NJ Judge Apologizes for 'Inappropriate' Courtroom Remarks in Nude Photo Dispute
"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."
August 15, 2019 at 05:24 PM
5 minute read
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.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Attorney General's Office Announces Major Shake-Up for Executive Leadership Team
4 minute read'Bewitched by the Technology': $300K to Settle Faulty Facial Recognition
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250