an opinion handed down on friday 02 february 2007 (clink link for 15 page .pdf) louisiana's supreme court gives us a glimpse into the true and seamy side of louisiana "justice."
the first count of the charges is based on an incident that happened in late 1997 in which judge whitaker sent a letter "in support of a disbarred lawyer who was applying for readmission to the practice of law." on "official court stationary" to, of all people, the chief disciplinary counsel. according to the supremes "such conduct is a violation of canon 2B (a judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the judge or others) of the code of judicial conduct." this would seem rather nit-picky until you stop and consider that judge whitaker testified that he didnt know that the rules had been changed to prohibit letters from judges to the office of disciplinary board. hello you're a judge we expect our judges to know all the laws, rules and regulations; especially those that govern their professional conduct.
count two is a little bit more serious when you consider that the judge was ordering around the natchitoches parish sheriff's department -- apparently the natchitoches parish sheriff doesnt even know what his own authority is. go figure.
Count II
During a sworn statement taken by the Judiciary Commission’s Office of Special Counsel in February 1999, respondent admitted that while he was a judge he frequently issued orders and directives, both verbal and written, instructing the Natchitoches Parish Sheriff’s Office to perform actions when there were no cases pending, no motions or rules filed, and no hearings set.1 Such conduct is a violation of Canons 1 (a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary), 2 (a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities), and 3 (a judge shall perform the duties of office impartially and diligently) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
so the judge sent his letter on court stationary in late 1997 and admitted in february 1999, (in count two) of wrong doing (nine specifications between 1987 and 1996 but said he had “probably done this five hundred times in eighteen and a half years” on the bench.) and the office of disciplinary counsel didnt even file charges until 2005. wow. what took so long? at this rate the twenty plus
ogden middleton / gold weems victims net [
website] can expect some action on their case around 2010 or so.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In 2005, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct constituted a violation of Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as the relevant canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent filed an answer to the formal charges and admitted that he wrote a letter of recommendation on his official court stationery; however, he said that he
this wasnt the first time judge whitaker had been in trouble either:
In 1985, respondent was suspended from judicial office for one year for smoking marijuana on two occasions after becoming a judge and for associating with prostitutes, users and sellers of illegal drugs, and an individual against whom felony criminal charges were pending. In re: Whitaker, 463 So. 2d 1291 (La. 1985).
perhaps most interesting in this case is the supreme court's citing of several other incidents of judges behaving badly: