*1 Concerning Judge John Complaint In re McDONOUGH, County Judge of Washington County.

Court

No. 49278. of Minnesota.

Supreme Court 23, 1979.

March Supplemental Order For

On Motion

April *2 Vennum,

Lindquist Parker, & Edward J. Krause, Rollins, Piper, Alvey Oman & III, Harry Piper, Minneapolis, C. George C. Chairman, King, Board of Judicial Stan- dards, Kurvers, George Secy., Exec. St. Paul, Simonett, Falls, John E. Little petitioner.

Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Sheehan, James P. J. Miley, Richard James Strother, Minneapolis, E. for respondent. considered, Heard, decided court en banc.

KELLY, Justice. independent

This is an review by this court Findings and Recommendation of the Board on Judicial Standards that John years for 23 McDonough probate, juvenile county judge and now of Wash- ington County, be censured and retired. After lengthy consideration of the exten- exhibits, sive transcript, and other materials contemplation in this case and of the dispo- sition appropriate unique to these circum- stances, modify we the Board’s recommen- dation and order that McDonough censured for the violations Code Judicial inherent Conduct incidents discussed herein shall forfeit 3 months’ salary as a fine.

The Board on Judicial Standards initiated investigation McDonough September proceedings Formal of 1976. began with the service a Notice of In- quiry May Complaint on and a July upon June 1977. On Minnesota; represent- Board, appointed this court request of and actual conference Stahler, pre-trial ed at both Thomas J. District The Honorable Miley P. by James hearing of the matter District, as Eighth Judicial Hoffman, Daly & Lind- Larkin, the firm of the matter. hear evidence referee to Center, Financial Ltd., gren, Northwestern *3 days 22 hear- conducted of Judge Stahler South, Minneapolis, Xerxes Avenue 7900 1977, 15, and November end- ings beginning Minnesota. 22, resulting rec- ing 1977. December the adduced at 4,000 upon evidence pages of testimo- “Based the of over ord consists (1) of the to Rule L 1978, hearing pursuant and In March of ny 245 exhibits. and Standards, on Judicial Rules of the Board the Board his submitted to Stahler Findings following makes the the Referee statement, findings report, consisting of a amended, Complaint, of Fact as fact, findings, as follows in special and amended, following the Answer, as entirety: its rule estab- convincing evidence clear ’, Min- lished in ‘In the Matter of Sandeen BOARD ON THE “BEFORE Court, 1977. Supreme October nesota JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF FACT “FINDINGS “NO. 76-36 July written, grievance dated “By sworn “INQUIRY JUDGE CONCERNING reported 15, 1974, Dixen Reverend Arvid D. john McDonough t. Board on Judicial to the Petitioner Stan- COURT “JUDGE OF COUNTY by Respondent John alleged actions dards COUNTY “FOR WASHINGTON have constituted McDonough may administration of prejudicial conduct OF PROCEEDINGS HAD “STATEMENT office into justice brings “Following filing Complaint by of a meaning of M.S.A. disrepute within 490.16, four-year Board on Judicial Standards such that Petitioner Subd. § forth in M.S.A. against Respondent, John T. statute of limitations set 490.16, years began running four County of Wash- McDonough § Court Subd. date, July or on or about prior to that ington filing and the of an Answer County, Thus, evi- 1970. Petitioner could introduce Respondent, undersigned by thereto alleged dence of actions and inactions Court, Eighth Judicial of District July Respondent which occurred after District, Supreme appointed by was (2) to Rule G of the Rules of pursuant Court Judicial to act as the Board on Standards Complaint: its alleged “The Board “ hearing to conduct the the mat- referee (1) (A): IV “In ‘Charge 1975 ter; copy appointment is hereto at- day a presided over three trial dent 11, 1977 at 2 P.M. at tached. On October doctor, County a medical Court between Minnesota, Morris, pre-tried Herrick, matter patient former Donald made, copy of which is pre-trial against order Respondent found over bill. hearing Respondent attached. The actual of this trial hereto the doctor. After the Respondent prejudiced stated that matter commenced on November of his own against doctors on account and ended December and con- dealings Respondent then in- them. pro- days. 22 court The Petitioner sumed counsel for the doctor that formed exhibits, and duced 50 witnesses and 120 preju- should have filed affidavit Respondent and 125 produced witnesses against on account of dice exhibits; hearing con- transcript ’ prejudice.” approximately pages. sists Peti- represented pre-trial tioner was and ac- “Finding: supporting evidence No hearing tual J. and Har- Edward Parker (1) (A) was introduced Charge IV charge is ry Piper Lindquist C. III of the firm of and therefore said Petitioner Vennum, Center, Minneapolis, proven. found not 4200 IDS “ estate, (B): Forbes, “Respondent’s ad- for such Gordon ‘Charge IV there justice sig- ministration of has caused substantial of assets been a diversion portion nificant Bar of principal the estate Arthur Palmer. County to conclude that the decisions of corporate assets of estate consisted lawyers favor the cer- from stock in the Lowell Inn. The tain law which regularly practice firms bills of the advised substantial ’ Respondent.” before unpaid, as, operation Lowell Inn were $18,000 taxes, $11,000 unpaid unpaid evidence supporting No $35,000 bills, approximately wine Charge (1) (B) IV was introduced delinquent other debts. The Petitioner charge and therefore such administrator, O’Brien, advised the James proven. found not *4 Forbes, attorney, present and Gordon to be ‘Charge (1) (C): Respondent IV ac- 6, meeting at a on December 1971 to discuss knowledged might that “his impartiality respect in problems the to this estate. The reasonably questioned” matter the Forbes, attorney, Gordon advised Arthur of the estate of Nelle 0. Palmer and meeting by telephone Palmer of such both accordingly transferred the to the matter 6, 1971, On letter. December James Hennepin County Probate but la- Judge, requested O’Brien as administrator the Re- circumstances, ter change and with no spondent jurisdiction to resume over this Respondent jurisdiction reasserted his estate that emergency due existed. over the said matter. Re- Thereafter request respondent such the did Pursuant spondent parte issued ex which orders assume control of estate such subsequently were be im- determined to 6, 1971, order in issuing December the proper beyond powers Respon- the estate, order, which other among things, dent.’ provided that Arthur Palmer and Maureen 8, Respondent ap- “On October 1971 the O. Palmer be removed as directors the pointed judge, a substitute the Honorable corporation. Lowell Inn order was Such Peterson, Melvin Hennepin County, J. made application without verified therefor preside in of the the matter Nelle Palm- court without notice to Arthur Palmer estate, er which estate venued in Wash- O. Palmer. Maureen Gordon Forbes tes- ington In the County. Assign- Order of tified ‘had he [McDonough] that not assert- ment the Respondent stated as the reason ed his powers preventing the continued for assignment such the following: ‘The assets from diversion of said estate that the personal relationship close Respon- between Lowell Inn have business of would been dent and the heirs of estate.’ On December pushed bankruptcy.’ ruined or into It 3,1971 the Melvin by Honorable J. Peterson noted in the respect Respon- should be he, letter Respondent advised the that 8, Assignment dent’s Order of October Judge Peterson, declined to further act in 1971 Respondent that the not state that did estate, the matter of Nelle 0. Palmer indi- disqualified, he was but rather that he cating that the administration of such es- personal chose to act ‘due to the close presented tate problems and difficulties relationship of Probate Court that could be efficiently more handled Washington County with the heirs of the the judge in the area of Washington Coun- Considering given estate.’ the reasons ty. The evidence reveals that the assignment, emergency the dent receiving phone had been from calls change respect of circumstances in to such estate, creditors of Nelle the 0. Palmer 6, 1971, estate that existed on December complaining creditors were request the of the administrator of bills said non-payment owed jurisdiction, resume estate; addition, 3, on or about December following Referee makes 1971 was notified James O’Brien, with Will allegation Administrator Annexed That estate, jurisdic- in the attorney Respondent wrongfully Palmer assumed Re- further finds that “The Referee estate is not Nelle 0. Palmer tion over the 6, 1971 con- of December spondent’s order convincing evidence. by clear and proven the Re- part legal error on stituted Findings of as set forth spondent DDD, Ap- Ex. Oct. ‘Order “Pet. of Law of Fact and Conclusions Judge’ pointing Substitute However, does not evidence Bakke. DDD, Dec. Peterson “Pet. Ex. was issued the order support finding Respondent. letter to disregard of or intentional any malice 6, 1971, DDD, Dec. Order Ex. “Pet. fact, accomplished the order law. to what the administra- nothing in addition FFF, May “Pet. Ex. O’Brien, power to under tor, do James Bakke letter Last provisions duly admitted O’Brien, T. Vol. “Testimony, James S. Palmer. of Nelle Will and Testament 39p. Complaint, (1) (D) IV “Paragraph Forbes, 21, p. Gordon T. Vol. amended, as follows: reads (D): Contrary Canons (1) “Charge IV Bakke, 9, p. “Testimony, Robert (4) (c) of (c), (1) 3C 5C and 5C McDonough, T. “Testimony, John Conduct, Respondent has of Judicial Code 153-158; pp. 2-3 loans or other and received solicited *5 persons in “Further, money from in relation to the Nelle 0. transfers of who were not rela- Washington County estate, the record indicates that the Palmer repaid, tives, timely which loans were not 6, Respondent’s of order December adversely on and which tended to reflect to appealed the District Court on proper impartiality, his interfere of Certiorari. The Honorable Robert Writ judicial duties and performance of his Court, Bakke, Judge of District heard such t., e. exploit judicial position, his appeal judgment and issued an for order of presided probate over ‘Respondent 6, 1971 which reversed the December order estate, approved the the Peter C. Neilsen Respondent. Upon receipt Judge of of the estate on inventory appraisal and of order, Respondent on May Bakke’s January signed and or about Judge 1972 wrote of a letter criticism of the estate and distribution final decree stating among things: other ‘Your Bakke 17, 1975, even September about on or Fact, of Findings of Law entire Conclusions then owed the estate though Respondent Judgment and for manifest rank Order * * by Mr. payment far of for $8000 in excess practice *.’ ignorance probate Nation- guarantor the First Neilsen copies Respondent The sent of such letter Respon- al Paul of a loan to Bank St. Rheinberger, attorney John for Arthur bank, though even dent the said and Forbes, Palmer, attorney for and to Gordon Respondent debt of Mr. said Niel- the estate of Nelle 0. Palmer. inventory and sen was not included “Finding: The letter appraisal of the estate.’ sending Bakke and the criticism some time “The evidence disclosed that Bar, Attorney such letter to members of the when the 1972 on occasions spring Attorney Rheinberger, consti- Forbes and drinking at bars Respondent was various vio- tuted a breach of Judicial Conduct and probation offi- Vigoren, with one Robert I of of Judicial lated Canon the Standards he bor- Washington County, that cer for 29, 1972. Responsibility of March Vigoren money rowed small sums from receiving “It be noted that after occasions, should and at one time on three or four Bakke, according letter of censure from Vigoren, or delayed repaying it, saying and that Respondent apologized fuss’ over Vigoren ‘made a it, complaints get you had no I’ll it Bakke testified he ‘Don’t bother me about time’, shortly May get since but that did Respondent to the when I Vigoren. repay thereafter proved Petitioner has not March 1964 he had asked Mr. Nielsen by clear and convincing evidence that such for an accounting on this indebtedness. conduct tended to reflect adversely on his addition the testified that from impartiality proper per- interfere with the 1970’s, the middle 1950’sand into the at the formance of his duties exploit judi- Nielsen, request of Mr. position. cial expended work, considerable time and ef- forts on behalf of Peter Nielsen C. in con- Vigoren, Robert nection Adoption with an Animal Center pp. 47-48. cats, dogs abandoned and lost 4,1963 “The record reveals that on March in particular, years and for several borrowed from the First thereafter, at the request of Peter C. Niel- National Bank of St. Paul the sum of sen, the Respondent worked in Nielsen’s note, on an promissory $6500.00 unsecured relating endeavors to humane slaughtering which note was due payable on March animals, vivisection, utilization ani- 16, 1964 bearing interest at percent six mals research, for medical and housing of per annum. This promissory note was co- animals, promotion of animal founda- signed by Peter C. Nielsen. The tions, all of which Peter C. only Nielsen not dent made no payment on this loan to the in, was interested but devoted considerable First National Bank of Paul and on St. time, money promoting. and effort in 15,1965 October paid by the note was Peter Respondent also testified that it was his C. Nielsen and the First National Bank of understanding from conversation with Mr. St. Paul endorsed the note over to Mr. Nielsen, original promissory note Nielsen. On June Attorney John had been transferred Mr. Nielsen to one Hannaford, acting on behalf of Peter C. of the animal foundations which had been Nielsen, promissory mailed a note and letter established Mr. Nielsen. *6 requesting that the promissory note to Mr. Nielsen for $6500.00 “Except indicated, as hereinbefore the signed by and returned the Respondent. record completely lacking any proof Respondent response made no to the alleged the indebtedness ever was at- letter, Hannaford sign nor did he prom- the tempted collected, to be that there a issory note that was enclosed therewith. demand payment made for Respon- Peter C. Nielsen thereafter advised his at- Respondent dent. The fact did Hannaford, torney, John any to cease at- perform in services behalf of the interests tempt alleged collect the indebtedness of Mr. Nielsen by was corroborated from the Respondent. The original promis- testimony, Claybourne, of Mr. Frank attor- sory note was by transferred Mr. Nielsen to ney from Doherty, the firm of Butler and a revocable trust in and such trust in Rumble, which firm of attorneys represent- its tax return for 1971 wrote off the Re- ed Peter C. Nielsen an effort to obtain spondent’s worthless, note and debt as tak- legislation relating to an humane [sic] ing a tax deduction therefor. Peter C. slaughter adoption bill and animal cen- Nielsen died testate on May 1973 and ter. Respondent signed the Final Decree of Distribution and Final Account of Distribu- “Finding: The Referee finds that the al- tion of representative in Peter C. Nielsen legations Charge (1) (D) set out in IV have estate on September 1975. The note in proved not been convincing clear and question never part became a of the Peter evidence following for the reasons: estate, C. Nielsen in that it had been as- “1. The promissory note of March signed to a revocable According trust. 1963 which was assigned to Peter C. Nielsen Decree, the Final Account and Final there 15,1965, on was no October was not an asset of the property for distribution in the Pe- ter estate, C. Nielsen estate. Nielsen having it tes- been transferred tified that on numerous occasions after to a revocable trust Mr. Nielsen in 1971. * * * may accept “(b) a as a was taken bad said note “2. That * * * lending institu- a loan from in the tax return in 1971 and worthless

debt business on regular tion in its course Trust. of the Nielsen Revocable available to generally terms same an asset was not note considered “3. The * * * . judges persons who are not representative or the estate following instances: ‘in the Nielsen estate attorney for the Peter C. extraordinary ‘A. received Hannaford, (the attorney was John treatment from highly favorable represented Mr. Nielsen attorney same as during Bank of Stillwater National First June, 1971), the note in connection with said bank appointed which he period in appraisal or inventory either of the estate Sheldon as administrator filed therein. final account objection the testa- despite Smith 1971 directed his Peter C. Nielsen in “4. despite the beneficiary and tor’s son and attorney any effort to collect the to cease by said tes- formally expressed desires indebtedness. alleged tator. Nielsen, heir at That Hazel E. sole “5. (A) described in period During ‘B. law, Company Trust of St. and The First adminis- above, judicially Trust, Paul, of Peter C. Nielsen sole Trustee Palmer. One of Nelle O. tered the estate consents the Final signed written stock of the was the of the estate assets Account. Lowell controlled the corporation which supports the The evidence “6. authori- Improperly, without lawful Inn. note in the hands of dent’s claim that such beneficiaries, ty, protests and over constituted remuneration Peter C. Nielsen appointment Respondent ordered the work done on behalf First National of the said the President Respondent. Peter C. Nielsen to be director Bank of Stillwater controlling corporation.’ said question promissory “7. The note evidence, nor the rec- produced does above, evi- (A) “In to IV as to whether or any ord contain evidence E. died shows that Smith dence Sheldon not it is in existence. of Still- April a resident testate on water, Minnesota, and his Last Will probate duly admitted Nielsen Estate Testament Peter C. “Pet. Ex. May File *7 NNNN, letter Hannaford

“Pet. Ex. of Testament Sheldon “The Last Will and June Smith, the Codicil particularly more of Fiduciary. Return “Resp. Ex. 125-1971 (Pres- thereto, Klapp, William D. nominated Trust Nielsen Revocable Stillwater), Bank of ident of First National “Testimony, Claybourne, Frank T. Vol. testator), Smith, (son Eleanor E. of the Neil 20, pp. 130-137 testator), Norris, (daughter of the June McDonough, T. Vol. “Testimony, John T. the decedent Eckberg, (attorney J. for Lyle seq. 18 et pp. estate), The rec- and the as executors. Balfanz, E. Robert Klapp Lyle that William D. ord shows 11, pp. seq. 62 et of Eckberg to act as executors J. declined Frame, T. Clarence a confer- pre-hearing the estate. That at pp. seq. 3 et E. 1974 at which Neil May ence on Hannaford, “Testimony, John Smith, Norris, R. Sophie Eleanor June seq. et Smith, Lyle J. Eck- surviving spouse, and (2) charges IV that: “The Board in Sophie R. Smith berg, present, were that “ (b): Norris, Eckberg, 5C ‘Respondent Lyle violated Canon and Eleanor Jtune “ estate, nominated attorney as for the bequest a accept gift, judge should ‘[No] of as co-ad- Bank Stillwater except as fol- First National anyone from favor or loan estate of Smith. ministrators of the Sheldon lows: objection appeal There made or Last Will and Testament of 0. was no Nelle Palm- appointment. taken at such time to such provides er as follows: showing There is no evidence in the record my T direct executor and trustee to influenced, that promoted, Klapp continue to elect as one William D. appointment solicited or recommended the corpora- of the three directors of these of the Bank First National as Stillwater long willing tions as as he is to serve in of the co-administrator estate. that director capacity, and a second ac- ceptable “Further record shows to him so continues as long that on Octo- as he 26, 1975, agree- ber to a pursuant written director.’ Smith,

ment E. between Neil Eleanor June Further, record shows that William D. co-executors, Smith, Norris, Sophie R. and Klapp, President of the First National Bank Stillwater, the First National Bank of Neil Stillwater, was a director of Lowell Inn E. of his as obligations Smith was relieved since 1961 and as continued to serve a di- estate. not- co-executor of the It should be 1973; rector thereof until that Smith, ed that Neil E. as one of the co-exec- dent’s appointing order December utors, petitioned the court order to issue an Klapp William D. as a director Lowell pursuant agreement, to this and in addition Inn, O’Brien, requested by Inc. was James to his share distributive received as $5000 estate, Administrator and had no his acting fee for as co-executor effect legal Klapp basic in that William D. estate, owing less a debt which was director, already was further Smith, estate by said Neil E. and order was under nominated the Last Will Testa- Court, issued the Probate and Neil E. long for as ment to continue be director Smith had no further interest in the estate willing as he to act There is as such. E. Sheldon Smith. no evidence in the record which would dem- although That solicited, pro- the Respondent onstrate that receiving favorable treatment from moted, requested the appointment First National Bank of on or Stillwater Klapp William D. It should director. about May Petitioner failed to further be noted that the evidence shows prove by convincing clear and evidence Klapp compen- D. no William received appointment First National Bank of sation his for services as such director dur- Stillwater as co-administrator C.T.A. ing period through the entire from 1961 estate of E. Sheldon Smith was influenced such it Under circumstances would (See Finding favorable treatment. infer hard to re- on page 13) preferential Klapp ceived treatment Mr. being due to an unpaid director of Low- Inn, ell Inc. EEEE, “Pet. Ex. Sheldon E. Pro- Smith bate file. “In financial WWWW,

“Pet. Ex. Document drawn dealings at First National Bank Still- Jewell, Bank, John First Natl. Stillwa- water, many the record shows that *8 ter, listing by estates handled said years checking account was maintained at Bank. Bank of First National Stillwater “Testimony, Lyle Eckberg, pp. Mary McDonough. name of H. That 10-11, 31-33 Respondent regularly routinely deposit- Smith, E. Neil account and judicial salary ed his into such 38 et seq. relating used such account in transactions Jewell, 12, pp. T. “Testimony, John payment Respondent, such as the 232-262 personal Bar Association dues and other McDonough, John T. Vol. obligations. during The record shows 15, pp. 159-167 period July through from De- 1970 cember, “In respect charge set forth in IV there were an number unusual (2) (B) above, the in this was no record shows that overdrafts account. There dollars to over ranging amounts from few National Bank

charge by made the First position overdraft of such over- The great $2000. on number Stillwater to is as period referred over- account for the that such The record shows drafts. follows: long periods over drafts continued money re- support and educate. The which no above for

“The overdrafts for the charge an interest-free loan was used was made constitute ceived from this medical, household, living, loan the bank. payment the children. expenses of and educational 1960’s, addition, Re- during “In expenses of the extraordinary medical The Na- First a loan from the spondent made his income tax evidenced in Respondent are Stillwater, which loan was tional Bank of years through returns for the re- unsecured. This loan was basically expenses over and above health were through By to time 1977. newed from time through provided his insurance and accident grown this from April loan Respon- employment. Sympathy for the $15,200, by April 1977 was $1150 given as the foregoing was dent due to the $19,491.72. The loan was in the amount of Klapp and Mr. Peterson growth its main reason Mr. year year; carried from unpaid inter- from the addition of resulted unusual treatment of their Respondent did principal. est to the loan. insignificant payments on such make a few is not without “Presently The loan was period years. loan over the is benefited assets. financial condition His ex- adversely upon by commented bank salaries, home- his by increased 1970, 1972, 1973, years aminers in the stead, is now worth appreciation, due to in excess of period interest Over $100,000, mortgage less approximately new forgiven and not added to

$2400 $24,000, possibilities of and he has some Respon- Considering loan amounts. as a lecturer earning extra-judicial income statement, dent’s financial the fact that this stated and writer. itself basically loan unsecured in liqui- loan willingness to secure such practice and good banking contradicts all basis. loan an installment date such preferential treatment. establishes Respondent did 1. That “During period of time accept treat- preferential did receive and pressures. severe financial dent was under Bank of Stillwa- ment the First National was caused low The financial situation *9 ter, institution, to his lending in income, periodic illness finances, which, of regular course in wife, periodic requiring illness and his and availa- institution business of said surgeries on occasions both numerous (4) others, of Canon 5C ble in violation Respondent and his wife. In addition (b). his wife had five children and 657 BBBBB, re- although Summary of That “Pet. Ex. Respon- “2. dent’s small short or term loans from preferential treatment ceived Bank, First Stillwater Stillwater, there Bank First National CCCCC, “Pet. Ex. Summary pref- convincing evidence no clear Bank, dent’s unsecured loans at First flowed or favoritism erential treatment Stillwater the First National Respondent to from the EEEEE, “Pet. Ex. DDDDD and Deposi- prefer- because Bank of Stillwater tions D. Klapp of William no evi- There is direct ential treatment. “Testimony, Peterson, 12, Alan R. T. Vol. solicited, Respondent ever dence pp. 130 et seq. 216-217 First or recommended requested “Testimony, Balfanz, E. Robert T. Vol. of its any or Bank of Stillwater National 11, pp. 62 seq. et to act appointed be nominated officers “Testimony, Speak, 13, John S. T. Vol. pp. of a in the administration any capacity seq. 16 et estate, conser- guardianship, or decedent’s Kircher, “Testimony, 13, A. R. T. Vol. pp. presented evidence was vatorship. No seq. 57 et which the First any would show fee which “Testimony, Graham, 13, James C. T. Vol. re- any Bank of its officers National or pp. 79 et seq. executors, or adminis- appraisers ceived “Testimony, T. John McDonough, T. Vol. excess trators conservators 12, pp. 46-48 law, that allowed under the or was not “Pet. EEEE, Ex. Probate File Smith commensurate with the Es- performed. duties tate, including Last Will and Testa- ment August 17, dated 1973 Codicil XXXX, YYYY, ZZZZ, “Pet. Ex. thereto 5, dated April 1974 Letters Tes- AAAAA, prepared by Summaries John tamentary signed by Respondent dated Speak. 29, May 1974 “Testimony, Peterson, Alan 12, R. T. Vol. “Testimony, Smith, Neil 11, E. T. Vol. pp. pp. seq. 130 et seq. 38 et “Testimony, T. McDonough, John T. Vol. “Testimony, Jewell, 12, John pp. T. Vol. 9, 196-199; pp. 12, T. pp. Vol. 232 seq. et 33-46 “Testimony, “Testimony, Robert pp. 79 et seq. 57 et seq. 11, pp. 62 16 et seq. James C. A. R. et John seq. Kircher, Speak, E. Graham, Balfanz, T. Vol. pp. upon by imposing punishment “The “ ‘A (1)A ^[*] ‘Respondent ^[*] defendants sf: judge should f Board in has Code in alcohol and Charge violated faithful Judicial Conduct: IV and conditions Canon Subd. drug charges: the law 3 related to Respondent’s conform own PPPP, “Pet. Ex. cases Respondent’s financial statement July punishment 1975 in- apprppriate belief about “Pet. Ex. QQQQ, Respondent’s financial imposing law applying the stead of statement of March punishment applicable accordance RRRR, “Pet. Ex. Ledger cards on Re- Minnesota, statutes of the State spondent’s loans at Bank, First Stillwa- following particulars: ter “ ‘A. SSSS, During “Pet. Ex. *10 prob- drug taking behavior causes and/or of defend certain said pleaded guilty, others in the In Re lems to himself/herself or Respondent. before appeared ants part home, of or place employment, a substantial communi- spondent’s court plead permitted to ty setting.’ were such defendants charge of careless McDonough hereby to the lesser guilty “2. John T. attend they driving on the condition The Judge, appointed the Administrative semi-weekly lectures program of 12 responsibility Project, power with full and County Washington Courthouse purpose of implement to initiate and and Project” called “The program was Pro- Project pursuant The to the attached by Respondent. Such was administered Structure; power ap- with to gram full procedures were in abuse hire, assign personnel point, and sentencing matters. discretion Project; with of The purpose effectuate the “ the Di- power supervise effective date of Minne- full and direct ‘B. Since the 169.126, in cases of assigned sota to The personnel Statutes Section rector and other preceding para- class described Project. failed graph, Respondent consistently has The Judge, Administrative “3. The refused, and continues to fail [and bewill who a Director appoint Project shall * pre-sentence refuse investi- conduct ] charged with: gations defendants, all violation The day administration “(a) Day by of said 169.- Minnesota Statutes Section Project. 126.’ assigning “(b) Receiving Court orders above, by signed by to ‘A’ order “As Project. to The students Washington county judges of three court “(c) applications on referrals Accepting 15, 1975, ‘The County, January dated helping pro- from members many In that Project’ was established. public private other or or fessions against complaints The them to agencies assign Project’, operation of ‘The arise out Project. herein: is set out full such order maintaining students “(d) Keeping and MINNESOTA OF STATE records, attendance, progression IN COUN- OF WASHINGTON COUNTY Project. The students in TY COURT maintaining “(e) individual Filing and in a manner the students records of ORDER complete confidentiali- insures Feder- pursuant ty of the records “1. hereby There is established until regula- al and Statutes State agency further as an Order of Court tions. Court, Washington County Washington “(f) Project The Courses Assigning to Washington County, Minnesota. The Coun- counselors, lecturers; group initiat- ty Project, Alcohol/Drug herein- Survival in-service train- ing scheduling Project, after called The and for the counselors, lec- ing group sessions of general purpose: turers. scheduled, provide ‘To time-limited “(g) Answering correspondence all educational, preventive and treatment Project. inquiries addressed to The services on a basis to indi- non-residental County “(h) Prepare Washington for viduals, referred approval budget for Court for its Court, County or are accepted who year ensuing calendar be- Project work- on referral from social December for fore 15th each ers, clergy, physicians, lawyers, or other Judges, Washington approval of helping professions, members of the County Court. physical, psychological whose and social Judge, “(i) Administrative Forward status them function in their allows all bills Project, approval environment, usual but whose alcohol *11 received for performed gram, services or only 270 “students” assigned were delivered, materials before forward- ‘The Project’. ing Auditor, to County procedure “The basic operation Minnesota, County, payment. for ‘The Project’ consisted of the following: an “(j) Acting liaison between the Adminis- charged individual was driving with while trative group counselors, under the intoxicating influence of bever- lecturers, consulting psychologists, ages having a blood content of more consulting personnel, medical after- than .10 Through alcohol. plea bargaining care referral sources utilized The majority charged of those so were al- Project. lowed plead guilty driving; to careless “(k) Scheduling of The Project Courses. such individual would be fined in the sum $150, and as condition, a further “4. The salary of the Director and other would assigned required to attend expenses, lecturers, the fees of the group Project’; ‘The the individual would also be counselors, consulting psychologist, consult- required, whenever he was deemed to be ing personnel, medical shall be set pay able ‘tuition’ which was in the sum Administrative Judge with approval of the $150; the individual would then attend Judges, Washington County Court. twelve semi-weekly sessions of ‘The Project’ Dated this 15th day during a period. six-week program of January, 1975 analysis consisted of an of the individual’s By Order of Court habits, drinking group therapy, lectures by /s/ John T. McDonough counselors, experienced presentations video /s/ R. Searle Sandeen counseling. individual The continued /s/ Howard R. Albertson existence of ‘The Project’ was entirely de- “ pendent upon the income derived from per- Project’ ‘The was financed through a assigned Thus, sons thereto. there was a grant from the Drug Alcohol and Abuse strong incentive for those Section, personally inter- Department Welfare, of Public ested in the Project’ success of ‘The to have Minnesota, $84,- State of in the amount of sufficient produce ‘students’ to the income 500. According to the original record this that would insure the continuation of ‘The grant was to be a ‘start-up’ amount of Project.’ originat- was the money which was to carry Project’ ‘The Project’ or of ‘The and administrative judge through its year. Thereafter, first ‘The thereof; addition, Project* was to be self-sustaining by reason problem dedicated interest in the alcohol of anticipated income from a ‘Tuition fee’ and the success Project’. of ‘The The rec- charged to the persons who assigned were clearly ord establishes majority that the to it. According to appli- those charged driving while under the cation for budget extension of Project’ ‘The driving influence or with more than .10 was designed to receive 529 students during alcohol, blood appeared disposition who for the first year, which produced should have before the Respondent, eventually up ended an annual income $78,000. of approximately Project’. addition, ‘The the record During the first year operation only 270 conclusively shows that more than one-half ‘students’ were assigned to Project’ ‘The charged of those plead as above guilty to some of which were non-paying; therefore charge lesser driving. careless the income was not sufficient to sustain the operation. This application resulted in an “The Respondent plea testified that for extension budget by Respon- made bargaining he followed the conditions and dent, which extension was period for a from 15.04, considerations outlined in Subd. November 1975 to November 1976. In (2), Procedure; Rules of Criminal [Subd. 3] application budget extension of plea also that bargaining was conducted Respondent recited that the lack of ‘stu- prosecuting attorney attorney and the dents’ in Project’ ‘The was due to two fac- prior for the defendant being to the same tors: extended illness of Respondent; brought before the for consid- deficiencies in the pro- treatment produced eration. Petitioner convincing no drinking (and ‘1. If the driver as- procedure not fol- evidence that such suming a proper lowed. arrest offer 169.123)gives pursuant chemical test *12 attorneys the representing “Several both a to his con- sample determine alcoholic prosecution in and the defense the area to 0.10% proves tent which be or more procedure the that testified ethyl weight, his by alcohol driver’s followed in the court and suspended license will be administra- charged all with or not those D.W.I. tively days. of period ninety for a with .10 blood were driving over alcohol “ give ‘2. the If same driver refuses to plead guilty to a allowed to lesser offense a the sample to determine alcoholic Project.’ or to assigned ‘The blood, of his content driver’s license “Washington County, according suspended will for pursu- be six months record, a metropolitan is considered area. Law, Implied ant Consent M.S. to presented respect figures statistical in 609.123, is and this also done [169.123] to with .10 charged those D.W.I. or over administratively. content, that were to allowed blood alcohol “ However, ‘3. if driver in either plead offense, basically to a lesser guilty situations, pleads of Guilty the above to compared Hennepin per- County; such D.W.I., the license will be sus- driver’s Washington County in far exceed- centages pended thirty of not- period days for a ed percentages of the statistical the rural or 169.123 withstanding M.S. 169.127. areas of the of State Minnesota. Colonel “ ‘Consequently, it matters little from Crawford, Chief of the James C. Minnesota 1, 1976, August after whether Patrol, Highway State testified he did original D.W.I. is or charge of reduced not plea bargaining procedure, criticize the is dismissed, even as driver down on but according that he felt that to his sur- paper a having lost his for license vey, by personnel depart- made of his opinion This drinking appears offense. ment, procedure that the which the highway be by deputies, patrol- shared dent County used did not men even policemen. This applies get ‘off the intoxicated driver the road’ nor the gross passed law misdemeanor did background it reflect the alcoholic on 171.245, 1976 legislature, says M.S. repeated driver’s license of the violator. that a a person operating motor vehicle Colonel Crawford’s conclusions were based while whose intoxicated and license is upon survey no specific an overall inci- suspension time under or cancellation practice dents or cases were offense, on account of an alcohol related presented by Petitioner. upon gross guilty conviction is of a misde- Kelly, County Attorney W. “Robert fact, prosecut- or the meanor. Washington County, January 1977 in ing attorney doing even may a disserv- a letter addressed to The How- Honorable ice or his attorney the Defendant Albertson, ard which letter re- R. was in reducing Driving D.W.I. to Careless sponse (Chief Crawford’s Min- James C. plea accepting Driving Careless Patrol) January letter Highway nesota plea disclosing bargain- without that such as follows: stated ing “ will result driver’s license ‘The omission made obvious Chief being ninety Defendant revoked for January 10, Crawford his letter of days (169.127) (169.123) or six months in- 1977, any upon is comment the blood alco- thirty plea stead if days were made (169.127) hol content law which became to the original charge of D.W.I.’ 1, 1976, August effective it relates to August, That since if the re- statute prosecutions. D.W.I. After passage Attorney ferred to by County Kelly were upon 169.127and the arrest a drink- enforced, the criticism by much of Chief driver, ing things one of two occur would Crawford is answered. D.W.I., regardless dis- of a conviction for D.W.I., Considering or missal reduction to a lesser the evidence as charge: given whole discretion that and the broad is “ ‘a. The defendant by the Rules of Criminal Procedure to the convicted of an presiding judge accept accept 169.121; or not offense described in section or the Referee plea bargaining, finds that the ‘b. The defendant is arrested for com- prove Petitioner clear and con- did mitting an offense described section vincing sentencing proce- evidence that the 169.121, therefor, is not convicted but is dure of the to driv- arising convicted of another offense out ing while under the influence of intoxicat- surrounding of the circumstances such ar- ing beverage driving with more than .10 rest. “ blood alcohol content constituted an abuse 2. The report ‘Subdivision shall con- However, posi- discretion. tain evaluation of the convicted de- *13 tion respect to ‘The concerning prior fendant his traffic rec- Project’, upon Project’ the basis which ‘The ord, history characteristics and of alcohol financed, was intended to be and the statis- problems, amenability to rehabilita- relating tics to the numbers that were as- through safety program. tion the alcohol signed Project’, ‘The make the sentenc- report The shall include a recommenda- ing procedures used sus- tion as to a treatment or rehabilitation pect open to criticism. program for the report defendant. The shall private be classified as data on indi- J, Establishing “Pet. Ex. Order ‘The Statutes, viduals as defined in Minnesota Project’ 15.162, Section Subdivision 5a. 12, “Resp. Albertson, Ex. Kelly letter to “ report required by ‘Subdivision 3. The 18, Jan. 1977 prepared by person this section shall be R, LL, “Pet. Ex. Crawford letter to Re- knowledgable diagnosis of chemical de- 10, spondent, Jan. 1977 pendency. S, “Pet. Ex. survey Albertson “ n period 3, dent’s D.W.I. cases for ‘Subdivision 4. The court before im- August 5,

1976 to January posing sentence after conviction for one Crawford, “Testimony, James C. T. Vol. of the offenses described in subdivision 5, 22, pp. seq. 46 et pp. seq. Vol. 32 et give agen- shall due consideration to the Albertson, “Testimony, Howard R. T. Vol. cy’s report. “ 2, pp. 24-43 person ‘Subdivision 5. Whenever a is “Testimony, Geraghty, Lawrence P. T. subsequent convicted of a second or of- 5, Vol. pp. seq. 17 et fense described in subdivision 1 and the H. “Testimony, Rheinberger, John T. Vol. provided appropri- court either with an 8, pp. 173 et seq. ate treatment or rehabilitation recom- Morse, T. “Testimony, Darryl pp. Vol. mendation from sources other than the 87-106 presentence investigation provided for in Jack Nordby, p. section, knowledge or has sufficient person’s both of the need for treatment Hall, “Testimony, Frank J. pp. appropriate and an or treatment rehabili- 18-34 plan, tation and the court finds that re- McDonough, John T. presentence investigation quiring would 137-139; substantially aid the court in sentenc- respect “In charge of the Board ing, presentence investigation such a need above, (B) contained in IV M.S.A. 169.- not be conducted. 126 provides as follows: “ “ 6. This section shall not ‘Subdivision investigation ‘126.126 Presentence apply persons who are not residents of 1. A presentence investiga- ‘Subdivision. at time of the State of Minnesota tion shall be conducted in counties of presen- offense time of the 10,000 more population report than and a investigation.’ tence county submitted to the court “The agency administering above-entitled section became effec- safety the alcohol counseling program August when: tive 1976. The ad- Complaint: alleged Board its “The period August from during

mitted that 15, 1977, when he was January 1976 to “Charge 4: cases of D.W.I. cases and assigned to handle “ 2A ‘Respondent violated Canon as re- blood alcohol charges of over .10% of Judicial Conduct: Code 169.121, he not re- did to in M.S.A. ferred “ comply ‘A should investiga- presentence quire provide conduct it was law should himself Respondent testified that tion. Project’ promotes in and of that ‘The in a manner opinion his at all times investiga- presentence and im- integrity constituted itself public confidence M.S.A. 169.126. required by tion judiciary.” partiality followed Re- procedure “In the Respondent confronted the ‘A. In 1976 imposed prior the sentence spondent, County and ad- sheriff of assigned to 'The being the individual purchase about ministrative assistant thus, is not Respondent’s claim Project’, Respondent be- certain office furniture. maintains valid. he lost enraged came so incited conjunction be must read 169.126 M.S.A. led from himself and had control of 169.124; however, 169.- M.S.A. with M.S.A. the room. *14 pre- an alternative to provide does not 124 “ ‘B. to obtain the use cer- In order Project’, ‘The with investigation. sentence County Court- space Washington tain modification, well have been used for may house, County Respondent threatened to presentence investigation purposes com- to by saying county of said Coordinator with if such use had been made ply 169.126 jail your you have ass in if inter- him: “I’ll however, prior sentencing; regardless loudly meetings” with those fere of ‘The praiseworthy activities how county person- publicly certain other cursed be, activities take Project’ may where such incident. nel in connection said sentencing not consti- place after such does “ provisions of compliance with the tute of occa- significant ‘C. a number On M.S.A. 169.124. in 1973 1974 and in connection sions fail Respondent did from “Finding: That chapel, Respon- a with the construction of 1, January August 1976 to approximately the tele- dent called Howard Costello on 15, presentence 1977 with the comply A.M. and hours of 2:00 phone between the 169.126 and thus did requirement M.S.A. identifying 5:00 himself A.M. and without 3, A(l). violate Canon Subd. him by calling at him a son-of-a- cursed bitch, fucking and similar good no bastard “Sources: L, immediately hung up. Howard 27, names and August “Pet. Ex. 1976 letter from Director, being with the Dirkzwager, acquainted K. Driver well A. Costello Div., finally to Albertson was able call Respondent License voice of P, 24, 1976, August “Pet. Ex. Albertson hang name before could him Kirkzwager letter to whereupon [sic] the calls ceased. up, Odendahl, 3, T. “Testimony, R. Vol. Rollis “ and is Cherry ‘D. Dr. Cedarleaf was pp. et seq. 70 director of psychiatric and the psychiatrist Wrich, 8, T. Vol. “Testimony, James T. drug for adolescent the Jamestown Center pp. seq. 54 et October, July, through abusers. From Crawford, T. James C. “Testimony, Col. 1974, three visited the Center 22, 5, pp. Vol. Vol. 32 et pp. seq., 46 et four week and demanded the times each seq. Cedarleaf, of Dr. osten- attention undivided Griffin, 3, pp. T. Vol. “Testimony, Patrick Project”, sibly of “The about business seq. 123 et she frequently proposed but fact Albertson, T. Vol. “Testimony, Howard R. sexual intercourse with him. have 2, 24—13 pp. “ signif- exposed ‘E: McDonough, T. T. Vol. “Testimony, John 14, who periods persons 143-146 icant of time to two evaluation, enraged excited and that he lost control of psychiatric were trained to do himself and had to be Cedarleaf, led psychiatrist, Dr. B. and Dr. from C. the room. Holmes, diag- Both psychologist. Helen prove The Petitioner did nosed behavior as aberrant convincing clear and evidence the particular schizophrenic and in and manic- 4(A) charges set forth in above. depressive. Although Respondent was fre- quently advised to seek treatment Dr. “Testimony, Westphal, Sheriff Cedarleaf, A principal symp- he refused. pp. 2-21 inability tom of the said mental diseases is Spoors, Duane C. perceive reality symptom unac- pp. 66-73 ceptable judge. in a McDonough, John T. “ ‘F. Respondent arranged for Mario 15, pp. seq. 39 et Arcy badge to obtain and wear the of a above, ‘B’ “In the record shows Washington County Probation Officer and Project’ meetings of ‘The were held to pass himself off as such officer whereas (after during evening P.M.) hours at the Arcy in fact Mario was not a Washington Washington County Courthouse. That County Probation Officer. May, personnel 1976 the During the years through ‘G. County were on strike. That on Courthouse Respondent abused his au- May Champi- or about one David thority by compelling officials of the City of on, Coordinator, Washington County met Washington County Stillwater and of Washington County to, drive him between and from taverns in advised the Respondent Courthouse and and around Stillwater. Hawthorne, one Jan Director of ‘The During Project’, ‘“H. Re- the strike pursuant that due to *15 Board, spondent has conducted his official pri- County and resolution of the that the through vate business threats attempt- evening meetings Project’ and of ‘The in the ed public intimidation of officials.’ courthouse have to in would be cancelled enough that there were not administrative above, respect “In ‘A’ by it is disclosed employees provide security for the during Sep- evidence that the month of during progress courthouse the of such tember, 1975, grand petty both the and meetings. Respondent very The became juries were in at the Washington session angry presence the of others en- County and that all Courthouse courtrooms gaged Champion Mr. in a loud and accusa- utilized; Respondent, were that the who tory manner and at one time stated to Mr. the appointed had been committee on jail Champion: your T will have ass in if courtroom furnishings County the you meetings.’ with these The interfere Board, that Monday observed on the bail- County Board of resolution of the Wash- moving iffs were the chairs from the court- ington May provides County rooms and using them as bailiffs’ chairs in paragraph 11: hallway Respondent the or corridor. The of Court the event of a ‘Use House —In they informed the bailiffs that should cease requests strike all for use of the court and desist the use of such courtroom chairs. meetings during house for hours other practice throughout continued the through Monday than 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. on week and the advised the sher- Friday they are cancelled whether are for iff of Washington County regarding this county related func- outside functions occasions, finally matter on two went tions.’ to the sheriff’s office and entered into an argument in respect disregarded requests sheriff to the use of Although Champion the courtroom furniture. Mr. and in violation of the reso- County discussion between the sheriff and Re- lution of the Board of spondent heated, premises the evidence did not County continued to use the establish Washington County carry- that became so Courthouse for Re- of Father Miller. The remembrance Project’ during ‘The meetings of

ing on prime mover in the had spondent been hours. evening Foundation, had as its which Miller Father Re- conduct That of a construction non-de- purpose sole County threatening the Coordi- spondent in chapel at the Prison nominational State and the Re- jail nator with confinement Stillwater, highly had been instru- and he abide the resolution spondent’s refusal to $156,000 the construc- raising for mental in did of Commissioners County Board chapel, which amount of such tion of Canon 2A of the constitute a violation Respondent to the over State turned Code of Judicial Conduct. Mr. Costello April, 1972. of Minnesota in voice positively identified County PP-1, Ex. Resolution “Pet. in the he heard abusive being which Board testimony is corrobo- phone calls. Costello’s 20, 1976, Champion PP, May “Pet. Ex. he identified that after rated fact Memorandum ‘John, what’s the mat- by saying, the voice Champion, T. Vol. “Testimony, C. David Mr. no more voice calls. ter?’ he received 6, pp. 131-150 prior telephone to the Costello testified Suemnig, pp. “Testimony, Bodo above, calls outlined 171-172 regular telephone communications had in Vigoren, p. T. Vol. Robert verbally himself Costello between through cursing mak- abused Costello McDonough, T. “Testimony, John could ing accusations that Costello false 15, pp. 34-37 to, when truth chapel if he chose build a Hawthorne, Jan fact, had no control over and in Costello 62-64 de- building chapel, been Costello, above, respect “In ‘C’ Howard due to the layed by the of Minnesota State for Commissioner for Corrections Assistant uncertainties that existed Minnesota, begin- testified that State Stillwater, prison at continuance of the ning continuing fall Minnesota. thereafter, re- approximately six months McDonough testified that if such “Mrs. per- calls from a male phone ceived obscene she home would calls were from the made son no conversation was ex- although them; however, it have been conscious *16 the caller and Mr. Costel- changed between was McDonough that Mrs. was not shown lo, in a vile man- the caller cursed Costello that the calls in the home or always present ner. continued until That such voice calls necessarily made the were from McDon- spring Costello stated to the caller ough home. 1974, ‘John, the matter?’ Thereafter what’s surrounding “The facts and circumstanc- ceased that certain speaking calls but prior anonymous es which occurred phone resi- calls were made the Costello calls, phone testimony of corroborate the voice dence in which there was no heard Mr. Costello. phone when the was answered. Mr. Costel- Respondent That did lo well acquainted was with Mr. phone make abusive calls to Costello dent, having Respondent served with the 2A thereby violate did Canon February, Board from State Parole Code of Judicial Conduct. February, years period 1968. Over a in-person had con- Costello had numerous “Sources: Respondent Costello, via versations with the tele- T. “Testimony, Vol. Howard phone. Respondent In the fall of 1973 pp. 219-229 Mr. directly McDonough, Costel- T. T. Vol. communicated John lo with the failure of 42-50 his dissatisfaction McDonough, Department “Testimony, Mary to build cer- Corrections 20, pp. tain 3-5 chapel at the Prison Stillwater State above, relationship if the between her and ‘D’ the evidence respect “In offensive, she, Cherry psy- Respondent that Dr. Cedarleaf was a shows became has been the director of the education, chiatrist and maturity, training, her for Jamestown Rehabilitation Center Ado- position in a to terminate it. July, Respondent

lescents since has not “Finding: That the Petitioner in the establishment and was instrumental proved by convincing clear and evidence Jamestown and has used such founding of in ‘D’ above. allegations contained juveniles center for the treatment of County, especially those with Cedarleaf, “Testimony, Cherry T. Vol. drug addiction. The evidence shows that pp. 208-217 during period 1972 to Cedarleaf, T. Vol. Cherry June, frequent 1973 made visits to James- pp. 3-40 town, perhaps as often as three or four Cedarleaf, “Testimony, Cherry

times a week. That while at Jamestown inquiries personal made pp. 109-121 investigation progress of adolescents McDonough, “Testimony, John T. placed

who were in Jamestown the Re- 12, pp. 83-96 and in took spondent for treatment addition respect “In above: to ‘E’ opera- interest in the personal active and “Finding: Referee finds that there facility tion and administration of the little, relating thereto any, testimony if well. The record contains no clear and con- proved. been the same is found not to have Respondent’s vis- vincing evidence that solely personal its to Jamestown were to ‘F’ respect “In above: The record contains substantial reasons. “Finding: Referee finds that no evidence visits were work-related. evidence that such and there- presented regard thereto Respondent’s treatment following “That proved. fore the same has not been June, 1973, his visits to for alcoholism in above, the evidence “In to ‘G’ greatly were reduced. Jamestown facilities through shows that from July, on several Doctor testified that Cedarleaf on numerous occa- that the did treat- prior occasions county officials of request sions certain proposed ment for alcoholism that- he had transporta- Washington County to furnish sexual relations with her and that on Hazelden, City, located at Center tion least one treatment he occasion after such Minnesota, Founda- and to the Jamestown proposal. made a similar June, prior to tion. That on some occasions having proposal denied ever made a sexual party Respondent and the 1973 that to Doctor Cedarleaf. The evidence discloses stop at taverns in transporting him would June, many 1973 that on occa- prior to intoxicating beverag- and consume the area provide trans- sions Doctor Cedarleaf would *17 consump- at taverns and stopping es. The to his home in portation for the pri- intoxicating beverages occurred tion of and on some of these occasions Stillwater June, in- practically taverns for all they stop would at bars and or to 1973 and It was observed that beverages. alcoholic The working occurred after hours. stances very was a hesitant and Doctor Cedarleaf trips these to Ha- Respondent testified that testified that at cer- reluctant witness. She were work-related zelden and Jamestown during period tain times this she considered testimony. by which other was corroborated relation- physician-patient herself to be in a convincing proof There was no clear and ship Respondent. with The evidence also dis- they were not. Respon- during period closed that single “Doctor is a Cedarleaf mature drive a car. physically dent was unable to woman in her mid-fifties. It would seem 1976, “Thereafter, April, allegation forth in set That “Finding: proved clear and used again been Wrich and telephoned above has not Mr. ‘G’ dent evidence. convincing Mr. Wrich and language and cursed abusive (St. media go to news threatened “Sources: how the State’s paper) regard Paul RR, Suemnig Bodo Statement “Pet. Ex. Be- was to Minnesota 6, contract awarded p. T. Vol. Suemnig, Bodo “Testimony, 3, January 163; of Anoka. On 7, havioral Institute pp. 28-29 T. Vol. 7, Vol. Vigoren, legislative T. 1977, Robert “Testimony, beginning at pp. seq. Paul session, appear 38 et in the an article did St. Risenhoover, T. B. “Testimony, Hulen Respondent was Dispatch, wherein 6, seq. 21 et pp. Vol. Beha- the Minnesota quoted saying 3, Cedarleaf, Cherry T. Vol. “Testimony, ‘Mickey program vioral Institute was 3-39; 208-217; 4, pp. Vol. T. pp. T. awarding program’ and that Mouse 13, pp. Vol. 107-128 pressure by due such contract had been 1, “Testimony, Albertson, T. Vol. Howard legislative delegation, County Anoka pp. 142-151 allegation based on no substan- which was McDonough, T. T. Vol. “Testimony, John except possible hearsay. tive evidence 16, p. 3 is clear that such evidence above, ‘H’ Petitioner allegation “As to pro- Wrich upon attack Mr. vicious Respondent produced as to evidence Wrich, entirely out voked Mr. incidents separate several distinct quasi-ju- in a decorum keeping proper the name of which will be referred Respondent, and con- activity dicial involved. individual 2A of the Code a violation of Canon stituted The evi- Wrich matter. “1. James T. Conduct. of Judicial Wrich from dence that James T. discloses 11, been the February and after 1976 has BBB, for Grant Application “Pet. Ex. State Director of Minnesota Executive CCC, 3, 1977, Ex. Paul “Pet. Jan. St. Department Drug Authority, Alcohol and Dispatch article Welfare, of Minnesota. Public State proposal GGG, written “Pet. Ex. Jan. MeCarron Respondent prepared Judges Training for Chemical Dependency letter brought Mr. Wrich 5,

and the before HHH, 1977, same Ex. Jan. “Pet. in his as Executive Director. capacity letter MeCarron March, Respondent and Lawrence 1976 the Ill, let- “Pet. Ex. MeCarron Jan. Harmon, of Continu- C. then Director [sic] ter to Respondent Person- ing for the State Court Education JJJ, “Pet. Ex. of Anoka Coun- Resolution Minnesota, Supreme nel for Court of ty Delegation Wrich, Mr. met at the office Wrich, pp. James T. Vol. presence time the of Mr. Respondent, 54, 81, 94, 95-96 Harmon, verbally at and abused Mr. swore Harmon, “Testimony, Lawrence C. [sic] Wrich, mismanagement in that claiming 135-138, 162-165 T. past Drug had in the recent funded State MeCarron, 9, pp. “Testimony, Paul (for Program small amount of Education 93-106 the Minne- marijuana) to be carried out McDonough, John Anoka, Minne- sota Behavioral Institute of 12, pp. 194-112 sota; Respondent’s proposed whereas the matter. “2. Lawrence C. Harmon [sic] funded. The program was not *18 8,1976 response to a letter September On explained on the basis that Mr. his conduct Respondent Lawrence written to the him, which Wrich one time swore at Mr. Harmon, then Director of Continu- C. However, expla- Wrich had admitted. [sic] Person- Education for the State Court ing Respondent nation not excuse the does Court, which letter Supreme him. nel of the displayed conduct written in response Sep- Community to an editorial of Involvement Program of Wash- 3,1976 Dispatch, tember Paul St. ington County, Department of Court Serv- allegedly proposed Judges described the Al- ices, Respondent angrily loudly cohol Training Program ‘program to be the in front of personnel a number of other Respondent’, Respondent tele- Department Services, of Court demand- phoned great anger Mr. Harmon and in copies ed receipts of room and other infor- allowing without Mr. Harmon speak, mation pertaining persons to costs of all read to Mr. Harmon a letter Respon- who attended a particular seminar. The 8, dent September had written on 1976 to Respondent justified claimed he was in his Mr. response Harmon in to Mr. Harmon’s actions. 7, September Further, letter of Re- “The Respondent conduct of the in rela- spondent to Mr. stated Harmon ‘that if the tion to David Knefelkamp E. in the matters Supreme Court withdrew it sponsorship of keeping recited above is not in with the Judges Training Alcohol Program, reprimands, in that such decorum “take Respondent would the same to the may may justified, not have been should press message Supreme with the public not have been carried out in a man- coddling judges ’ Court was who had alcohol presence persons. ner in the of other problems.” “Finding: conduct constituted a vi- Such “Finding: conduct a vi- Such constituted olation of 2A of Canon the Code of Judicial olation 2A of Canon of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Conduct.

“Sources: “Sources: QQQ, 3, 1976, Editorial,

“Pet. Ex. Sept. “Testimony, Knefelkamp, David E. Paul Dispatch 73-74; 78-84; St. 6, pp. 85-91 MMM, 7, Sept. 1976, “Pet. Ex. Harmon “Testimony, McDonough, John T. T. Vol. letter 4-6; pp. pp. T. Vol. 59-62 NNN, Sept. “Pet. Ex. “4. Sergeant Detective Risenhoover dent’s letter to Harmon matter. It is the of the Board claim NNN-1, “Pet. page second of letter the fall of spring 1972 or in the PPP, 8, 1976, Editorial, “Pet. Sept. Ex. drinking Sergeant while with Risenhoover Mpls. Star of the Washington County Depart- Sheriff’s Harmon, Lawrence “Testimony, C. [sic] ment, threatened to 133-134; 9, pp. T. Yol. 138-139 ‘screw him up’ keep if Risenhoover didn’t “Testimony, McDonough, John T. T. Vol. drinking secret the incident and that subse- 12; pp. 109-114 quently made criticism Knefelkamp “3. David E. matter. of Risenhoover to the Sheriff of Wash- July, David E. Knefelkamp, po- then ington County. admitted Stillwater, lice officer of the City of drinking Sergeant Risenhoover, but obtained a signed search warrant by the denied making any threats in Respondent. There is evidence that position. Risenhoover’s search warrant obtained Knefelkamp improper The evidence of con- purposes was for purposes addition to the duct convincing not clear and in this stated Shortly therein. after said search matter. executed, warrant was the Respondent con- fronted Knefelkamp David E. in the hall- way of the old County Court- Risenhoover, “Testimony, Hulen T. Vol. house and in front of a number of other 33-34; persons him loudly improper accused ac- Westphal, Edward G. tion in obtaining the search warrant. 6, pp. 10-11 December, 1976,

“Then in while David E. McDonough, John T. Knefelkamp Project Coordinator of the pp. 3-4 *19 County Board of Com- before the the himself matter.. It is Vigoren

“5. Robert Pederson, County missioners; however, that the Idor of the Petitioner claim such present intimidated at or who was April, 1976 threatened Commissioner Officer the Vigoren, a Probation he remembered meeting, Robert that testified County, Washington program with C.E.D.A. that the meeting clearly and divorce disturbance, he obtained a telling specta- that if him a cause make not a did Washington job no with would have or himself, Champion, shout Mr. cle of Vigo- that Mr. County. Evidence showed article arms, newspaper flail his divorce, not but he was get ren did matter was untrue which covered said pro- position as a appointed permanent distorted. de- Washington County, officer of bation evi- finds that “Finding: Referee Mr. qualifications. good spite seemingly convincing clear and dence Respon- that because Vigoren inferred conduct- having improperly Respondent’s divorce, getting opposed dent County the Board of ed himself before him, being Vigoren, from prevented in turn Commissioners. The probation officer. hired as a full-time evi- “Sources: charge. such Respondent denied 7,1976, HHHHH, Paul Sept. as St. hiring Vigoren “Pet. Ex. dence shows that required Dispatch officer probation article full-time Paul country IIIII, majority Sept. Ex. St. County Board and “Pet. appointment, and approve such judges Dispatch article county three only Pederson, pp. this instance one Idor “Testimony, approved Washington County judges 69-75 hiring. Vol. McDonough, T. T. John “Testimony, 15, pp. 39—40 clear and evidence is not “Testimony, Champion, David ap- Respondent’s not

convincing pp. 135-137 a full-time Vigoren’s proving application Vigo- as a result of probation officer Complaint: alleged its “The Board over getting ren’s a divorce “Charge 5: objection. “ Minnesota ‘Respondent has violated 487.03 Subd. 4: § Statute QQ, Proposed “Pet. Ex. Adm. Order “ ‘ court county “. . . . chief [The] RR, Bodo “Pet. Ex. Suem- Statement responsible . shall be . . nig court.” assigning [county] work of Vigoren, Vol. T. Robert “ 67-68; 49-52; 55; (1): ‘and Canon 3B 7, pp. Suemnig, T. Vol. Bodo “ ‘ discharge “A judge diligently should 2-37 responsibility, main- his administrative McDonough, T. “Testimony, John competence professional tain administration, per- and facilitate the Peti- Champion “6. matter. The David responsi- formance of the administrative Respon- produced tioner evidence that offi- judges court bilities other County Board appeared dent before cials.” September Washington County on “ following particulars: ‘in Board, and in the and while before the “ law- accept did not ‘A. persons, had a confronta- presence other in- his Chief ful directive of Champion, tion David accept assignment stead did refuse to Coordinator, regarding certain County juvenile divorce matters. furniture, courthouse and that by the voice ‘B. refused to abide Champion in a loud dent shouted at of his Chief spectacle and flailed lawful administrative order his arms made a *20 judges Washington in his chambers and available three of Judge County to be Court. 1975,1976 during part certain hours and As and accessible the order of days. ‘Judge Day’ on certain there was of the established a “ assignment. ‘Judge Day’ assign- The of the by refused abide Respondent ‘C. imposed duty ment on the so lawful administrative orders of his Chief assigned present to be from 9 A.M. to 12 Respondent Judge pre- in that refused to Noon, and from P.M. to P.M. for 1:30 4:30 weekly submit calendar sched- pare and matters, handling parte of ex the issu- ules. “ warrants, ing issuing of search of war- disrespectful ‘D. has been arrest, rants of etc. In examination of all superior, to his administrative the Chief above, respect to ‘A’ it testimony County Judge Washington Court appears that the did on certain Court, he County in that has insulted assignments request occasions different him, cursed at him and ordered him out by than those made the Order of the Chief attempting of his chambers while was however, Judge; any the record is absent of Judge. perform his duties as such Chief refusal to ac- concrete evidence of absolute responsible ‘E. for ad juvenile hear or di- cept assignment ministering Project (described above) The matters, except in such cases where vorce to account properly but did for the [fail disqualified. he felt he was Department funds to Minnesota of Public that ‘A’above is “Finding: Referee finds application grant Welfare in the for ex * proven by convincing not clear and evi- tension did administer its account inac ] dence. curately carelessly resulting in fail Project ure by of The to be accredited ‘B’ “In above the evidence on National Commission Accreditation of clearly shows that on certain occasions the Hospitals. Respondent failed to dis [The present did fail to be at the Judge Project close to the that The Chief Washington County Courthouse on his as- had failed to receive accreditation signment ‘Judge of the A.M. Day’ from 9 Joint Commission on Accreditation of Noon, and from 1:30 P.M. P.M. 4:30 *’ Hospitals.] “The that on cer- Respondent admitted Judge “The record discloses that Howard tain he left the on occasions Courthouse appointed Judge Albertson was Chief of the days assigned when he was the duties as Washington County Court Order of ‘Judge Day’ prior of the to 4:30 P.M. In Chief Justice dated Sheran October action, defense of his he testified that on reappointed Judge and was as Chief notify he did occasions Clerk of County Washington County Court of County Attorney Court and the where he October, 1976, Judge and served as Chief always could be found and was available County County Court calling situation emergency call if an arose Reorganization until the Act Court went ‘Judge Day’. for action July Judge, into effect 1977. As Chief Respondent was testimony of the corrobo- Judge Albertson had administrative author- and witnesses rated Clerk Court Court, ity Washington County includ- Attorney’s County from the office. ing responsibility assigning for the Respondent did fail to advise Chief the work of the court. Albertson on most occasionswhen he would “As Judge Washington County, present Chief at the courthouse. Techni- cally, days Respondent Albertson issued Administrative Or- on certain was in ‘Judge ders all of which violation of exact terms of the assignments Day’ assignment. related to and duties of the * As amended required by that was Chief mation conduct consti- 3B have been of Canon It would

tuted violation Albertson’s order. a technical *21 Conduct. of Judicial to have Respondent of the Code for the simple matter kept such he stated whom personnel to A’ and ‘B’: as “Sources required records, complete form as 10, 1974, D, J. Sheran’s Ex. “Pet. Oct. same file the Order and the Administrative J. Albertson Chief Appointing Order Judge. with the Chief Judge F, 20, 1974, J. Albertson’s Ex. Dec. “Pet. Respon- finds that “Finding: Referee Adm. Order and sub- frequently prepare fail to dent did G, 12, 1976, J. Albertson’s “Pet. Ex. Jan. monthly schedules calendar weekly mit and Adm. Order required by Administrative reports as and H, 5, 1976, J. Albertson’s Ex. Nov. “Pet. from Octo- Judge Albertson Order of Chief Adm. Order 1, 1977, which 31, through July 1974 ber to I, Respon- letter Ex. J. “Pet. Sheran’s 3B of Canon violation constitutes dent, 10, 1976 Jan. of Judicial Conduct. Code Albertson, 1, T. Yol. “Testimony, Howard 55; 129; 166-172; 2, pp. T. Vol. pp. 31, 1974, E, Memorandum Ex. Oct. “Pet. 140-148 of Albertson Order McDonough, T. Vol. “Testimony, T. John F, 20, 1974, J. Albertson’s 71-72; 19, Ex. Dec. 14, pp. Vol. 152-153 “Pet. pp. T. Linde, 20, pp. T. Vol. “Testimony, Sonya Adm. Order 12, 1976, G, J. Albertson’s 34-35 “Pet. Ex. Jan. Nielsen, 19, Vol. pp. T. “Testimony, Alice Adm. Order 101-104 H, J. Albertson’s “Pet. Ex. Nov. 19, Pauley, T. Vol. “Testimony, Sharon Adm. Order pp. 152-153 Albertson, 1, T. “Testimony, Vol. Howard 19, Shelton, T. Vol. “Testimony, Sharon 137-138; 148-157; 161-167 pp. pp. 74-75 McDonough, Vol. “Testimony, T. T. John Hill, 16, pp. “Testimony, Elizabeth 14, pp. 50-65 103-104 Shelton, T. “Testimony, Vol. Sharon 71-77 pp. above, by Administrative Mem- “As to ‘C’ Nielsen, p. Alice (Pet. E) 1974 Ex. of October orandum (Pet. 2-76 Ex. and Administrative Order by Casanova, Vol. (Pet. “Testimony, Margaret T. G) 1-77 Ex. and Administrative Order Albertson, H) Judge pp. issued Chief each of 122-123 Hill, to file a County Judges required Elizabeth weekly monthly and calendar forms 99-101 were attached to memorandum October above, ‘D’ the evidence “In to The clear that on evidence is relationship between the shows that Respondent numerous occasions the failed Judge Albertson be- Respondent and Chief monthly weekly to file both and calendars. That came strained in the fall of 1974. allegation, response Respon- to this arguments regard were frequent there weekly dent that such produced evidence Judge, assignments made the Chief kept and monthly calendars were during one particular Reporter Court or Clerks of Court and Respondent stated to Chief arguments the duplication therefore it and unneces- ‘You been on the Judge have Albertson: sary report for him to file such with the I been on for bench 20 minutes and have Judge. evidence that in Chief disclosed seniority you going are years and as I have fact, prepared truth and in calendars were you.’ I do what tell Court, Reporter the Court Clerks 24,1976 Respon- September but “That on that such were not on the calendars Judge Albertson’s office they form nor did contain all of the infor- dent came short time the in a loud and with him to have a conference demanded was at the though Judge voice, others, Albertson even angry presence or- per- conference with other private time in from the Re- Judge dered Chief Albertson requested Albertson That sons. spondent’s chambers. That Albert- completed wait until he Respondent’s chambers son returned to the with whom he people with the conference again attempted carry on a rational involved, then the be- and the problem, discussion of the handwritten note angry came and made a angry voice or- again dent in a loud ‘If I receive one more Albertson: dered him to ‘Get out.’ *22 like the one this afternoon ridiculous letter Judge Albertson from admitted he ordered Responsibili- to the Judicial taking you I am his chambers. following grounds. 1. ty Committee on the put then down Your failure . . . He “Sources: on which he had written and pad the note Albertson, 1, T. Vol. “Testimony, Howard court Judge dictated a memo to Albertson’s pp. 179-186 which, among things, other indi- reporter, Odendahl, 3, T. Vol. “Testimony, Rollis he, Respondent, again cated 70-78; pp. 81-82 the Judicial Re- ‘taking Judge Albertson to Griffin, 3, “Testimony, T. Vol. Patrick and stated his rea- sponsibility Committee’ 127-131 son. “Testimony, McDonough, John T. T. Vol. “Sources: 14, pp. 153-156 D, 10,1974, Appoint- Ex. “Pet. Oct. Order Albertson, 2, “Testimony, T. Vol. Howard ing Judge Albertson as Chief pp. 2-9 N, Sept. “Pet. Ex. Albertson “There were other confronta- numerous and Respon- Memorandum to Sandeen Judge tions between Albertson Chief dent. N-l, 1976, Respondent in which the 24, Sept. Respon- “Pet. Ex. Judge Albert- dent’s Memorandum disregard disrespect showed utter for son Judge Albertson. on December 1976, N-2, Sept. Respon- “Pet. Ex. Judge 1976 sent a letter Albertson dent’s Memorandum Sandeen; Judge with the Wash- copies to 24, 1976, Respondent’s Sept. “Pet. Ex. Commissioners; David ington County Memorandum to Judges Sandeen and Coordinator; Champion, County Stanley Albertson Washington County Hu- Keeley, Director of Monson, J. Robert Services; Kelly, Washington man Robert pp. 78-81 Wrich, County Attorney; James Minnesota Albertson, T. “Testimony, Howard Department of Public Welfare. This letter pp. 144-148 response Albertson’s letter was in McDonough, John T. December 3 in which Albertson 31-48; 14, pp. rejected Project’ that ‘The had been stated August “That on or about 1976 the by the Joint Commission for accreditation Griffin, Respondent met with Patrick Coor- Hospitals requested on Accreditation of Division, Dependency dinator of Chemical relating to the Joint Commit- information Services, Washington County Human Hospitals’ study tee on Accreditation of Odendahl, Supervisor, Rollis R. Office Project’. In his that was made of ‘The Department of Training, Drivers Minnesota stated, among other letter the qualifica- Safety, Public meeting held things, public that a would be Project’ presentenee ‘The as a in- tions of gives ad- ‘you you at which and who ever the same vestigation tool and how would program.’ will issues of that vice be the comply 169.126. Albert- M.S.A. stated, ‘This will ac- The letter further son entered the chambers knowledge receipt your weekly usual and problem, dent to discuss this and after a of Public Welfare contains, Department audit of the which letter Friday afternoon 30, 1976 there was fact, of June revealed that as usual, misrepresentations again, as $76,488.47 Project’ account. ‘The actually manifesta- gross assumptions, false no the Re- absolutely claim that There is to what accreditation ignorance tion ap- discrepancy that explained the spondent on Accreditation the Joint Commission for the amount on the basis that pears above all about Hospitals AIF is account ‘The which was money then, your questions all will certainly Most tuition Project’ had its sources from knows, and, you in detail who answered Project’ ‘The assigned to paid by those meaningful ex- educational might receive to be included in required not intended your own your ignorance perience which grant extension or application concerning programs alcoholism ignorance from for transfer of funds application County seems demand.’ in Washington An program account. ex- administrative to VV of Petitioner’s Exhibit indi- amination Albertson, 2,Vol. “Testimony, Howard attempt did not cates that pp. 44-46 from studnets the income received hide *23 T, 3,1976, letter Dec. Albertson “Pet. Ex. Project’. page ‘The On 3 assigned to [sic] Respondent to budget approved as it sets forth the thereof 6, 1976, U, Dec. “Pet. Ex. $84,500.00. totaling original grant on the letter to Albertson during by expenditures the This is followed Respondent’s conduct in “Finding: That by a balance on period followed reported superior did his administrative respect to cursory A examina- amounts. unexpended of Canon 3B in that constitute violation it obvious figures would make tion of these convincing evidence it shows clear and that it examining application anyone to per- to facilitate the conduct which failed Fur- income from students. did not include responsibil- formance of administrative 2, ther, thereof, it is page paragraph 5 ities of court officials. as follows: stated “ above, “In to ‘E’ it is claim of Project during per cost student ‘The Respondent in No- the Petitioner years per The cost $150.00. first vember, 1975, administrative commencing will Feb- student be reduced requested an extension of the Project’, ‘The 26,1976 hopefully, ruary $100.00 21, the same to November grant extend per 1976 to student.’ June $75.00 Respondent stat- request 1976. In such 3, paragraph page 5: and further in ed that balance of unexpended there projected that ‘It is $100.00 $41,734.13 Project’ in ‘The funds on hand per be suffi- then cost student will $75.00 21,1975; as of November whereas an audit pay to maintain and the entire cost cient Project’ of ‘The which was conducted program as to both administrative Helling Department Alfred M. State supplies, program personnel, office December, re- of Public Welfare 1976 forms, films.’ stationery, literature and December, 1975 Re- vealed that when 3, paragraph Exhibit in ap- page 1 request for extension was On spondent’s only '. . Respondent states: . grant funds on proved, unexpended Project.’ $83,277.94 assigned to The further students were actually hand were Upon considering quotations the above Department in a of Public letter VV, 3, 1976, the au- August Respondent re- from the Petitioner’s Exhibit Welfare on Dependency Divi- certain funds of ‘The thorities the Chemical quested a transfer of sion, pro- Drug Authority, Project’ from the administrative to the Alcohol State the in- Project’ fully should have been aware that gram account and stated that ‘The included, and if come from students was not unexpended grant balance of funds as $10,683.01; it have 30, position it were their should of June whereas the included, they should made a failure to return funds to the been have Minnesota Department of Public Welfare. for such request direct information. disagreement “There between SS, DPW, Helling File

Department of Public Welfare and Re- “Pet. Ex. Audit TT, DPW, Helling Work- “Pet. Ex. Audit accounting proce- as to the spondent proper sheet dure, 24, August which led to a letter dated Q, Ex. Dec. “Pet. 1976Wrich letter Respondent

1976 to the from Mr. Kenneth Albertson M. of Pub- Steger, Department State VV, Sept. Appli- “Pet. Ex. [sic] Welfare, in lic which it was demanded that Extension cation for funds be immediately the unused returned YY, 24,1976, letter Aug. Steger “Pet. Ex. Department of Public Welfare. The Respondent Respondent Steger’s answered Mr. letter on XX, 3, 1976, Aug. “Pet. Ex. 26,1976 request and referred to the August Steger letter to ‘arbitrary of money, for return to be ZZ, Aug. “Pet. Ex. return and made no order for capricious’ Steger letter to indicating that the final determina- money, 6,1977, “Resp. Ex. June Kelly letter tion the issue ‘wouldhave to be settled in Mason court.’ letters were appropriate Other Helling, Fred M. exchanged between the and the 5-33; pp. 50-53 agreement and no Department was reached Wrich, “Testimony, James T. Depart- between the and the 68; 72-73; proper ment as to the return of money McDonough, John T. *24 accounting procedure. County Attor- 38-50; 8, 14, 15, 19, Washington W. ney County, Robert Kel- Steger, Kenneth M. 6, ley, on June 1977 in a to the letter 22, pp. 60-62 Milton Judge Honorable D. Mason Dis- the allegation “As to the amended in (who assigned by trict Court was the Su- Complaint notify failed to that preme attempt prob- to Court to arbitrate Project’ Judge Chief Albertson that ‘The Washington Court) County lems of indi- by had not been accredited Joint Commis- Feuerp- cated that from the by audit Mr. evi- Hospitals, sion on Accreditation of the feil, Financial Grants of Wash- Coordinator in dence discloses that the official letter ington County, Project’ that ‘The owed the Project’ respect to the accreditation of ‘The Department approxi- of Public Welfare 17, 1976, to was dated December addressed $2,500.00, mately copy of which letter was Hawthorne, Ms. Jan Chief Administrative Sheran, sent Justice Albert- Judge to Chief Officer, Washington County Alcohol/Drug son, Sandeen, McDonough, the Judge Judge Project, Washington County Survival office, General’s and Fred C. Feu- Attorney Stillwater, Courthouse, Minnesota, with a erpfeil. No action has on this been taken copy going Respondent. to the same Attorney matter General’s office and It Albertson knew ‘The appears that negotiation between going have been [sic] 3, Project’ not accredited on December Feuerpfeil Mr. Department and the Pub- for he in a letter to the states lic in an matter get Welfare effort to dent dated December 1976: “ settled. aware, you ‘Are that Drug (The County Project and Survival support The evidence does not rejected Project) been for accredita- has charge convincing clear and evidence the J.C.A.H.’ tion to properly that failed Project’ the funds of ‘The account for appear that Thus it would Department of Public Welfare in Minnesota letter Albertson dated December grant or in which he states: application extension 1976 in meaning of within the Minnesota pute is still of accreditation process ‘The re- Project has not been 3A 490.16 and Canons progress. The Statute § [Canon] jected.’ prejudi- (4) by inappropriate and of trials during the course cial behavior situ- statement was a correct official including him proceedings before ation on December rude, and ab- discourteous particularly Project’ ‘The “The shows evidence witnesses parties, conduct toward rupt Foundation with Hazelden had contracted lawyers.’ It appears for accreditation. as consultant for non-accreditation the reason allegation contained Pursuant histories, environ- physical of students’ lack above, intro- the Petitioner paragraph 6 studies, post follow-up, none mental sepa- to fourteen evidence duced responsibility of the which was the direct will be referred rate incidents which not The non-accreditation did Respondent. involved. party by name hereinafter aspects of deficiency on the other infer should be noted D. Dixen. It “1. Arvid to the sur- Project’ according ‘The subject of the Dixen was the matter very by the J.C.A.H. showed veys made complaint against formal first scores. high comparative discloses that on Respondent. The evidence “Finding: The record does establish 17, 1974, Dixen, a May Arvid D. or about convincing clear and evidence that minister, a witness in a had intended to the Chief Respondent failed disclose proceeding (Glasspoole v. divorce Glass- Project’ re- Judge that ‘The had failed to appeared and that he at the poole) Wash- by the J.C.A.H. ceive accreditation on said date and ington County Courthouse he not to be witness and learned that 24, 1976, Respondent Sept. Pet. Ex. hallway or corri- therefore remained Memo to Sandeen and Albertson that after dor. Mr. Dixen testified W, Nov. “Pet. Ex. Albertson completed been hearing had letter to been of the decision advised W-l, Al- “Pet. letter to Ex. Judge McDonough McDonough, appeared bertson, Nov. Dixen asked him hallway and Mr. T, 3,1976, letter “Pet. Ex. Dec. Albertson *25 explain rights that the father visitation Respondent to have, at which time of the children would U, 6, 1976, Respondent Ex. Dec. “Pet. Respondent and screamed at shouted to letter Albertson education, him, him belittled his threatened V, 11,1977, “Pet. Feb. letter Ex. JCAH contempt, and told an un-uniformed Albertson, with results of JCAH sur- up or take him police officer ‘lock him vey; Respondent V, 17,1976, away’. The denied the matters “Pet. Dec. letter Ex. JCAH testimony. Hawthorne contained in the Dixen A Rev- Wrich, Haberman, “Testimony, T. T. Vol. James erend who was with the Re- 106; pp. spondent in the corridor and witnessed M. “Testimony, Steger, Kenneth T. Vol. Respondent Mr. Dix- exchange between 60-62 pp. en, did not Respondent testified that McDonough, T. Vol. “Testimony, John T. he any way, Mr. Dixen in nor did abuse 14, p. 158 Dixen, holler or shout at Mr. and that Albertson, 2,Vol. “Testimony, Howard T. Respondent. Mr. Dixen abused the fact pp. 55-63 Lammers, attorney F. for Mrs. James Glass- for whom Dixen had poole, intended alleges paragraph “The Board its did Mr. Dixen’s alle- Complaint: testify, not corroborate that Re- gations, but rather indicated engaged preju- conduct ‘Respondent very well the situation spondent handled justice dicial to the administration brings judicial office disre- under the circumstances. into proof Referee finds that Mr. matter. Smith testified that the Respondent misconduct of the in the Dixen Respondent told him would not matter was not shown clear and convinc- honor the affidavit of prejudice but would ing evidence. transfer the case particular to another mind; whom the had in that the written Respondent had the stat- Dixen,

“Testimony, Arvid D. T. Vol. ute at issue and knew what it meant and 7-63 John McDonough, T. it not mean that did a man of Mr. 14, pp. 92-98 means could Gearman’s avoid the full cost Haberman, “Testimony, Dwight further, of his son’s care. That 14, pp. 110-113 dent stated that when the matter did come Lammers, F. James T. Vol. up hearing, Respondent’s friends 14, pp. 118-124 from press would be in the courtroom so there would full coverage of the matter. Terry “2. Smith—A. T. Gearman. The Mr. Smith testified that the Respondent evidence discloses that in late 1974and 1975 refused to reporter have a court present issue arose in court in re- record this spect money to the amount of that A. conversation and informed the Gearman pay county was to for the care of his son assistant attorney, who was also chambers, who processed through juvenile present had been help he would placed Hills, Duluth, court and at Woodland him prepare against the case Mr. Gearman. Mn. Mr. paid willing Gearman had or was client, Attorney Smith informed his Mr. to pay per requested month as by the $60 transpired, Gearman what had and Mr. Washington County Department, Welfare Gearman, in publicity order to avoid in re- plus he voluntarily agreed pay an addi- spect family, to himself and his decided to per month, tional making a total of $240 pay testimony the bill in total. The The position $300. took the attorney Smith is corroborated Pet. Ex. that the law required Gearman to pay the FF, letter Respondent by written to the Mr. full particular and entire costs. In this February Gearman on and the matter Mr. represented Gearman was by testimony of Mr. Gearman. fur- There is Attorney Terry Smith. matter was set Respondent’sreply ther corroboration in the for hearing. made an or- to Mr. Gearman letter February der dated December 1974 requiring Mr. (Pet. GG) Ex. in which there is no A. T. Gearman to submit to the Washington outright denial that County Welfare Department his income tax threatened press the use in the event returns for the years 1972 and 1973 and a tried, further, the matter was but there is liabilities, statement of assets and on or absolute paragraph corroboration the last before January 1975. It was further temper Pet. Ex. GG that he had lost his ordered by the Respondent that Wash- with attorney Smith: *26 ington County Department Welfare report regret very temper T much my loss of to the court their expla- determination and your attorney. though judges to Even nation of they how arrived at the contribu- should permitted a manifestation of tion by parents made the of Thomas Arvid feeling occasionally, reprehensible it was Gearman, who was under commitment to my temper.’ for me to lose County Depart- Welfare attempt There by Respondent was an to placement ment'for at Woodland Hills. Ev- show that right he was in his decision as to idence shows that an prejudice affidavit of pay; the amount should how- Mr. Gearman was filed Mr. against Gearman the Re- ever, the issue spondent 7,1975. legally was not who was February on or about On 12, right matter, rather, wrong or in this but February Attorney Terry 1975 Smith appeared Washington Respon- in whether or not the conduct of the County be- Court fore Respondent in in dent was in proper respect parties chambers connec- tion hearing with the which was to be held involved.

676 lawyer was not a “Finding: Mr. Fillmore that conduct Referee finds and in witness appeared proposed as a would as outlined above Respondent the Re- The refusal of capacity. to other prejudicial the adminis- no

evidence conduct mat- testify as to him to to allow brings spondent which justice tration of constitutes con- be relevant might ters that violation of Canons disrepute office in into administration prejudicial duct 3A(3) (4). [Canon] in dis- judicial office justice brings the “Sources: (4). 3A repute violation Canon 7, HH, Prejudice, Feb. Ex. Afft. “Pet. Fillmore, 4, Vol. “Testimony, Warren T. II, re Gear- Notice of Review “Pet. Ex. man, 28, pp. 117-126 Jan. McDonough, T. Vol. “Testimony, John T. FF, Gearman letter to

“Pet. Ex. 15, 14, pp. 75-76 dent, Feb. GG, letter Respondent’s

“Pet. Ex. “4. Allen Stevens —Giovannini-Honda Gearman, 19, 1975 Feb. evidence produced matter. The Petitioner 4, Smith, pp. “Testimony, Terry from borrowed Respondent $500 46-66; 73-75 Bank of State Stillwater the Northwestern Gearman, 3, pp. A. T. which was due payment of last 35-69 Mr. R. February and that Allen Ste- McDonough, John T. vens, installment loan de- manager of the 55-68 attempts collect several partment, made about money, July this “3. Fillmore: On or about Warren he paid, when installment was not 25,1976 prop- Fillmore a the last March one Warren Re- Respondent again, and Mutu- contacted the supervisor of State Farm erty claims spondent quite his in- irate but accompanied became Company, al Insurance sured, Goleenbaer, payment the final Respondent did make Thomas to Concilia- one also intro- July Petitioner tion Mr. Goleenbaer had been sued Court. Johnson, Mr. duced the next contact a Mr. evidence Conciliation Court May had with arose of a collision between Stevens suit out appeared Mr. on behalf Fill- 1976 when Stevens the Goleenbaer and Johnson vehicles. Bank of Stillwa- more his insured as a witness Northwestern State accompanied damage to in a entitled vs. Stillwa- as to the the Johnson ter case Giovannini testify Northwestern State Bank of vehicle, having pictures ter Honda and taken several action, plaintiff as to the In this Giovan- the same and obtained statements Stillwater. suing Honda and North- value from various dealers. nini Stillwater of the vehicle Bank, assignee were western who was the After his insured sworn State Fillmore and contract, witnesses, alleged Fill- as asked conditional sales repairs made unnecessary more’s informed him of Stillwater name Fillmore belong- motorcycle employed repossessed that he was Honda to a name and fact action ing particular where- In this Company; State Farm Insurance Giovannini. said, dismissing my a decision upon ‘Get out of issued court’, being wrong party he did not Honda and further stated that Stillwater defendant, judgment against allow and ordered people insurance his courtroom. As a Bank testimony given result no then in Northwestern State Stillwater. matter damages to the The decision amount *27 by Northwestern State appeal car on The under Johnson behalf Goleenbaer. Bank of inference intended Respondent testimony basically cor- The this Stillwater. Mr. herein would be that Ste- testimony roborated the Fillmore Petitioner a debt owed practice attempt he it his vens’s collect stated that was Bank adjusters allow insurance in Concilia- Northwestern State Stillwater any Respon- Respondent caused tion from the Court. dent to make a biased decision in the case Referee finds that the Peti- tioner prove hereinabove to. has failed to Respondent referred clear and con- vincing any evidence misconduct in turn denied the claim of on the Stevens that he part Respondent in the Lentz matter. give did not Stevens a chance to be heard any prior denied that contact with Mr. “Sources: Stevens his influenced decision. “Testimony, Lyle Eckberg, 17, T. pp. 15-16 “Finding: The Referee finds that Lentz, Willmar pp. T. Vol. claim of the Petitioner in this has 71-130 not been proved by clear and convincing “Testimony, John McDonough, T. Vol. evidence. 16, pp. 22-28 “Resp. Transcript Ex. hearing Lentz Stevens, “Testimony, Allen R. T. Yol. “6. Guardianship Ciresi of Fre- matter — pp. 134 et seq. During da Norris. the year 1976 Mr. Jer- McDonough, John T. attorney ome Ciresi was for one Berta 67-72; pp. 96-97 Metz, companion who was a provided nursing Norris, service for one “5. Freda an Lentz matter. An inebriety petition aged woman. Freda Norris was a resident had been against filed Mr. Willmar Lentz of Washington County special and had a by his wife in December 1976. Mr. Lentz guardian (William of her estate and Clar- custody was taken into and brought before ence Springborn). On behalf of Berta the Respondent for processing. It was the Metz, Jerome attempted Ciresi to file a testimony of Mr. Lentz that the Respondent petition general for guardianship. orOn forced him into alcoholtreatment by assign- time, about the same Lyle Mr. Eckberg, ing him Project’. to ‘The testimony who attorney special was for the guardians, revealed that Lentz represented was petition filed a special guardi- that the hearing by attorney Lyle Eckberg, and (relatives) ans appointed general guardi- that after a discussion of the matter with ans. testimony It was the of Mr. Ciresi his attorney, and his attorney discussing the Respondent refused to allow him to matter with the Respondent, Lentz volun- file petition of Berta general Metz for tarily signed agreement whereby he Norris, guardianship of Freda and then Mr. would Project’. attend ‘The Lentz claimed Ciresi, Metz, as for attorney Berta filed an he signed agreement this because ‘his back objection appointment to the special against the wall’ and ‘I didn’t know if I guardians general guardians. to be In Au- had any rights up left way up it went gust, appeared Mr. Ciresi with his until then.’ any denied abuse client before the in a duly or mistreatment of Lentz in testimony, hearing scheduled for the appointment of and attorney Lyle Eckberg, who represent- the special guardian general as guardians. Lentz, ed testified that Mr. Ciresi testified that the re- just handled this case any like other case. any fused to allow evidence whatsoever on He discussed the parties matter with both client, objected behalf of his who to such and with the attorney, and there was noth- appointment. The court ruled that the law ing unusual that he recalled happened did not filing petition sustain Ciresi’s respect. Mr. Lentz had testified that guardianship in that Berta Metz was nei- he thought got however, job’; ‘railroad ther an pecuniary heir nor did she have his attorney, Lyle Eckberg, testified that he law, provided interest to intervene in get did not job’ a ‘railroad and that special guardians, this matter. The William very compassionate and under- Springborn, and Clarence appointed were standing people and does understand with general guardians by order of the alcohol problems when they brought are appealed dent. This decision was Mr. court, into his and that the Lentz case Court, Ciresi to County District handled in such manner. which court Respondent, sustained the *28 presided at hear- Respondent a 1973 the by the was also refused appeal

Mr. Ciresi’s temporary alimo- ing of Minnesota. counter-motion of the State Court Supreme hearing custody. At such Lyle Eckberg, ny, support and attorney testimony The on behalf appeared to Mr. Robert J. Monson attorney, some opposing who was the ap- Fritz, Kenneth Griswold testimony Mrs. and Mr. the of Mr. extent corroborated Both Mr. Mr. Fritz. peared Mr. on behalf of Eckberg testified that Ciresi in that Mr. at such hear- present were evi- Mrs. Fritz to hear some and wanted the court Ciresi the by attor- prepared were Affidavits Respondent ing. refused to dence and that the issues of relating the party for each neys evidence. Mr. him to submit such allow In his affi- alimony. custody, support and Eckberg also testified that Mr. Ciresi alco- question of raised the argu- a davit Mr. Fritz into heated Respondent entered the There Mrs. Fritz. part holism on the testimony by the court ment. There was the children and were counter-affidavits of occurred in nothing that unusual reporter Mrs. question matter, relating others the which was corroborated Norris the particular, one addiction. Scattum Fritz’ alcoholic testimony of Bailiff Steven he of the recanted an affidavit D. Becker of the Sheriff’s sons had by Richard behalf of Mr. Fritz that his mat- made earlier on taken in this Department. appeal Respondent taking mother an alcoholic. ter consisted of Writ Prohibition in chambers with not first discussed the matter up Respondent allow- the issues of the parties were attorneys and later attorney petition, to file his ing Ciresi according to Mr. brought into chambers and to hear Ciresi’s Respondent’s failure Monson, by the attorneys were asked Springborns being opposition evidence in any comment dur- not make general guardians Mrs. Norris. appointed of his examination ing it that the same issues course appear Thus would would in- parties. testimony Mr. adversely to Mr. Ciresi Monson’s were determined spent much of Washington County dicate that the District Court going question into the the time Supreme brought up Court as were Fritz, and one possible of Mrs. alcoholism testimony Mr. in his instant Ciresi that could not have point told Mrs. Fritz she hearing. go to Hazelden to if she did children Peti- “Finding: The Referee finds that Mr. also be treated for alcoholism. Monson clear con- prove tioner has failed point that at one testified vincing con- evidence that boy who had forcing accused Monson of prejudicial matter was duct above making affidavit into recanting made the brings justice the administration of testimony This never such affidavit. disrepute in office into violation directly Mr. Monson also testified denied. (4). of Canon 3A shouted and hollered the matter argued at him when he Hill, 16, pp. T. Vol. “Testimony, Elizabeth question was not before the court 125-126 alcoholism, tempo- question but rather Scattum, T. “Testimony, Steven tem- custody, temporary alimony, and rary pp. 50-51 Monson, upon his re- porary support. Mr. Becker, T. Vol. “Testimony, Richard D. office, to his dictated memorandum turn 20, pp. 40-46 which memorandum is transpired, of what McDonough, T. Vol. “Testimony, John T. August marked Pet. Ex. dated 1973 and 16, pp. 48-49 ‘C’, testimony. The which corroborates Ciresi, pp. Jerome the accusations Respondent denied some of 71-77 only stated that he of Mr. Monson and Eckberg, Lyle well, if Mrs. it would be suggested that 137-139 had an were in doubt whether she Fritz she could have the Monson, Attorney problem, alcoholic “7. Robert J. —Fritz at Hazelden but that August shows that on same determined vs. Fritz. The record *29 prior any way did not in threaten commitment to was taken to Moosbrugger’s arrival. Hazelden or a statement she Moosbrugger delayed make that Mr. had been incle- would custody go be denied if she did to ment weather. A transcript proceed- not evidence, Attorney ings Hazelden. that being Griswold testified was introduced in transcript there was no part Resp. page on Ex. The on misconduct Respondent. that memory Arney requested Mr. Griswold’s reveals Mr. was permission somewhat court’s for hazy, but did corroborate to a moment confer some witnesses, permission extent Mr. Monson’s in of his testimony re- one spect granted by then, to the was Respondent dwelling Mrs. court. court on hearing Fritz’s without problem any alcohol and the of the defendant’s wit- benefits nesses, Hazelden. following The matter was terminated made statement record, open the court an dictating order into court: “ which, among things, provided other that the negligence defendant, ‘As to both Mr. Fritz and would remain Mrs. Bradley Koepp, it is vicarious and abso- homestead, pro- Mr. that Fritz would your objections lute. Mr. Moosbrugger, vide his wife with the same amount ridiculous, are quite childish and im- to, support she was accustomed and that mature. We trying are to come to some same, remain the custody would that reasonable definition of the case. “ trial, the matter would be set down for one, you ‘Number stated the court it regard there would reservations in be settled; false; it was it was not to temporary alimony. pre-trial settled. At a conference it was today reset you for are not here on upon “Finding: Based analysis careful time. “ exhibits, of all the testimony Refer-

ee client proven being adequately rep- finds that it was ‘Your is not by clear and convincing you resented. If any evidence there was miscon- cannot come to duct reasonable we will accusing Mr. settlement of this find record, this damages, Monson of is on the based on coercing individual to make a affidavit, false what we have here “ in violation of 3A so far afternoon. Canon (4). it Moosbrugger: May please ‘Mr. Court, may the that at record show 3:27 C, “Pet. Ex. Aug. Monson Memo- “ Honor, pro- ‘Your I ask this entire randum ceeding placed on the record. “Resp. File, Ex. Court Fritz vs. Fritz “ ‘The Court: It is on the record. If we Monson, J. Robert I you you hear much more from will hold pp. 65-105 contempt. in “ Do me? you hear Griswold, “Testimony, Kenneth Moosbrugger: ‘Mr. Honor . pp. 163-189 Your . . T. McDonough, John “ 15, pp. 26-34 misrepresented ‘The Court: You settled, Court once that this was and it “8. Moosbrugger Refin- Oil and —Clark You January wasn’t. “ did that on 22nd. ing Corporation Koepp. vs. The evidence Moosbrugger: ‘Mr. is simply That discloses that plaintiff the above-en- falsely true. Your Honor has accused titled represented action by attorney counsel. Richard M. and that Arney, the defendant “ ‘The Court: You weren’t Court here. represented by attorney C. Gordon you This is second failed to time Moosbrugger. The case was set P.M. appear. “ 29,1975. on January Attorney Moosbrugger Moosbrugger: beg your I pardon, ‘Mr. present was not when case was called at Your Honor. “ 3 P.M. and did not arrive until 3:08 P.M. proceeded to hear the case appear ‘The Court: You also failed

in Moosbrugger’s absence testimony January 22nd. brought by peti- Honor, application for relief I want Moosbrugger: Your ‘Mr. *30 custody and support, ordering copy temporary a for point I am tioner to out (cid:127) that the complained Doyscher take it Mr.

transcript. alimony. I intend to per for one at month Supreme “ support Court. $400 court set attorney Doyscher child, adjourn. and did not allow Court will ‘The Court: This to and failed argument to make final another time. We will set this for per month meantime, explain $400 it. this on the the reasons for prepare Get testimony Doyscher’s temporary support. ones who will be record. We are the on the any conduct writing specific to the Bar Association. did not contain “ that could part of copy I Moosbrugger: want ‘Mr. Respon- or inconsiderate. abusive termed record. was There any misconduct. dent denies enough. Do not That is ‘The Court: which showed that evidence introduced also in this court make one more remark ability pay to client had the Doyscher’s Mr. room.’ by the ordered temporary support as testified that not all Moosbrugger Mr. court. to in directed him are the caustic remarks that the court directed prove by the record and failed to “Finding: Petitioner Be in the record. reporter place not to any miscon- evidence convincing clear and it clear from the may, quite that it Respondent in the of the part duct on the we have before us that the record Taylor matter. in were not conduct and statements dent’s “Sources: It good judicial decorum. keeping with Doyscher, E. Vol. “Testimony, David of the must be the remarks noted pp. 181-190 quoted hereinbefore were made Court McDonough, John T. “Testimony, parties, in front of the the wit- open court 15, pp. 94-95 certainly consti- attorneys nesses and Lawrence Geraghty. “10. Lawrence P. Moosbrugger Mr. did tuted a threat that if Hudson, Law, Attorney Geraghty, P. would find his case the Court settle concerning Wisconsin, testify called to was without against the defendant damages not use point did Moosbrugger hearing the evidence that Mr. sentencing investigations presentence present. prepared was intoxicating the influence of driving under finds that the conduct Referee on his beverage cases. Based observation Respondent as outlined above would Respondent was in which the method conduct'prejudicial to the adminis- evidence appeared before all those who ordering brings justice which tration Project’, and in view of fact him ‘The disrepute office into in violation of Canons Geraghty did not want Attorney (4). 3A [Canon] client, Minneapolis, and who who lived in “Sources: attending Chalk already a fee for paid Oil v. “Resp. Transcript Ex. Clark Hennepin County, be sent Talks in Koepp of the court Project’, ‘The he asked leave Moosbrugger, T. C. “Testimony, Gordon so. prejudice and did file an affidavit 196-230 Vol. prove by “Finding: Petitioner did not Arney, T. Vol. “Testimony, Richard M. there convincing evidence that clear and pp. 85-116 part of the any on the misconduct McDonough, John T. Geraghty matter. 15, pp. 71-74 Tay- v. E. Doyscher Taylor “9. David — Geraghty, T. Lawrence P. 31, 1977, Attorney lor. or about March On 5, pp. 17-46 re- representing the Doyscher appeared, Joseph Joseph F. matter. “11. O’Brien spondent, which was disso- Taylor, Norris that on on an F. O’Brien testified October appearance was lution matter. The 1974, he, holding facility in Grady Washington County as executor of the Norvell estate, holding, temporary in the chambers of examination and appeared Luebker to Washington County Knutson ordered be transfer- Courthouse. Joseph’s Hospital. red St. matter attorney He represented by Edward appealed corpus writ of on a habeas completion Simonet. After mat- Rheinberger, Mr. and was heard chambers, ter taken up Joseph Mr. F. Thoreen, Honorable John F. Dis- into hallway O’Brien came the corridor or Court, District, in trict Tenth Judicial standing of the courthouse and was next to *31 in respect Thoreen stated to the Re- (no relative). James S. O’Brien addition spondent: there people were a number of other stand- “ making ‘The isn’t a decision. If ing hallway, at time which the Re- anybody making a patient decision the spondent proceeded out of a came door and was decision making the and all that was Joseph O’Brien, towards F. and when he carry process done here out got approximately within 10 15 feet an- that already provided by statute. grily threatening raised his hand in a way, “ ‘Now, under those circumstances the O’Brien, and as he closer came to Mr. said: compli- court feels there has that been ‘Joe, years ago 15 I you told leave Nor- ance with rights the statute. The of the vell Grady alone and stop practicing law in really protected defendant were here going State of Minnesota. I am to sue more than the court the statute would $7500’, you departed. for and then The require don’t and I have the hard evi- Respondent making denied such statement looking dence but file from at this O’Brien, to Mr. testimony and the of James looking at petition Mrs. Luebker S. O’Brien and Edward Simonet Jr. indi- petitioner] signed January on [the Respondent cated that the was not abusive that appears me to be for petition Joseph towards F. O’Brien and did not proceeding Ramsey County.’ threaten to sue him. discharged The District the writ of Court prove by Petitioner did not corpus brought by Rheinberger. habeas Mr. convincing clear and evidence that there testimony “Mr. in his Rheinberger made was any part misconduct on the allegations various other respect Respondent in the O’Brien matter. were Referee finds “Sources: unfounded. O’Brien, Joseph “Testimony, F. T. Vol. “Finding: Referee finds that Petitioner pp. 185-205 prove convincing did clear and evi- “Testimony, McDonough, John T. T. Vol. any dence that there was misconduct 15, pp. 69-71 part Rheinberger- O’Brien, “Testimony, James T. S. Vol. Luebker matter. pp. 48-49 Simonet, “Sources: “Testimony, Edward H. T. Rheinberger, John

pp. 205-216 8, pp. 174-178 “12. John H. Rheinberger In- —Luebker McDonough, John ebriety An hearing. commitment inebriety 16, pp. 7-12 petition respect for commitment in to Eu- (also 99) Ex. “Resp. Resp. Ex. 25 marked gene A. T. Leubker filed in Wash- [sic] Eugene Transcript proceedings, A. ington Court. H. County Mr. John Rhein- T. Luebker file berger, attorney law, represented Mr. charges “The Board follows: Rheinberger Luebker. an affidavit filed prejudice Respondent. to the “Charge ‘Respondent 7: incorrect filed The original petition alleging inebriety reports quasi for compensation received came Respondent. before the activities, judicial extra all in violation dent took action in respect no to the ine- Canon 6 of the Canons of Judicial Con- briety, but due to the fact there was no duct.’ testimo- Respondent’s corroborates of the This Supreme Court

“Reports in- judicial showing and extra the Petition- quasi was no ny. There follow- contains year 1974 come for the for explanation er that ing: correct. was not this variance ap- I received ‘During year failed has the Petitioner “Finding: That My de- for lectures. proximately $415 convincing evidence prove clear were, moving purposes for tailed records reports incorrect filed new court- the old courthouse from quasi for received compensation expensive briefcase put in house were activities. extra was sto- moving the briefcase during and fees only lectures len or lost. actually reconstruct I can therefor which SSS,' TTT, 1974, 1975, RRR, Exs. “Pet. following: are the of Re- Tax Returns Income and 1976 Dep. Chemical ‘Sept. Minnesota documents spondent, with attached Assn., $ 75.00 speech McDonough, T. Vol. “Testimony, John T. Wisconsin, speech $150.00 ‘Oct. Univ. *32 Hospital, 32p. Joseph’s 1974 St. ‘Nov. $ 40.00 speech charges as follows: “The Board $265.00’ ‘Total Respondent reported year 1975 For the “Charge 8: quasi and extra Supreme $435.56 Court “ 5D: ‘Respondent violated Canon income; year Re- for the judicial “ ‘ as the exec- judge not serve “A should of to the Court spondent reported $280.00 trustee, guardian, or utor, administrator such income. estate, fiduciary, except for the other for tax returns these Respondent’s “The trust, his fami- person of a member of or as follows: respective show years (sic) will only if such serve ly, and then judicial income quasi $1084.00 “1974 perform- proper with the interfere judicial income quasi $ 762.00 “1975 judicial duties.” ance judicial income quasi 579.00 $ “1976 “ such valuations Respondent explained 7A (c): ‘and the Canon reported testimony in his that the $1084.00 “ ‘ judge . . not: “A . should income, tax in 1974 as in his income return “ (c) . . . . make a . . . got from expense money he included the organization or political to a contribution county, as follows: authorized in subsec- except as candidate “ report was a from busi- ‘Q. And that (II).” tion A would cover all profession ness “ serving money for accepted ‘in that he your quasi judicial income? “ an unre- estate of appraiser as ac- necessarily, because the ‘A. Not over paid subsequently person lated instead of show- uses that word countant get I from the who expense money fee to the ing part appraisal county, “ report. which I also ap- and who political candidate was expense money appraiser.’

‘Q. report your pointed Respondent You county? from the by the “Finding: proof presented No “ it. Well, way to do the easiest ‘A. it’s Charge 8 above and Petitioner expense is some That how ’74 includes proved. it found not therefore things money you get, my lunches “The as follows: charges Board like that.’ expenses received from analysis An “Charge 9: to the tax were attached county, favoritism ‘Respondent showed returns, shows: in con- 1st Bank Stillwater National “1974 $703.78 admin- Respondent’s nection with “1975 $351.78 Estate.’ of the Whalen istration “1976 $299.04 Court, being County It admitted the Peti- County, ex- alleged charge tioner transaction pires 31,1980. In December 1960 he was 15,1970, happened prior to June therefore appointed Special Advisor to a 12-Member it is barred Statute Limitations. Federal Delinquency Commission on throughout period on the bench has SPECIAL FINDINGS been extremely problems juve- active in years age, “The is 55 hav- nile delinquency drug and alcohol and ing born on August been 1922. He was abuse. Stillwater, Minnesota, born and raised in “The Respondent is married and has five parochial and attended school high children. During period 1963 to 1975 school in Stillwater. He was in the U.S. the extraordinary has had military through service from 1942 1945 and illness, amounts of both himself and to Infantry served in Fifth Division in his wife. In his wife underwent ex- England, France He Germany. tensive 1963 to surgery, and from 1970 she honorably discharged military from the periodic emotionally unstable hos- 1945, and thereafter attended St. Thomas pitalizations. During periods the care Paul, Minnesota, College in St. and obtained children and home was a B.A. in two and degree years. one-half In basically Respondent. that of In the late 1948 he was an unsuccessful candidate 1960’s the developed an addic- the office of Lieutenant Governor of the tion to alcohol and entered treatment at September, State of Minnesota. 1949 he Chat, June, Chit completed Pa. in 1973 and began Georgetown attending University *33 October, treatment in Law, July, 1973. In College C., Washington, D. and Respondent surgery had his attended until he called was back into the spine one lower and in military year during service for the summer of 1971 had Korean inWar 1950. His occupa- April, again service knee In surgery. he was tion during period this was a cryp- that of hospitalized for spinal problems. In 1974 tographer for the Security National Agency Respondent difficulty had with his arms at Arlington, Virginia. He honorably was spine and cervical and underwent several discharged from military service and operations cervical in 1975 and endured a again pursued his law training George- long period hospitalization therewith. In town University from when graduated December, the Respondent’s wife was in August, Respondent 1952. The then re- hospitalized surgery performed and was in Minnesota, turned to was employed by (cid:127) January, hospitaliza- 1975 with extensive Paul, West Publishing Company of St. Min- tion. nesota in writing ap- case headnotes “By of Respondent’s reason illness and proximately nine months. He successfully spouse, those of his he was under severe passed the Minnesota Bar examination in addition, physical emotional strain. and August, 1952. He then returned to Stillwa- during period receiving he was relative- ter, Minnesota, engaged where he was in ly low and salary the cost treatment and general practice of law from January, hospitalization, together with the cost 1956, 1953 until when he appointed rearing educating fami- large and a rather probate juvenile judge Washington ly, created a severe financial strain. The County. Judge- The Probate and Juvenile Respondent prior bizarre conduct 1960, ship during extended from 1956 until June, direct appear 1973 would to be a Respondent which time the carried out a problem, relation his it is with alcoholic part-time practice of in law addition to his good reasonable to infer that a deal of his judicial position. judicial posi- In 1960 the irritability, temperedness later short tion became full time. The physical unusual to his times, conduct related consecutively re-elected four twice prob- condition opposition. He was last attendant emotional elected present 1974. His experiencing. term office as lems that he was The Referee temperament and decorum. situation present “The im- for the greatly to be directed counsel respects appears these appears now cumula- testimony condition would be physical His proved. such additional emotional illness and His wife’s into the good. were read their names tive and improved. The much 17, to be problem appear in Volume record, and found are ad- his alcoholic Respondent has overcome 21, pp. 212-213. 215-217, Volume July, since used no alcohol and has diction for cross-ex- were available attorneys These Respon- burdens 1973. The financial Peti- event purposes amination his chil- four of dent have lessened any of them. to cross-examine tioner wished away from home. dren are educated and other probation officers A number of college in attending child now last were of the testified and court officials which he salary The increased Wisconsin. ju- proper that the opinion appreciated value receiving and the is now he conducted temperament and dicial should enable of his homestead manner. professional highly court loan at the unsecured dent to secure the who testified were: Among those and make Bank of Stillwater First National Ploen, Supervisor of “Lester F. former the same. to reduce regular payments Services, Washington County Probation who had exten- following attorneys, “The Shelton, Clerk, Family Deputy “Sharon Respondent, testi- before practice sive Court, Washington County possessed good fied that Casanova, District Clerk of “Margaret had never been judicial temperament and Court, Washington County them: abusive towards Pauley, Secretary, “Sharon 17, 117) (T. p. Vol. “Darryl Morse County Attorney’s Office 17, p. 118) (T. Vol. “Michael Sieben Clerk, Plaster, Deputy M. Concil- “Janet 143) (T. p. Vol. Montpetit A. “Joel Court, Washington County iation 154-155) (T. p. Nordby Vol. “Jack Becker, Sergeant, Washington “Richard 173) (T. p. Vol. Kelly W. “Robert Department County Sheriff’s 192) (T. p. Vol. “Barry W. McKee Scattum, Washington County 202-203) “Steven (T. “George Stunyo p. 205) p. Department. (T. Vol. Sheriff’s “Edward W. Simonet *34 (T. 21, 48-54) p. Vol. “Howard Turrentine upon testimony of such indi- “Based the 21, 58-59) (T. p. Goyer Vol. “Wilbur L. except viduals, for the appear, it would 21, 66-68) (T. p. Vol. “Peter Paulos subject of which are the isolated instances 21, 75-78) (T. p. Vol. “Harold D. Kimmel matter, past over the 21, 100-101) (T. p. “Allen I. Nilva Vol. judicial his office in years has conducted 21, 109-111) (T. p. “Richard E. Aretz Vol. has the proper judicious and manner and 21, 116-117) (T. p. E. “John Jansen Vol. majority attorneys who respect of the 21, 124-126) (T. p. Vol. “Jon Arcand majority him. The of attor- appear before 21, 129-130) (T. p. “Louise M. O’Neil Vol. praiseworthy were neys who testified 21, 143-144) (T. p. E. Walsh Vol. “John capaci- judicial social Respondent in his and Thuet, (T. 21, p. A. Jr. Vol. 161- “Paul ty.' 162) attorneys who had com- “Several of 21, (T. p. 177- Vol. “Kenneth P. Griswold testified plaints against 178) specif- were related to complaints (T. 21, p. Vol. 191- “Gerald E. Sikorski impres- general their ic incidents and that 192) handled was that he sion of 21, (T. p. Vol. “Millett E. O’onnell [sic] County on position Court Judge his as 201-204) expeditiously. most matters 21, 209-210) (T. p. “William Thuet F. in this “A entire record review of the addition, 63 other attor- approximately glaringly clear and makes it Re- matter reveals neys testify were to prepared arose problems main judicial Respondent’s spondent’s proper as to that the behalf McDonough in re Minn. Cite as. Minn.. 296 N.W.2d 648 personal rehabilitation and relationship program.

out of his close and corrections operation management and of ‘The Serving in such dual capacity bound to charges Project’. against conflicts, In relation to the create especially when success Complaint set forth in Project’ and the very existence of ‘The de- herein, following directly are or indi- pends generated on the income from those rectly related to connection assigned In serving to it. in such capacity, Project’ operation with ‘The thereof: doubt is been his upon capacity and has cast impartially “1. with to decide issues Arguments disputes Judge certain come concerning assignments. before him. Albertson Champion “2. The matter —unauthor- any against “As to other charge as ized use the courthouse for ‘The Respondent herein, forth specifically set Project’ purposes. Referee finds same not have been “3. Alleged mismanagement proved convincing by clear evidence. Project’. ‘The funds of 14, Dated: Thomas March /s/ J. notify “4. Alleged failure to the Chief Stahler” Project’s’ as to ‘The accredita- In April Judge McDonough tion. objections counsel for the Board submitted “5. Alleged sentencings. indiscriminate report. were Stahler’s These con- “6. The Lentz matter. meeting, sidered the Board at its June “7. Alleged failure to return the Wel- Adoption and the Proposed Board’s Department fare of the State of Findings Modification were of Fact sent Project’. Minnesota funds in ‘The Judge McDonough. Board heard “8. Project’. The accreditation of ‘The oral argument findings on its tentative “9. The problem investigations of P.S.I. July August 1978. On in D.W.I. cases. unanimously adopted Findings Board as Recommendations follows: “Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides: “ ‘The duties of a judge prece- take AND “FINDINGS RECOMMENDATION

dence over all other activities. His OF BOARD ON JUDICIAL judicial duties include all duties of his STANDARDS office prescribed as are law . . .’ hereby “The Board on Judicial Standards

adopts Findings Fact of Thom- Stahler, “Canon of the Code of Judicial Conduct J. dated March provides: exceptions, the following modifications and substitutions, Findings as its of Fact herein: ‘A judge, subject proper performance *35 duties, of engage his in may the “A. Finding Paragraph As to re: activities,

following quasi-judicial if in IV(1)(D) amended, Complaint of the as the doing so he does not cast on doubt following Board herewith makes the Find- capacity impartially any to decide issue ing of Fact: that may come before him.’ ‘That the record reveals that on March 4, “Regardless praise- how or Respondent of meritorious 1963 the borrowed from worthy objectives the and of the goals ‘The First National Bank of St. Paul the be, Project’ judge $6,500.00 a may promis- should not become sum of on an unsecured personally note, so involved in quasi-judicial sory pay- a which note was due and 16, matter that performance bearing the of his official able on March 1964 inter- and criticized, may questioned duties be per prom- or be- est at This percent six annum. suspect. Through by come issory co-signed his intimate con- note was Peter C. Project’ Respondent nection with ‘The pay- the no Nielsen. The made has acted in dual capacity; a that of a loan ment on this to the First National administrator, 15, and that of an of a Bank of Paul on 1965 the October St. 686 Washington banking institution only and the Peter C. Nielsen paid by note was that it Department; County with a Trust Paul endorsed of St. National Bank First capacity acting fiduciary was 4, On June to Mr. Nielsen. the note over in said many guardianships and estates Hannaford, acting on Attorney 1971 John acting were for so that its fees County; Nielsen, mailed a C. behalf of Peter the of approval of subject to the promissory note and letter County and of Probate Court promissory note that the requesting dent Judge of assigned of the subsequently $6,500.00 signed and be to Mr. Nielsen for Court; during the that County said The Re- Respondent. the returned Re- preferential treatment of said course the Hanna- spondent response no made Judge of said the Probate spondent letter, sign promissory nor did ford County of said County Peter therewith. that enclosed note assigned respon- to such frequently Court May 1973 testate on Nielsen died C. sibilities. The action the Final De- Respondent signed and the foregoing, constitutes set out Account of and Final cree of Distribution 5C(1). violation of Canon in Peter representation of C. Distribution Paragraph # 7 re Finding As to “C. 17, 1975. September Nielsen estate amended, Complaint, as IV(6) of 29 and violated Canons That such conduct Finding Com- adopts the Referee’s Board Ethics 32 of Canons of Judicial [Page line 57 of p. line 11 mencing at 4C(2) 1966) March and Canon (adopted thereof, following opinion] with this Judicial Re- Standards of (cid:127) addition: 29, 1972). sponsibility (adopted March further there was aware, fully at the That his intem- misconduct Nielsen, that he time of the death Mr. At- behavior toward perate and abusive to decedent. That Re- owed such debt by the testi- Monson as established torney com- produce failed to evidence spondent contemporaneous memo- mony amount, if any, what petent to show events, of Monson of the randum Mr. the render- repaid by said debt had been testimony of Attor- to some extent lobbying on behalf of ing of services 3A(3). Griswold, ney in violation of Canon slaughter a humane legislation relating to p. [Page “D. As 37 Finding, adoption and an animal center. That bill (Charge) opinion] Paragraph re IV 8 not, Respondent may consonant amended, the re- Complaint, as Board Canons 23 and 24 of Canons Judi- Finding hereby jects the Referee’s 3, 1966) (adopted carry March cial Ethics Finds: remunera- lobbying on such activities for by the Refer- proof no was allowed “That tion.’ presented by Petitioner as ee Findings of rejects “The Board Fact Complaint because IV 8 of the Paragraph commencing line Page at the Referee Respondent had raised defense opinion] of said page 5 of this [line (MS Section 490.16 Limitations Statute at Findings concluding page line 30 Conference; 3) the Pre-Trial Subd. opinion] thereof. page 6 of this [line ruled, Pre-Trial the Referee had Findings regarding Paragraph

“B. the stat- As Order of October of said IV(2) the Board herewith substance Complaint, applied ute *36 IV Paragraph Pages charge; consequently # 2 on 13 Findings # and adopts litigated has not been Complaint 8 of the opinion] and 14 9 and 10 of this of [Pages herein. Findings and makes the fol- the Referee’s Finding: lowing additional Findings of the special to the “E. As takes notice that p. [Page # 3. That the Board of commencing at Referee special accepts Bank of Stillwater said opinion] the First National the Board excusing was, rendering pref- but not as explanatory of as during Findings the course conduct. Respondent’s Respondent, erential treatment incidents, clearly Respondent’s “F. The numerous and “9. refusal cooperate convincingly shown exhibits and the tes- Judge with Chief Howard Albertson’s Wrich, Harmon, Costello, timony of Messrs. ‘Judge Day’ program of the in violation Bakke, Judge Champion, Knefelkamp, 3B(1) of Canon of the Code of Judicial Smith, Fillmore, Monson, Moosbrugger, Mr. Conduct. Gearman, Judge and and Mrs. Albertson of Respondent’s “10. prepare failure to and abuse, intimidation and misbehavior toward submit reports calendar schedules and litigants, attorneys public and other offi- required by the Chief of Wash- cials, together with Respondent’s refusal to ington County Court in violation of Can- cooperate attempts with the of Chief 3B(1) of the Code Judicial Conduct. Albertson to administer the Washington “11. Respondent’s demonstrated disre- Court, County continuing indicate a lack of spect of the County Judge by Court Chief temperment part on the [sic] insulting and cursing presence him in the Respondent. incidents Such include: 3B(1) others violation of Canon “1. Respondent’s sending of his intem- the Code of Judicial Conduct. perate letters of criticism not only to “12. Respondent’s intimidation of Mr. Bakke, attorneys but in- and Mrs. A. T. Gearman and verbal abuse volved in violation of Canon 1 of the Smith, of their attorney, Mr. Terry Standards of Judicial Responsibility of 3A(3) (4) violation of Canon of the March Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent’s acceptance “2. prefer- “13. Respondent’s refusal to allow Mr. ential treatment from the First National Warren Fillmore to testify in his court- Bank of in violation of Stillwater Canons justification room without and which con- 5C(4)(b) 5C(1). prejudicial stitutes conduct to the admin- Respondent’s “3. failure to comply with justice istration of in violation of Canon the pre-sentence requirements of MSA 3A(3) (4) of the Code of Judicial 169.126 in violation of Canon Subd. Conduct. A(l). Respondent’s falsely “14. misconduct in Respondent’s “4. threatening the Coun- accusing Attorney Robert Monson of ty Coordinator and his failure to abide coercing an individual to make a false County resolution of the Board affidavit and his verbal abuse of Mr. violation of 2A Canon of the Code of 3A(3) Monson in violation of Canon Judicial Conduct. (4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. “5. Respondent’s making abusive Respondent’s “15. threats toward and phone calls to Mr. Howard Costello in refusal to hear evidence offered Attor- violation of Canon 2A of the Code of ney Moosbrugger evidencing Gordon con- Judicial Conduct. prejudicial duct to the Administration of “6. Respondent’s unprovoked verbal at- 3A(3) Justice in violation of Canon tack of Mr. James Wrich in violation of Conduct, Code Judicial Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Con- continuing pattern establish a duct. unjudicial temperment exercise of [sic] “7. Respondent’s attempted intimida- performance official tion, criticism, public threat of of Mr. duties. Lawrence Harmon in violation of Canon August “Dated: 2A of the Code Judicial Conduct. George King Respondent’s public

“8. /S/ C. up- and abusive braiding George Knefelkamp King of Mr. David E. C. Chairman,

violation of Canon 2A of the Code of on Judicial Board *37 Judicial Standards, Conduct. State of Minnesota Judge McDonough the A. contends

“RECOMMENDATION investigation its proceeded in initial Board Standards, having on Judicial “The Board (1)D of Rule proper without authorization. herein, Findings of Fact made heretofore in effect at time the rules the Board of following recommendation makes of begun fall investigation Minnesota: of of Supreme Court the State grievance a verified requires either be for his censured “1. That an investi or of the Board before a motion judicial conduct the canons of violation of appears to gation is The Board initiated.2 Findings of Fact A. B. as forth in set rule, only in a though have violated foregoing of violations “2. Because grievance A technical sense. sworn lack of and the demonstrated McDonough back against Judge been made by such Find- as shown temperment [sic] shortly was closed in 1974 but that matter B., Findings the other of ings A. and 1976, Judge of September thereafter. Board, Respondent be retired. that Albertson, Chief Howard 25, 1978 August “Dated: Court, forwarded Washington County King George C. /S/ to him critical the Board a letter King George C. not a verified McDonough, but this was Chairman, on Judicial Board letter, Upon receipt of this grievance. Standards, of Minnesota State of the Board told Execu Chairman Dillon go Secretary Kurvers to ahead with tive “MEMORANDUM never was a formal investigation. There Recom- Findings “It that the is noted Board, though minutes motion concurred in mendation of the Board were meeting the Board for the 8th October Coleman, Hunt, Honora- Ruby J. David it the consensus of the report McRae, Padden, L. John W. ble Gordon Mr. to investi- Board that Kurvers continue Sawyer, Harvey Honorable Sewell A. ' Stege- gate. moeller, H. Young George Juanita C. appears to have This technical violation King. H. Johnson The Honorable Robert meeting The 8th been harmless. October disqualified himself. spirit of the rule in presumably satisfies the GCK /S/ approved the Board knew of and GCK” any- no investigation. There is claim review categories There are four our place be- thing prejudicial or took crucial claims, (II) (I) procedural of this matter: 8. 21 and October While September tween (IV) legal issues, (III) findings, factual compli- than strict we cannot condone less sanctions. rules, no this is procedural with ance note ground or remand. We I. for dismissal Judge McDonough specifies least as future cases—the the issue is moot six different instances in which he believes permit an inves- present vio- rules of the Board procedures followed the Board right “upon any reasona- tigation lated its own and his to due to be initiated rules (Rule (a)(1)) ble process of law. basis.” investigation preliminary make determine 1. Rules on Judicial Standards Board July complaint replaced by be and a hear- were new Rules on whether a shall filed may ing case the midst of the consideration of this own The commission its held. receiving the Board. state- motion without a verified investiga- inquiry preliminary ment make and a provides guilty D Rules judge Rule Board’s is to whether tion follows: physically or mental- misconduct office Upon request justice commission, ly upon receiving of the chief disabled. a veri- “1. court, grievance upon supreme commission shall exami- fied found statement investigation inquiry preliminary nor of the con- nation and to be neither unfounded make a frivolous, may alleging physical facts that a duct or or mental condition censure, pur- subject judge.” removal or retirement provision shall suant to the of M.S. Section *38 date to Judge nullify proceeding this on the B. Chairman Dillon wrote basis McDonough appear hearsay invited him to be such a double statement. We January fore the Board at its observe that the face of the Notice of In- meeting. evening before the meet quiry grants Judge McDonough right On to respond. ing, by telephone Chairman Dillon told Whether or not the Board’s coun- Judge McDonough Though attempting discourage response not to come. sel was to a appearing just upon Judge McDonough request trying accurately insisted on or to he claims the disinvitation violated .anyway, significant assess the situation is a and un- right setting question point; his to be heard the Board answered at this in by against appearance rendering we note the call was initiated short, presentation McDonough’s he did make ineffective. no Judge counsel. However, rule violation proven. there no here. rule violation has been Judge McDonough imply seems to that he Judge McDonough complains appearance to this under Rule D right had a D. Judge about the manner in which Stahler’s (2)3 grants (2), this is incorrect. Rule D but report was considered the Board. Rule Inquiry, the Notice of right respond a to M gives respondent of the old Board rules Thus, until May. which was not served right objections to file written to the was at

January invitation the discretion of report; provides referee’s Rule N for a Board, and so also was the cancellation. personal appearance.4 Judge McDonough’s here, Though no rule violation occurred claim is N was violated that Rule because incident was nevertheless unfortunate. Judge the Board made modifications of Many of the misunderstood and unsubstan report Stahler’s on June 1978—before tiated charges against Judge McDonough hearing Judge McDonough July from 28. could have been clarified more direct quite This claim is not accurate. On June communication judge between the and the only the Board made tentative modifica early stage proceed Board at an in these tions; Findings the final and Recommenda ings. approved August

tions were not 18— until Judge McDonough McDonough C. after been contends his had heard (2) right respond Rule D to the particulars under from —and differed certain Thus, Notice of Inquiry proposed even after it was served from the draft. there was Nevertheless, May prejudiced because Board no rule violation. the obvious already decided to a complaint. issue intent of Rule N is to allow the Board’s decision-making by input claim is that the Board’s counsel in to be informed formed McDonough’s respondent, perhaps counsel of this from the and it would decision, resulting spirit have been McDonough keeping more in with the waiving response because it would be of this rule for the Board to have avoided pointless. unwilling We are this late becoming any way posi- committed in to a may provides agreed DRule as follows: referee be deemed as may adopt hearing commission them without a filing complaint “2. Before or recommend- supreme and recommend court such or- censure, ing private an order of the commission action, removal, disciplinary retirement, der for give shall written notice to the of the may suspension appropriate or be thereun- charges being against nature of the made him filed, objections der. If a statement' of is or if opportu- and he shall be afforded a reasonable the commission in the absence of such state- nity present personally, writing orally, or proposes modify reject findings ment or may such matters as he choose for considera- referee, give of the respondent the commission shall explaining, refuting, tion the commission opportunity and counsel an to be admitting alleged disability.” misconduct or arguments heard on oral the commission before provides: “Appearance 4. Rule N along before Com- on the record before the referee objections parties. mission If no statement of report to the briefs of the Written notice time place hearing of the referee is filed within the time and parties of such shall sent provided, days prior or if and re- the consent counsel at least 10 to the date of spondent findings writing, hearing. filed *39 statement, though im- . . .” This Judge er hearing from McDon-

tion before rule out the as to proper, non-specific is so ough.5 sophisticat- a prejudice before possibility requires rules R of the old E. Rule ed commission. by the must be recommended discipline “who have five members votes of at least claims, Judge specific In addition to these referee and report of the the considered general is- McDonough raises a number ”6 Judge . . objections . thereto proceed- of this concerning the fairness sues only copy was one claims there McDonough practice of objects to the Board’s ing. He report available to page of the Referee’s complaint by interviewing a “investigating” with Rule R Board, making compliance witness- and not other only complainant appears incor- impossible. contention This He story. a different may have es that of the Board’s March rect. The minutes nature of complains the “scattershot” copies of the meeting indicate that went many of which charges, the Board’s the members report to were distributed no evidence which upon or unsubstantiated were copies claims present. The Board offered, preparation made the at all was to new members thereafter also distributed unduly burdensome. a defense difficult present on March 17. and those not upon notice points He out the short Judge McDonough F. Finally, respond to to adverse forced he often was Board’s counsel dehorred claims that regard, atten- witnesses. In this claims and concerning note mat the Neilsen record “com- Judge Stahler’s tion is drawn to Board. July hearing before the ter at the report.7 We of his ments” at the conclusion calling “I was Counsel’s was: statement procedural deficiencies agree that these are bookkeeper Mr. Neilsen’s Mrs. Neilsen and be remedied in future which at least should proceedings on last at the close of these proceedings. out of time before day, running kind however, we find that these summary, In Christmas, did not allow Stahler claims, individually aggre- inor rebuttal, procedural in I me to witnesses call these proceeding with keep do us from things gation, some clear- not might think it have made case, charge. McDonough alleging such In the instant 5. The Board contends personal appearance charges right an ex- because herein were broad and covered no to a they provide period do not so As to of the new Board rules time. several tended July Regardless pro- introduced, of the charges, effect went into and as to no evidence was priety changing to in the middle of convincing new rules charges, evi- other clear several proceeding, a that it was on June we note lacking. was In view of the fact that dence effect, N that Rule before the new rules took serious, charges are and the fact that the such neglected spirit if not in letter. was charges, Respondent, in to meet all was order each, required proper prepare to to defenses (1) provides: 6. Rule “Commission Decision R unnecessary placed bur- and undue under of the 1. The affirmative vote of five members charges preparing to face such to den in report of who have considered the commission the present produced.” which no evidence thereto, objections or who were referee or, Investigation referee, to any hearing the Board “3. oral before a particular charges thor- hearing should be more with- if the was before commission referee, interviewing ough. In the com- a vote of five mem- addition out the affirmative plainant, investigation bers of have considered should include inter- the commission who record, persons may of whom were viewing and at least three knowl- who have of all taken, present incident, re- when edge particular though the evidence even about the discipline, quired re- for a recommendation may prove knowledge be adverse such moval, retirement, suspension judge. of a prac- complaining If such witness. that of votes, an order of dismissal absence followed, have a tice were the Board would complaint shall be entered the com- upon determine whether basis which to better Any may file a written mission. commissioner complaint specific formal a should result a dissent.” charge, better the Board would be particu- position lar, whether or determine example, Judge 7. For Stahler recommended: charge proved con- clear and could convincing “1. evidence Sufficient clear and vincing evidence.” support particular charge be obtained should prior complaint of a formal issuance * * Minn.St.1976, 490.16, our review the merits case. dards *.” They of this § unnoticed, gone have not however. subd. 3. allegations surrounding of unfairness parties disagreement regarding are particularly matter resulted in zealous have application of this limitation. The court

study by every member of this Stahler, position, adopted Board’s us, a height- record before conducted with permits is that the statute consideration of *40 ened independent awareness of our role. taking place all four incidents less than Supreme independent Because the Court’s years before initial complaint the made here, judgment are is involved we some- against Judge McDonough by Reverend possible what about less concerned the bias- Dixen on Judge June 1974. McDon- es procedural shortcomings below. ough’s position is that this incident course, This matter, view of the of still only closed and that events less than four depends the upon adequacy the record of years Notice Inquiry May, before the of of before us. We have been concerned about 1977 may be considered. point. parties this praised Judge Both have Our the reading of statute is different. however, hearing, Stahler’s conduct of the It does not forbid consideration of incidents and his competence neutrality are occurring given four-year before time above reproach. proce- To the the extent span. Rather, Supreme it restricts Court affecting dures the creation of record report- action to those incidents which were ideal, remedy varied from the would be ed to the within years Board four their to Judge remand to Stahler with directions occurrence, they matter are no how old to give parties opportunity to practical when The effect of considered. present disputed additional evidence on is- is from our interpretation this to eliminate argument court, sues. At oral before this only Judge consideration the letter of parties both stated that a for remand McDonough Judge Bakke, to written in taking of additional not evidence was want- May of reported 1972 and not to the Board being case, ed.8 This it is our conclusion within this inci- years. Accordingly, four procedural speci- none of the defects dent has disregarded imposition been our fied is of sufficient seriousness to nullify of sanctions. the proceedings, proceed and we to consider We note passing the statute of the case on merits. The obvious diffi- repealed limitations was after the culties with pro- institutional inertia in a Thus, hearing Judge before Stahler. future ceeding concern, type are of and we proceedings bewill unrestricted. express our confidence that with additional experience the Board will to act minimize legal The second issue concerns them and avoid the of an assumption adver- meaning convincing” “clear and stan sary posture. allegations judicial dard which the II. has necessary It been to resolve discipline parties proven. case must be two legal issues in of this disposing case. agree standard, proper based this is began, When oper this case Board Gillard, (Minn. on In re 271 N.W.2d 785 ating under a statute of limitations fol 1978) and the order issued court on by this lows: 27,1977, Supreme October File Court “ * * * supreme Judge court may disciplinary in the case of Searle [T]he * * * dispute censure or specif remove for Sandeen.9 The concerns

action occurring or inaction not meaning Judge more ic of this standard. McDon- than years prior four to action being ough relies the following language reported (Fla.1975), to board on stan- In re Boyd, 308 So.2d Judge McDonough convincing 8. A behalf motion on 9. clear and standard mandat- Judge pur- disciplinary (c) (2) remand to pose Stahler for the limited ed for future cases Rule 5, recommending adopted July to the Su- sanctions rules Board’s preme Court has been considered is denied. resulted proper. The debt estate were sen implies corrobora- the standard assert that a note picking up from Neilsen tion: First National Bank McDonough’s Florida Rayman “This Court [The co-signed. which Neilsen Paul St. (Fla.1970), So.2d Bar v. Rayman 594] flatly states that Board finding “A” the its in this and cases relying on several case it was there- forgiven and was not this debt held that evidence jurisdictions other violation McDon- an ethical fore con- charge unprofessional sustain a decree in the Neil- sign the final ough the bar where a member of against duct disclosing this debt. without sen estate fully oath he has testimony under in his because no violation found Stahler asserted denied completely Judge McDonough’s supported the evidence act, clear and convinc- must be wrongful off paid had been the debt claim that degree of evidence does ing and that Neilsen, that Neilsen rendered services testimony of one witness flow from the attorney to cease efforts *41 had instructed his is corroborated such witness unless note, that the note was and on the to collect or by facts circum- some extent either a trust revocable by Neilsen transferred stances.” of the estate not an asset in 1971 and was unpersuasive. The position We this find Judge McDonough. upon by when acted arises from convincing standard clear and is that there view of the matter Our discipli- of a appreciation gravity resulting Judge from McDon- violation no magnitude of the proceeding and the nary Neilsen es- closing the in ough’s actions subject- is disciplined to which a loss documentary evidence establish- tate. require- corroboration ed. No mechanistic not an the note was a doubt that beyond es necessary; evidence ment is uncorroborated at Neilsen’s death asset of that estate convincing if the trier of clear and may be not clos- McDonough was therefore Judge discipline clarity impose fact can money. he owed ing an estate to which justification. conviction of its factual may course have been Though the better source, fact, depending on its uncorroborat- his finan- McDonough to disclose Judge reliable than that may ed evidence be more affirmatively dealings cial with Neilsen by a dubious source. remotely corroborated satisfied, had been the debt establish Thus, arbitrary require- such an to establish transferred, here or his actions forgiven counterproductive, and we ment would be signature on an pro to a forma amounted will not do so. liabilities, showing no estate file assets complete We have set out above the III. therein. we no ethical violation find Judge and the findings factual Stahler Judge Because Lobbying B. findings to those submitted modifications McDonough explained the satisfaction by the Board. As is clear from this materi- in terms of his contribu his debt to Neilsen al, Judge adopted the Board the bulk of ef to Neilsen’s extensive tion of services findings. The factual issues in Stahler’s the treatment afforded improve forts to those four this case then center around animals, Judge McDon- the Board found that Judge findings on which the Board lobbying activi ough “may engage not” up in turn disagree. Stahler We take these finding remuneration. If this ties for proceed disagreement, areas and then violation, which is not alto of an ethical findings express our of the 13 other view clear, disregarded it in our gether must be Judge the Board is in Stahler with which imposition Regardless of sanctions. agreement. Judge McDon- of whether or not question (1) (D)) (Charge IV A. Neilsen Note actually engaged lobbying, ough in fact disagree on Judge the Board against Stahler and charge formally made was not $6,500.00 Judge debt of whether or riot the nor it Judge McDonough, submitted McDonough ever for- Absent by Judge to Peter Neilsen was and considered Stahler. finding McDonough’s ju- such a given, Judge procedural regularity and whether nature. proceeding of this eventually closing place the Neil- has no dicial actions in Preferential Bank C. Treatment evidence that it was motivated (2)) IV (Charge found that Stahler unique judgeship fact of his or that other Judge McDonough received accepted good “credit risks” could not receive similar preferential treatment from the First Na treatment. overall Our conclusion is that tional Bank of Stillwater the form of here, no harm was done and this also deter- large of uncharged numbers overdrafts on mines our view of the Board’s Canon 5 C checking his wife’s account and an unse finding. There is no evidence that .the eventually cured loan amounting to over Bank or anyone expected else it to be treat- $20,000. Judge Stahler found this to be a ed in any special way in Judge McDon- (4) (b),10 violation of in spite Canon 5C Thus, ough’s though court. there may be finding his additional there was no here an appearance impropriety that dis- proven reciprocal favoritism shown us, turbs we cannot see that it rises to the Judge McDonough toward the Bank. The “reflect[ing] level of adversely impar- on his further, step Board went one finding a vio tiality.” (1)11 lation of Canon 5C because the Bank (Charge (6)) D. Abuse of Monson IV often appeared McDonough’s court Both and the agree Stahler Board in connection with guardian- estates and Judge McDonough acted unethically in ships subject and its fees were ap to his accusing attorney coercing Monson of proval. false affidavit from David 19-year old Fritz that, Our view of the matter is although parents. divorce case of his *42 Judge McDonough’s continuous indebted- further, goes however, Board and finds an unfortunate, ness is it was due to acknowl- (3)12 additional violation of Canon 3 A be- edged family expenses and medical beyond Judge McDonough’s “intemperate cause of his control and there is no ethical violation and abusive behavior toward Mr. Monson.” here. (4) (b) The mandate of Canon 5C is The differing evidence on point is not judge that a not may accept except a loan case, critical to our resolution of this “on the same terms generally available to we make no effort to characterize it one persons judges.” who are not It is common way or another. knowledge that financial institutions take The next findings Judge series of community reputation professional Stahler, up taken in the he order made stature into consideration extending when them, adopted by the Board. assessing credit or discretionary fees. question While the of whether E. Investigation (Charge treat- Presentence ment afforded Judge McDonough “gener- (3) is (B)) IV Judge Stahler found a violation ally one, available” is a close there is no (1)13 Canon 3 A McDon- Judge because of (4) (b) proper performance duties, 10. “Canon 5 C of his “(4) exploit judge judicial position, Neither a nor a member of his his or involve him in family residing frequent lawyers per- in his household should ac- transactions with or cept gift, favor, bequest, any- a likely or loan from sons to come before the court on which except one as follows: he serves.” “(b) judge family a or a member of his resid- (3) 12. “Canon 3 A ing may accept ordinary in his household “Adjudicative Responsibilities. hospitality; gift, favor, bequest, social a or “(3) judge dignified, patient, A should be relative; wedding engage- loan from a a or witnesses, litigants, jurors, gift; courteous to law- lending ment a loan from a institution in yers, regular and others with its whom deals his course of business on the same capacity, require generally persons terms official should similar who are available judges; staff, scholarship lawyers, fellowship or a conduct of officials, and of his court applied subject awarded on the same terms to other and others to his direction applicants;” and control.” (1) 11. “Canon 5 C (1) 13. “Canon 3 A “C. Financial Activities. “Adjudicative Responsibilities. “(1) judge A should refrain from financial “(1) A should be faithful to the law dealings and business tend to reflect professional competence and maintain in it. adversely impartiality, on his interfere with fall building. prison sentencing alcohol-driv- practice ough’s angry several McDonough made Washington County Judge ing offenders How- matter to regarding this without the calls Project phone Alcohol/Drug Survival Costello, Assistant Commissioner required investigation ard presentence next 6 Corrections, In the McDonough’s jus- his office. Judge at 169.126. Minn.St. anony- 10 or 12 Project in effect com- received months Costello tification —that middle superior at home in the was indeed calls mous plied with 169.126 answered, caller in-depth night. terms of an If Mr. Costello PSI in to the standard seconds be- prob- him for several alcohol would curse at an individual’s assessment of light Mrs. answer- up. If Costello hanging fore particularly persuasive, lem —is hang ed, up. Mr. Costello specifically approving the caller would legislation the 1977 the voice as Project. Judge recognized that he testified as the programs during one McDonough’s. Finally, Judge the sentence McDonough himself admitted “John, said, is what Mr. Costello before enrollment call imposed calling is me.” No there was I know who Project, no doubt matter? so there is cursing received thereafter. 169.126 and calls were of Minn.St. more technical violation (1). given good Canon 3 A But faith denied hearing Judge McDonough At the violation, its contribution nature that he explained He the calls. making is minimal. of sanctions imposition delay was not fault knew Costello motive chapel, so the asserted Threatening County Coordinator F. McDonough corrobo- (B)) Mrs. (Charge IV Champion non-existent. Coordi- McDon- County testimony, saying McDonough’s statement rated his your retiring will ass and that “I have Champion, ough gets up nator after never meetings”, she, him sleeper, with those has never heard jail light if interfere you stop Furthermore, attempt referring Champion’s make such calls. being held meetings Project points from out that as Costello McDonough county em- during official, many pos- strike of were courthouse there a corrections *43 clearly convincingly and ployees, phone has been He calls. sible sources of obscene improper is it only Not established. surreptitious activity such argues that also regarding any a tone judge speak his and with bold totally keeping is out of professional acts in a in which he matters example, he did For forthright character. his misuse of capacity, but the threatened during the identify himself not hesitate to partic- incident contempt powers makes this angry calls in the fall. Canon ularly egregious, the violation of and accept conclusion of We are unable 2 A is manifest. Judge that Judge and Board Stahler Costello Phone Calls G. Abusive clearly convincingly made McDonough sharp (C)) IV of the fac- (Charge Because high usu- proof That standard the calls. issue, potential seri- dispute its tual on this more than one man’s ally require would arriving ousness, difficulty and our where, another, as especially against word determination, discussion an extended here, Costello cannot be ruled out. mistake this incident is order. was “no doubt” in his mind testified there McDonough’s; yet Judge voice was that the McDonough was Judge the director possibility of eliminated the there cannot be which raised Miller Foundation Reverend similarly with a distinctive another caller $156,000 chapel at the state to construct a “John”. On the voice even the name or to the prison. presented money This hand, great pressure upon other was not built there chapel state in but the involve- Judge McDonough to lie about his the future of uncertainty because of about interests, promotes unswayed in a manner that by partisan self at all times He should be impartial- integrity clamor, public public confidence fear criticism.” ity judiciary.” A. Canon “A should comply him- with the law and should conduct ment, K. agree surreptitious but we that both Absence While Judge of the Day activity subsequent denial are inconsist- (5) (B)) (Charge IV is record clear that ent with his characteristic frankness. Be- Judge McDonough occasion was not in sides, anonymous what would calls do required “judge courthouse expedite the if that chapel, alleged is the day” program. The violation of Canon sum, question motive? In while the is a B(l)15 technical, is purely however the one, close there is insufficient evidence here evidence establishes that person- courthouse discipline public years servant of 23 nel knew Judge McDonough where could be because someone thought night a late voice found, suggestion and there is no that he phone on the was his. attempted responsibilities. to shirk his To H. Abuse of Minnesota Alcohol State the contrary, it is evident that he is a hard and Drug Authority Director Wrich working judge. and conscientious There is (4) (Charge (H) (1)) IV Judge Stahler’s no convincing evidence that harm ever re- finding Judge McDonough cursed and sulted from his occasional absences. abused Wrich in violation of 2 A is Canon L. Required Failure to Calen- Submit supported by clear convincing evidence. (5) (C)) (Charge dars IV Our view here is The context important, however. The incident, prior that of excep- with this dispute professional was a one about which Judge McDonough may have at times both men felt strongly. Wrich admitted tion— he, too, had valid reason to be absent from the Judge cursed McDonough in Moreover, courthouse, their appears conversations. it but we can think of no reason McDonough “go” did not comply to refuse to require- calendar newspapers, up but the matter came under ments other than an obstinacy which has no other circumstances. McDonough’s place in professionals. relations between statement pressure about from Anoka Thus, even though the calendar information County legislators incorrect, while ap- was readily available somewhat different parently good made in faith. Consequently, form proven and no harm resulted from his conduct, while we could never condone this refusal, this 3 B violations of concern. because it place courtroom, did not take in a M. Confrontations with Albert- severe sanctions are not called for. son (Charge (5) (D)) IV The breakdown I. Abuse of State Court Administrator Judge McDonough relations between (4) (H) Harmon (Charge (2)) IV As with superior administrative is a central incident, the prior there is no doubt of the 2 theme in specific the record. The four con- A violation. Also similarly, the matter was singled by Judge frontations out Stahler as a dispute between professionals two (1), violations of Canon 3 B with which we *44 involving Judge McDonough’s conduct on concur, symptomatic are of this deteriora- the bench. The matter was never “taken to tion. Judge McDonough attempts to char- Nevertheless, press.” Judge McDon- problem “personality acterize the as a ough’s conduct fell far short of what is clash”, was; certainly apparent which it expected judge. of a implication being phe- either that such a J. Abuse of Officer Knefelkamp nomenon is beyond the control of those (Charge (4) (H) (3)) IV precise- Our view is involved or involves fault on both sides. ly that Judge of reprimands Stahler —the unwilling We are to accept this as a valid improper were because delivered in public, may excuse. There be limits within which which makes their merit irrelevant. Partic- superior a official must act if he is not to ularly as to the search warrant obtained excuse a obligations under subordinate’s of courte- pretenses, however, false Judge McDonough sy so, may respect. have had reason If to be those limits have not upset. transgressed been in this case. It was a (1). judge diligently administration, performance 15. Canon 3 B “A should and facilitate the discharge responsibilities, responsibilities his administrative of the administrative of other professional competence judicial maintain judges and court officials.” testify in court for professional adjuster to conciliation responsibility Judge McDon- are ough’s lawyers barred. get along to with the same reasons that Judge Albertson out carry to their did necessary to the extent in which he so But the manner duties; he has failed in that re- respective adopt Judge and we Stahler’s uncalled for- will for it. be sanctioned sponsibility (3) A violation. finding of a Canon 3 Judge tact on Albertson’s greater Whether (6) (7)) (Charge IV Accusing P. Monson sepa- is a expected been part should have McDonough really deny not that Judge does here at issue. rate not question coercing Attorney Monson he accused (Charge IV Threatening Gearman N. recanting earlier affida- into an David Fritz uncertainty (6) regard- (2)) There is some alleged alcohol- regarding his mother’s vit McDonough Judge said ing what precisely gratuitous a discourteous and ism. This is affirmatively whether Gearman. But remark, a 3 Judge finding of Stahler’s just press or em- call threatened to adopted. is (3)A violation coverage, there is phasized the possibility IV (Charge Q. Moosebrugger Abuse intimi- no his words and actions doubt that At- that (6) (8)) suggestion is some There settling dispute and into dated Gearman free from Moosebrugger not torney hearing. a We abandoning right his McDonough’s here, Judge conduct fault but finding of viola- Judge concur in Stahler’s poise expected of professional lacked the (4)16 and in his (3) 3 A and tions of Canons (3). and violates Canon 3 note him A We legal issue in this matter emphasis that the question of the ade- that serious more Judge McDonough Even if irrelevant. was mooted hearing quacy law, on the undoubtedly were correct Gear- assignment judge. of the case another hearing. For the man was entitled a giving up a to intimidate witness into judge ac remaining Our task is to IV. a misuse of right is as serious modify or the recommendation of cept Only we conceive of. office as can on Judicial Board Standards motivation, McDonough’s apparent We be censured and retired. McDonough fierce characteristically belief which was his rec follow the Board’s are not inclined to legal positions in the correctness appropri is an ommendation. Retirement rather implemented them desire to have view, point Board’s ate sanction from the or Mr. Gearman desire than malice toward findings body’s on Neilsen given that the seriousness personal gain, mitigates note, First preferential treatment from the Nevertheless, it is the role this matter. Bank, anonymous phone calls National argu- receive evidence and findings contrary to Costello. But our open disputed issues mind ment eliminate characterizations of these matters course, and to render a decision due long-term misconduct or deliberate or particular for his in- become crusader from by pecuniary motivated self-interest terpretation. Judge McDonough here has case. from is less man Removal office exceeded limits of that role and sanc- absence of behavior. datory for. tions are called we findings of misconduct which Allowing Testify Not Fillmore to O. adopted collectively picture (3)) McDonough may have create (Charge IV *45 McDonough lacking a allowing Judge in not claims too often have been correct law, and, except according (3) patient, judge as be to authorized “Canon 3 A A should law, jurors, parte litigants, dignified wit- ex or neither initiate nor consider and courteous to nesses, pending concerning lawyers, he or and others with whom communications other however, require may capacity, impending proceeding. judge, in his and should A deals official staff, lawyers, expert his similar and of on conduct obtain the advice of a disinterested officials, subject applicable proceeding to his di- if court and others him the law to a before parties person gives rection and control.” he notice to the of the advice, and and the consulted substance accord to “Canon A A should opportunity parties to reasonable affords the person every legally in a who is interested respond.” proceeding, lawyer, right be his full heard or re- and patience, open-mindedness, patho- and restraint defensiveness.” These are not quired judge. of a The Board refers to logical, per- however —all have individuals personality judicial these factors as “lack of ideally less than sonalities suited for all temperament,” we find the not phrase and We trust situations. awareness of entirely inappropriate. There is doubt no these will traits make their control by that, extreme, such lack judicial Judge McDonough readily more achievable. temperament grounds be of itself for could Additional considerations this case are even removal absent self-enrichment or bad problems medical and alcohol of Judge ju- faith. The functioning effective McDonough. As Judge found: Stahler system dicial not depends only justice “By reason of illness and being fact but administered that citizens spouse, those of his he was under severe they feel are being provided fair treatment physical and emotional strain. In addi- just and decisions. Professional conduct on tion, during period this was receiving off impermissibly the bench which in- relatively low jures judicial salary and the cost of necessary image may at be effectively hospitalization, together times dealt with re- treatment and only moval. rearing with the cost of and educating a large family, rather created severe fi- case, however, In this there is than more nancial strain. The bizarre conduct of just a illustrating collection of incidents June, Respondent prior 1973 would temperament. Judge lack appear to be a direct relation with his McDonough people has served the Wash- problems, alcoholic and it reasonable to ington County years; reelected four good his later infer that deal of irrita- reported except times. Stahler short bility, temperedness and unusual for these isolated has outbursts service physical judicious.” conduct related to his condi- “proper been Several tion County employees prob- 23 at- attendant emotional torneys came to testify forward experiencing. lems that he was office; McDonough’s proper conduct of his Respondent’s present “The situation in more attorneys prepared were like- do respects appears these be greatly im- Judge McDonough’s wise. community ac- proved. physical ap- His now condition juvenile depend- tivities and chemical pears good. to be wife’s His illness and ency recognized areas have been nation- problem appear emotional to be much wide. These factors much deserve our improved. The Respondent has overcome findings consideration as the of misconduct. his alcoholic addiction and has used no Another factor has considered. July, alcohol since 1973.” outbursts of temper combativeness ex- by an surely Abstinence alcoholic creates by Judge McDonough hibited may seem emotional stress which can detract from possibly to be symptoms neurological or professional Having by conduct. now dem- psychological possibility disorder. This has onstrated his control over alcoholism should out, been ruled however. McDon- hopefully remove this detrimental factor ough cooperatively has to a submitted Judge McDon- from the future conduct of complete neurological psychological ex- ough. amination arranged by this court. has He Taking all these circumstances into received a clean “[tjhere bill health: account, lengthy study and after and delib- no test organic psychological evidence of eration on these difficult it is our questions, impairment finding other any and no deprive conclusion that we will the citi- major psychiatric psycho- disorder.” The Washington County zens of of the services logical report examiner did the personality They expect this man. know him his work might traits one of an individual reported position per- involved in the and are in a incidents to evaluate above— *46 formance, “intensity, emphasis assertiveness, on rigid and their votes will no doubt system, control, belief need to impatience, they soon remove him if we determine have SHERAN, (concurring in Chief Justice However, there has been misjudged him. case, and we part). in this dissenting in part, serious misconduct Judge McDonough censure publicly hereby majority of opinion I dissent from the Judicial the Code of for the violations of my view: in because that our To ensure detailed above. Conduct duty to McDonough’s Judge It was 1. is of these matters view the seriousness of dealings with Neilsen hereby order that his financial we also disclose appreciated, salary for the McDonough forfeit his Judge that the debt affirmatively establish filing of this following the three months satisfied, or transferred forgiven had been as a fine.17 opinion closed. Neilsen estate was before the Judge should be clear that Finally, it accepted given treatment 2. The of here at the brink McDonough stands Na- McDonough from the First by Judge It not is our judicial retirement. forced preferential. tional Bank of Stillwater opinion this filing of intention that the Board’s assess- agree completely with I this mat- of the fine shall end payment aspect the case. ment of this of ter, in things to continue McDonough findings in Judge is as County as before. Stahler’s remainder of his probation on for the telephone effect calls are sustained Costello judge, as a and we intend moni- service It is not convincing evidence. clear and He has with interest. performance tor his against word one man’s simply a case of patience and consid- received about all the a disinterested Mr. Costello was another’s. expect he from this court and eration can reliability His was established. witness. exactly he stands. now knows where Con- McDonough enough well He knew any there be recurrence sequently, should that the calls certain in his mind proven has been of kind of conduct that The fact finder in from him. question came includ- proceeding, further sanctions highly experienced, is an fair and this case swiftly will be im- ing forced retirement judge. He heard the competent district expected of conduct posed. standard the re- conflicting testimony; assessed go beyond must strict Judge McDonough cross-examination; and, im- most sponse of Judicial Conduct adherence to the Code all, the witnesses he observed portant that, course, place is though start. testimony in conflict. Of his whose specifically We to the need for refer findings extremely complicat- in an of fact McDonough cooperate every way pos- reject- demanding only one ed and case colleagues sible with his administrative opinion is this critical majority ed high supervisors. light standards I it. would confirm one. Judge McDonough, expected hereafter subsequent per- because page 62 agree I with this statement subject will no formance doubt be majority opinion: we public scrutiny, intensified have also appropriate is sanction “Retirement it his financial put decided best view, given point from the Board’s relationship with the First National Bank note, on the Neilsen body’s findings footing, on more normal Stillwater the First Na- preferential treatment from or, including securing of the loan better Bank, phone anonymous calls tional yet, refinancing through its another bank. to Costello.” may Until such time as that be accom- Judge McDon- it is our order that plished, majority right rejecting these If ough involving not sit on cases the First findings, I are imposed believe the sanctions party, guardian, National Bank either acceptable long clearly so as it is understood or trustee. like those found repetition of incidents convincing by clear and evidence sustained Recommendation modified accordance will be tolerated in future. opinion. with the above (c) (6) 17. See Rule 10 of The Rules Board on Judicial Standards.

STONE, conduct, (concurring specially). Justice proved some of which were found by convincing clear and evidence and others findings I concur with the reached of which were proved found not both join with majority opinion except I the dis- Judge and this purposes Stahler court. For concerning hearing' sent of the Chief Justice motion, of this only Charge by8 the Board of the Neilsen estate without full disclosure Judge findings relating Stahler’s there- preferential treatment of the Bank. pertinent. to is charged The Board my opinion both of these matters were es- Judge McDonough violated 5D Canon of the tablished to be in violation of the Judicial Governing Rules Judges Conduct of Standards. which states: findings Given the majority. I A judge should not serve as the execu- agree imposed. with the sanctions tor, trustee, administrator, guardian, or except estate, other for fiduciary, ON MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL trust, person a member of his fami- ORDER ly, only and then if such service will not proper performance interfere with the duties 7A(l)(c) provides and Canon in part: * * * judge A should not: ¡fc ^[*] : n ^[*] ‡ n * * * (c) make a contribution to a * * political organization or candidate except A(2). as authorized in subsection KELLY, Justice. accepted money serving “in that he as This matter is before us on motion of the appraiser of the estate of an unrelated McDonough, Judge Honorable John T. person subsequently paid part over County Court for County, appraisal fee who was a supplemental for a order of this court di- political appointed candidate and who Re- recting the Minnesota State Board on Judi- spondent appraiser.” cial to close its file on the “Bar- Standards proof found “No Stahler tholet Matter.” presented the Petitioner

By virtue of the nature of our decision in Charge 8 above and therefore it is found (Minn. McDonough, In re 296 N.W.2d 648 proved.” The Board amended this find- 1979) 23, 1979, filed March ing August we retained con of 1978 as follows: tinuing jurisdiction Therefore, in this case. proof “That no the Refer- allowed Judge McDonough moves this court for a presented by ee to be Petitioner as to supplemental order pursuant to Minn.R.Civ. Paragraph Complaint IV 8 of the because App.P. 127. For the reasons hereinafter had raised defense of discussed, the granted. motion is (MS Statute of Limitations 490.16 Section Conference; 3) at the Pre-Trial Subd. In September of 1976 the Board on Judi- ruled, by the Referee had Pre-Trial cial investigation Standards initiated an Order October that the stat- Judge McDonough. Formal proceedings applied ute to the substance of said began with Inquiry service of Notice of charge; Paragraph IV consequently May of 1977 a Complaint in June of Complaint litigated 8 of the has not been Twenty-two days hearing before herein.” Stahler, the Honorable Thomas J. District District, Eighth (subd. 3) (1976), Judicial fol- Minn.Stat. 490.16 effec- § lowed in November and during hearing December of 1977. tive before Stah- ler, findings He issued his inquiry in March of 1978. did in fact bar into the so-called Matter,” charges The Board made numerous “Bartholet length by mis- dealt with at *48 700 Bartholet, 495, requires it is difficult case remand re 293 Minn.

this in In court inquiry wouldn’t. The (1972). pro- imagine section one that 152 That 198 N.W.2d I exhaustive cannot here has been so vided: “ * * * I that would have evidence imagine may supreme court —I [T]he * * * before gotten in record like to have a for or remove censure Miley I am sure Mr. Judge Stahler not more occurring or inaction action sup- of us I None say would same. being action to such years prior than four we a lawsuit which pose has ever tried judicial stan- the board on reported to * * be- truly we got evidence which all the 490.16, § *.” Minn.Stat. dards go in in evidence. should evidence lieved (1976). 3 subd. gained.” would be anything I think don’t of limitations 1978 the statute In March of McDonough, 296 re In In as follows: amended 1979, 23, nei we March N.W.2d 648 filed empowered is specifically The board issue of ther addressed the specifically any wherein informa- matter reopen any “Bar applied to the period which limitation precluded previously tion or evidence re expressly adopted or tholet Matter” nor aby previ- or by a statute of limitations Board jected findings limita- existing time ously provision Mat respect to “Bartholet Stahler 490.16, (1978). 3 subd. tion. Minn.Stat. § Thus, ar agree we with the Board’s ter.” “Bartholet operative facts of final deci that there has been no gument 1967. The old in 1966 and Matter” occurred of limita of the statute sion on the issue Supreme statute of limitations “restrict[ed] Therefore, judica- res the doctrine of tions. which were to those incidents Court action Nevertheless, directly applicable. ta is not years within reported to the Board four an principles several we find instructive * * McDonough, *.” their occurrence Corp. v. Youngstown Mines nounced in at 691. Board does 296 N.W.2d 450, 124 Prout, N.W.2d 328 266 Minn. existing the then dispute not the fact 423, Dorr, 239 Minn. 58 and Nelson v. inquiry into the barred period limitation judg (1953). We held that a N.W.2d 876 began its when it investi- Bartholet Matter in a a bar second on the merits acts as ment of 1976 and when gation September action and suit based on cause of the same However, case was before Stahler. only every matter conclusive this before argument at of oral time also as to actually litigated but which was limitations was statute of court the new been liti might which have every matter indi- brief Board By reply effective. Prout, Youngstown Corp. Mines v. gated. repeal of the that was aware of the cated it Minn, 466, Fur 266 at 124 N.W.2d at 340. However, the Board period. old limitation thermore, judgment a recognized we findings for request did not a remand subsequent only a in a action not acts as bar in its brief. Fur- “Bartholet Matter” a suit but prior as to issues submitted in thermore, argument, this court at oral pleadings covered also as issues a they whether wished parties asked the expressly were not determined for any purpose. remand and which were not withdrawn. first action remand, requesting Instead of Minn, Dorr, 431, 58 N.W.2d v. 239 Nelson attorney Board’s stated: at 881. fact, I “I matter of truly don’t. As a preference expressed our We have something precedent might think the charges profes inclusion of all regret. would live Court com disciplinary in one sional misconduct If, hearing here. There was 6-week Williams, plaint. re 221 Minn. hearing even after that and before (1946). 23 In re Peter N.W.2d 9 See also transcript. Board had this the Board (N.D.1970). son, 178 741 N.W.2d they They things required were not incredible if the has consumed an to have the Rules and even then This case energy those time and of all Court remands back it seems that if this amount of

701 ings. Connecticut, years. involved for four The record before Palko v. 302 U.S. the time the first court at oral (1937), S.Ct. L.Ed. Hurtado v. enormous, argument consisting California, over 110 U.S. 4 S.Ct. 4,000 pages testimony and 245 (1884). exhibits. Therefore, L.Ed. 232 pursuant *49 short, In investigation the first our powers inherent over supervisory disci McDonough was detailed thorough. plinary proceedings, we grant McDo- Apparently the Board had similar senti- nough’s hereby motion order Board ments expressly possible since it declined a close its file the “Bartholet Matter.” have opportunity to the case remanded for So ordered. proceedings further on the “Bartholet Mat- ter” or any other matter. TODD, JJ., WAHL, YETKA and took no light foregoing, and on part in the consideration or decision of this case, the peculiar of this it facts seems to us case.

fundamentally reopen unfair to this investi

gation. Despite disciplinary fact

proceedings generis, are sui we note that process

due principles of fundamental fair guarantee subject

ness the investiga

tion regularity a certain proceedings

well finality proceed as a certain of those notes contin [and * uing Bank, First Stillwater November cases 1977] TTTT, “Pet. Ex. Stillwater Bank Offi- which defendants charged with driving cer’s comments on Respondent’s loan while under the influence of alcohol * As amended