“Smart” Meter Court Case Update Information ; Perspective
by Warren Woodward Sedona, Arizona ~ August 15, 2015
“The complainant alleged a superior court judge exhibited unprofessional demeanor, ridiculed trial prosecutors, and made political comments from the bench.
The Arizona Constitution forbids judicial conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and brings the judicial office into disrepute. See Article 6.1, Section 4. Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” Rule 2.2 requires judges to “perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” Rule 2.8(B) requires judges to be “patient, dignified, and courteous” to lawyers.
After reviewing the complaint, the judge's response, and the relevant recordings and transcripts, the commission found that, on two separate occasions, Judge McClennen made inappropriate sarcastic statements from the bench that violated the Arizona Constitution and the rules set forth above.”
"He was accusing me of not answering his questions. He impugned my integrity," said defense attorney Eleanor Miller. She filed a complaint against McClennen last year, and the commission publicly reprimanded him after looking into it.
In 2002, McClennen was also privately reprimanded for similar conduct.
“… any party in interest, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, being dissatisfied with an order or decision of the commission, may within thirty days after a rehearing is denied or granted, and not afterwards, commence an action in the superior court in the county in which the commission has its office, against the commission as defendant, to vacate, set aside, affirm in part, reverse in part or remand with instructions to the commission such order or decision ….”
It appears Woodward is challenging an order of the Arizona Corporation Commission issued on April 30, 2015. As noted above, a party has the right to bring an action “within thirty days after a rehearing is denied or granted, and not afterwards.” Thirty days from the date of the Corporation Commission’s order would have been May 30, 2015. It thus appears Woodward’s pleading filed June 25, 2015 is untimely, which would mean this Court would not have jurisdiction.