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