JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE DECISION SUMMARIES - July-August 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE DECISION SUMMARIES
July-August 2021
In re Hudson, Report of disposition (Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission June 28, 2021)
Based on a consent agreement and the magistrate/chief judge’s resignation and
agreement not to serve in judicial office again, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission
disposed of a complaint against a former chief magistrate judge and probate judge; the
Commission had been investigating allegations that the judge had committed misconduct,
including that he had improperly required an individual to appear in court, held a contempt
hearing, and improperly required the individual to serve jail time.
Inquiry Concerning Hatfield (Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct July 16, 2021)
(https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Judges%20-
%20Secondary%20Nav%20Page%20PDFs/PublishedJudicialDisciplineCases/In-re-Hatfield-
(2348)-FOF,-COL-Disposition_1.pdf)
Based on stipulations of fact about the judge’s campaign flyers and digital placards on
Facebook, a hearing panel of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct ordered a judge to
cease and desist from using photos of himself or his dog in his courtroom in campaign materials
and from making misleading statements about his opponent.
The judge ran for re-election in 2020.
(1) During the campaign, the judge posted 3 digital placards on Facebook. One had a
photo of the judge in his judicial robe standing behind the bench in his courtroom with 3 legal
texts, the American flag, and the state seal in frame. Superimposed on the photo were the
words: “At the end of the day, I want everyone who leaves my courtroom to know that they
have been heard. – Judge Sean Hatfield.” In a second photo, he was seated behind the bench in
the courtroom with 3 legal texts, the American flag, and the seal in frame with the
superimposed words: “Free and independent courts for a free and independent people.” The
county provided the legal texts for use in the courtroom.
The third photo depicted the judge’s dog “Watson” sitting behind the bench with the
judge’s judicial name placard, the flag, and the seal in the frame. Superimposed on the photo
was: “Hi everybody , Watson here. I don’t really fill this seat well but ya know who does? My
human Judge Sean Hatfield. Thank you for supporting him. You can continue to support my
human by making sure you’re registered to vote! The last day to register is October 13th. You
can find everything you need at this website. (It said it had cookies but I didn’t see any-
howrude!)”
The panel found that the photos violated the prohibition on a judge or judicial candidate
“us[ing] court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office.” The
judge argued that no caselaw or advisory opinion addressed a similar situation and the issue is
of “statewide importance” because other Kansas incumbent judges routinely use similar
photographs in their campaigns. The judge argued that he never intended to violate the code
and insisted that he understood the “rule to prohibit actual campaigning from the courthousein terms of fundraisers, committee meetings, or court resources.” The examiner argued for
“strict adherence to the plain language,” noting that there was nothing in the Kansas code like
the “clarifying language” in the Pennsylvania code that a judge may “use court facilities for the
purpose of taking photographs, videos, or other visuals for campaign purpose to the extent
such facilities are available on an equal basis for other candidates for such office.” The panel
concluded that there were “no clarifiers,” “no exceptions,” or limits on the prohibition in the
Kansas code.
The panel found that the photo of the judge’s dog on the bench also violated the rules
on promoting public confidence in the judiciary and acting “in a manner consistent with the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” The judge had argued that “it is an
enormous stretch to find his actions affected the ‘uprightness’ prong of the Code’s definition of
integrity,” that there was “no evidence of any adverse effect from the picture,” and that “all
reactions to the electronic distribution of the flyer were positive.” In finding a violation, the
panel emphasized that “the rules are in place to protect the integrity and dignity of the
courtroom and the judiciary as a whole.” One panel member dissented from this finding.
(2) The judge prepared, reviewed, approved, and sent out a campaign flyer that stated
regarding his opponent:
Socialist James Thompson
• Previous Campaign Endorsed by Bernie Sanders and AOC
• Radical Activist Who Promotes Left Wing Agendas
• Criminal History Demonstrates a Disrespect for the Law
The panel stressed that a judge’s speech during a judicial campaign must be fair and
accurate but stated that it was “not naïve in understanding the unavoidability of the presence
of political rhetoric in the delicate balance of a campaign for judicial office.” The panel
acknowledged that “the line between fair comment and impermissible comment is indistinct
and blurry due to the nature of judicial campaigns.” The panel emphasized that “a judicial
candidate’s personal interest in being elected does not override the need for public confidence
in the judiciary.”
The panel found that the flyer’s “insinuation” that Thompson was a “socialist”
“exceeded the limits of fair comment,” “left his audience with a false impression of the political
position of his campaign opponent,” and was not permissible campaign rhetoric. The judge had
thoroughly researched Thompson and his record and argued that he had “fairly commented on
that research,” that “the terms ‘Socialist’ and ‘Democratic Socialist’ are interchangeable,” and
that “Thompson’s Facebook posts and his political associations support use of either term . . . .”
The judge acknowledged that Thompson denies that he is a “Socialist” and does not identify
himself as a “Socialist” or “Democratic Socialist,” but insisted that “Thompson’s preference or
characterizations do not override his ability to make fair characterizations in a judicial
campaign.” The panel noted that, in Facebook posts, which the judge acknowledges he read,
Thompson had “delineated the difference between a ‘Socialist’ and a ‘Democratic Socialist.’”
The judge argued that “any comment concerning a political candidate’s qualifications, ‘however
injurious, is privileged so long as the comment is made in good faith.’”
2The panel rejected the judge’s argument. Noting that Black’s Law Dictionary defined
good faith as, inter alia, the absence of “seeking an unconscionable advantage,” the panel
found that “it is this type of unconscionable advantage that Respondent sought with his
campaign flyer.” It concluded that the judge’s statement that Thompson was a socialist was
misleading or omitted facts necessary to make the communication as a whole not materially
misleading. It also concluded that “the term ‘Democratic Socialist’ would have been political
rhetoric, but that the use of single word ‘Socialist’ has a definite connotation. Everyone, and
especially judicial candidates, have to understand that words have meaning and there were
many other ways that Respondent could have made his point, such as ‘socialist agenda’ or
‘socialist views.’ . . .”
However, the panel found that none of the bulleted statements were false or
misinterpretations and concluded that they fell “within the realm of political rhetoric” and did
not violate the code. The panel found that the statement about Thompson’s criminal history
was “factually accurate and open for reasonable interpretation,” stating that “a judicial
candidate’s past criminal behavior is fair game as long as it is accurately portrayed” and “past
criminal conduct should be considered in a judicial campaign and a candidate’s criminal
behavior is always applicable to the rules of judicial ethics.” In 2019, Thompson had been
convicted for driving with a suspended license, which had been suspended for failing to pay a
speeding ticket in 2018.
The panel found that the statement that Thompson had been endorsed by Bernie
Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was accurate because they had endorsed him in his prior
congressional campaigns, noting that Thompson’s constituents would know that his previous
campaign was not for a judicial position.
The panel found that the statement that Thompson was a radical activist with a left-
wing agenda was “political rhetoric open for interpretation and opinion,” not a violation of the
code, noting that Thompson’s political views were in his Facebook posts and his “views are
open for the public to read and interpret.”
In re Schmidt, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final order (Kentucky Judicial Conduct
Commission July 13, 2021)
(https://kycourts.gov/Courts/JCC%20Actions%20Documents/Schmidtfinalorder07132021.pdf)
The Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission publicly reprimanded a former master
commissioner for (1) misappropriating $81,000 in proceeds from a property sale and (2)
routinely failing to timely collect and disburse the proceeds of judicial sales. The master
commissioner had already been removed from his position by the circuit court.
(1) In May 2019, the master commissioner had received a $10,000 official bank check
and a $71,000 personal check for the purchase of property. Instead of depositing the funds
into his master commissioner escrow account, the commissioner altered the endorsement
stamp on each check and directed the funds to be deposited to an account that was not
affiliated with his office.
(2) The master commissioner had routinely failed to collect and disburse the proceeds of
judicial sales in a timely manner. From 2013 through 2020, every report from the
Administrative Office of the Court Division of Judicial Audits found that the master
3commissioner repeatedly failed to collect judicial sale proceeds. In the most recent report
dated February 12, 2021, the auditor performed a detailed review of all cases referred for sale
in 2018 and 2019, comparing sales activity to financial activity through the master
commissioner’s office’s former escrow account. In over 24 cases with sales activity from March
20, 2018 through December 10, 2019, there were no corresponding deposits of funds to cover
costs, fees, and expenses in violation of the Rules of Administrative Procedure.
The Commission stated:
If Respondent had not been removed from office by the Bullitt Circuit Court, the
Commission would remove him from office. . . . Misappropriation of funds related to a
judicial sale is a very serious offense, and this conduct was a significant violation of
public trust placed in the judiciary to competently and diligently perform its functions
with integrity. In addition, Respondent’s failure to collect and disburse costs of sale in
numerous cases is a substantial dereliction of duty.
In the Matter of Chelini, Stipulation and order of consent (Nevada Commission on Judicial
Discipline August 12, 2021)
(https://judicial.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/judicialnvgov/content/Discipline/Dicisions/2019-091-
P%20Certified%20Copy%20of%20Stipulation%20and%20Order%20of%20Consent%20to%20Pu
blic%20Reprimand.pdf)
Pursuant to a stipulation and the judge’s consent, the Nevada Commission on Judicial
Discipline publicly reprimanded a judge for interfering and failing to cooperate with court
officials in the administrative of court business with respect to personnel matters and using
inappropriate language around court staff and court officials, which the judge contends were
uttered in a joking manner.
In the Matter of Gates, Order (New Mexico Supreme Court July 2, 2021)
(https://www.nmjsc.org/2021/07/27/07-02-2021-supreme-court-approves-stipulation-to-
resignation-of-hon-karen-e-gates-cimarron-municipal-court/)
Granting a petition based on a stipulation, the New Mexico Supreme Court approved
the resignation of a judge; in a notice of formal proceedings, the Judicial Standards Commission
had alleged that the judge (1) failed to recuse from cases filed by the police department in
which her ex-husband and co-habitant is chief of police and in which police officers over whom
he exercises supervisory duties appear; and (2) failed to avoid or minimize conflicts of interest
and situations requiring disqualification from cases involving the police department, violated
the duty to hear and decide cases filed by the police department, which constitute a substantial
portion of the cases the judge was elected to adjudicate, delegated that portion of her docket
to an alternate judge, and continued to receive and accept payment of her full regular salary as
a municipal court judge while the alternate judge has received a substantially disproportionate
salary relative to the workload they are required to handle because of the judge’s conflicts with
the police department. The resignation is not permanent.
4In the Matter of Duyssen, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
August 5, 2021) (http://cjc.ny.gov/Determinations/D/Duyssen.John.R.2021.08.05.DEC.pdf)
Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s affirmation that he has vacated his office
and will not seek or accept judicial office in the future
(http://cjc.ny.gov/Determinations/D/Duyssen.John.R.2021.07.22.STIP.pdf), the New York State
Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former non-lawyer judge;
the Commission had apprised the judge that it was investigating complaints arising from his
arrest on charges of harassment and endangering the welfare of a child, his invocation of his
judicial office at the time of his arrest when he asked the state police investigator to
recommend a less restrictive order of protection, and his failure for approximately 3 months to
comply with a court order to surrender all of his firearms. The criminal charges had been
resolved with the judge’s consent to a 1-year comprehensive disposition plan monitored by the
county department of social services, which he completed in February 2020, and by a court-
ordered adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.
Disciplinary Counsel v. Winters (Ohio Supreme Court August 17, 2021)
(https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=227465.pdf)
Based on the report of the Board of Professional Conduct
(https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=901884.pdf), the Ohio
Supreme Court suspended a judge for 6 months without pay for multiple communications
about 4 cases over which he was presiding with a litigant on Facebook Messenger and on the
phone; the Court stayed the suspension conditioned on the judge completing at least 3 hours of
continuing judicial education on ex parte communications or appropriate use of social media by
judicial officers, refraining from further misconduct, and paying the costs of the proceedings.
On June 27, 2017, based on a plea agreement, Keith Blumensaadt pleaded guilty to 1
felony count of unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance, 1 felony count of attempted
possession of weapons under disability, and 1 misdemeanor count of attempted unlawful
possession of dangerous ordnance. The judge sentenced him to time served on the 2 felony
counts. On the misdemeanor count, the judge sentenced him to 180 days in the county
detention facility, suspended on condition that he not enter Put-In-Bay Township for 1 year
unless escorted by the county sheriff’s office to remove his personal belongings. In the 1980’s,
the judge had served as Keith’s probation officer. According to the judge, he had disclosed to
the prosecutor and defense counsel in the criminal case that he knew Keith, and both counsel
agreed to allow the judge to continue in the case.
Sometime after conclusion of the criminal case, the judge and Keith became “friends”
on Facebook. They remained friends until August 25, 2020.
The judge and Keith exchanged ex parte messages on Facebook messenger about 4
cases over which the judge was presiding: a drug possession case against a defendant whom
Keith claimed had sold heroin to his daughter; Keith’s custody case with his ex-wife; a civil
stalking protective order case involving Keith’s father and brother; and a criminal case against
the other driver in a car accident in which Keith had been injured.
5The Facebook messages had numerous grammatical, spelling, capitalization, and
punctuation errors that are not corrected in the summary below.
(1) The judge was scheduled to preside over the indictment of Alberto Mendez on
August 28, 2019. On August 27, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge
that Mendez had sold heroin to Keith’s daughter and requested that the judge not give Mendez
a “bond he can make.” On August 28, the judge arraigned Mendez and released him on a
recognizance bond. On September 30, Keith messaged the judge, “I see Al Mendez moved in
are neighborhood on 14th street, I can’t wait to get out of here.”
The judge continued to preside over Mendez’s case until he pled guilty and was
sentenced. At no time while the judge was presiding over Mendez’s case did the judge disclose
to either the defense or the prosecution that he had received any ex parte communications
from Keith concerning Mendez.
(2) On May 20, 2019, the judge finalized the divorce of Keith and Michelle Blumensaadt
and granted custody of their minor son to Michelle.
On August 30, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith advised the judge that
Michelle had agreed to transfer custody of their minor son to Keith. Keith’s message also
stated that neither he nor Michelle could afford an attorney and asked whether there was a
“simple form or paperwork we can fill out.” In a reply on the same day, the judge advised Keith
that there was a form on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website that they could fill out and stated
that he had inquired into how much it would cost for Keith and Michelle to retain counsel and
that it was about $1,000.
In a message to the judge on September 5, Keith stated:
I stopped to say hello today, and I have a funny story to tell you about my son Axel,
anyway Axel keeps riding his bike down to the court house everyday and I said don’t be
in the parking lot it’s a busy place, he said okay So yesterday I went looking for him and
he was at the court house again, so I ask him why do you keep going to the court house,
and he said to see the judge Bruce Winters so I can tell him I want to live with you, so I
can go to school! I said what? He said well I heard you talking to mom and he is the
judge that has to sign the paperwork so I can go to school Here, so I went to tell him I
want to live with you so I can get in school next week, I just cried, because he’s so smart
and determined to go to school and live with me. Anyway I picked up indigent form
today to file motion and will file it Monday. So watch for a kid on a red bike who is
tracking you. I told him not to go down there but I think he’s not listening to that, and I
explained that there is a procedure we have to do, to enroll him in school. I thought you
would get a laugh out[.]
The judge replied: “Yes he is! That’s funny. I’ll look for him and for sure talk to him if I see him.
I like his attitude. ”
Between September 6, and September 30, the judge and Keith exchanged several
private messages, including information pertinent to Keith’s pending pro se motion for change
of parenting time over which the judge was presiding.
For example, on September 7, Keith sent the judge a copy of a criminal judgment entry
against Michelle and stated, “Just had to send this to you, Michelle stabbed me with a pen in
62016 and was ordered to take her bipolar meds and was charged with domestic violence, but if
you let her tell the story I’m the one who’s on meds.” Later that same day, the judge replied to
Keith’s message, “Interesting!”
Also on September 7, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge that
Michelle “came home” after attempting to divorce him twice because “kids went to Twinsburg
guidance counsel and said there was no food in the house, kids came home and child services
got involved .,, ‘oh, I have reports in my laptop’ determine after talking to kids that mom tried
to get kids to fabricate a lie on me and the allegations she tried to claim where fabricated by
Michelle. You have no idea, and I am sure you heard about her and Jimmy while I was locked
up. They have video of them at the orchard drunk all over each other, in front of Nikoli and Bill.
She is koo koo.”
On September 9, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge that
Michelle was “good” with the change in custody, but that she was in denial about some things
that their son had allegedly said about her. He explained that: “I think it’s best if she wants to
hear it from Axel, in court, he’s not scared to tell it like it is, but I think she knows better, and
will save herself the embarrassment, because I have a lot of documentation on her games. She
will be in agreement, I told him she can come and see him or take him as long as he’s not in
school, but it’s up to Axel, I think it’s finally catching up to her. Reality.”
On September 9, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith also sent the judge a
picture of a Mother’s Day card that Axel had given Michelle 4 years earlier and stated that
Michelle “needs to stop being dishonest.” On the same day, the judge replied to Keith via
Facebook Messenger, “That’s sad.”
On September 9, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith invited the judge and his
family to a private dinner hosted by his brother Bill where oysters, crab, lobster, and ribeye
would be served, saying, “Your my guest if your interested.” On the same day, the judge
replied to Keith’s message, “I don’t know what my schedule is tomorrow I’ll be in touch.” On
September 10, the judge declined Keith’s offer, stating, “I guess I really shouldn’t since you have
a case pending in my court. Thanks for asking. Let get this done. . . . Before your personal
injury case gets filed. ”
On September 30, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge:
By the way Michelle got a little huffy yesterday about Axel, because he won’t go to her
house with her, and I told her he’s scared she won’t bring him back,,, should I bring him
to hearing he wants to come and tell magistrate he wants to live with me. He starts
throwing up when she tells him she’s coming to pick him up and has anxiety attracts,
and says he’s not going. I think she has caused axel to be in-fear of her taking him away
,, It’s not good there, but she doesn’t see it, because she believes her lies.
On the same day, Keith sent the judge another message:
It seems Michelle doesn’t want to go to hearing and had attorney send over a
agreement to sign, I’m going to have it gone over and everything looks good, I just don’t
trust her. She knows what Axel is going to say in court and it’s not good, so she just
7wants to see things my way as I said she would, I new she would, she’s lied about
everything.
On September 25, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith advised the judge that
he and Michelle had reached an agreement and that the agreement would be filed soon.
Keith’s message stated:
Axel is happy with it, because she [Michelle] had to visit him here in Port Clinton, he
refuses to go to her house and I don’t blame him, thank you for everything, I don’t think
she understand what she had done to Axel mindset on past actions,,. I’m overlooking a
lot of her actions for Axel, because at the end of the day she is his mother and I don’t
want him to hate her and I don’t want to hurt her legally, she deserves it but it’s not
who I am, its easy to life to be irresponsible, and vindictive but it’s harder to turn the
other cheek and move on!
On September 26, in a message via Facebook Messenger, the judge replied to Keith:
“Glad you have it worked out. Sorry, I’ve been very busy with a trial.”
On the same day, Michelle’s attorney filed a proposed consent agreement concerning
the proposed transfer of custody from Michelle to Keith.
On September 28, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith sent the judge a picture
of himself, Michelle, and Axel. In an attached message. Keith stated, “She here spending the
night with Axel, because he won’t go with her, just ordered dominos for them, but I think it’s
because she needs help!!! I know her well, oh well.”
On September 30, the judge signed an order designating Keith as the residential parent
and legal custodian of Axel, subject to the parenting time awarded to Michelle in the consent
agreement.
On the same day, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge that he
had received the order concerning custody. The judge replied, “Good deal!”
While the change of custody matter was pending, the judge never disclosed to Michelle
or her attorney that he had communicated with Keith multiple times by Facebook Messenger
about the matter.
(3) In 2016, the Keith’s father and brother, Todd Sr. and Todd Jr., obtained civil stalking
protective orders that required Keith to stay at least 500 feet away from them. The orders
were in effect until May 2021.
On September 14, 2019, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge that
his mother had cancer and had been given less than a year to live and that his mother “won’t
talk to Todd and she’s pissed and thinks it all bullshit, she knows Todd helped set me up. She’s
mad at the world.”
On the same day, in a message via Facebook Messenger, the judge replied to Keith,
“Aww that’s too bad to be leaving like that. I’ll include her in my prayers. Family strife is the
worst. I’m glad you have Bill and his family.”
Between September 14 and November 30, the judge and Keith exchanged personal
messages every few days by Facebook Messenger regarding Put-In-Bay residents, political, or
events. On October 9, the judge told Keith that “Keith was a ‘wealth of island information.
8’” They also exchanged several messages about the declining health of Keith’s mother and
the strained relationship between Keith, Todd Sr., and Todd Jr.
On November 30, at 8:22 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith stated to
the judge, “Hey I have a question about my mom, when she passes and that protective order,
call me when you get a chance please!” On the same day at 9:09 p.m., the judge called Keith
and spoke to him for 44 minutes regarding Keith’s mother and the protective orders. During
this call, the judge advised Keith to file a motion requesting that the orders be temporarily
modified to allow Keith to attend his mother’s funeral where Todd Sr., Todd Jr., and other
protected individuals would also be present.
On December 3, at 5:07 p.m., Keith and the judge spoke for another 30 minutes about,
among other things, the potential motion to modify the orders.
On December 9, at 7:40 p.m. in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the
judge, “I have [Michael] Lear [his attorney] doing a motion for me Bruce, she’s barely
responding last 24 hours, and can I email it, or how do I file it, I’m on house arrest remember,
I’m sure I’ll get there regardless let me know.”
On December 10, at 2:26 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the
judge: “Bruce my mom is not doing good at all unresponsive and barely breathing, Lear is
supposed to send a motion over today sometime for protection order and funeral proceedings.
Please get order together ASAP I don’t think she’s going to be with us through the night.” A few
minutes later, Keith sent a second message to the judge and stated, “Court should have motion
Bruce.”
On December 10, at 3:16 p.m., Keith, through Lear, filed a motion to temporarily amend
the protective orders. Lear attempted to serve the motion on Todd Sr.’s and Todd Jr.’s
attorney, Amanda Andrews, by email. However, he inadvertently sent the motion to an old
email address. On December 11, Jodi Radsick, the judge’s administrative assistant, emailed
Andrews a copy of the motion and requested that Andrews contact Lear, “So that we can get
this resolved as soon as possible.”
On December 11, at 4:28 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith asked the
judge, “Hey Bruce did you receive motion for my motion and funeral[?]” At 5:03 p.m., the
judge replied, “Yes it is going out to Todd to make sure he had no objections.”
On December 12, at 4:21 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith sent a
message to the judge with details about his mother’s funeral, stating:
Bruce, it’s going to be next Saturday at PIB, she’s being cremated tomorrow, so I need a
escort, preferably not in uniform, or unless you grant it not to be escorted because
[three words illegible] go on boat and return right after burial, services I believe are held
here at St. Thomas, I will message you with exact details after Bill finish everything
today. Can you see if Steve Levorchick will go with me please if I need escort. Maybe
Capt Marshall as second choice if I have I choice.
Later that same evening, beginning at 9:27, p.m., the judge and Keith had the following
exchange:
9Keith: Bruce here are the details, we decided to put her where she belongs next to my
dad, so 12/21/2019 funeral 10:00 am boat 11:00 am service at Saint Paul’s 12:00 pm
burial at maple leaf, 12:30 back at church for lunch and we are all returning on 2:00 pm
boat!
Judge: I sorry to hear that. She is certainly in a better place. Let me know what’s
coming up for you and Todd. He is entitled to a hearing but maybe he’ll consent. Is Bill
a potential intermediary for that cause. Sorry I thought sent this yesterday.
Keith: Lear wants to put motion in for Pib trip, because he a milk man for money!! lol
he says that it was in record to return for belongings and he wants it in record about
funeral, so I don’t violate misdemeanor conditions. Bill said he’s fine with it, but Lear
said he’s been calling [Todd Sr.’s] attorney and she’s not answering.
Judge: Its Amanda, of course not.
Keith: Lear is money hungry, he’s just out of control.. I told Bill to call Todd and tell him
to call drunk Apoo Amanda. So I figure by Monday or Tuesday we should have it all
straightened out. Lol. Bill said he told Todd a couple of hours ago about it.
Judge: I suppose so. Todd can call the court directly if he wishes. If I’m not available he
should ask for Tom.
On December 16, Keith through Lear filed a motion in his criminal case seeking
permission to travel to South Bass Island to attend his mother’s funeral. The state did not
object.
On December 17, at 7:43 a.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith asked the
judge, “Did Todd call or his attorney, he told my sister Andrea he was taking care of it, and was
calling.” The judge did not reply to Keith’s message; however, he did ask his assistant to
contact Andrews about the matter.
On December 17, at 8:57 a.m., the judge’s assistant emailed Andrews and stated, “Are
you doing anything on Blemensaadt’s CPO???” On December 18, at 11:40 a.m., Andrews
emailed the judge’s assistant and stated, “Yes. It will be in today. I finally got a hold of both
clients and the attorney last night.” The judge’s assistant replied, “Perfect! Thanks!”
On December 17, at 2:56 p.m., Todd Sr. and Todd Jr. through Andrews filed objections
to Keith’s motion. Andrews served the motion on Lear via email at 2:48 p.m., and at the same
time, she sent a courtesy copy of the motions to Radsick because Radscik had inquired about
the matter earlier in the day.
On December 17, at 3:37 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the
judge that, “Bruce Amanda called Lear and objected said Todd doesn’t want me there, now
what,,, Levorchick was going to be there.” The judge did not reply.
On December 17, at 4:15 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the
judge, “My mother didn’t want to be buried there and didn’t want a funeral because of this and
my brother and sisters both ask him and he said he didn’t have a problem with it, now he pulls
this, there all pissed now and he looks like a bad person, unbelievable. Using that protection
order as a weapon, Disgusting.”
At 4:45 p.m., the judge sent a message to Keith and stated, “Tom will have a hearing.”
At 5:33 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge, “More money no one
10has time, don’t bother, let him look like he does shit.” Keith then asked the judge to call him
when the judge had time.
On December 17, at 9:15 p.m., the judge called Keith and spoke to him for 10 minutes
about his mother’s death and the pending motion to amend and objections.
On December 18 at 6:35 a.m., as a follow-up to the call the previous night, in a message
via Facebook Messenger, Keith stated:
Bruce I forgot. There is a provision written in protective order already that we are aloud
to be at school functions together, read the original order. I would if I was the judge
deny objection because. How can we attend school function together that we both
agreed on, both parties, but not attend a funeral together, both Axel and His son joe
were in school together at the same time while this protective order was issued and
they put in writing that we were aloud to be at school function at the same time. I
would deny there motion on that basis alone because its unrealistic that it’s okay to be
at school together for Christmas plays and volleyball and soccer, but not to be at funeral
for are mother funeral together,,,that gives court justification and stops from having a
hearing and just makes sense!! They wrote protective order and agreed to the school
and look foolish trying to stop me from being at a funeral for are mother who passed ,,
we attended plays together and soccer and were at school all the time together, it looks
as if there trying to use protective order as a weapon to punish me and I would write
order no well taken on that basis. That’s my thought, Lear is in trial and can’t be there
and besides I am going with a Ottawa county sheriff. That my thought and I know you
haven’t seen order in awhile, but those school provisions are in order. Amanda wrote it
in protective order there consent in original order.
On December 18, at 4:48 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith asked the
judge, “Any word on what’s going to happen with funeral [?]” At 9:25 p.m., the judge replied,
“A deputy will accompany you. No need for consent, no need for a hearing and the Sheriff is
onboard.” Keith immediately replied and stated, “You sure[?] Thank you Bruce.”
On December 19, at 10:20 p.m., told Keith, “Godspeed my friend,” to which Keith
replied with a “thumbs up” emoji.
On December 20, the judge granted Keith’s motion over objections from Todd Sr. and
Todd Jr. and without a hearing. In his judgment entry, the judge ordered that Keith take the
10:00 a.m. ferry to South Bass Island and depart on the 2:00 p.m. ferry, which was the schedule
that Keith had provided to the judge on December 13. The judge also granted Keith’s motion
for permission to travel that had been filed in Keith’s criminal case.
Also on December 20, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge that,
“Todd called Bill bitching about me coming to funeral, Todd said that he wasn’t going and Bill
told well that’s not my problem, and he’s going but Bitched for a hour on the phone to him.
Can’t help himself,,,,I’m glade sheriff Dept is going because I don’t trust him to lie or make
something up. He will get over it!!”
On December 21, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge: “Todd
didn’t show, and people were talking about him at reception and it wasn’t nice! But everything
11went well, Melinda even talked to me in front of Steve, she was very nice to me as always.
Thanks for everything.”
The judge never disclosed to Andrews, Lear, Todd Sr., or Todd Jr., that he had spoken to
Keith or that he had received and responded to multiple Facebook Messenger communications
from Keith concerning the matter.
(4) On July 27, Keith was injured in a car accident. The driver of the other car was Daniel
Fishburn.
On September 9, a bill of information was filed against Fishburn charging him with
operating while under the influence, failing to maintain space between moving vehicles, and
aggravated vehicular assault. The judge presided over Fishburn’s criminal case.
Between September 9 and January 25, 2020, Keith and the judge exchanged multiple
messages concerning Keith’s injuries and Fishburn’s criminal case. The judge never disclosed
the ex parte communications in the criminal case.
On September 14, at 6:18 p.m., in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the
judge that he “can’t sleep past 5:30 a.m.” and that he “had a bad day yesterday.” The judge
immediately replied and asked whether Keith’s bad day was “from the accident injuries?” Keith
then explained that his “bad day” was related to a comment that someone had made to him
about the incident that led to the criminal charges against Keith in 2017.
On September 30, the judge and Keith had the following exchange on Facebook
Messenger:
Keith: I’m going to be I’m therapy for awhile, they think my neck back and shoulder is
going to be a permanent pain issue, this sucks.
Judge: Keep after all the medical attention you can get it only helps you get better and
helps your injury claim.
Keith: Yea Lear told me not to let any pains or issues go undocumented, Magruder has a
back therapy specialist seeing me Thursday.
On October 7, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge, “Oh buy the
way I also found out today I have 3 clasps disk in my back 2 in the lower and 1 in the middle, I’m
in therapy 5 days a week now, it’s causing never in my back to be pinched, which is why I limp
and my left leg gives out after standing to long. Great, this guy has ruined my future.” On the
same day, the judge replied, “We’ll get everything fixed that’s fixable.”
On October 11, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge: “I have 3
crushed disk in lower and a crushed disk in neck and I’ve been in therapy pool, so they been
trying to stretch my back and it’s making nerve pinch more, so I could barely walk yesterday,
not good, my left foot gives out and my left leg gives out while I’m walking, I hope James
doesn’t let this guy off without a guilty plea on ovi. Right foot. And now they say my left hip is
f***ed up to. 35 mph from the rear hurts. I refuse to be put on pain medication.” On the
same day, the judge replied “Yeah I imagine it would. As I’ve said before do everything you can
to get better. All the physical therapy and anything else. If you don’t get better now you’ll live
with these injuries and pain the rest of your life.”
12On October 11, in an effort to resolve Fishburn’s criminal case, the state and Fishburn
jointly requested that Fishburn be accepted into the county prosecutor’s pretrial diversion
program.
On October 17, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge:
Then this guy who hit me wants to plead no contest to ovi felony, not a chance, he
doesn’t want to admit guilty so he can get out of liability, over my dead body, James
[the prosecutor] should no better, I’m waiting to hear what him and Lear have figured
out on that yet, he blows twice over legal limit and admitted to drinking, I don’t think he
has a change at jury trial, he’s been offered 1 ovi felony and 1 unasheered clear distance
misdemeanor and diversion program, he should be happy with no jail time, but no, he
wants his cake and eat it to.
On November 14, in a message via Facebook Messenger, Keith told the judge: “Doctor
says I more than likely won’t be able to work again because of accident, back and legs go numb
and give out after 10 to 15 minutes of standing because of crushed disk. Nice Can anything else
go wrong[?]”
On December 17, the judge granted the joint request for Fishburn to be admitted in the
pretrial diversion program. The judge set the matter for a plea change and diversion hearing on
January 15, 2020.
On January 15, before Fishburn’s plea and diversion hearing, Keith said to the judge:
Bruce good morning. I want you know, that I understand being in your position as a
judge in a small community is a very hard job, trying to make everyone’s needs just,
being put between difficult situations, but at the end of the day I still respect you and
don’t dislike you in any way. I’ve been in a lot of hard situations, and at the end of the
day I don’t hold any remorse! I still think you are great guy and I hope my case doesn’t
change anything between us,, it’s a had spot and it bothers me personally everyday,
because I consider you a Good person! And friend!! It’s definitely a awkward situation
my case, but I still like you, I can tell you don’t have conversations with me anymore and
I understand!!! I don’t have it in me, to not love and respect a good guy as yourself!
I’ve said to much, this dam case of mine has caused such problems in my life and don’t
want my appeal to cause hard feeling!! Dame I hate this whole Pib thing.
Keith had previously submitted a written victim impact statement for the judge’s consideration
in sentencing.
In re DiClaudio, Opinion and order (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline July 6, 2021)
(https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210706/154753-
opinionandorder(july6,2021).pdf)
Based on its findings of misconduct, which were based on joint stipulations of fact
(https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210513/013628-file-10801.pdf), the
Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline suspended a judge for 2 weeks without pay and placed
13him on probation until the end of his term for (1) failing to comply with 5 court orders in a case
in which a fitness club sued him for dues, resulting in 3 findings of contempt and (2) failing to
disclose the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the IRS as creditors on his statements of
financial interest. During his probation, the judge will consult with a mentor chosen by and
reporting to the Court; failure to cooperate with the mentor will constitute a violation of
probation.
(1) On August 20, 2015, the Cynwyd Club filed a civil complaint in the magisterial district
court against the judge, then a judicial candidate, alleging that he owed several thousand
dollars in membership dues. Although the judge notified the court that he intended to defend
the suit, he failed to appear for the trial, resulting in a $2,659.38 judgment against him. The
judge filed a notice of appeal in the court of common pleas, and the club filed a civil complaint
in the court of common pleas. The judge failed to file an answer, resulting in a default
judgment of $3,767.67 against him in April 2016. He had become a judge in January 2016.
The judge repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests and orders related to the
club’s attempts to collect the judgment, including orders to appear, respond, or pay the club’s
attorney fees. The judge failed to appear at 3 sanctions hearings, resulting in 3 findings of
contempt.
In August 2019, the judge received a notice that the Board was reviewing his conduct in
the case. In October, the judge appeared at a sanctions hearing and agreed to pay the club
$9,500. At the hearing, the presiding judge said, “The Court anticipates there will be strict
compliance with this order from defendant, because I’m hoping, as a fellow colleague and a
member of the bench, that the defendant would give the Court, not me as an individual, the
Court, the respect that it is entitled to, the same respect that I would assume defendant
expects other litigants to give him.”
The Court found that the judge “conducted himself in a manner that suggested he felt
he was above the law. In fact, he defied legally issued orders issued by a Court identical in
power to his own. In this way his conduct struck at the very heart of the respect necessary for
the rule of law. . . . Rather than conduct himself in the same way he would expect from litigants
in his courtroom – obey courts or suffer the consequences – Judge DiClaudio ignored the court
orders with no apparent fear of consequences.”
(2) Pursuant to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court order, all judicial officers are required to
file an annual statement of financial interests that lists, inter alia, all creditors to which they
owed over $6,500.
In March 2011, June 2014, and March 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue
filed tax liens for over $6,500 against the judge. In July 2017, the IRS filed a tax lien for over
$6,500 against the judge. The judge failed to list the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue as a
creditor on his statements of financial interest for 4 consecutive years following the filing of the
liens. The judge also failed to list the IRS on his statement for the year after its lien was filed.
He knew of the liens but wrongly believed they did not have to be listed. 2 months after the
judge was notified of the Board’s investigation, the judge filed amended statements to add the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the IRS as creditors.
The Court found that the judge’s failure to list the IRS and the Pennsylvania Department
of Revenue reflected “at best, a careless attitude toward complying with a Supreme Court
order. Moreover, by failing to pay his taxes and then failing to report the filing of liens against
14him due to this failure, Judge DiClaudio again displayed a troubling pattern of ‘snubbing his
nose’ at the system and placing himself above the law.”
In mitigation, the Court noted that the judge had acknowledged his improper conduct
and voiced contrition; no new incidents have been charged while the case was pending; he has
a strong work ethics and charitable work; and “the character evidence introduced on his behalf
is impressive.” In aggravation, the Court noted that the judge brought disrepute on the
judiciary, that the judge has received a letter of counsel from the Board for his actions towards
his staff, had been censured as a lawyer in 2015 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and a
dissent in an attorney discipline case had recommended a longer suspension because he had a
“longitudinal history of similar disciplinary infractions . . . with little concern for his continuing
transgressions.”
In the Matter of Rivers (South Carolina Supreme Court August 11, 2021)
(https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28049.pdf)
Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court
suspended a magistrate for 6 months for his disruptive behavior during a meeting about the
court’s COVID-19 safety plan, his confrontations with another magistrate and the Chief
Magistrate after the meeting, and his statement to a clerk about the Chief Magistrate’s
complaint to Disciplinary Counsel; the suspension was made retroactive to July 10, 2020, the
date of his interim suspension, and the Court also ordered him to complete at least 15 hours of
anger management counseling and to pay the costs of the investigation.
On May 14, 2020, the Florence County magistrates and clerks met to discuss the COVID-
19 safety plan for re-opening magistrates’ courts to the public in accordance with the South
Carolina Court’s order on evictions and foreclosures dated April 30, 2020.
During the meeting, Respondent began asking questions repeatedly, speaking in a loud
voice and challenging the Chief Magistrate’s Covid-19 safety plan for reopening. As the
meeting continued, Respondent became visibly agitated, reading aloud portions of the
April 30, 2020 Order and challenging the Chief Magistrate’s implementation plan. At
one point during the meeting another magistrate . . . told Respondent to follow the
Chief Magistrate’s direction.
Because of the magistrate’s “continued disruptions, the Chief Magistrate apologized to the
other meeting attendees and adjourned the meeting prematurely without completing the
agenda.”
After the meeting concluded, the Magistrate River left the meeting room and
confronted the magistrate who had suggested he follow the Chief Magistrate’s directions,
expressing his displeasure and telling the other magistrate not to disrespect him again.
The magistrate “then returned to the meeting room where the Chief Magistrate had
begun to gather her personal belongings. When the Chief Magistrate turned to leave the room,
she was startled to see Respondent, who was hitting his hands together and loudly requesting
that going forward the Chief Magistrate should show him respect. The Chief Magistrate grew
15concerned for her physical well-being.” The next day, the Chief Magistrate reported the
incident to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Approximately a month later, the magistrate told a county clerk that the Chief
Magistrate “does not know who she is dealing with and she will regret doing this,” referring to
her complaint to Disciplinary Counsel.
The magistrate admits that he acted inappropriately during the meeting, during his
interaction with his fellow magistrate and the Chief Magistrate after the meeting, and when he
spoke to the clerk. The magistrate “recognizes that his concerns regarding Covid-19 do not
excuse his behavior and that his disruptive behavior reflected poorly on his professional
judgment and temperament.”
Barnstone, Voluntary agreement to resign from judicial office in lieu of disciplinary action
(Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct July 19, 2021)
(http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/media/46840/barnstone-resignation-in-lieu-agreement.pdf)
Based on the judge’s resignation and agreement to be disqualified from judicial service
in the state, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct agreed not to pursue further
disciplinary proceedings against a former judge; the Commission had received complaints
alleging that the judge failed to treat attorneys appearing before him with patience, dignity,
and courtesy; failed to require and maintain order and decorum in proceedings before him;
exhibited and/or manifested bias or prejudice towards certain litigants and attorneys, including
on the basis of race, sex, and/or socioeconomic status; failed to comply with the law and/or
maintain professional competence in the law with respect to awards of attorney’s fees and/or
statutory post-judgment interest; failed to accord a defendant the right to be heard according
to law; lent the prestige of judicial office to advance his private interests; and made
appointments in violation of the state’s nepotism statute.
Grigsby, Voluntary agreement to resign from judicial office in lieu of disciplinary action (Texas
State Commission on Judicial Conduct July 12, 2021)
(http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/media/46841/grigsby19-1265resignation-in-lieu.pdf)
Based on the judge’s resignation and agreement to be disqualified from judicial service
in the state, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct agreed not to pursue further
disciplinary proceedings against a former justice of the peace and associate municipal court
judge; in May 2019, the Commission had suspended the judge without pay after she was
indicted on state charges of theft of more than $2,500, but less than $30,000, and abuse of
official capacity.
In re Jones, Opinion (Texas Special Court of Review June 17, 2021)
(http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/media/46839/scr-21-0002-in-re-jones-opinion-substituted-
opinion-06-17-21.pdf)
Following a trial de novo, a Texas Special Court of Review affirmed the public reprimand
of a judge for issuing a show cause order based on an oral motion for contempt that had not
16been served on the alleged contemnor and issuing an arrest order without giving the alleged
contemnor an opportunity to respond; the judge was also ordered to obtain 4 hours of
education with a mentor.
Charlotte Carroll filed a lawsuit against her previous landlord, Norman Olsen, and his
brother, John Olsen, who was the property manager, seeking the return of her security deposit.
Following a bench trial, on June 22, 2016, Carrol obtained a $1500 judgment against the Olsens.
The Olsens never paid the judgment. About 2 years later, in an effort to collect on the
judgment, Carroll filed post-judgment interrogatories. The judge granted permission for Carroll
to serve the interrogatories on the Olsens, but her attempts to serve through certified mail
resulted in unclaimed and refused mail. On June 15, the judge ordered the Olsens to answer
Carroll’s post-judgment interrogatories. None of the constable’s attempts to serve the Olsens
were successful. The interrogatories remained unanswered.
In a court appearance in February of 2019, Carroll complained to the judge that the
Olsens were ignoring her interrogatories and made an oral motion for contempt; later, she
attached a written motion to an email to the judge’s clerk. Carroll’s motion for contempt was
never filed with the court’s records or served on the Olsens. Without confirming whether the
post-judgment interrogatories or the motion for contempt were served on the Olsens, the
judge issued a show cause order, setting a hearing for April 2, 2019. At about this time, Carroll
decided not to pursue service on Norman Olsen. A constable was directed to serve John with
the show cause order but was unsuccessful. Although John was not personally served with the
show cause order, he attended the April 2 hearing because he received the order in the mail.
Minutes before the April 2 hearing began, there was an altercation between Carroll and
John Olsen. The judge announced that he was resetting the hearing for May 14, and John and
Carroll were escorted from the courthouse. The judge’s clerk mailed a notice of hearing to the
parties resetting the contempt hearing on May 14. The notice of hearing did not include the
show cause order or Carroll’s motion for contempt. Further, the notice of hearing was not even
clear on who was required to appear. John testified that when he received the notice, he
thought only Carroll was required to appear because of the altercation.
When neither John nor Norman appeared at the May 14 hearing, the judge signed a writ
of attachment ordering John arrested and kept in custody until discharged by the court. The
order was subsequently withdrawn, but Norman had already filed a complaint with the
Commission.
The Court found that the judge issued the show cause order for the Olsens based on
Carroll’s oral motion for contempt and that, before issuing the show cause order, the judge did
not confirm that the Olsens had notice of the interrogatories and Carroll’s motion for contempt.
The Court noted that due process required the judge to afford the Olsens proper notice and the
opportunity to respond.
The Court also found that the evidence presented at trial established that the Olsens did
not receive notice of Carroll’s motion for contempt. Although John appeared at the April 2
contempt hearing, he had not been served with the motion for contempt and he was not
personally served with the show cause order. When the judge’s clerk reset the contempt
hearing, the show cause order was not attached to the notice of hearing, and neither Olsen was
ordered to appear. The Court stated that due process required that the judge notify the Olsens
of his show cause order by personally serving them with the order before issuing the writ of
17attachment and that the judge’s failure to do so and his failure to confirm that Carroll’s motion
for contempt was filed and served “deprived John of the opportunity to know the when, how
and by what means he was charged with contempt, and it deprived him an opportunity to
respond before the writ of attachment issued. . . . Indeed, the same failure on Judge Jones’
part deprived Carroll from timely executing on her judgment.”
In aggravation, the Court noted that the case did not represent the judge’s first judicial
discipline, that the issues leading up to the Commission’s investigation occurred in the judge’s
official capacity, that the judge denied wrongdoing and asked the Commission to reconsider its
findings, “that the effect of the violations in this case on the public’s respect for and perception
of the judiciary was apparently negative, based on parties’ email communications with Judge
Jones’ clerks,” and that the judge conduct was willful.
Public Warning of Baca Bennet and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on
Judicial Conduct August 16, 2021) (http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/media/46842/baca-bennett18-
0388-et-alpubwarn-oae-81621.pdf)
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly warned a judge for posting on
Facebook support for judicial candidates, opposition to candidates for other offices, a negative
comment about Scientology, and a meme about border crossings; the Commission also ordered
the judge to obtain 2 hours of instruction on racial sensitivity with a mentor.
During the 2018 election cycle, when she was not running, the judge made several posts
to her Facebook page lauding the experience and/or qualifications of certain candidates for
judicial office, defending those candidates against political attacks from others, or opposing the
candidate’s opponents.
In posts about the campaign of Judge James Munford, the judge defended him against
accusations that he was a “gun grabber” and a “RINO” and had been abusive towards his first
wife decades before. The judge also made negative comments about Munford’s opponent’s
voting record and urged the public to ignore the political attacks against Munford and to vote
for him because of his superior experience and qualifications.
The judge also posted about the campaign of Judge Cynthia Terry, including posting
about attending a “Meet and Greet Luncheon” hosted by Judge Terry, “liking” a post about the
event, and sharing screenshots of Judge Terry’s campaign flyers.
In posts promoting the campaign of Judge Alex Kim, the judge shared Judge Kim’s
campaign materials and insinuated in a lengthy post that she had unique knowledge that Judge
Kim’s opponent was unsuited for the position because he left “a baby in danger.”
In addition, the judge posted to Facebook, “Robert Francis O’Rourke. #fakemexican”
about then-candidate for U.S. Senate, Beto O’Rourke. The judge also remarked “Finally
Gone!!!” about the loss in the primaries of Texas Representative Jason Vallalba and later
responded with 2 laughing emojis to the comment, “I’m sure [Vallalba] will find a job, there are
lots of local opportunities in both the hotel and food service industry.”
The judge shared a link on Facebook to an article titled “Scientologist’s Facilities Closed
After Police Find People Held Prisoner Inside,” with her comment, “Scientology is not a church.
It is an evil scam.”
18You can also read
