The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has given Marion Superior Court Judge Becky Pierson-Treacy a slap on the hand for
sending out an improper fundraising solicitation that suggested those who donated to her campaign would receive favorable rulings from her court. Although the Commission determined that the solicitation warranted a formal disciplinary investigation, it issued an admonition of her instead because she "cooperated", acknowledges "she violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, and apologizes for engaging in conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer." The
formal admonition reads:
The Commission admonishes Judge Pierson-Treacy for making inappropriate statements in a campaign fund-raising invitation which was distributed to Indianapolis area attorneys, judges, business persons and other professionals in August 2011. The objectionable material gave the appearance that specific campaign contributions could result in particular rulings.
Notable in the Commission's decision is their determination that the prominent Democratic attorneys whose names appeared on the solicitation had no knowledge of the solicitation's content before its distribution. Judge Pierson-Treacy and her husband, Marion Co. Democratic Party Chairman Ed Treacy, took full responsibility.
Instead, Judge Pierson-Treacy and her husband, Edward Treacy, created the fundraiser solicitation." Specifically, Judge Pierson-Treacy added the legal monikers to the "suggested contributions" section in an effort to make the invitation more interesting. Judge Pierson-Treacy then authorized the distribution of the invitations, and her husband's staff mailed them out.
The Commission's decision noted that the solicitation gave the appearance that "justice was for sale" in the judge's courtroom. Because Judge Pierson-Treacy cooperated in the investigation and acknowledged her misconduct, the Commission says she "will not be formally charged with ethical misconduct."
2 comments:
-based on her decisions, it appears there are a number of donors to Rebekah's "favorable ruling" club. But, unfortunately, the Attorney General cannot appeal all of the improper decisions as a matter of fact.
Now, should defendant's in her courtroom be entitled to "admonishment" for soliciting improper "donations" from attorneys and law firms that practice in that court?
Rebekah Pierson-TREACY made a mockery of the judiciary, and all the Supremes do is allow the Commission to give an "admonition...????" Wow! Sounds like they don't even care about their Code of Conduct....or how the public views its judiciary. (Perhaps we should view most members of the judiciary as Bribe a/k/a "donation"-takers)???
No kidding. The Supreme Court metes out harsher penalties to small-time attorneys for minor infractions of the attorney advertising rules that don't come close to approaching the unseemly advertising that some of these major trial lawyers run on TV and radio spots and splash across billboards all the time. I love the law firms that advertise their racket of aiding and abetting people with their phony social security disability claims. Instead of advertising "We're here for you," they should be advertising "We're here to defraud the taxpayers."
Post a Comment