If the watchdogs of the judiciary fail, it follows that the government also fails

On May 30, 2012 I file a complaint against Judge Olson, No. 12-148, for illegally closing the files on the complaint against CAI attorney Maxwell by a court appointed Receiver[1] (See Judicial misconduct complaint filed for sealing records in AZ case against HOA attorney).  The AZ Commission writes that it has no problem with Judge Olson’s sealing of the records.

 

ORDER

 

The complainant alleged that a superior court judge improperly sealed a case. The responsibility of the Commission on Judicial Conduct is to impartially determine if the judge engaged in conduct that violated the provisions of Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution or the Code of Judicial Conduct and, if so, to take appropriate disciplinary action. The purpose and authority of the commission is limited to this mission.

 After reviewing the information provided by the complainant, the commission found no evidence of ethical misconduct and concluded that the judge did not violate the Code in this case. The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the judge’s ruling. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rules 16(a) and 23.

 Dated: August 15, 2012.

FOR THE COMMISSION

 

Its first reaction to my complaint was to attack the messenger, asking how did I know about the case. (See AZ judicial conduct comm. on hidden HOA attorney case: who let the cat out of the bag?).

I am still trying to fathom the logic or rational that the judge did not violate Rule 123(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.  Rule 81 is the Code of Judicial Conduct that I referenced in my complaint.  Under Rule 81 there is at the very start, Rule 1.1, Compliance with the Law.   The act of sealing all the court record information by Judge Olson is prima facie evidence of a violation of Rule 123(d) (see Judicial misconduct complaint link above). 

How can the Commission say, with a straight face, “The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the judge’s ruling.”  Who then watches the judges?    Their brethren?  Given the black and white issue here, the Code becomes a joke!

The entire beginnings of Rule 81 under Preamble and Scope speak to maintaining the integrity of the court, the confidence of the public, and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.  Words, simply words that have no meaning at all!

What is most offensive to the legitimacy of the court, and to the legitimacy of the government, is that the Commission, the watchdog of the judiciary, took a hands-off “not me” position and did nothing.  If the judicial watchdogs fail, what then of the judiciary itself that watches the government?  It, too, most fail, and so too the government.


[1] DC Lot Owners v. Maxwell & Morgan, CV 2010-004684, Pinal County Superior Court, AZ.

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/if-the-watchdogs-of-the-judiciary-fail-it-follows-that-the-government-also-fails/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. […] details of the two incidents can be found at If the watchdogs of the judiciary fail, it follows that the government also fails, and The State of Arizona will not protect buyers of HOA homes! TwitterShareTwitterLike this:LikeBe […]

  2. “How can the Commission say, with a straight face, “The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the judge’s ruling.” Who then watches the judges?”

    The higher courts on this type of matter.

    • Yes, that’s what they want you to believe.

      In my contest of the OAH constitutionality law my intervenor motion and appeal to the judge that an error of law was made (and I had provided the court evidence) — no person of interest — the court clerk was told not to accept any further info and that which I had already sent was stricken.

      So here, once more, THEY wanted me to go through this BS again! I don’t have any standing in the Maxwell case and I would have to ask again, on very weak grounds, “Please Sir, may I get involved on behalf of the people?” which is what I pleaded in the complaint.

      How can they decide anything of meaning if it involves a violation of the law? The other BS is, and part of the Code, is to report wrong-doing by other judges. But not by the Commission. Does this maintain the integrity nof the court? But the Commission won’t get involved in a violation of law? WHAT!!!! Weze got rules!

      So, who watches the higher courts who are supposed to watch the decisions of the lower court, if only those who have a standing to get involved can bring an action? Sort of a catch-22, Gothcha!

      Maxwell continues on, laughing all the way. Don’t forget, they are wondering how I got the info and not subject to any order to seal the records.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s