Opinion ID: 2025030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Grounds for Misconduct

Text: We also adopt the commission's findings that Respondent's conduct throughout the formal hearing was inappropriate, unprofessional, and demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial discipline proceedings. While the incidents are too numerous to recount, such as respondent's failure to observe appropriate courtroom decorum by interrupting opposing counsel and the master on several occasions and by making snide side comments, we do note a few particularly egregious examples. Respondent's evidence and testimony were replete with half-truths and misleading statements, such as when respondent attempted to introduce evidence that her ex-husband planted a bug (electronic surveillance device) on her phone line. Respondent's witness Robert Maul testified that he discovered the bug on her home phone line and that the bug was subsequently turned over to the Grosse Pointe police. Respondent also testified that Tarjeft had installed such a bug on her home phone line. On cross-examination, the examiner questioned respondent about her subsequent attempts to determine whether the FBI, to whom the police gave the bug for testing, found that the device was, in fact, operable. Initially, respondent testified that she made follow-up calls to the police roughly once a month for a year. Upon further questioning, however, she effectively recanted this claim and simply stated that she made several calls after filing the report. While respondent attempted to admit the police report, she failed to indicate that the police file also contained the FBI report regarding the bug. That report concluded that the bug was not an electronic surveillance device at all, but merely a piece of metal. On other occasions respondent's testimony was so unnecessarily vague as to hinder the proceedings and significantly interfere with the administration of justice. This misconduct is particularly evident in respondent's testimony directly after respondent agreed to resume questioning about the tapes in an effort to purge the master's civil contempt order. This testimony came after respondent claimed privacy rights under 18 U.S.C. § 2515, the federal wiretapping statute, once the tapes were admitted into evidence. This privilege was asserted despite her voluntary statements regarding the tapes to the press, and despite her prior testimony on the subject. Respondent raised arguments similar to those heard at length and found to be unpersuasive by the master earlier in the proceedings. The master found the examiner's arguments that the federal law did not provide a privilege, and, even if it did, it was effectively waived by respondent, given her comments to the press and prior testimony, to be persuasive. Accordingly, the master granted the examiner's motion for civil contempt, but, after filing of additional memorandum, denied the examiner's request for a default. Respondent was informed that the contempt order could be purged by answering the examiner's questions regarding the tapes. Respondent agreed to answer these questions, but in so doing, respondent offered evasive testimony illustrative of her failure to accept and truly comply with the master's order. For example, respondent insisted she could not remember hearing the taped statements that were played for her in court just six days earlier and also refused to divulge her phone number when asked. The continued examination proved futile and was quickly concluded.
Judicial disciplinary proceedings are unique and fundamentally distinct from all other criminal or civil legal proceedings. 437 Mich. at 28, 465 N.W.2d 317. The purpose of such proceedings is to protect the people from corruption and abuse on the part of those who wield judicial power. Id. Our primary concern in determining the appropriate sanction is to restore and maintain the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary and to protect the public. We adopt the commission's recommendation and find respondent's untruthful and misleading statements to the public and press, her attempt to commit a fraud on the Court by twice attempting to introduce the Avela Smith letters, and her unprofessional and disrespectful conduct during each stage of the proceedings to constitute misconduct in violation of the court rules and judicial canons. Indeed, we demand strict compliance with the letter and spirit of these rules and canons because, without it, our judicial system, which depends on public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary would surely fail. Judges, occupying the watchtower of our system of justice, should preserve, if not uplift, the standard of truth, not trample it underfoot or hide in its shady recesses. This is precisely why judges should be exemplars of respectful, forthright, and appropriate conduct. The effectiveness of our judicial system is dependent upon the public's trust. Violations such as those described herein, which mislead, misrepresent, and deceive with respect to evidence and facts in legal proceedings, so seriously undermine that trust and are so fundamentally contrary to judicial temperament and obligation as to require the most severe form of disciplineremoval. Our decision is based on the nature, extent, and frequency of the misconduct. Accordingly, we adopt the commission's recommendation to remove respondent because we find it is necessary to restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the judiciary and, most importantly, to best protect the public. Pursuant to MCR 7.317(C)(3), the clerk is directed to issue the judgment order forthwith.