MORGANTOWN – West Virginia’s Family Court Judicial Association has drafted a resolution asking the state Supreme Court to fire the state’s Chief Judicial Disciplinary Counsel and her deputy.
Earlier this month, members of the association voted during its Spring 2021 meeting this week in Morgantown to request the termination of Teresa Tarr and Brian Lanham.
On May 28, a copy of the two-page resolution was obtained by The West Virginia Record.
Tarr
“The JDC (Judicial Disciplinary Counsel) has repeatedly committed prosecutorial misconduct in such instances as, but not limited to, misstating the law to judicial officers and tribunals; bringing ethics charges against judicial officials when no canon violation nor infraction of the law has occurred; employing threatening, coercive and bullying tactics toward judicial officers; and using unauthorized and unprofessional means to communicate alleged infractions to a judicial officer; …
“The JDC has been dishonest to a tribunal on the following occasion, but not limited to the following incidents; withholding evidence from the Judicial Hearing Board on January 15, 2021.”
The resolution also says the JDC has shown “blatant disrespect” for the Family Court judiciary on multiple occasions, including using “condescending language and actions toward judicial officials and responding to judicial inquiries in a rude and unprofessional manner.”
“The JDC has made false statements regarding judicial officers without any supporting evidence, implying that judicial officers are involved in unethical conspiracy-type actions,” the resolution continues. “The JDC has consistently made a misuse of authority not granted by code or rule.”
The resolution concludes by saying Tarr and Lanham “have consistently engaged in a pattern and practice of acts and omissions not contemplated by nor permitted through the proper and lawful application of the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.”
“Be it resolved that a majority of the members of the Family Judicial Association, present and voting at its regular business meeting in Morgantown, West Virginia, on May 13, 2021, request that the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and the Judicial Investigation Commission because of the excesses, offenses and unauthorized practices of Teresa Tarr and Brian Lanham, Judicial Disciplinary Counsel, according and forthwith remove and terminate the employment f Teresa Tarr and Brian Lanham as Judicial Disciplinary Counsel.”
None of the members would speak on the record regarding the vote earlier this month right after the annual meeting, but all of them confirmed the vote did occur. One said the vote included almost 40 members and that “well more than half, maybe two-thirds” of the members voted to request Tarr’s termination.
Outgoing Association President Deanna Rock from Mineral County declined comment when asked about the meeting and the vote. Incoming President Brian Cromley from Jackson County did not return numerous calls seeking comment.
On June 1, state Supreme Court Clerk Eydie Nash Gaiser's office confirmed receipt of the resolution. The Supreme Court declined further comment. And, Tarr said she also had no comment on the resolution.
Last month, a family court judge who is a member of the state Judicial Hearing Board 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 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 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 Rock.
“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.”
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.”
Also earlier this year, 24th Circuit Family Court Judge Sally G. Jackson was publicly admonished for social media postings and comments she made regarding the COVID-19 vaccine and the January siege of the U.S. Capitol.
Jackson received the admonishment February 24 from the state Judicial Investigation Commission. The 24th Circuit Family Court includes Berkeley and Jefferson counties.
According to the six-page admonishment, Jackson posted a story on Facebook about Wisconsin pharmacist Steven Brandenburg being arrested for allegedly destroying multiple doses of the COVID-19 vaccine by leaving them out overnight at room temperature. She also made negative comments related to the alleged actions of the pharmacist.
The Judicial Disciplinary Counsel contacted Jackson and told the comments violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Jackson agreed to take the comments down. JDC also reminded Jackson it wasn’t the first time she had been asked to take down a Facebook post because it violated the code.
“Despite being warned, respondent repeatedly posted stories and/or inappropriate comments about the siege at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., on her Facebook page from January 6, 2021, through January 11, 2021,” the filing states. “They included stories and negative statements about former Wayne County House of Delegates member Derrick Evans who allegedly participated in the siege and was the subject of federal criminal charges.”
In a January 15 response letter to the JDC, Jackson said she deactivated her Facebook account on January 11, which was the same day the complaint against her was opened.
“I am embarrassed by my actions and sincerely apologize,” Jackson wrote. “I must point out in my defense that my Facebook page was not accessible to the public but was viewable only by my friends and family. I was expressing my feelings to friends, not the general public.
“My second point is that nothing on my page identified me as a judge, although of course, my friends know that. You have been more than patient with me, and I regret any inconvenience this has caused you. I have no plans to reactivate my Facebook account until I retire …”
In an 8-0 vote, the JDC found probable cause exists to find Jackson violated the following rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct: compliance with the law, confidence in the judiciary, avoiding abuse of the prestige of judicial office, judicial statements on pending and impending cases as well as extrajudicial activities in general.
The JDC said further formal discipline wasn’t necessary as Jackson had no prior disciplinary actions, but it said the actions were serious enough to warrant a public admonishment.
“The concept of a ‘public comment’ applies to Facebook whether a judicial officer opens his or her personal page only to family and friends or to the public at large,” the admonishment states. “At all times when engaged on social media, judges should remember the immortal words of industrialist Henry Ford that ‘under pressure, the mouth speaks when the brain is disengaged and sometimes unwittingly, the gearshift is in reverse when it should be in neutral.’
“Judges can never go wrong when they limit their Facebook posts to comments about family, pets, sports or the weather. In all other respects, a judge must maintain his/her impartiality particularly when commenting about issues that may come before the court.”