Opinion ID: 2120247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Events Leading to the Complaint Filed by Dallas County Commissioners Court

Text: Judge Rose took office as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 8, Place 1, Dallas County, Texas, in 1989. (IV C.R. No. 58, at [2], Find. 1.) Judge Rose's court first began to have administrative problems at least as early as April 1992. At that time, Judge Rose's chief clerk was Belinda Brown. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 9, Find. 38.) From April through October 1992, the court failed to file monthly activity reports with the Dallas County budget office. (Exam'r Ex. E-2, at 3, No. 17; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) The county budget office required monthly reports. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 10, Find. 45); see Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 111.065 (Vernon 1999). The activity report reported the number of cases filed and the number disposed of in each of several categories. ( See Exam'r Ex. E-35.) In November 1992, Judge Rose was re-elected. ( See I R.R. at 18, 82-83.) [11] In November and December 1992, the court failed to file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) In December 1992, the court first began to have financial problems. On December 23, 1992, the Dallas County Auditor conducted a cash count in the court. [12] (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 8; id. at 4, Find. 11.) The count found thirty unreceipted checks totaling $3,668.50 and $430 in unreceipted cash. ( Id. ) As the current Dallas County Auditor, Virginia Porter, testified at the evidentiary hearing, the problem with receiving funds without issuing a receipt is that it's a high internal control risk because there is no way to test that that money came in and was recorded properly or was missing. (II R.R. at 217.) The earliest date on an unreceipted check was September 9, 1992. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 8.) On December 29, 1992, the auditor addressed a letter to Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 8; Exam'r Ex. E-1.) The auditor informed Judge Rose of the results of the recent cash count. ( Id. ) The auditor reminded Judge Rose of his duty to receipt monies received by the court timely, and to deposit them timely. ( Id. ) The auditor recommended to Judge Rose that all monies received by [his] court be promptly receipted and deposited consistent with State Law and procedures promulgated by the County Auditor. (Exam'r Ex. E-1 (emphasis in orig.).) Judge Rose's chief clerk discussed the letter with him. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 8.) In January 1993, the court did not file a monthly activity report. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) On January 25, 1993, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 11; Exam'r Ex. E-2, at [1], Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) The count found seven unreceipted checks totaling $544.00 and $364.00 in unreceipted cash. (Exam'r Ex. E-2, at [1], Find. 1.) On February 12, 1993, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 11; Exam'r Ex. E-2, at [1]; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) The count found twenty-one unreceipted checks totaling $2,705.02 and $300.00 in unreceipted cash. (Exam'r Ex. E-2, at [1], Find. 1.) In February through May 1993, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) On May 28, 1993, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning an audit of the court for Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9; Exam'r Ex. E-2.) The audit found several depositing discrepancies. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) Among these discrepancies was that actual deposits for the audit period were $991.50 less than the totals reported by the court. (Exam'r Ex. E-2, at 2, Find. 8.) The audit also found that the court failed to issue writs of capias timely. [13] (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) The audit found that, in forty-one cases in which Judge Rose had allowed the defendant an extension of time in which to pay a fine, the defendant had not made payment, but the court had nonetheless failed to issue a capias. (Exam'r Ex. E-2, at 3, Find. 10.) The audit also found improper fees or fines. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) The court sometimes failed to charge a fee required by law, and sometimes charged a fee less than or greater than that required by law. (Exam'r Ex. E-2, at 2, Find. 9.) Fees were sometimes applied to the wrong case or the wrong court. ( Id. at 3, Find. 16.) Fines paid through the Dallas County Sheriff were not posted at all. ( Id., Find. 15.) The audit also found that many cases could not be found or properly identified. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) The court could not find case files for twenty-four cases. (Exam'r Ex. E-2, at 3, Find. 13.) Also, no cases were found at all for four citations filed by the sheriff in the court. ( Id., Find. 14.) The memorandum also noted that the court did not make a deposit on January 10, 1993, and did not make that deposit until January 26. ( Id. at [1], Find. 2.) The auditor recommended to Judge Rose that [a]ll funds received by court personnel should be receipted immediately .... No one should tender money to court [sic] without receiving an official county receipt. ( Id. at 4, Recommend. 1 (emphasis in orig.).) The auditor also recommended that [e]very case filed in the court should be posted to the JP accounting system as soon as possible. ( Id., Recommend. 7.) The auditor also reminded Judge Rose of the duty to file monthly activity reports, and of their importance: These reports provide essential information for staffing as well as revenue projections and fee analyses. ( Id., Recommend. 14.) Belinda Brown discussed the audit memorandum with Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 9.) On November 12, 1993, the auditor performed a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 11; Exam'r Ex. E-3; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 10.) The count found twenty unreceipted checks or money orders totaling $4,503.47 and $10 in unreceipted cash. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 10; Exam'r Ex. E-3.) The oldest unreceipted check was dated November 30, 1992. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 10.) One check, in the amount of $2,792.14, was dated April 9, 1993. ( Id. ) On November 24, 1993, the auditor conducted a follow-up count. (Exam'r Ex. E-3; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 10.) Of the checks identified on November 12 as being unreceipted, only one had been receipted. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 10.) On December 3, 1993, the auditor addressed a memorandum to Judge Rose concerning the November cash count and follow-up count. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 10; Exam'r Ex. E-3.) The auditor recommended to Judge Rose that all monies received in [his] court be promptly receipted and deposited consistent with State Law and procedures promulgated by the County Auditor. (Exam'r Ex. E-3 (emphasis in orig.).) Belinda Brown discussed the memorandum with Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 3, Find. 10.) On March 24, 1994, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 11; Exam'r Ex. E-4.) The count found nine unreceipted checks totaling $3,330.16 and $22.00 in unreceipted cash. ( Id. ) On March 29, 1994, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning the previous five cash counts in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 11; Exam'r Ex. E-4.) The auditor again recommended to Judge Rose that all monies received by [his] court be promptly receipted and deposited consistent with State Law and procedures promulgated by the County Auditor. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 11 (emphasis in orig.); see Exam'r Ex. E-4.) The auditor notified Judge Rose that, as many uncashed checks are void after 90 days, failure to promptly deposit may mean lost revenue for the county. (Exam'r Ex. E-4.) Belinda Brown discussed the memorandum with Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 11.) In June 1994, the court did not file a monthly activity report. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 12.) On June 19, 1994, Belinda Brown left the court. (V R.R. at 1050.) In July 1994 through February 1995, the court did not file monthly activity reports. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 12.) By March 1995, Judge Rose had hired Freddie Brown as his chief clerk. ( See Resp't Ex. R-36, at [1].) In March 1995, the court did not file a monthly activity report. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 12.) On April 11, 1995, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning undeposited checks. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 12; Exam'r Ex. E-5.) The auditor provided specific guidelines on how to deal with the court's stale, undeposited checks. [14] (Exam'r Ex. E-5 app.) The auditor also noted that the court had not filed a monthly activity report since May 1994, and stated, it is critical that the delinquent reports be filed.... (Exam'r Ex. E-5, at [1].) On March 14, May 8, and August 20, 1996, the auditor conducted cash counts in the court. (Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 2, Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22(a).) The counts found [l]arge numbers of unreceipted checks and money orders. (Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 2, Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22(a).) Several of the checks were stale and no longer valid. ( See id. ) Most of the checks had not been restrictively endorsed upon receipt. (Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 2, Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22(a).) In November 1996, Judge Rose was re-elected. ( See I R.R. at 18, 82-83.) On December 6, 1996, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court, after the treasurer found a cash shortage of $367 in one of the court's deposits. (Exam'r Ex. E-6; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 13.) The count found forty-four unreceipted checks totaling $8,896.06. (Exam'r Ex. E-6; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 13.) The oldest check was dated November 16, 1995. (Exam'r Ex. E-6.) On December 6, 1996, the auditor reported to Judge Rose on the cash count of the same date. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 13; Exam'r Ex. E-6.) The auditor found that the court had used cash overages to maintain a petty cash fund and to make purchases, contrary to county policy. (Exam'r Ex. E-6, at 1, Find. 3.) The auditor recommended to Judge Rose that [a]ll monies received by [his] court should be promptly deposited consistent with State law and procedures promulgated by the County Auditor. ( Id. at 2, Recommend. 2; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 13.) The auditor also recommended that [a]ll unreceipted cash should either be posted to the proper case and [sic] fees or as a cash overage, as appropriate. (Exam'r Ex. E-6, at 2, Recommend. 3.) On March 27, 1997, the auditor performed a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 14; Exam'r Ex. E-7, at [1].) The auditor found unreceipted funds totaling $17,809.95. ( Id. ) The oldest item was dated October 1995. ( Id. ) On March 28 and April 4, 1997, the court's deposits contained discrepancies that had to be corrected after the fact by county Data Services. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 14; Exam'r Ex. E-7, at [1].) On April 14, 1997, the auditor addressed a memorandum to Judge Rose concerning undeposited funds. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 14; Exam'r Ex. E-7.) The auditor also reported the recent deposit discrepancies. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 14; Exam'r Ex. E-7, at [1].) The auditor noted: Since December 23, 1992, cash counts performed in the court have found unreceipted funds on hand. Management letters have addressed overages and directed court personnel to promptly receipt and deposit all funds received. (Exam'r Ex. E-7, at [1].) The auditor also warned: Section 113.022 of the Government Code [sic] requires a county officer to deposit funds with the County Treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds are received. If this deadline is not met, the officer must deposit the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received.[ [15] ] (Exam'r Ex. E-7, at [1]; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 14; id., at 10, Find. 45.) The auditor explained, Failure to receipt and deposit items in a timely fashion result [sic] lost revenue to Dallas County and potential internal control problems. (Exam'r Ex. E-7, at [1].) On September 17, 1997, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning an audit of the court for Fiscal Years 1993 through 1995. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 15; Exam'r Ex. E-8.) The audit found [l]arge numbers of unreceipted checks, money orders and cash ... on hand during cash counts performed since Fiscal Year 1993, with most checks not being restrictively endorsed upon receipt. (Exam'r Ex. E-8, at 2, Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 15.) The audit also found that 72.5% of receipts reviewed contained errors in deposit coding and/or in the amount collected, such as [d]epositing fees for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system into State fees ... instead of ... the special fund. (Exam'r Ex. E-8, at 2, Finds. 6, 6(a); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 15.) The audit also found discrepancies in the court's monthly activity reports. (Exam'r Ex. E-8, at 2, Find. 3.) The court had a backlog of 2610 traffic cases and 1044 bad-check cases, which had not been entered into the Justice of the Peace Accounting System (JPAS), but were nonetheless included in activity reports. ( Id. at 3, Find. 11.) This overstated the court's cases by at least fifteen percent, and by as much as forty-six percent in Fiscal Year 1995. ( Id. ) The audit also found that the court was still using cash overages to fund purchases, rather than depositing and reporting them. ( Id. at 2, Find. 2.) The audit also found discrepancies in the court's employees' time and attendance records. ( Id. at 3, Find. 16.) The auditor recommended to Judge Rose: Monies collected should be receipted and deposited timely. Checks should be restrictively endorsed upon receipt. (See Section 113.022 of the Local Government Code). ( Id. at 4; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 15.) The auditor also recommended, Court costs should be assessed and deposited on all cases based on State laws, Commissioners Court orders, etc. (Exam'r Ex. E-8, at 4, Recommend. 6; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 15.) The auditor further recommended, Cases should be entered on the JP accounting system before they are included on the monthly activity reports. (Exam'r Ex. E-8, at 4, Recommend. 12.) The auditor also recommended that the time and attendance records be corrected. ( Id., Recommend. 16.) In October 1997, Judge Rose hired a new bookkeeper. ( See Resp't Ex. R-36, at [3].) On November 10, 1997, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16; id. at 5, Find. 19(b); Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 2, Find. 3; Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 3, Find. 3.) The count found a backlog of $11,184.54 in unreceipted checks, of which more than half were more than thirty days old and some more than a year old. ( Id. ) On December 5, 1997, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. ( See Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 1; Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 1; IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16.) The count found undeposited funds from as long before as October 5, totaling $50,943. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16; Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 1.) On December 8, 1997, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16; id. at 5, Find. 19(b); Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 2, Find. 3; Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 3, Find. 3.) The count found a backlog of $8,934.25 of unreceipted checks, of which more than half were more than thirty days old and some more than a year old. ( Id. ) On January 6, 1998, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16; id. at 5, Find. 19(b); Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 2, Find. 3; Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 3, Find. 3.) The count found a backlog of $5,060.37 of unreceipted checks, of which more than half were more than thirty days old and some more than a year old. ( Id. ) On January 26, 1998, the auditor forwarded to Judge Rose a draft audit report. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16; see Exam'r Ex. E-54.) The audit found that repeated deposit delays had occurred throughout 1997. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16; see Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 2.) The auditor warned Judge Rose, The delays represent noncompliance with V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022 which requires deposit on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. (Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 2, Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 4, Find. 16.) The auditor reminded Judge Rose that [c]ontinual deposit delays provide opportunities for lapping. (Exam'r Ex. E-54, at 3.) The auditor requested Judge Rose's response by February 6, 1998. ( Id. at 1.) Judge Rose did not respond. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 17.) On February 18, 1998, Dallas County field auditor Bill Wallace personally delivered a copy of the January 26 draft audit report to Judge Rose, discussed it with him, and emphasized certain findings to the Judge related to deposit problems of the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 17; see V R.R. at 856.) On March 11, 1998, Judge Rose told Wallace that he did not want to meet with the County auditor; he's too busy. (IV R.R. at 785; V id. at 860; see Resp't Ex. R-4, at [2], # 8; Resp't Ex. R-32; IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 17.) On March 18, 1998, Judge Rose again refused to meet with the auditor. ( See IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 17.) On both occasions, Judge Rose directed Wallace to the chief clerk. ( Id. ) In the spring of 1998, Wallace discussed with Judge Rose the conduct of Judge Rose's chief clerk, Freddie Brown. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 18.) Wallace believed that Brown was grossly incompetent. ( Id.; see V R.R. at 878, 879-80, 883.) Judge Rose took no action with regard to Brown. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 18.) On May 5, 1998, the auditor addressed a memorandum regarding deposit problems to Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 19; Exam'r Ex. E-12.) The memorandum found depositing problems and delays in the court throughout calendar year 1997 and 1998. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 19; see Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 1.) The auditor again warned Judge Rose, The delays represent noncompliance with V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022, which requires deposit on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. (Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 1, Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 19.) Among those problems, the auditor found a [l]ack of written procedures for the new bookkeeper to follow in the receipting/balancing process. (Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 19(a).) The auditor also found [n]o evidence of priority assigned to problem resolution for financial transactions. (Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 2, Find. 8; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 19(c).) The auditor also found an unresolved cash shortage, and again found that cash overages were being used for petty cash funds and to fund purchases. (Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 3, Find. 4.) The auditor recommended, Deposits should be made in a timely fashion to comply with State statutes and County policies. ( Id. at 2, Recommend. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 19.) The auditor also recommended, All cash shortages should be reported timely according to the County Policies and Procedures manual. (Exam'r Ex. E-12, at 3, Recommend. 6; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 19.) On May 8, 1998, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning disbursements and receipt corrections. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 20; see Exam'r Ex. E-13.) The auditor notified Judge Rose that the court had not posted the majority of its special-funds checks issued after Fiscal Year 1996 to the Justice of the Peace Accounting System. [16] (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 20; Exam'r Ex. E-13.) The auditor also notified Judge Rose that the court had not made receipt corrections that the auditor had requested on May 1. ( Id. ) The auditor stated the importance of these matters: Amounts should be posted to the correct receipt code to ensure funds due the State of Texas or other governmental entities are properly remitted. (Exam'r Ex. E-13.) On September 18, 1998, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 21; Exam'r Ex. E-14.) The count found ninety-three unreceipted checks or money orders totaling $13,878.12, and $120 in unreceipted cash. ( Id. ) Almost half of the checks and money orders were over thirty days old, and the earliest was dated October 16, 1995. ( Id. ) Over Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001, a clerk embezzled at least $4,000 from the court. (Resp't Ex. R-34; IV R.R. at 811-13.) On October 7, 1998, the auditor addressed a memorandum to Judge Rose concerning the September cash count. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 21; Exam'r Ex. E-14.) The memorandum found deposit delays that represent[ed] noncompliance with V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022 which requires deposit on or before the seventh business day after funds are received. (Exam'r Ex. E-14, Find. 2; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 21.) The auditor recommended, Deposits should be made timely to comply with State statutes and County policies. (Exam'r Ex. E-14, Find. 2; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 5, Find. 21.) On March 15, 1999, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning an audit of his court for Fiscal Year 1996. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22; Exam'r Ex. E-15.) The audit found [l]arge numbers of unreceipted checks and money orders on hand throughout the year. (Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 2, Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22(a).) The audit also found several categories of errors in deposit coding and fee assessment, including special-fund errors. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22(b); Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 2, Finds. 6-7, 10.) The audit found several discrepancies in monthly activity reports, including an overstatement of cases processed by thirty-seven percent. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22(c); Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 3, Find. 11.) The audit also found that although the majority of defendants on payment plans were not making timely payments no capias was issued for them. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22(d); Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 2, Find. 8.) The auditor recommended: Monies collected ... should be receipted and deposited timely. Checks should be restrictively endorsed upon receipt (See Section 113.022 of the Local Government Code). (Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 3, Recommend. 1; IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22.) The auditor also recommended, Court costs should be assessed and deposited on all cases based on State laws, Commissioners Court orders, etc. (Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 4, Recommend. 6; IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 22.) The auditor also recommended, A capias should be issued for all cases where payment terms are not met. (Exam'r Ex. E-15, at 4, Recommend. 8.) On March 19, 1999, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning disbursements and receipt corrections. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 23; Exam'r Ex. E-16.) The auditor reminded Judge Rose of the failings in those areas that she had identified in her memorandum of May 8, 1998. (Exam'r Ex. E-16; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 23; cf. Exam'r Ex. E-13.) The auditor notified Judge Rose that those errors had not been corrected. (Exam'r Ex. E-16; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 23.) The auditor notified Judge Rose, Special fund checks that have been disbursed, but not posted to the JPAS represent your staff's failure to properly perform their job responsibilities. (Exam'r Ex. E-16; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 23.) The auditor notified Judge Rose that the amount of the court's errors exceeded the value of Judge Rose's bond. (Exam'r Ex. E-16.) In late March 2000, Bill Wallace again discussed with Judge Rose the chief clerk, Freddie Brown. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 24.) Wallace still believed Brown to be grossly incompetent. ( See id.; V R.R. at 878, 879-80.) Judge Rose told Wallace that during Judge Rose's campaign for Congress in 1975, Brown had helped him greatly, that he was very, very loyal to Freddie Brown, and that Freddie Brown would remain with him as his chief clerk as long as he was the justice of the peace. (V R.R. at 882; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 24.) Judge Rose then said, that's all I want to hear about  I don't want to hear about this again. (V R.R. at 882; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 24.) On March 28, 2000, the auditor conducted a cash count in the court. (Exam'r Ex. E-18, at [1], Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 27.) The count found 226 unreceipted checks and money orders totaling $32,459.25. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 27; Exam'r Ex. E-18, at [1], Find. 1; Exam'r Ex. E-43.) Of those, three belonged to another court, two pertained to cases that had been dismissed, and two were personal checks, notwithstanding the court's policy not to accept personal checks. (Exam'r Ex. E-18, at [1], Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Finds. 27(b)-(d).) On April 4, 2000, on the instructions of the auditor, field auditor Wallace took the unreceipted checks to the auditor's office. (IV R.R. at 796-97; V id. at 866.) Judge Rose was not in the court at the time. (IV id. at 796.) When Wallace returned to the court, he found Judge Rose in a state of rage. ( Id. at 817.) Judge Rose demanded the checks back. ( Id. ) Judge Rose cursed Wallace out for at least two hours, using foul language. ( Id. at 817, 818.) Wallace testified that he had only been cursed at worse once, by four Marines when he was in boot camp. ( Id. at 818.) Wallace refused to return to finish the audit, and had to take two days off from work because of high blood pressure resulting from his encounter with Judge Rose. ( Id. at 819-20.) On April 4, 2000, the auditor, the county's audit supervisor, and a county commissioner met with Judge Rose concerning the undeposited $32,500. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 25.) Judge Rose was displeased and upset about the removal of the checks. (II R.R. at 247.) The auditor again gave Judge Rose copies of previous audit reports. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 25.) The parties to the meeting pointedly discussed the statutory requirements for the deposit of funds with the treasurer. ( Id. ) The auditor did not deposit the checks, but returned them to Judge Rose. (II R.R. at 206.) On April 25, 2000, the Dallas County Commissioners Court addressed a letter to Judge Rose and the other justices of the peace in the county. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 26; Exam'r Ex. E-17.) The Commissioners Court forwarded a memorandum from the Dallas County District Attorney, which stated: [T]here are primarily two State statutes that govern a Justice of the Peace's obligations to deposit money. The first statute is Section 113.022 of the Local Government Code and the second is Article 103.004 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.[ [17] ] Both of these statutes place a duty on a county officer to deposit funds they have received with the County Treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds have been received. These statutes also recognize that in some cases the next day may not be possible and adds [sic] that in those cases, without exception, funds must be deposited on or before the seventh business day for funds belonging to the County and no more than the third business day for funds belonging to the State of Texas. [W]hen the County Auditor finds funds have not been timely deposited it shall be reported to the Commissioners Court at their next meeting for the purpose of initiating a suit for recovery of the outstanding monies. (Exam'r Ex. E-17, at [1] (emphasis in orig.); see I C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 26.) The Commissioners Court added: Based on the severity of the recent failure of a Justice of the Peace to timely deposit County and State funds, in the future when we are informed by the County Auditor of an official's failure to carry out their responsibilities in a proper and lawful manner we will contact this official and offer to assist them in gaining immediate compliance. If the official does not cooperate or take necessary remedial actions, we will inform the District Attorney of our findings and ask that they compel the officer to properly perform their duties. (Exam'r Ex. E-17, at 2; see I C.R. No. 58, at 6, Find. 26.) On April 27, 2000, the auditor conducted a cash count in Judge Rose's court. (Exam'r Ex. E-18, at [1], Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 27.) The count found that of the $32,500 backlog found on March 28, forty checks and money orders totaling $5,338.50 remained undeposited. (Exam'r Ex. E-18, at [1], Find. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 27(e).) On May 2, 2000, the auditor addressed a memorandum concerning undeposited funds to Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 27; Exam'r Ex. E-18.) The memorandum reported on the backlog found on March 28 and the court's efforts to dispose of it. ( Id. ) The report noted: We previously addressed deposit delays with your court in various memos since 1992. V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022 requires that a county officer who receives funds shall deposit the funds with the county treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date funds are received. If the deadline is not met, the officer must deposit the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the day funds are received. (Exam'r Ex. E-18, at 2 (emphasis in orig.); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 27.) The report generally recommended, Computer receipts should be issued and deposits made in a timely manner to comply with State statutes and County policies. (Exam'r Ex. E-18, at 2, Recommend. 1; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 27.) The report also made some dozen specific recommendations for dealing with the court's unreceipted and undeposited funds. (Exam'r Ex. E-18, at 2.) Beginning on June 2, 2000, the court was closed to the public on Friday afternoons in order to allow the staff additional time to process the week's cases and the court's backlog. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 28.) Nonetheless, the court made no progress against the backlog. ( Id.; III R.R. at 500.) On September 11, 2000, the auditor addressed a memorandum to Judge Rose concerning deposit shortages and other problems in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 29; Exam'r Ex. E-19.) The auditor noted, Undeposited funds have been addressed repeatedly, but most recently in a memo dated May 2, 2000. (Exam'r Ex. E-19, at 3, Recommend. 3(c).) The auditor generally recommended: All funds received should be immediately receipted and deposited. V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022 requires that a county officer who receives funds shall deposit the funds with the county treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds are received. If the deadline is not met, the officer must deposit the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. ( Id. (emphasis in orig.); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 29.) The auditor also made several specific recommendations for dealing with deposit shortages. (Exam'r Ex. E-19, at 2-3.) The auditor also required written monthly status reports and a briefing to the Commissioners Court on the deposit shortages. ( Id. at 3.) In November 2000, Judge Rose was re-elected. ( See I R.R. at 18, 82-83.) On November 29, 2000, the auditor addressed to Judge Rose a memorandum concerning undeposited funds and late deposits. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 7-8, Find. 30; Exam'r Ex. E-20.) The auditor reported, Unacceptable delays on deposits and processing are noted for this court. (Exam'r Ex. E-20, at [1].) The auditor also reported: A review of current deposit trends by your court reveals continued noncompliance with V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.002 which requires that a county officer who receives funds shall deposit the funds with the county treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds are received. If the deadline is not met, the officer must deposit the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. ( Id. (emphasis in orig.).) The auditor found undeposited checks and money orders totaling $37,885.25 and $45,761.50 in undeposited cash from as far back as September 23. ( Id.; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Finds. 30(a)-(c).) The auditor also found deposits of checks and money orders totaling $25,187.25 and $14,745.25 in cash that were late by as much as forty-one days. (Exam'r Ex. E-20, at 2; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Finds. 30(d)-(f).) The auditor noted, Undeposited funds have been addressed repeatedly to your court, but to no avail. (Exam'r Ex. E-20, at [1]; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7.) The auditor also noted, Significant deficiencies with established internal controls related to cash handling and deposit procedures have been noted previously. (Exam'r Ex. E-20, at 2; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 30.) The auditor recommended that all outstanding receipted funds be deposited immediately with the County Treasurer. (Exam'r Ex. E-20, at 2 (emphasis in orig.); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 30.) The auditor also stated, Compliance with statutory deposit requirements must be followed. (Exam'r Ex. E-20, at 3 (emphasis in orig.); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 7, Find. 30.) On December 7, 2000, the auditor addressed a memorandum to Judge Rose concerning an audit of the court for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 31; Exam'r Ex. E-21.) The audit found cash shortages, problems in deposits, and other problems. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 31; Exam'r Ex. E-21, at 2-3.) The court's receipts that the auditor reviewed had an error rate of sixty-one percent in posting fees and fines. (Exam'r Ex. E-21, at 3, Find. 6; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 31.) The court's reports of cases filed were again overstated, by 158.8% for criminal cases in Fiscal Year 1997 and by 72.1% in Fiscal Year 1998. (Exam'r Ex. E-21, at 2, Find. 4.) The court either had not posted or had incorrectly posted all special-fund checks issued. ( Id. at 3, Find. 8; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 31.) The memorandum also noted that by April 2000 the court had a backlog of 6,000 unprocessed traffic citations and 1,400 unprocessed bad-check cases. (Exam'r Ex. E-21, at 3, Find. 10; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 31.) The auditor recommended: Monies collected should be deposited timely. V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, § 113.022 requires that a county officer who receives funds shall deposit the funds with the county treasurer on or before the next regular business day after the date on which the funds are received. If the deadline is not met, the officer must deposit the funds, without exception, on or before the seventh business day after the day on which the funds are received. (Exam'r Ex. E-21, at 4, Recommend. 1 (emphasis in orig.); see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 31.) The auditor also recommended, Court costs and fines should be properly assessed/collected and deposited on all cases based on State Laws, Commissioners Court orders, etc. (Exam'r Ex. E-21, at 4, Recommend. 6; see IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 31.) The auditor also recommended: Activity reports should be submitted monthly and corrected if errors are later identified.... Cases should only be reported on the activity reports that have been processed to the JPAS system for the month which is being reported. (Exam'r Ex. E-21, at 4, Find. 4.) On February 5, 2001, the auditor addressed to the District Attorney's Office a memorandum on undeposited funds in the court. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 32; Exam'r Ex. E-22.) The memorandum reported the undeposited funds of which the auditor had notified Judge Rose in her memorandum of November 29, 2000. ( See Exam'r Ex. E-22; cf. IV C.R. No. 58, at 7-8, Find. 30; Exam'r Ex. E-20, at 1.) The auditor reported to the district attorney that the court had not corrected deposit errors in the amount of $14,465.45, as the auditor had requested. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 32; Exam'r Ex. E-22.) The auditor also reported that the court had not made a deposit since December 8, 2000, and estimated that the court was holding over $200,000 in undeposited funds. ( Id. ) The auditor stated, We feel this matter has reached a very critical stage and request appropriate legal action. (Exam'r Ex. E-22.) On February 14, 2001, the county internal audit manager and two auditor staff went to the court to assist the bookkeeper in organizing funds for deposit. (II R.R. at 394; Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 3, Find. 1(w).) In the bookkeeper's office, staff found stacks of case files with checks. (II R.R. at 394.) Inside the safe, staff found some items were kind of mashed in there.... It was just kind of pushed in there. There was money shoved in all kinds of places in there that we had to pull out. ( Id. at 395.) Staff found undeposited funds from as far back as September 2000 totaling $231,219.21. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 3, Find. 1(w); Exam'r Ex. E-31, at [3]; II R.R. at 386; see Exam'r Ex. E-44.) That amount included $107,942.51 in cash and $123,276.70 in checks. ( See Exam'r Ex. E-31, at [3].) Staff also found unreceipted loose cash totaling $1,367.00. (II R.R. at 387, 395-96.) They also found an unexplained cash shortage of $1,158.74. (Exam'r Ex. E-33, at 3, Find. 1(w); Exam'r Ex. E-31, at [4].) On February 16, 2001, the district attorney addressed a letter to Judge Rose. (IV C.R. No. 58, at 8, Find. 33; Exam'r Ex. E-23.) The district attorney wrote, This letter is to advise you that the Dallas County Commissioners Court has requested me to take whatever action is necessary to compel you to perform your statutory obligations to timely deposit State and County funds. (Exam'r Ex. E-23, at [1].) Concerning those duties, the district attorney noted, By a series of letters and memorandums directed to your attention, you have been advised of your duties with respect to the deposit and receipt of funds received by your office in your official capacity. ( Id. ) The district attorney noted concerning those duties, your office and the employees under your direction and control do not have discretion with respect to their duties. ( Id. ) The district attorney stated three requirements: 1. Receipt and deposit of all funds by the next business day or within seven (7) business days and in no event later than thirty (30) days from the date of receipt. See, Local Government Code 113.022. 2. Receipts should be processed and entered to the Justice of the Peace accounting system. .... Remittance of the funds to the county should be by scheduled courier to the County Treasurer. 3. Remit funds to other entities as required by law ( e.g., DISD, DART, etc.).... (There are many functions regarding the safeguarding of cash and monies held by public officials. The above functions are the mini[m]um required to maintain compliance with state law.) ( Id. at 2 (underlining and italics in orig.).) The district attorney warned that if Judge Rose did not comply within seven days, the district attorney would file a petition for writ of mandamus to compel Judge Rose to comply. ( Id. ) On February 16, 2001, the Commissioners Court filed a complaint against Judge Rose with the Commission. ( See Exam'r Ex. E-52.) The complaint alleged that Judge Rose is continually and repeatedly ignoring his obligation to deposit monies as required by Section 113.022, Local Government Code and Article 103.004 of the Code of Criminal Procedures [sic]. ( Id. ) The Commissioners Court stated that Judge Rose had not deposited funds with the county since December 8, 2000, and estimated that Judge Rose was holding between $300,000 and $400,000 in undeposited funds, including between $150,000 and $200,000 in cash. ( Id. ) The Commissioners Court also noted that between March and April 2000 Judge Rose had failed to process 7,400 cases. ( Id. )