Jameson files appeal; says JCC violated his rights

The filing claims the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) violated its own rules as well as the constitutions of the United States and Kentucky, respectively.

Jameson was ordered removed from office following a formal hearing in October, after the commission found he committed dozens of violations against judicial rules.

In his appeal, Jameson calls the JCC’s jurisdiction “questionable” based on the idea that any errors he committed were in “good faith.”

The Supreme Court rules that govern the commission state that “Conduct that amounts to erroneous decisions made in good faith are not within the purview of the Commission.”

Jameson’s brief appeals to the JCC’s final order, which, when referencing Jameson’s contention that any of his violations were a “generational” difference in judicial philosophy, says “Unfortunately for Judge Jameson, altruistic intentions do not overcome or eliminate his serious violations …”

Reinforcing the idea that he acted in good faith, Jameson also mentions the testimony of various witnesses, who either spoke favorably of his character and ethics or did not offer negative opinions thereof.

Jameson further contends that giving laypeople on the commission an equal vote with attorneys and judges violates the property rights of judges against whom suspension is used as a sanction.

On those grounds he appeals to a Kentucky Supreme Court decision involving a mechanical contractor that was ordered to pay back wages.

The company, TECO, appealed the ruling from the labor cabinet, but the Supreme Court upheld the cabinet’s ruling. Two lines in that ruling make note of the “experience” that the cabinet has in determining wage cases.

The Kentucky constitution requires that two members of the commission be “not members of the bench or bar.”

At other points in his brief, Jameson argues that the JCC didn’t meet the burden of proof necessary for a suspension, and also takes issue with the offer the commission extended to him.

Jameson said he had been informally told that a 60-day suspension might be adequate, but the day before his formal hearing, he was offered a 180-day suspension, which he declined.

He also includes material related to the temporary suspension the commission handed down in August.

The Supreme Court entered a writ of prohibition against that suspension, due to the 3-2 vote in favor of suspension not meeting the required four-vote minimum.

Jameson asks for oral arguments in the case.

Jameson has also filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the results of the election he lost in November, alleging financial impropriety and false statements potentially amounting to fraud on behalf of Andrea Moore, who was sworn in as judge last week and will take the bench in January.