Opinion ID: 836180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: veracity of respondent's testimony

Text: While Justice Markman appears to assert that whether or not the JTC had the authority to proceed, sanctions against respondent are appropriate given Justice Markman's conclusion that respondent lied under oath. Having reviewed the entire record closely, we do not agree with Justice Markman's conclusion that respondent lied under oath. [30] On the contrary, we agree with respondent's counsel that this is not a case of arrogance. Instead, it appears that respondent believed that he was still properly in his district and that there was no problem with living outside of the 1st division. At the time these proceedings occurred, respondent had seven residences. He owned homes in both the 1st and 2nd divisions of the 63rd District Court. He rented a home in the 1st division, and he also owned homes in Whitefish Lake, Michigan; Ludington, Michigan; North Carolina; and Florida. Respondent testified that he renovates houses as a hobby, and that from 2000 to 2005, he often spent the night at one of the two houses he was renovating in the 2nd division when he was too tired to drive back to his 1st division residence. Thus, during this five-year period, respondent testified that he went back and forth between the houses as necessary for the remodeling projects. Certainly he cannot be expected to have to subsequently provide facts establishing that he was residing in one house or two houses after so much time had passed and without being prompted by any particular reason to so do. Again, respondent's actions in this regard support his perception that it didn't matter whether he spent the night at the 1st division house or the 2nd division house, because he was still residing in the 63rd District. Respondent admitted that from 2005 on, he resided in the 2nd division home, and the record reflects that he did nothing to hide this fact. Indeed, respondent's name, address, and telephone number for the 2nd division home were listed in the local phone book. Specifically during a meeting in approximately late March 2006 between respondent, the SCA and the JTC executive director, the SCA said to respondent, You're not living in your district. In response, respondent said I am too. Importantly, we note that even though respondent was first accused of vacating his judicial office in early 2006, it appears that no assertion was made again until respondent was ambushed on January 16, 2008. Again, respondent did not try to deny the fact that he was living in the 2nd division at that time, because he thought he could live in that division as long as he was not running for re-election. Consequently, we do not conclude that respondent lied under oath. At times he seemed confused and could not remember a series of different telephone numbers (until he later refreshed his recollection), specific dates and times, and events that occurred nearly 10 years before he testified. In fairness, we cannot conclude that respondent intentionally lied under oath.