Complaint against Judge Howard D. Hinson, Jr.

Staffers of Arizona Representatives and Senators: You can click here to skip directly to the preamble and complaint.

SAFETY IN NUMBERS. I've been hearing disparaging stories from attorneys about Judge Hinson, his behaviour in court and his disregard for the law. They send private comments to me via this blog. But so far, no one has followed through with promised evidence, in the way of transcripts or citations.

Without evidence, these are just stories. They may be true stories, but the Commission won't act on stories. So far, every attorney who's contacted me wants me to keep their name private. (Although many have identified themselves via verifiable email addresses.) So how about this -

How about if you send me your evidence and I will use it in a Round 2 complaint ONLY if ten of you follow through? Safety in numbers. It'll be harder for your colleagues to shoot at you if there are ten of you. And who knows, you may be the "Righteous Ten" who set the good example. In other words, why didn't the rest of your colleagues choose the right?

After all, as officers of the court, you have a duty to report misconduct. And now that you've heard about this complaint, you're duty bound to bring your matter to air. You also have a duty to your clients if they were harmed by Judge Hinson's wantonness.

Remember, you don't have to identify yourself. Nor are you necessarily culpable. For all I (and others) know, a disgruntled litigant could have sent me a copy of a transcript. Or, for all anyone knows, I could be very good at independent research.

So if you're willing, here's one way to get evidence to me. Anonymously, if you like. It takes a little bit of computer savvy, but scan your transcript, save it in a JPG format (you can take a close up picture with your digital camera and do this too), and upload the JPG images to an anonymous hosting site. Send me an anonymous comment with the link to your upload. You can also upload PDF files.

I use www.imageshack.com. It's anonymous and straightforward. Simply enter your files, click on "upload" and then copy and paste me the links it gives you. No password or registration needed.

All I need are good, readable copies I can print out that leave no doubt as to what the misconduct was. If I get 10 (or more), I will compile them and send them to the Commission in a Round 2 complaint. I'll do the work for you. Just send me the data.

UPDATE: I changed the comment page... apparently it wasn't letting readers add more comments. So if you tried before and couldn't get in, please try again.

In a press release Friday, February 27, Judge Hinson confirms he's hired an attorney and is presumably appealing this complaint. So if you have any additional reports of 60 day rule violations by Judge Hinson, let me know. There's still time to add to the complaint. Add a comment at the bottom of the page. Other legitimate violations (eg. not adhering to other laws or rules) will be dealt with a "Round 2" complaint. Some of those have started coming in. (Privately.) Please keep them coming. I will publish a Round 2 complaint here also. You would be horrified at what's being reported.

Please tell others about this blog, especially anyone who's been a litigant of Judge Hinson.

January 19,2009: I've amended the complaint here to Revision A with some minor changes. (I spelled "Yavapai" wrong in the original.) I plan to send this amended complaint, along with new violations reported by you.

---

---

The following is a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Howard Hinson. This was filed November 29, 2008 with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. The complaint has been received by the Commission and is in process.

You can read the text, sans footnotes, here on the blog, below.

Or, you can download the complaint proper, with footnotes, in PDF format. [The raw public record Exhibits are at the bottom of this page.]

Whichever, you'll most certainly be interested in looking at Exhibit 1, which says it all. All that red can't be good.

Right click to download and save a full page image.

This Exhibit charts all of Judge Hinson's violations, culled from the public record at the Arizona Supreme Court, on one easy to read page. See the complaint for a full explanation.

If you have any more 60-day Rule violations by Judge Hinson or any other violations of law by Judge Howard Hinson, please post them in a comment on this site (very bottom of page), along with specifics so your allegation can be verified by the Commission and/or law enforcement. (Docket number, law violated, line number in transcript, etc.) Anonymity guaranteed.

---

---

This is a complaint of judicial misconduct against Superior Court Judge Howard D. Hinson, Jr. (serving in Yavapai County). Based on a cross check of Supreme Court records (attached), Judge Hinson has falsified at least 10 signed affidavits to the Arizona Supreme Court, falsely certifying that, pursuant to A.R.S. §12-128.01, he qualified to receive his pay at the time. (See Analysis, p3.) This perpetrates fraud upon the Supreme Court and is tantamount to committing perjury before the Court.

It's also criminal. Falsifying his affidavit to receive pay is a prima facie Class 3 misdemeanor, per A.R.S. §12-128.01 (C): "Any person who issues or causes to be issued any check, warrant or payment to a judge or commissioner knowing that, pursuant to this section, such judge or commissioner should not receive his salary is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor." The "any person" here who caused the State to issue a check to a judge who should not receive his salary is Judge Hinson himself!

This may also rise to a felony. Judge Hinson falsified his affidavits to the Court to receive money not yet due him, for work not yet fully rendered. Therefore, he defrauded the State of Arizona by appropriating his monthly salary under false pretenses. Considering the sums of money involved, this is felony theft per A.R.S. §13-1802. (A Superior Court judge's monthly salary is about $11,000.) Also, this may be a stretch, but a staffer with the Arizona Attorney General's office suggests this is also forgery, a class 4 felony.

A.R.S.§13-2002:

A. A person commits forgery if, with intent to defraud, the person:

1. Falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument;

Despite the prima facie evidence, staff informs me the Commission will not report these crimes to law enforcement. I'm told it's incumbent on me to pursue this matter with the proper authorities, which I'm compelled to do.

These crimes all stem from Judge Hinson's frequent, repeated, egregious violations of Article VI, Section 21 of the Arizona Constitution, a.k.a. "The 60-day rule." Not just once, but at least 25 violations in two years! (The red zones in Exhibit 1, thumbnail at right.) None of these are "trivial," a couple miles over the speed limit. A majority are more than 30 days over the limit and one is almost 100 days over! Indeed, from informal conversations with attorneys in Yavapai County, Judge Hinson has a reputation for often taking 120 days to rule. And indeed, his reputation is warranted. According to the record, Judge Hinson is the ONLY judge in Yavapai county to violate the 60-day Rule in the previous four years.

By repeatedly violating the Arizona Constitution, Judge Hinson has, by extension, violated his oath of office. Both severely affect the Judiciary's role in society. ("If a Judge won't obey the law, why should we?") And then there's the small matter of violating the Constitutional rights of litigants and the irreparable damage that results when Constitutional rights are violated.

It shouldn't be necessary to say it, but, in light of the above, Judge Hinson has committed gross violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Any one of these violations erode public confidence in the Judiciary. Taken together they constitute a flood that sweeps away public confidence in the Judiciary. Any criminal charges, guilty verdicts and bad public relations that may accrue from Judge Hinson's defacto criminal conduct can only cause more damage. But since the Commission narrowly focuses on violation of the Code, I state for the record that Judge Hinson has, as a minimum, violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A and 3B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. I will amplify later on page 4.

Since the Code of Conduct is codified as Rule 81 in the Arizona Court system, and since this is yet another violation of the Rules, Judge Hinson's overall disregard for the Rules seems contemptuous. As this story and the Commission's response to it becomes searchable by Google on the Internet, any unchecked conduct will completely undermine public confidence in the Judiciary.

For these reasons, I ask the Commission to thoroughly investigate Judge Hinson for these numerous offenses and respond with the appropriate discipline.

Background

Knowledgeable readers may wish to jump to Analysis on page 3. This section is intended for public consumption, for Internet readers unfamiliar with some history and terms. "Cert's" and "Quarterly's" are introduced, the foundations for this complaint.

Article VI, Section 21, of the Arizona Constitution is clear. The law requires Superior court judges to rule on any matter within 60 days. This is our Constitutional Right to a speedy trial. "Every matter submitted to a judge of the superior court for his decision shall be decided within sixty days from the date of submission thereof. "

Despite the Constitution's clear requirement, despite a sworn oath to "support" the Constitution, despite Canons of Ethics calling for judges to "comply with the law," these aren't enough to motivate all judges grant us speedy trials. The Arizona State Legislature decided that judges needed "encouragement" to obey the 60-day Rule. Hence, A.R.S 12-128-01, titled, Receipt of salary by judges and commissioners; affidavit; pending and undetermined causes; violation; classification. This law encourages judges to obey the Constitution by withholding their paycheck if a judge takes more than 60 days to rule on any matter.

Before a judge can receive a paycheck, the Legislature requires each Superior court judge to sign an affidavit once a month, certifying that "no cause has been submitted to me for decision which remains pending and undetermined for sixty days or more since the date of submission for decision." I'll refer to these monthly Judicial Certifications as "Cert's."

Unfortunately, the Legislature relies on self-reporting, asking the judge in question if he was obeying the law that this law was meant to enforce! It presupposes all judges are honorable and don't lie. But won't a dishonorable judge, who has already broken the law, break another one? Especially if telling the truth now would put his paycheck in jeopardy? Asking anyone to self certify is like asking Bernie Madoff if he's ripping you off... and believing him!

History has shown that a few judges lied. In 1997, Yuma County Judge Bradshaw was suspended 90 days without pay by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for 60-day Rule violations. In 2000, Superior court judge James McDougall resigned over numerous violations and falsifications of the 60-day rule.

Fortunately, the Arizona Supreme Court provides oversight the Legislature did not. (Although no one in the Supreme Court acts on that oversight.) Supreme Court Rule 91(e) calls for each Superior court clerk to "report to the Administrative Director of the Courts, in writing, on the last day of March, June, September and December, in each year, all matters in that court submitted for decision sixty days or more prior to the date of such report and remaining undecided on the date of the report. "Pursuant to that Rule, every Quarter each Superior court clerk in every county performs a routine audit of the judges in their bailiwick and reports their findings to the Supreme Court's Finance Office. These are known as "Quarterly's." These records form the basis for this complaint.

Analysis

This section details Judge Hinson's numerous violations. There's a lot of raw data to digest, but I've made it easy to absorb with Exhibit 1. This chart contains all the data at a glance in one easily understandable picture, where overdue matters are shown in red. (Exhibit 1 can be seen electronically, in color, at http://reportjudgehinson.blogspot.com.)

I started by exhaustively examining the Clerk's Quarterly's (for Yavapai County) from the 1st Quarter of 2004 to present. (Exhibits 2-1 through 2-7.) Exhibit 1 charts the data. The time line starts at the 3rd Quarter of 2006, the first "hit" in the Clerk's Quarterly where any judge in Yavapai County violated the 60-day Rule. (It was, and has ONLY ever been, Judge Hinson) The time line continues to the time of this Complaint.

Then I charted the start and end date (if the end date was reported) of the delinquent matters the Clerk found. I charted them in the order they appear in the Clerk's Quarterly's. She found 24 delinquent matters.

Each vertical grid line on the time line represents 10 days. So six grids away from the beginning date of any matter is 60 days. Anything longer than that is a violation of the 60-day Rule, shown in red.

Then I took Judge Hinson's monthly Cert's (Exhibit groups 3 through 5), and plotted an "X" each time he falsely certified he had no cases pending beyond sixty days. There are at least 25 violations by my conservative count. I plotted question marks ("?") where it's not clear whether the matter had ever been resolved (no end date recorded - dashed lines) or where a violation is subject to interpretation. (See the legend of Exhibit 1 for the details on the latter.) For example, the "?" Cert for September, 2007 has no date entered. (He shouldn't have been paid.) Depending on when it was signed, it could add two more violations to the total. These two added to all the matters that "will be" pending when signed bring Judge Hinson's total at least 34 violations!

As these violations became commonplace, the clerks started emailing exchanges and Post-It Note comments to establish required end dates. (Exhibits 2-3 and 2-5b.) There's also a letter from Judge Hinson himself admitting numerous violations and their final end dates. (Exhibit 4-7b) Eventually, the Clerk started automatically reporting the end dates of his Rulings. These have defined ends in Exhibit 1.

The sheer quantity of red highlight and "X's" tell most of the story. Judge Hinson is horribly in the red.

There are also two subtle insights this chart uncovers. To see the first, note when the Clerk's Quarterly reports were generated, as marked on the time line with down arrows. Notice that Judge Hinson consistently ruled on delinquent matters when, and only when, the Clerk's Quarterly's were being generated. It appears he did this so as to not get caught by the system, to get in "under the wire" to get his paycheck.

But he got caught once. Which brings us to the second insight. From Q2 2006 until present, Judge Hinson has consistently violated the 60-day Rule and falsified his Cert's. He's been delinquent numerous times almost every Quarter. But notice the 3rd Quarter of 2007. No violations! This violation-free Quarter is just after his mea culpa letter of July 2007 (Exhibit 4-7b), when he admitted being delinquent and was denied his pay as penalty for his sin.

My guess is that someone (the Presiding Judge?) collared Judge Hinson in July in an attempt at internal discipline. If so, it didn't work. As evident from Exhibit 1, Judge Hinson's repentance was short-lived. He returned to his old ways soon after and continues violating the law, unchecked. If internal discipline was tried and didn't work, the Commission should consider that when it rules on appropriate discipline.

Again, I point out that Judge Hinson is an aberration in Yavapai County. There's a stark contrast in the audits when you examine all the Quarterly's from Yavapai County, starting Q1 2004. They are either Black or White. They are either "N/A" – indicting no violations found for that Quarter – or, when there are violations, they are ALWAYS and ONLY Judge Hinson. I didn't do an exhaustive search of all the Quarterly's for all the Arizona counties, but my sense from the small sample I saw as I flipped through the reports was similar. There appear to be very few reported violations of the 60-day Rule statewide. Judge Hinson does not match up to his peers.

Code Violations

Judge Hinson has violated numerous Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. I trust the Commission can compile a better list than mine. But for the record, Judge Hinson has violated Canon 1 as it pertains to Integrity. This Canon focuses on "honor," defined by "maintaining and (self-?)enforcing high standards of conduct." It talks of "a judiciary of integrity," defined by "soundness of character." Judges "must comply with the law AND the provisions of this code." By falsifying affidavits (in essence perjuring himself before the Court), breaking various laws and the Rules, Judge Hinson has demonstrated he is no longer honorable. He does not comply with the law or this code. His numerous violations "diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law."

Canon 2A, on Impropriety, requires that "a judge shall respect and comply with the law..." With numerous prima facie violations of criminal law which could lead to felonies, and even more violations of Constitutional law, Judge Hinson demonstrates he does not respect nor comply with the law. Breaking the law does not "promote public confidence in the integrity... of the judiciary." Rather, it demolishes it.

Canon 3A, on Diligence, calls for the judicial duties of a judge to "take Precedence over ALL the judge's other activities." It requires judges to perform their duties diligently. Missing the 60-day deadline 24 times is not "diligent." It's derelict. All the other judges in Yavapai County have demonstrated they can be diligent and have kept this Canon. Canon 3B echoes the previous Canons about being "faithful to the law." The evidence shows Judge Hinson to be unfaithful to his vow.

Remedy

I realize I'm overstepping my bounds, that meting out discipline is the purview of the Commission. But just as victims are allowed to suggest to judges what they think is just punishment for their malefactor, I also should be heard.

The Commission's public website list of complaints is not searchable nor user friendly, making it difficult for citizens to know what punishment has been meted out in the past for similar violations. I found a news report on the Internet that, in 1997, Yuma County Judge Bradshaw was suspended without pay for 90 days for late rulings. May I say this is too lenient in this case? Judge Hinson should be removed from office.

First, ask yourself what would you want if this happened to you? How do you make up for sleepless nights, agonizing over your livelihood, or more important, your children's future, as you wait and wait and wait for a judge make a life altering ruling? Money, time, and lives have been lost, especially in family court.

Second, Judge Hinson is not a County judge, as was Judge Bradshaw. He's a Superior court judge. While all judges are to be held to a higher standard, we expect higher judges to be held even higher.

Third, Judge Hinson has demonstrated a pattern and practice of delinquency. These aren't isolated, "small" infractions (if there is such a thing), but persistent, long term violations. He has a reputation among local attorneys for this. It appears internal discipline has been tried, without success. There is no more remedy. Further reprimands won't work. He simply should not be a judge any longer.

Former President Bill Clinton was disbarred by the Supreme Court for lying under oath. Judge Hinson has repeatedly lied to the Arizona Supreme Court by filing false affidavits with the court. Shouldn't the court be outraged?

If the Commission thinks I'm too harsh suggesting removal (but think how things would look if the authorities prosecute Judge Hinson criminally and the Commission hadn't intervened first), then may I suggest "restitution" of sorts? While no one can pay his litigants back for their suffering while awaiting his late rulings, may I suggest that the Commission suspend Judge Hinson's pay for each instance he violated the 60-day Rule, as if the system had worked at the time? Conservatively counting, that would be 25 months of suspended pay. Counting each violation separately staves off the "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality, where multiple violations in one Cert period are no worse, penalty-wise from a judge's perspective, than a single violation.

If the Commission is more liberal, then may I suggest it suspend Judge Hinson's salary 10 months? That's one month for each false certification he filed, just as would have happened had the system worked and caught him at the time. That's based on the current known data.

Not "The End"

But there may be more evidence extant. While the Clerk in Yavapai County appears diligent, in that she found 24 violations on Judge Hinson, given Judge Hinson's reputation, there may be more unreported violations of the 60-day Rule. According to my research, Quarterly's are generated by hand as opposed to the preciseness of a computer, where start dates and stop dates would be meticulously, unwaveringly set, counted and reported.

To find any violations that may have been missed, I intend to solicit more information from the public and attorneys on Judge Hinson, via local media and the Internet. The plan is to amend this complaint as new data comes in.

I have no reason to believe Judge Hinson's judicial assistant or any judicial clerks have been covering for the judge, as was the case with Judge James McDougall and his judicial assistant, Kathy Franklin. Nevertheless, since it's happened before, may I suggest the Commission perform a thorough investigation of Judge Hinson records?

Lastly, please see Appendix B where I anticipate two defenses from Judge Hinson and rebut them in advance.

Conclusion

In a case directly on point regarding a judge who had also falsified his monthly affidavits, former Supreme Court Chief Justice James D. Cameron (a Justice at the time) said "The signing of a series of false affidavits by a judge brings the integrity of the entire judicial system into question, and is prejudicial to the administration of justice." Ariz., 1983. In re Weeks 134 Ariz. 521, 658 P.2d 174

What he said then is still true today. I pray the Commission act. And act quickly, publically and decisively.

Appendix A: ARIZONA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT – 1993

CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

A. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this code are to be construed and applied to further that objective.

Commentary:

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. A judiciary of integrity is one in which judges are known for their probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. An independent judiciary is one free of inappropriate outside influences. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and the provisions of this code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

CANON 2
A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE'S ACTIVITIES

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Commentary:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny.

CANON 3
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

A. Judicial Duties in General. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.

B. (2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.

Appendix B. On Perjury

Anticipating one of Judge Hinson's defenses, those who parse words for a living might try to argue that falsifying a Certification is not perjury because, strictly speaking, there is no signed statement that "I affirm, under penalty of perjury, that this certification is true." Or, to paraphrase an infamous lawyer dodge, "It depends on what the meaning of 'perjury' is."

While I had to sign such a statement to file this complaint, I am just a lowly citizen. I'm not a judge who has sworn an oath of office. Perhaps the court omitted such a statement from its Cert form because such a formality with a judge is patently unnecessary. He's already sworn to obey the law! Is the implication that, unless a judge signs "under penalty of perjury," he may not be telling the truth? Isn't it assumed that a judge is always telling the truth? Or isn't a judge's word as good as his bond? Especially when he's certifying a matter to the Supreme Court.

When you falsify an affidavit, aren't you, by definition, committing perjury, whether it's a "sworn" affidavit or not? What's the point of submitting an "affidavit" if it's not true in the first place?

Note that the Legislature calls the Certification an affidavit. A.R.S. §12-128.01, the bases for the Certification form, has in its title the word "affidavit." Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice James Cameron called it an affidavit. In a case paralleling this one, "The signing of a series of false affidavits by a judge brings the integrity of the entire judicial system into question, and is prejudicial to the administration of justice." Ariz., 1983. In re Weeks 134 Ariz. 521, 658 P.2d 174

It's clear to the laity that Judge Hinson perjured himself before the Arizona Supreme Court. He should be sanctioned in the harshest manner.

Arguing Ignorance

As I perused some successful complaints, I was appalled to see judges plead ignorance of the law as a defense. That's never an excuse when they rule from the bench. It isn't an excuse now.

If Judge Hinson tries to argue he didn't know about the 60-day, that he didn't "knowingly" or "willfully" violate it, there is no language in the law that requires premeditation. The language of Article VI, Section 21 of the Arizona Constitution regarding the 60-day requirement is clear. And it's basic contract law that when someone swears an oath, entering an agreement, it's presumed that they have read the document to which they swore to support. A judge must know the law and not violate it. Period.

While A.R.S. §12-128.01(C) has a condition for "knowing," the Certification form itself cites the law! There is no excuse. One cannot sign the Certification form and claim to not know the law.

In fact, Judge Hinson demonstrated in his July 18, 2007 letter to the Supreme Court that he knew the law, had violated the 60-day Rule and would not receive his paycheck as a consequence. (Exhibit 4-7b) He cannot now claim to be ignorant of the 60-day Rule and the A.R.S. §12-128.01 requirement for certification.

---

Links to Exhibits

Per the complaint, the Exhibits fall into two main groups: "Quarterly's" and (many false) "Certifications."

The Quarterly's are Exhibit Group 2. The Certifications are Exhibit Groups 3 through 5, for years 2006 through 2008, respectively. (Of course, Exhibit 1 is the big chart you saw at the beginning of this page.)

Exhibits 2

• Exhibit 2-1
• Exhibit 2-2
• Exhibit 2-3
• Exhibit 2-4
• Exhibit 2-5
• Exhibit 2-5(b)
• Exhibit 2-6
• Exhibit 2-7(b)


• Exhibits 2 in one ZIP file.

Exhibits 3

• Exhibit 3-1
• Exhibit 3-2
• Exhibit 3-3
• Exhibit 3-4


• Exhibits 3 in one ZIP file.

Exhibits 4

• Exhibit 4-1
• Exhibit 4-2
• Exhibit 4-3
• Exhibit 4-4
• Exhibit 4-5
• Exhibit 4-6
• Exhibit 4-7(a)
• Exhibit 4-7(b)
• Exhibit 4-8
• Exhibit 4-9
• Exhibit 4-10
• Exhibit 4-11
• Exhibit 4-12


• Exhibits 4 in one ZIP file.

Exhibits 5

• Exhibit 5-1
• Exhibit 5-2
• Exhibit 5-3
• Exhibit 5-4
• Exhibit 5-5
• Exhibit 5-6
• Exhibit 5-7
• Exhibit 5-8
• Exhibit 5-9(a)
• Exhibit 5-9(b)
• Exhibit 5-10


• Exhibits 5 in one ZIP file

---

January 28, 2009 Exhibit update / Conspiracy theory: I have reviewed the Yavapai Clerk's last quarter audit for 2008. Amazingly, Judge Hinson suddenly had no violations for that Quarter! That is not his Modus Operandi. Something is not right.

I inspected the records in mid November. This complaint was filed after Thanksgiving Day. So Judge Hinson couldn't have known this was coming for his October cert. There should have been one or two violations then.

Assuming no leaks from some wild coyote, he shouldn't have known he was being watched in November. I suspect by December he knew. Either someone talked or Google picked this blog up and alerts went out.

One wonders what happened in October and November? Was it a miracle that Judge Hinson had no violations? Did he get wind of something? Or maybe the Clerk "accidentally" missed some matters? Will there be an Amended Quarterly Report? After the Commission meets? (Now wouldn't that be interesting.)

This bears more investigation.

---