The problem with defending Judge Greif

It isn't just the shocking texts by Judge Lisa Greif. 

It was her judicial misbehavior, revealed in her own words.

Someone spoke up for Judge Greif in a letter to the editor of the local newspaper yesterday.  

No discussion of Greif's re-election can avoid the elephant in the room, her text messages saying she wanted to kill or body slam a colleague. They also show her secret involvement assisting a litigant using what Greif called her "moles." They came to light in the discovery process of a court case involving a nonprofit organization providing services to her court. 

They caused an uproar. Lawyers called for her to resign, as did editorials in local newspapers.

Dr. Kerri Hecox wrote a letter to the editor supporting Greif, who is running for re-election this May. This is the first such letter I have noticed.

 Dr. Hecox wrote:

     "I am aware of the publication of Judge Greif's private text messages. I viewed the news coverage for what it was: public airing of private thoughts. I think if any of us were to have our private thoughts/conversations published on certain subjects we might wish we had said things differently. My experience with Judge Greif is that her public life is devoted to public service, which is what I look for in an elected official."

That may be Dr. Hecox's experience, and I am happy for Judge Greif that she has friends and supporters who stand by her, and happy that Dr. Hecox's experience was a good one. But it is not the experience of people whose lives were affected by the behavior revealed in Greif's own words. Nor is it the experience of the court system itself.

Greif gets a defender

Greif and her friends have advanced various excuses for her behavior. Greif has said she is sorry and won't do this again. She has said her offenses were now over two years prior, and she is a better person now. She misled viewers on KOBI-TV Five on Five interview by minimizing her behavior.

Dr. Hecox is positing a different tack, that the texts are irrelevant because they revealed private thoughts not Greif's public life. That is incorrect.

The messages revealed by the lawsuit's discovery process do in fact involve several that are personal and gossipy regarding food, drink, friends, and enemies. They would be embarrassing to Judge Greif and would have great entertainment value had I revealed them. I deleted those. 

The text messages I reported are ones that bear directly upon her public role as a judge because they reveal judicial misbehavior that affects the impartiality and credibility of the court system. That makes them of public interest. 

1. A judge is expected to be impartial in both deed and appearance. Her texts reveal that she was actively, but secretly, assisting a litigant extract a higher settlement by organizing the feeding of "dirt to a "mole" in the local media as part of that litigant's media strategy.

2. A judge is expected to maintain respect for the court system. Her multiple texts insulting a fellow judge were addressed to a person who regularly appeared before that judge as a court witness.

3. A judge is prohibited from using the prestige and power of the office for the private use of herself or her friends. The texts reveal her intent to hush an employee who was speaking in opposition to the interests of Greif's litigant friend. ("I will alert some of the DAs.") Judge Greif was a former board member of an organization that competes for funding with OnTrack, the organization being sued by her friend, and the one Judge Greif was attempting to destroy.

4. Any employer--in this case the public--has a duty to assure the safety conditions of a workplace put into question when an employee puts in writing thoughts of killing or assaulting a fellow employee.

Click: see and read the original texts verbatim

Greif's behavior is not supposition or guesswork. The texts are a confession. Her actions are admitted, even celebrated, by Judge Greif herself. "Those bitches are going down!" Greif wrote. The exclamation mark was Greif's. She was not a reluctant participant, dragged into someone else's plot. Greif was doing it herself, she did it for months, and her texts reveal she was loving it.

Formal Complaints Filed. I am aware of at least two attorneys who have spoken publicly about filing formal complaints to Oregon's Judicial Fitness Commission, concluding that this behavior was improper: retired judge Phil Arnold and attorney Michael Brian. At the urging of another senior jurist, I, too, filed a complaint. I am aware of at least one additional one from an attorney.

Judge Greif is not in trouble because of the personal gossip she shared. She is in trouble because her texts self-report behaviors that undermine the impartiality and credibility of the court system.

Note:

Multiple attorneys have warned me it is dangerous to criticize a sitting judge. They have ways to make trouble for anyone, especially an attorney and their clients, I have been warned. I know many attorneys. I am married to one. Nobody but me decides what goes into this blog, most certainly not my wife. She doesn't ask about this blog and she doesn't even read it. 

In 2008 my family made a $500 political contribution to Judge Greif in her contested election.