n-d D.ebo-ts3^ Borio^ Esq., pres^-toii
evid.eiioe before the Ccmxmjsslon. Hrm. Cojmie Lee ]Dlms1:.€m f/Kesponde?it ) cipp-eared
pessojigiliy and through 3^er attor^e)^ Gaiy -C. Mliche]! Esq.
The Conrmission 3^ear^ testimoi^iy from &e folio^yiag sigh.teen (SS) wltoesses
durmg the hearing:
Hon. Comne Leejohnstoji
Sergeant James RempeHon. Trudy Reed Chase
Hon. Steye Jones, Retired (P?o Tempore}
Deputy Devin VerliulstRosemary McCourtJ Bsq.
Georgia SediiloPl on, Barry D Sharer
Brian Decke^ Esq.Cruzlta Garcia
Steve Murp5r^ Esq.Lori Proctor
Rebecca EldHdgeAmy Verhulst
Shannon G. Pettus/ Esq.
"Marita Eobmson/ faq,
Colleen O'Leaiy/ Esq.
Jack Fortner/ Esq.
Having reviewed the pleadings, witnesses' testimony/ all exhibits admitieci into
evidence (Examiner's Exhibits 3-1S/ 20-21, 24-60), the arguments by the parties/ and
I, . , .... ^lapplicable law/ the Judicial Stcindards ComnMssion submits the fo}]<pwing proposed
findings of fact/ conclusions of law/ and recommendation for discipline,
JudicL-it Standard Commission s hmdings of Factf Condusions of'Law and Recommcncialion for Discipline m
Inquiries 2015-05S, 2015-059, 2&15-C60, 2015-C61, 201^062, 2015-063, 2015-098, 2015-143, 2015.146 Page 2
OP THE
3.. A^ t1Tre i-ie^i^^^g ^ •!tne 3-?!e?iring, te parses slipnlated IQ i^-e ajtoissi-ojn of.
Esn-rsm^ E-xWs'ts 1-18., 20, ,-and. '2A-55. During fee IbBtim^ ad^3£ojiall exiulBls were
admSed, to w& Exnmwe^ Wubil& 56,5^ 5^ .& 60; Hespon^n^s E^Mls A (for 2"mTilted
purpose Gif shmTOng EespQndent's efforts to address perceived problems., not as
substantive eyidence of fee truih of Responde.Exfs asser^ons) and B -Sc C (for Jizruted
purpose of s5io'wirig Respond enys efforts to .address percerved prol)lenis^ not as
substaniive evidence of lihe truth of Respondent assertions).
2. Before issuance of Notice ofFonnnl Procesdmgs,/ the following notices "were
issued by the Commission:
A. The Cojrmrussiorijs 'Notice of Prelmnnfif-y Jm}estigaHo}i in Inquiry Nos, 2035-058
was issued on August 6/ 2015.
B. The Commission^ Amended J^otice ofPreUrnhwry JnvesHgnfion in Inquiry Nos.
2015-058, 2015-059, 2015-060, '20: 5-061, 2015-062 and 2015-063 was issued an
August 24,2015. (E^airuner's Ex. 1)
C, The Commissions Notice of Preliminary Investigation m Inquiry 2015-098 was
issued on November 24,2015. (Examiner s Ex. 2)
D. The Commission's Notice of Prelhmfmry Investigation in Inquiry 2015-143 was
issued on December 3/ 2015.^(Examiner's Ex. 3)i
3. Respondent filed the following responses to preliminary notices:
Judicial Standard. Commission's Findmgs of Fnct, Conclusions of Lsw and Recomr.-isndation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-05S/ 2015-059, 2015-060,2015-C6L 2015-062, 2015-063, 20-15-098.201.5-143, 2015-146 Page 3
A, EeEp.on-.ciemfs r^pmsse -ifeo fee ^^iS^ Nr@,&^ ©f P^li^msnj Hmvs&i^nfiw MS.
^mes M5-MI ^N5-9.61, ^015^62 ^Eid ^^s
E'l-ed on S-eptscober 4,/ .2025.. - fj[Exim3ioeTs Ex.. 4)
B. Kespo.n-d'einfs 3'.esp:OBse •£•0 f-he Aw^r^i Hc^scs of IPnlimimnj In^s-tigs^wn Sri
Inquiries 2G15-05'8,2?-;D5'5,2015-0.60.2015-M/ 2015-063,
and 2015-143 wss filed OB Oecem'ber 21,201B {Exmmner's Ex- 5)
C. Respondent's 3-esponse to fhe AwesiM t^o&'e sf Prelvm'fjsn/ Ini^sQgaHon in
Inquiries 2035-05B, 2035-059/ 2^54)60, 2015-061, 2035-062, 2015-063 2015-09S
and 2015-143 .was filed 01^ January 4,2036. (Examiner's Ex. 6)
4. The Comrmssiori's ?iwe fffFcmnal Proc^mgs 331 inqmries 2035-05S, 2025-
Oq9/ 2015-060,2015-061,2035-062,2015-063, 2035-098,20,15-143, and 2015-146 \vas issued
on February 3/ 2016. (Examiner's Ex 7)
5, Respondents response t^> tIie NoHc? of Fwfmt Proceedings was filed on
February 24,2016. (Examiner's Ex. 8)
6. The Coirunission's Verified Petition for Immedifile Te-mporary Suspension
without Pay ("Petition ) was filed on December 3/ 2015. (Examiner s Ex. 9)
7. Respondent's response to the Verified PeiiHon for Immediate Temporary
Suspension withon t Vny was filed on January 26, 203 6. (Exammer s Ex. 59)
8. The Commission heard testimony from eighteen wihiesses during the
formal proceedings.
"snw, K'L^;—;.;
judicial Standard .Commission's FmdLngs of Fact/ Conclusions of Law and Recommenctation for Discipline in
Inquiries 20-i5-G5S, 2015-059, 2015-D60/2035-C6L 2015-C62, 2015-063, 2015-098,2013-343, 2Cn5-146 Page 4
%. At feje ^o^cl;u53an ©f g3-ie ^amzra'eTs" c^se^ lf3se parses slipAted ^
digrinfea;! ©fC©ani's 9^ ^O,/13^ a^id Cciim;tl5 ri^part 1^
I'D. Afer fine cci^'dusion ©f t]"i:e Bxarissners" case, IRespcm'de^^ m'oy-ed ip diSTiiidss
fee 3*eDim;mn;g ccoru-iis;; afisr deli:b,eratioj!L, Hite Cs.aujMs^o.m dismissed C'cam^ 35 SHfepHTt 4.
11. At the conditslo.n of a31 eysdence far fee iadjndiEa-tory p3iase., the
Coimnissian deliberated and ^isnuss-ed Counts 5,6^ 7., 13^ anjd Count 35 su^paxt 2,
Mal£>rial Par^cipanls
12. Respondent Ccmnie Lee Jojmsfoji is a aiiaglsh'ate psdge in i^ie San Jnart
County Magistrate Court yrith her office ajid courtroom in Aztec^ New Mexico.
13. Trud)7 Chase is a magistrate pdge in the San Juan County Magistrate
Court with her office and courh'oom in Aztec, New Mexico.
14. Barry D. Sparer is a x^iagish-ate judge in file San Juan County Mpgish'ate
i !Court with his office mid courh-oon^ in Aztec/ New Mexico.
15. Lori Procter is tlie c^'urt manager for tlie San Juan Comity Ntigisbrate
Courlin Aztec/ New Mexico.
16. A?ny Ver'hulst has been a clerk aE the San Juan County Magista-ate Court at
Aztec since June/ 2000, and a "leachvorker" for the past three years/ second in authority
to the Court Manager. (Where a participant is identified herein only as "Verhulst"/ the
reference is to Amy Verhulst)
judicial St?.ncb;'d Commission s Findings of Fac^, Concjusions of La'A' and RecommendaEion for DiscipJinc? Ill
Inquiries 201^053.2015-059,2Cn>C60/ 2015-C61/ 2015-C62/ 2Q15-C63, 20J5-09S/ 20-15-143, 2035-146 Page 5
17. ©£Fln "feMbt is £b-e l3E5Tbemd ©f A^ij VerIauHsi .m-Mi ^-ypi-fcs as si del-ed^iyc
wsElih fee San Jnem CcyBm'iy Shes-aS^s O^Sce. :
3B,. CDizgata ("Crng1'1) Gm'na is a deA ieadwoito' aiid forin-E-r-c^nrib dei^ li Sis
IVl:a'sis3
19. Rebecca Etdri'dge ss a der^ iis fee wmTffnis -diyfelon wl0i ^lie San J^aii
County Maglstrale Court an Azt'ec,
20. Arthur ("Artie ) P-epm as the Director of fee Admmistralive Office of flie
Courts (^ometinies abbreviated herein as BAOC').
21- Rosemar)7 McComt is the director of the Magistrate Courls Division of the
Adniirush'ative Office of the Courts.
22. Georgia ^ediUo works for the New Mexico Administrative pffite of the
Courts as Statewide Operations IMEanager/ wife duties andudmg assuring that courts
operate in accorda^c^ with New Mexico statutes and rules-
23. Stev^ Jcpes is @ retired New Mexico magish-ate judge.
24. James Kempe is a sergeant with the Nw Mexico State Police.
-?5.._._ _?teyeMurP^ylsil_n s^orney in Farmington/ New Mexico.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Kespondenfs election and adjushnent to the bench
26. Respondent was born and raised m San Juan County,
Judicial Standard Commission's Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and RecommgndciEion for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-053, 2Q15-059, 20-15-060, 2015-061, 2015-062- 2015-063,2035-098.2015-143,2015-146 Page 6
27» REs.pcmd-e^ is a f-ormer ^aw 'eiSQs'-cemEinl rfnossr W^D a^ennl.ed -&e pDUicg
I
aGa-feiHQy mi 1^9 aa^d la't.ej wss (empfcj^ bj fee Sara Jm-ss^ C'oim'fy >£3asdff'/s P.epartmieait1
a35'd te Barimin^lOT.i Pdii'ce D^p^rhE'EinL - - . •
28. - Eespmident 'won -a pjimary el'ecfics^ ifor an Az'tec snaglstrate lu'dida
vacancy un |:ume, 2014^ ^nd was appointed to &e same posita'DB i-n August 2014;
Respondent had m:o gmcT^ election opponent and 'wcm aji imcon.tes'i-ed gener^3 eleclio^
in Noyetnber., 203.4.
.2.9. IResporide^t campaigned wsth a pledge to E!deai^ up" the Aztec magisfcraie
court
30. The Aztec iiaagistrafre cotirtiiofuse houses three full-tnne magistrate judges.
31. Respondent was sworn in to the office of Nagistrate Judge for San Juan
County, Division One/ with tier priinary office in Aztec, New Mexico.
32. Wh^n respondent: took the ^>encb/ Judge Trudy Ciiase ^^as the Presiding
Judge and Judge 'Barry Sharer was an associate Judge.
33. As the newest Aztec judge/ in keeping with prior practice/ Respondent
was initially assigned a civil case docket/ taking on a criminal docket thereafter.
34. As a former law enforcement officer/ Respondent felt that crm-iinal
procedure was relatively easy but initially was challenged by the complexity of civil
procedure.
35. New magistrate judges are trained through the New Mexico Judicial
Education Center ^s well as by the assignm^nl of other magistrate judged as mentors.
Judicial SLiPid^rd Comn'itssion's Findings of FacE, ConcJLLsibns of Law and Recommendation For Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-05S/ 203.5-059,2G15-Q&Q, 20^5-061,2015-C62, 2015-063, 2Cri5-09S, 20-15-1-E3,2Q-.S5-146 Page 7
3S>.. iR-Es-pDjito^ ^ffss iE*eqi33jed ^o ir'CTiiew mors ifea^i for^ ITO-IHS of 2'.ec<rfed
vBd-'eo tr.asTaimg mi'Q'ie^s^ Srom fee Ju^ndai B^asiGsti-o^a G^ente.
. 37. - Hhe A'(3nal:Bi&;b^!faTe OJBc^ of fe C^virts assi^ed FiFesidiiig ju'd^e ;Chas£
•as l^e.sp.cm-denfs imife»l a^^ntorj
38. IT'm^ge Ciias-e prepfu-ed a stu'dy gutd-e for jRespoiMijsnt to help Respondent
become pjpfldeni am fhe bench mid provid'ed Mesp.ondent ivlth some old tr^iming
manuals from .a .prior maglstm^e judge.
39. Respondent began 3-iem-mg cases m the courtrooB-i in Septem&er^ 2014.
40. Kespondenl: attended jmandatory judicial tramlng an November and
December, 2014, as did President Judge Chase,
41. Respondent opposed Aztec magistrate procedures/ staff/, and jndges
begiru-dng early in her tenure and leading up to the specific conduct which is fee basis
of these charges,
42. 'Respondent began chalienging Aztec magistrate cou^ri: procedures about
two weeks after she took the bench.
43. Kespondent identified issues s5w wanted resolved/ most of them in civil
procedures including notarization or certification of affidavits and procedures for
delivery of court notices.
44. Respondent liad concerns about setting bonds at video arraignments
without adequate information/ and took extra time to explain rights/ for which she felt
criticized by the other judges.
Judicia! Standard ConimissionsFmdingsofPact/ Cor.cjusions ofLav\tanci RecommendalicnforDiscipime m
Inquiries 2015-058. 2015-059,2015-G60, 2015-OD^, 2015-C62, 2015-063,20:15-093, 201M43, 2015-146 Page 8
45- JRespaRd-ejait sA&di aim issue -^^h ^Qni^imEnS: p:rDcecE-m-££, for ^7Ihi'c^ ;&3se
'Mt resein-led by aiie coiM cler^ I
- 4&.. Eespmdml 'bsd CBiwsrnB al?^u.t assessi^ JhsRdm warrant wi&OB^-
I
cansld'ea-ing aStoRa'tte cojrmai-m3iiy ^^yice.
47. BespDnrienit lesffisd feat Praslding Judge Cfease reprimancEed lieir for
releasing a d^fend.ant 331 OB£ of Jud^ge Chase'1® cases ivlio liad serv.&d sTiore 0'mn the
sentenced jail fene; K-espoJident recaUed tliat Judge Chase to3d her she was TE-iaSdn.g
more work for .•everyone and to |u3^ dc» tier jo1?,J
48. Respo.n^ient objected to the court not issuing notices of intent to is$ue
default judgments and so contacted a Silver City Magistrate Judge about the issue; ot3ier
^es told her to stop.
49. Curious why magiistrate probation cases were being dismissed on apppai/
Respojjide^i inquired of the Eleventh Judicial District Chiel^ Jmpge/ for wliicli s}ie was
reprimanded by her presiding judge.
)0, respondent called a Hobbs Magistrate Judge who was also a licensed
attorney to ask advice about handling civil cases; Presiding Judge Chase fold
Respondent that her calls embarrassed the court and she needed to stop.
51. Respondent complained that she carried far more cases than the other
judges; in response/ Georgia Sedillo from the Administrative Office of the Courts met
wiA the Aztec magistrate judges and the court manager and changes were made thei
assignn^en^ procedure to ensure balance.
JudidalStindat'd Commission's Findings of Pact/Condusions- of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-05S/ 20W59, 20J5-C60/ 201>061. 2015-C62, 2015-C63/ 2015-09S, 2015-143,2015--146 Page 9
5Z IRespo^.diEn'f- recited to £be O'&ET pdges -wlheia albm3t ^"ty dF Bier cas'es! " " ~ " !
WSSC T^BSS^GSsi. '•
53. Gem^a SeMo 1^ a fDur-l'iour c'onversatioB' ^yMh Sl-^pondejat in iRnid-
Auj£?ast 2015 resarzlms iRespondeAfs con'cenis M coxtrl, co.mpl'A-ts by £^ff_?md
psnscma! issues; SEdillo Siad other conv.ersatlons wth Bespcm'dent aj^d silso
cotnmurucated ^iih tier -topugli email.
54» Georgia SediLte h^ed to reasure EespOTicient about to role of the A-zlec
court manager telling respondent that she had worked witli l.ori Proctor for jeco-s and
that It was in Procto/s l?est Interest to ensure that new Judges are successful,
55. Respondent perceived and reported an issue \viQ\ management of cash
bonds wMch Was invesdgated and foimd to be m^substantiatecL The practice required
t3iat each cash bond be entered in numerical order and there was an instance when a
number had been entered incorrectly; Lori|Proctor cau^t t:}ie error/ Struck through the
incorrect entry and made a separate entry with the correct number; no funds were
mjssirig nor was any other entry made mcorrectly. The cash bond ledger and
PrPC_^lr£!s-were audited even^ three inpnths and all audits were Without adverse
findings. (Examiner's Exh, 39)
56. Respondent never asked Court Manager Proctor to explain casl-i bond
procedures/ to review the cash bond ledger/ nor to explain te error in numbering.
Judicial Standard Conumssion's Findings of Fact, Conclusicns of Law and ReconimendaiJon for Disciplitie in
Inquiries 20I5-03S, 2015-059, 20-J5-060, 2015-06^,20-] 5-062, 2015*063,20]5-C98,2015-143,2015-146 Pa^e 10
:5Z IRespmrifaA isis'de complasiTrl-s of emhsz^emen'i ©f 'cash bDjiu:! ^zon^ to
AOC |and to a^ie Fajmn^ngtepi Po3ace Dspa^toie^^ ^mi neiHher fe?'&l; oS-rdaS ac&sn;
]Re^pQ7a'dejt:t p-i^seniBd a® eyl-deEice of a-rfcua'l einb'ezzlenient
.53. 2j3 Nterch, 2'03S/ R-espimd-ent MToie 'to Bosem-aT)7 M.cCoujt to det£u3
problems she perceiv-ed aa 4'he aitaaLigemEal of the Az^ec aBagistr^te icouri-,
59. In resporLse t-o a repojt of prol?lenis by Eespondent, AOC Magisirate
Courts Djvisiort Director Ros'emaTy McCburi- ^isHed Iblie Aztec nlagish'ate couri in ApTil/
2015, and spoke wilti Judge Sharer and ^vith Respondent.
60- NcCo^jrt tried to lielp resolve Respondents complaints mvo]v!3ig
Presiding Judge Chase 'foul Respondent would not fpliow McCourts advice or
direcliyes; McCourt felt i^at Respondent would always find some way to turn around
or rmsconsb-ue her advice.
61. In response ^o conSnuing conflicts between Respondeiit and Presiding
Judge Chase/ McCom't rec^minended mediation/ but in5^ead the parties went before tlie
JVl^gish-ate Judges' Advisory Committee/ wluch issued ^ report and recommendations
in July/ 2015; Respondent received their report in September/ 2015, and testified tliat she
complied with the committee's recommendations.
62. The Nagish'ate Judges' Advisory Committee reporf: recommended in part
that Division Director McCourt adopt m Aztec the same amendments to magistrate
management policy wt-iiA had been instihited in Dona Ana County/ and that
Respondent receive a mentor that was not another Aztec ^nagistrate judge.
Judicial SS:2n'J?.riJ Commission s FiriLlings of Fact, ConchissorLS of Law and Eccomm&ndation for DiscipUn;? in
Ir.quiries 2015-058, 2015-059, 20'l5-C60, 2015-C61/ 2015-Cc2/ 2015-063, 2015-098, 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 11
63. ?GptBt ;a3ird S^iMt? suggested to l^e A-^ec ms^&lra'te^ 1^^ Jndg-e Sh^-er
I
l^eco-me p.Res'id^g J'Q^S '3Iai ^-4'sr ^0 ailsvBate .some Qf Mespcanderfs ass^es; sS. fise fa:me^
J-u.-dg'e Sharsr -tQ^'en ^ad b.eei'i iU)B tiiis Ibendh fer si^-hit y-.ears.
fA Ndpe ^i^m'er ^yas apppinled 'by AOC as AAc pre^ciin.g i^tlRe o^ Oc^&bar
1^ 2035, but X-espojidEist BODH deye^oped confHcts wllh 3iB32 as 'w'eH.
& Roserssrj McCciurt concluded E-espondent nvould continue to hav.e
problems wathw3-iDeyer ^"as prEsnding judge.
66. When Rosemary McComt felt that she coiri-d not l>£ e&ctive m resolving
Respondents complaints^ she referred Eespondent to Jason Clack for "fresh 'eyesv on the
instter.
67. Jason Ctack is the staff £itto.mey for tiie ^.agisfa-ate Courts Di^rision of tlie
AOC beginning in June or julyy 2015.
68. AOC found -Respondent a new m^n^or in Espanola/ Magistrate Judge
Madrid/ but after two or three months he asked to[b^ relieved because Respondent was
intent on her perceptions of problems wltli Azi-ec cotirt management and asked him for
legal advice on what slie should do.
69. McCourt then arranged for AOC to assign retired Torrance County
Magistrate Judge Steve Jones as Respondent's mentor because she could not find a
sitting judge willing to do U due to the "drama" involved,
70. McCourt fold Respondent to treat her mentorship as a resource for help
with procedures in the courh-oom/ not Respondent- s [mteractions with staff.
judicial Standard Commission's PLndmg& ol Pact, Conclusions of Law and Recummend^tion for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-058,2015-059, 20^5-060, 201>C6L 2015-C62, 2315-G63/ 2015-09S, 2015-^143, 2015-146 P^ge 12
71. liR-espmArd sm^ in iber de:ixiE3^ort &at NfcCoEat told S^r si'Qi to spea'b to
l|©3ies 4-s©;u;t iim.t^-aiciS rfl-a^o.j^s at €as CDHT^.. (Sxa]firai3ierrfs 'Ex^i. 47^ TR 22:24-^)-i !
72, Mc&-mt aslced ^^:g-e J^nes H:o ©'b5£n7'e Respm-ifaA cm •IS^Iae bench foz cne
week to h^p ^y5fe_co>isrteom procedures., and n-Dt to gei cs'-ugM TSp w5lh ihs i^-ues
SSesppiidenl had with the presiding Judge or wl8h fee associate JBdge, (4:10:'3S)
73. Judge Jones observed BespDBdent for one week in Octoto 2015 and
found feat Respojidenl: was on &ne and liandled lierself in a professional manner,
74. Judge Jones expected Kespondent to be on her best behayior wlule being
observed by 5ujn<
75. Notwitlistanding the mstruct303-is of Division Director McComt/
Respondent spoke to anentor Judge Jones about ^personal shiff" inducling her difficult
relations -witt^ court persojinel. (Examiner's Exh, 47, DeposStion at 23:18-25, 24:1-6)
76. Judge Jones did r(ot initiate conversations abont staff conflicts vvitip
Respondent bu t he did listen to !}er comments a'bout them. (4:29:46)
77. Respondent testified before the Commission that she received no
guidance from AOC in resolving her issues with the Aztec magistrate court.
Defiance toward President Judge Chase - £x parte contacts
78. Count 15(3) alleges; "On or between Januaiy I/ 2015 and September 21,
2015 you failed to follow the lawful directives of Presiding Judge Trudy Chase and
undermined Judge Chase's authority by; .,. (3^ [continuing] to contact litigants ex parte
after being told multiple times to stop this behavior. ... Such conduct violates Rules 21-
Judida] SLindard Comn-Jssion's FL-idings of Fdct, Conclusiop^ of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquires 20-J 5-058, 2015-059, 2015-060, 201^061, 20"L5-C62, 2015-063,20-15-095,2015-U3, 2015-146 Page 13
2i-?, 21-1% 21-mi, 21-202, ^l-S'D^p) ,and 2a-3@5(B) N?lA .of ifbe Code ©f
j odi.dal CoiMiiKt sKd coan^taafes ^yailM iAipojTtd^'ct si? officer'
79. Pire£adi:mg i.uete ^Ghas-e® ?s;badT ^md.e co^e.red fee topic ©f ex ^rss
• - 'fimnBiUTiications sird ^vas dis-c;ussBd_aU£Bg& ^vii'h KespimdlenrL {ExaiimTer s BxSx 47; Tjr.
^'^
BO- Contemporaneously "wiiHa Ke£p.ondent'fs in.itia3 training Jud^e Barjy
Shacer mdenyent a m^nlorship with Hm^ Joiin A. Dean, Jr. lyliere e^ purie
ccmimumcations were discussed; Ju-dge Si^arer sliared h3S trauiitig -on ^.T pfirle
cosununications with Respondent and Judge Chase after eye^y meeting with Judge
Deaii.
81* Respondent w^s warned by both Judge Chase and Judge Shaier after
incidents of ex ym'ie cormTmnlcations but continued the practice nonelheless.
(Examiner's B?dz 47; Tr. 183:10-35, 184:8-25, l]85:l-15)
82. Respondent testified to the Co^mrdssion tha): expsrie contacts didr^t seem
io be a big deal in the Az bee court and the clerks routinely delivered ex pnrte
-correspondence to her,
83, The Aztec magistrate judges discussed procedures for handling ex parie
letters,, but no v^riKen local rule resulted.
S4, One of the relevant ex pnrle incidents at issue/ the Calixto Cabrern case^ is
discussed in detail below.
Judicial ct?-jidard Commission s Findings of F(Kt Condu.-.ions ol Law End I^scos1.meRCk';tion for Discipli.ne m
Inqujncs 2015-C5S, 2015-059, 2015-CcO/ 20-E5-C61, 2&15-C62/ 2015-063, 20'15-GSS, 2015-143, 2015-U6 Page 14
'BS. Oja awtte- ©DT^-!3ri/ Respoadejit iimtiari a c^IEil fi© ayi3 p3a53iiHiff J-ojrce
toncE tewdm's, a mislake Siespi3^-sn^ sside cs^ fee j^al'weint ijii B.oaiid^ <ss£se.
Bespondtot rfM-iinstocte' pdges after siie issued hey ©jder ajid JeaTined -she '^^s
wjang aboni a required ano'tic^ pe;riod. Re5,pDj3d£?3it ias3sedl Csmri Mana'^i' ff^^c^iM' w^zai:
to do and was to3d to address it ^ a fcearin^ 3nstea^ iR^sponden^ ffaied to rfl bD&
parfies to t&H -Ihejn. She a^aAe^ t^ie plaintiff b}? plsone and apolo^ed and Eaad slie
wouN do better i^ext ihn^ IRespcaiderrt uirtended to contact fee defejidant as weli but
could xiot get a correct: phone ziumber. KespondeM testified that: Jier call w.as nol: about
file case but was ?Jon]y adrmmslraUve^ but she since has learned mare ab&ut £i' p?^
communication ^nd now would act differently.
S6, Respondent feels responsible to persona31y ^lottfy some parties wlien fhei?|
case Is appealed.
ipropnety and favoritism ;
87. Count 12 allege^ "You created an appearance of impropriety/ showed
favoritism towards the plaintiff/ and attempled to aid the plamtiff in te impending
appeal -in the matter of Cfilixto Cdbfera, Bonnie Cobrem v. George Leray Chnrks^ M-^47-CV-
2014-03200, when you sim sponte released your case notes to the district court- on May 3/
2015 prior to the district court's May 5/ 2015 filing of a notice of appeal in the magistrate
court. Such conduct violates Rules 21-103, 2M02/ 21-303, 21-202, and 2l-204(B) NMRA
i s'of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constihites wiUful jprusconduct in office."
~~rJuch'ciiil Standard Comnmsion's Firiding:; uf -Fact; CondusionsofLawandEecomBiendation-forDjsciplmem
Lnqum&s 2CH 5-<^S/ 2015-059, 2Q15-C60/ 2015-06]/ 2015-062, 2015-C63/ 2035-09S, 2015-343, 20^5-145 Pa^C 15
' !BR 3^espDJid,en!: pzeside^ o-var t5ial case cf 0?^A CA^% Bow^e Csb^m •^I
Ge^ge tss^ CW'es, M-147-C¥.-M4-maiI
89.. After a-fmal h'em'lER.g ,Bm:d E-espojidsQS<ls ^'edsaoB^ Amy y'^rh^^ told
itsspanteiil that tjhe Cabr-e3^ case ^?as appealed; JRespDjid'enlE ^yas ai.GSi .aiyare of .any
olher appe,a3 froto ^er rd.edss'ons..
9£l When cases are appealed jfa-om maglsfa'ate to dastric-i cour^ She dis-h^cl
comt requests &e ^na^istr-ate transcript, or a copy of i'he file^ 'wlndh is prgpared .Emd sent
by a derk. The magistrate tfarLScripl does not include the magistrate judge's case notes-
91. respondent lold Couri Manager Procloj- fliat^ she wanted 1-ier persona]
case notes frojn the Cnbrera case delivered to ths district court for appellate purposes; in
compliance with that directiye^ Court Clerk Cruzita Garcia hand-cairied l^espon^e^fs
cose notes to district: couit.
92. Respondent -^estiSed as io her belief that case notes are public dt^imente
and part of the court: file -v^hich shoidci be transmitted to the district court upop ^ppea3/
thai many judges treat th^m so/ and that she wanted iier case notes available to the
district court judge in order for the district court judge to know and understand the
history of the case. (Examiner's Exh. 47; Tr 139:21-23,140:1-3-10)
93. Respondent testified that many judges Iiave said case notes are part of the
court record.
94. Respondent read the magistrate appeal rules to say everything goes up to
the district court/ includirig the case notes. (Compare Rule 2-705(E))
}udici;i; Slaridard CoTRjTtission s Fmduigs of Pact/ Conclusions of Law and Recommend^ion for Disdplme m
Inq^i'ics 2015-053, 2015-059,2015-060, 20^061, 2015-C62, 2035-063, 2015-09S. 2015-143. 20'15-146 Page 16
9^ Hespisnto't d'soir^d tha;t ^cile of ^s Mes of Ciya] Er^ca^.ure ferI i
fee Ma,s?£lmte Coxrlts s^te.3 fett '"al3 ^an3^s a^d d&cm^'en^s"" ^v^re iG> te ^ilEed ©^i ap;p^i
and that to- case ^cte ^.y^e iBd^d'-e^.
96.. Eu1.e 2-7D5pE) d^ss iHp^ st-ateth^t s33 fD.mis .ai3c1^iocmiX£nis!L.are f© be ^-ied
<m appeal.
97. 'On May 5^, 2035^ a courEfc clerk trmisfejTe<3 a plione caU to Lead^vor^er Atny
Vrfiuls^ telling VeAulst that the caUer ^vas BoTuxie Cabrera and •il-iat Cahrem aske^ to
speak to Re^po^dent; Verliulsl: took th& •call and Csbxera smd s^hs was rehs-rj-mig
Respondents piionecalt
98. On May 5^ 2015, Judge Sparer oyerheard Respondent on the p3ione in her
office discussing a civil case appeal/ apparently with one of the parses: Judge |Sharer
.heard Respondent fell the person/ This is Judge Johnston froi-n ii^e Az.tsc Magistrate
Court and I need t^ talk to you about your case. Respondent told tl|e party to
reque-st Kespondent's detajled notes abovit the magistrate proceedings/ 19 consider
geHing .an attorney, tof subpoena witnesses/ and that there is a way to interrupt: the
appeal process. __._.._ - - - ----- -
99. The ex parts conversation that Judge Sparer overheard lasted more than
thirty minutes.
100. Judge Sliarer immediately reported Respondent's ex parte phone call to
Presiding Judge Chase. (Examiner's Exh. 47; Tr. 136:2-25,137:1-25,138:36-25, ^39,^-16)
^ '<•
( ;•
i:. '
!')
Judicial Standard Commissions Findings of F^ct/Conclusions of LEIIV and Recommendation fcrDLscir^ir;!? in
Inquires 2D15-Q55, 2015-059, 20J5-C60, 20^5-C6], 20I5-C62, 2015-C63/ 2015-098.2015-143, 2015.146 Page 17
i M,, Af'tar eGH£u3t33it^ wlih Piresi'das,g |TG:^^5^ BE-rea of ^he DDi-ia Airsa €0123-3^
l^isgista'.ate Csmrl, Jn-ct^e ^barer reported Kespr^'denifs ex -p^rh phone £a3I to ihe J^.sjid^ill
5itod.ard-5;C€02imj5s!EDJ(L - - ' •
I
-..-1;02,- ^Eespmiden'fs e.x piwSs plrcme fall to plainffi siu? Srer te-ariBnut^'i of Iier case
no.tes to <he district oomt w.ere intended to aid plamtiff on appeal,
Abuse of a-aihority in aimmal 'c^se - HDschmsi
103. Count 14 alleges: afe S-tsie y. t^m^ Msxiw v. Gvem Hos^min, M'147-VM-
2015-OOS/ you refused to accept £he prosecutors notk proseqin for lade of probable cause.
You 3cnew the case was going to be dismissed/ but refused to accept tlie dismissal told
the prosecutor that the ^efend&iit should be supervised for somefemg^ and fhpn told the
defendsnt to gel an attorney and to wor'k out a deal -with the prosecutor. Sucli conduct
violates Rules 21-l^U, 21-102, 21-103, 21-202,21-205(A), 21-210(A) and 21^211 NMRA of
ilthe Code ofjudicia) Conduct and constitutes wjUfu] misconduct in office.}'
304. Brian Decker is an Assistant District Attorney in the Eleventh Judicial
DistrlcLwl-ucb includes the Azlec inagistrate court,
305. Respondent presided over the case of Slate of NCTE? Mexico v. 'Elvera
HoscMn, M-147-VM-2015-008/ where ADA Decker was the prosecutor.
106. Respondent consulted ^ith Judge Sharer on the Hoschain file and they
agreed there was no probable cause; Respondent told ADA Decker so/ and Decker also
agreed.
JudicL-Ll Standard Commission's Fmdings of Fact/ Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 201.5-058, 20^5-059,2015-C60/ 2015-G6L 20-15-062, 20-15-063, 2015-09S/ 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 18
107. At a subsEqHEn^ p.rehiaIE ^sarmg, IE^^p0jird£3i.t r.eJnsE-d to acc^t a ^A
proBe^m teiAit-fic! in ope^ c^ur^t fc^ ADA BecIscT 33^1 H-Qsrihiaiji'ls •£sse eyes-i ihsu^In 0Bci-e3-
stMed ttet Ms i^a'sis for disn^ss.al ^ss Is-dk of pro'haN.e c^nse.
'.IDS.. _ Bespcmdejit a^e'e-^ Siere wss n-o pro'b^M^? ca'y.-F^supp.o^&ng'^e £:hai;gs3
aga^st iHoscham, but refused fto accept the ?i&Sf prosefjw,, ista&ig in open conrt wiiLli &te
-dafendant present thai the defendant needed to be 031 pjobation for soznetMng.
109. After refusing the pro.secu'tor's tendered dismissal/ Respondent told
defendant Hoschaln to ge^ a JawycT smd fay fo ^yor3< o-ut a deal ^vlth the prosecutor;
^espcmdent then reset the hearing.
110. Responcten^ told tbe CorrLmissioji tot slie wanied Hoschain to get an
attorney so fimi any dismissal }you3d be wlA prejudice; and she did no^ want the c^se
re-Kled
113. respondent l^efore t^he Commissiora denied saying iphat the defendant
needed supei'vision; her denial was not Hie truth.
112. ADA Decker spoke to the defendant after the hearing and told her that he
was going to file the dismissal with 1'he court clerk, w5i3ch_h€ did._ .._ -_
113. ADA Decker reported Respondent's actions in the HoscJwin case to
Presiding Judge Chase.
Judicial Standard Coinnussions Fir;djrig5 of fact/ Conclusions oH.a'.v and Recommendation .for Disdplirsc m
LnqulnM 2035-05S, 2015-059/ 2035-C60/ 20-15-061 , 2015-C62/ 2015-C63, 2015-09S/ 2015-^43, 2015-146 Pase 19
^
tgistete CDHit stsf^ m^an'a'^eiBssI"0
'314- 3o SepSismibe^ 2C% tlse N:e^ M.e?dci£'> Sujp-r.eiaie Coxirt pi-am^gaiteri! a
gepc-erAl p.o3iq7 .goyerj-i™^ Silre a-u^.ca-jiy ©f 'pj-esrdm^ lu-ages^ N-e^y Me^co ma^Isfa-ate
courts, except as a^-^odiSed in Iwfuted nidiyidu'al .ch-a^msiaixes.. Ses Orcier 09-B^O.O,
?i3p£rmtejiding Control over Na^lral-e Couris^ Police DiYfclive ^5.
3^5. The presiding si^agistr-ate fud^e sets >c<?U3t policies/ revae-ws court
finandrib, develops local ^ules,, and foBaws Supreme Courts Ojder 09-S2GD^ Sn •fhe.
MaHsr of SiipermienAing Conts'Dl Over Mngistmie Cfwrls^ and Policy OirectTre N-uinber 5^
in order to assure &at the court runs smoothly and effideii^j
116. The pTesidimg magistrate judge works cooperatively witii die court
manager. ;
117. Associate magistrate judges do not have the authority to manage or direct
the vfork o| staff or of file court manager-
m 2n the specific case of the Aztec magistrate 'ourt/ {lie roles and
relationships of the magistrate judges and court inarmger are governed by a "matrix"
created by the AOC and approved by the New Mexico Supreme Court--(£zw?zH3£^5
Exh. 36; 10:43:49)
H9, The judges of the Aztec Magistrate Court also approved the Mahrbc as
guiding court operations,
120. The Aztec magistrate court matrix clearly defines the authority of the
Aziec court nanager.
JudidaJ Standard CoD-LQUSS'ion's T'Lndmg.s oF Fac^/ Condusion-s of Law and -Keconimendati'or! for Dbdp^;'^ in
Inquiries 2015-05S, 2015-059, 20]5-£'60, 2015-C61, 2015-062/2015-0^3, 2015-09S, 2015-143/ 2015-1.15 PSSS 20
122.. Ud P^iceinr is tt:fee A'zitec Ma;^strate Cert i^fens^er sHj^cs Msj of 2Q!]@,
I IaBdsH^r^Ises^esmc^niitcSerfcs. |
122. Gomt saiasnagers m Ne'iy Mexico ffi^gis'trate'oo^i'ib s^anage ^11 ©peraiions
of &e ccmit £x6£p^ fee lirdges1 •p£ri:oranance? iheir -du^'es_lBd!n.d:e mAigmg-staff, erases,
and fadl;it3£5.
123.. A magistrate comt mmiager'sS duH&s speclfic^ijy mdude ^eaidarmg cases
and .assigning courtroom -si£if£
124. Clerks at llie Aztec ansgistrate court cross-train and take turns working m
the courtroom..
125. Magistrate courh'oom clerks assist the judge, enter mformation into the
computer bjased on what the judge ruted^ and prepare a variety ^f documents; the best
practice is for clerks to prepare case documents wlule parties are in i:he courb'oom.
(26. Clerks on tlie bench fimproye court efficiency |by catcMng errors before
I
paperwork is fmal.
127. If a clerk spots an error by the judge during a hearing/ the clerk may slip
the judge a note or-may-wait and reporLthe proJbIem to_tlie_co_-tirl: manager, _ _
128. Clerks are instructed not to interfere with the court.
129. Clerks/ usually leadworkers/ work with new judges in the courtroom to
tram the judges in courtroom procedures.
130. Leadworkers have all of the duties of a clerk arid more. ;
Jucitcia] Standard Commission's -Findings of Fact, CondLisions cf Law ?.nd P.sconuuertdtition tc-r DLScipHne in
Inqrsmes 2015-0% 20I5-059/ 2015-C60, 2015-C6'!, 2015-C62/ 2035-C63, 2015-098, 2015-143, 20-15-146 Page 21
131. Assw Verbnlst Iras IbsE^ ?A73& €h'e Aziec ^ia^sir^fee Ci3133Tt &r si^eBii Tears
£m'd Ibas beea Igadwca^er for ^Tes y^ars; hs^ dai3.£s aire to l;raia coiaril cieir^s,/ asBist m t2ae
•eysr^dhy GpEratiiojus ©f ibe cozw^ a^ assist i?i:thi tr^uim^ ^^'^ i^'fces an cour't~J/ -'1T —-———- -- -— —--- - - -^ ... . ^ y ^^
—and pTOC^dures. :
13.2- Verhulst Bias assisted E^X 3ie'w ju'd^eB oy.-er tlie past sbeleen years,.
133. Verhnlst was not ass5.gned to a parHcalar com-troom., but would assist m
thecouriTo&m wlwn needed,
334. Verhulst assisted Respondent ^yhen Respondent ^yas new to S'he bencli.
135. Verhulst was trained that if a judge did not follow cpurb-ocmi proced-ures/
clerks were to lei tl-te court manager kncw-
1%- New Nexico magistrate judges do not control the assignment of clerks to
their courb'ooms.
137. Aztec Court Manager Proctor has supervisory au&ority over clerk
' - , 11cou^'pozn assignments.
138. It is Ihe court manager's responsibility t6 (.ieterminG wNch clerks are
assigned to a courtroom and how ma^y clerks are assigned to a couTtroom based on
need.
139. Respondent admitted that Court Manager Procior had the authority to
assign clerks to her courtroom,
judichl Stand^j-d Cosunisslon's Findirigs of Fact, Conciusioi-isofLawandR^conu'itendationfor DiscipUnem
Inquiries 2015-05S, 2015-059, 20'15-CcO, 20I5-C6-1, 20-15-C62,20-i5-C63/ 2015-093, 20-15--! 43, 2015-146 PHgS 22
14©. Best prac&CB w-DTiHd fliay^ at le.ast oj^e d-srlk HI &.e courlrcEom ^vjai-i ieac33
I
m.agis'iirate j;ud^|e c^n &t£ be^cl'i/ alEfe^g'h lit is pnssi'V-e te3 opEi'aIe a a3iagiistrai:£ cbBrf
m'Qxmft a cjerlc aA fee cons'iJB'sm.-
1C1. In March, 2Q15, at was amitOLinced fte de^iss ^yoald m-Q j'.ijngej
antomciticalh7 sit with judges in ch^l i^eai^nss..
342. Eesponilent occaswnslly ^-vould £Gk for a corirfcroom derk wjfhout success.
143- Court: Manager Proctor is not requlre.d to exp3am to &e judges ^vhy
partic'diaT clerics are in tl"i£ courtroom or w^hy sxiore tiian one cleric is assigned to a
courtroom-
344. Magistrate court managers I^ave piimary responsibility for staff
supervision/ training, and discipline.I
145. New Mexico magistrate judges have no admmlsti'ative authority to
ipisdpHne court clerks.
146. Respondent: knew that slie had no supervisory or disci^linajy authority
6ver the court manager or cowi clerks.
147, Magistrate cowt managers work directly with the presiding magistrate
judge.
148. "Case flow' in the magish'ate courh'ooms is the purview of the court
manager and the presiding magish-ate judge.
149. A magistrate court manager has no authority over the magistrate judges
themselves.
judicial Standard Comjnission's Findings ofF^ct, CcnciusioriSofLawsnd Recornniendation forDisclplme in
Inqisirips 20-15-053, 2G15-059,20'i5-C(;0/ 20-15-C6L 2015-C62, 2015-C63/ 20'15-CP3/ 2015-143, 2015-U6 Page 23
3.5& if &£3-e -syas sn £SEU.E COET-I MrmageT pj-octor coffli'd vsaot r-esalye ^7a£h a ^
she m3s imishMcted 10 .ca^3 h&r sarperras.cijr aa: t'h-e AOC G^^rga'a Se'd.ili-o- 1^'
151- A an-agisirB'te judge wlio csj^^ot s-e^oNe an as^u.e ^ifli l&e comt ansma^-eT
can oraifeKt Gear-gia SedJLU.o for 3ie5:p^ - - - —-it ----- —- —- -
15Z AfeDut August 17^ 2D15^ Respondent inltaated a four-huur teleplione caB to
Georgia Sedi31o; ^vlule HIQSI of tlie cal3 cojicersed p.ersoaai Issues,, t'hey slso discussed at
length Respondent s dissa.tasfaction ^vith ithe actions of tx3ri Proctor and Judge Chas-e.
153. Georgia Se<3illo'*s job is to ensure that coxats under her jnmiagea^ent
fimction appropriately.
154. Georgia Sedillo vie^s her role as providing guidance and coaching to
<pourjt managers as they managed court staff/ and to presiding judges as tjbey managed
i'mamung the bench.
155. Georgia Sedillo tries to colla'borate and to help judges and staff work
}:oget3ier,
156. An Aztec magish-ate com'i- clerk who has a problem with a judge is
required to report the matter to Cozjrt Manager Proctor who ilien discusses it with the
judge.
157. Clerks complained to Proctor tl^at Respondent would not follow the
clerks' direction on courtroom procedure and would direct the clerks to take actions
they believed improper,
158. Clerks complained to Proctor about Resplondent's demeanor toward them.
Judicial Siandard Commission'.s Findmgs of Fact/ Condusions of }^v,' and RecoDimendafcion for Discipline m
Inquiries 20l5-05S,2015-{}59, 2035-060, 2015-06-1, 20'l>C62,20-i5-063,2015^98,2015-143,2015-146 Page 24
15^ Relieccs Btdrldge'^ pjliEaiaJj Essigmiie^-'i: wss ••as a waiXtints der^ but
ESdiidge tC?ss-lT£i3iied as a c.om'^oom cler^. 5;n ISespsTtderafs coEpa'fa^rMnJ
1BQ.. i^ead3:ng •op -to I>eoeniber 1, 210X5,, fldiadge c^aM]7['oii3j ^vo^-lked -i-n
RespHuderit's tonrteDam BbD-ul t'hree fai-ies pea' ^e^<. -
161. Rebecca 33(Mdge worked fregumtly in Respon^enfe comlroDm ^yllliout
.-assistance Upre NDy-emiber 19^ 2015; n-onefheless, Hdridge sieed&d help to be able to
prepare 1W1 judgnwTits in Respondents .court both because of her inE-xperiencs and
because respondent serteiced PWJ cases differently than the other Aztec magistrat&s.
16Z Eidridge became uncomfortable ivorMng s3ojie in Respondents
courtroom. On DIW occasion pnox to December 1^ 2015, Respcmdent asked Eldrid^e for
help while on the bencli. Because Bldridge could not slide her chair over Ix) Eespondent
Eldridge stood up and walked to Respondent's side. Respondent rudely io3d EIdi'idge
to sit do^vn and to never stand up c^n her bericli because at made Respondent look bad.
163. The otlier judges do no^ prevent courtroom clerks from standing in court
16^. At least five of th^ ten Aztec clerks complained to Proctor about
Respondent.
165. Every clerk on some occasion came to leadworker Amy Verliulst in tears
about how Respondent treated them and told Verhulst that they were afraid of
Respondent
166. Verhulst said that Respondent's actions were unpredictable and the clerks
just h'led to help each other.
judicial Standard Commission's FindLn^s oirP?,:t/Conc!usio-iis of Law and Recon-unendaHon for Discipline in
Lnq^L-ies 2015-05S. 2015-059,2015-C60, 20'I>C61, 2Q-i5-C62. 2015-C63.2015-093, 2015-1-13,2015-146 Page 25
367- Verhul-st ftesffisd £h^t iit is a H'edk^s r^^-DnsibMiity ito ca!fecln lo-A^aises a i.u:te
M3.alkes and te co^eci SSsein for dE&.d£;Rcy aad to ay©MS s^el's'ys^ b^ Resp'oifdei^ was iioi
rwep&7,e to fee /dei-1ks w^en B-astalkes w.ere tbT-cmghi to feer attent30.n,
-__- 1'6S. Verhife panite-d oul: a s-e^teneang e?r©z iQ R:espm'a-de^:t aad Eespondent
told Verlmlst in a forceful tone, ^Wouid you llk-e to wear fee Uack srobef
169. Respondent &Du.^lit a c-onspiracy ito rsnioyfi tier was ens<iged sn by lu-djs-e
Sharer/ Judge Cliase/ Couri: Manager Pi-oclor/ ArLi}7 V£rl-n3l.s^ ^^ possibly the
Adimnistratlve Office of &e Couits; in a verified pleading filed wifi\ the Coiiifflissio^
respondent adopted her coQTiseFs asser^on that the Judicial Standards Comjmssion
was involved as well. When asked by counsel at the ComBrussion hearmg if there was
paranoia inyolved in he^ perceptions/ Respondent replied/ T'T3iere was no paranoia in
what \vas going on; I knew what was goin^ on."
^70. Respondent told the Con-tmlsslon that it "was^ significant that she "v^as
remove^ from office two we'eks after she contacted the [court's auditor to rep^it
concerns about money manageinent in the Aztec magistrate court
171. On July 24, 2015, Amy Verhulst's husband/ Sheriffs Deputy Devin
Verhulsi: approached Respondent to request approval of a warrant.
172. In the course of their conversation on July 24, 2015, Devin Verhulst asked
Respondent how the clerks were douig; according to Devin/ Respondent thoughb the
question odd and told him that "it would be wise to stay out of the current h'oubles or it
might c'ome bac1< to bite him."
Judtciai Stajid^.rd Comn'Lissions Findings'of Fact/Conclusions of ~Law and Recommendation for Di.icipline in
Inquiries 2&}5-&5S, 20-15-059, 2015-C60/ 201^C61, 2015-C62/ 20-15-C63/ 2035-C95, 2015--143/ 2015-146 Paee 26
173. Sn fine coijrse of f3ia3: GGByer^a'ilo^^ itepGEradeni fD3^ PBp^tf V^-u^s^- CEia't
te Azter ^.fei^u5;far.afe &nTt ^yas ^'gdmg do'%7in/? and feaa; th-e clfj-Scs 3R£.eded to stay
neitol aiiid g3ji-3?ias£d and 0aa3- fee cl'-A's nssd'e^ to ch'005£ sMes Tiv3"i-en it ^ c-aiRiie <out
sn'S- fthey Ibe:He3- cIhoDse ^ytseiy, IDsp-aty Vea'^uls't- to-k ihSs to xi-iea'ra fire clerics .s'hoi^d
idkoose Kesponde^it s side,
174. ^espo^dent deAd D^z^in Vejiiulsf's v.e3'saon of tese eyfn.ts except fcltat
she told j-um that ^ler^ks needed to -s^j 3ieufea1 and unNa^ed; Respondents v-ersion -of
her coatversa'tian wl't}-} De\4n VerliuM was not credible.
175. Deputy Verhulst told Respondent Giat lus wife Amy had been Vsdfh the
coiarts for years and that slie coajld Mp Respondeiit. Eespondent told Deputy Verliulst
that Amy was one of them.
176. Deputy Verhulst thought the coinmenfs were tmprofessiona} and took
them as an indirect threat ^o lus wife and immediately told Amy that she should bei
careful and mmdful when ^he was aronnd respondent Deputy Ver3ni3st reported tlus
incident to then Presiding Judge Trudy Chase/ who asked Deputy Verhulst to
document the exchange with Respondent. (Examiner's Exh. 32) (8:39:10,8:43:56, 8:44:50)
177, Deputy Verhulst said he was reluctant to get involved by documenting
the exchange/ but he did take Respondent s statement as an indirect threat to his wife
and the clerks,
178, After Eespondent spoke to Devin Verhulsl about the clerks/ Amy Verhulst
was uncomfortable around respondent and l-houglit her o\vn safety was at risk.
Judicial Standard Comniissior/A Firidii'igs of Faci, ConcJusions of La'.v and Keconm^endation for Discipline in
Inquires 2015-053, 20-15-059, 2015-060,2035-061, 2015-C62, 2015-063, 2015-093, 20-!5-U3, 20^5-146 page 27
179. VsrihioM dik3 ino^ ••:svaB!t: fe? tbe ai'.amid ^espondejil, tte ¥er2in3£3: did 'ho- job.
1180- V'erh'alst 'ifcesitsTiBd abBi;)1! .a^a&er issue tfliat iQiK'd'e h-er Tar/cainSDi'^ble •w^i
ispand'.eBt "whe.n £'il-ec£d'calH:r ^'ysnl ©13^ an £he csDuath&usE ajitl cbiir-]: s1:a£f-and BH^a^s
^y-ere aakedto Jeaye 0^e building:: Re&p-DTidenl smd in VerjhiiM'sp-rcsence&at iif shs 3i3'd
been a snrper^ sl^e ^vonld have 'been on the roof psddn^ o^ people 03"ie by one..
181. Verhulst did mDl -ira-ite ido^vn every ir<cideni ^viSi nesposdent because €he
nujnber ^yas ovcnv^elnimg. Veriinlst s'eporfe.d ^11 indxj-enls to Court Manager Proetoz.
182. Verirulst: jiever filed .a Siimicm resources c<miplainl against Kespoj^dent.
183. During her tenure at the Aztec court/ Verlrulst never dealt with anything
else like the problems with Kespondent
184. Amy [Verhulst wrote an email on November 19, 2015 to Cpourt Nanager
Proctor/ copied to Judge Sharei/ Georgia Sedillo/ and AOC Human Resources Director
Lynnette Pau}shan-Rod3Jiguez, reporting tliat slie was not comfortable being a^one v?ith
Respondent/ t^at Kesp^ndent threatened her, arid thai any contacl, with Respondent
should be with another clerk present. (Examiner's Exh, 45)
185. From July until November/ 2015, Georgia Sedilio had plione and^I?_ay_
conversations about conflicts between Respondent and court clerks,
186. Several clerks and judge Chase complamed to Judge Sharer about the
stressful situation Respondent's behavior created/ so Judge Sharer emailed Jason Clack
and copied Georgia SediIIo for advice.
Judidnl Standard Cominissioji s FL'tdings of F^ct, Condussons o-SFLAiv £n<:1 ^ecoiniTiendation for Discipline m
L-quinc-s 20-15-058, 2015-059,20 15-C60, 20'1 >C6l, 2015-C62/ 2015-C63. 20]5-09S, 2015-143, 2015-'t46 Psge 28
187,. After iF^ceiyHg compXmB'ts fi-ona d'ids about Eespr^^ent'te ferea^me^t of
&e deilss,./ P?e53iiim^J.D';i3:;ge ^aa'-er disc-assied the issme ^th Sl'espRH'^-emt who deniBd ^hs
i
com.plalnts md s-aid t^e clerks w£i'e rud-e to Respo.nd&nt
3BB. Ju'^ge Sharer •dit3 nxst ficd MespGBde^s st&'temea'Es atb^ut a:l3e c^er^s bmn^
rode to tier to be Ime.
189. Respondent fsstified that a^o -one ever explained to her how slie ^vas bem^
rude nor what s^e was doing M7roi)g.
190. Judge Shares- wrote an eniail -the mormng of NoveiTiber 19^ 2035 lo AOC
regarding ihe situation at the cour^ reporting tot it was very sh-essful in ihe Aztec
coiiTt and that acticm was needed. (Exrinniner s Wh. 57)
391. Proctor tried to talk to Respondent about courtroom staffing issues 'wi&
no resolution/ so Proctor contacted Georgia Sedillo for help; respondent told Proctor to
involve Respondent ^n any contacts with Sedillo.
192. Proctoi- reported in a letter to AOC on July 26,2035, that she <pd the clerks
wete concerned tha [ Respondent was investigating them regarding anything they did
for her; Procter did not tell the clerks about her letter.
193. Georgia SedlUo received complaints from Lori Proctor; froin mdividual
clerks/ and from Judge Sharer about Respondent s treatment of the clerks, (9:04:50)
194. Georgia Sedillo did not personally investigate the complaints about
Respondent's h'eahneni of the Aztec clerks.
Judicial Standard Commission's Findings of Fisct, Conclusions of Lay} ,3nd Kei.oj-n.mend^'Jon ror Di.^ciplu';? in
Inquiries 2015-05S, 201^059, 2015-C60, 2015-05-1, 20-i^C62, 20-J5-C63,2015-098, 2015.143,20j5-146 Page 29
Creatlma ttif tl^e <tifo^D-£^£i^EI a'ul-e1
T§5.. Aifaer cojaplmira.is fram dl^ks at Cbe Azlec £©11^ abrmt ^&£ tai^e ^iR^
dea'seanor ^:n;& ^MA Kiespond-f33t spo'ke to cl'ed?^ ^-^-^ia €tie^T -^3d d3sc<o"&ra^i3 t^^n
fr©i3i seskmg guidance fn?BLi MespoB'^eB^ ©sd Miei- contact fcca^i Pjrssidisig J^idge Sliarer
^iih fee same coTicera, €QI or about Noyeniber 19^ X;Q5^ -George S.edjljlo su^gesie^ a
•requirement that two clerks be in flie couThwm ^€1 RespQizd^t (Hxaminefs Exli. 57)
396, Rosemary MdCbmt approved of t'he ^t^7o-c3er3s;1" policy heca'us-e it was
needed and was a good solufam for Respondents conrtrDOin..
197. Georgia SediUo made the recomjDendatio'n to Presidmg Judge Barr)7
Sharer and Court Manager Lori Proctor tot it was in the best interest of the court to
Slave two clerl<s in the courtrooin with Respondent at all times.
198. Rosemary McCourt and Jason Qack supported the decision to have two
clerlss on the b^-nch. (^;'l 2:55)I
199. The Santja Fe Magistrate Courl has two clerks on the b^nch with all pdges
at all times.
200. It was not unusual for two clerks to be on t-5-ie bench vrith a judge: two
clerks were on the bench with a judge every Wednesday and would also be on the
bench if a court was busy.
201. Respondent had worked with two clerks on the bench prior to November
19^ 2015, even though she typically had one clerk with 1nei\
JucUdal Standard Commission s Findings of Pact, Conclusions of Law and RecomniendaUo^ for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-053/ 20^5-059,2015-G60/ 2015-061, 2015-062,2015-063,2013-09S, 2015-143,20'1>146 Page 30
'2Q1. A i{tec>-dledk'1' irA pTo?3dJes ceimfart to c1:er3ss w3m ^ani oGrAm^ojn cf
my yyQcess papier'i-'ycr^
2(B. 5ia^3^ t¥p0 cfeslcs sja a c^wtTe.can as.-SielpfaI 4-0 'eas-ui^e MaBt^ a;n^
-£f^c?ncy and to ejss'ure t^3:at 0aer.e Ss 3HD ffluscorraBiuniCsiiio^i. 'Hs'e oE-ei^ csriEd
k to the judge.comaTimicate ws^i csich o&er as to '5-J^bat s'houU be don^ an^
204. On occasion/ hvo c1'erl<s sJt in •couzt ^^tli Jiadg-es Sliarer and Chss^
esp.edally for very bus)7 dockels.
205, The "twO-clerk81 rule suggested by Georgia Sedillo was spedfic to
Respondent courhroom.
206. The purpose of ^laying two clerks was not to spy or look for errors/ bul to
act as a buffer behveen Respondent and clerks who were uncomfortable in her
courl^'oon^ to coiroborate reports of arty specific proHems/ and ^o help c3erks be able to
prepare courl documents correctly,
207. It was SedUIo s suggestion t:o l^ave two clerks oh the bench; however/
Presiding Judge Sparer and Court Manager Lori Proctor did not have to follow her
suggestion.
208. Both the presiding Judge and the court: manager had the authority to
require two clerks in Respondent's courtroom.
209. The "two-clerk ru]e" was an AOC suggestion/ and was neither a
requirement nor a local rule,
Judicial Standard Commission's Findirigs of FrtCt/ Conclusions of Law and Recommend lion for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-05S/ 2Q35-059/ 2015-CCO/ 2015-061, 2C3Ci5-C&2/ 2015063/ 2015-09S, 2015-U3, 2015-146 Page 31
2il^ -Georgia SEdiIIo did nol: pErs'Dnaliy 33^.00333 Re.spon'dleni: sfo&B^ f^ie ^v-'o-i
der^" psS^j. | !I " i
- 231. GeDrga-a S.&dxBo s 3'o3e is lo ghT'e giiSdmice to COMTJ: .iBaaua^ers a3?id il 5-s mp ^Q
I
the com-it msmss'er .and pTesxim'g jiadge.to conimBjucsile ^Efcb olh'er ju'dx^s <33i3 slaff.
212. Judge Shaa-er held a s^aff 3nee&ig to .mmjonnce the "fev.o-d'Erlc" rrile.
233. Court JS^anager Frocior did -not d-rsa.gree wi& iiie "bvo-der^19 rule-
234. Procloj did siot te]3 Sie cleric i5iat ^ie 0t^yo-derks? rule required t^iat bDl5i
clerks leave the courh'oom if either was ordered out
215, The clerks were never ordered to sit behind Respondent in t5ie courtroom.
216. Judge Chase may not have been present at tlie staff meeting where fee
litwo-cler]klit rule was announced. Georgia Sedipo attended in persorL
217. Amy Verhulst was not part of the decision to enact the "hvo-derk11 rule/
and dip! not attend the staff meeHng whef^- it was an3iouncec|/ ^u^ thought it was a good
idea.
218. aei*k Rebecca EIdridge was pre&enfc when Judge Sparer and Court
Manager Proctor informed court staff t^at two clerks would be in the courh'ooirt wiHi
Respondent at all times; Eldridge was comfortable with the new policy.
ImpIemenlaUon of the "t^vo-clerk" rule and events of late November/ 2015
219. On November 19, 2015, the Thursday one week before Thanksgiving/I
t
Presiding Judge Sharer entered Kesporident's office witl^ Court Manager Proctor/
Judicial Standard Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-053. 2&I5-059,20^5-060, 2Q15-061/ 2015-C62/ 2015-063, 20-15-G98/ 2015-143, 2015446 Page 32
I
B33Bo-y3K-ed iisipfeme^Mmi of th:e ?l^^<iei^!l ^^ arad t-D3d BeEpDMd.eat ^ m&s m£)i TUpi
for discassil.on ar^d ER-@I to M.^ £^ mitl 01^ frlae d^edcs; J^ge S^atsr toM IRespanclenH fen1
I .- I
I'A¥© derlcs wo^d bs CBTI &E bea-sch ^Tifti ^^1 at all fanes a^-d ,gaye BespDKdent a^-o^rer
copy ©f ibe jGoaiT^x.. , i
2M Judge Shmsr dad I^'DI; te'13 R^spo^dent tliat &e exfcra co-Hrlrooirt cissk WQuld
be pres'ent to ca^cli Iher niis^tdk'es.
.221. Ju-dge Sharsr spedfioaliy 3:&M R^pondent t^at Khe ^yas jiot to retaliate
agamst the clei^'s/ l^&caase 1-re 'Ihought slie would be angry JQiDwln^ the derks
coinplamed
222. Judge Sharer had previo-os\y spolcen to Respojident about her behavior
towards the clerks.
L. .... „ . ... _ „ ^ J '.223. Court Manager Proctor ctld not talk to Respondent about the "two-clerk"
rrUe.
224. Court Manager Proctor did not know fl-^at sending two derlcs in the
courtroom would cause any problem: two derks werel sent in because t3iat was the
policy and they were sticking to the policy.
225. Respondent believed that Judge Sharer was the one supporting or pushing
the "two clerk" rule. (10:06:30)
226. Respondent read the Supreme Court's Order 09-8200, Policy Directive ^5
which states that the presiding judge can implement and monitor compliance with all
policies/ rules and regulations established by the Supreme] Court. (8:39:33-56)
Judlc a! Shmdard ComnussiQn s Findings of Facl, ConcEusioriS of La-p,' and Recommendation for Disciplme w
Inquiries 201^058, 2015-059, 20-15-C60, 2015-061, 2015-062, 2035-063, 2015-098,2015-143, 2015-146 Page 33
227» 3lesp^n^£S3it adnmteiE ifijat i^be pc&ies s^kcMish-ed fey tfee pres5-£
d'© nssi Issy-E ^Q fce in ^7tta:tiT3g.. (8,:4©j22L46)
228» IResp-cmdmt bs-laeved 3iia?t ihe pjf^dlns iind^e dad nol 3ia'¥E ^i.e pmyej t:o
eaaclt te !;'^-y©-ci^rk"J s^quarein-eii^ mD'fovjlhs^Ti^i^g receh-d;mg-an 'emsii ^fom Rosemaiy
McConrt to the contary,
229. Respondent slated the s!j3¥o-derl;!t-' poKcy was buUl on 3!es.
2M Respondent be3i-eye.d and contmued to belieye that the wlbole purpose of
the 'abyo<Ierks) rule was to jnamtor Iier aotivities <md liarass her to pressure her into
resigning ai^d had notlung to do ^vifl^ training a clerk,
233* Respondent could have discussed the ?Jiwo-der]kEl rule wiih Georgia
Seville), Jason Clack^ Rosemary McCout^ or Artie Pepjn i^ she had asked.
232. Respondent could have filed a grievance zviih AOC if she did not approve
of Judge Shares's polky to have tivo clerks in the coul'lroom With her at all times.
233. Respondent testified tiiai the difficult was between her/ Jijtdge Sharer/
Judge Chase and Court Manager Proct-or; it had nothing io do with the clerkfi. (10:41:04)
234, Respondent: testified she knew "the/" were looking-for mistakes to report
to AOC. "The whole thing was to make me look incompetent..,// (10:24:30)
235. Respondent agreed with and signed the response to the Petition which
stated Judge Sharer s plan to discredit her was supported by the New Mexico Supreme
Court/ the AOC and the Commission. (Examiner's Exh. 59, Pg. 10 f\[ 1, Lines 7-8)
Judicial Standard Commissioi/s Findings of Pa'cl, Conclusions of Law and RecoDiinendaUon for Discipline in
Inquiries 20-15-053, 2015-059, 2015-060, 2015-C61/ 2015-062, 2015-063, 2075-093, 2015-143, 2035-146 Page 34
23B.. Cbmrt Mania:";£T ifaocloT seated feeT.e was 3^0 p3m3 to ^et Mespajident ^
re^sn ®r to force her ©nt c^f offee: -'Tlhis des'3®" iol? 5s io 3s^p iaid^es. (3S:2^'U.' jf~ -3^
237, Am'y Vsrliulst and airao'&s'er cl^k ^'yoAed'in JResponiHe^fs ©Dur^room ©J3
"Noyemb'er 19^2.015. .__. _________ .- _,._-.-.
238. 'Respan.desii testified m her deposltwcn th-at Ver'hulst: was siting bel-Hiid
her al Iher >l1Bve o'rdodc^ posl'tson^ she could not w<5rk 13<e tliat, Ver3alulsil liad a clioice^
and that i?<espondent could 2iot focus 'with V-ET^Mst siftii^g be3iind her< (Exammeas Exli.
47, Tr. 75n-4,82:7-10,93:23-25)
239. Respondent, visibly upset in her testimony before the Commission,^
testified: ST^vo fhixigs can reaUy iirllate a cop: taking their gun/ and standing behmd
jthem."
240. Contrary to Kefipondenf's testimony, at no time did VerhuSst sit or stand
Behind Kespondent on the benA in her courtrooi
241. Clerks in Kespondenfs courh'oojn ^ould sit tp Respondent's right.
242. Respondent was defensive when questioned in coutt by Verhulst and
asked her forcefu]ly,-"Would-you like to wear the black robe?" Amy was taken off
guard.
243. Respondent stated she was focused on wjhat was going on behind her/ she
could not focus and the decision to have two clerks in the courfa'oom was built on Ues<
J'jdklaE Sinnd-ard CoirimJssion's Fmdings of Fsct/ Conc1u5ions of Law and Recommendation for DiscipUne in
faqumes 2015-058, 2015-059,2015-060, 2015-061,201S-C62,2Q'15-063, 2015-098,2015-1.13, 2015-146 Page 35
2M. jRespon'dei^ completeii d prdIaHHis'ari' 3^££min.g abosii 2S0 P.!QI. sn feeI
aiteT*DS3i;©;E: Nc^edET 19^ 2r(X15 ^th ^W-B derlks ©B tfch-e I?ERC.^, t'^£3i Beft the coiait
witeast SeHing ^he pTes!-<Jfm^|u'd^e -OT cous-t iQ^nagEi Ikiram^
.245. Besjpimci-ent co'ntac^e.d s£p^jr'.al people for ^d^lce afeer leayi^^ '^ie co-urt 023
No-yember 19^ 2Q1B^ 3iidu^3mg tier 'hnsbaaid Bri.an iolmston, faisfy ^-end l¥x0 OilbEri,
B3i attorney, and 33%ntor reHred Judge Stez^ejones^
246. Respondent lold Judge jones that she ^as informed by |u<i.ge Sharer that
tere would be two clerics on the bench with tier at £iH times.. Mespojid-enl: informed
Jud^e Jones Siat s5-ie liad been accused of being curt or abusive witli &e derks in tlze
courtroom.
247. respondent told J^dge Jones iha^ cleric stood over tier waidng for
paperwork and it made her nervous.
248. Respondent asked Judge Jon^s ^ slie bad the fight to control 3^er
! . , ...r ,. , i ;
courh'oom/ and Judge Jones sfaid she did.
249. respondent told Judge Jones fihere was an issue with s clerk standing
beliind-her--and-she _had spoken to an attorney regarding contempt/ and that the
attorney told Respondent that if the derk would not leave/ Respondent could exercise
the power of contempt; Respondent spoke with Judge Jones about the specifics of
holdmg someone in direct criminal contempt.
250. Eespondent ^vas trained in contempt: law and procedure in a class taught
by Magistrate Judge Karen Mifcc'heU.
Judicial Standard CQmmission s FL"dmg5 of Fsct, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquire 2(n5-05S/ 2015-059, 2015-C60/ 2015-061,2015-062, 201^065,2015-098, 20-I5-143, 20^5-146 Page 36
253,. J:t3-3ge Joia'es co-l^'d ^'©t imagine a d:ei;k mtD^ fola^^i^ fee {ord^' gjft ^ .p^ge
-wl^s ami fc -£Jmiirfa'a0^i, ! '•I
252. I^espondl'eni dsd ini'D:t 3?£M j'ud^e i-o-ines ^h'a:t clerks ^yer-e imccin?ifDr3;al'?l-£ t>snv,
153. J^dge jocnes told Mespond-eni t-ha.t coji.tenipi- was an option, but ^rdbabij
your last oplioj^
254. Judge Jcmes did nol iliznk it would can-te to that, an^ told 3?eq?GRdent:
Once you exercise |contempl] that you -will bT'mg everythmg §:o a ^ead; preH)7 much' be
fee tailga'te on the irudk and that the issue wUI be addressed/7 Judge Jones explained
that putting fe taiigate on the tmcJk meant that anytime you hold a court cmplo)7£e In
conteiDpt you are gon^g ^o get tl^e ear of AOC and the Supreme Comt.
255. Judge Jones told jRespondent to go in and ta3<e care of your business and
tl-us will be water under tlie bjldge.
256. Judge Jones did not let] Re^pDndent that it was about time she stood up
I for herself/ wTiich respondent dauned in her deposirion. (Examiner's E>;h. 47, TR 58:25^
59:1-3)
257. Respondent did not tell Judge Jones that she pre-planned to 1-iave a clerk
arrested. (4:22-45)
258. If Respondent had told Judge Jones she was going to have a c\eik arrested/
lus advice would have been to have her removed from courtroom/ have a discussion
[outside of tlie courtroom/ and do not arrest.
t"dida) Standard Com.-;iission s Ffridings ofFact/ Conclusions oil.aw and Recomni£ndation for Djscipline m
Inquiries 2015-053, 2015-059, 20^5-G60/ 2015-Cn1/ 2035-052, 2015-063, 20I5-D98, 2015-143/2015-146 Page 37
5£?9,. itepjsn-ti.e^ stated she Sa^e^v ,s^e it^as wl; ^am^; to b£ able to feros wihesnt
s^:e s-etoiRe.d to fee feennh if tlhe^e ?EF:e -^'^D clejlcs in fc conr^xxam. I
Ml Kesp-oird-ss^ a^nu't-ted stie hn'^ a p3 an as &) ^l^t s'h-'e ^y.a.s ^•can.g; fto ds ^y^sn
s^ie rehj.rjwd to w-oi^ oj3 Decemb.er 1,, 2©15/ and h'a'd spoken i^ EOIHE p.e0ple_a!hj3u!{-.
•opH'OTi.s regarding ihe sifai'aH'on of ^ c2'.erk sitting bsHod feer. (2:58^4)
263. Respondent ihad a plan about ^vhat slre w.as golzitg fe do if two d'erfcs were
on the bench ^vi^h ^sr ^fter speaking to Judge Jones/ her ihusband and -ID an attornej.
(5:01:33)
262. respondent never explained to 1-ier Iiusban^ Judge Jones or 3^er attorney
that Judge Sharer had the au&ority to put two clerks on te bench ^vitth Respondent
(5:01:58)
263. After leaving court on Noyember 19,2015, Respondent also went to see a
doctor and got a doctor's ^ote io excuse her absence. respondent did not: tell Judge
Sharer that she was leaving in order ^o go to ih^ doctor and did not te3i anyone at the
court that she was sick.
264* Respondent was scheduled to be at the I?armmgtqn Magistrate Court _on
Friday/ November 20, 2015.
265. Respondent emailed AOC Human resources Director Lyrmette Paulman-
Rodrigue^ on Sunday/ November 22, 2015 at '10:06 p.m. and stated in part: "I am not
going to allow them to further hu-miliaie me by putting two clerks on the bench with
me/' (Examiner s Exh. 56)
c.' .u'-'-' .••.^s'vr:
Judicial Standard Comn-iission s Findmgs of F-ctCl/ Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for DiscipJme in
inquiries 2015-05S/ 2015-059/ 20"i5-C60/ 2015-061, 2015-C62, 2015-063, 2015-09S/ 203.5-143, 2CH5-U6 Page 38
2.^ ]RespDrA=rarf: wo'te ^o Paicfen3in-3^odri.g3i3EZ: 1 am .•adyi&u^g you,, i&e ssnse
as I adyissd Jnd^ge Siar^ ! %¥3B noSt y^Gai; Hinder &EsecsBd3^ojss:<'/ (Exami3?iers Exli. 56)
267. R££,pG>Jlfen;t dl^d 2^^'t tell F^:u^3iaTR-E©d'r3^u:£^ fha^' she wa^ S^Ug fe shol.d a
2EB. I^espQBd&n-ts emml li-£) P^zjIiaimi-BodrJ^yez ^vas forwarded to Oeorgia
SediMo and Victoria Galvaa 011 Monday/ NDV£ni33er23,2015 atS;17a.EL
failure to perform judicial duHes - Noveznber 2015
269. Count 8 alleges: "On or about November 23., 2015 you failed to perform
yourJudidaJ duties by leaving the courthouse and al?anckmmg your docket ^v.hen you
knew or should have knmvn tot Judge Trudy Chase was on vacation and tihat
Presiding Judge Barry Sharer h^d an out of court appointment that afternoon. Such
conduct violates R^les 23 -301, 2^102,21-201, 21-205{A) and (B). and 21-J207 WARA of |
the Code of Judicial Conduct and constitutes wj31ful misconduct in officer
270. Kespohdent was scheduled to WoA ai- the AzEec Magistrate Court on
Monday/ November 23, 2015.
271. Judge Trudy Keed Chase had previously scheduled a vacation for
November 23-27,2(H5/ Thanksgiving week.
272. Judge Sharer had previously scheduled a doctors appolnhnent on
Monday/ November 23,2015.
Judidal Standard Commb^ion s Finduigs of F^ct, Conclu5lcns of LBW and Recommendation for Discipline m
Inquiries 2035-C53/ 2015-059, 20-I5-C60, 2m5-06']/ 2015-G62, .2015-063, 2015-093,, 2015-143, 20~15-346 Page 39
273,. On ?wste '23, MS sat approAiiatMy &i® a^-i,,, .IRBSpBiad.e^ ^einl aj^
FteMsrTg Ju.^e Sihar.Ei//ES ©ffics al fes co-Lir&EisUS-E £ri aBgriHj t<?3^ M^ t^e ^yas
cori^elelj out of !lin'effDrli:l3-£E!^¥©<3£3'Kt'police. ' '" ~
..—274. iRespDBifat 3-old-Jtidge SJ^aa-er: "''i^m itiot ^<?I1^ €in ifee.bf^c1h if ti'yQ deri-^
are going to t?e fo3I^¥ing zne around.?'
275. Respondent asl^ed lu'dg^ Shares lo .a^ain explain ^hy fiiere ^vas EE'h¥o--lr " ~~4^~~ ----- - ^^ - ^ _,
cl.erli'" policy.
276- Judge Sparer toM Respondent on November 19, 2015 and again oji
November 23^ 2015 tliat the decisio3i was m conjunction ^vtih AOQ that derlss would
not be following Respondent around and that clerks had complained that she was rude
to theni.
7TJ. Judge Stoer explained that the derks were uncomfortable with her and
tihat several people in the office felt she Was recording tiiem/ and th^t he thought
Respondent was recording him; in response Respondent lifted up her s^iii't a'bove her
waistband and said/ ^WIwre/ w^ere am I hiding it?"'1, then asked Judge Sparer if he
wanted to pat tier down. Judge_Sharer told Respondent that _he_did not want t_Q_pat_he_r
down and to put her shirt down.
278. Respondent later admitted that she had been secretly recordmg
courthouse conversations for nearly a year.
Judicial St^'idardCoD-ijTtisslon'sI-'indmgs of Pact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-058/ 20]5"059, 2015-C60/ 2(n.5-G61, 2015-062,2015-063, 2015-098, 20-15-143. 2035-146 Page 40
2?9^ Mtei IRespGnd-e^lfc 3&fa Ms o"ffic^ Snarfr besxd typN^; '^ra-^ iiii'eiii a dooa- slam, -/
as Eeyri-enit 3elEt fee coiir^iOiLts'e^ JiQ^ge Shasrar gM t2p aed rEolted t'hait Eespoy^eirrd was
garae. . ..._. .
Ml Mtsi ^peskmg it'o Presiding Judge Sl^iare-i' on .No^emta' 2% 2^)15,
Respon'dfBt was HHSsing from &e c.oiariSionse for her 8;QQ ajiu. docket e^sn Plough she
had signed orders in 3zer office earlier that mrammg,
2S1- Sesporident stated in tier -deposition (Exmnii^er7s EA 47^ Deposition at
57:.6^) arid in her response to the Fetition (Exajmner's Ex2i. 59) Ihat slie did not Iknov;?
Judge Sharer had a doctor s appomhnent on Mojiday^ November 23, 2015.
282. Respondent stated in her deposllion that it did not dawn on her &ai: Judge
Chase was on vacation the v/eek of NovembEr 23,, 2035 when she left the court
(Exainmers Bxh. 47, Deposition at 56:11-13)
283. J^ge Sharer emailed Respondent on October 26, 201^ asking Respondent
if she would coyer 3-iis and Judge Chase's afternoon dockets 031 MonqEay^ November 23,
2015; Respondleht emailed back ai-id replied/ "Sure/ no problem/'' (E^ah-uner's Exh.54)
284. Because Judge Sharer had a doctors appoinhnent and Judge Cliase was
an vacation/ Judge Sharer called AOC for advice on how to handle the situation and
was told to call Respondent to see if Respondent was going to rehirn to work.
285. Judge Sharer then called Respondent/ with Court Manager Proctor
present/ from Proctor's office and put- Respondent on speaker. Judge Sharer asked{ I I
Respondent iij ^he was coming back to work and Kespondent rep^i^d she would not
Judicia] Standard CcAi miss ion's Findings of Fact, Condusicr^ of Law and Recommendatioh Ibr Dis.riplinein
Inquiries 2015-053, 2015-059,201.S-C60/ 2035-061, 2015-062, 2015-063, 2D15-09S, 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 41
^vo^ -wA two cl-.en^s. Jia-.dlge ^hr^Geir toM Bespand'enl: a3ist SIE ^^as H^L gomg 3:0 aaye &re
i_ ._ . .. .. _„ . . - _ .J
pi^t ^& Sa-er again, tiici^ ^^as ^is pslic^ St s^m'e feaoi^ AOC ain-tS ^'yas also ded'ded 1bf
fen.. ]fudg.e SS^'arsr agam ask-ed ^espnndena.' if she was c-oiTLing tbaci; io ^ork, R-espDH-dent
sla^ci'ag^ia^tghewc^dBotT^o^^^^w^'derksonfeeteic^ •
286. Respondent W:Q'S not coiwerned alwut lier docket on NoveB^Er 23^ 2035;
sh-e was coBcemed a'boTit herself. (4:2S:03)
287. Respo:n£tot adnslted she lefi:€^e court: on November 23,2015 bemuse .slae
needed a br&al^ a time out. (3,:07:42)
288. jResppjident stated in her response to the Petition that on November 23,
2015: "Rather than attempting to perform important judicial functiaiis while distracted/
slie instead sou^lii- a leave ofal>sence// (Exammer's Exl^l 47, Indice 4/ Pg, 8/ ^ 3/ line 2)
289. respondent did not lell Judge Sharer or Court: Nanager Proctor that
having two Uerks on the bench •was too distractingJ I
I
290. Respondent did not tell Sharer that l^er objection w^is to the second clerk
sitting belund Respondent'
291. Respondent testified that she did not follow Judge Sharer's policy
regarding liavmg two clerks on the bench with her because it w@s not valid,
292. Respondent did not contact Georgia SedUlo about what happened on
November 23, 2015 after she left the courthouse.
293! Respondent: did not tell Judge Sharer/ Court Manager Proctor or AOC that
she was seeking a leave of absence, (8:54:00, 8:54-08, S;54:l 7/ 8:54:35)
Judicial Standard Commission's Findings o-f Fact/Conclusions of Law and EecommsndationforDisnpUnem
Inqmnes 2G'.15-058, 20'1>059,2Q15-060, 2015-C£-^ 2015-G62/ 2015-063, 2015-098, 2015-143, 2015--146 Page 42
2%. Ji^ge Sliaier as3<-£i3 MfiEpsBd-en't M sia-e W£B abairiidDiaJmg iaer pb,
I i
M'espopAnt r^pBed BH>, s^-e wss m^l sba-Kdojim^ ib'er pl^ bai- ^ymald aR©^ ^m-is i3nsi!l
•^yaj^ ^Sn frm? Adks.
2-95.. TeTlhuils^ %"i7ss in OGnr-t Mmn-ager I^'odiror^ ^f&c-e on N-ov^3iber 23^ 2^35^
and heard MespondEnt on €he phone saynvg she Wicmldi^t iworli with toy'o cleAs sn tLhe
couriroDs'L
296- Ju^ge Shas'er told Kespondent again fliat Ibe 3iad a doctor^ appo^tment
smd thai Judge Giase ^yas gone^ and lie needed to l;now if Respos^deni was coimng
back -or if lie needed io ^et a pdge from Tstrminglon to cover for them, Kespo3ident
started to argue about: the ^hvo clerk9 policy,, and judge Sharer t-old her tliat it was a
simple yes or no question/ are you coming back? There was dead silence for
approximately five seconds. At that point/ Judge Sharer said he was going to take thst
a5 a no/ and -he liung up the plione.
297. Respondent did not mention Hlriess or courtrotpm disruption as a reason
for her absence on November 23 2035.
298. Presiding Judge Sliarer and Court Manager Proctor had a conference call
wit-5-i Georgia Sedillo and .informed her thai Respondent was upset about the "hvo-derk"
policy and had left the courlhouse; Sectillo toJd Proctor to call Judge Chase to cover
Respondent's docket
299. Judge Sharer covered all dockets the mornmg of November 23,2015.
Judjcia! SLindard Commission's Fmdmgs of Facb/ ConcJusions of Law and Recorrm endation for Discipline in
Jn^utries 2G15-05S, 2CH5-059/ 2015.0^0, 2D15-C63, 2015-C62, 2015-063,2015-09S, 2015^^3, 2015-146 Page 43
3'0^ Respo-nd-e^li: 'dad .atQl .sjrasng.e eoy-er'a^e fer Jhsr ddcfcei- oil N©¥eni1?ET 23y! ^ . . ^ - j
'2S15y so JQ'A^e C^ase Jbad to eioBi-e 2Ta feo3a3 her sAadaaSe^S vaca^o.E 't's 'hssSi'e
3'ffiL Jud^-e Qidse ^vas called in Sr'om ^"'srs^on io covter ^Ideo arra3.gni3ie^^ aTiI ^
tlas aftemocrn. Judge Qi-ase did ript hay-e a ibabysl'tlfT and Jhad to bns^ fcer sstep.son.into
-work ^yalh iier.
302. judge Shm-er also called McCouri on Nov&nber 23,, 2015 u-iformmg lier
feat Respondent abandoned her docket; McCourl- enialled Respoiident llie san:ie day
mforiiung Respondenl ti-iat slie understood Respondent left it^e court watho-ut
consideration of her pendmg docket and it was of concern to her/ to AOC Direclor
Pepm and to the presidmg judge. McCour^ urged Respondent io retum to her duties
forthwith. (Examiner's Exh. 46)
303. The following d^y/ JR^spondent said she wa^ not rehirning to work du^ to
iUn^sSy which she had not aTieritioned tlie dsy before.
304. Respondent- emailed Mr. Pepin/ Paulman-Rodnguez and McCourl- on
November 24, 2015 regarding Iher "doctors directive ordering days off and rehirning to
work on Monday/
305. Respondent emailed a doctor's excuse to Judge Sharer on November 24,,
2015 excusing Respondent from work the rest of the week.
Judicial Standard Commission s Fmdmgs of Fact/ Conclu3iori5 of Lan- and Reconunsridiihon foT Discipline in
Inquiries •20J5-05S/ 2015-059. 2015-C£0, 2&15-C6J, 2015-C.62,20^5-C63, 20J5-09S, 2015-143/ 20J5-146 Page 44
3B6,. l&BSp.m?i:d:6R?fc was sohdiM fe& c-syer jail Eirrai^R33ieats &at we.dk ©^er €is:£
ThM&s,g|[-Ag feoMayy Nc^"^nTibeif 26-'2% S@15., Th^ sdaediile ^vras jiTjad'e ©yer a jssr iisI :
adyance.
' - - — 3D7< Resp.DB'den.t ^iiEi'ajied j^'d^e S'ha^^e^-and tol'd Mis &s^ sl'ie ^?-ould aco-vBr '&£•
jail arrai.gnments.
SOS. Jutige Sliarer 3'espoaded ihat he ^vould cover 4he aTrai^ime^ts over tlw
3ic>Hday because Respondent had a doctor's note excusing her from work.
309- I"n4g^ Chase had to cover -we&kend jail arraignments sclieduled fa
Respondent
310. Sespondents einail respo^ise to Diirector Pepln, Paulman-Eodriguez and
NcC[ourt was lo ask them to provide her ^tli AOC^ ^ireciive supporting tlie new
procedure,
311. On November 30, 2015, Rosemary It/lcpourt sent Respondent sn email
explaining the validity and origm of the "two-clerk1 requu'ement.
312. McCourt wrote to Respondent on November 30, 20^15: ^Presiding judge
Sharer/ the Court Manage [sic] along--with-the_State Operations nianger [sic] have the
authority to put into place procedures they deem necessary foi< the efficient: and safe
operation of the court. This authority is found in the MaMx adopted by tTie Aztec Courl:
as a result of the reconunendations of the Magish'ate Advisory Committee and the
Supreme Court Order No. 09-8200 and the Policy pirect-ives from the Supreme Court.
You have access to all these documents. Due to!cohcerns of rudeness/ expressed by
judicial Standard Commission s FhicUngs of rsct/Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2Q15-05S. 2015-059, 2015-C60.20:15-061, 2015-C62, 20-15-063, 2015-093, 2015-143, 2015-146 P?.ge 45
ss'yeraU dleA-s re.giard-'i'Dg ym3T ginW-stitiixm TR?3.& tt3n:eg3X/ they d£ej33 3i mes-essaij Sfaifc ^xyo
)
clenks ii-e present M^-ej^ s-ddrfissiHg c'o^ait masters ^mfh y©s,? (pxacnM7LEr?£ E^. 4^)
313,. EespDnd.ant adinMe-d TeaLth-Lg M'oseaigry McCo-arffS emaSS ©f NB^embsr
3H, .2035 sfetBng |i34ge ShareT_333d fee ai3t^Dn:t^ to iBlrp.ose 0ie '"ihvo-cierlk"' rie fcsr
Eespo^d.'en^s coujih'ooiK,
314. After reading Rosemary McCom-i's eniaB again at trial, Bespcmdent
testified th'ai Judge S.har-er^s policy wss not valid,
335. Respondent testified before zhss CoBtmission: ^m noi a rule i3r£ake?>" If
you say you have a rule/ then okay/^ (2:56:23)
336. Respondent was not scheduled to work on Monday, November 30^ 2015,
Respondent reported back to -work on Tuesday, December I/ 2015.
Abus4 of contempt aijitlhorlly
317. Count 1 alleges: t<0n [December I/ 2pl5/ [Respondent] willfuUy held Amy
ericai duties that she was ordered byVerhulst in contempt of court for pbrforming Iwr c^
Presiding Judge Barry Sliater to perform. iRespondent] sentenced Verhu3st to thirty
(30) days if\ Jail/ set bond at $1/000 casli only/ and ordered Verbulst to be immediately
arrested. Such conduct violates Rules 21401, 21-102, 21-103, 21-204(B)/ 21-203, 21-
205(B), and 23-208(8) NMRA of tt-ie Code of Judicial Conduct and constihjtes willful
misconduct in office,
JudidalStandard Com^uission's Findings of Fact/ Conciusions oiLch.',- (md RecoTnuiendctUon for Discipiine m
Inguirics 2015-05S/ 2015-059/ 20-I5-C60, 2015-C61, 2015-062, 20-15-063, 2015-GSS/ 2015-143/ 20^5-346 Page 46
31B., G3m^ 2 aUiqges "O.n P.ecEm'b^r 1,, '3Q1 ^ p-espGaad'ejat] m-ade siiatenien'is 8-0
i
' .NET^ M^:o0 St-at-e PoMc^ Sergsan^ Jaiaiesi fe-jmpE -p3'lor 8;o ^ciIklEeg Ite Iben.dh ^y;ords [£.?c] io
fce ejfct ©£, "Stlcls ar:D'nn^ Tsm siire sameop/e is gB3;Hg to ja33»it Sergeant Rempe asked^
"Wiho^ piisDB-er^?7 |KeSpOBdent3-tol3 H-mn/ "WhoEy-er.11 Sergeant" Rempe &'en a&kecL-
'Jud^e.s? [Respondent] replied^ !fl'%oeyer gives SBC Iip} IRespGndent] SLibsequ£nl]y
ordered fee arrest of San Jua^i Coimty Magistrate Coiu-t Lead ^Vorker Aaiy ¥eAi;ilst
Such conduct violares Rules 21^01, 21-102, 23-103, 23-202 snd 21-20-1 ^MRA oft^e
Code of Judicial Coaductjand consttet-es ^villjhul •mjs.conduc^ m office.
Defiance toward Fresiding Judge Sharer
339. Count 3 ^Ueges: "On December I/ 20p5^ }RespondenSt] failed tc^ follow the
reasonable and lawful order of F^esidjng Judge Barry Sharer and undermiiied lus
authority when {Respondent] twice ordered Amy Verhulst put of I [Respondent's]
! i icourtroom after Presiding Judge Shai'er persojtalty jnformed {Respondent] that/ at his
direction/ t\vo clerks would be in the courtroom wit]-t [respondent] at all times. Such
conduct violates Rules 21-701, 21-402, 21-103, 21-205(8) and 21-20S(B)-NMRA of the
Code of Judicial Conduct and constitutes willful misconduct in office."
320, Count 4 alleges: "On December I/ 2015, [Respondent] failed to follow the
reasonable and lawful order of President Judge Barry Sharer and undermined his
authority' wlwn [Respondent] ordered courb olerk Cruzita Garcia out of [her] courtroom
after Presiding Judge Sharer personally informed [Respondent] that/ at his direct-ion/
Judicial Standard Commission 5 Findings of Fact, CondusiorLS of Uw snd Racommznd^don for DisdpIinL' in
I.nquiriss2015-05S, 2015-059,2015-C60, 2035-061, 2015-C62, 2015-C63/ 2015-C9S/ 2(Xi5-U3, 20'15--i45 PagS 47
tec £3:er3% ^ycmljd be m ^3ie c'oisriTODTQ ^'yalh |J^-espDnd'E3ii'f1 at s^ fanes.. Suclh e'-'c^oiu'c^i "' ~ " I
mssl^es 21-101, ^1"H£?2, 22-SiQ3, 2a^Q5:(IB), s^ WmA df •ae Cbd-e ofI
jB'dids! QKn'dwt ajsd "coi^^tutes it¥ill:!i-i3 niisid^dB-ciE: m ofOoe^
P.r.olqgne tto and Events ©f Oecem.bm' 1^ 2Q15
Orsa li on fof 3^ £w 3 ocal a'.u3 es
321. The purpose in developing 2Dca3 T'ules generally is to help ^nfe case Bow
in midti-judge courts,
322. Local rules are generally developed by the presiding judge to ensure
consistency and umfor-mity in 3 inuld-judge court,
323. Proposed local rules are presented by a presiding judge/ reviewed by the
Magish-ate Division Director and Magisb'ate Division Attorney/ and ihen presented to
the AOC Director Arthur P-epin for his rev^w and signature if approved,
324. The AOC Director may approye or disapprove of proposed local rules,
325. Magish'ate court local rules b'ecoine effective only when and if approved
by the AOC Director.
I
326. If an associate magistrate judge has a problem with the local rules it
should be brought to the Magish-ate Division Directors attention/ who would then
discuss the problem with the AOC Director and together they would decide if the local
rule should be kept and followed.
327. Sharer prepared local rules "t'cj get everybody on the same page".
Judjda! Standard Comnussior/s FincUngs of Fact, Conditions of Law and Rt-SLOmri'iendation for Discipline m
Inquiries 2015-058, 2QI5-059. 2035-C'tO/ 2035-C6L 2015-C62,2015-C63, 2015-09S, 2015-343, 2015-146 Page 48
328. Most (of iu-d^e Siiareif!s focslt rtU^e pm0pQsals 13333 b^em ^Isousse.il sindsi.
!
apprm^ed by fbe A'z^ec Ma^iisferste C'@iarit jii'd^-es ail: ^ pid^ss'? 3nee&);^ R'e^Dndsni
agreed ^yjtli al3 Iccal ir'ules st &at imee.tfbag, feu^ ffes jae^t d'ay^ E^pDB'dent g-ave Jncige •
Eharej a paclse^ coT^an-an^ ^vrj^mn ^blecHQj^s' to eadh of ftS^e ^j-opBSfiIs- Nd.se SharertlL.'/
cited llus as mi ex'asnpSe of ho'w IR'espOTid-eiTd would s^ee to somelhaag, ihen do &e
te.
329. Respondent testified ^hai te Mahlx did not give Judge Sharer the
auftori^ to autlioiize dii'ecyves and rules. (4:'16-D1]
3SO. Ju^ge Sharer ivi'ote a fom-psge r^ponse to Respondent explairaizg why
fhe rules were wntten.
331. Presiding Judge S3iarer presented twenty-six proposed local rules to AOC;
twenty-fouf local rules were approved by Director Pepln and rehirned to Judge Sharer
the week of li^ovember 23, 2015.
332, ' Many of the proposed Ibcal rules were ziecessaryi to provide ui-dform
practices in the Aztec magistrate court.
333. The local rules were written to get all judges on the same page and to have
them follow the same procedures.
334. Two of Presiding Judge Sharer's proposed local rules were generated to
change practices of Respondent that interfered with court adminish'ation.
335. One local rule that was written specifically for Respondent was the rule
against recording.
Judidct] Standard'Commis5ion''s Findings of Fcid; Conclusions of Law and Recomineridation for Discipline in
Inquiries 20-15-058, 20^5-059,2015-060, 2075-Co-i/ 20-! 5-062,2015-063, 2015-09S/ 20-15-143, 20-i5-146 Page 49
336^ A^fi'fer ©f ite approve.d As^es ni^tsira^e local rffs stewed tt^st j-u
and !E1kaS iss^i ha^,e te appEr©'yal of Efhe pT^sldai-i^ pdge bAre l^iiragimg a fee'aasnI
f&e CO^T&OUSS., . _ ..._._
:m{!?0
337. Fn-earsri poUries at New Mexico snagls'fcrate courfs are estabMshred by ^h-e
local presiding judge arrd vary fi-iro^igliout ^ie state.
33B, Respondents increasingly worrisome behavior pTDsipted S-harer to create
a wriit-en firearms mf&
339. Sparer p.repare.d a n;yrit1:en fa'eanns policy consistent with state la-sv; he -did
not review it in advance wat3i Chase and Kespondent
340. Georgia Sedillo helped develop the local rule regarding firearms in the
.courllaouse.
341. Kespondent did not receive copies of the approved rules becatise she was
not wor^dng the week of November 23,2015.
342. Judge Sharer did not have the oppbrtunity to speak to Respondent about
the local iziles prior to December 3/ 2015 when Respondent returned to wc^rk. Judge
Sharer did not receive the signed rules from Mr. Pepm until the week of November 23,
2015 when Kespondent was not at work,
343. Judge Shaiei^s intent was to present all rules to Respondent on December
I/2015.
Judicial Standard Co m mission s Findings of Fact, Conclusions oF Law and Recommendation for Di5cipTiricin
Inquiries 20"E 5-053, £015-059, 2015-060, 2015-061, 2015-062, 2015-C63, 2015-05S, 2015-143, 20J5-I46 Page 50
lezn£3ila£iDji of -tlie fee.azxo p-ralilbilit
s
341. Tlhere w<es'-£ c-csi^eis^s shs'ai Resjxm.ctofs Bietaaraii to tfeB beiii'oh ©i^ Be^eiBilbET
X.M5., - - ••
3€5,, Judge StiHres' sa^ Geoigia Seciii'o ^-are txMiDem&d ^boHt R-Espatn^enfs
-nientaH state.
3-3-6. l^dge Sharer l<3iew &ai E€>sponden'i cajried a c.cancealed ^veapoi-i because
one of fe clerks pr£^Tionslj saw the clip fall otri of Kespondeiitfs ankle 3iolster wHEe on
the be'ncl-L
347. Rosemary McCouri was concerned for the safety of the cler3<s, the court
and tlie public based on reporls t^at Respondent was acting someivhat erratically.
(11:39:53)f
348- There were concerns about how Respondent would react to the firearm
policy.
349. So5,em^Ty McCourt stated tliat she was concen^ed tiiat i^ w^uld cause an
incident should J ,e Sharer not aUow Respondent to carry a firearm a^ th^ courfhouse.
350. rosemary McCourt expressed her concerns to judge Sharer and felt it
necessary to have security at the Aztec courthouse on December I/ 2015; she did not
know what to expect. (11:41:50)
351, Due to Respondent's behavior on November 19, 2015 and November 23,
2015, Judge Sharer/ after consultation with Rosemary McCouri, thought it prudent to
Ji.;dic^] Stnndsrd Commission's Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Lav.'-anci^e-cos'nnandsib'on fo^ D-^tfiFUnpin
Lnquines 2015-05S/ 2015-0^9,20'15-0o0/ 2015-C61,20] 5-062, 2015-C63, 2015-G98/ 2015-343,2015-146 Page 51
p.resens: H'espDncimt '^iQn fee Ereaixn policy b^OTe ^e famk •&e l-seini^ '3Ln:d to iTLa-y.e a3i
<:o%E3er pressn'E--
352. Jzidge Sli'wr £poZ<-e to &e SaTi Juma C©mt^? Sh'ei'iff wKx? dedjlne^ to sm^'d
depnUes ^©-BSSJSI: on -December 1,, 2.035 sm-ce EespoiAiiTi pr.evisi.Ls1y worked f'oi the
Sheriffs l^eparfctnent
353. Rosemai'y McCburt con^arfedl the New Mexico State Polke Iieadquaj^es's
to see iEf an officer could be awdlaNe on Deceiriber 1,2035..
354- Georgia Sedillo receh7ed a caU the rnoriimg of December I/ 2015 from
Judge Sharer to tell tier that Respondent: -ivoiild be presented ^vith the local rule
regarding firearms in fee courthouse ^yhen slie came to coiut/ and lE^at New Mexico
State Police officers pvould be present l:o escort Respondent to her car tp secure tier
firearm.
355. .Officers from the New Mexico State Police Deparhne^i agreed ^o be
J „ _ - . . _- J._ I
present on Deceipber 1, 201CJ when Kespondent was presented with fi\e. firearm pplicy/
and agreed to escort Respondent to her car to ensure the firearm was out of the
courtltouse.- -----„_-- _ _ _ _ _ _
356. Sergeant James Rempe has been witli the New Mexico State Police for
fifteen (15) years and was ta-ained on how to handle sih.iatois that may become volatile.
357. Sergeant Renrpe knew Respondent when Respondent worked for the San
Juan County Sheriffs Department.
judicial Bwn'Si^d Commi^ion 5 fL-tdirigs ofrsct/ ConciusiGr^ of L3',v a;id Rcccmmendtiticn ior Disdplins in
Lnquiries 2015-055, 20^-059,2015-C60,2015-C61,2G'15-C62,20-i5-C63/20-15-093, 2015-143, 2015-346 Pn^e 52
3:3£l Otoi T^-esfe^ Be^saabea- l.^ 2015^ ^y3i£n jRespoaTdeialt rehxr.nBd tfco ^DT^,
()
Shar-er td'd E^^piEMxdsira^ al^mait & inew l^r^ETOTLS i?,Em, lold Ib'ET slE?e did sisi SiaLTe Ms
penoxTSSimi to carry a iBr.efflS^ in fee co^Aouse., a3tld a^ed her ia iaise .^er HTian-d^im to
-]ii€iT€£u\- . - -. , - .. - -.._ -_-- - .. -
35'9- jTidge Sii-arer ^slced BespDndent to remove her Er£aitn t.D Swr ceo- tl^at
morning and to ren-ioye tier £rears3 frojn coiM properh'' oveT'tier first breats^ mid
respondent agreed.
360. SergeaxA Eempe w<is %TaSi Judge Sliarer wlien judge Shajer presented i:he
local rule regarding firearms to Respondent
361. Presiding judge Barry Sharer sisked Sergeant Kempe to escort Kespondent
to h<?r car while sl^e removed her firearm from the courtlt^use,
362. Sergeant Eempc escorted Respondent to tier car to store ^ier firearm until
'her first brealt
363. [Respondent appeared to Sergeant Recipe to be 'bothered by having to
remove her firearm from t^he courtliouse/ but was cooperative.
Stated intention to arrest a clerk
364. As Sergeant Rempe escorted Respondent to her car/ she told lurriy "No/
you're fine/ don't feel bad/ my car is out here/ you guys are just doing your job. We're
having son^e issues; we wi3I get then-i worked out." Respondent then told Sergeant
Rempe/ "They're all just mad at me/
Judicial Shmdard Commission's FindLngs oi Fact/ CondusiQns of Law arid RecorrLmendalion fdr Discipiine Jn
Inquiries 2015-C5S, 2015-039/ 2015-060, 2025-C61/ 2015-C62, 2015-C63/ 20'i5-05S, 2015--[^ 20-15-146 Page 53
3£5. WA wAm.g badk to t?hs conAoiise sfer Bespja3^le53l pHace^ ibeir
[ ifeaaTm m her T.glh5d'e,/ Resp03id-^ra:l- te3d Se^eant Remp.e,/ ''"^'sn imia^l^'i: wsmt to ,sfe1k
acDiin'd beca-Hss sos^oa'e ss ^om^ ic5 •pi2 tDday: S^-^eaBtEempe as!ke^ IRespBrde^lt,
^^yilao,, file jpnsshei's?0 an'd Rfc^ondent ^p^e4'_^^i^D_ever°y/ Ser^eat^'i Kempe ^sl<_e_^
Jtid^es? mid Res.poi'ident replied^ ^Whoever gives xiie lip^
366- Respondent talked about arresting someone becmsse she 3!f£lt fe sihia^on
coming to a head."
367- Respondent recorded h-eT coiTyersation M7ifh Sergeant Rempe wlien he
escorted her from her car to tlie c&urthouse wlijdi contauis tiie following exdiange:
A. Respondent io Sergeant. Eenrpe in a norms! voice. You might
waima stjck around about five jmnute^./ though/' Eespondent tlien whispered/ Tm
gonna have one of them arrested/J(i 2-9-16^ 9:07:13)
B. Sergeant Remp^ "Wlw?"
jC Respondent/ '^Vhoever gives me Jip ^T @ proNem In the
courb-oom/' (12-9-16,9:07:21)
D. Sergeant Rempe/ "WJiat do ^ou mean? One of these criminals?
They re gonna give you lip? The judges?
R Respondent, "Whoever/" (12-9-16,9:07:30)
368. Sergeant Rempe thought Respondents statement -was unusual and it
made him uncomfor table/ but he did not quesdon Respondent because he did not want
to make a| judge mad.
Judicial Sisnd^Td Commissfon'sFmdirigs ofFact/CondussoriSofLa'A'and Reconimsnci^tion for D^ciplinem
Inquiries 2CH5-05S, 2015-059^ 2015-060, 2015-C61, 20-t5-C62, 2015-C63, 2015-05S, 2015-143,201^146 Page 54
3'f% Resp.-BHiisrt ^'a^ni'lted her respoitse te ISie pe.liition fe-a!t ^^e beB^y^d
I i
s-G-meoine ^im3|s^t igo ^D tai3rff/ tha:t asarjma^ bi3t deimed fca3: she ha-d a pjr&mB^i?te?i:ed m2;E3it^
to hav-e aimme an'estecl. (Exami3^rs Exli, 59,, Bg.-2 ^i A)
37Q.-. E.-espcm-die.^t EdrmHBd in her dlepD^i'Kcm i^at iher i^ea'it tro liave ^Qj3S£03ie
arrested .on December 1^ 2.03^ was preplai^-ied/ not pmneditaiect (Examiner's Exh. 4%
DepOBitiQn ai 92:24-25; 94:1-5)
371. Respondent admits that she 2^ad a pla^ to nse her contestpt power to
prevent a second cler^k froin sitting at her bench.
372, Sergeant Eempe zeporled to Presiding Judge Sharer what Respondent said
about mresHng someone; then remained at fe courthouse in case tNngs esc-alated.
373. After spealdng to Sergeant Sempe/Judge Shaker was concerned that
something was going to happen/ but did not know what to expect.
Hrsf stiempl io have hvo de •ks assist H^spondent
374. GeoTgia Sedillo told Judge Sharer that it was important after w5iat
Jiappened on November 23,2015 to have two clerks on the bench with RespondenL
375, On Tuesday/ December 1^ 2015, Respondent had a busy docket v^ith more
than thirty cases. Respondent's husband Brian Jolmston was present in the cotirtroom/
along with their friend Will Gilbert.
jLsdic^ISund.-trd Coir.rr.ission s FLndir.gs of F^ct. Condus'ior^ of Law arid 'Rei'omTi-iend/ition for Discipline in
Inquin^ 2QI5-Q5S, 2015-059/ 2015-C<SO/ 20'1.>C6-!, 20J3-C62,2Cri?-C63, 2035-093,2015-143, 20^5-146 Page 55
3'M' 'On -£lie waj snlro foer CGrtr.cnsi^ RespcaidE^?!; iD'o^fifid fc- derlQ; Amy
fcteM am'o[ Ke'becca ES-dddge en'tffl-e^ 0je ecnirfcroein £i .fey anmutes Safer; E-esp.ixider^
tegasa ca31£nig b.Are llse d'erlis ©rirh'ed. -
377^ yeAite cirt'dea-stood ^h-si slhe was tn &e c-ourtroo-m tfcD asset RespQ.nd'enf
and S'drldge-
37S. Yerhulsl was not ^old to spy on Eespondent noT to iFEpor^ arustakes by
Respondent £o judge Sharei-.
379.. Kespondenfs stated her issue was thai she di-d ?^ot wfint ariycH^e l^eUBd.
Jher; it WAS hard for her to focus wondering ^vliat sozneone is doing back there.
380. Eldrid^e sat inTmediatety to the rlglit of Respondeni: and began logging in
to hei; courtroom computer -while Verliulst sat down to the right of Eidridge. Verhulst
never sat belund Respondent or Stood to look over Respondents shoulder. (See Exhs.
4^-49) Verhulst was not being |dis2'uptive m any way.
381, respondent a3m6st inmiediately told Veriest ti-iai she couldn't focus witli
Verhulst sitiing beliind her. Verhutst said that she was' there to help Eldridge.
382. Almost immediately Respondent told Verhulst //So, Amy/ you need to
leave. You're interfermg with my duty as a judge/ and I in going to ask you to leave.
Verhulst replied: //0kay/ I'll be right back/" and walked out with Eldridge following.
383, respondent recorded much of the events of December I/ 2015. Portions of
the two hour recording were played before the Commission on December 9/ 2016, 7'he
wording is lisE-ed as Exanuneii/s ExNbit 60 and reveale^ the following;r^c
JudidalS^ndardComj^^sior/sFindingsof Fact/Conclusions of Law and Ki'coaimendation for Discipline in
Inqym&s 2015-058, 2015-059, 2Q15-C60/ 2CT5-C61, 2015-062,2G15-Q63, 2015-055, 2015-143, 20-15-146 Page 56
A. R-espBim-dei^.' en;ters fee COU'I^JSOCTI aaad g.ays^ tf/G&Gd m;cM3H3ira;g, 3"sowI
are ^cm dA^r (12-9-16,9;aB:16) :i
B. A d-srlk ii'epIJi'es, iDojng g.esd/
.. -.„._-. C K^p'03'tde^ "'So Am^ yo.i3 <ne.,ed t-o 1-ieaT^You re inteiferlng wi&
my dn^y as a judge,, aiid tm going to ask you to tisav^' (12-9-1^ 9;1B:'2§)
R A:my Vs-Mst "O.kay, 1^ l?e right bsdc"
E. Respondenfc "O^y, C-tank you " (12^16, %08:49)
33-^ Eldridge left wifh Yerhutst because judge Sharer liad ordered -that l^vo
clerks had to be on the bench with Respo-ndent and Ejdridge was going to follow his
03'der^
385. Respondent continued to c^li cases after Vei-hulst and Bldridge left the
couriroouL
386- l^fter they were ordered out of J^es^o.ndentls courtroom Ae first time/
Verhulst and Eldridge reported to Court Manager Proctor who [talked to Presiding
Judge Sharer.
Second attempt to have two clerks assist Respondent
387. It was decided tot if Respondent had a problem with Verhulst/ another
clerk should be sent into the courtrooin with Eldridge/ so Proctor asked Cruzita Garcia
to assist Eldridge in Respondent s courtroom.
Judicial Stf>r,dardCocnmission'rsRr,dm^s ofFari/CondusionsofLaw and RecommendaHbn for Discipline in
Inqisiries 2015-05S, 2015-059/ 2015-CcO, 20-1^06-1/ 2015-C62,2075-G63/ 2CH5-GCS, 20I.5--i43/ 2015-146 P<ige 57
13BS. Mhecc-a S-dri^e ^yas ji.Tst lEajiraaira^ hoiy to p^DCf^s DW]I c'ases .amd CSraziSa
G'air.da uirad'erstosd -f^mt she wss ^Q assist ]Efi-.cffaidge wi^ ^hal •^j.D'rfiss..
3JS9. AlhGQat &nty iBimu'lBs af.te E'e^s^dE'jsi (ordei^d ¥-BnM'£f o^ti ef ITi'er
c.ouriitooin, Elclddge_ite-entered vnS.^ Crsizjta Gm-c^a, -wi.l;la G'arcis slfl&% tsat the boUor^
of the BL!!;rt |ust 2ike Vsr^yist Siad^ to the rig'ht 33id sll^hfy belaind Hdd4g.e.
390. Garda worlced in Respoi^idenfs coHitro.Gnii orfy a few tiiries before
P.e-cej3iber^,2035.
391. Kesponde^l then told Garcia S-tat slie was sorry but s1~& would not allow
tier fo remain,
39Z Garcla/ in response to a question from Respondent, said she was ther^ to
help Eidridge. Respondent ^then asked EIdridge ^f she needed help/ arid Eidndge
responded r yes/ because s!they -^vere checking her work."
393. Eldrldge to^d Eespondent that ^ is easi-er to do eveiythin^ in Ihe
courh'oon'L
394. KegarcHess of Eldndge's answer/ Respondent told Garcia: '/Chiz/ I'jn
sorry/ fm not go^tg_tp Jilipw you m here/" so both clerks left. Respondent testified that
she did not ask Eldridge to stay behind because it was beyond her authority to tell the
clerks to do ^nythmg.
395. Respondent's recording of evenl-s of December I/ 2015, induded the
following exchange:
Judicial SL:ind;;rd Commission s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lan' and Recommen'd^Hon for Discipline in
Inqiunes 2CT15-C53,201-5-059, 20-15-C60/ 20'1^-061. 2L;15-C62, 2015-C63, 20-I5-098,2015-343, 2015-146 Page 58
A.. RsspcmdeBl wtepenmg t-o Gard-a'j sr^M^ did fesj s^^d j'f<ou back iis
h'ercr7 (12-9-36, MMS) i
B, Garda^ "I© ^elp her?-"%ars ^^t B ws ^^w
9;1&33]
9:10:40)
-C. EeBpDis-d'-en'i sd-^jE-ssS.ng EM^dge; ^Dp you m'e-e'd halpT' (12-9-16,
U Eldridge: wlHvhr'
E. respondent "Do you ne^d Mp?" (32-9-16,9:10;3'7)
P. E^dridge: '"Y^a, Qie/^e doiMe cheddag all vny WOT^W
G. Respondent; "Jhey am check it in the back, right?" (12-9-S6/
H* EIdrlcige: Its easier lo do everydimg here, I think.
Respondent: '/Yealn// (-12-9-16,9:30:47)
J, kespondent whispering Cruz/ I'm sorrj^ I ra not going to allow
youirih^-e" (12-9-16, 9:10^8)
K. Garcia://0kay//
396. Garcia reported to Court Manager Proctor that Respondent had ordered
her out of the courtroom. (Exairdner's Exh. 35)
Judicial Slsridard Cor^nussion s Findings of F^ct, ConcSusions of Law and Reconmendadon for Disciplme m
InquL-ics 2015-C5S, 20I5-059/ 2015-C60, 20]5-C^1, 2015-C62/ 2015-0&3/ 2015-G93/ 2015-143/ 2015-146 I 59
OoinEiimicalSons mf5i ^O'C ^sd Mespo-sderit aboal ^he tttoo»d.ed<t' r.uls
! I397. C'0;arit NEa'na^er Fir^ctor €a33.Bd G^sT^'a SedlMo at M>C fa @.dAe. '
3'% C-DHT;!' Mom'ko^ Pj^ctor 33C^i3fi:ed Ceojgia SediUo on D.&ce.mte l,y 3Q15,y thai
Mespoiie-mt s-fefeed fea^mv two'd'eiles iiiiiier conrh'ooin.
399.. SediB'o ^as 5n a sna'nagement mee&ig in Santa B'e witl^ Kosenimy
NcComt and Jason Clack ^y3ien judge S-li&rer and Courl: Masiager Proctor csBed; SediUo
told Proctor Shat t:here was no way cmJy one deik was gomg to be m^ the benc^., aiid
McCourl and Ciack sgre&d,
400, Sedlllo advised sending t\vo derks back In to Respondent^ courtroom^
and directed thai either two desks would be present in the courtroom or none.
401, McCourt testified ^yjou cannot hav^ a cleric jailed for doin^ iier job" aad
she wanted to ensure that a comt clerk was not jailed. (31:47:27)
402. McCoitct testified tot jail is no jplace for a court clerk to be for doing her
job.
403. Rosemary McCouit called Arrie Pepin to report Respondent's threat to jail
'!56meQnef!-and/-ai^us-c[irectiQ-n/-contacted Cluef Justice Barbara Vigil; McCourt told
Chief Justice Vigil that the threat appeared directed at a court clerk,
404. Rosemary McCourt called the New Mexico Attorney General's Office and
notified them of the possibility of Respondent jailing a court clerk so that they could
prepare to seek an emergency wrifc for relief,
Judkiiil Standard Coi.rLiussion s Findings of F^ict/ Cunclusiori.? of Law and Recommendatjon'for Di5cipline m
Ir.^iriss 2015-055., 2015-059, 20-]5-C60/ 2015-C61, 2005-C62/ 20-15-C63,2015-093, 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 60
?.. After JReupmAiil ordered 0133- OFirda ^n-d IB'&id^e Mi- %¥itl-j ^ery
IRespDiArf (called fee Etoenth J^Aial 0£5t:tracl: fom&ouse and astel ^a-e-m fi:o send
3ier ©ne oi' theu'" 'deri^ because l;'i3:re d'.ET^ Maye ^¥aTB^?d o'ui ©TS iBe'",/ ^'yMi-t she
iadkaiQwledged altheC'o.mimssion ^ea^-ing was iiol itma
405. Respondent recorded ^ar coBTersation ^& tf'Ma3-la!ti at the disMtt comi in
wHcli Respondent said: a"l stoiisd pre-trials jat S,. 'ISse i3erk5 have walked Qi3t on 33ae< 1 do
not have a clerk aix-t I have piles of folders here - people wm&^ for new COUTI- dates
and such — if yon could please send a clerk over heri? to help in^ (12-9-16^ 9;1B:2S)
407. Judge Sliarer asked Sergeant Rempe io go ^vi£h lum to Respondent s
courh-oom after speaking to Eldridge and Garcla.
408. Judge pharer to^d Respondent that she needed to come off te bench to
spea3i -mih him.
409. Tlje coiirh'o(|>m was completely full.
410. Sergeant Recipe recalled that Respondent "stormed off the bei^cl^ Rempe
was "dumbfounded": "like she had just lost li
411. Respondent testified that \vhen Judge Sharer called her into the hallway
she tried to explain t:hat she could not concentrate but Judge Sharet cut her off by
saying, "There will be two clerks on the bench with you."
4^12. Judge Sharer told Respondent tfiat having hvo clerks 011 the bench with
her was the policy and that Respondent did not have authority over the clerks or who
was assigned id be in hericourtroom.
J^didal Standard C"inniission'5 Rndings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recorimsndauon for Discipline in
Jnquirk-s 201505S, 2015-059, 20-15-060, 2015-061, 2015-G62, 2015-063,2CH5-C93/ 20-15-1-13/ 20i5-146 Page 61
413., JudgE Sh'ar.er 3:D3d jRespoisdent ^epsssteSlj tiaaf IbgiSBd .DJI ^he ima'tdx^
Mcsp&actmT Jhad STSQ eihx^te bta't to ^lc^y t^y'D cl'ed^s 5j$ feEi' i^ittrocm'i, fth-a't E^ipD^'iJeatI
had 210 'aiAGQi:ty |bo -d-Q o&nv^.E, ai&d /1M a^vo clerks 'was nat a3-i inteifersBG'e ^th
Respamle.nfs j^did.SLl fui^cfioi^ Respoii-dEn^ said s1a£ ^youl-d liaye flse s^c^nd derl?
arrested if she ent-ered t33£ comtroo^..
414. J'ucige SLarier explmaed tliat he had ithe appro-s^ -of tlie AOC Directoj aiitd
there wonld be tsyo derks on the bench.
41S. Judge Sharer was not esca3atin^ th'e situation; he Tras ^rymg io follow ihe
xule.
416- Respondent replied that size had conh-ol over her courtroom and that she
would hold one of the clerks in contempt (2:45:095
417. ^Respondent recorded her coziversation with Judge Shares' in tlw hsShvay
including the following:
A. i Judge Sharer; "You wjU have two clerks on the bench with
ycju/'
K Respondent: "I want to see that m writing/'' (12-9-16, 9^5:36)
C. Judge Sharer: ^Rosemary sent you yesterday. It's in the
Mahix. You have no conh'ol over the clerks. You have control over
the judicia] process on the bench/ but no control over who's in there
with you. There will be two clerks on the bench with you."
Judicial Sfcsndard Comr";iS5:on'^ Findings ol' FiiCt, Concius^cns of L^w and Reconim.:'nd3Hon for DlsLipUne in
L-iq-jiries 20'LC-05S, 20'I.5-Co9/ 20-15-060, 20'I5-C6^ 20'1^&62, 2015-C63, 2LH5-053, 20i5-l43,2015-146 Page 62
P.. IRespondenfc ^ alst? S^sye €x?3Am)3 ofji^y camtomn. (12-9-16^
I _ --
IE. Ji3r^e Sha3-er: ^'Ilh^e wan fae ^w:-o cieriss on <&e l's[nc'h wS&
j-onr • - "'- ..-—-^- .-.-
R Respondent ilE/IHtee wonft be^ Aaid S mU 3iave &alt- .second
d£3;k ssreste-d. for .x:onlemp3: of CDmt. They re inferfering ^vaih 33n,e.,/
(12"9-X9;16;01)
a Judge Sharer: WNo^ tlie/re siot"
H. Respondent ^..unaUe to do myjol?/' (12-9-16,9:36:11)
LJudge Sharer: ^...talked to ArHe. You ^vill have hvo clerks on flie
beliclt with you. If you refase to do that/ you're 3leJFusing|io do your
job."
[. Mespondent: J'No/ lfm not refusing to do nvy job, It interferes wltjh
my aNtity to do my Job." (12-9-16,9:16:21)
K. Judge Sharer: "No it doesn't/ go back on the bench//
L. Respondent: "And you can't say that-/' <12-946, 9:16:28)
M. Judge Sharer: "Go back on the bench//
Respondent's arrest of a clerk for contempt
418. Judge Sharer sent Verhulst and Eldridge back into Respondent's
courhoom.
Judicial Stapiddrd Co^missior.'s Fir.dmgs of Fact, CondusioriS of LciW anci Recomjiisnddtion for DiscipLme m
i.nqu;riG520-]5-D3S/ 2015-059, 2CQ5-C60/ 2015-C61/ 2015-062, 2035-063, 2015-09S, 2015-U3/ 20I5--146 Page 63
41'9» ¥er^t'nlsii: ^as sxaco^or^teMe 1bu£ Self shs fca'd a job to d'o;, Ec^-d di'^'t expecl
to 'be 1'^M. iji ^snismyL ¥erlai3ltst fQM iiri©t 1be!B-eai% K^pGGQ"cl£at w'mi^d feoid ber &ii
4'20. VerMsl; kmew mD^ody else wanled to go into •te €omtro©^ ^i&
EespG-nden:^ s^^ b.e.cai-ise she Wxi-s a siaperyisor, sla'e sie^e-d lo ~'bs the orie fco go snto 4'he
courtroom.
421. Ver2m3si was stuck in 0ie ^nid.dle: -either disobey the pT&sidj3i:g iud^e -snd
not do her job/ or do her job .and possibly be Iheld in contempt.
422. Eldridge was nervous going back on ttws bench because she did 3?t knozv
if Respondent -vvbiLid hold lier in contempt; liowever, s}ie liad been aslced to do so by lier
supervisor and Judge Sharer/ so she did her job.
423. The courtroom was full with a Imsy docket
^24. EJespondent testified that Vcr?iu3st was sitting b^lund h^r. (4:23:53-4:24:12)
;425. Vjerhulst was not £]tting behind Kespondent bi^t to !ie3| right on the otlier
sideof'Eidridgb as before.
426. Respondent as^ked that Sergeant Rempe come into the courtroom.
427, Respondent said to Verhulst/ sternly and loud enough for everyone to
hear/ thai she 1-iad to leave or would be held in contempt
428. Respondents own recording of her contempt proceeding contained the
following excl-iange:
Judicial Star.d-3.-d C-bmn-iission's Finding of Fact/ Conc!usion5ofLa-//anf:1 Rsco>TJTn&."d^dor for Discipline in
Inquiries 20L5-058/ 2015-059, 2015-060, 201S-C61/ 2015-C62, 2015-C-63, 2012-0% 20"i5-143, 2015-146 XS-x-odf.C
A. Resgxmdent ^Okay. lfaa3i^, £fj.(m wap^ tD come In., SE3;geaat (32-^-
\
B,. -R^sp.-isade^il:amiBe<diateljad-^reEs^s¥er3it[u3^t - '--'~
'C. .....E-espQt.sdenfc^Amj^ (12-944 9:2051) : .. .. .._,,____..
U Vertelst "Yes/ma'am^
R Eesporadenl: wyou<re gomg t© leay.e te conrhwm. lliis is y.our
only wan'ang. S am going to have you firrested for contempl of comt. Do you have
anyt3mig tot you'd like to say before tot's done?" (12-9-16, 9:20:5-3)
K VerMst: "No "
a Kespondent "Okay. Take her/' (12-9-16,9:21:02)
429. Respondent testified that holding VerMst in contempt happened ??rigM
away/ fairly quickly/ maybe twenty seconds." (9:11:56)
430. Kespondent ga|Lve ^10 other warnings prior to levying punishmenh
431. Respondent did 40! give Verhulst a second wanung as she stated ip l^er
Order on Direct Criminal Contemph (Examiners Exh. 13)
432. -Respondent did not give Verhulst an opporhinity to comply before_haying
her arrested. .
433. Respondent did not tell Verhu]st tliat she found her presence to be
dlsh-acting as Respondent stated in her response to the Pefclfclon. (Examiner s Exh, 59,
Pg. 9, Lines 16-17)
Judicial Standard Commission's Fir.dirigs of Fact, Conclusions of Uw and Recommendation for Discipline m
Inquiries 2015-05S/ 2015-059/ 2015-060, im5-Q61, W15-G62, 2015-063, 2Q15-09S/ 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 65
43^.. Respandenl di'd miot |^y£ VeirhBM a cHiK^oe ftD c-Drjrect an^ p.£it?CBE-?Fe^
disfcnactimg l^eJia^'G-T In^ca-e Hsoldi^g ^ea'hnilst ia^ ccsraQtea'ipt
435,. ADA Biian Declker.y wlm^ wa-s pires^nt ^ecaiis ithat ¥eThu3'st w&s n&'t
disnip£n%-oT dlsresp'ectf-ul f-o Respondent- -__- . -__ ._--____. - .
436. Verhalst was noit actively doing a-nyS^ng w^ien she ^vas asl^ed to lea^^
437. jRespon-dent adfm^ed that 'she 's-vas Just distracted by Verliulsfs piesosce
.on the bench. (9:09:35)
43S. Respondent stated seyeral times in her Response to the Petltkm and an her
deposition thaL Verhulst was sitting beMnd her and that is what ^vss distracting
Respondent from perfornua^ her judicial duties.
439.. Respondent testified thst "two things bother a cop: taking their gun away
and someone standing tjelund them."
440. Respondent admited that Veihulst was npfr sitting beiimd her.
441. Kespondeiit did not then announce a jai! sentence or bond requirement.
- 442. Kespondcnt -admitted- she did not tell VeAulst .thatshe was sentenced to
thirty days in jail.
443. Respondent adnufrled she did not tell VeAulst that her bond was set at
one thousand dollars cash only.
444. Respondent conceded before the Commission that Yerhulsi; was in a
position wl-iere she had j[io cl^oice.
Judid^StarschTd Conumssion'sFmdmgsofFaci/Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-05S/ 2015-059, 20^5-060.2015-061, 2015-C62. 2015-063, 2015-098, 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 66
1445- iR£lgixmdeat tesliEe^ l£hatii:o^diiD,g¥£ir3iEAT 23H -cpjatp.mnpi wss in©t:mal3;dtes:"I -~' """'"S
'"5^^A:f^fe^fee^(3SS:^| !I
^4;6^' Seifgeant H'smpe ^''ff'as c'o^cern&d 'Sia'i JR'ESpEH-derM smj h'old iiina in
coatepfipt_ _ _
447, -Sergeant Rempe ^coxted Vei'3'i-ulsi out ©f the eom-;trao:m, bu^ did noit
bimdaiff her.
4^S> Sergeant Rempe told Yerhuist she was not free to 3eav&
449. ^empe took Verll-iulst to the iiaUway outside fee coiirtroom and ^en to ttie
lob^y where tlie public saw her sltHng wifli i^vo officers.
450. VeAulsi was dumbfonnded/ shocked^ upset and was crying.
451. Although ]il was techmcally an arrest SergeaTit Reinpe did not want to
take Verhulsi to jail out of concern for her safety.
452. Sergeant R^mpe called lus supervisor io ask if a judg^ coi^ld l^old
someone in contempt for doing their Job. i
453, Respondent conceded at trial that she had alternatives to cbnteiApt/ such
as recessmg^ourt and caUing AOC or filing a grievance.
454. Respondent admitted that she could have finislied 1-ier docket. (5:03:41)
455. It would have been appropriate for Respondent to call Rosemary McCourt
for advice, but she did not
456. Respondent admitted that she could have called AOC for guidance.
(5:03:45)
Judicial Standard. Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusioris of Law and Recommendation for UjscipKrie in
Inquiries 2015-05S, 2015-059, 2015-060, 2015-C61, 2015-G62/ 2015-^63, 20i5-09S, 20.15-]43/ 2015-146 Page 67
457.. Step&nfant admitted fhatsbeciCMi'd ftia^e £il.ed .a ^li-Evaifiice. (x©^:©2j
45K Itespoatefi a.dms'ttei^ Sh-Stt S^er HgM ®r Alfb.eer ^vas iR©t ^mSh Trfialst
459- ]R-espDJ3deni sa^v J'sdg'e S^iarer as &e persim at the hearii: rf' Uhe co^fil-ct a^'d
was angry -W3& Mill; slhe iesaasd t^iat fe £^7£n^ had nstNn^ ^o do W3& Terliuis^
excep-t that s'she was ihe one aihea-e,
460. Mespondent adinltied that l-sr B^l-it or s'b£e¥' -was w!t}-i Judge ^-larer.
(a05:a3) (5:06:02 & 5:06:30)
463. Respojident admitted that she had a choice^ she did nol have to hol^
VerMst in contempt. (5:03:22)
462. Eespondent claimed in her Response to the Petition th^tt Verhtilst pre-
arranged a locaj newspaper reporter to be on standby to report the controversy,
^axnine^s ^xK J59/ Pg< 9, Line 21 & Pg. 10, Line 1) Respondent|'s claim |was not true.
463. Af^er she held Verliulst in contempt/ Respondenl asked to her husband to
notify th^ Farmlhgtcm newspaper. She whispered/ "The Daily Times, You call The Daily
Times/'(12-9-3 6,9:24:14)
Attorney Murp3iyTs appearance on behalf of the arrested clerk
464. Respondent remained on the bench calling cases without a clerk,
465. Respondent did not: ask one clerk to stay on the batch because it was
Ioutside ^ her authority to ask a clerk to do something. (2:44:li
Judicial Stahd^d Cc»n^miss;on's Pmdmgs of Pact, Conclusions of Law and RecomnHE'ndaEion fdr Disdpllne in
Inquiries 2015-053,20]5-059/ 2Q15-060, 20-I5-C61, 2015-^62, 2015-063, 2015-098, 2035-143, 2025-146 Page 68
4'65» ADA Decfa- h^d fesp&ii-denft ffials-e a calIE ffroiB ftlie tendi a^m^ foa"II
soir^Bmie to s-ep-d a cil'eik '^o hiei. Mr, Derher fe'e3i'^Te4 Sfe cal-l w^- 33i'a^e 'to fee
disAl cc>.urt IMr,. 0ec^cer 3iad seysr-aS cases tiiat were iseaTd b^ IS^x^isd'e^'t a^er
"VsrbiLisfs liemin^.. .Respond'enl oiade" s-everal ^3'^03's -^n -fe- cases,, ^l'?lilch:in<3.tid'ed
assesses incoireci scomt co5:ts ^tiid fees. Mr, Decker did nol,- conrect l^espondeBt becausi
the wss afraid lie won'ld be sent to jaiL
467,- Attorney Steve Murphy fead appeared befoTe Respondent in a hearing
around 8 a.m. on December !„ 2015., then went to FarB^mgloi^ for hem*mgs £ffid headed
back to Aztec for a 10 SIM}, hearing.
468. On Hs v^aj back to Aztec/ Murphy received ^ phone ca31 from Courlt
Manager Proctor obylotisly in distress/ who asked him to come to tjie coui'lhouse to
represent: Verhulst before Respondent.
469. I Murphy rushed to the Aztec! magistrate court wherfe he found tiie court
staff in disarray.
470. Verhiilst was in custody in the courthouse lobby waiting for 'Murphy.
471. - Verhulst felt embarrassed and hirrniliated to be arrested.
472- Mr. Murphy saw an acquaintance/ Will Gilbert/ in the courlhouse/ said
hello/ and thought it was unusual for Mi\ GUberi to be in court because "he was not
known to be a law breaker."
473.1 Murphy met in a conference room with Verlmlst and Proctor; he
described Verhulst as "panicked and in tears/ and Prorior as paniciked/ beside herself."
Judidal Standard Commission s Pindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendaiion for Discipline in
Lnquirics 20-l>053,20-i5-059, 2015-C60, 201^061, 2015-C62, 2015-063, 2015-098, 2015-143, 20-}5-U6 Page 69
4M. A cWk Ssaiscked aiii •Hlae 'd.00T ©Jf 0?£ cmn&reBce spojai ariid t-old ^!Er.
^fee^e mex"t door Hiistoa.ng-^ pj:ll:14)
475. these is a common wall belwesi-i the t^yo coiiTfere^cc Tsoms.. ~?. M-uzpli'y
-^7£3U' &o-ihe--oth£r conference rooi^ ©pejied flie dear-and found Wi31 GSber^ a^id
EcspoiAnfs husband^ Biisn Jolu'iston/ with tlwlr 2ieads agamst 02e co^ixawji wail IMr.
Murp3iy asised ^.Ir. Gilbert end MT. Jolinsi-Dri ^7hat ftey ?^^3-e doing and i}^y replied.
"Nothing/' Mr- Murphy slamn-Eed the door (1:20:465
476. Mr. Murphy ssked Sergeant fcmpe to acc-ompany him and Ves'^ulst into
the courtroom., ^vith Verhulst still in E^mpe1s custody.
477. Respondent was not on the bench when Mr. Myrphy entered the
courtroom;, Murptiy told a public defender and assistant dish'ict! attorney who were
present to pay attention because this might end badly-
478, Jud^e Sharer stood m the back of the courirooin, but was not in his
judicial r^be.
479. Eespondent entered and took &e bench and asked Mr. Murphy what she
could do for him/ and ?. Murphy astei Respondenfifshe "really wanted to do this."
480, respondent said Verhulst was bein^ disruptive/ and that: this had started
on Thursday w^hen Verhulst came in loo'kmg over her shoulder; Respondent said that
she could noi: do her job with someone looking over her shoulder.
JudicidJ Standard Commissior/s FLndings of Fact/ Conclusions of Law and Reconimertdanon for Disripline in
Inquiries 2015-053, 20-15-059, 2015-C60, 2015-C63;20'IS-C6Z 2015-063/ 2015-098,2015-143, $015-146 Page 70
4BI. KespoadEiit rid Mm-p!^ diat slie had a Ih'ai'd -faiE foixiSaaTrg HeRO^pg
-VerWist ^as §3i£2l£ l©DHng fej1^ 3-iiis'i;aik.££ t.p a-epDrt bad^ t© h-er ^cdM^is. Nfc. ManrpBj?i
ask;ed Bespondent if slw ime.cmt coiu';t s'fca^ and EESp.ande^t'^^ ^es;
482, Mu?phy did ^oi asl< Bespon'd'eait fQr._a_ii^3'nn^/ Mieymg tl^t bec-aMse
Verbuist -W'ss alb-eady under a'r-res^ the m-a^strate proceesimg ^vas fmal.
483. During his -exchange with Respondent/ Nurp'hy dbsery&d that MespondeTit
was shakmg, red in fee face,, a^d appeared "on Ihe verge of bosling over."
4B4. Mm'pliy •re.c^rded Ms appearance before ReBposident an Ns c-eH p'hone^
caphmng all except for the bsgmnmg of the s^d-iartge. ?. Murphy s recording was
disclosed by Examiners to Respondent dttring the dascoves-y process.
485. I^urphy recorded the exchange because he was cpncerned that he would
be going tojal! as well.
486. Murphy's recording included the following e^cliange:
A. Respondent: "Mr. Murphy/ y/hat can} do for you?"
going on.
B. Murphy: "I'm representing Ms. Verhulst. 3 *d like to know what: is
C. Respondent: Do you want to set a hearing?"
D. Murphy: 'Td like to know why you found her in contempt and ,.,
jqiling tier.'
Judidai Standard Comraission's Findings of Fact/ Conclusions of Law and Secomn-iendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-053, 2&!5~059, 2005-C60,2Q15-C61,2015-062, 20-I5.063, 2015-098, 2015-143,2015-146 Page 71
f. i'
E, Stepandenfc !iS as^e^ 2-rer ?0 Seaye fiMs cssm-h'opm, '&3't s^£ ^as
jbAg dasropfepe. i caTm'Dl d:Q jmj jolT) W3& s-oimBGi^e ^fe'ig feelilnd ji^ !©Bl<irig for
tmstalk'£5 ai^d 3 ^viEI xiot ?&3'£]rat-e thatn'
I3. Mmphy; it5eem5 lik^? ?Di3V.E-a-IMe SiQsffl^'Jnd^e. Perhaps yoa
should just enter an order ssid Ws gei: it to District CourlJ"
G. Respondent w^sn 310^ bosfiie at ^t Hus ioolk place iast ^veek on
Thmscby, before prdims.. 3t W.HS very uiico.mfor^a^e for me^ 3 have a hard time
focusing on my job and know tliM slie is 33wrc loolkmg for ERistakes io yeport back to her
coliorts^
H, Nurpliy: ^1 do^t know ^y3io tlie cohorts are, you mean tlne staff of
tte court?so
L Respondent / Yes^ it interferes ../'
L
K.
L.
Murphy: .,. you mean the clerks of t2iis court?''
Respondent: Yes/ it interferes...
Murphy: "I'hcy have a job to do/ !J/m sure you ^ould appredai-e
t}~\ey have been directed by AOC to do theu'job.
M. Respondent: "Vm not going to interfere with their Job, The clerk
can come in and take care of the paperwork. I do not need an observer/
N. Murphy: //1 do not fclimk the observer is there for you but I would
just ask you enter an order If you're gonna find her in contempt.f ;
0. f Respondent: "There is your paperwork/
Judicial Standard Commission's Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law and Recommendation f6r Disdphne in
Inquiries 20i5-05S/ 2015-059,2015-060, 2015-C61/ 201^.062, 20-15-063, 2015-C93/ 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 72
c-ei^empE^
P.. M-urphj: ^'sm we •a^.sTS of £he artes fer fcdlng sojiasone in
Q-. EEsg?™3e:nt "3 m?3 .....itf
1R» MiiTiphy:-^-.... and voii'/3'eg3~i.7aiiigl'ie730-days3^jaj31-r'
S. JRespojsdenfc Yes,, ^0 days In jail wl;:& a Si©©H cash wansmt taid
warrant
. T. Murphy:: if!An'd }Toi3 iniderstand the r^es that apply with dsxect
contempt?
U. 'Respondent I do understand irhe rules/
V. Murpliy: //Tliank you/7
487, Respondent aslced Murphy if he wantedlaihearirig but Nurphy did not
respond; Respondent characterizes Murphy's non-respanse as a refusal of a hearing.
488. Nurphy's question about the rules of direct contempt should have ^iven! - ' ' if
Eespondent pause to consider whether ^he had oH^r^d Ve.rliulst due process/ as ^veli as
whether she could pm-dsli smnmarily a set of acbions wHch iiicluded "last Thursday".
4S9. Respondent testified al the Conmisslon hearing that/ if anyone Md asked/
she would have "reversed" her contempt finding immedistely.
490. Before tlie Commission/ respondent informed Exammer during a break in
testimony that @he had a beHer audio recording of the hearing/ because she also had
recorded it.
Judicial Standard Commission's Findings of Pact, Conc]usior.s of Law and Rsconrmendation for D.EsdpU.ne hi
inciuiri-ss 201S05S, 2015-C59/ 2015-C60, 2015-C6L2015-C62, 2015-OK3, 2D15.09S. 2015-143, 20'15-146 Page 73
.'491,, Mr.. iiyfit-dbdi stated fh'ai S't.eye MdiEi-ip^y^ iresDT&LE %as 3B©t oiamplefe aad
I
Mr- MiitcWI Saad:a be^t-sr rec^r-di-K^ ^yluch c©n^aimed fc be^aoaAL^ ©f tlhie pr^cce^iH^..
'This rec-Dzdmg ^yas iEi:o3: proyided or di'sdosad -to Examiners di3TjB^ fee disDD^^eiy
process.
492. Respo'radent at the Ccmimisslan 3iearing' gave 'Ebgnmner a ocipj of i^e
r-ecojdlng fhait slis oh'taln^ fe'ojn her 3api-op computer.
493. JRespondent told Murpl-ty that Yerliulst disrupted her judicial pr&c-ess,
494. ItorpN7 asked Respondent: to ejiter a ^vrltten order tliat 'cGiild be taken to
dishicl: court/ wluc^i slse had ready and provided.
495. The written ]SS oiniis tlie ordered $1/000 fine but ind-ades the thlrty-day
jail sentence.
496. After Murphy got a written contempt order from Respondent the officers
and Verliulsl went outside.
497- Respondent gave Murphy the QrlginaJ order and Judge Sharer told
Murphy that h6 could not have the original and he made Murphy a copy,
498. After the hearing wit1-i Murphy/ Verhulst returned to the lobby with tlw
officers to wait to be taken to jail,
499. Murphy asked Rempe to postpone iransporring Amy to jail while he
walked across the street to the district courtl^oyse to file an appeal and peHtion for writ
of superintendmg control. After a thu-ty-minute delay/ Weldon Neff told Murphy that
the Supreme Court "took care of it."
Judiciai Standard Commission's Findings of Fact^ Conclusions oil Law and Reconnnendai.ion for Disciplme in
Inquiries 2015-053, 2015-G59, 2015-teO/ 2015-C61, 201^062, 2015-063, 2015-09S, 2015-143,2015-146 Page 74
iRespsiiAiTDt pe^s^s hi l^tSi feeij'.ef -a:h-a?t ,sl3:e was AM sbDnt £ht^ assl.^img^I
i It - • '
©f cS'edks to her COBT^ i^sl fee presidm^ JBdge an'd AOC w-sre w^raig^ a^^-d tot lies isse
of the coBtempt: po^-yer 211 fiiir&eranre 'iOlf SIET pQ^ti;0ji was pi^p.eT-
Oeric's release by oxder -of 3:he Chief justice
Respondent continued to hold c-ourt without clerics after arresting
Veihulst,
502. 'Resp03id-ent made errors in die processing of cases; ADA Decker/ silll in
the courtroom/ noted but declined to point out Eespondenfa errors because he was
afraid Respondent would hold hmi m contempt as well.
503, Judge Sharer and Court Manager Prortor called AOC Attorney Jason
Clack regarding the contempt | order because Judge Sharer was concerned abouj:
Veriest going to jail where inmaies niay recogiuze her as a court employee. Clack
informed Judge Sharer that te
McCourt about the slhiation.
order was valid/ but he would speak to Rosemarj
504. rosemary McCourt informed AOC Director Pepin that one of the Azlec
clerks had been held in contempt and arrested.
505. Rosemary McCourt was concerned about the clerk's safety if jailed.
506. At Artie Pepin's direction/ McCourt contacted New Mexico Supreme
Court Chief Justice Barbara Vigil ipnd the Attorney General s office.
Judicial Stajrdrird Comjrussion's Fmdiiigs of FBct, ConclusioriS of Law and Recommendation, for Discipline in
Inc-J^e.s 20'15-035, 2015-059, 201>CfcO, 201>G61, 3':)-i^C62, 2015-C63, 2015-09S/ 2015-143, 201S-146 Page 75
5©7» McCflHHrA 050u^ilt M ^yss appi^priate to call Chief Jtis^ce ^23^ bec-auseI
B'e&p.cmdea^i ^vss n'ot Bstet^g to fi^-e presidM^ jud^ a^d ^•cCour^ Shou^^ S^e^on'dsraS-I
w^i^.di pjobaVy aio'i- Histe.nt ^o l^er, eiiO^r..
5'0§> _ M-os'^^imj'Nl'cCcmrt became a^yare Iha^ ClHef ^us&.^Vii.giH was pjepm-jng
anons
509. McC.oi3rt asked Georgia Sedjlo to fa-avel to Aztec to help ^th the
.sihxa'Ho^-
510. -Georgia Sedillo left Santa Fe for Azl-ec^ .arrh'lng behyeei^ 1. snd 3:30 p.m.
on Oeceiriber I/ 2015.
511. Upon tier arrival, Sedillo noted feat fhe atmosphere at the courthouse was
extremely tense and emotional.
512, Chief Justice Vigii called to ask that Respondent call her/ sb Proctor
emailed the pho^e number to pRespondent.
513. Proctor told Judge Sharer that Chief Justice Vigil wajitect to spea^ to
Respondent and that Proctor ^mailed Justice Vigil s phone nuinbers to Respondent.
514. Judge SJ-iarer went to Respondents courtroom to tell her that Chief Justice
Vigil wanted her to call/ and that Proctor emailed Justice VigiFs phone numbers to her.
Respondent was not on the bench.
515. Judge Sharer saw Respondent enter the restroom. Kespondent's husband/
Brian Johi-iston/ was standing by the ladies' restroom with his arirtS crossed and was
staring at Judge Sharer.
Judicial Standard Commission's Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation forDisdplmein
Inquiries 2015-053, 2015-059, 2015-C60, 20I5-OG1, 2015-062,2015^3. 2015-098, 2015-U3, 2015-346 Page 76
516. Biian J'Qhn^ism is a famrei- ^lej'^s d.ep32^ i
i :
51Z Whm Mesp.imd'eat c^m'e ^Ff ilb-e he^-d^ aod -^ieiat Mit© S^ie iadies" r;0933?/I
ItepmAn'fs Sviisslsarid Et-ocd <D;Q;i:mde •fc i-sths'ooau do-isr ^Si:h I-^TS legs apari a3fid mi^s
crossed, and told Gomt Ma^a^er Proclor, !tri¥e'!iF,e going So S3e Siar&sq^.eai; charges
.against youJ"
51S-. J-uHge Sharer Siear-d Ba^m^ Jo2xnson iSireaten Gourf Majia.ger i^ocior ^tli
harassmEnt diarges-
539. judge Sharer w^is conceuied about what might Iiappen zvlien he told
Respondent that Chief Justice Vigil wanted to speak to her. Judge Sharer as^ed clerics
Crimta Garcia and Samantha Sniith to listen in wlien he told ^espondiEait to caii CNef
Justice Vigil-
520. Judge Sharer notified Respondent to call Chief justice VigU/ which she
did.
521. Respondent JcaUed and 3 eft a message for CNef Justice Vigil/ -went back to
the bench for more cases/ tlheh went outside to call Chief Justice Vigil again.
522. After speaking to Chief Justice Vigil/ Respondent left the building with her
"husband to her car in the parking lot
523. Judge Sharer believed that Respondent's firearm may still have been In
her car or that Respondent may have retrieved it wl-ien she and her husband went to her
car-
Judicial Standard Commission's FiAdir.gs ol' Fact, Coiiidusions of Law and Kecommendafjon for Disciplme in
Inquires 2015~G53,20!>059,20I5-C60/ 20-i5-C6-l/ 2015-C62/ 20-1.5-063, 2015-05S, 20-J5-143/ 2QZ5-146 Page 77
524. Serpean^- Kemp-e "w-as told t»y CDUSI Maasaser Pj-wil'dfl' ft;hait: MespsB'd'-KFaa- ^-ad
g-ane smt iD.lher car:. ReriQpe 'di-d 3iot laamv lf-I?-:esp03i-^ei;it Si3Jd T^tr^-'-Ed h'Er guiin, i3a.t Ae
to to- b,ehaviD7 3^5 was c-oncerned Qiat 0^e £3fai^0o;m nu^hi e5ca3s'fc£.
525. Ser^e-cmt iRempe si^ade a •plain fto reh^m 0re if Rfisii5Dndent"puli'ed-3^j' <gma:
he told Ihf ofBcers ^viih Hin that lie would take out Res-pDndejnt, CT^e oilicer ^as to
cover Brian jo^iston/ and ths tl^ird officer ^vas to cover &e maB ^7ith ^^> JoimstarL
(11^:52,31:56:595
526- Judge Sliarer spoke 'syll:h Chief Justice Vigil who fcold Judge Sharer that an
order was forlLhcoming. Judge Sharer fo3d Chief Justice Vigil tliat K'espoadent was
"pissed/'* riiat Respondent had gone to the car where lier gun was/ and it did not feel
safe for clerks to go in tlie courtrobm with Respondent Chief Justice Vigil toU\ Judge
Sharer not to let the clerks go into the coi-irtroom with Respondent
527. Kespondenl retiir'ned to the bench and called more cases wxthout clerks.
Respondent did not 0 en call fc^r a clerk to join her. She used the Seniencingi Order foi'm
in the file to write her notes for the clerk. Respondent admits mal^mg mistakes in two
of those cases myolving DWI fees,
528. Respondent was on the bench without any clerks when Georgia SedHlo
arrived in Aztec.
529. Respondent's husband Brian Johnston was sitting in Respondent's
courtroom when Georgia Sedillo arrived in A^ec.
Judicii'il StaTidard Comniission's FLndings of Fact, Conclusions of L'aw and Recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 20-I5-05S, 2CH5-C59/ 2015-C60, 2013-C61/ 20^5-C62, 2015-C63, 2Q15-C9S, 2015-343/2035-346 Page 78
^3^ Serg.sani fecnp.e deste3'u^3^d &a:t fee £0;uild S;ak£ Verl^EnIsi i£o 0ifi s^i^e poltee
fS&e as l©n.g as slie s'en^m^Bd m Ms -aisfaMty..
53I,. As Sergeant Eemp£ was cscD^ting Verlix^st to te y-eNcle 35'e was topped
3?y Ctour;c "MarLaR^Procsoj ^iio told him tlnat 0-iief jEstiteVi^l ^vas on -tire p^'oj^e a^d
-waj^ed 'to speA to Jhini.
532. Ciaef JtEStice ^gaJ totd Sergeant Rempe tha^ an order was prepared
vacating Bespondenfs -contempl oxder and that Verlinlst w.as to b.e released-
533. Veiimlst was released and went to her des^k to work/ but could not
iconcentrate and -was unable lo woi-k,
534- About 1:30 p.m./ Chief Justice Vigil sent a-n order vacating ttie contempt
conviction and SB ord^r suspending Respondent from the bench,
535. The ,New Nexicp Supreme Court issued an order of superlntericUng
control vacating Respcindent's contempt order before Amy Verhulstwas tak^n to jail.
536. ]ud^|e Sparer receivecl Chief Justice Vl^l's order by fax aEoi^g with the
order suspending Respondent effective immediately-
537. Chief Justice Vigil asked Judge Sharer "to have state police serve
Respondent with the order and Judge Sharer was to get Respondents key,
538. Judge Sharer with Sergeant Eempe and tliree other State Police officers
went to Respondent's courtroom wtiere Respondent was not conducting court but was
speaking to the public defender,
J-udicia! Standard Commission's Findings of Fact/ Condusions of La'A- and Recommendation for Disdplme in
Inquiries 2015-05S/ 2015-059, 2015-C60, 2015-C61, 2015-C62/ 2015-C63/ 2015-093, 2015-143/2015-146 Pag& 79
535.. Ju^ge Shar-er £isk;8d IRespmrden^ t:o,€£im-e ojf ii3ie berrh; .R£sp'Gpd£!nt 3©o1ced
at Mom Ihi^t: CDn&'msd spddr^g ^fh fee p'l&ls-c defesi'd'er, Ji3d^e Siaarer ©gain aslsed
Stespcmd.EM ID 'CDIBE •off flw bendi^ a^-d Respondeai agaiia iD&ted s\i isSm- .aad co^^i'nn'ed
EpsaMnjg to a piililic d'efeiider^ .
MD» |~B<3ge Sliater said Jt0 Respo^deat, ''sf|udge ]o}mstGn/ nD^y/ asd RespDrideni
came off the tbendt and &en Judge Bhs.rer Sisd &e State Police ser^/e 0ie order -of
removal and reqTnre Kespondent to surrender iier cour&Diise key and reh'ieve her
belongings,
541< Respondent was sMemg and visibly upset as she surrendered her key to
Judge SHarer.
542. Juf^ge Sharer asl<;ed Georgm Sedillo to -vvatch as Respondent got her Stings
and left
543. peorgia SediIIo and two State Police officers accompanied Respondent tof
lier office to gather lier belongings before she left tt^ie courthouse. i|
544, Sergeant Rempe remained at the courthouse uniH Ees^ondent left,
545. Judge Sharer went into Respondent's courtroom and informed the
litigants that any pending cases would be heard in 3ns courtroom and to come back the
next day for paperwork.
546. Judge Shafer and Judge Chase divided up Respondent's docket after
Respondent left tlie courthouse on December I/ 2015.
Judiciai Standard Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and RecommertdatiAh for DisdplLns in
Inquiries 2015-053, 2015-059, 2015-C60. 2015-C61, 2015-062, 2015-C63/ 2015-093, 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 80
547. iiifee Sparer s.peaaii: ^7© to'fereE days con^c.^g ass'd fmaliizlBR papenyoA
I
from Re5,pon,dEnfs last 'teiThigs. ;
5'^B- Sedillo did not 'dir'a:'Hy woTk 01^ fthe case -©es &&-it R^sp'&Kdent 2iand3.ed
^'hen she ^-as .mi £iie bencl-j alo-B-e, ibxil: Se^lHo ^y-pAe^ OB the finmidals a^id noted tol;
comt cos^s had to he cojjected.
549, ADA Decker later cmn^ to court at Jndge Sharer's zeqiaest^ along wiyi a
pubTic defender, to correct Eespo^deiifs mistakes.
Ofeer fmdings relevant pmnarily io ihepenalty phase of tiie Cosmmssion proceedings
550. J^ck Fortner is an attorney nt Fafmmgton/ New Mexico doing collecdoi^s/
criminal law, and personal injuiy claims.
551 Portner appeared regularly before Respondent/ wl^om he found routinely
i . , ifair a^id pfplite to botl-t sides. !
552. Coleen O'Leary is an attorney who practiceU in San Juan County as a
public-defender-assigned to the Aztec magistrate court.. O'Leary appeared two to_three
days per week before Eespondent
553. O'Leary recalls Respondents courtroom as a staUe and rational
environment except for December 3/ 2015. O'Leary thouglit Respondent was
considerate of people's rights.! '. itA ^ i
5541. On December 1, 2015, O'Leary perceived the (fclerks in Respondent's
courtroon^ as beins insubordinate m not complym^ with R.espo^dent's repeated orders•o
Judicul Standard Commission's Tmdmgi of Fact, Cor.d-usions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline m
L-^uL-iss 20:5-Q?S, 2015-039, 20'l^CcG, 2015-C6t- 2Q1.5-C6Z 2035-063, 2015-G53, 20~15-143/ 2Cri5-I46 Page 81
to dc? SDmetenig fl&e m.ol; 'sit 331 a certajn placfe O'Le'aJj zecalls fee cl.Eds as smSM^g, N ^
I
taunt'Eras fasihacai. O'lje^n'y .^.DES 33.0]: x?ecal3 fe-e court derlk j-e3V3B.g l&'e feen'd^ 03' feeBa^^C? "LL-,-^,-,-w/^"""'J? ^-— — ^^— .— ^.^ -.-^^^-^ .„ „. ^-^.- .^-.^——^ ___-.._ --^ . . -- _..--- ^ ^ ^.
held sii coBtempt dj' an-e^te-il
555- Madfa R&Jbjrspn is Chief Jsdge oFllie Jicanlla Apadie Natiori's com-te and
is licensed as -ast attorney m. NEW Mexico.
556.. ^Robinson f-requently appeared before Respondent os •sn assistant pn'bla-c
defender, as .much .as four .days per w£&k Rcvbmson thought Respondent.was sSways
polite and cordial to everyone. Edbinson perceived that Respondent worked to team
the law over time.
557. Robinson appeared before respondent for the mornmg docket on
December 1, 2016. Strcmgely/ no clerks were on thelbench v^h^n Robinson arrived.
Robinson was an ^nd out of Respondent's courh-oom on pecember 1^ 2015- At one
point/ -Robinson recalls that Verhulst was sitting on the bench and it was clear that tier
pres^nce caused tension with Respondent Kobir^son was (at the podium regarding a
client's plea w5ien Respondent held Amy in contempt. Respondent told Amy to stop
what she was doing and apparently Amy did not stop. Robinson did noi: see Amy
doing anything disruptive/ only iihat Amy was writing something down. Robinson
does not recall another clerk on the bench with Amy. Respondent was visibly upset
with Amy and used an increasingly stem tone of voice/ appearing frustrated. Amy
seeme^-i pretty resolved to not follow Respondeht's orders.i Before tl-ia^ Judge Sharer
Judicial Standard Corn mission's Findings of Pact/ Conclusions of Ls.w and Recommendation {or Discipline m
inquiries 2015-Q5S. 2035-C59/ 2Q15-C60/ 2035-C61/ 20-15-C62, 201-063/ 2015-0-?8, 20]5-143,2CH5446 P2g2 82
^ss ij^ R£5psmS:entf's eem-troo-Bi. M seeo^ed to Eob.iHSiMi ftha3: Mi^pomie'siLt T^afe Ib.eisg fe^
i-ap.
558,. Mobms.cm tAed abDiii- tlie [contempt indd.e^^ lwi& m-EM?e l^am h'i?er^
o^le. • •— ' ~ ~~ —-
559. Shannon Grace Betos Is an aitomey in Pamaingto^, Ne1i-y Messco^
miy doing -cnsmnai defense, and appeared before I^espODdent xnany -fanes.
560. Pettus recalled that t!-ie atmospSiere .at the Aztec maglstral-e court was
tense on the jnoriun^ of December 1^ 2015. The absence of clerks on tlie bench created
more work for Eespondent
561. Pettus considered that Respondent was polite in dealing with Murph}7 on
the contempt issue.
562. Pethis remembefed fhat, at some point/ Verhulst was standing or sitting
ne^r the back corner of Respondent's bencl'l about five fe^t from Respoa^dent.
563. Pettps had the opinion that respondent v^as a superior niaglsh'ate judge
for the jurisdiction/ very fair and polite.
564, Arrest for contempt had mi exh'enie negative-effect upon Amy Verhulst:
she felt; great anxiety for a time and was reluctant to go out in pubUc/ ultimately seeking
medical help. At work/ she was afraid of retaliation for tier role m events at the Aztec
court. She tlwught about resigning her position with the court. Though thmgs have
ifnproved over time/ Verhulst is sure that she will npt be able to work in the Aztec
magistrate court if Respondent rehrrns to the bench.
J-udidai Stanciard Com.nussion s FiridLngs of Fact, Condusior^ o! Law arid Recommendation for DiscipUne in
Ir.Quiries 201^058, 2015-05$, 2015-C60/ 2015-061, 2015-C62, 2015-063, 2015-053, 2015-143, 2015-146 Pa^e 83
&sk 0Ji P^cejaJber ^ 2015^ atea* B£spo^i3£.nl- was .ire^n-Qwd S^m-s ^he Aztec
i
ccmAsBsey pni stbaiBf caM.&di PirciCitar £tibout R'espondeiot ssMm^ aibe jail re^airdaiBg ca'slhi[ j
!
b.on^s. PiTixto ,rE|?o^ed ^e caH tQ Presiding Ji3dge S^a^-er -aira'd CBor^a Se,d33la.
556- K-espaniient did 3-ecoTd •^h£ even's ©f ID-ecemte 1, 2{H^ W^ a ^^d-ein
reoca'der,. She did 'not disdose feat recordmg to the JExammeRS i.mSl after l-i£r ^dliecl
exanunation st fee CbmmasaOTt hearlng-
567. Respondent be&ved ^-iat •l3ie Ne^y Mexico Supreme Court plsrmed^ m an
appar-ent dest^gn^ to vacate the contempt oj-der and have Sier r,emc^T.e<3. (9;00:24-9:01:DO)
5bB. Respondeirfs actioiis •with regard to Aztec couri cleiks and associate
judges demonstrate a lack of judidal temperament: Eespondent tends to view
insignificant slights as consequential/ perceives conspiracy in the innocent actions of her
co-workez's/ and subordinates the efficient and fan- operation of the courts to 3-ier
personal feelings and concerns.
569. Eespondent displayed a pattern .of resistance to direction from higher i
court authorities or from co-equaU or subordinates vten their good faith assistance ran i
counter to her personal impulses.
570. Respondent's history of mentorship and guidance from presiding judges
and personnel of the Administrative Office of the Courts demonstrates the unlikelihood
of Respondent improving through additional traming or guidance.
Judicial Standaj-d Conuriission's Pindmgs of Fact, Coi-idusions of Law End RecDmmendation for Di5cipHne in
Inquiries 2C15-C58, 20^3-059, 20^5-C6D, 2015-C61, 20^062, 20-15-063, 2035-&9S/ 2015-143, 2Q35-146 Page 84
S?i. 3f Ee^po^d'eisi rehjn.as to &£ 3-na^sb-afte jbmdh., 2:t its : B5Mj feat &&
i !
op^-a^oiras ef sayictewrt ^a£ie slse w^iiks wM3 %3£ sig^€.camST 'di^nupted by Iher pressapei • • ! : ;
srrd c'03ditt
572. iR-espDn'denfiS Frercadita^ed acl^oa •Df arrestm^ aT3 irmoceni c'Diirt d'eA for-
direrf crsmnal contempt ^y,as espednBy esy&gious m '€bsi tfc was cl-othed ^th f&e
apparent autb.orll-y ©I an offi-cial judicial act; took place within a courtroom in £i
conrl session; served i^o official purpos-e but only RespoBdenfs personal d.esires/ wiiiie
causing extraordinary disruption to fche 3-eal business of te c-onrls; cast ti-emendons ai^d
notorious doubl ^pon tiie fairness of comt procedures and practices^ and; was inyested
YnQi personal •dishonesty o! Respondent as to the cause for tier aclior^ as to the purpose
of her action/ and even as to tlie nature of ^ier action as slie misrepresented each of them
to the participants/ fhe public/ and the Commission throughout these proceedings,
573. Respondent^ lack of <:r^|dibiiity and lack of substantial Sincere remorse for
actions raises serious and substantip3 doubt about her capacity for correction and
change.
574.- In-her-favor/ Respondent had no prior record of judicial disciplme prior to
the events set forth herein.
575. Respondents actions described herein did substantiaJ hm'm to the
operation and public perceph'on of the Aztec magistrate court: the contempt arrest and
subsequent immediate temporary suspension were widely publicised/ with even the
Respondent attempting to involve t^ media in order to accomplish her personal goals;
Juciicisl Standard CoirLnussion s Findmgs ofFsct/ Conclusions of Law and .Recom.inendadonfor Disciplmein
Inquiries 2015-C5S/ 2015-059/ 2015-C60, 2015-C61/ 2015-062, 2G15-063, 2015-D9S, 2015-U3, 2015-145 Page 85
E'espctnLienlfs pm-Mil^ m e^-erdsiri^ JH:di.da1 ^i3l3sori;t^ ^i3 ^^P-osed.; ^espon'den^
?!^el^ aibnsed &e awfis'cm^e iu'j.li'dal power ef co^dmpt feoife. m laer paanposes ans-d S^-er
ab:©5aye proce.dm'.e; Re'&po.ndsnt d'eSed Sii£T prfisper ciialn of (E3@j:m3iaB:d a;l HiZii-'tipls tevels^
IKespojnden^ rftstecE fee a5'd of jn-s-m'be^s of her iamilj ami 'itss. psWc in SieT jEmscoB-dact,
and; M-espojiden^; ^vilUfully x'ejected o&er avaiiable Hieaiis to ad'fess 2ie3" co^c-erjis •tot
would have pjatecied fee JudidaT)7 and pul^ljc from hai-m.
Proceckwe for ultimate findijngs and recommendalioii
576. AH of the commissioners present for the ^i&anng voted in favor of fmding
tliat fliese charges were proved by dear and convlndng evidence: Coua^ts 1^ 2/ 3/ 4/ 8/12^
M/andl5si3bpart3.
577. Al] of 1'he conmussionejrs present for the hearing voted in favor of the
Recojnmendation for Discipline.
CONCLUSIONS PZLAW
1. The judicial power of the New Mexico magistrate courts/ as well as the
New Mexico Supreme Court/ is vested by the New Mexico Conslihifrio.n. N.M. Const'n
art. VI/ g 1 (As amended September 28,1965, and November 8/1966.); see ft]so g 354-1
NMSA 1978 (1968).
2. The New Mexico Legislature establishes the original jurisdiction of the
New Mexico magish'ate courts ai^d prescribes the qualifications of magistrate judges.
Judk-ial St^ndyrd Commission's Fmdihg.s oH"iicl/Condu3iDnsofLaw&nd RecGn'imendab:on for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-053,2015-059,2015-C60/ 2015-C61/ 20-15-062, 2015-063,2015-C5S/ 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 85
MM. Ccsss'fe art ^ § 26 (As repealed air^d r.eenscite.d N'-QTember B.y 1966; as •zm^end.ed
Nwiember^ 198.8.).i - - l
3. %e 5toy ?\3e^3C£) Siye^^-e Comt 3^s snpEriritodsTig con'trol ©ver 1r.he
Nw Mexico xna^islr^e.mm-ts. M.M Co3^-"n art -¥I, § 3.
4, The |ndida3 Siandm'ds CoTmnissa'Rn is auQi©rlzed to -act xmder i&e New
Mexico Constitution, ArMe ¥1, Secgon 32, along with § 33-10-3 tl-irougli -4, N^^SA
197^ and the judicial Standards Comn-iisslon Rules/ NM^A 2012.
5. The Judicial Standards Conrranssion wves^igQtes complaints agamsr New
Mexico judges/ including raagastrate judges^ holds hearings and,, where supported by
^ood cause/ "sliall recommend io the supreme court the discipline/ removal or
retu-ement of the justice/ judge or ^nagistrate.31 N.M Const?n/ mt. VI^ g 32 (2012); 5e£ filso
i 34-10-2.1 NMSA 1978.
6. Conu4endng wi^h the service of notice of formal proceeding &e Judi^jal
Standards Comn-u^sion has jurisdiction over these proceedings and over 'the
Respondent. Rule}5C-38NMRA (1993).
-7, At all times _material to this. matter/ Eespondent was subject to/ and her
conduct on and off the bench wa.s governed by,, the New Mexico Code of Judicial
Conduct/ Canons 1-4 mid Rules 21-101, et seq./ NMEA 2012.
8. At hearirigs before the Judicial Standards Commission/ "[fjormal charges
shall be established by clear ^nd convincing evidence." Rule JSC-29(A) NMRA (2010).
Judiciai Stancbrc! Commission's Fini.'iings of Fsct, Concluslor.s ol' Law and RecocnmendaUon for Discipline in
Inquiries 2Q15-05S, 2015-05^, 201>CcO, 2015-C61/ 2015-062, 2015-C63/ 2015-C53/ 2015-143, 2015-^45 PagS 87
9. "'dear and cisnv^cmg eya-dmc'e is <e^ctoce tfias^ h^Hntty tllttls] fes scAs
]
ta fe a^nT^ia^ye T\-vhen -^^eig'hed a^ahist!; ^e eyidg^:ce S-B ©ppEsili'D-n aiu-d.&e I:2£tian:d:£r''£
znmd is lefa wifii mu aibldin,g coiwac^ois ihss fee e^Jid'ejsce as tru^ii' ^ r? JU^^Q^ 2©[lf7"
NiMse-m-T^ m-rad SM
10- Th-e adniissMiiy of evidence at ibrmal proceedings of the Coirunisslcm is
governed by t^e Judldal SiandaTcts Con^mssioji Rules^ NNTRA 2012,
11. ^jWiHful] misconduci; in office is innprop.er and wiOTig conduct o^ a judge
acting in his official capacity done intentiojia35}7/ 'knowm^y^ and generally, i^ bad faith.
it is more than a mere error of judgment or an act of negligence/ Jn re Sdrwwlz, 2033-
NM5C-039/ £| 12,149 N.N. 721 (quoting Jn T£ Locnfel^ 2007-N^C-029/H 8.141 N,M,
755,161 P.3d 252 (per cnr'wm) (internal quotatjon marks ai^d citetion osLUtted)).
12. t?[W]hUe violations of the Code ofjudjcial Conduct 'furnish some proof of
what constihites appropriate judicial conduct/' in order to wari-ant discipline^l those
1 ! .. t
violatioiis j^ust be wUlful, ^ re MnrHnez, 99 N.M. 198, 2Q4/ 656 P^d 861,867 (198J2).'1 /^
re Sclnynriz, 20H-NMSC-019/ ^ 12, 255 R3ct 299,
- -13. Judges may be disciplined or femoved for-willful misconduct in office;
N.M. Constitution Article VJ/ Section 32.
14, During the adjudicatory phase/ the Examiner for the Commission proved
by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent Magish'ate Court Judge Connie
Leejohnston conunitted v^illful misconduct which violated Rules 21-101,21-102J 21-202,
21-203,21-205(A) (B)/ 21-20^(B)/ 21-209(A). and 21-210(A)/ NMRA.'
Judidal Scaridsr'-i Comj^ssior/s Fmdings of Fac£, Conclusions of Law and Recommend?, lion for DisdpUne in
Inquiries 20'l5-05S. 20J5-C59,2015-C60/ 2015-C61/ 20^5-C62, 2015-063, 2015-09S, 2015-343/ 2015-146 Page 88
15., Tlhe EKainineT •es^Misbs^ bj eD'ear ia33d Cffl^^ctog e^^dsEHDe iQsiai
I^esp'cmdeM oomantled ^MHiii3 ^scou^daci' as desci'ibed by GQvmi-s 1^ ^ 3^ ^ ^ 1'Z, l^/
ai3dCcra3itli5suTbp5rf3.. - • -
.'16,.- . AUEeast sm7.£ii inembe^s ©f ilie Jiidldal Standards ComQus^©n ^isst te
presenl: foj- a liearing. Sr^ Hule J^>22 NMRA (2030); Itlze Cbn-m-u's-slori ^vas an-creased to
H-drteen m-emtes in 2032, N.N.. C€instan, art VI/ § 32 (2012).
17. Al least seyen niefinbers of l3ie judicial Standards C'ormxussion, ai^cln.djng a
majority of &e Conimissloneis attendni^ a heasing, must concur 41for a fmding ^iat a
charge has been proven by clear and convincing evidence" and "for a recommendation
of remova3, re&ement/ or discipline of a judged Rule JSC-29(B & C) NMRA (2030); see
also Ri3^JSC-30(A) NMRA (2010).
^8. ^In all proceedings resulting in a recommendation to the Supreme Court
for removal/ retirement Or discipline/ the Commission sl^aU prepare a transcript of the
I
evidence and of all forpial proceedmgs tlierein and shaU make written tindijtigs of fact
3 conclusions of law with respect to the issues of factand conclusions of law with respect to the issues of iaci and law in the proceedings,"
RuleJSC-31 NMRA (2010). _
19. The proceedings in this matter were properly convened and conducted in
compliance with provisions of the New jMiexico Constitution/ statutes/ and court rules.
See also Rule JSC-24/ Conduct of hearing, NMRA (2010).
JucUcidl Standard Cors'm'jssion 5 FLndh-igs of Fact/ Condusioiis of Law arid recommendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 20^5-058, 2015^359, 2015-060, 2015-06^, 2015-C62/ 2015-063, 2015-098, 2015-143,2015-146 Page 89
20L Hhe Ad.mnasiralipe 0£Boe ^f ^he Conrts is ss'feilbliah-ed b^y s^tea^te and
;E;5d be sii^ETpasBdl I??7 a d:irecfcDi' %-y3iD s3ia3! b£ app.misied amd su'biedt 1© irem.ovali l?y fh'e
supreme cc^it of .?w^£xicoJst 534-9-1 NMSA ^9^ p9593..
-—--' 23-- —&2 dir.eo.toT of &e Admmis-b-a-tsy'e Office-of the Courts-^.aSl/'uj-iAer ftlw
.supervision and du-ec^on of fee si.ipreme courl .„ sHperylse ali imatte.rs rclatmg to
adrmmstratiDTi o'f 0ie com-Is", g 34-9-3{A) N^^SA 1978 (2D04), indudin^ fee magistrate
courts/ see g 34-9-7 NM5A 1978 (1972)-
2Z In magistrate courts with inore tlian one divisioi^ a "presiding magistx'ate
is designated by te director of tl^e Administrative Office of the Courts "io perfonrt
admirastrative duties prescribed by regulation of the adjmnistrative offic-e^ § 35-3-37
NMSA 197^(1999).
23. New Mexico judges have statutory auiliority t}to preserve order and
decorum'^ includnig conteinpt: power/ w]t:1iiin customary boundaries. §134-1-2 NNSA
I
1978 (3?53).
24. The New Mexico Supreme Court has adopted a Code pf Judicial Conduct/
-Rules 21-001 et-sefj.^URA. - - -- -
25. "A judge shall respect and comply \yifh fhe law/ mcludlng the Code of
Judicial Conduct." Rule 21-101 NMRA (2012).
26. Eespondent willfully violated Rvle 21-101 of the Code of Judicial conduct
in the following vyays:
Judicial Standard Co^'imissicn's Fl".n;ngs of Fact/ CoTicl^siori.s of Law ar.d R'ecoounendalion for Discipline m
]nq^ri£5 2015-D5S, 2015-055. 20'1-Cfc^ 2015-C61/ 2015-C62, 20-15-C&3, 2015-C9S, 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 90
A. fespoi^ei^ M'eci to fo33D^¥ t^s ia^:u3 diir^c&r.£ of FjF£si-(feig N4g£
I .. . _ . — -_ -....-..-. . .1
'tosj 5fear£T bj Ih©3^1.mg Azfec ]^lag5sbrat£ Cx)-mt Leacf WOJ^HT .Aaaj Ve^Al N
con'tempt: of ۩B3t foj peifoisTismg Iher deric.al! dalies as ^ae 'had b^en diiedted 'to dlo bj
tespo-ndent -undermmed Juci^e Share^s auflioriiy wl^en sSss t-mce
ordered Amy VerSiulst -off tire baidi when Ms- VeAiilst ivas perforj^-ui^ Iter duties ^5
sheliad besn -dsTected to do,
C. respondent imclermined Judge ShaTer^s authorily w^ieii she
ordered Cruzita Gatdft off the bench when Ms. Garcia was perforinhig ^ter cleTicaS
duties as she had been dn'ected to do.
D. Respondent refused to accept the autl^ority giveii to Presiding
Judge Sharer npder the New Mexico Supreme Court's O^rder 09-8200; of Superln tending"I
Confaro! over J^agistrate Courte/ Policy Directive Number 5/ and under the Aztec
; ,. .. „ \. [Magistrate Coi^rt Mabix ^vhich had been approved by the Nevp Mexico Supreme Court
and the Administrative Office of the Courts.
27. "A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the independence/ integrity^ and innpartiaUty of the judiciary and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Eule 21-102 NMRA (2012).
28. Respondent willfully violated Rule 21-102 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Im the following ways:
JudiciEl Standard Ccmmlssion s Flndmgs of Pact, Conclusiop^ of Law and Recomn^endation for Discipline in
L-cuiries 2CQ5.C5S, 201^059, XHS-CcO/ 20-15-C61, 2015-062, 2015-G63/ 20i505S, 20-15-143, 20TJ5-146 Page 91
A. 'Respim'fat Md Astec Magisirate 'Gow't Ls&d ^toter te^
VeAte iira ffi^aibesEE^it: for peArijnjng h-er d;Edcat d^H'es as Ms. Vigrlinlst fcad 'ibeeiis
iii'tstmcted to d'@ b^; P^ssidmg ju-dge Bairy Shar.ET arid ConT^fc M^n^er lj©3i J^c^Es.r.
1B- M)es;p0ndeiit dlso'beyed the la^yfol diireoti^e ©f Presiding J^'^e
S'harer by hol'ding IMs. V^r3sn1st in conten-ipi. Ke.spondejit ^yas told ee-yer-al tirries bj
judge Sharer feat ^vo c3erlcs -woultd 3ie on the Ibench w^ih her a^ all times and Sh'at fce
had the approve of ilie AOC to insfitute this policy.
0 Respondent was told specifically by Rosemary McComt, Oirecfcor.,
Nagistrate Court Division of the AOC, that Fresidmjgjudge Shaj-er had t5ie aufhoTity to
require two clerks to be on (lie bench with her at all tiines.
D. Respondent preplanned her actions of December ly 2015.
Kespondenl spoke to her husband,, an attorney and retired Magish'ate Jud^e Steve Jones
about holding a clerk in contempt eifte^ she was informed by 'presiding Judge Barry
Sharer on November 19^ 2015 that hvo, clerks would be on the, bench with her at all
times.
E. Respondent told Sergeant James Kempe prior to taking to the bench
on December I/ 2015: //You might wfirma stick around about five minutes/ thougli. I m
gonna have one of them arrested. Whoever gives me Iip/'
F. Respondent: undermined the authority of Presiding Judge Sharer
when she ordered Amy Verhulst out of the courhroom when Ms. Verhutst was
performing her clerical duties.
Juuicial Standard Commission's Findings of Fact/ CoAclusions of Lz;v s.nd RccommsndpSicm for Discipline- in
Inquiries 2Q15-05S, 2015-059/ 2015-060, 2015-C61, 2015-C62, 2&15-G63, 2015-09S/ 2015-143/ 2015-145 Page 92
G. IR-ESjXKRttet itmd£3-3mne4 &e au'fe^l^ rif F_reH-dmg J:a:dge Slnffiffir
when sS^'e Oi^di-£3B^ Csm^^a Carda smi -of fee CDU-rlfr..G?OBi -^^^n Ms.. G-o^ds. was
rimzmja^ 3ier derl'ca3 du-ti'es.
—_-__..- ---H. 'R1^p.E3id-eBt tesHEed i~h^--s'hs 'he3^-I^s.-¥er2inls.t in amlempt
becti.ns-e Ms. Verliirist w.as sifting an^/or slandm.g behind her^ loDldit^g fo-r imsta'kes to
lEport back to 1-ier cD^orls.
?- Ms. Ver3xu3st w.as iiDt sitting aiid/or standing belimd Respondent
^vhen slie field Ms. Verhu3s^ m contempt as she cIaime^L
J. Respondent walked into the courh'oom with Sergeant Eempe, she
did not sit down at the bench/ but iiranediatety told Ms. Verhulst: Amy^ yoi3J're goin^
to leave tile ^ourh-oom/' "TIus is your only warrung/" "I am gom^ to iiave you arrested
for contempt of court/" '"Do you liave anything you d like to say before that's done?
JG Kespondeni: did not tell Ms. Verhulst thai if [she left tlie courta-oom
she woipd pot be held in contempt.
L. Respondent did not tel] Ms. Verhulst prior to being arrested that
she would be sentenced to thirty-days in jaU and that-her-bond would be set at one
thousand dollars.
M. Respondent: called the district court asking if a dish-lct court clerk
could be sent to assist her because the clerks had walked out on her/ which was not a
h-ue statement.
Judicial Staj-.dard Comnussion's Findings of Fact/ ConcIusfoi'LS of Law and EecoirLmendd^on for Discipline m
lr.quin"52Cn5-05S/ 20'i5-Q55/ 201&-C60/ 2015-C61, ^015-062, 2Q:5-Cn3, 2015-C9S, 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 93
M-. IRespD^d.-srat fcdd ^aeidE's D.ep.uifcy DeKin Vierhialst, Amy Vsrliolsfs
Jhiasl^mci, i;n J'afy 2035 &ai &e clE'erlk shmalid! cIliDiase sld-es sm.^ &ej s'ho^ld clbo©5.e msety..
0e,puiSy VerMst stated &ai Hs ^yafe coi^ld Mjp Re^ojaileni axid Respoan-d^f ireplied
s1i€i s one of tenzw
0. Eespcmd'ent ahandaned l^-ei docl<e^ 011 NDV^mbei 23., 2015 •a3id
failed to COVET Judge Chas-e's -and J^ad^e Sharer^s dcx-lceis •which -sh-s had previously
agreed to do.
P» Mespondent released tier case notes to the dlsh"lct court in the
matter of Oibrem v. QmrJes^ M-147-CV-2014-01200.
Q. Eespondent called the plaintiff in tiie Cfilfrern v. Chnrles case and
gave the'plaintiff information regarding the appeal.
R. Respondent refused to accept a nolle ^roseqiti hojn Assistant District
Attorney Brian Decker when Mr. Uecker -ivanted to dismiss the case for lack of probable
C&Ui ^ Respondent stated there was 210 probable caus^^ l^ut would not accept the
dismissal because the defendant needed to he supervised for something.
29. "The duties of judicial office/ as prescribed by law/ sTiaU take precedence
over all of a judge/s persona] and extrajudicial activities," Rule 21-201 NMRA (2012).
30. Respondent wiJlfulty violated Rule 21-202 of the Code of judicial Conduct
in the following ways:
A. Respondent refused to accept Assistant District Attorney Brian
Decker's nolle proseqni in the matter of State of New Mexico v. Ehnrn Hoschmn/ M-147-VM"
Judidal SLsndardComnussio.n/s Findings OiFtict/Conclusions of Law and Recommendation for Discipline m
Ir.qalries 20-15-C53, 2015-05°, 20-15-C6Q, 2OT5-06-1, 2015-062, 2035-063/ 2015-09S/ 2015-343, 2015--I46 Page 94
''3S154SQB,, a7€3i &m3;gli Ee^p-on:d.e37f3: .^0^23^1 s Ssclk of iMe caass, •3i
a3?D33BDedi thai- ^Tt'e defeind^mt £?horii1d be snp£if¥ised far sa-nnE^iiaig, i©3d li-Er to gst £E^
f
aftome^ sn'd hy to %Toi3c ss'm.erlup.g ©:o^ '^TS!t1Ti &£ pr£^5BC33!t;Dr. M-^^^r^^nt &ea s^: fee
case for a pr-e-ina!! €OBf£re3tc.e. -IMr.. DBcker iBed Bi^ disnussal ^th a •fOErii clerlk.
B. ItepDiident released h&r ssse inotes to fee distdct couri: 0-11 a case
thai liad bee^ appealed.
C. respondent called P3aii^Jtiff Bom-ue C^brera ao a3erl her tliat fee
defendant filed an appeal -and advised Ms. Cal-arera to abtam counsel. Respondents
conversation vnQi Ms. Cabrera lasted approximately forty-five nunutes,
D. respondent called PJainHft Joyce Bond in a landlord/tenant case
and apologized iFor a mistake Eespondent made and told Ms. Bond that Respondent
would try to do better.
E. respondent tried to 3-^elp locate li-^e defendant: in ]oyce Bond s
landlord/tenant case.
31, A New Mexico judge shaH n6t be mjfluen4ed by bias ox prejudice in the
performance of judicial duties/ indudmg admirusirative duties. Rule 21-203(A) NMRA
(2012). More specifically^ "[a] judge shall not/ in the performance of judicial dudes/ by
words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice/ or engage in harassment/ including but not
limited to bias/ prejudice/ or harassmeni based upon race/ religion/ color, national
origm/ ethnicity/ ancestry/ sex, sexual orientation/ gender identity/ marita] status/
,i
;al affiliation, socioeconormc status/ political affiliation, age/ physical or mental
-T=7.I-:.~ •-"•;-:_'•
JucLciril Standard Com-mission's Fincmgs ofFac^ Concii:sjon3 of Lcnv and I^ecommendstion for Discipline in
inqulnes 2015-05S, 2015-Q59, 2G15-C60/ 2G15-C61. 20-I5-C62,2.G15-C63, 2015-G93/ 2015-143, 2015-146 Page 95
faaiA-ap ©r s'meaas anedi-cal £035-daft3:&3^ i-mad 53rf WK&I p^'jast coajrl s^af^ £Diirl ^iffAdals.
©j sp^ens s^l^ect to ti3^.e judge s ^rrEc&an ©j ?^Tol to do KO", Rule ll-Mp) NMRA
(2012)^ an £^cep5itm applies ^:y3ie!^ sizch persoBBJ ;c2sarac^ej'i5:tics 'it ai'e reiiezranS: ?to 'an iissue
m .a pmceedi3ng's1, RA 21l.-2B{0) N^-^A (203^.
32. Rgspmid'ent walMfy violated Eu3es 2a-^03{A) and 21-2(B(B) of Bie Cod'e
of ?ud3da3 Con-dixt tn fee followizis ^rays:
A< IRespcmderA aitempted to m.d a plali^tiff in an appeal froin her court
bj tr-ajismitiing her personal -case wtes lo the districi court and by cojilaciin^ fi^e
plaintiff ex parle and giving specific advice a'bout how to handle her appeal.
B. Respondent refused to allow the prosecutor to dismiss a criminal
case/ notwithstanding the undisputed absence of probable cause, because of her
Ipersona! opmion that the defendahl: needed to be on supervisiori "for something9.
33. (iA judge shall perform judicial and admirustraHve ^utiescompetently and
diligently." [Rule 2l-2Q5(A) NMRA (2012).
34. respondent willfully violated Rule 21-205(A) of the Code of Judicial
Conduct in the following ways:
A. Respondent did not cooperate and follow the lawful directive of
Presiding Judge Barry Sharer wl^en resisted the "hvo-derk" rule in her courb:oom/ up to
and including 5ier arrest of an innocent court clerk for contempL
Judicial Standard CommissiQn's Findmgs of Fact/ Coriclus-ioris of Law and Rccommendayon for Discipline .m
lT.qum&5 2015-05S, 2035-Q59/ 2035-C60, 2015-C5]/ 20-15-C62, 2015-063/ 2015-C9S/ 2015-U3, 2015-146 Page 95
B. EespQB'ctet ^-olaU b^sar FrocediuEres fa ^rerdse of fee £xmlremp:t
power as ^v^l ^E fee tCoii£^ii?t~T0jTis1 mL^tB (of dajig prcEoess sSiQ feed..o;i3i f-poni^ fumlawM
s-eazare -Am ^ic aiTested an umDc^nt coiart-deir^: fosT c'oBteiEBpt
C. Respondmrt absnd-aried S^-er dostef'oaid failed to cooperate" an ci
cover the dockets of Judges Cliase and Shar^r on Novem'ber 23^ 2015 wlnjch s'he iiad
previously agreed to -do.
35. il!A judge sliall cooperate 'with ©theT judges and court pfifidals in the
adiiunistratioB t?f court business.^ E-ule 21-205(33) NMRA (2012).
36. respondent willfujly violated Rule 23 -X)5(B) of the Code of Judidal
Conduct in tlie followmg wa}7s:
A. Respondent failed to cooperate with Presiding Judge Barry Sliarer
by deliberately disobeying las lawful directive to liave two clerks on the bench with her
at all tifnes.
B. Respondent fai ed to allow Amy Verhi^lst and Cruzlta Garcia to
perform telr clerical duties.
C Respondent abandoned her docket ~oh November" 23, "2015 and
failed to cover the dockets of Judges Chase and Sharer as she had previously agreed to
do.
D. Respondent failed to cooperate with Rosemary McCourt/ Director
Magisbrate Court Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts/ when Ms J
judicial Standard Com-mission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and RecommendAtion for Discipline In
Incuu-ses 2015-C5S, 20^5-059, 2G15-CcQ, 2015-C6L :0'J5-C62, 20-15-C63/ 20^5-053, 20-15-143, 2015-146 Page 97
s^-cCoaari: dieted 3?:espDm-3.ent n^t ii© di-saiss pers&iBs^ assutes CT c<3mt assnes ^i^h feEi
3iie^to^ the liorL Sl£y°£ JoxiEB.
B. 'Respor^d'ent .-M'ed io coopfirate ^& &e dir.ectiyes of Ms- McCom':f
^1-^n Ms. McComt advisecTRespD.n.denl: thai Pjresidii^'g 'iu-d^e S3nars- iha-d tise £iuthDri;47
to assign two d er^ks is be cm the Ibendh ^ith Resp.oazde^t
E. Respondml conSnued to have £'-T ^Mr?f commmucaticmB witih
litigants after being told by Judges Chase and Sharer that ex psyfe comimmication ^yas
proMbltecL
37. "A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,,
witnesses,, lawyers., court staff/ court officials/ and others wi& whom the judge deals in
an official) capacity and shall require snralar conduct of lawyers/ court staff; court
officials/ and ofhers subject: to the judge s direction and coniroJ." Rule 23-208(B) NMRA
(2012).' I ! i
:._ . _ .^L . . . _ . ._. ___.._' .. _ . . _ .. J
[38. Kespondent wil?|illy violated Rule 23~20S(^) of the Code of Judidj.
Conduct in the followmg ways:
A- Respondent refused to obey te lawfu] direictive of Judge Sharer
and undermined his authority by ordering Amy Verhulst and Cruzita Garcia out of the
courtroom.
B. Respondent twice ignored Judge Sharer when he directed
Respondent to come off the b^nch. Judge Sharer was attempting to deliver a message to
Respondent from New Mexico Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Vigil.
Judicial Sn^nd.-i-rd Coniru5S11ori's FindLngs of Faci:, Concluslojis of La \\' and ReconimencJab'on for Discipline m
Ir^uir'c-s 2015-05S/ 2015^59, 2015-CcO, 201^061, 2Q15-C62, 20-15-063/ 20-15-G9S, 20-I5-143/ 2015-146 Page 98
C. RespcsArtt £nil''cD'i'assed Emd Sa-uEoijllaited IjKE'd '^iOrke-r Amy1
Verihulslfc 'by Mt d3:n^ -la'er ^im coi^^e^pl amd ;arr..es'&T^ iwr in ^peja c-oairt |
D. -Stepmjden'fs aclicrras a^ad d-Emean-iar on DeccazLbsr '3.,, 2015 c.a^se'd
Mebeeca Mdji'dg-e aTiQ B'tlorngys Ste^e M^iplhy and Bn'em Deeper to be 3^e3^7ous airad
c<mc£med fel He5pond:ei3l: jmlglit hold ih-em in contempt Tylthout ^ause.
39. Wth sccme sp^ciBc excepHons, "[a] judge sliall noi iroliate^ pei'mi'tj cs
consider ex psrle comnmmcfltlons^ •or oortslder o&er commimlcations made ^o the judge
outside 33i£ presence of 'the parties or their lawyer^ concerning a pendmg or mipendin^
matter^ Rule 21-209{A) NMRA (2015).
40. "When circumstances require it/ ex pnrfe comjnunication for scheduling^
administrative/ or emergency purposes^ wliich does not address substantive matlers., is
permitted/ provided: (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a
procedural/ substantive/ or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parie communication;
and (b) the pdge makes prcjvision promptly to notify aU other parUes of the substance
of the ex parie- commimicati^n/ and gives the parties an opporhirdty to respond." I Rule
21-209(A)(1) NMRA (2015).
41. "A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the
law applicable to a proceeding before the Judge/ if the judge gives advance notice to the
parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited/
and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice andI
to the advice received. A probate judge ipiay obtain written or verbal advice fi^om a
Judicial Standard Commission's Finr!htgs of F<'.c!:, Conclusions oi Law and KeconnrTiC-ndarion lor Discipline in
L-iquiries 2015-053, 2CH5-059/ 201 ^060, 201^061,2015-C62/ 2015-C63, 2015-G9S/ 2015-143, 2015^ 46 Page 99
dasmteresM £Xip£3t OB fee Isiw .EipplacabJ-e fco a pr.&ceedimg i^Ar^ &£ j^^e w!&oi3;t—-•-—-•-• ' s it ' y. tijf ^ 1J
ino&e -to te p.ir^^111 Rdie 22-2^(A)'P) NMEA (2B1S)..
41. i:'A |tj.dge ^a-tay £-^iasnS;t ^Mh OQ.UJI ;staff an'd c-OHrl ©ffidals %i^0i,5.e ifaBdioaTiS
are fro aid th-e JE'd-ge- M} •ra2Tp:ng ©u^ ^•e Ju-d^.e'?s a-d|udicatlv£ T.e^.ansiNESes^ (or willi
©flier judges, provided ^he judge n^akes 2-easo3ial?le elfojts to sivoid 3^:€iyaj3g fach.i.a]
information thai is noi part ©f the recor-d and does noi: al-u-o^ate &e r-esponsiblllly
personally to dedde •lhe maUer^ Kule 21-209{A}{3) NMRA (2015).
43.. ?iA judge may/ ^s7il3i the cosisent of the parties^ confer sepaT.aielj7 ^yit'h t3ie
parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pendmg before the judged' Rul^
23-209(A)(4) NMRA (2€35).
44. "'A judge may iratiate, permit/ or consider any ex pnr^e commumc^tion
when expressly authorized by law, rule^ or Supreme Court: order to do so." Rule 21-
209(A)(5) NMSA (2015).
45. Respondent wUlfully violated Rule 21-209{A) of the Code ofj Judicial
Conduct in t}ie following' ways:
A. Respondent 5^ad prohibited ex pnrie communications with plaintiff
Bonnie Cabrera intended to aid the plaintiff on appea] from JRespondent's decision in
plaintiffs case,
B. Respondent had prohibited ex pnrte comimmications with plaintiff
Joyce Bond after entry of a decision in Bond's case and concerning the propriety of that
decision.
judicial Stsndard Commission's Findings of Faci:, Conclusions of Law and Recommendatjon far Di.scipUne'in
Inquiries 20:13-055, 20^059, 2015-060, 2015-C63, 2015-C62/ 20^5-063, 20'l5-C9S, 2015-143, 2G'I5-l-i5 Page 100
C. R-espundej^ c'oi-iidSiaued fco su»ea!k te BM^airais ^y pzi.Tle ^fter Sia-yh^;
bBssn msSriaDtecl by Jiid^e Tra;i..dy Oiase a^ Jpd^e B^Eray S^aT.er ih'a'i- icalfeg Ii^fi3^ts %;sas
jprfiMbiied c^ far'ie OKn'mmmcatiojL
~~-4S. —R1A judge sMI aol 33iake any puy2E.-iS^ai:eim£D3:'fchiat-]Q-E;^it:-reasoj3-ebly be.
expected to aSect &e ontome or impaTT tfhe fah-ness of a imatter pendisig or mip^nding
in any court, or ina^e any .nonput)lic stalmieni &at aii^ht siibstcffltially interfere wilh a
fair tnsl orhearmg^ Ry3e 23-210(A) NMSA (2932).
47, Respondent violated Rule 21-210(A) of Ihe Code of Judicial Conduct in the
following ways:
A. Respondent refused to accept a no]le proseqni in the EIvira Hoschain
case, told the ^efendanl: 4hat she needed to be on probation for soipething, to^d her to
get an attorney/ and scheduled fte case for a pre-trial conference.
B. Respondent asked her husband,, Brian IJolmston/ ! to call tlze
' _ „ .„.. I ...... „ . - J
farmmgio\i Dfiily Tiw^ newspaper after slie held Amy Verhulst pi contempt
48. Responcient's defiance of the authority of the presiding magistrate judge
and her escalation of that conflict to a public spectacle violated the required high
standards of conduct oif a judge and diminisheci the public confidence in the judiciary.
Compare hi re CnsteJhno, 1995-NMSC-007/ <j 24.
49, "Followmg a formal hearing .../ the Commission may recommend to the
Supreme Court theffoUowing: A. removal; B. retirement; C. djtscipline, inScludmg one or
more of the followmg: (1) suspension; (2) imposition of lurdtatibns or conditions on fhe
Judit:!^ Starkdard Cc.iiu^issfon's Fir.dii-igs of Fact, Conclusions of LaW and Recoc-imenriadon for DiscipJme in
rr.quL-iS320115-05.3/2015"059/201 >C60.2G15.G61,2015-C62,2Q'15-C63, 2015-093.2015-143,2015-145 Page 101
p£3foH3?iari.GE d jp&M dns^'es; p)3['rf^Fral to appTy[5ate itrmm^.; (^) pirDpQSss^
pjctesi^raal co-umseiin^ 33asnto^?Mp^ ,©r ©&e3- . ss'sas'SbsnsDe fa •te Jadgs;
(5)pu'bl3C censure, pulilsshed in fee New Me^dc.o Bss Bnlielsn; (6) fine; arsd
(Tfassessment of-costs aru3 expeaBes. ..,. Ihe C©niiH.issiDii''may__Xei:lc'mm£n'^ mly
combuiaticm of -&e a'bove iremoy^ retirentent or diSciplinB.R' Rule JSC-34(A-C^ E)
MMRAp.OlD).
50. The sdjudicaHve conduslon Ihat a judge coimni'tted willful judidal
smsccmdnci: is a separate question from tlie sppropriate discjplme ftat should resialt In
re Cfisielisno^ 1995-NMSC-007/139. 889 P.2d 175 (c^ation •omited).
51. The authority of the New Mexico Supreme Court lo act upon
recommendations ol" l^i^ Judicial Standards Con-ijmissiQn is "alteniat|ive to/ and
cumulative with/ the removal of justices/ judges mid magistrates by impeachment and
su^ermbs-nding control of the [New Mexico Supreme! Co^irtj." NJvLthe original suj
Const'n/ art VI/ $ 32 (2012).
52, Upon receipt and review of a recommendation from the Judicial
SfariUards Commission/ the New Mexico Supreme Court- ltshs\l order the-discipline^
removal or retirement as it finds just and proper or wholly reject the recommendation."
NM Const'n/ art. VI/ § 32 (2012).
53. The findings adopted herein establish good cause for the Commission to
"recommend t6 the supreme cp^irt tlie disciplme/ removal or retirement of the justice/
judge or magistrate."1 N.M. Const'n/ art. VI/ g 32 (2012); see also § 34-10-2.1 T-IIMSA 1978.
judicL-i] Standard Commission s Findings of Fact, Condussons orLa''A' and J^&conimencUtion for Discipline in
Inquiries 20-i5-053, 2015-059/ 20x5.060, 20':^C61/ 20-15-C62, 2015-C63, 2015-093, 2015-143, 2015-146 Psge102
.54.. WT^T.-S. C^g3333f?HSskm inw ECCM^d-er fhe .fol!l-ml'p5a':i:E M-o^-e^duss^e fe^Drs i%7&^iI
de^eriQ^imBg a rdOBimer^ia&m ifor r^a^oyal^ refa'^Bi-en'i or disap&iH; (i) T37i.e •ex^ena' idf
the nms-ooriduci/ mdu'dimg: a. ^iEi3ier ttie masccTidirct 35 an iED3a'fce^ &nstrmce ©r a
pattern of mwcojxluci; arid b. wli&lhes'^te'jadge comjTt3tted mBl^jple offei^^s.; (2) lli'e
nature of the inisc^ndnc^ ir^Iuding: (a) wlietter tlie 'n'usconduci: occurred ii^ the
ci.ge'is official capacity or tlie judge s private life; (b) w3ieHiei" tlie tnj.scondnct occurred
in or out- pf ilse courlrooin^. fche ju dge's chamber or on court propert)^ (c) wl^efher t3ie
judge exploited €he |UjdgeTs judlcml posidoji to satisfy personal desh'eBj amd (d) ^yliether
the misconchiclt involved craimnal or dishonest acts. (3) The judge s conduct in
response 1:0 fhe Coimnsssion's irquiry and disciplinary proceedings/ mcludm^:
(a) whefter the judge showed remorse and made pn effort to clicmg'e t-he proscribed
conduct; and (b) whether the judge was candid and truthful and cooperated with the
Commission. (4) Tiie judge's record of prior discipline and a-epu^tion. (5) The effecti
the misconduct had upon the integrity of an^l respect to the judiciary." Rule JSC-3Q(B)
NMRA (2010).
55- In determining appropriate discipline for willful judicial misconduct/ it is
appropriate to consider "fte fact that fhe Commission proved a pattern of behavior that
indicates a lack of respect for te constihitional and stahitory limitations on a judge's
authority. A lesser discipline is not likely to change such a fundamental problem." In re
Cds^llmo, <|i 39, 889 R2d 175 (citation omitted).
JudidalSEandard Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law snd KecomiTiendatiQni'or Discipline m
rr.quir:£5 2Q-I5-03S, 2015-C59/ 2015-CcO, 20-15-C61, 20'?5-C62, 2015-Cfa3/ 2015-05S/ 2015-143/ 2015-1-16 Page 103
£& Respcrf^iS paP:erai '-of ©pp^'fio^ io iqg3T5332a^e ©dnmnasfas&e ^ai^oaii^
i^ttiihi fhe w!^f:ssQ'w oy^r tSi^e ain-d iR'&te'ii^staRdax0: iTeas'Gn'aN^ coixedtiye n^eHSiiures/ ^s
...-.--.... • fl.ll - - .
wel2 as 3ier UI&E -'G-^ coBtempt pa-^er ajid fee power cf sa-rest jfor fiie priasnary purp.ose of
ady=anmi;gtier opposlSoh to a^TErdmsfa'a'&^dg aitfho'rit^ ^vel^h itayll'F in fevor of Q ^e^ere
djsciplmary saisdion.
57. Vf^ abuse of 3 jud^el4s contempt power aad repeated -dlsconrtesj
towaTd oiher-s Iias been the focus of other cou'rfs |sfr] decisions to order zemov.aIE^ In re
CwWfum, % 39,889 P.,2d 175 (citation armtfed).
58. Judges exercising the contempt power f'imist comply z^lth fundamental
prmciples of our constitutional system of due process of law to ensure that fhe judiciary
itself does no^ act ]aw3essty an the course of enfqrcing the law." Cohclm v. SmicJiez^ 2011-
NMSC-031/ ^ I/ 258 P3d 1060<
59< The statutory contempt powbr of New Mexic6 magish-ate judges has
i
express ^tatutory limjts/ including the qght of the accused to prior notice and
opportunity to be heard as well as file right of appeal, and applies oiily to "disorderly
behavior or breacli of the peace tending to interrupt or disturb a judicial proceeding in
progress before the magistrate or [to] disobedience of any lawful order or process of
[the magistrate] court." § 35-3-9 NMSA 1978 (1991).
60. "Criirdnal contempt proceedings are instihJted to punish completed sacts o-f
disobedience that have threatened the authority and dignity of the court". Cwiclw v.
Sanc]uz, 2031-NMSC-031/ ^ 26,258 P.3d 1060 (citation omitted).'
judKi^l Standard Comn-u^sion's Fmdings o-f Fact, Conclusions of' Law and Recommendadon for Disdplii^ m
Ircir:rLzs^O-l5-Q5S/ 2015-059, 20-i5-C<;0. 2015-063, 2Q-1^C62, 2015-053, 2015-0°S, 2015-143, 20-I5-U6 Page 104
61. "'^fere a c.oniiiBo^p3t sanc^'&B as puj^tiy^ ]mot irea^edia!!^ iQ3£ pa-^ceedintg is
or.£ of cmnUI c^nte^pt"1 ,B?^J T.. B^^, 2»-NMCA-C97, i| 8, 13 P3d -77 (iiatomal
^Z E-esp.opAr^'s sorder to .m-.fest, j^ a3id fee Amy VeA^l for peirea-ved
compJeted Ibehavior was zsi exerdse of ithe criminal cojil^npt power. Se.e Con-clm ^
SQjiSi^ 2031-lbMSC-Cm, 134^ 258 P3d 1060.
63. Accus-ed criminal contomor.s are entiSed to due process and to proof of
the cl^arge beyond a reasonable douM Sfr €b?jA 7?. Snncjiez, 2011-NN5C-Q31, •J 26,, 258
P.3d 1060.
64. l'|E]xcept in cases of flagrant contemptuous conduct, before sumiTiajy
pumslnnent for contempt may be imposed snd enforced/ the record should be clear
that: (1) a specific warning was given by the judge; (2) sa\ opportunity to explain was
afforded/ and (3) a hearing was held." J« rf Kfera^ 93 N.M, 639,647, |603 P.2d 1096,1097
(internal citations omitted).
65. In the fact of the presiding magistrate judge's directive that two clerks
staff Respondent's courtroom at aU times/ Respondent's wan-ung to Verhulst that her
mere presence in the courhoom was disruptive of court proceedings was inadequate to
give reasonable notice to VeAulst of the contemptuous quality of her courtroom
conduct.
66. Even where the accusation Is that a person was disruptive or defiantt
during a couit hearing such that smnmaiy p^misliment is availpble/ an "adequate
Judiciai Standard Cbm^-sission's Findings of Fact/ Conclusions ofl.aw end Recocmiendalio^ for DiscJpUnein
Inquu-ie? 2C15-03S, 2015^55. 2JlS^cO, 2015-C61/ 20-15-C62, 2015-C63, 20'.[5-G93, 20-15.343/ .2015-146 Page 105
©^HirixiiH^ ^B deferid ©j e^cplain onE'!s catad^cl is a limfeiamma rBgi33r£oi^2^: i^ccre
i33'3p0S%£m of Epu3^£lim-enfi -s^li'ejieyer feasi;ble., GQSs'.dm ?"„ Sm^se^ 2W-NMSC4B2,, I %I
25B E3d lUaH, qa^mg fa n- ^f^^ '^3 N,.M. 639, M7, 6-^ F^-d 3^9^ 1095 (utorf
qa:iol3eo2it3iTiar^aj3d'£ila0onomM^dJ^"- "" -- - -. .-.-
67. M^thoui ihe abSH'ty to understand ^.vhat s^e ?w;as doini^ tliat was disruptive
to Respond en^s courh-ooia and knowing that both she and Respondent nvere subject to
the authority at -the presiding siB^strate judges "'two-der^ jrul^ it ^vas iiTipossibSe for
Ver2n3lst to offer an explanatkm that "ivould haye prolected her from Respondent^
improper use of the conliempt- power.
68. A denial of a'iminal due process protections even i3i t2w face of perceived
direct criminal contempt is improper uifless "imnjiediate punishment is essential". S^b?
v. Dwwo^d, 94 KM. im 121,607 P.2d 656,659 (Ct App. 3980).
69. Amy Verhnlst did not commit aiiy act of direct crimmal contei'npt: for
Iwhich immediate punishn^nt was essential,
70. Respondent denied Verliulst any semblance of a proper Jheanng before
imposing criminal contempi: punishmeiit
71. Respondent's use of her judicial authority to arrest Amy Verhulst for
direct crunmal contempt/ in the absence of any semblance of conh^maclous conduct by
Verhulst^ and to further Respondent's personal goal of dramatizing her own pnisgttided
position in disputes wifch her presiding j^idge and other cowt authorities/, violated
Verhulst's right to be free from unlawful seizure and rights to due process under the
Judiciai Stand;iT3 Coi3in'Js5ion s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of La»v and Eecommenda£ion for Disciplme m
Inquiries 2015-058,2015-059,2015-060, 2015-061,2015-062/2015-063. 2015-093, 2015-143,2015-146 ?5ge 106
N-ew MsAo -£m;d f£^-Era3 c©B5iitul3D3is., Coi^^are hs w OtsWss^ 19KMMSC-W7, ^
m-ll^ ':
72.. i!'A |i3:dK-e;'s exea'icase of -ab'e c-ojn^emp't power srauEi be tailored to Cs.e
'c'Q^e'mp^mis -cDr.duc'^ exerting j'a'sl enougl^ judi'cial p'owsi' to itjght 'the ^yron^ m.o
more^ no less. ll|l]n Eelecling coiatea^pt sanctions^, a 'jcoml is o'bJIged to zise efc 3-ea5~t
possible power ade.guate to fhe end proposed^' S-pnUone p. Umisd Stnies/ 493 l?.S. 265^
.276 (1990) pnternal quotation marl<s and citation omitted)^ CDnchfi ^ Smichez, 2011-
NMSC-031, ^ 45.258 P3.d 1060.
73, Where Respondent laiew and adi'mHed that Verhulst ^vas caught bet^veen
the presiding magistrate judges aulhorlty and Respondent's deflaTKe thereof/ aiid that
VeAulst "had no c3wicel). Respondents order Hiat Veriiulst be arrested/ jailed and fined
was not only grossly improper but als^ was mHful nusconduci and an inlendonal
vloladon of Verliulsfs constitutio^iaJ rights.
74, "A judge shall cooperate ami be candid and honest with and comply with
oil rules/ requirements/ and procedures of the New Mexico Judicial Standards
Commission". Eule 21-216(A) NMKA (2012),
75, A judge s demons h"a led lack of credibility combined with unwillingness
l-o admit mistakes/ in the face of proven willful judicial misconduct/ merits removal
from office, in re Rodella, 2008-NMSC-050/190 P,3ci 338.
Judicial Sb:nd^rd Comrrijssion s FL-idings of Facl:, Conclusions of Lsw and Rgcommsnd&tion for Di^ciplirie in
[n;;uii^s2015-GSS, 2015-059. :10?5-C60.20i5-C6-t/2C^-C(S2,2Q15--0£3, 201^093, 2015-'!^ 20!5--1-^5 P^S 107
The g^TtJ.ss w^re gh7'£3?t €he qppDrbu^j;^ te jp^esm^ anay addl^^^al eyi-d-er.re or(
argta33Rerd re^rfiiiig (te ir£<:'.0mLnti£jida'!3-G>ja toi idisdpliBB fe fee New Mexico Snpifeme
Cmrf,
Examiner saads the recomBiendaHoB tlsat Respcmdeat Judge Conme Lee
Respondenfs counsel as^ed &at Respondent nol be rejnoyed aj^d asked -tliat
Respojident be allowed to resume &e bench.
After deliberation, and upon a unaramous vote of the eight (8) partidpatm^
Cojnniissioners/ ilie CoiimussloTi recommended that &e Supreme Court remove
Eespondent Judge Connie Lee Jol'n^ston fi'oin the bench.
I.The Cojnxnission's recommendation is based upon its consideration of the nature
of Eesp^ondeni's willful misconduct in ligM of the following spedfic factors: the
I
pervasive pattern of conduct defiant to proper judicial authority and disruptive of fee
proper operation of the Aztec magistrate court; multipile u^tances of ex parte
commuiucation persisting even after training and correction; the offidal natore of all
aspects of the willful misconduct/ induding the use of the official judicial power of
contempt in commission of the most egregious acts; the commission of most of the acts
of willful misconduct inside the Aztec magistrate courthouse with direct: impact upon
the staff and judges of the court as well as the public patrons; Respondent's use of thei t ^ ,
contempt power to impose criminal punishment including violation of civil right's upon
Judicial SLandard Com-mJssion s FL-'.dmgs of Fact/ Conclusions of Law and Rccoraqiendation for Discipline in
Inquiries 2015-053/ 2015-059/ 20'15-CfcO/ 2015-C61/20'i5-C62, ^015-063, 20-I5-C9S/ 2015-143, 20-15-146 Page 108
£nra mnueeinit ^iiird par^ soMj ^ dei3SDinMra?fce feer peiBDjnaS spjt^e te'yyarel her pres3:&i^
•magilslraSE ji3£lgf; Responte^ idis^c?B£5H7 ®lii^'ri?33 flia i3D3Si!i3^t&rag ^.m^eias ar;te of '9^111^
smscond-o.^ and ihroug'hou't She Cii3iia3nissi(?ri1s pj-.Qcee.dm^ anclud.iia^ her Ss^'se
s'lalemerfs under oath as ^£33 ^s her conoeateent of-si3nepl3tiou5 i'eceTdia^s ilwt sl^e
was ordered to disdose but ^ep't sEcr-et tmtil innd-tGa3 v»?3ien slie pe&eived a persoj^a3
advantage lo disclosure; ResporidEnt'fs conimued defiance o? proper judiciaJ autliori-ty
througliout these pi'Qceedmgs^ her absence o.f genuine remor-se, aad her lack of
understanding of due wrongfulness and damage done by her actions; the notorious
nature of her conduct/ encouraged by her own attempts to gamer publicity/ and the
resulting harm to the perceived integrity of the judiciary. See. Rule JSC-30(B) NMRA
(2010).
JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
Joyce Bnstos/ Chairr).O.Bo^ 27248
Albuquerque/NM 87125-7248(505) 222-9353Fax: (505)222-9358
._L_
Judid'Al Standard ComjnissiQi^s Findings oJ'Fact,Conc!u5;on5 Df Law and Reconimenda tion for Discipline m
L-^uin-5 20-15-05S, 2015-Q59, 20-15-C60, ^015-C6^ 20~;3-C62/ 2015-063, 20J5-G95/ 2035-143, 2015^46 Pdge109
CEKIMCATE OPSHCTICE
1 .hereby csi^fj ll^t a ib-.mesj^d co?2'ect copy ciffc faeg©N^ ^as ssnf ?,7i-a si^aill
and c£r0Se4 mail retan rec^pt T.eqHested on •&is f ,^7 d'aJ D^ ^P"^ 2017 to te
faUo"w!ng€ioimse2 of record:
VJA EMAILGsry C Matchel^ 1Esq.
l^m Offices of Gary 0 ?die53 LLCP.O. Box 2460
Rutdoso.NM 88355-2460257-3070
pax: (5^) 257-3171Coimselfor Resyonitent
/^Shariesse^T. MpE^i^onClerk of ^-he Commission
Judicial Shindarri Co:nr:U5sion;s PindL^gs of F^cl, CoiKiiisions of Law and Reconunendation for Discipl'jK1 m
Inc^ri^s. 20'] 5-053, 20^5-059, ^3-CcO, 20:5-C61, 20^-.C6Z 20I5-C63, 2035-C9S, 2015-143, 20'3?-^6 F^g£ 110
9
10
11
12
13
14
^16
17
19
20
^_ ^ ^.,,.__^____.^_^ _..__,_^j]g^ _
Supreme Court of New Mexico10/23/2017 4:24:00 PM
Office of the Cferk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Joe^ a ^a
'• 0-A~OV^*~.
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE,JSC Inquiry Nos. 2015-058,2015-059, 2015-060,2015-061,2015-062,2015-063,2015-098, 2015-143,2015-146,2016-053, & 2017-037
IN THE MATTER OFHON. CONNIE LEE JOHNSTON,Magistrate Court Judge,Saa Juan County IMagistrate Court, Aztec New Mexico
ORDER
WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by the Court upon the
Judicial Standards Commission's Pefitiori for Permanent Removal from Judicial
OfBce, the record of proceedings before [the Judicial Standards Commission the
ident, Coimie Lee Jolmston, and the oral arguments of the pailies
on October 23, 2017; and the Court baving; considered the&> fS^£^£y
sitttiCK ; CMef Jnditi K. Makamina,
Maes, Justice Edward L. CIMYCZ^ testice Ctales W. Daniels, and
1 ¥lgI5 concmiag;
¥X
mos
2S ("l^*-^'n'Rel''U(T^ira(E1' irf^T li'a'sw /ni^' •ifS't£^ 'nT!w^ti(?^1!fl'iS V'is-FSimS\'WlT'f,l!T1' ^tsfn.\-TWrt-~rtr^rl-c^-SCTi-m erw^a A ^^T~ll6-('i]ty il'&-n'H "S fBIli.i3iX?l!i£i» t^M SS&W 01 iLSiiK J) &BUl!La(iaB uSdHSJlKyidm.VSii ^L-tLSii.tU'jiiiHJSSJiyiH SsKG ^-^^Hif" IL^SJU eg;
t
supported by substantial evidence; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is GRANTED and Comiie
Lee Johnston is PERMANENTLY REMDVED from judicial office, effective
immediately.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITNESS, the Honorable Judith K. Nakamura,Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State ofNew Mexico, and the seal of said Court this 23rd dayof October, 2017.
I CERTEFY AND ATTEST:
Atraecopywss served on 58{mrt?e5
orihey coutisel of record o?s (^aiefEfed,
J&^-&-M{rtjB
ChKf Cferk of the Sypreme Court:
offhe State QfSEaw Mexico
^^^^Joey D< M$^£c^^^of^^'eme Court
' SS^s o^S^ Mexico
2
From:
Sen-t:
To:
Subject:
H. S. Murphy <:[email protected]>
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:55 AM"Roybal/ Randall'
Secret Recordings of the Magistrate Court Staff
Randy- since the Supreme Court ruled that Connie Johnston will be permanently removed from office the tapes in yourpossession have no evidentiary value whatsoever—(-again request you turn over the tapes to myself on behalf-of-my -
clients immediately. As you might expect I am not going to stop to try to recover the tapes until I am told by the courtof last resort that I cannot get them.
Please advise in writing if you are willing to provide us the tapes.
Thank you/
H.Steven Murphy/ Esq.
Titus & Murphy Law Firm4000 E. 30th St.
Farmington, NM 87402Ph. (505) 326-6503Fax (505) 326-2672
T^is email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged orconfidential attorney-client material and communications or attorney work product. Any unauthorized review,use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender byreturn e-mai!. Please do not open any attached files, apd please destroy all copies of the email and anyattachments. Thank you.
)°~T~\
i3SE:'. -,L.^':aj"<^-~~'s§E!7
INJURY CLAIMSAuto • Oilfield B Work Comp
An Association of Professional Corpoi-ations
VTCTORA.TITUS.PCH. STEVEN MURPHY, PCTYSON K. GOBBLE, PC
SHELUE A. PATSCHECK, PC
THE
5- - L\ mLAW FIRM
April 14, 2017
'^^•^"^s&.^^s
CRIMINAL DEFENSEFelonies • Traf&c ° DUI
PLEASE REPLY TO:2021 E. 20th Street
Famiin^toti, NM-S-7401 -
Telephone: (505) 326-6503Facsimile: (505) 326-2672
Joyce E. Bustos/ Chair
New Mexico Judicial Standards CommissionP.O. Box 27248
Albuquerque/ NM 87125
Re: In the Matter of Hon. Connie Lee Johnston
Dear Ms. Bustos:
In regards to the above referencjed mafto/1 hereby request on behalf of my clients tihjeconfidential communications that were sr^rreptitionsly recorded to be turned over immediately.
Pursuant to §30-12-1 through §30-12-11 my clients ha^e a right to protect the privileged characfer^ these recordings. Although Connie Le^ Jol-mston ^ds ordered to torn over all of thei-ecordings to us by the District Court Order/ we know that she has not done so. As such, pleaseprovide the recordings so we may assess the violation of my clients civil rights,
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions/
please feel free to contact me.
Murphy/ Esq.
HSM/jer^c dienb
web address: v.^Av.tih.ismui'uiwl.wfirm.com
E-^rul address: hsj^i.iii-pi2y@titusrauiyliylaw£irna,co.m
STATE OF N^W MEXICOJUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSPOST OFFICE BOX 27248ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87125-7248(505) 222-9353WWW.NMJSC.ORG
Apra21/2017
RANDALL D. ROYBALExecutive Director & General Counsel
PHYLUS A. DOMINGUEZInvestigative Trial Counsel
- DEBORAH BORIOInvestigative Trial Counsel
CONFIDENTIALBy Mail & FAX fo (505) 326-2672
H. Steven Murphy/ Esq.Titus & Murphy Law Firm2021 E. 20^ StreetFarmington/NM 87401
Re: Request for Recordings
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Thank you for your letter dated April 14,2017. After careful consideration/ tiie Commissionhas respectfully denied your request for recordings.
If such recordings are in our possession/ such materials and any proceedings before theconurussion are confidential as mandated by Article 6/ Section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution.
Materials that are no longer confidential pertaming the referenced judge are on file with andavailable from the New Mexico Supreme Court. The statutes referenced m your letter do notoverride the provisions of the New Mexico Constitution that govern confidentiality for this agdncy.
Should you seek an order conjipeUtng the Commission to produce material/ please krhdlyprovide us with notice so that we may ensure our attendance at any hearing and have theopportunity to explain to a court why the constitution prohibits our compliance with yow request.
Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Please contact me if you have any iurther
questions.
Very^ruly ycmzs/
'RANDALlVD. ROYBAL ,Executive DirectorGeneral Counsel /
i w
H.S. SVIurphy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Randy Roybal <[email protected]>Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:39 AM'H. S. Murphy'
PhylHs DominguezRE; Secret Recordings of the Magistrate Court Staff
I understand fully, Steve, but as stated in-our response to your motion/ this issue is constitutional.-For the reasons
previously detailed in our response/ our position is unchanged.
RANDALl D. ROYBALExecutive Director & General CounselNEW MEXICO JUDiCIAL STANDARDS COiVIMISSIONP.O. Box 27248 ! Albuquerque, NM 87125-7248
(505) 222-9353 | www.nmjsc.org
The information transmitted in this electronic message and attachment is legally confidential, privileged, and intended solely for the
use of the indfvidua! or entity addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any review, dissemination^ distribution,
copy or use of this information is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify usimmediately by telephone so that we may arrange for the retrieval of the document(s) at no cost to you. Thank you.
Please print responsibSy
From: H. S. Murphy [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday/ October 24, 2017 9:55 AMTo: Randy RoybalSubject: Secret Recordings of the Magistrate Court Staff
Randy- since the Supreme Court ruled that Connie Johnston will be permanentiy removed from office the tapes in yourpossession have no evidentiary value whatsoever. I again request you turn over the tapes to myself on behalf of my
-clients immediately. As you might expect I am not going to stop to try to recover the tapes until I am told by the courtof last resort that I cannot get them.
Please advise in writing if you are willing to provide us the tapes.
Thank you/
H. Steven Murphy, Esq.
Titus & Murphy Law Firm4000 E. 30th St
Farmington, NM 87402Ph. (505) 326-6503Fax (505) 326-2672
Tnis email and any alhchments ars for the sole use of the intendsd rscipisntts) and may contain privilsged orconfidential aUornsy-clJsnt mat&rial and comnnunicatlons or attorney work product. Any unpiUthorJzed review,?j32, :1hc1o3'jrSj or di^rjb'jtion 53 prohlbj'^d. 3f you ars not the Intsndsd rsclpisnt, p1s"tGO cont^c'tt'^^""^!:^:^., ..^.^^.^..^, ^. ....,„........,.<.. ^ ^^^^.^..... ^.. >.,^ .^. ..^ .^^....^.. ^^,^^,.., ^.^.^^ .^.^^_. ^^—-•••-^^^
i£dJ^i
^ V/ "
FiledSupreme Court of New Mexico
9/13/2017 9:44:01 AMOnice of the Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
?.S-1-SC-|35625
IN THE MATTER. OF HON. CONNIE LEE JOHNSTQNSan Juan, County Magistrate Court, New Mexico
Wf-Joey a Moya
INQUIRY CONCERNING HON. CONME LEE JOHNSTONJS'C Inquiry Nos. 2015-058,2015-059,2015-060, 2015-061,2.015-062,
20.15-063,20.15-098,2015-143,2015-146
MOTION TO. INTERVENE TO COMPEL THE JUDICIAL STANDARDSCOMMISSION TO RELINQUISH SECRETRECQRDINGE
t IN THE ALTERNATOVE,VERIFIED PETITION FOR WMT OF SUPEmNTENmNG CONTROL
Judicial Standards Commission,Randall D. Roybal, Esq.Phyllis A. DpmiQglieZy Esq.Cozmsel for PetitionerPost Office Box 27248Albuquerque, NM §7125-7248Tel: (505)^222-9353Fax: (505) 222-9358
Law Offices of Gary C. MJifchel, LLC
ice-Box2460,THM 88355-24
Tel: (575) 257-30^Fax:(575)257-3171
Fare §'S-^/^^~
3^-^
\\
LVENE TO COiMPEL THE.J.UDldAL 'STANDAMBS£Lim :;VTP TiW^"*
^KSSO.^
COMBS NOW, The Honorable Tmdy Reed-Chase, Th&HQiiorabie, Barry
Sharer, Lorl PrQctor^ Amy Verhylst, Samantlia Smith, Cmzita Garcia, Paige Miles,
Elizabeth Wallace, Rebecca St.Qtts, Ei'istin& Kerschion, and Rebecca Eldrldge,
(hereafter referred to £is "&e intenrea6rs??) hy and through fNirattQtney, th&Titus
& Murphy Law Firm^ and hereby file this MQtlon to: latervene and respectfuliy
request the: Supreme; Court enter an Order compelling the Judidal S.tandards
CQmmisslQ'n to prQduce all of the secret recordings of persons within the Aztec
Magistrate Court which, w^re disclosed to the Judicial Staadards ConAmsioii ia
this cause number. In the altemMive, the Llterveaors ask this Court to issue EI Wnt-, „*- -^-^ ,^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^. ^ —F— » ,
qfSBpermtending Cosirol directing the Judicial Sfaadatds Coiannssioa to
ie. ; secret reeordisgs in tlieir possessiQn for&with.
iS.I^MAMY.OPPROCE^MNGS
sundreds ofixoMs oftiscs
texvmors^ ©dvate esml comsBisfflcatioM within tlie A^ec Magistrate Cozat
maiim. "i?.moi>
RemmS JsMJloal Officre iMed. in tNs ®aifer.
2
During a hearing before this Court in, this matter, couns.d for R€;sp:OBdent
Connie Lee Johnston £i4nut(ed to ibis CQurfc that RespQadent had surrepfitiously
recorded "hunclreds ofhours^ of oral cfnd ielephgmc cQmmumcstion wifbin the
Astec Magistrate Coyrt Building and that these recordings had-b^sn pro-vided to
the Judicial Sta&dards CQmnussioxi as discoveiy.
These secret recordings: contain iatimate details of personal life, relationship
details, family details, marriage 4?ta5H .mtima.cy, autQnomy, private debt&,
protected medical information, aud other p.ersoaal details of the Intervenors.
Tills matter came before the Judicial Sfaadards Commission fQi a merife!
hearing on December 5,20 ^ 6< InferveaQrs^ The Honorable Tmdy Reed-Chasp,
The I-lonoFable Barry Sharery Lori Proctor, Amy Verhulst and Rebecca B?idg&
all testified as matekml witnesses for the Judicial Standards CQiBimssiiQQ.
Some of the ^ecret recordijigs were- introduced as odiibits and ^tilized by ttie
Jadteial Standards Commissioa. diBifig the .iQerits lieariBg. (See Judicial Standards
Cosimnssios-Proposed -FiB.dmgs-Qf-Fac^-CoBctosioQS-'0f£.a'Wy an<
^liimiendafioa forRemovaE ii'0iss JudiciaS. Office-1
Aprjl IQ, 20173 tlieJBdicial Sta^elards Co'^saBS^ioa 'filed a Petition for
wm. Judicial Office- ^^ns
^
page Pmdiugs of Fact, Conclusions of.Law, 8i-Ld Recou'imendation forRemoval
from Judicial Office,"
In its recommendaticm^ for removal, the Judicial Standards Commissiort
noted thai Respondent Connie Lee Jolmston. concealed ^surreptitious recordings
that she was ordered to disclose but kept sepret until nud-tnal when she perceived
a personal a.dvantags to disolosxire." Page 108- of Judicial Standards Commission.
Proposed Findings ofFfict, Conclusions of Law, and RecQmmendarioxi for
RemQval from Judipi^l Offlc&.
Thi$ Ca^'ct has jurisdiction to allow this Motion to lateryene or, in the
alternative, to issue a Writ ofSupemtendmg Control pursuant to Article V?,
Section 3 ofth^ New Mexico C&xtstltutioa, The relief sought by tntervenors is
necessary to prevent IsTepamble haisn. and fee violatlQn oflntet^e lot's
constitutiofial and statiifoiy 'by the IMted. States and New
Mosico Constitutioiss. Tiie oaiy .a^e^jnate raaedy to address this issue is to grant
xfSBp'emtaxIireg CQatroL
•K^t reeorsiags ise
&el,mifctal to fe iMte^^mirs- Caii'sssel fc tte fedida! Stais^aA CoaMGiissi^ia
4
has refused to turn over tlie recordings to intervs&ors. (See ExMbit I, Letter from
Judicial Standards to Coimsd for Inter raiors.)
-_ NM5A (1978) § 30-12-1, entitled "Intei-ference with Communicatiou,"
i
cmninalizes "knowingly and without lawfixl autliority., .reading, inten'u:pting-^
taking or CQpyfng any message, communication or report intended for another by
telegraph or telephone witho.ut- tlie consent of a sender or intended recipiei
tteof. In accordance with this statute; Respondent Connie Lee JoiinstQa has:b^en
charged criminally by the New Mexico Attorney General and is pending trial.
The '"Interference with Communication" statote also states that "WyI I
aggrieved person In any trigi, hearmg or pTOceeding ixi or before any caur^,.. .may
move to suppress te contents of say mtercepted wire or oral cQmnmmcation. OQ
tix^ grounds that the conHtiumcatioa was urdaw&Hy Intercepted." NMSA (1978)
In tills matter, the lalerveaors right of] Ms been violated
^teloB- -Tiie'recordan^s; co.ate [© delsiIsTof"
peiTSonai relatio^slMp aet^i is^ i^isMly eiefaxis^ marr.sage? i
;jMG€^ Mlsm ierixmle'pMc
i^atm^tm^ m^ otfaerpsirsooaS etetas!^.
'©MOTS la ftieit pri,¥^t© otlices,
C<mt BwNfe" Ife iMtersr^snQi^1 liss[¥e a li.A fe i^x?e'ii¥'aad to ^'©l^ctt feir
^
privacy rights by o.btammg the "sumsptitious. reco.rdiBgs" of their oral
commuaications takey without tlieir co'nsent-
IT
The Intervenors respectfully asfc. fchis__CQUit tQ__e&ter an Order Gompelling the
JadicM Standards' Co.mmisslon to relirLqzdsM, to the Intervenors;, all of the secret
recordings: in tile possession and cofl.trol of the Judicial Standards Commission in
this matter In the alternative^ tlie Inter\/enors respectfully request fins CQurt .issue
a Writ ofSuperintending Control directing tlie: Judicial Standards Conisaissm to
relinquish, to the Intervenors, all offlie1 secret recordings in thepossession and
control of the Judicial, Standards Comnussion in this matter.
WHEREFORE, fee Litervenprs respectfully requesl the Supreme Court enter
an Order^ or in the alternative, a Writ ofSnpemifendmg Gontml as set
H.StefraBffmidyfAifo'^^J^fasfci^etms
'f—i >: r"-
^X4T. OP ?wSTANDARDS COMMISMO.
PQST OFFICE BOX 27248ALBu.ouemuE, NEW MExico w^s-ms.(505) 222-93S3WWW.HMJSC.ORG
ApnI21/2017
RAN&ALLI?*,ROY3ALEHscuitvs Dsrsctot'& Genswf Counsel
PHYLLiSA.D.QM.lNGUE?}nvsst'tgGtSveTf!d Counsel
DEgOR^H BORiO!ny65VgQ^6 Trsa! Counse!
CONHDWriA^By Mail & FAX to (505). 326-2^72
:H. Steven Murphy/ Esq.Titus: & Murphy t.s^v Firm2021K2QlhareetFarimngSon/NM §7401
Ee; Request for 'Recprdings.
Dear Mr. Mtirphy:
Thanfcyonfor your leiter dated: Apnll4/ 2017. Aft^r c^rgftd considerafiq^ fhe Commissionhas respectfuflY demed VQZH' request fox recordings.
If ff%ch recordings ^re in QUT p.Qssesgion^ such mateiials a^d any prcceedmgs fcefore Sheconaxussston are confidendal as mandated l>y Ardde 6/ Section 3^ of the New Me^dco ConsfitutioB.Matesa^s &af ma no longer cop-Sd^a^al: gefte^sg fc ref^enced jttdge ^re oa- ^e With andavaxbbJe fcom f^e. New M^ico Supxeme Conrf. fThe statutss Feferenced in v'Qnr JefSer do notOyemde^eprQvMoH£oft&eNew?^coCx>risiiiTtfiQnthatgoves^coi^den£^^
Sho^Mycres seek an order cpiapeSing ^i& C^o^imis^oa to pTsxhic& sEEaSeQal,, ^le3,se SandXyp£ovxde ^^ w_ij^ no'ltcs ^p thaf we may ensure e?m° atteitdssce as: asiiy lie^ing and Jisve theppposSEs^t^-fo e^^c^to a c0^£ ?^y ^e co%s^^^on px0^
e|TEiest££ms,
: m- this ma^£^"- Please cemSactsne ^yo^'Ei&'ye a.nv fistSi^r
ww^•^^.—y—^.^ s ::' s -̂/ ^
jj v^_-teusAUwm •,„
.Itees&e ?getoGewaEl Cfftsatril
KS y.-^ ^. „ _ ^ ^ ^ •K^_ ^ .S,1t'"^ ''if'S.'f: ^W:c'i"" rfli
<L^'-^ S"S'w s?"iiy % %
I, H, STBVEN MURPHY, t).eing first duly sworn, depose and state that I
have read this Petition and its contents -are tme and cpmcfto the best of my
knowledge.
^^-
2017,
^IN(JR^
STJJBSCRIBBD aad SWOKN before metfe _ ^T^ay ^8X%T(te<:
My .Corpxmssion Expires oa:
.-<?
2.
W-- ~ :^f '-•r-^••;r"\y
NOTARY PUBLIC
I HEEBBY certify that a frue and correct eopy.oftlie: foregoing MOTION
\f.Ui^
CONTROL was fde.d with the New Mexico Supreme
Comt and mailed to the following parties on this \^^ day of
Ulc0_? ^i/>
Judicial Standards Commission,Randall D,- Roybal, Esq.
Phyllis A. Dominguez;, Esq.Counsel for PetitionerPos£ Office Bo_x27248Albuquerque, NH S7125-724CTel: (5Q5) 222-9^53Fax: (505) 222-9358
Law Offices of Gary C. Mitcliel, LLC(plary C, Mtchell, Esq.Counsel
Tel: (575)257-3079•tas:-(5?5)-257-3171
Mmse^ jhr 'js^rvem^^
STATE QF NEW MEXICO
THE HONORABLE TRUDY REED-CHASE,THE HONORABLE BARRY-SHARER,LORI PROCTOR, AND AMY VERHULST
Petitioners,
_ Filed _
Suprsme Court of New Mexico12/12/2017 10:46:48 AM
Office of the CIer;<
.^S5^^^y-Jdey E>. M&ya
V.
JUDICIAL STA1MDARDS COMMISSION,
Respondent.
Docket No.: S-1-SC-36787
VERIFIEB PETITION FOR WMIT OE SUPEIONTENQING CONTROL
THE TITUS & MURPHY LAW HRMH. Stevea Murphy^ E$q,Sfaellie A- Patsclwek, Esq.Counsel for Petitioners
WE. 39th Street
Fax: (505) 326-2672
PETITION FOR.:W.RIT..O;e SUP.ERIMTE.NDING.. CONTROL,
COMES NOW, The Honorable TmdyRee.d-Cbase, The HQnomble Barry
Shares Lon Proctor, and Am.y Verhulst, (heremafter referred te ajs "Petitioners")I
by and through fhe.ir attorneys, the; Ti^is & Murpliy Law Fint^ and.hereby-Eie
tMs Verified Petition for Writ of -Supermtending CojatroL Petitioners respectfully
request fae Supreme Comt to: exercise its power of superintencimg conSrQl to
enter an Order coxnpelimg the. Judicial Standards CQwmssiQ^to relinquish^ to
the Petitioners, all of the secret recofdmg&mits.posspssiQnm/this matter.
TNs Court has Jurisdiction to issue la Writ QtSttperinteadmg Control
pursuaat to Aitic!^ ¥1, Section 3 of the New Mexica Constttution. Thp power of
supennteudmg- eofftFQl "Is
Wier^e Oas <& E!ec. Co,
rno specific rrfes or means for its exercise
, 43 NM 234,236,89 -P,2d 615,616'
KS ha.s held the wit of;
thereme< seems 'wholly ioa_d€;€piate-...ar-wlieie ollieswis^
£o prevent Inreprible. mi^c?Mef, greaty exteaQF or ^xcepli€?.
sense.
Sen?. ^ y, u" K V-"y m(i949).
^
The'relief sought-by Petitioners is necessary to prevent irrep-arable Iiarm
the violation of Petitioner's consttotxonal and statutQ3ry nghts guaranteed by the
United States and New-M^xi^o Constitutions. The 0nly adequate remedy to
address this issue is aWutQfSupermtending Control.
'^
1. For approximately nine months, CQfmie Lee JohnstoR, wNJe employed as a
Magistrate Judse, coyerdv recorded Iwndre^s ofliours ofthe:Betitione?s''
private oral communications within the Aztec l^Tagistrate Court Buildnig.
1. Those $ecret recordmgg included Petttibaers? private telephone
conversations, m viplation of State an4|^^deral law.
3. These secret recosdings contain intiniate details of personal life, relationsliip
details, fanaHy detail^ mamage details^ mtimsoy, autoapn^y, private d^bts,
I
person!.detail^ oftiie Petltloher^medical infQimatioiiy"~T~""4. The Pefitjon^Si reported this^ aniosg other xretSHc^J illegal behavloiY to
-- the Judicial Stmdai
CeuMs.
5- On December 3,201 5^ the J^iciai St^
.t&e AdwimstratiYe OiSee oftBe
ion iJM a Ve^ed
a^aIiQ^.-Ctoffle
6.. On February 10^ 201 6,. counsel for Connie Lee- JohnstQn admitted tp this
I
Court that Connie Lee JohnstQis had: recorded "himdre.ds ofhoursT ofoml
and teleplioni.o cpmm.uaic.ation w^NntheAztec MagistmteCourfBuUdmg.
i - - -
7, This Comtordered that: these secret^ecordings be immedtately tumed-Qver
to the Judicial Stailda]^ Commission.
8. Tlie. Judicial gtsndards Cosamission took possession of the secret recordings.
9. On October 23,2Q17, this Couitpemanently remoy.ed- CQnnie Lee; Johnston
from JudicN Offiee,
IQ.The Judicial StaAdards Coxnrmssion no loBgei' has jnrisdlctfeu ove;r Comil^
Lee Johnston.
11.Now that Connie Lee Johnston has been p.ermam
Office, the seoret|recQrdmg-s have no yaluey evideatiary QF otherwise tQ
Judicial Standard^ CoiHmission.
12.Fetitioners reciuested the Judicial Steidards CQEamissioQ to release the secrsl
- -- -secordin^s offheirpriyate coaveis-atioss' f:o~tlie Petitlosers. See Email Qf
;tober 24,2017 ta Raadal! D,.Moyhal» §ttac!w4 iiereto- as Bslsibil 1,
SQ^ K^ mm^j^M
I, A Wrii-ofSuperintending. Control.Is Necessary toProtect the Privacy Rights ofthe Petitioners,
The; Petitiptiers: have a. right to protect thejr privacy rights by obt^Intog thy
secret recordings of their Qjrai comnxyuications.-tafcen withoyt their cQiisent.
The secret recordings, no: longer have any va!u& to the. JudiG.Ial Sfandards
CQm-mlssiQn, evidentiary or otherWis& Furthen'aor^ the Jydioial Standafds
Comrrdssion has no iumdtctxcui over Connie Lee Johilston ^s she was permanently
removed from offiQe.
Pursuant to New Mexico's Abuse of Privacy statute,, CoQoieLee Johnston s
actions of secretly recor^mg.thepetitidm's' teIephQne coiQmunicattons is'Hlegal.
SpecificaHy, N^SA (1978) § 3()-124, entttlgd ^Interferen^^
CommuBicatiott, Wit! au-thonty. ^ .readiBg,
g^ tafcing cj»r eGjpyiQg any message^ or re
or teiep
recipient tliemf.^ FmtNTOW? c~aji3
^ny
ie coiisent of a s^nd^r or in£
• wae or ota! con^n IS
a emi cause'
"£?.';^s£ rfia<3'^R(n<TP'>s m* IBS'^'S
* - -I;
12-12 (eMiplmlsi
thereby violatixig and abusmg;ths: privacy nghts of the ^^ TheJudidal.
Standards: Commission is retaining and using the iUeg^tly obtained recordings iA
vioMion of the Abuse Qfpnyacy statute. The recordings .cGBtain mtun^te and
i
personal details that the Petitioners woyld not have revealed If they tew they
were: being recorded. These details are. the :kmd- that apersQn reveals wlille talking
to loyed ones, to attomeys, tQ doctors^ and to cjhildren?s care providers. CQixnie
Lee Johns.ton recorded this mfoi-mation for her own persops'l use and distEibuted
those recordmgs to the Judicial. Staadards CQmffiission., The petitioners should be
allowed to protect their pnvafi^ nghts and: prevent further harm, humiliation^t
embarossment, and injury'by pbtsmmg the secret recordmgs,
IL The •ovisions of the Rules of the Judicial StandardsCotnfnissioa No Longer Apply la This Maffer.
Counsel for t&e Judicial Standards Commission is atfemptte to JHde behmd
Rule oftheE-ules for Judicial St loTOver, the
CQBiidentiality rules oftiie Jixdici^. Staad^ds CosmBission UQ longer apply steo
OoKme Le& Joln^toa has been pemiaas
W&CEI a record Is ille< sssioBw^t&me.
te© ctss^sLQte^ MM. -Comt .Alt % i^ee. 32. Tie'
seeref; teconiiag^ now f^a^e ao vAe to fe Ji^e^I iBt^adard^ CpEnmls^oa aetd sb^
1.,pr€cee£iiaQ]gsisa aw E!OS£ i
?IL Petitioners Hav^Np Other Means For Relief
Petitioners have a right, to protect their pers.oil^l telephone con^ers^tiQ.fts and
private CQxnmunication obmme.d by illegal m-e^ns. PetiflQners; cmly.nieans for relief
!
Is through a Writ ofSuperinfendmg CQntroL_That is, the: only way to prevent
further ho.nn, humiljation, embarrassment, andgross .mjus.tice to the:PetitiQ,ners 13
by ail Order requinngithe Judicial, Standards CosaMssion to: relinquish the secret
recordings to Petitioners..
Petitioners fully expect the contents.: of the secref r^cordmgs, to resurface as
part ofCo'&nie Lee ][ohnston s coMmuai and ongomg efforts^ to; retalMe against the1 ' '
Petitioners for r.epo^ng her i%iethical 8nd fllegal behavJor^ to ;grQy@ h^r delusipnal
eemspiyacy- theories,, and to msult the. Gharacter ofthe Judges and staff oftheA^tec
Mafeisfrate Court. Requiring, the Jtidicial Standards OommissioR to release the
secret recordlsgs to PetitioneEs will limit tlie illegal d^sdpsuro of the cQntents,
S,^^F.^3FJEX:J
re'sgectfclly request fc-Supreme-Courl: to exemise it
senxitCMliog coBtel eMer.asx Cteier CGQipeIlieg fc Jisdic
Stedards Co
7
WmHEFQHE, Petitioners request th.afc this. CQurt issue a Writ of
Superintending Control as set forth1 ahove.
-TTTUS LAW FIRM^ \-*C '.^ \'f"'?1/
^' ^,'^y~[. ~~^ ^[^ ~~,7-^~~7'~"
A;tto%ey fpr PetitiojiersK 30th Street
Famungton, NM 8N02(5QS) 326-0503
From:
Sent:To:
Cc:Sybjeet:
Randy Rpybci! <rroyb5j.^nmj^c,Qrg>Tuesday, Qcto.ber24, 2017 10:39. AM'H.S.Murp-hy*
Phyiiis Domanguez -- -
RE: Secret Recordings of-the Magistrafe Court. Staff
J understand fuily, St^ye/but as .stated rnourresp^Rse^o-^u^^
previously d^fgtled iri.Q:ur regponse^ou? posltlosl Is uaGhanged.
tWDAaaRoyaAi.E^eeytive-Director S; Ge^iersiCoansei.
?IB^M^!CO^^laAlS?AN^A^^.CO^MtSStONP.O, 3px27248 I Alfoyqyerque^M 87125-7248(SOS) 222-9353J j wv/w,nm|se.org
?e mformatKfn tra^rnstted in thfs. eSecwjc message and Qttachrne^t ss legfflly c.pnfsdwiia^ ^wneg^ w^ intent sofetyfap theuse()ft^&^(f!V!duo!oremit^Q^ressscfJfyou£:renc>t^ew^^
copy or u&^ ofthfs mfdrmstlon {'sstnctfy prohib^ed b^ hw. If you have recesved thss ^ectrof.ie me^age in error, please no^fy assinmedsately by t?!ephor,€ so that we may arrange for the reffiswt of the Q'ccument(^otrt0 cost to you. Thank you.
^ Ns^s ^?^^S^a^^y
Fro^i; H. S. ?phy [m3iito:h5myrpby@fitu5j^iirphyfawfirm.com]Ser^; Tuesday/ pctofcer 24^ 2017 9:55 AHT&£ Randy Roy&aJSul^ect? Secret RecoFdEngs of th6 Magfs^afe CQ^ ?W
Raiddy- si|ice1 the Supreme Coyrt ryled that CQrmle JolTsnsto^ Nil be per?possession have HO £^??t£ary v^lue ^istSQever- S 3gaE% re^'&rest yoii tu.m oyer tfie tgpes f(
cR^nts EmmedEatel^. As yoti ^^iht expect S a.m not gQlng t€? $tp^ to t?y to. recove? -
i tapes' En yQur
m'SfSeIf on fae^trof my
: COU^
iifyuts ^ra wlEEmg'fsi pF^vMe ys th^.tapes-
iStevess
mQE-yst:a^BSE^t^ ?1?Pfc ?132^<a3
i^:^ ?-n":£lii s^ ?in.j ^sel^'sr^s;, s'^ ^•s' ^si sc^; 'r^s
^Sg&;^S^S2^^Q^^i^^;z!JG^il©^i^£?:b^S.CTl, [^fCCO:
^.-?e.^'S-r"'?^'!'^'^.-~'S ~."'::^T.'r:^"~-''f's:^r~:'r''x r''-'\w '--^•-^r'.'s !-i-;:-Y-''fci-''^;i-11 ft?"^^»'^<te.^^i^.--'//.<>-i'-';-;l.i---'f-i-L'.i'' --•'.•-'• iit—^ii i^£->Ay'fc»;si;^!i-^! SU:G
-*—; ^.^..V.-^'?;^.., ^AI.-^^.^^.-.'^.V—. ..-^F--^.'"/"!".^' — ?^..^-.TU,>. -^la.^."^.,-';.--^^^'"^'^^""'™^^
I, HONORABLE TRUDY aEED-CaASE, petitioner li&reln, b@irig first duly
sworn, depose and state that I have read this Petition. and its G-ontents are tme ^id -
correct: to the best of my hiov/ledge.
^
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN before .me te2til7.
^ojpamission E^pnj<yT^7 yr\^"f\ I €/—T\ I ^
?n:
^mwnmesTA-ss^FgWWaea
[?T^1i^KJ
I, HONORABLE BARRY SHARERl. petitioner Nrsla, bemg first duly
sworn, depose and state tliat: I have read this^ Petition and its contents are tme and\
correct £o the best of my ki^owledge, -- -
^HAB&YS
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN hefbre me this Jm<iay ^tfiAM^X"'2017.
Mv.Comm|ls3K>J9 J^pi^es on:
SBST^l
\ fr^C^Ku'ni'^T^rii^e?^!£^s^-^'^:^^:'sv^^-fK'f^??^srif.
M6tAS¥PtW<5St&ITE Oi
WM/S-
I HEREBY certify that a toe and cprrect c;op:y Qfthe-.foregQeing
was filed with the New Mexloo Supreme CQ.UT£ and mailed tQ the foll.owmg:^-^A ^
cm this \ ^ day of ^ 2917;
RandsIID.Royb^LBsq.
Post Office Box 2724SAlbuquerque, NM 87125-72.48:Tel:(505)222-?353F^c: (505) 222-9358
^ /.r/ / sn fi //f'/
f /
43IhoBSe M Pats^teclc, Es
-f '^ _ ' '
fcttQtae^tor ?tl:tioBers^I !^
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
7'^
;-—:——-- Fiisd -
Supreme Court of New Mexico10/23/201712:06:48 PM
Office of the Clerk
^^f-IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Jo£y &l Tova
October 23,2017
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE,JSC Inquiry Nos. 2915-958,2015-059, 2015-960,2015-061,2015-062, 2015-063, 2615-098, 2015-143,2015-146,2016-953, & 2017-037
IN THE MATTER OFHON. CONNIE LEE JOHNSTON,Magistrate Court Judge,San Juan County Magistrate Court, Aztec New Mexico
i
ORDER
WHEREAS, this matter came oh for consideration by fhe Court upbn
motioa to intervene, responses thereto, motion for leave to file reply;, and reply,
and the Court having considered the foregoing and being sufficiently advised;
Chief Justice Judith K. Na^anmra, Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice Edward L.
CMvez^ Justice Charles W. iDaoiels, and Justice Barbara 1 Vigil cQncumng;
^ THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that te motion:
reply is GRAISTTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to iifervene is DE!
mssc
WTTNESS, the Hoaorable Judith K. IM^mnra,xem; Cbmt ofte SNte of
1.. _ -. ..' .. - ' ,
mid fhe seal of said CoiErt tNs 23rd day
i
^ SZ^e €5^a&± C^^GKE^Oa:£g'y '^V3^.^y^^
.^^^^^^^ ~/y' "^ ~""~w/CrT^.T::^' CZ:L;7T^ii ^ r;^.^;^ ^T,; c.h^'s uH's3..
""".':.";?;:•'. ,'*:..:'i-.?''i
fc.i?;&h^5;7^C;!i?t^:£::.2^2^:iZt.S^iSCl:riI:'
i^i;n^\["^l:?.^oif;?i.t-;uViSjTi='K!.r,i'n-
^<}-J]B]T
\\
4
56789
10111213141516171819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
..Fiied~m THE SUPP.EME COURT OF THE STATEOF KEWMSi^S-S^ourt of New ^exico'
12/14/2017 3:34 :i03PMOnlce ofth^ Clerk
cs/y^~Mey D. E^&ya
3)ecemberl4,2017€l
NO. S-l-SC-36787
HON. TRUDY REED-CHASE,HON. BARRY SHARER,LORI PROCTOM, and AJVH^ VERHULST,
!
Petitioners,- —
V.
JUDICiAL STANDARDS COMMISSION,
Respondent.
ORDER
WHEREAS, this matter came ou for consideration by the Court upou petitiou for
writ of superintending control, and the Court having considered the foregoing and being
sufficiently advised; Justice E'dward L. Chsvez, Justice Charles W. Daniels, and Justice
Barbara J. Vigil concurring;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for
supeimtendmg Gontro! is I|iei
writ of
WITNESS, the Honorable Judith K. Nakamiira, CMef; State of New .
Et CE^F^H^ATiiST:
A t!T^:S:i.;:'2S:4r%SS5£IT-£^>Ji <5B5 £ilE DEE1:52'S
ar t^s^ cnu^^^r^^S as dsze'ftihdl.<-_ i
SWT"0"
3/1/2018 New Mexico State Judiciary Mail - [ipra] [!PRA Magistrate Court Rsquest] IPRA Request To New Mexico Judiciary 2-28-2018 11:40:19 AM
Barry ^lassey <[email protected]>
[ipra] [IPRA Magistrate Court Request] iPRA Request To New EVIexico Judiciary 2-28-
1 message
[email protected] <[email protected]>Reply-To: majiservices2@sks,CQm_To: [email protected], [email protected]
Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:40 AM
This is a request under the Inspection of Public Records Act. Within three business days, the records custodian willexplain when the records wi!l be available for inspection or when the custodian will respond to the request.
First Name: BrianLast Name: JohnstonEmail Address: [email protected] Number: 505-324-9904Court Locations: Magistrate CourtPhysical Address: 202 Country Ciub DriveCity: WanA/ickState: Rhode islandZip: 02888Records Requested: Please provide copies of each document from the following case files for the Aztec Magistrate Court:M-147-TR-201701191, State ofNM v. Joseph Reed
M-147-CV-201700129, Credit Bureau of Farmmgton v. Joseph Ryan Reed, Erin Reed
A list showing bonds that were forfeited from the Aztec Magistrate Court for the year 2016
A list showing entry and exit activity for,fhe employee door (back door off kitchen), for the year 2016 from the AztecMagistrate Court
Thank you
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googie Groups "1PRA Magistrate Courts" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group7smd email to [email protected] view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.googte.com/a/nmcourts.gov/d/msgid/Epra.magistratecourts-grp/5a96f/'8b.cd25c80a.b23f2.aef5%40mx.googie.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NM inspection of Public Records Act"group.To view this discussion on the web visit https,7/groups.google.com/a/nmcourts.gov/d/msgid/ipra-grp/5a96f78b.cd25c80a.b23f2.aef5%40mx.google.com.
EXHJBJT"p"
hlLtps://m£;lgocsIe.cor^/^2:!/u/0/?L;i=2&;k-3d4&cbac65&j3VSf=CPIy52W!Txk.en.-?iV;sw=pt?<q=mai!ser/tces2%403:<3Xon^&c;3^^^^^ 1/1^
3/1/2018 Nsv/ Mexico State Judjciapy Ma;! - Rs: Rssponse to Inspsction ofPubiic Records Act Request (2013-02-08-Johnston)
This is a request under the Inspection of Pub!ic Records Act. Within three business days, the.recordscustodian will explain when the records will be available for inspection or when the custodian v/iil respondto the request.
First Name: BrianLast Name: JohnstonEmail Address; [email protected] Number: 401-442-9598Court Locations: Magistrate CourtPhysical-Address: 202 Country Ciub Drive - - -City: WarwickState: Rhode IslandZip:02888 - ---—
Records Requested: Please provide a copy ofaif DWI charges filed (Driving while itnpaired, intoxicated,under the influence) in the Farmington Magistrate Court for the years 2014 and 2015. Electronic formatvia excel is preferred. Information to include: name of person arrested, date, charge(s), officer, name ofattorney, conviction status and sentence.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "!PRA Magistrate Courts"group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] post to this group, send email to [email protected] view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.googfe.com/a/nmcourts.gov/d/msgid/ipra.magistratecourts-grp/5a7cb667.0807c80a.b7555.4108%40mx.google.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NM Inspection of PublicRecords Act" grqup.To view this disci'ission on the web visit https://groups.googie.com/a/nmcourts.gov/d/msgid/ipra-grp/5a7cb667.0S07c80a.b7555.4108%40mx.google.com.
Barry MasseyCommunications OfficerNM Administrative Office of the Courts505-827-4805 office505-470-3436 cell
Additional Res^onse-IPRA-2018-02-08-Johnston.pdf210K
h^p£://^..^;.5ccg'e.cc^/rn3;l/u/0/?L!i=2£i;<=3d43cbaSS5&Jsy5r=CPEy5ZV\;17xk.en.&view=pt&q=h%3A3ent%2Cbrico%40prG 2/2
3/1/2018 New Mexico State Judiciary Mail - Re: Response to Inspection of Public Records Act Request (2018-02-03-Jchnston)
.•"A^^^i. ^Jaw Mexico""Courts - Barry S^lasssy <[email protected]>
Re: Response to Inspection of Public Records Act Request (2018-02-OS-Johnston)1 message
Barry Massey <[email protected]>To: Connie Johnston <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]
Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:50 AM
Dear Mr. Johnston,
Please see the attached letter regarding your request under the Inspection of Public Records Act. (Administrative Officeof the Courts iPRA reference number 2018-08-Johnston).
Sincerely,
Barry MasseyCommunications OfficerAdministrative Office of the Courts237 Don Gaspar, Room 25Santa Fe, NM 87501505-827-4805
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Connie Johnston <[email protected]> wrote:Mr. Massey,
I Thank you for your ii"esponse. I am looking for a list showing ati DW! cases filed in the court, not specific records fromI any individual case!1 Hope that makes it clearer.I Respectfully,i Brian Johnsto^
Sent with ProtpnMail Secure Email.
Original MessageOn February 1'3, 2018 8:51 AM, Barry Massey <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Johnston,
Piease see the attached letter regarding your request under the Inspection of Pubiic Records Act.(Administrative Office of the Courts IPRA reference number 2018-02-08-Johnston.)
Sincerely,
Barry MasseyCommunications OfficerNM Administrative Office of the Courts505-827-4805
Forwardsd messageFrom: ^mailsen/[email protected]>Dats: T^LI, Feb 8 2018 at 1:43 PMSubject: [iprs] [iPRA iysgistrate Court Requsst] IPRA Request To N£W Mexico Judiciary 2-3-20181:43:27 PMTo: [email protected], [email protected]
.://rr.3;!.gocs;3XGrT;/rT.2i!/u/0/?ui=2&::<=3d43cbaGS5&jsver=CP]y5Z^/iTxk.sn.&vi&w=pt&q=;p.%3A35^%2:1c::cc-%~:^:.;^ 1/2
2/14/2018 New Mexico Stats Judiciary Mail - [Epra] [fPRA Magistrate Ccurt Request] !PRA Request To New Mexico Judiciary 2-8-2018 1:43:27 PM
Barry aViassey <[email protected]>
[ipra] [IPRA Eyiagisfrate Court Request] IPRA Request To New Mexico Judiciary 2-8-
1 message
[email protected] <[email protected]>Reply-To: [email protected]: [email protected], [email protected]
Thu,Feb8,2018at1:43PM
This is a request under the Inspection of Public Records Act. Within three business days, the records custodian willexplain when the records will be available for inspection or when the custodian will respond to the request.
First Name: BrianLast Name: JohnstonEmail Address: [email protected] Number: 401-442-9598Court Locations: Magistrate CourtPhysicai Address: 202 Country Club DriveCity; WarwickState: Rhode IslandZip: 02888Records Requested: Please provide a copy of all DWi charges filed (Driving whiie impaired, intoxicated, under theinfluence) in the Farmington Magistrate Court for the years 2014 and 2015. Electronic format via excel is preferred.Information to include: name of person arrested, date, charge(s), officer, name of attorney, conviction status andsentence.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googie Groups "iPRA Magistrate Courts" group.To unsubscr)be from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an em^il to jpra.magistratecourts-grp+unsubscribe'@nmcourts.gov.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected] view this ]discussion on the web visit https://groups.goog!e.com/a/nmcourt^.gov/d/msgid/ipra.maglstratecourts-grp/5a7cb6^7.0807c80a.b7555.4108%40mx.goog!e.com,
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NM Inspection of Public Records Act"group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.googie.com/a/nmcourts;gov/d/msgid/Epra-grp/- - - -5a7cb667.0807c80a.b7555.4108%40mx.googie.com.
h-;:cs://ms;i.GCoc!e.corr./^5lJ/Li/0/?u;=2&ik=Sd43cb3S6o^jsvs;-=sqR4^KSaFc3.sn.&v;5W=?y 3r;;C5S2%-'-C'3k3.CG;~.r~;AC3:=St'"L:S?;35SfGh:::C;l..;Sr/^';tI';=.., 1/1
FEB~i4-2S18 15:02 FFiRMINGTON COURT . - 505 599 1254 P.02/34£j I'-i/^uio . A-. .. — -^-——- • num.uiy irian - f nu, '-'inline i um v'uuniKt'-ii. f^i^u^^ii tu nu^^ui. i .vuiiu i \^.w<vj -——- _ ;—_^ - :~~~ —--
^t-
Ci y of arm ngt n Tay]or, Debbie <[email protected]>
Fwd: Online Form Submitta!: Request to inspect Public Records2 messages
Jones, "Ahdrea <[email protected]> - Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:11 PMTo; Eva Barren <[email protected]>, Kim Miliinder <!<[email protected]>, Demise Lozano <[email protected]>,Debbte Tsyior <;[email protected]^ "Crockford, Jodl" <[email protected]>Cc:-trSmy1is, Dianne" <[email protected]>
Please see the IPRA request bsiow. This needs to be processed by 2/13/18.
Thank you!
Andrea Jones, CiVICDeputy City CferkCity of Farmington800 MunidpaE DriveFarmington, NM 87401(505)599-1101 -Office(505) 599-1113-Faxajones@fmtn,org
Forwarded message ——-From: <norep!y@civicpius,com^Date: Thu. Fel? 8. 2018 at 1:31 PMSubject: Online Fomn Submittal: Request to Inspect Public RecordsTo: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
request to Inspect Public Records
First Name Brian
Last Name Johnston
Company Name Fie!d not completed
Address 1 PO Box 8336
Address2 Held not completed.
City Warwick
.State Rl
Zip 02888
Telephone Number 401-442-9593
Fax Numbar FfsW not comp!eted.
Empii] Address [email protected]
h'p5:/^aLLc;ccc^5.ccfT,^2ii/Lya1?^=2^'<"-^£cCS22cC?3jsv^^£CiF^^^^^^ 1/3
FEB-14-2318 15:02 FfiRMINGTON COURT 505 59'3 1254 P.03^04
Pursuant to ths Public
Record inspection Act, I
would fike to inspect the
folfov/ing records:
j understand that I have the
right to inspect existingrecords during regular
business hours. I furtherunderstand that the City isunder no obligation to
produce or generatematerials or informalion that
does not nowe^ist If
necessary, i agree to pay aminimum of fifty cents per
page for any copies I
request.
Please provide a copy of ail DWi arrests msds snd/or citations
given by the FarminQton Police Department for the years 2014
e<nd 2015. ElecUonlc format via excd is preferred. Please
include: name, dste. charge, officer, and conviction status tf
known (guilty, dismissed, etc). Additionally, piease provide a list
from the Fannington Municipal Court of all DW) charges fiied forthe years 2014 and 2015. Electronic format via excel is
preferred. Data ta include: name, date, charge, name of attorneyor Pro-se, conviction status and sentence.
Brian Johnston,_pjegse advise if estimated costs exceed $25.
Email not displaying correctly? View if ir^ your browser.
Tsyior, pebbie <[email protected]>To: "Liese, William" <wliese@fmtn,org>
Tue, Feb 13. 2018 at 6:50 AM
Forwarded message —-—-From:) "Jones, Andrea" <[email protected]>Date; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 14:11:50-0700Subject: Fwd: Online Form Subnnlttal; Request to inspect Pubiic RecordsTo: Eva Barron <[email protected]>, Kini Miilinder<[email protected]>, DehiseHozarib <[email protected]>, Debbie Tayior<[email protected]>, "Crockford, Jodi" <[email protected]>Cc; "Smyiie, DEanne" <[email protected]>
Please see the iPRA request below. This needs lo be processed by 2/13/18.
Thank you!
*Andrea Jones, CMC*Deputy City ClerkCity 'oj Farminqton800 M^unicEpaE DriveFarmEngfon, NM 87401(505) S99-1101 "Office(505) 599-1113-Fax3|one£.@fmtn,org
^^^^ Ponvardsd message ——From; <[email protected]>
}"r"^i^''.f.fr-^-^,t\ ^rT-i^}^- r/^n/"m»^T//T/n//t ^^^'f/=t'^^rj^'^^^rc.^^.i,'^^3-'^-T^.-'t\lr^/'^-r^^^-. ^-t ^^^.//^;^<i.^L.^^^LL-I^^t,^JJ/L^^;/ /^,f-"^n^.'"»S--^^1v-L.V---^L^L.T<;/j.ljyLJ'; — :jL^~ri^-| '^.'\C'^.rC^^
FEB-14-201S 15:33 FfiRMINGTON COURT . - 505 599 1254 P.04/04JL*V „ ~ "—-— ~~ ~'~~ -L——: — —r — —---"-' tv4-*^ y K'W" . • ."v* '•»" M*ri^ * ^» r*..S^VM^i r*u^+-_» t.^^-^-^.vt f' '*.*-v^n^'o * ^-kv<*w * <i^^i^i yv . ___._.... ^^
Dat^; Thu, Feb 8. 2018 st 1:31 PMSubject' Oniins -Fonn SubmiUal: Request to Inspect Public RecordsTo: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Request to Inspect Public RecordsFirst Name BrianLast Nsme John$tonCompany Name *Fietd not compietecL*Addressl PO Box 8336Address2 *He]d not completed/City Warwick-State Ri — -——- - -Zip 02888Telephone Number 401 ^42-9593 <(401)%20442-9598>Fax Number "Field not completed,*Email Address EriCo@ProtonMail,cornPursuant to the Pubiic Record Inspection Act, I would like fo inspect thefollowing records; Please provide a copy of sil DW1 arrests made snd/orcitations given by the Farmington Police Department for the years 2014 and2015. Efectronic format via excel is preferred. Please include: n^ftie, date,charge, officer, and conviction status if known (guilty, dismissed, etc),Additionally, please provide $ list from the Farmington Municipal Court orall DW] charges filed for the years 2014 and 2015. Electronic format viaexcel is preferred. Data to include: name, date, charge, name of attorneyor Pro-se, conviction status and sentence.
understand that 1 have the right to inspect existing records duringregular business hours, I further understand that the City is under noobligation to produce or generate materials or information that does notnow e^tst. If necessary, I agree to pay a minimum of fifty cents |pef pagefor any copies I request. Brian Johnston, please advise iT estimated costsexceed $25,E(naii not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.<^ttp://vwvw.fmtn,org/Admin/FomiCenter/SubmEssions/Edit^id;=9223&formID=40^siibmissionDataDispi5yType=0&backURL:;=%2fAdmin%2fF6rmCenter%2f$ubmissions%2ffnciex%2f40%3fpategoryiD%3d3>
*Debbie Tayior*Court AdministratorFarmington Municipal Court$00 Municipal DriveFarmington, NM 87401505-599-1247
"GTflL P.O-
D-111G-CV-2018-00019
STATE OF NEW MEXICOCOUiNTY OF SAN JUANIN THE mSTRICT COURT
FILED IN MY OFFICEDISTRICT COURT CLERK
1/4/2018 11:50:04 AMWELDON J. NEFF
Denise Lucero
THE HONORABLETHE HONORABLE BARRY,LORI PROCTOR, AND AMY
Plaintiffs,
vs.
/,
>., ^
5
No.: D-1116-CV-2018-
THE NEW MEXICO JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, throughRANDALL D. ROYBAL (DIRECTOR OF JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION)
Defendants.
CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR RESTmjTlON OF RECORPrNGS
COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through fheir attorney. The Titus & Murphy Law
Firm, and for their Complaint against the Defendants states:
JURISDICJTION
1. Plaintiffs are residents of San Juan County, New Mexico.
2. The acts which give rise to this action occurred in San Juan County, New Mexico.
^ALLEGATIONS
3. On or about August 2014, Connie Lee Johnston became a Magistrate Court Judge in San
Juan County, New Mexico.
4. Connie Lee Johnston worked in the Aztec Magistrate Court Building in Aztec, New
Mexico.
5. Plaintiffs, tbe Honorable Trudy Reed-Chase and the Honorable Barry Sharer, were also
Magistrate Court Judges in the Aztec Magistrate Court.
6. Plaintiff, Lori Proctor, was the Couk Manager for the Aztec Magistrate Court.
7. Plaintiff, Amy Verhulst, was a Lead Worker for the Aztec Magistrate Court.
1
EX}J]B!T\\ \^
8. After August of 2014, Connie Lee Johnston placed an apparatis in the Aztec Magistrate
Court Building for the purpose of listening to and recording the oral and telephone
communications of other persons, without the consent of the Plaintiffs.
9. After August of 2014, Connie Lee Johnston placed an apparatus in the private office of
Judge Barry Sharer for the purpose of llsteninx to and recording the oral ancL.telephp_n_e_
communications of Judge Barry Sharer and other unknown persons, without the consent
of the Plaintiffs.
10. After August of 2014, Connie Lee Johnston placed an apparatus in the private office of
Judge Trudy Reed-Chase for the purpose of listening to and recording the oral and
telephone communications of Judge Trudy Reed-Chase and other unlcnown persons,
without the consent of the Plaintiffs.
11. After August of 2014, Connie Lee Johnston placed an apparatus in the private office of
Court Manager Lori Proctor for the purpose of listening to and recording the oral and
telephone communications of Court Manager Lori Proctor and other unhiown persons,
without the consent of the Plaintiffs.
12. After August of 2014, Connie Lfee Jolmston placed an apparatus in the work space of
Lead Worker Amy Verhulst for the purpose of listening to and recording the oral and
telephone communications of Lead Worker Amy Verhulst and other unknown persons,
without the consent of the Plaintiffs.
13. After August of 2014, Connie Lee Johnston placed an apparatus m the restroom facilities
of the Aztec Magistrate Court Building for the purpose of listening to and recording the
oral and telephone communications of the Plaintiffs, without the consent of the Plaintiffs.
14. After August of 2014, Connie Lee Jolmston placed an apparatus in the Clerk's work area
of the Aztec Magistrate Court Bdlding for the purpose of listening to and recording the
2
oral and telephone communications of the Plaintiffs and the other clerks, without the
consent of the Plaintiffs or the other clerks.
15. For approximately nine months, Connie Lee Johnston, while employed as a Magistrate
Judge, covertly recorded hundreds of hours of the Plaintiffs' private oral and telephone
communications within-the Aztec Magistrate Court Building. —. . — . -
16. These secret recordings included Plaintiffs' private teleplione conversations, in violation
of State and Federal law.
17. Connie Lee Johnston did place or caused to be placed a device or apparatus which took,
copied, recorded, eavesdropped or transmitted tlie oral communications of the Plaintiffs
while communicating on the telephone and/or cell phones in violation ofNMSA 1978 §
30-12-1.
18. Connie Lee Johnston recorded and/or eavesdropped on the oral communication of the
Plaintiffs and other persons while they were speaking on a telephone and/or cell phone
without the consent of the parties of the communication in violation ofNMSA 1978 §j
30-12-1.
19. These secret recordings corrj ain intimate details of personal life, relationship detaUsj
family details, marriage details, intimacy^ autonomy, private debts, protected medical
information, and offier personal details of the Plaintiffs.
20. No reasonable person would have discussed these intimate details if they knew the
communication was being recorded by unknown third parties.
21. Connie Lee Johnston intentionally intruded and violated the solitude, seclusion, personal
autonomy, intimacy, confidentiality, security, communication, private affairs a^d
fundamental concepts ofhimlan dignity of the Plaintiffs and other persons.
3
22. Connie Lee Johnston listened to and transcribed the secret recordings of the Plaintiffs
and other persons.
23. Connie Lee Jolmston's actions of recording the oral and telephone communications of
the Plaintiffs and other persons served no legitimate purpose
24. The Plaintiffs reported this, among other unethical and illegal beliayior_on_ih£_.part.of-
Connie Lee Jolmston, to the Judicial Standards Commission.
25. The New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission is an independent state agency tasked
with investigating allegations of judicial misconduct against New Mexico judges.
26. On December 3, 2015, the Judicial Standards Commission filed a Verified Petition for
Immediate Temporary Suspension without Pay against Connie Lee Johnston.
27. On February 10, 2016, counsel for Comiie Lee Johnston admitted to the New Mexico
Supreme Court that Connie Lee Jolmston had recorded "hundreds of hours" of oral and
telephonic comnumication witliin the Aztec Magistrate Court Building.
28. Connie Lee Johnston disclosed the secret recordmgs, which contained the Plaintiffs*
private oral and telephone communications to the Judicial Standards Commission.
29. The Judicial Standards C|ommission took possession of the secret recordings.
30. The Judicial Standards Commission used the secret recordings in its investigation of the
allegations of judicial misconduct against Connie Lee'Jolinstori.
31. The matter of Connie Lee Johnston's removal came before the Judicial Standards
Commission for a merits hearing on December 5, 2016.
32. Each of the Plaintiffs testified as a material witness for the Judicial Standards
Commission.
33. Portions of the secret redordiugs were introduced as exhibits during the merits hearing.
4
34. On April 10, 2017, the Judicial Standards Commission filed a Petition for Permanent
Removal From Judicial Office against Connie Lee Johnston in the New Mexico Supreme
Court.
35. On April 10, 2017, the Judicial Standards Commission also filed a 110-page "Fmdmgs
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation for Removal from Judicial Office"
in the New Mexico Supreme Court.
36. In its recommendations for removal, the Judicial Standards Commission noted that
Connie Lee Johnston concealed surreptitious recordings that she was ordered to disclose
but kept secret until mid-trial when she perceived a personal advantage to disclosure."
37. On October 23,2017, the New Mexico Supreme Court permanently removed Connie Lee
Johnston from judicial office, upon the recommendation of the Judicial Standards
Commission.
38. The proceedings concerning Cormie Lee Johnston are no longer confidential.
39. The Judicial Standards Commission no longer has jurisdiction over Cj'onnie Lee Johnston.
40. The Judicial Standards Commission has the secret recordings in its possession and/or
control.
41. Now that Connie Lee Johnston has been permanently removed from Judicial Office, the
secret recordings have "no value, evidentiafy or otherwise, to the Judicial Standards
Commission.
42. Plaintiffs have made repeated requests to the Judicial Standards Commission to recover
the secret recordings of their private conversations.
43. The Judicial Standards Commission, through Executive Director]and General Counsel,
Randall D. Roybal, has refused to relinquish the secret recordings to t}ie Plaintiffs.
ABUSE OFPniVACY
44. The Judicial Standards Commission disclosed or used the Plaintiffs' private oral
communications, in violation ofNMSA 1978 § 30-12-U(A).
45. Plaintiffs request this Court enter an Order for Restitution of the secret recordings to the
-Elaintiffs. . -.-.. :- - - -.--
46. Plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages.
WHEREFORE, The Plaintiffs respectfully request the District Court to enter an Order
compelling the Judicial Standards Commission to relinquish, to the Plaintiffs, all of the secret
recordings in its possession and/or control, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and such other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
THE TI- MUR^HY^/AW FIRM