Cheating Judge Clancy Jayne

Well, once again our blogger documents yet another case of cheating judges. In this case, Judge Clancy Jayne had the balls to engage in ex parte communication with a litigant using his own persona email!

Next to a bribe, ex parte communication is about the worst thing a judge can do.(The distinction is like the difference between being a prostitute and a slut. The first gets paid for what they do. The second does it for fun. A distinction without a difference.)

You can click on the image to the right for a larger picture or you can go read the Commission's paperwork for Complaint 11-159 yourself.

As usual, the Commission, composed mostly of judges, issued a useless Order, "urging" Judge Clancy Jayne to read the rules. (When will the Legislature start impeaching cheating judges?)

Here's the text:

After reviewing the allegations and the response filed by Judge Jayne, the Commission finds that the justice of the peace in this case violated the code of judicial conduct, warranting an informal sanction.

An anonymous complainant alleged that Judge Jayne engaged in improper ex parte communications with the defendant, and improperly handled the matter. In particular, the complainant believed that the judge treated the defendant differently because of a personal or political relationship. The commission determined that Judge Jayne engaged in several, improper ex parte communications that clearly violated the limitations in Rule 2.9 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. Notably, the judge believed that his communications pertained only to scheduling matters, but nonetheless failed to disclose them as it is required in Rule 2.9(A)(1)(b). The Commission was particularly concerned with the personal nature of the communications, including the fact that at least one communication occurred to the use of the judges private e-mail address.

Accordingly, the judges here by reprimanded for his conduct pursuant to rule 17 (a), and the record in this case, consisting of the complaint, the judges response in this order shall be made public as our car fired by Rule 9(a). Through this order, the commission urges Judge Jayne to closely review the requirements and prohibitions found in rule 2.9.

We have to report all this to you because the Commission's Custom search page for judicial complaints seems permanently broken. (Going on a couple years now. Judges hate it and judges run the Commission.)

Barfing Breakfast with the Judge (Clancy Jayne)

So, if you read our previous post, you leaned that somehow, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Justice of the Peace Clancy Jayne for his unethical political ad.

Click on the image to the right for a larger image of the original. It's Case No. 11-155.  Here's the text.

The Commission received information about Justice of the Peace Clancy Jayne's activities and opened its own investigation. The investigation raised three areas of concern, which resulted in three distinct resolutions. The first and second areas, as described below, resulted in dismissals with private comments. Because of those areas are so closely intertwined with the third area, which resulted in a public sanction, the commission finds pursuant to commission Rule 9(c) that the disclosure of otherwise confidential information in this order is necessary to protect the administration of justice. The private comments to Judge Jayne will, however, remain confidential pursuant to commission Rule 9(a).

First, the judges "Breakfast with the Judge" series raised concerns pursuant to Rules 1.2, 3.1(C) and 4.2(A)(3) of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission determined that these concerns should be addressed through a private, strongly worded warning letter and thus dismissed the concerns pursuant to Rule 16(b).

Second, the judges personal website includes a list of "local resources" that references only one political party, potentially suggesting Judge Jayne may be subject to political influence. Further, the web site includes a reference to the judges private financial consulting work, which is a potential violation of Rule 1.3. The commission determined that these concerns should be addressed to a private advisory comment and thus dismissed the concerns pursuant to Rule 16(b).

Third, Judge Jayne's personal website contains an advertisement for his wedding services, which is a clear and direct violation of Rule 3.16(C). Because the judge received an advisory letter when he previously included a wedding servers advertisement on his website, the Commission determined that this clear violation warranted a public reprimand.

Accordingly, the judges here by reprimanded for his conduct pursuant to Rule 17(a), and the record in this case, consisting of the judge's response in this order, shall be made public as required by Rule (a). While the record would normally include the complaint, no complaint was filed in this none is publicly available.

 We have to report all this to you because the Commission's Custom search page for judicial complaints seems permanently broken. (Going on a couple years now. Judges hate it and judges run the Commission.)

Again, you can read the whole thing from the Commission's website for complaint 11-115 (2011 listing).