A.
Findings Of Fact
The Commission finds that the legal evidence presented by the
Special Prosecutor at the hearing clearly and convincingly established each
of the following facts.
1. That Respondent was, at all times applicable to the
allegations contained in the Formal Statement of Charges, a pro tempore
Justice of the Peace for the Henderson Township, located in the County of
Clark, State of Nevada; and also a pro tempore Municipal Court Judge for the
City of Henderson Municipal Court. Therefore, the Respondent was a judicial
officer whose conduct was subject to the provisions of the Nevada Code of
Judicial Conduct (hereinafter the “Code”).
2. The factual allegations contained in Case Number 0401-1016,
Counts 1 through 5, regarding the Respondent’s conduct pertaining to the
taking of money from Lydia Harrison and her son, Mark Harrison, to
effectuate an extralegal extraction of a minor, Jessica Harrison, from
Mexico, have been established by the required standard of proof, to wit,
clear and convincing evidence. The Commission expressly finds that the
Respondent accepted money while cloaked in judicial robes and while on
judicial premises; and that he took money and kept it without providing the
“service” of effectuating the aforesaid extralegal extraction of Jessica
Harrison in order to return her to her rightful and legal custodian, her
father Mark Harrison. The Commission expressly finds that the Respondent’s
conduct in doing so was both willful and fraudulent.
3. The factual allegations contained in Case Number 0401-1016,
Counts 6 through 22, regarding the Respondent’s sitting and being paid as a
Henderson Municipal Court judge while his license to practice law was
suspended due to non-payment of bar dues, have been established by the
required standard of proof, to wit, clear and convincing evidence. The
Commission expressly finds that the Respondent’s conduct in doing so was
willful.
4. The factual allegations contained in Case Number 0401-1016,
Count 23, regarding the Respondent’s sitting and being paid as a Henderson
Justice Court judge while his license to practice law was suspended due to
the non-payment of bar dues, have been established by the required standard
of proof, to wit, clear and convincing evidence. The Commission expressly
finds that the Respondent’s conduct in doing so was willful.
5. The factual allegations contained in Case Number 0401-1016,
Counts 24 through 56, regarding the Respondent’s sitting and being paid as a
Henderson Municipal Court judge while his license to practice law was in
inactive status, have been established by the required standard of proof, to
wit, clear and convincing evidence. The Commission expressly finds that the
Respondent’s conduct in doing so was willful.
6. The factual allegations contained in Case Number 0402-1016,
regarding the
Respondent’s accrual of more than $8000.00 in parking tickets issued by the
City of Las
Vegas, and his non-payment of most of the amount due despite earnings as a
pro tempore justice
court and municipal court judge, and his ongoing failure to satisfy a
default judgment entered
against him for said parking tickets, have been established by the required
standard of proof, to
wit, clear and convincing evidence. The Commission expressly finds that the
Respondent’s
conduct in doing so was willful.
B.
Conclusions of Law
The
Commission unanimously concludes that the evidence suffices to prove the
Formal Statement of Charges, as follows:
As to
Case
0401-1016: A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B and
4A(2) of the Code occurred regarding Charge 1 contained in the Formal
Statement of Charges.
A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B and 4A(2) of the Code occurred
regarding Count 2 contained in the Formal Statement of Charges.
A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2, 2A and 2B of the Code occurred regarding
Count 3 contained in the Formal Statement of Charges.
A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B and 4A(2) of the Code occurred
regarding Count 4 contained in the Formal Statement of Charges.
A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B and 4A(2) of the Code occurred
regarding Count 5 in the Formal Statement of Charges.
A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2 and 2A of the Code occurred regarding Counts
6 through 22 in the Formal Statement of Charges.
A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2 and 2A of
the Code occurred regarding
Count 23 in the Formal Statement of Charges.
A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 2 and 2A of the Code occurred regarding Counts
24 through 56 in the Formal Statement of Charges.
As To
Case
0402-1016 : A violation of Canons 1, 1A, 1B and 4A of the
Code occurred regarding the assertions in Paragraphs 1 through 20 in the
Formal Statement of Charges.
C.
Imposition of Discipline
With regard to Cases 0401-1016 and 0402-1016, for which the
Commission found multiple violations of the Code, the Commission concludes
that the appropriate discipline imposed under Commission Interim Rule 28 as
to said charges shall be as follows:
By unanimous vote of the Commission, pursuant to Subsections
5(a) and (b) of Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution of the State of
Nevada, NRS 1.4653 (2), and Commission Interim Rule 28, the Respondent
shall: (1) Be removed from judicial office and permanently barred from
serving as an elected or appointed judicial officer in Nevada; (2) Pay
within six months of entry of this order a fine of $5000.00 in each case,
for a total of $10,000.00, to the Clark County Law Library; and (3) Be
publicly censured.
Additionally, the Commission hereby directs the Executive
Director of the Commission to forthwith provide a copy of the transcript of
these proceedings to the District Attorney of Clark County and to the State
Bar of Nevada, for consideration of possible criminal charges and/or
regulatory action, as each agency deems appropriate.
Critically, as demonstrated by the testimony of Lydia Harrison,
Jessica Harrison’s grandmother, the Respondent hatched a scheme whereby he
proposed to accept and did accept money from Lydia and her son to pay to a
third party in Mexico to retrieve Jessica Harrison from her mother’s
physical custody by extralegal means. That is to say, the Respondent,
while practicing as a licensed attorney and sitting as a pro tem judge in
two courts, agreed to retrieve Jessica without resort to the legal process
and through the process of bribing officials or others to effectuate
Jessica’s return to the United States from Mexico, where she had been
inappropriately held by her mother. It is bad enough that the Respondent
initially proposed that the Harrisons pay him money that he, in turn,
would supposedly forward to his so-called contacts in Mexico. This
situation was made all the worse when the Respondent initiated the contacts
with the Harrisons by proposing that they deliver the money to him at
court. He then accepted at least some of the money while attending to
official court duties, on court premises, and while robed in a majestic
purple robe he had procured for himself. Moreover, the plan yielded no
result except to divest the Harrisons of their money, a fact which at least
suggests the Respondent may have personally benefitted in a monetary sense,
much to the substantial financial and emotional detriment of the Harrisons,
since there is no proof in the record that the Respondent tendered the money
to his contacts.
Suffice it to say that the Respondent’s conduct with regard to
the Harrisons, without regard to anything else, warrants the imposition of
the most severe disciplinary measure available to the Commission. Since he
did what he did while he was serving as a judicial officer, the Respondent’s
conduct would expose the judicial branch to being held in disrepute if his
behavior were to go unchecked. In the exercise of its discretion, at an
earlier point in this case, the Commission issued a temporary order of
removal. Now, having heard the evidence against the Respondent, the
Commission would be remiss if it did anything less than permanently remove
him from judicial office and bar him from ever holding judicial office in
Nevada because his conduct involved fraudulent behavior.
Additionally, it is clear to the Commission that the Respondent
disrespected the dictates of Nevada law when he failed to maintain proper
status with the State Bar of Nevada by paying his bar dues in a timely
fashion. His conduct lasted for a prolonged period of time and was
accompanied by a series of compensated appearances as a pro tem judge during
the period of lapse. Then, the inappropriate conduct repeated itself in a
slightly different form when the Respondent chose to allow his license to be
placed in inactive status again, and then proceeded to sit as a pro tem
judge, an act that statutorily requires a current, active law license for an
attorney to sit in one of the courts.
It is equally clear that the Respondent’s failure to make even a
good faith effort to resolve the parking ticket dispute in a timely fashion
also demonstrated his disrespect for the law. While the sheer number of
tickets and the fines assessed for them were truly remarkable, the
Respondent’s behavior was particularly egregious in that he demonstrated
that he is a scofflaw. He had more than ample opportunity to resolve the
dispute before he became a judge. Then, he accepted the opportunity and
accompanying financial benefit of sitting as a judge in another
jurisdiction after he accrued the tickets, and yet he failed to pay anything
but a small portion of what he owed and ultimately forced the City of Las
Vegas to sue him and to obtain a judgment he has wholly ignored.
D. Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing,
found below, shall constitute notice of entry of this document pursuant to
Commission Interim Rule 34, and the clerk shall promptly serve it on the
Respondent and the Special Prosecutor.
NOTICE is hereby tendered to the Special Prosecutor and the
Respondent that pursuant to NRAP 3D, an appeal may be taken by filing a
notice of appeal with the clerk of the Commission and serving such notice
on the prosecuting counsel within fifteen (15) days of service of this
document by the clerk of the Commission.
