Judge: "Who is she to question my integrity?"

Some judges feel free to violate judicial ethics, blatantly and in full view of fellow citizens, because they believe that those citizens will be ignored by the Judicial Commission and government officials.

And, I suspect, for the most part, those judges are right.

When those citizens are court personnel, the judge figures that they're afraid they'll lose their jobs if they talk. And, of course, they probably will lose their jobs. We'd have a better system if we actually enforced whistle-blower protections.

Previously, Judge Frances Kaiser served as Kerr County Sheriff.












City reviews ethics claims against municipal judge
September 11, 2014
By Jessica Hawley-Jerome
Bandera Bulletin

Citing a hostile work environment and unethical practices, the City of Bandera municipal court clerk has filed a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and tendered her resignation.

“The hostile environment within the court offices was created due to the lack of ethical character and the constant chaos and divided factions affected by fear-inducing verbiage and actions by Judge [Frances] Kaiser,” Laura Phipps wrote in her Sept. 8 letter of resignation.

Shortly after she began her employment in May, Phipps said she witnessed numerous questionable activities, including bypassing judicial protocol and allegedly tampering with a jury pool. She documented most of what she said she saw, primarily for her own protection. Phipps said Kaiser discussed ongoing and pending cases with friends and colleagues, and was not objective, making judgments about defendants before their hearings.

“With respect to the position of Judge Kaiser…all defendants and all case files have not been treated impartially or fairly,” Phipps said. “The fundamental elements of a municipal court are that the judge be impartial, ensure that justice is done, and oversee the general administration of the court… Intrinsic to all sections of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.”

Phipps said she confided her concerns to City Marshal Charlie Hicks, who then approached City Administrator Lamar Schulz and a City Council member. Phipps told Schulz and Mayor Don Clark about her observations and said that Kaiser had created an oppressive work environment in which she berated other city employees.

Phipps said Kaiser submitted her letter of resignation on Wednesday, Aug. 20, however it was not accepted and she was asked to return to work the next week. Schulz denied that claim, stating Kaiser never submitted anything.

“Frances never has never submitted a letter of resignation,” Schulz told the Bulletin, adding Phipps’ complaints are under review. “Right now we are doing due diligence on our side. The allegations are not totally substantiated at this point.”

Schulz said Phipps provided him with some information and copies of certain documents, and they are being reviewed...

Phipps was granted unpaid administrative leave on Aug. 28; her request for paid administrative leave or transfer to another department was denied. In an email to Schulz dated Sept. 4, Phipps asked if City Council members were aware of her complaint and her request for paid administrative leave, and whether there would be a council review. She said has not received a response.

“I refuse to accept the opportunity to return to a hostile work environment and refuse to compromise my moral or ethical values,” Phipps said. “The city population should be outraged at the lack of response by the city administration to these activities.”

Kaiser said she is shocked by the allegations made against her and vehemently denies any wrongdoing. She said she never discussed city personnel with Phipps nor did she violate the Judicial Code of Conduct.

“I’m absolutely astonished and very alarmed,” Kaiser told the Bulletin. “I never had any inkling that [Phipps] was unhappy or there was a problem. I trusted her.”

[Maura Larkins' comment: The judge apparently trusted the clerk to keep quiet about wrongdoing.]

Kaiser said Phipps’ recount of alleged jury pool tampering was misguided. Phipps said Kaiser comprised a selection of potential jurors from a list of city residents, then asked her to shred the original list once entered into the system. Kaiser said it was true that she oversaw the list, but she said she did not choose the final jurors.

“I don’t see anything wrong with it,” Kaiser said, adding protocol in a small-town municipal court is different from county or district court. “My integrity would be very much compromised if that happened…who is she to question my integrity?”...

Read more here.

Brouhaha in Bandera's Municipal Court
By Judith Pannebaker
BCC Editor
2014-09-11

...According to Kaiser, the dispute occurred when she and Phipps were selecting a potential jury pool for an upcoming trial. After receiving a list of names from the city utility department, Kaiser said she randomly highlighted those city residents who would receive jury summonses. "I highlighted the names randomly and methodically. I didn't know anyone living in the city," Kaiser insisted. "However, Ms. Phipps called it jury tampering."

This precipitated the meeting and Phipps' subsequent resignation...

[Maura Larkins' comment: Why didn't the judge simply choose the first names on the list, or every other name? It is simply not acceptable for her to specifically choose names, and then claim that she chose them randomly.]

Don Siegelman case: political prosecution by Bush justice department?

Questions Linger About Siegelman Prosecution
by Kathy Lohr
National Public Radio
All Things Considered
Dec. 13, 2008

A federal appeals court heard arguments this week in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted of corruption and bribery and served nine months in prison. But the appeals court ordered his release earlier this year after it found substantial questions with his case. Siegelman argues that the prosecution was a politically motivated attack, and Congress is looking into the case.

The Economist says low pay and elections are harming our judiciary

Judges behaving badly
Jun 28th 2007
From The Economist

Low pay and partisan elections are threatening judicial integrity

A $54m lawsuit over a pair of pinstriped trousers that went missing from a Washington, DC, cleaners was thrown out by a judge this week. It had attracted worldwide ridicule. The fact that the case was brought, not by a random loony, but by a former judge has added to the sense that something is wrong not just with America's litigation laws, but with the kind of men and women Americans choose to sit in judgment over them.

A whole series of judicial misdemeanours, ranging from the titillating to the outrageous, has emerged over the past year. Take the Florida state judge, John Sloop, who was ousted after complaints about his “rude and abusive” behaviour. This included an order to strip-search and jail 11 defendants for arriving late in traffic court after being misdirected. Or the Californian judge, José Velasquez, sacked in April for a plethora of misconduct, including extending the sentences of defendants who dared question his rulings.


Then there was the Albany city judge, William Carter, in New York, censored for his “utterly inexcusable” conduct after jumping down from the bench during a trial, shedding his robes and apparently challenging a defendant to a fist-fight. Another time, he suggested that the police “thump the shit out” of an allegedly disrespectful defendant. Mr Carter wasn't carrying a gun; many judges now do. In Florida, Charles Greene, chief criminal judge in Broward County, had to step down after describing a trial for attempted murder involving minority defendants and witnesses as “NHI” (No Humans Involved). Then there are the sexual peccadilloes. In Colorado, a (male) judge resigned after admitting having sex with a (female) prosecutor in his chambers. In California, a former judge was jailed for 27 months for downloading child pornography. And in Oklahoma Donald Thompson, a judge for more than 20 years, was jailed for four years for indecent exposure and using a “penis pump” to masturbate during trials.

More serious are the cases of corruption. On June 5th Gerald Garson, a former judge in Brooklyn, New York, was jailed for taking bribes to rig divorce cases. Another judge was convicted of accepting money to refer clients to a particular lawyer. Rumours of buying and selling of judgeships in the district abound. At one time, one in ten Brooklyn judges were said to be under investigation for sleaze.

“To distrust the judiciary,” said Honoré de Balzac, “marks the beginning of the end of society.” In Britain, judges are one of the most respected groups. But in America they tend to be held in low esteem, particularly at state level. For this many people blame low pay and the fact that judges are elected. In 39 states, some or all judges are elected for fixed terms. Federal judges, usually held in much higher esteem, are appointed on merit for life—as in Britain.

Most states allow judicial candidates to raise campaign funds. Huge sums are often involved, leading to inevitable suspicions that, once on the bench, judges will pass judgments that favour their benefactors. In 2004 the two candidates in one Illinois district (with a population of just 1.3m) raised a staggering $9.4m between them. Some of the states with the highest levels of campaign spending—Texas, Louisiana and Alabama—are also those whose judges are most criticised.

In the past, judicial candidates were banned from discussing controversial legal or political issues on the campaign trail. But in 2002 the Supreme Court ruled such bans to be unconstitutional, leading candidates to advertise freely their views on abortion and suchlike. Personal attacks have also become more common. Indeed, Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court justice, fears that judicial elections have turned into “political prize-fights, where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution.”

The meagre salaries of judges, whether at state or federal level, do not help raise standards either. Federal judges have not had a real pay rise for 17 years; a district court judge earns $165,000 a year, about the same as a first-year associate in a top law firm. John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, earns just $212,000—half the salary of England's top judge and one-fifth of the average income of a partner in the majority of America's 100 top-grossing law firms. Around 40 judges have left the federal bench over the past five years.

In his annual report to Congress in January, Mr Roberts said that the issue of judges' pay had reached “the level of a constitutional crisis”. It was threatening the judiciary's strength and independence. In February, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, promised legislation to fix it within the current session. The judges are still waiting. Meanwhile, state judges in New York are preparing to sue the state for their first pay rise since 1999. The battle is joined.