The Real Reason Why I Couldn’t Support Judge McGuffey

 

By Pat Flanagan

            For the last few months, I have actively campaigned against Judge McGuffey’s re-election.  I was the one who compared him to a “Post Turtle.”  During that time, many made comments that I was motivated by “sour grapes” because I didn’t get the appointment for the Justice of the Peace instead of McGuffey.  That couldn’t be further from the real truth.

            Back in May of 2012,  I filed a complaint covering a number of issues with the Commission on Judicial Ethics.  Prior to that, I had spent a lot of time reviewing procedures and ethical behavior but was not able to distinguish between facts and appearances.  This, despite the fact that I obtained many documents under the Freedom of Information Act.  Some records were unavailable as they were confidential in nature.   Only a formal investigation could break through this problem and hopefully arrive at the truth.  The system was not working the way it was intended.

            Since May, the Commission felt that the complaints warranted an investigation and proceeded to the next step.  I was not the only one who had filed concerns.  Because of the seriousness of the matter, I and all others were basically instructed by the Commission to not talk to anyone about the ongoing investigation and gathering of evidence to establish “probable cause.”  This was important so that any testimony would not be “tainted” or made prejudicial during the investigation and that the truth could be sought.

            It is my understanding now that a Formal Statement of Charges has been issued and presented to Judge McGuffey for his response.  Based upon the evidence, the Commission will then determine if any disciplinary action is warranted.  I have now been released from my “enforced silence” and can discuss some of the reasons behind my actions over the last few months.  I think I have to do this to clear the air and also set the record straight as to my motivations.  In these last few months, I have been very careful in trying to adhere to the Commission’s instructions.  It has been very difficult and hard as I just could not defend myself against some of the comments made against me.  But now that is over. 

            This all started a few years ago when the Sheriff was Jim Miller.  At that time, there was a surprise raid upon one of my clients with the drug unit for the State.  It was a joint raid by the Sheriff and the state unit.  There was no search warrant and no warning.  The agents came into my client’s store, confiscated about $6,000.00 worth of artistic pipes and antiques for smoking, burlap bags and other items.  Many were collectible pipes by artists.  My client always had a disclaimer that these items were not being sold for any type of drug use and were not sold to minors.  They were just items of antique or artistic value for collectors.

            The owner was in Mexico visiting a relative dying of cancer.  While gone, she had left her niece at the store to just oversee things.  Her niece was a very young girl and had lived a fairly protected life growing up.  She had no interest in the store except for just wanting to help her aunt during her absence.  She had no interest at all in the store but the officers then proceeded to arrest her and put her in jail.  She was traumatized and terrified.  Finally she was released.  But major damage had been done to her mentally.  Not even in Mexico do things like this occur.  Certainly it shouldn’t have happened in America.  Maybe all of this was legal, but it certainly wasn’t ethical.  It certainly was not American.

            We wrote letters to both the Nevada drug unit, the District Attorney and the Sheriff at the time protesting the illegal search, lack of a search warrant and the false arrest of the niece.  As a result, the entire case was dropped.  Nothing illegal had ever been done by my client but she and her niece had been seriously hurt.

            We then requested the Sheriff to give back to us all of the inventory which was confiscated as it was no longer necessary as evidence.  They had destroyed it all.  That also was improper as it should have been kept and returned to us.

            At this point, we had no other choice but to file in Small Claims Justice Court presided at the time by Judge Annette Daniels (now Judge McGuffey’s court) for our loss of $6,000.00.  Much to my disappointment, but within her powers, she then remanded us up to a higher court.  This meant we had to hire an attorney and spend more money so my client decided to just drop the matter.

            I then called for a meeting with Sheriff Miller to attempt some kind of agreed settlement with him for all of the harm done to my client.  I listed all of our points, lack of search warrant, lack of probable cause and false arrest of an innocent by-stander.  His response was not what I wanted to hear.  “You can either sue me or the County or vote me out of office”.  That was it.  Not even an apology.  Well, we couldn’t sue, but we could try to make sure that he never served in a political office again.  Those were Miller’s “terms of negotiation.”  He may have acted legally, but certainly not ethically.

            Sheriff Miller knew he couldn’t run for Sheriff again.  Not only because of this incident, but also due to others where  procedures had been violated and mistakes made.  Then Annette Daniels decided to take early retirement and that opened up the position of Justice of the Peace for appointment.  This position was seriously being considered by Miller and I decided that I had to apply for the position in an effort to prevent him from gaining the public office.  He was not going up for election.  Once I had applied, Sheriff Miller then withdrew and urged Jack McGuffey to seek the appointment.  Now, let me make this very clear.  I love the law and I love our justice system.  It would have been interesting to be the Justice of the Peace for a time until the next election.  I would have only done it in the interim until the voters could decide on the position.  My application just made a lot of good sense: stop Miller from gaining a public office and also to learn more about the law as a judge and try to do the right things for the community.  Little did I expect what was to happen.

            When Miller withdrew, I felt I had won.  Then we went through the application and review process.  I was a bit surprised that Sheriff Miller was on the interview panel as I felt that to be a conflict of interest.  But I trusted the process.  We had applicants who clearly were well-qualified and I felt that they would get the appointment.  Well, we all know what happened now.  Judge McGuffey got the appointment even though he wasn’t the best qualified, and then he immediately appointed Sheriff Miller as his assistant Justice of the Peace Pro Tempore.  Miller was again back in public office as a judge now despite all of the problems he had as Sheriff and his interpretation of the law.  I felt double-crossed; I had won fair and square but still lost in my effort to keep him out of public office.  How this all happened is still a mystery to me.  How the County Commission picked Judge McGuffey over the applicants who were much better still is a mystery to me.  And why did McGuffey appoint Sheriff Miller immediately after?  I trusted the system and the procedures but they just didn’t work for some reason.  It was a travesty of justice, ethics and procedure.  But it may have all been legal.  Or it may be that an elected official was using his position for private gain.  I just didn’t know, but the appearance of impropriety was very strong.

            At this point, I had no choice but to review the appointment procedures to try to discover the truth and that finally left me no choice but to ask the Commission to decide based upon the facts and truth.  And I could campaign in the next election against Judge McGuffey.  These were the only two courses of action that were open to me.  If he lost, Sheriff Miller would again be out of public office and I would have followed through with Miller’s original options open to me and my client.  So this is the real reason why I have been against Judge McGuffey’s  re-election.  To keep Sheriff Miller out of public office.

         At this point, many may have acted legally, but that really isn’t the question here.  It has always been an issue of ethics.  It seems now fitting to me that this will be decided by the Commission of Judicial Ethics and by the voters of the County.  In the end, I think justice will have been served and that we have all learned just how hard it is to be ethical in our lives.

            In closing, I want you to think about that innocent young lady who was thrown into jail.  I want you to think about my client who lost $6,000.00.  It was all legal but certainly not ethical.  I know that this has caused a lot of pain for Judge McGuffey, but he played a part in it all along with others.  Hopefully they will understand now and that we all will realize just how important it is to get the most qualified people to govern us both legally and ethically.  That young lady could have been your son or daughter.  That certainly is not the America I know but the process of making all of this right is!  Now that the election is over, I will tell the niece that this truly is America and justice finally is served, one way or the other.

            Times change. Today we have a great District Attorney, a great Sheriff and now we have elected Eileen Herrington who I believe will be a great Justice of the Peace.   And the cause of Judicial Ethics will have been advanced in Storey County.  We deserve the best and sometimes human error is just not acceptable from our elected officials.         

Addendum:  Today, November 14, 2012, I was informed by the investigator that a Formal Statement of Charges was presented to Judge McGuffey and that he was given the opportunity to defend himself and give truthful testimony.  It is now up to the Judicial Committee to decide and to determine what, if any action should be taken.  In fairness to Judge McGuffey, I think we should all presume his innocence in this matter until the Commission releases its findings.  “Appearances” should never be viewed as factual; only the Commission can act from this point on and we will just have to wait.  In the meantime, the voters have spoken and I feel that justice is achieved, one way or the other, but perhaps in different ways.  I have learned a lot and expect that I will continue to learn more about ethics as this process comes to completion.