Photo: Shutterstock

Middlesex County Assignment Judge Alberto Rivas has admitted to multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct over intemperate comments he made while adjudicating a dispute involving nude photographs.

Rivas publicly humiliated, embarrassed and demeaned the parties in his courtroom and improperly gave vent to his personal feelings in the January hearing between a husband, wife and the husband’s girlfriend, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct said in a complaint that was made public Thursday, along with a response and statement from Rivas.

Rivas said in his statement: “I regret the comments I made during the proceeding. I felt the court was being manipulated, but I let my feelings about the case influence my language, tone and demeanor, all of which were inappropriate.”

In the underlying case, the girlfriend filed an order to show cause seeking the return of a set of photos depicting her in various stages of undress, which she claimed were possessed by the wife of her boyfriend.

At one point in the hearing, according to the documents, Rivas expressed doubt about the girlfriend’s statement that she did not know where the wife was employed.

Rivas, the documents said, responded, “Baloney. That’s not true. If you’re screwing him—let’s be frank now, because I should not be wasting judicial resources on this kind of malarkey. If you have been screwing him for these years, there’s no question that you know where she works. That’s how affairs work.”

Later, Rivas asked the wife why she was still with her husband, then told her, “I would suggest divorce, and take half his pension. That’s an option you have, having sat in family court. You can take his pension.”

Rivas also said to the girlfriend, according to documents, “I will give you a piece of advice … The only person you should be sending naked pictures to are (sic) Hugh Hefner. He will pay you $100,000 for the use of them.”

Then, according to the documents, Rivas turned his attention to the husband, who was present at the hearing but was a non-party in the case, saying, “I wish you were up here, because I’m gunning for you, because you are despicable.”

The ACJC complaint charged that Rivas “compromised both his integrity and impartiality and that of the Judiciary,” and “impugned the integrity of the Judiciary and demonstrated an inability to conform his conduct to the high standards of conduct expected of judges.” The complaint is signed by Disciplinary Counsel Maureen Bauman.

By suggesting the wife divorce her husband and “take half his pension,” Rivas created the appearance of bias and “undermined the integrity of the judicial process,” Bauman wrote.

The complaint charges Rivas with violating Canon 1, Rule 1.1, which requires judges to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved; Canon 2, Rule 2.1, which requires judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; Canon 2, Rule 2.2, which requires judges to decide cases according to the law and facts, and not permit family, social, political, financial or other relationships or interests to influence their judicial conduct or judgment; Canon 3, rule 3.5, which requires judges to be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals with in an official capacity; and Canon 3, rule 3.6(A) and (C), which require judges to be impartial and refrain from exhibiting bias or prejudice.

A formal hearing is to be scheduled in the case, the Administrative Office of the Courts said in a statement.

Rivas’ answer to the charges, which was made public at the same time as the complaint, admits to violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.1; Canon 2, Rule 2.1 and Canon 3, Rule 3.5, but denies violations of Canon 2, Rule 2.2 and Canon 3, Rule 3.6 (A) and (C).

Rivas said his remarks were “not dictated by family, social, political, financial or other relationships or interests” but “by the fact that plaintiff’s filing of the [order to show cause] was not made in good faith.” He said his comments were not motivated by bias or prejudice, but by the nature and character of the litigation.

Rivas said in his answer that the case he was hearing came before the court as a “revenge porn or blackmail matter” but during the hearing, it became apparent to him that “plaintiff was trying to perpetuate a fraud on the court with her filing.” As the hearing proceeded, he began to realize that “the story plaintiff was weaving was a complete fabrication” and that “this litigation was an effort by plaintiff to utilize the court system with the sole intent of causing harm and embarrassment to” her boyfriend’s wife, the answer said.

Rivas said he realizes his response to the case was “inappropriate,” acknowledging he ”let his feelings about what the plaintiff had done, by placing defendant in such a humiliating position, influence the respondent’s language, tone and demeanor, all of which were inappropriate, notwithstanding the respondent’s having been manipulated into the legal charade plaintiff had orchestrated.”