New Jersey Superior Court Judge John Russo Jr. has filed an answer in advance of his upcoming removal proceedings, which was made public Friday along with an order denying Russo's bid to force New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner to recuse from his case.

Russo was charged with ethics violations for his handling of a case in which a woman was seeking a restraining order against a man who she claimed abandoned her along a roadway, threatened to burn her house down, and forced her to have sex. The ethics complaint alleged that Russo, from the bench, put himself in the position of defense counsel by asking her if she tried to "run away," "block[ed her] body parts," "close[d] your legs," or called for the police.

In the answer, dated Sept. 17 and made public Friday, Russo, through his attorney David F. Corrigan of the Corrigan Law Firm in Keyport, said Russo demonstrated "sincere commitment to overcoming the fault, remorse and attempts [at] apology, and showing that the inappropriate behavior is subject to modification."

The answer contends that the Supreme Court wrongly seeks removal despite that fact that the advisory committee on judicial conduct recommended a three-month suspension—a punishment that Russo said he accepted, while taking responsibility for his actions.

"Removal from office would be sufficiently harsh as to serve only to punish Respondent, not to preserve the confidence in the judiciary," Corrigan wrote. "The punishment of removal will be severe and disproportionate to the infractions and compared to others who have been disciplined in the past for more serious offenses.

"There has been no instance in our state where a Supreme Court in New Jersey has taken the extreme action taken of requesting removal when it was not recommended by the Committee," Corrigan wrote. "Further, Respondent's immediate suspension without pay is significantly harsh and punishing in that in compliance with the New Jersey Constitution, Respondent is unable to work for in any capacity indefinitely during the pendency of this matter."

The answer also contends that Russo has been cooperative with ethics authorities, was an effective judge while on the bench, and didn't commit any intentional wrongs.

"For these reasons and others, removal is not warranted to preserve the public's confidence in the judicial system for the infractions alleged," Corrigan wrote.

Also on Friday, Russo lost his bid to remove Rabner from his ethics case. Russo claimed that Rabner had violated judicial ethics rules through a public statement he made about Russo's ethics case, among other topics, and thus had to be disqualified from the case.

On July 17, an order was issued by the Supreme Court calling Russo to appear for a hearing, at which his removal from the bench would be considered. The same day, Rabner issued a lengthy statement that in part announced enhanced training for judges in the areas of sexual assault, domestic violence, implicit bias and diversity. In the statement, Rabner wrote generally about the seriousness of sexual assault and accusations of sexual assault, and about Russo's case specifically.

Russo contended in his motion to disqualify Rabner, "This press release centered on the pending removal case against Judge Russo (which had just been issued that very day and which Chief Justice Rabner would ultimately hear … ) and directly tied Judge Russo to inappropriate action with regard to sexual assault matters. It also emphasize[d] that Judge Russo was suspended without pay pending the removal proceedings. It then tied Judge Russo to the purported efforts that the Judiciary would now engage in."

The motion said Rabner's statement was "[s]tyled as a Prosecutor announcing an indictment (or a politician seeking office)" and was an "unnecessary extrajudicial statement" that "demonstrated a clear bias against Judge Russo and a prejudgment of the outcome of his removal proceeding."

The Supreme Court on Friday issued an order signed by Rabner denying the motion for disqualification, as well as a motion to vacate the high court's order from a week later that created a three-judge panel to conduct Russo's hearing. The Friday order quotes language from the July 17 statement: that the statement "does not address the merits of the upcoming proceeding or the discipline that should be imposed" in Russo's case.

The court wrote in the Friday order: "Alerting judges and the public to the purpose of judicial discipline, and announcing mandatory training for judges, do not present a basis for disqualification."

Corrigan couldn't be reached by phone Friday.

Russo was the subject of an ACJC presentment last March 13. In a letter dated March 20, Russo said he accepted the findings and recommendations of the committee. A hearing was held in July.

The ACJC found clear and convincing evidence that Russo committed misconduct in his questioning of the sexual assault victim and in three other instances and violated multiple canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Russo's conduct at a hearing on an application for a final restraining order was the most serious of the incidents, Rabner's July 17 order said. The committee found his questioning of the victim "suggest[ed] a degree of intolerance and insensitivity towards victims of sexual assault that is antithetical to the public policy of this state and to the Judiciary's mandate to act with integrity," the order said.

When the hearing ended, Russo also made comments to staff members in court that the committee said "besp[oke] an absolute disregard for the solemnity that must attend every court proceeding, particularly those involving such serious concerns as domestic violence."

Russo also was charged with violations in connection with a personal guardianship case in which he asked a judiciary employee to contact her counterpart in another vicinage and request that a hearing be rescheduled to accommodate him.

The Supreme Court in its July 17 order said that, despite the suspension recommendation from the ACJC, removal from office must be considered, and it issued an order to show cause.