Opinion ID: 2813285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: • order[] [Judge] Amacker to lift the unlawful stay • set … a hearing at all due speed • withdraw the unlawful stay • terminat[e] all parental rights of the girls‘ biological father • renounce jurisdiction • remove the Guardian Ad Litem • replace [the Guardian Ad Litem] • define the Guardian Ad Litem‘s role in the suit • require the new Guardian Ad Litem prepare a written report 19 • conduct all proceedings … on the record • conduct an evidentiary hearing … to review the allegations of child sexual abuse • disallow visitation … until [the judge] ha[s] seen all of the evidence By its very language, the petition implores the judges to review/see ―ALL‖ the evidence irrespective of the rules of evidence and the judges‘ discretionary gatekeeping function conferred therein and likewise sets forth in explicit detail the specific manner in which the petitioners want the judges and this Court to ―apply‖ and ―follow‖ the law—essentially a quest for mob justice or rather ―trial by internet.‖ Respondent claims her postings are not ex parte communication because first and foremost we encourage people to draw their own conclusions. We gave them the information, we gave them the evidence and we said form your own opinion, and then if you feel strongly about it share your opinion, your independent opinion of that with the judge…. But I don‘t consider it an ex parte communication unless I told all those people this is what you need to tell them, and I didn‘t. However, the postings belie her depiction and speak for themselves: • Insist that Judge Amacker and Judge Gambrell do their jobs! • Call Judge Amacker and Judge Gambrell … to ask why they won‘t follow the law and protect these children. • Let them know you‘re watching and expect them to do their job and most of all, make sure these precious little girls are safe! • Call the Louisiana Supreme Court and tell them you want the law to protect these girls…. • Continue to call Judge Gambrell to ask her why she is unwilling to afford [H] and [Z] simple justice. • Tell[] the judges that there can be no justice for [H] and [Z], or any child, if the law and evidence is ignored. 20 • Tell them they must look at the evidence before they make a decision that will affect the rest of [H] and [Z‘s] lives. • Ask Judge Amacker why she won‘t listen Just as in the petition, respondent gives explicit directives to the public on how to voice ―concern‖ and ―horror‖ to the presiding judges. As to this Court, respondent repeatedly admitted she sought to bring this case to our attention through the elicited phone calls because this Court is a ―policy court‖: Q. And while the writ was pending at the Supreme Court you encouraged people to call them also? A. Yes. To let them know that they were concerned because it‘s a Policy Court. Q. Do you still think that‘s appropriate conduct today for an attorney to encourage people to contact a Court and ask them and voice their opinions about pending cases? A. To – yes. I do. Q. Okay. And do you think it‘s perfectly okay, even today, for you to encourage that and to solicit that? A. Yes. They‘re elected officials. They are responsible – they are responsive and responsible to the people they serve. And if they don‘t know that people aren‘t concerned – The Supreme Court is a Policy Court. It responds to things that they believe are important social trends. So, yes, I do believe it‘s important that the Supreme Court be aware that this is an important issue for people in the community. And the number that was provided is the Clerk of Court‘s number. We also note the petition was drafted and posted on more than one internet site when the matter was pending before this Court on writs and just days before Judge Gambrell held her first hearing in the custody matter in Mississippi on August 16, 2011. The pleas to ―call Judge Amacker and Judge Gambrell during the hours of 8:30 to 5:00 starting Monday, August 15 to ask why they won‘t follow the law and protect these children‖ and ―call the Louisiana Supreme Court … and 21 ask about the writ pending that was filed by [respondent]‖ were made, therefore, for the sole purpose of improperly influencing the courts‘ future rulings to gain a tactical advantage in the pending underlying litigation. In her sworn statement, respondent even explained: I guess I see judges as public officials. If I understand this correctly they‘re elected both in Mississippi and Louisiana. They answer to the public. The public has a right to tell them how they feel. And I guess – oh boy, I‘m getting on a soap box now, when the judicial – when it comes to the judiciary they have such incredible immunity that they somehow feel like they don‘t have to answer to the public. And I feel strongly that particularly when it comes to family law that hearing from people about what‘s going on is a part of what will make them better judges. As the record reveals, one of the signatories, Heather Lyons, not only emailed Judge Gambell on August 14, 2011—just two days before the August 16, 2011 hearing—she also apparently called Judge Gambell at home, ―[a]ccusing [her] of being a person who supports child predators or whatever.‖ Judge Amacker testified her office received ―hundreds‖ of calls regarding the petitions, while Judge Gambell testified she even mentioned on the record in the August 16, 2011 hearing ―that numerous people were calling and that they should not do that.‖ Both viewed the petition as an attempt to threaten, intimidate, and/or harass them into handling the case in the manner the petitioners wanted, and they both felt threatened. Specifically, Judge Gambell explained: Q. Judge, did you receive any calls or view anything in the petition or these comments that we‘ve looked at already that ever gave you any cause for concern for your personal safety? A. Yes, sir. The kind of work that we do in this court places you in a situation where somebody is going to win most of time and somebody‘s going to lose…. So that concerned me that all these people are being told to call me. You could easily Google map me; find out where I am and it really – I was really concerned because I had just gotten into the case and before I could even do what I needed to do, I was being harassed by phone calls and 22 then this Twitter and all this other stuff. It did not make sense to me, but I was concerned about my safety. When asked a similar question regarding whether she had personally received any telephone calls, Judge Amacker responded: Let me see if I can break that down just to be accurate. I – no. We have things put in place at our offices that no one ever gets to me as the Judge without it first being vetted through usually my secretary and my staff attorney. So if there‘s ex–parte communications that come in, and we get a lot in Family Court. You get a lot of angry people and people calling in and it happens. Those never get to the Judge. So I can‘t tell you who called, what they said, these types of things of who called in. I can say that hundreds of members of the public and attorneys have stopped by or called to let us know this was on the internet out of concern; out of concern for us. They just wanted to let my staff know or me know. Stop me on the street, in the hallway, whatever, out of concern and horror – the horrified was the public and the attorneys that saw this. And still are. Reviewing all the evidence, we conclude the telephone calls, the email, and the faxed petitions constitute prohibited ex parte communication induced and/or encouraged by respondent. Coupled with her social media postings, we further conclude respondent‘s online activity amounted to a viral campaign to influence and intimidate the judiciary, including this Court, in pending, sealed domestic litigations by means prohibited by law and through the actions of others. Accordingly, we find the evidence clearly and convincingly shows respondent‘s conduct in this regard violated Rules 3.5(a) and (b) and Rule 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Dissemination of False and Misleading Information The ODC alleges respondent ―disseminated false, misleading and/or inflammatory information through the internet and social media about Judge Deborah Gambrell and Judge Dawn Amacker in pending cases wherein Respondent was counsel of record and/or had a personal interest.‖ It further 23 alleges respondent ―also made false and misleading statements in multiple motions to recuse Judge Amacker.‖ The ODC concludes these actions violate Rule 8.4(c). Rule 8.4(c) provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. In finding respondent violated this rule, the hearing committee made several specific factual findings: (1) Respondent stated Judge Gambrell ignored ―overwhelming evidence‖ of abuse and ―refuses to even look at the evidence, and has now ordered the girls be sent to unsupervised visitation with their father.‖ The committee found respondent‘s statement was a ―gross mischaracterization‖ of the facts. (2) Respondent stated Judge Amacker ―in Louisiana also refused to protect the girls, even though she has the power and authority to protect them ...‖ The committee found this statement was false and inflammatory, as Judge Amacker did not refuse to protect the children, but instead stayed the Louisiana proceedings on the ground related proceedings were already pending in Mississippi. (3) Respondent posted audio recordings of the minor children purportedly talking about abuse and stated that on August 16, 2011, Judge Gambrell ―once again refused to admit all of Raven‘s evidence, including these recordings, and ordered that [H] and [Z] have visits with their father in the house where they both report having been molested by their father in the past.‖ The committee found this statement was clearly false, as the tapes were not offered into evidence on August 16, 2011; therefore, Judge Gambrell could not have ―refused to admit‖ them. (4) Respondent stated, ―Judge Dawn Amacker in the 22 nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany in Louisiana is also refusing to hear any evidence or to protect [H] and [Z], even though the law requires her to have a hearing and to take evidence.‖ The committee found this statement was false, because Judge Amacker had stayed the Louisiana proceedings in light of the Mississippi proceeding. (5) Respondent stated the Louisiana court (Judge Amacker presiding) ―has voluntarily and expressly admitted its extreme bias and conflict in recusing itself in two other cases, which grounds are equally applicable in the case at 24 bar.‖ The committee found this statement was false, as Judge Amacker‘s judgment stated, ―[t]he Court hereby voluntarily recuses itself due to the possibility that the judge may be called as a witness in the proceedings referenced by counsel, and out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety.‖ In her brief, respondent takes the position she did not make any knowingly false statements. While respondent acknowledges she may have made some factual mistakes, such as with regard to the admission of the audio tapes, she claims this does not amount to making an intentionally false statement. She further contends her characterization of the judges‘ actions in this case was not false, but simply based on her subjective analysis of their actions. However, we find the record evidence supports the ODC‘s charges in this regard. Respondent‘s online posting and twitter feeds are littered with misrepresentations and outright false statements. Although she claims they were not made intentionally, respondent even concedes to the misrepresentations. Moreover, even after learning of the ―mistakes‖ through her own review of the underlying records, respondent made no attempt to remedy them, but merely took the position they were her client‘s subject view of the proceedings, raising the level of her continuous posting and twitter conduct from a simple mischaracterization into a knowing and arguably intentional dissemination of false information. This is particularly true regarding the judges‘ ―refusal‖ to ―hear,‖ ―view,‖ or ―admit‖ evidence, namely the audio recordings, which were never offered into evidence at any proceeding before either Judge Gambrell or Judge Amacker. Regarding the recusal notices, the signed orders of recusal contain no express admissions of ―extreme bias.‖ Respondent attempts to excuse her statements as merely her subjective interpretation of Judge Amacker‘s action in recusing herself, arguing the recusal itself is an expression of bias. Moreover, she styles her motion to recuse a pleading, casting Judge Amacker as the adverse party, 25 and argues that by not outright denying the allegations therein, Judge Amacker essentially admitted to the extreme bias. Rather than an answer, however, Judge Amacker‘s recusal is an order of the court, and as well established, those matters not expressly granted in a judgment or order of a court are considered denied. M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371, p. 12 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 26 (relief sought presumed denied when judgment silent as to claim or demand). Accordingly, we find the evidence clearly and convincingly shows respondent‘s repeated false statements concerning Judge Amacker‘s ―expressly admitted extreme bias‖ were not mere misrepresentations, but false statements knowingly and intentionally made. Accordingly, we find the evidence clearly and convincingly shows a violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice Lastly, the ODC alleges respondent‘s overall conduct – utilizing the internet and social media both in an attempt to influence the judges and to expedite achievement of her goals in the case – was prejudicial to the administration of