E-mail to TCFR supporter on July 23, 2004
TCFR FILES ETHICS COMPLAINT ON CPS JUDGE
Texas Center for Family Rights filed a complaint against CPS Judge John Specia Jr. with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in Austin yesterday. Judge Specia presides over the 225th District Court of Bexar County in San Antonio. He holds positions in state organizations related to CPS that affect the entire state.
Additionally Gary Gates, Founder of TCFR, and his family joined other groups including the Harris County Leadership Council and individuals from Bexar County protesting statewide issues of judicial impropriety and other CPS abuses in a demonstration outside Judge Specia's court in San Antonio yesterday.
Gary and Peter Johnston, President of TCFR filed the complaint against Judge Specia on behalf of the children and parents of the State of Texas. The complaint cites organizational positions of Judge Specia that violate the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The positions call into question the independence of the judiciary, the foundational principle of judicial ethics, in Judge Specia's courtroom and CPS Cluster Courts he has helped to develop throughout the state.
In filing the complaint, TCFR recognizes that confidence in the judiciary rises and falls based on the perception of its independence, its impartiality and its integrity. TCFR believes that Judge Specia's actions give an appearance of impropriety that has seriously eroded confidence in the judiciary.
According to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct judges are to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. None of their activities should cast a reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially. Specifically TCFR cites four positions that Judge Specia holds that do cast doubts on his impartiality.
1. Chairman of the Texas Supreme Court Task Force on Foster Care that receives funding from the Children's Justice Act (CJA) and acts as supervising entity of the Court Improvement Project (CIP) which both have financial, organizational and administrative roots in the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service, a party which regularly appears before Judge Specia in court or other judges he oversees.
2. Chairman of the Court Improvement Project
3. Member of the Board of Directors, Vice-President and Chairman of the Program Policy Committee of Texas CASA, a group that trains advocates who regularly appear before Judge Specia in court or other judges who he oversees.
4. Member of Advisory Committee of Texas Lawyers for Children representing attorneys who may appear before Judge Specia in court or other judges he oversees.
Texas judges are to govern their actions and activities according to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct The preamble to the Code states:
Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair
and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The
role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule
of law. Intrinsic to all sections of the Code of Judicial conduct are the precepts
that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial
office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal
system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes
and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.
The Code then includes eight specific canons which must be upheld. TCFR believes that Judge Specia has violated at least four of those canons:
Canon 1: Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities
Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4: Conducting the Judge's Extra-judicial Activities to minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations
For further insight into the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct questions can be addressed to the Committee on Judicial Ethics for an official opinion about specific issues. The complaint on Judge Specia includes copies of eight opinions (57, 66, 86, 133, 255, 240, 270, and 281) written over a period extending more than twenty years that TCFR believes address the specific problems of judges sitting in similar positions to those of Judge Specia. Thus Judge Specia knew or should have known of his conflicts with these opinions.
Now that the complaint has been filed the State Commission will investigate its merits. Following the investigation it can be brought before the Commission for a decision. The Commission could then vote to dismiss the complaint, recommend further education for the judge, choose to sanction the judge, suspend the judge, accept voluntary resignation of the judge and/or initiate other formal proceedings with a possible outcome of removing the judge from the bench.
TCFR encourages readers to access the full complaint through our website and response to the complaint through other media such as Mike Ward's article in the Austin American-Statesman. We will keep you informed of its progress with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Respectfully,
Peter Johnston
President
