In this state there is something called CJC the Cannons of Judicial Conduct. The agency charged with overseeing that these Cannons are followed is the Judicial Commission. If you feel that a Judge has violated the Cannons you can file a complaint with the JC.
If you are unsure if your rights have been violated by a Judge or if they are acting in the ways set forth by the Judicial Commission please read the following cases, but first let me set forth the incidents that fall in my case:
1) On or about 4/16/2011 at a foster care hearing for my animals, the sitting Judge proclaimed in an open court that "You abused your animals so I think the City of Everett Animal Shelter knows what is better for them than you." When I asked him if he had already convicted me he refused to answer me.
1A) These are considered extra judicial comments & he is not allowed to make them, they show his bias in my case & he should've IMMEDIATELY recused himself from my case as soon as those words came out of his mouth.
2) During a Motion to represent myself Pro Se, the sitting Judge said "The Supreme Court seems to think you have the right to defend yourself, we here in Everett don't think so"
2A) The Judge should refrain from making any comments that undermine the confidence in the Judicial system as a whole
3) During a Discovery Hearing the Judge made this statement: "I thought all of the lab results say that all of the animals were in horrible condition"
3A) Not significant in
itself, but the hearing was for the discovery of the lab results
themselves showing that he was having Ex Parte Communication with the
prosecutor, because we don't even have the lab results. It also shows bias in that the Judge has a pre-formed opinion about the health safety & welfare of the animals
4) The Judge that was sitting on my Superior Court case failed to inform me of my 5th amendment rights & was incompetent at the very least. She had no idea about the case & did not object to the statements the City attorney made in violation of special rules of a Prosecutor 3.8
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CJC)
PREAMBLE
[1] An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the
principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the
law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.
[2] Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their
professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence impartiality, integrity, and competence.
[3] The Washington State Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for the ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates. It is not intended as an exhaustive guide. The Code is intended, however, to provide guidance and assist judges in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct, and to provide a basis for regulating their conduct through the Commission on Judicial Conduct. [Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CJC)
SCOPE
[2] The Canons state overarching principles of judicial ethics that all judges must observe. They provide important guidance in interpreting the Rules. A judge may be disciplined only for violating a Rule.
[4] Second, the Comments identify aspirational goals for judges. To implement fully the principles of this Code as articulated in the Canons, judges should strive to exceed the standards of conduct established by the Rules, holding themselves to the highest ethical standards and seeking to achieve those aspirational goals, thereby enhancing the dignity of the judicial office.
[5] The Rules of the Washington State Code of Judicial Conduct are rules of reason that should be applied consistent with constitutional
requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law, and with due regard for all relevant circumstances. The Rules should not be interpreted to impinge upon the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.
[6] Although the black letter of the Rules is binding and enforceable, it is not contemplated that every transgression will result in the imposition of discipline. It is recognized, for example, that it would be unrealistic to sanction judges for minor traffic or civil infractions. Whether discipline should be imposed should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the Rules. The relevant factors for consideration should include the seriousness of the transgression, the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the transgression, including the willfulness or knowledge of the impropriety of the action, the extent of any pattern of improper activity, whether there have been previous violations, and the effect of the improper activity upon the judicial system or others.
"Impartial," "impartiality," and "impartially" mean absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before
a judge. See Canons 1, 2, and 4, and Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, 4.1, and 4.2.
"Impropriety" includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or provisions of this Code, and conduct that undermines a judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality. See Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.
"Integrity" means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. See Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.
"Invidious discrimination" is a classification which is arbitrary, irrational, and not reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. Differing treatment of individuals based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, or other classification protected by law, are situations where invidious discrimination may exist. See Rules 3.1 and 3.6.
"Knowingly," "knowledge," "known," and "knows" mean actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. See Rules 2.11, 2.13, 2.15, 2.16, 3.6, and 4.1.
"Pending matter" is a matter that has commenced. A matter continues to be pending through any appellate process until final disposition. See Rules 2.9, 2.10, 3.13, and 4.1. [Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
RULE 1.1
Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
COMMENT See Scope [6].
RULE 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.*
COMMENT
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
[3] Conduct that compromises the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
CANON 2
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.*
COMMENT
[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.
[3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.
[4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.
RULE 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.
COMMENT
[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.
[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.
[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status,
socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
RULE 2.6
Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.*
(B) Consistent with controlling court rules, a judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.
COMMENT
[1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be
protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
[2] The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of disputes, but should be careful that efforts to further settlement do not undermine any party's right to be heard according to law. The judge should keep in mind the effect that the judge's participation in settlement discussions may have, not only on the judge's own views of the case, but also on the perceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains with the judge after settlement efforts are unsuccessful. Among the factors that a judge should consider when deciding upon an appropriate settlement practice for a case are (1) whether the parties have requested or voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge in settlement discussions, (2) whether the parties and their counsel are relatively sophisticated in legal matters, (3) whether the case will be tried by the judge or a jury, (4) whether the parties participate with their counsel in settlement discussions, (5) whether any parties are unrepresented by counsel, and (6) whether the matter is civil or criminal.
RULE 2.7
Responsibility to Decide
A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification or recusal is required by RULE 2.11 or other law.*
COMMENT
[1] Judges must be available to decide the matters that come before the court. Although there are times when disqualification is necessary to protect the rights of litigants and preserve public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, judges must be available to decide matters that come before the courts. Unwarranted disqualification may bring public disfavor to the court and to the judge personally. The dignity of the court, the judge's respect for fulfillment of judicial duties, and a proper concern for the burdens that may be imposed upon the judge's colleagues require that a judge not use disqualification or recusal to avoid cases that present difficult, controversial, or unpopular issues.
RULE 2.9
Ex Parte Communications
(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,* before that judge's court except as follows:
(1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address
substantive matters, or ex parte communication pursuant to a written policy or rule for a mental health court, drug court, or other
therapeutic court, is permitted, provided:
(a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and
(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an
opportunity to respond.
(2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the advice received.
(3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative
responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not
part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.
(5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly authorized by law* to do so.
(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.
(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter pending or impending before that judge, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed, unless expressly authorized by law.
(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
COMMENT
[1] To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge.
[2] Whenever the presence of a party or notice to a party is required by this Rule, it is the party's lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented, the party, who is to be present or to whom notice is to be given.
[3] The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications with lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted by this Rule.
[4] A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on therapeutic or problem-solving courts, mental health courts, or drug courts. In this capacity, judges may assume a more interactive role with parties, treatment providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.
[5] A judge may consult with other judges on pending matters, but must avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been disqualified from hearing the matter, and with judges who have appellate jurisdiction over the matter.
[6] The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter extends to information available in all mediums, including electronic.
[7] A judge may consult ethics advisory committees, outside counsel, or legal experts concerning the judge's compliance with this Code. Such consultations are not subject to the restrictions of paragraph (A)(2).
RULE 2.10
Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that would reasonably be expected to substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.
(B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.
COMMENT
[1] This Rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
[4] A judge should use caution in discussing the rationale for a decision and limit such discussion to what is already public record or controlling law.
RULE 2.11
Disqualification
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
CANON 3
A JUDGE SHALL CONDUCT THE JUDGE'S PERSONAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE.
RULE 3.1
Extrajudicial Activities in General
COMMENT
[2] Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge's official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge's integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the same reason, a judge's extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. 2.11. The cases below are part Judicial Commission Decision & part Supreme Court Decisions, most cover only Judicial Misconduct but some also deal with Prosecutorial Misconduct which can go hand in hand. Please feel free to use whatever you want on this page or share if you have additional cases that might help to be posted. also keep in mind that the cases posted here are based solely on my case, so there may be infinitely more cases which apply to your own.
