| ► 05/08/10 Ethics complaint v. Judge Shirley Saffold of Cleveland, Ohio |
 |
 |
|
05/08/10 Ethics complaint filed v. Judge Shirley Saffold of Cleveland, Ohio
The following ethics compliant v. Cleveland Judge Shirley Saffold of Cleveland, Ohio was mailed to the Ohio Suprme Court Disciplinary Counse, Jonothan Couglan on May 8,2010, meaning he will and/or sould recieve it on or about Monday, May 10, 2010.
Dave Palmer
The Watchdawg
URL: www.noethics.net
Jonathon Coughlan
Disciplinary Counsel
Ohio Supreme Court
250 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 325
Columbus, OH 43215-7411
Re: Judge Shirley Strickland-Saffold misconduct re: Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 1 – Judge shall avoid impropriety and appearance of improprietyRule 1.1 – Compliance with the Law
Rule 1.2 – Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
Rule 2.10 – Judicial Statements
Dear Mr. Coughlan:
In the recent past there have been a plethora of news stories exposing the misconduct of Judge Shirley Saffold, the vast majority being published by Cleveland Plain Dealer. As to the specifics of Judge Saffold’s misconduct I will address same under separate headings below for ease of reference.
Failure to pay over $1,000 in traffic citations
On May 8, 2010, Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter, Mark Puente penned a story titled: “Saffold has more than $1,000 in delinquent camera-issued citations and parking tickets. (http://tinyurl.com/2cuznut)
Judge Saffold’s conduct in failing to pay these tickets (some dating back to 2006) clearly exhibits an air of utter arrogance. Furthermore, it is painfully clear that Judge Saffold believes as a judge, she is under no particular duty to follow the laws as is the case with those who are unfortunately made to appear in her court.
Judge Saffold’s attorney Brian Spitz told the Plain Dealer that “She [Judge Saffold] is on a payment plan…” This statement was proven to be false when Obie Shelton, a spokesman for the clerk’s office said that the office does offer a payment plan, “but he said Saffold is not on it.” (http://tinyurl.com/2cuznut) In addition to being a “serial scofflaw,” Judge Saffold apparently finds it acceptable to twist the truth (lie).
Judicial Statements in Pending cases w/Internet moniker “lawmiss”
Prior to filing a highly questionable (specious) defamation lawsuit against the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Judge Saffold repeatedly denied that was the author of Internet postings that dealt with cases then pending before her. In fact, Judge Saffold’s daughter Sydney took full responsibility for “all of them.”
After the Plain Dealer and/or its agents performed a review of Judge Saffold’s court-paid-for computer, it was discovered that many of the Internet messages occurred within one or two minutes
After being caught with her hand in the cookie-jar (caught lying again) Judge Saffold’s attorney Alan Spitz admitted during an interview with ABC News on April 7, 2010 the possibility that Judge Saffold posted comments under the moniker “lawmiss.” These facts were set forth in an April 8, 2010 Plain Dealer article written by Leila Atassi. (See: http://tinyurl.com/yj9f3w8).
Sadly, it is apparent that Judge Saffold persuaded her 23-year-old daughter Sydney (prior law student) to falsely take blame for “all” of the comments posted on the Internet dealing with cases pending before Saffold under the moniker “lawmiss.” Patently, it would appear that Judge Saffold and her daughter Sydney conspired to put forth false statements to support the sham defamation lawsuit filed against the Plain Dealer.
Bringing Judiciary into Disrepute
Judge Shirley Saffold’s conduct as set forth herein and dutifully reported by the Cleveland Plain Dealer is evidence of a judge who has apparently dedicated her judicial career to “the total avoidance of propriety.”
Posting comments on the Internet re: pending cases and then lying about such conduct is evidence of egregious misconduct. The same is true of failing for over three (3) years to pay legitimate traffic fines. If this isn’t evidence of a judge who has and continues to engage in conduct aimed at bring the “judiciary into disrepute,” then my friends/family in Cleveland, and more importantly those who are forced to appear before Saffold can “surely” (pun intended) expect more of the same. The time Mr. Coughlan to prove that judges “will be held to a higher standard of conduct” is now!
Lastly Mr. Coughlan and with all due respect, it would be laughable to the nth degree for any reasonably intelligent person to assert that Judge Saffold’s conduct was aimed at “promoting confidence in the judiciary.”
Please provide me with a copy of Judge Saffold’s response.
___________________________
Dave Palmer
The Watchdawg
Folsom, CA 95630
PS: This complaint has been posted on my web site. Additional facts will be submitted via email and also posted on my web site. |
