Mind the Mud

Many of you have seen the crudely written yellows signs in your neighborhoods that announce messages varying from “Judge Caught Fixing a Ticket” to “Judge Caught Using a Fake Name.”  One series is actually in front of a preschool!  Judge Segal has received many, many supportive messages and phone calls from the community.  People complain about the smear or hate messages.  Fortunately, the passion stirred by these signs also makes people committed to helping Judge Segal win her re-election.  Who do you want as a judge, they ask? They resent the signs and feel that they reflect negatively on the judiciary as well as the community judges.  One businessman commented that he felt he lost a possible investor because the signs were so offensive.  Many  others have said that they will support Judge Segal because they want only candidates with positive messages and campaigns to win.

While this committee and others supporting Judge Segal strongly support the Constitution and the right of free speech, we strongly encourage the public to look deeper into the messages before allowing them to sway opinion. Judge Segal's campaign priority is to deliver messages that are transparent, truthful, and direct.  Judge Segal has openly discussed previously that there was no “fix” of a traffic ticket.  That implies there was dishonestly or corruption. Judge Segal was reprimanded for asking that a traffic ticket issued to her teenage son be transferred to the city court.  Family members of judges cannot have their cases heard in the same court and cannot “touch” the ticket in any way. To learn the truth about Judge Segal and the true context of these warped accusations, visit ThinkLegalVoteSegal.com.

As always, we thank you for your support and welcome your comments and correspondence. Feel free to comment here or send correspondence to Segal@justiceofthepeace1.com. Note that Judge Segal is not permitted to offer legal advice or comment on pending legal cases.

The Judging of Judges

A review of a judge's conduct occurs in two ways: by appellate review and by review from the State Commission for Judicial Ethics. Every state in the US follows a similar structure. In appellate review, at the conclusion of a case or, in limited circumstances, following a substantial ruling, a party may file a notice for review to a higher level court. If a trial is held in justice or city court, the judge's decision is reviewed by Superior Court. If the trial is held in Superior Court, a regional division of the Appellate Court reviews the judge’s decision. If the Appellate Court still does not satisfy a party, then the state’s Supreme Court may review the trial court’s decisions and actions.

The State’s Commission on Judicial Ethics may also review a judge’s decisions or actions. Each state varies on what type of situations or conduct is reviewed. Some states will not review cases in which the judge's conduct or decision is subject to review by the appellate process. Other Commissions are more proactive and review all inquiries into judges' conduct, regardless of the applicability appellate process.

The purpose of review by the Commission on Judicial Ethics varies as well. The Commission does not review judge's conduct to only find that a judge's conduct was unethical, but does so to determine if conduct was irregular or substandard. Judges are expected to govern their conduct to denote fairness and impartiality.

Judge Segal received four notices from the Commission that sanctioned her conduct. Most recently Judge Segal received a sanction for not re-assigning a case to another after she learned that a defendant was disruptive in the court hall, outside of her presence. A judge is prohibited from making any decision about a case if he/she receives information about a litigant. This is called an ex parte communication. Although Judge Segal assigned an attorney to the defendant, it appeared to the Defendant that she considered his out-of-court conduct when she imposed the sentence. The Commission issued a sanction against her conduct for not asking another judge to hear the case.

Judge Segal also received a reprimand from the Commission because she represented her husband in a lawsuit. Judge Segal and her husband were victims of an arson. A home they owned was criminally destroyed in a fire. In order to give legal notice to the arsonist his financial responsibilities for the Segals' loss, Judge Segal filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and her husband. While a judge can represent him/herself, a judge is ethically prohibited from representing anyone else. Even though Judge Segal never appeared in court and, in fact, voluntarily reported her error to the Commission, she was reprimanded for not being mindful of the rules for judicial conduct.

A third reprimand emerged when the man she defeated in a judicial election, Adam Watters, filed numerous complaints following his loss of the election, including charges that Judge Segal parked illegally during the election, she forced Watters to hear a case involving her son, she mailed secret letters against Watters.  He complained that Judge Segal posted critical remarked about him in an online blog under an assumed name. The Commission found that although Judge Segal's comments about Adam Watters being rude and discourteous were true, the Commission remanded Judge Segal for making the statements about Watters using another identity.

Judge Segal's conduct has been very closely scrutinized. While it is true that she has received reprimands, as many Justices of the Peace have, consider whether the sanctions indicated a need for corrective foresight and if they were created to be used for a political, inappropriate purpose, rather than an effort to make Judge Segal a better jurist.

Please feel free to comment below or send any questions or comments about this post or Judge Segal to Segal@justiceofthe peace1.com. Note that Judge Segal is not permitted to offer legal advice or comment on pending legal cases.

Now Accepting Votes, Not Contributions

Election campaigns are expensive. Candidates must purchase promotional materials, campaign literature and pay to attend many meetings. Nevertheless, as a judge, Anne Segal will not accept any donations or contributions. She and her husband saved for this re-election and pay for everything themselves. Why? Because Judge Segal is committed to integrity and impartiality. 

Consider this:

If a person runs for Congress and accepts a donation from a supporter, the candidate then promotes the views of the contributor. The political donation is used to elect a person who speaks on behalf of the contributor. If a judge accepts a donation from an attorney, the judge cannot advocate for the attorney. There is nothing that prohibits a donor from appearing as a litigant or a lawyer before the judge. Nevertheless, the donation implies that the judge may have an obligation to the donor. It creates “the appearance of impropriety.”

Judges also appoint attorneys to represent defendants or, rarely, victims in criminal cases. What if the judge appoints an attorney to case, for which the attorney is paid by the county, and then the attorney makes a donation to the judge? The judge can finance his election and the attorney is repaid with taxpayers’ dollars? It’s wrong and unethical.

What if there is a contested lawsuit and Mr. Client knows that his attorney, Mr. A. did not donate as much to the judge’s campaign as his opponent’s attorney, Mr. B. What if the Mr. B then wins the case? Will Mr. Client wonder if the reason they lost the case was because Mr. B gave more money to the judge’s election? It’s a real concern.

Judge Segal doesn’t want there to be any room for question. She doesn't accept donations because she is committed to integrity and impartiality. 

Running for Justice of the Peace Re-election

Elected judges must adhere to strict codes of conduct during re-elections. They do not have the same Constitutional right of free speech as other candidates or citizens. Judges cannot comment on any public issues because it could affect the public’s perception on how a case would be decided. For example, a judge may not express an opinion about the fairness of an assessment from the judge’s homeowner’s association because the judge may decide cases about homeowner’s assessments. A judge cannot speak on behalf of other candidates who are running for office because a judge has a public perception of authority.

In Arizona and Pima County, the Justice of the Peace is a judge. In other States, the Justice of the Peace is known as the “magistrate.” This is the judge of the people. The Justice of the Peace decides law cases just like any judge. As a Justice of the Peace, Judge Segal has the responsibility to make sure that she doesn't speak about any type of matter that affects the community’s perception of her ability to be fair and impartial.

Judge Segal and Justice Court Jurisdiction

The Justice of the Peace is an elected official for different regions, or precincts, throughout Pima County.  As your Justice of the Peace, Judge Segal has judicial duties to resolve civil lawsuits as well a criminal cases, such as driving while under the influence of alcohol or theft charges.  If the same crime occurs in the city, a Tucson City Court judge hears the case.