Opinion ID: 1706255
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Formal Charge 0278The Worthless Check Matter

Text: On March 11, 2002, Murray Alexander submitted a Worthless Check Report listing NSF checks written by Pamela Deslatte to Murray's Supermarket. Based on this report, Constable James E. LeBlanc (the Constable) generated seven Notice of Returned Check forms addressed to Ms. Deslatte. Justice of the Peace Braud authorized the Constable to use her signature stamp. In addition to the amount of the NSF check, each of the seven Notice of Returned Check forms imposed: (1) a service charge fee of $25, (2) a certified letter fee of $3.94, despite the fact that the seven notices were sent together in one envelope via ordinary mail, and (3)' a court costs fee of $60, even though there was no case pending before the court, either criminal or civil, at the time the notices were sent. Ms. Deslatte was charged $622.58 in fees on worthless checks in the amount of $282.66, for a total of $905.24. [3] On April 7, 2004, Ms. Deslatte met with Justice of the Peace Braud and the Constable, and secretly recorded this meeting. During the meeting, the Constable announced that he had three warrants for Ms. Deslatte's arrest stemming from her failure to pay approximately $450 that was then due on the NSF checks, and that she would go to jail if she did not pay that amount the same day. The three warrants, prepared by the Constable, had not been signed by Justice of the Peace Braud; therefore, the warrants were not valid. At the time of the meeting, there was no criminal matter pending against Ms. Deslatte in respondent's court. On April 7, 2004, Ms. Deslatte made a payment that cleared her of all the NSF checks with Constable LeBlanc's office. On September 25, 2006, the Commission filed formal charges against Justice of the Peace Braud, alleging that she failed to follow the law with regard to the proper procedures for service of subpoenas, for finding a litigant in contempt and issuing an arrest warrant for contempt, and for the collection of worthless checks. In each instance, the Commission alleged that the respondent's conduct violated Canons 1 [4] (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary), 2A [5] (a judge shall respect and comply, with the law and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary), and 3A(1) [6] (a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission further alleged that the respondent engaged in willful misconduct relating to her official duty and engaged in persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of LSA-Const. art. V, § 25(C). Based on the stipulated facts as set forth above, the Office of Special. Counsel and Justice of the Peace Braud agreed that Justice of the Peace Braud violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Constitution as set out in the Formal Charges.