Quantcast

WEST VIRGINIA RECORD

Sunday, November 17, 2024

Family court judge chastises Judicial Disciplinary Counsel, says they abuse power

State Supreme Court
Wvschero

CHARLESTON – A member of the state Judicial Hearing Board has asked the state Supreme Court to investigate the conduct of Judicial Disciplinary Counsel.

“I believe it is evident that the JDC does not believe they are answerable to anyone for their actions, their conduct or their practices, Glen Stotler wrote in a March 25 letter obtained by The West Virginia Record to state Supreme Court Chief Justice Evan Jenkins. “I truly hope the Supreme Court takes this matter seriously and directs that an immediate investigation be conducted.

“I believe the conduct of the JDC attorneys is of such nature to warrant their termination or at the least a serious reprimand.”


Stotler

Stotler is a family court judge in the 23rd Family Court Circuit that includes Hampshire, Mineral and Morgan counties. He is the Family Court member of the JHB, having been appointed to the position by the Supreme Court in February 2020. He was appointed to the bench in 2011.

Others copied on Stotler's letter are the other four state Supreme Court justices, state Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Trump, House Judiciary Chairman Moore Capito, Supreme Court Administrative Director Joseph Armstrong, Deputy Administrative Director Keith Hoover, Director Lisa Tackett and Deanna Rock, president of the Family Court Judicial Association.

“During my tenure on the board, there have only been a few cases that have made it to the JHB, most recently being the case of Family Court Judge Louise Goldston,” Stotler writes, adding that the admonishment of Family Court Judge Eric Shuck also is the basis for his concerns.

In the Goldston case, the JHB recommended the judge be censured and fined following an incident when she stopped a court hearing and ordered the parties to meet at the home of a Raleigh County man involved in a post-divorce contempt proceeding.

The JDC brief said a family court judge has no authority to conduct home views and that Goldston violated Gibson’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure as well as denied his due process and equal protection under the law. It also said Goldston didn’t follow the appropriate mechanism for contempt proceedings.

The JHB filed its recommendation, but the state Supreme Court still has the final decision. The justices haven’t issued their ruling in the matter yet. The Shuck admonishment, filed last year, is cited in the Goldston discipline.

“It is my observation that the conduct and practices of the JDC in both of these cases is questionable and concerning,” Stotler writes. “It appears evident that the JDC is abusing its power and authority in a way that they deceive and intimidate judges into entering into agreements with the threat if they fail to do so, the judges will be subject to far more severe penalties and consequences.”

Both the state Supreme Court and the JDC declined comment on that matter citing the pending Goldston disciplinary matter.

Stotler says the JDC requests judges to come to their office under the disguise of just being a friendly interview. Once there, he says the judges are sworn in and interrogated. If the judge asks if he or she needs an attorney present, the JDC says it isn’t necessary.

“The judges have no idea of what they are being subjected to and therefore are given no opportunity to be prepared to address the issues and interrogation to which they are subjected,” Stotler writes. “Additionally, it is evident during the interrogation that the JDC actually misrepresents the law in order to coerce judges to enter into agreements.”

He says the JDC also misstates facts to achieve their goal.

“In the Goldston case the JDC represented and stated that after Judge Goldston conducted a judicial view, which was the main issue in her case, she never took any further action,” Stotler writes. “It became clear at Judge Goldston’s hearing … that after she conducted the judicial view she returned to her courtroom and had a full hearing as to what occurred during the view. The JDC had full knowledge of this information and yet failed to acknowledge this fact.”

When he took part in the Goldston hearing, Stotler says he reviewed all of the documents provided to him. He said he believed Goldston had statutory and inherent authority to do what she did.

“During the hearing, I attempted to question the JDC about the basis of their complaint and agreement, and objected to me asking any questions,” Stotler wrote. “I find it disturbing that for some reason the JDC does not apparently believe anyone, and especially a member of the JHB, has the right to question their actions.

“It was apparent to me that the JDC was of the opinion that we should just “rubber stamp” what they had done. I find the conduct of the JDC during this hearing to be questionable and unacceptable.”

Stotler says the JDC filed a motion to have him disqualified from participating in the Goldston decision.

“Once again, it appears to me the JDC believes they are above and beyond being questioned about their actions by anyone,” Stotler writes. “The mere fact that the parties have entered into an agreement in this matter in no way compels the JHB to accept their recommendation without question. It is my understanding that the JHB has the authority to accept, reject and modify any agreement the JIC would recommend to the Judicial Hearing Board.”

Last month, the husband in the underlying Goldston issue filed a federal lawsuit against the judge. His attorney also took issue Stotler’s dissent in the JHB case against Goldston.

“The Honorable Glen Stotler, a sitting West Virginia Family Court judge who ‘dissents because in his opinion there was no clear and convincing evidence that [his fellow Family Court Judge] violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct,’” attorney John Bryan wrote on his website. “Mind you, the undisputed allegations included the admission that Judge Goldston violated ‘Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.4(A), 2.4(B), and 2.5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct’ for, among other things, threatening to put the homeowner in jail if he refused to allow her (along with his ex-wife, her lawyer, boyfriend, and two cops) inside his home to search.”

More News