JUD!

CIARY
COttH!SS!071
! !14,I.i :J,".
OF I (ai-

2:l'5 !'iri' R S'I P e-'):Z" 3

CF.IEi7E:, =:- ;J.:*;I':,

'l* }=f7 r-i= ir,iirr,Pa
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY
COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA

N0. 0395 IN RE: JUDGE TIFFANY L. FOXWORTH-ROBERTS

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
ST ATE OF LOUISIANA

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL'S BfflF IN RESPONSE TO THE

HEARING OFFICER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCL'USIONS OF
LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) respectfully submits its Brief in Response to the

Hearmg Officer's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the OSC's

Recommendation of Discipline:

I. RESPONSE TO THE HEARING OFFICER

The Office of Special Counsel agrees with the Hearing Officer's Proposed Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommends that the Judiciary Commission adopt an the

Heming Officer's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

U. RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE

The evidence was ovewhelming that Judge Foxworth-Roberts' conduct constituted

egregious unetbical conduct, necessitating a severe penalty. Judge Foxworth-Roberts' egregious

misconduct, including a severe lack of cooperation, were calculated, deliberate, mid in bad faith

to further her own self-interests, and avoid detection. Her pers'istent and public conduct

prejuaicial to the administration of justice that bmgs the judicial office into disrepute more than

justif5r a recommendahon of removal from office-

Where the recommendation of discipline is something less than removal, the Louisiana

Suprenne Court considers what have been called the Chaisson factors. In re Chaisson, 549 So.

2d 259, 266 (La. 1989), to anive at an appropriate sanction:

whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattem of conduct;

the nature, extent, and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct;
whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom;
whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his/her
private life;
whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred;
whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his/her conduct;
the length of seice on the bench;
whether there have been prior complaints about ttffls judge;
the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary;
the extent to which the judge exploited his/her position to satisfy his/her personal
desires.
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 2

The Chaisson factors are not exclusive and take into consideration both aggravatuig 4d

mitigating circumstances. However, where the recommendation of discipline is removal, a

consideration of the nitaker factors is appropriate. In re nitaker, 463 So. 2d 1291 (1985). In

nitaker, which tunned out to be a non-rennoval case, the Court said:

The most severe discipline should be reserved for judges who use their office
improperly for personal gain; judges who are consistently abusive and insensitive
to patties, witnesses, jurors and attorneys; judges who because of laziness or
indifference fail to perform their judicial duties to the best of their ability; and
judges who engage in felonious c.al conduct.

463 So. 2d at 1303. Additionally, 'the four types of conduct recognized in itaker as

warranting removal 'were not intended as an exclusive list of the types of conduct for which a

judge can be removed from office."' In re King, 03-1412, p. 11 (La. 10/21/03), 857 So. 2d 432,

446. Indeed, "both La. Const. Art. V, Sec. 25(C), and the Code of Judicial Conduct contemplate,

and allow removal for a broader range of offenses than the illustrative list set forth in F7xitaker."

See King, supra; In re Hunter, 02-1975, p. 7 (La. 8/19/02), 823 So. 2d 325, 335 (citing In re

Huckaby, 95-0041 (La. 05/22/95), 656 So. 2d 292, 296-297; In re Benge, 09-1617, p. 38 (La.

11/6/09), 24 So. 3d 822, 845.

In King, supra, the Supreme Court held that district court judge's cmnpaign misconduct,

and his lying to the Judiciary Commission twice, over a period of fourteen months when he had

ample chance to admit his misconduct, was so prejudicial to administration of justice that he

could not be allowed to remain on the bench, and thus, removal from office was the appropriate

sanction. TheCourtinkingstated:

hideed, especially relevant to this case, La Const. Art. V, Sec. 25 authorizes

removal from office for, among other things, "willful misconduct relating to [the
judge's] official duty," "persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that bigs the judicial office into disrepute", both of
which Judge King has stipulated, mid "conduct while in office which would
constitute a felony."

Id. See also Ire re J4erson, 99-1313,p. 18, 753 So. 2d at 194 (noting that persistent
andpublic
conduct prejudicial to the administrahon of justice that bigs the judicial office into disreputeis

"alone, sufficient to constitute grounds for removal."). In the instant case, the Heming Officer

found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Respondent, Judge Foxworth-Roberts,

committed multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including Canons1, 2A, 7A(9),

7B(1) and 7B(2), and engaged in persistait and public conduct prejudicial to the administrahon

of justice that bigs the judicial office into disrepute in violation of La. Const. Art. V, Sec.

25(C). Inconsidemgwhethertoremoveajudgefromoffice,thisCourtin.Hzmterstated:
hi re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 3

Removal of a judge from duly-elected office is undoubtedly the most severe

sanction this court may impose under the authority granted to us by the
constitution. Not only is the judge removed from his or her present judicial
office, but removal also precludes the former judge from becoming a candidate
for judicial office for a minimum of five years and until his or her eligibility to
seek judicial office is certified by tbis court. See La. Supt. Ct. Rule XXIII, Sec-
26. Consequently, we recognize that removal of a duly-elected member of the
judicimy is "an extremely serious undertaking that should be carried out with the
utnost care because it distupts [] the public's choice for service in the judiciary."
In re Jeffersorx, 99-1313, p. 17, 753 So. 2d at 194; see also In re Huckaby, 95-
0041, p. 5, 656 So. 2d at 295-

On the other hand, the constitution "vests in this court the duty to preserve the
integrity of the bench for the benefit of the public by ensuring that all who don the
black robe and serve as ministers of justice do not engage in public conduct which
bmgs the judicial office into disrepute." [citations omittedl. To that end, we
have recognized that the pary purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct is to
"protect the public rather than to discipline judges." In re Shea, 02-0643 (La.
4/26/02), 815 So. 2d 813, 815, by re Marullo, 96-2222 (La. 4/8/97), 692 So. 2d
1019. Likewise, the objective of a judicial disciplinary proceeding is not simply
to punish an individual judge but to purge the judiciag of any taint. In re
Chaisson, 549 So. 2d at 267-

h re Hunter, 02-1975, p. 6 (La. 8/19/02), 823 So. 2d at 333; In re Kirig, 03-1412, p. II (La.

10/21/03), 857 So. 2d at 446. Also see h re Hughes, 03-3408, p. 61-62 (La. 4/22/04), 874 So-2d

746, 788 ("The strength of our judicial system lies in its intolerance of those who are unfaithful

to the oath administered to all judges, unfaithful to the constitution, and unfaithful to the Code of

Judicial Conduct which govenns judicial behavior.")

The OSC believes md strongly urges the Commission to find Judge Foxworth-Robert's

case demands removal and should recotnmend this necessary sanction to the Court- In In re

King, supra., the judge engaged in egregious campaign misconduct, including terminating his

former court reporter because, among other things, she refused to sell tickets to a campaign fund-

raising event on behalf of the judge. The Commission found and the Court noted that "Judge

King lied in his iitial letter response to the Commission staff when he was first queried about

[his fomier reporter'sl complaint, he lied when his personal statement was taken, and he failed to

correct any of these statements, telling the tnuth only when he leamed that his conversations with

[the complainant] and others on his staff had been audio taped." King, 857 So. 2d at 444- Judge

King's initial ten-page response to the OSC's inquiry letter and complaint denied that he required

his fomier reporter or any of his court staff to engage in impermissible campaign activity, and

stated the reporter was not fired, but resigned

Like the judge in Kirtg, Judge Foxworth-Roberts' initial response to the OSC's letter of

inquiry (which included a copy of the complaint) made deliberate false cIaims and included

misleading responses. Significantly, her initial response was silent regarding her homeowner's
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 4

policy with USAA. Her response asserted: "Judge Foxworth did not submit an insurance claim

to her insurer after the e." Then, the response provided attachments proving that the

Respondent did not make an insurance claim with State Farm, her automobile insurer. While any

automobile insurance claims for the alleged 'bur@ary would have been very relevant to the

issues, the Respondent's response appeared to cloud the issue with a claim she did not make,

instead of candidly explaining what claims she did make with USAA. Further, Respondent's

initial response to the OSC's inquiry letter and the complaint falsely accused the investigating

police officer of enoneously reporting her account of the burglmy. The OSC secured the body

camera video of Baton Rouge Police Officer Carlton's investigation of the burglary, which

clearly shows the investigation took place in Respondent's driveway, where she points and tells

the officer, "We were all out campaigning I came back here. The cars are parked like this. Well,

he just got here, so his car wasn't here. When we came back, that door, that passenger side door

was open" and walks him a short distance across the yard to her parked car in the driveway. Yet,

the Respondent continued to insist throughout the investigation and hearing that the OSC, the

Commission, and the Heaig Officer should not believe what they observed in the video, but

should believe that the police officer erroneously documented in his report that "she remembers

leaving her vehicle parked in her driveway."

Lme the respondent in King, Judge Foxworth-Roberts lied in her sworn statement to the

OSC, claiming she attained the rank of Captain while serving in the Army. Respondentos false

statements about her military service and rank became additional key issues after her sworn

statement was taken, and the Commission expanded the investigation upon leaming she was only

sixteen years old when the Desert Storm war was fought in 1991. Like King, Judge Foxworth-

Roberts failed to correct any of the false statements regarding her rank and military service,

including the numerous falsehoods in her Certtral Ciffl News campaign ads and endorsement,

until the OSC was finally able to secure her miIiary records directly from the Army without her

cooperation and then amended the Notice of Heating. These records showed that not only was

Respondent never a Captain in the Amay, but she failed to achieve the rank of Captain twice,

requiig her separation from the U-S. Army Reserves at the rank of First Lieutenant. The

Heming Officer found that the OSC had proven this egregious misconduct, stating that "evidence

in the record is clear and convincing that the Respondent did not cooperate in the production of
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 5

her militmy records because she did not want the OSC to discover her false claims about her

rank and militmy service." (CL31)

Other significant findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Hearing Officer which

demonstrate Respondent's lack of uedibility and unfitness for judicial senrice relate to her

dealings with USAA. Respondent initially tried to hide the fact that she made a claim related to

the burglary with USAA at all. Subsequently, she attempted to mislead the OSC regarding what

losses she actually claimed. The OSC only found out that she made a claim for a $19,000.00

diamond ig (which she did not report to the police as stolen) by happenstance when a USAA

claims manager disclosed a second claim number. As noted by the Hearing Officer regarding

Respondent's efforts to obfuscate: "Most significant is the false claim that she did not have any

documents in her possession that had not already been provided to the OSC. She received the

Clay File in No. 012664321-033 on November 4, 2022, and failed to provide it to the osc....

For over a year, the Respondent tried to hide her dealings wifl'i USAA, including the claim for

the diamond engagement ring, from the OSC." (CL54.)

Judge Foxworth-Roberts' lack of cooperation with the OSC throughout the course of the

initial complaint, investigation, Notice of Heanng, and triaI, by misleading, incompIete, and false

information, and/or refusal to provide information was so pervasive that she engaged in

persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administrat'ion of justice that brings the judicial

office into disrepute in violation of Louisiana Constitution Article V, S, 25(C) (1974). hi h re

Hunter, 02-1975 (La. 8/19/02); 823 So. 2d 325, the Court held misconduct, including judge's

repeated failures to produce transcripts timely, accurately, or frequently not at all, resulting in

eleven appellate reversals of serious felony al convictions and sentences for violation of

the defendants' constitutional right to judicial review, and her continuous lack of cooperation

with the court of appeal in secuig transcripts for appellate reviegv, amounted to willful and

persistent failure to perform her duty, as well as persistent, public conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute, waranting removal. In

Judge Foxworth-Roberts' case she repeatedly ignored written requests and Subpoena Duces

Tecum requests for her military records or to sign an authorization facilitating their production

by the Army. Earlier in the proceeAings her responses were incomplete, misleading, and

contained serious false statements to the OSC and Commission. While Judge Foxworth-Roberts'

public and persistent misconduct did not arise from court proceedings like in Hunter, her
hx re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 6

misconduct is just as detrimental to the judiciary and bigs her judicial office into disrepute.

Like the Court in Hunter, the Commission should find that Respondent's case is one where the

Court needs 'to purge the judiciary of any taint" she has inflicted upon it. Id., 823 So. 2d at 333.

In In re Hughes, 03-3408; 874 So. 2d 746 (La. 04/22/04), the Louisiana Supreme Court

held a judge's persistent and pervasive pattern ofmisconduct demonstrated disdain for the rule of

law and warranted removal from office. The Court found the evidence clearly and convincingly

established the judge's willful misconduct as 5udge, judicial candidate, and attorney, relating to

her official duties, and persistent and public conduct prejudicial to administration of justice

bmging judicial office into disrepute. Before proceeding to the issue of sanctions, the Court

noted there was one final matter it must address - the judge's lack of cooperahon with the

Judiciary Commission and Office of Special Counsel. The Court said:

In its fu'idings of fact and conclusions of fact and law, the Commission expressed
disappointment and frustration with Judge Hughes' conduct during the course of
the Commission proceedings. The Commission charged that Judge Hughes
refused to cooperate with its discovery requests, and the record in tbis matter fully
supports that allegation. Judge Hughes repeatedly failed to respond to subpoenas
ordemg her to produce her case files, necessitating the issuance of orders
compelling her compliance. In response to these orders, Judge Hughes produced
few or no case files, claiming that her files were destroyed in a fire, even though
in many instances the alleged fire occurred well before she even received the
cases. The Commission, noting the spuriousness of tbis excuse, finally concluded:

There was much testimony in the record about the purported fire in or
behind a shed attached to [Judge Hughes'l law office on Broad Steet in
New Orleans and the various dates that fire might have occurred. Giving
Judge Hughes the benefit of the doubt that a fire occurred as late as the
end of 1988, there remained numerous complaints based on facts that
occurred in 1999 and later to which Judge Hughes told the disciplinary
investigators she could not produce records due to a fire. The
Commission concludes that Judge Hughes lied about the fire having
destroyed records in all those cases that she undertook after 1999.
[Emphasis added.]

Judge Hughes' lack of cooperation with the Commission, the Office of

Disciplinary Counsel, and the Office of Special Counsel extended beyond her
allegations with respect to the infamous fire. She claimed that she was prevented
from responding to subpoenas and of reasons,
lawful orders for a variety
including inability to get to the post lack of
office before closing hours,
transportation to the post office, and adverse weather conditions (i.e., a flood).
She complained that the discovery requests were burdensome and responding
would have taken too much time away from her judicial duties. Nevertheless, she
failed to formally move to quash any subpoena issued. She simply opted not to
respond.

Judge Hughes' documented resulted in a Commission

non-compliance eventually
order prohibiting her from or witness testimony (other
introducing any exhibits
than her own) at the Commission heamg. Judge Hughes complains that this order
prevented her from presenting a defense, causing substantial prejudice that
requires this court to dismiss the Commission proceedings, or, in the altemative,
to remand this matter to the Commission for receipt of additional evidence. We
reject this contention.
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 7

While the Commission's action in this instance appears to be extreme, we have

previously recognized the Commission's power and authority to enforce its orders.
See, In re Sharp, 03-2256, p. 3 (La. 10/29/03), 856 So.2d 1213, 1215 (failure of
respondent judge to answer formal charges or respond to discovery propounded
by Office of Special Counsel resulted in Commission order deeming the
allegations of the formal charge admitted and limiting presentation to be made by
judge at the hea'mg on the merits). Given the factual circumstances that prompted
the Commission order in this case, we do not find that order to be arbitraty,
unreasonable, or unjustified.

The Supreme Court of Florida has also addressed the issue of removal arising out of a

campaign misconduct case involving false and misleading statements that a successful

attorney/judicial candidate made about her opponent in e-mail advertisements and on social

media duig her 2016 election cmnpaign for the office of county judge. Re Santino, 257 So.3d

25 (Fla. 2018). In snmmaffzing the misconduct, the Court stated:

Candidate Santino did not merely compare her background, qualifications,

character and integrity with that of her opponent. She imputed guilt to those that
were merely accused, She also expressly stated and implied that Lemian was not
impartial, was predisposed to favor cals, while she was predisposed to
victims, and courted votes based on each candidate's supposed predisposition.
Her entire campaign was inflmnmatory and rife with innuendo. She repeatedly

implied that representing persons charged with es was, by its ver5r nature,
dishonorable and antithetical to the public good.

Id. at 29-

In removing Judge Santino from office, the Florida high court said:

Simply stated, Santino's conduct does not evidence a present fitness to hold
judicial office. It is "difficult to allow one guilty of such egregious conrluct to
retain the benefits of those violations and remain in office." Alley, 699 So.2d at
1370. We refuse to endorse a "win-at-all-costs-and-pay-the-fine-later" strategy,
especially in light of our past wmgs and stated intolerance for the kinds of

campaign violations at issue here. By her own admission, had we imposed a fine
as a sanction, it would confimi that Santino's violations were "not a big deal."
Moreover, if this Court imposed a suspension, it would send a message to all
attorneys campaigning for judicial office that they may commit egregious
violations of Canon 7 duig their campaigns and if they win, a suspension or a
fine or both will be the only result. They will be allowed to reap the benefits of
their misconduct by continuing to serve the citizens of this state. This we cannot

condone.

Id. at p. 21.

Unlike fomer Judge Santino, who misrepresented her opponent's character and

background (and who manifested potential biases in doing so), Judge Foxworth-Roberts

misrepresented her own background to appeal to the electorate, particularly the more

conservative electorate that the Central Ciffl News targeted. Even so, Judge Foxworth-Roberts'

egregious campaign conduct was as offensive and harmful as the violations in Santino. Judge

Foxworth-Roberts' false and misleading cmnpaign ads, signs, and speeches violated the public's
In re: Judge Tiffffiy Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 8

hust in the judiciary, as was the case in Santino. As noted by the Florida Supreme Court,

"Florida has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the judiciary and maintaining the

public's confidence in an impartial judiciar5r...A judicial candidate who knowingly

misrepresents any fact conceming the candidate or an opponent necessarily intends to mislead

the public concerning the judicial election, thus *inr!'irmining the public's confidence in the

integrity of the judicimy." Santino at p.l5. (citations omitted) The JQC Heming Panel

concluded:

aaa It was a calculated, tacticaI decision to ensure that Santino won her election for
a judgeship. While she disclaims her role in this process, Judge Santino was
reckless in delegating decision-making to her campaign manager, without
supervision.. -

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Hearing Panel that these unethical statements about

her opponent were not just present in one campaign advertisement or a single post on Facebook,

but rather, were the 'theme of [Santino's] entire campaign." Id. at pp. 16-17. The Florida

Supreme Court further agreed with the Heming Panel that it "strain[ed] credibility to believe that

[] Santino never looked at the Facebook []page she knew was going to be ueated, when it was

available to the public, affer she received telephone calls from prominent lawyers telling her it

was not being 'well received,' or even before telling her campaign consultant to take it down."

Id. atp. 17.

Like Santino, Judge Foxworth-Roberts made her false mid misleading claims about her

military record and rank of Captain fl'ie central theme of her entire campaign for a judgeship

despite the resources available to her to run an ethical campaign in accordance with the Canons

of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Louisiana Constitution. At the heming of this case,

Judge Foxworth-Roberts was still unwilling to take responsibility for her false and misleading

campaign ads, leading the Heanng Officer to conclude:

All of the Respondent's contrived responses appear to be designed to reinforce her

unbelievable testimony that during this period of time bebween February 2020 and
November 2020, she never saw any of the ads that Mr. Jenkins ran on her behalf,
mid to distance herself from one of her biggest lies: that she was a Captain in the
United States Army. (Tr. at 189:1-190:24, V2 at 226.) The Respondent's refusaI to
take responsibility for the false statements in her Central City News ads and admit
to any violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is an attempt to take advantage
of Woody Jenkins' testimony and previous statement to WBRZ-TV that he did not
know if the Respondent ever saw any of the Central City News campaign ads
prior to their publication and that if any mistakes were made in the ads, he was
responsible, not the Respondent.
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 9

(CL12.) The Heanng Officer not only found that Judge Foxworth-Roberts' testimony was not

gedible, neither was Woody Jenkins' testimony:

Despite his many accomplishments, Mr. Jenkins' testimony at the heating of this
matter simply was not credible, as he sought to provide cover for the Respondent,
his former client. hnportantly, his incredible testimony does not make the
Respondent's testimony credible simply because they both tried to spin similar tall
tales. (Tr. at 70:5, V2 at 202 to 76:13, V2 at 203.)

(CL13.) The totality of Judge Foxworth-Roberts' persistent, highly offensive misconduct and

unbelievable testimony led the Heming Officerto the clear conclusion that:

... the Respondent has engaged in a serious pattern of providing misleading

information, making false statements, evasiveness, and noncooperation
tbroughout her campaigns for judicial office mid her subsequent dealings with the
OSC and the Commission. She has made so many significant false and misleading
statements to the voting public, the Baton Rouge Police Department, her
homeowners insurance company (USAA), and the Judiciary Commission and
OSC that she has little, if any, credibility, especially given her position as a judge.
The Respondent's evasive and noncooperative responses and tactics only
compound her lack of credibility, as it is clear that she did not want the OSC and
Commission to learn the huth about her conduct that led to the allegations in the
complaint and expanded investigation. Her attempts to hide the tnith were flagrant
and only made the OSC more suspicious, leading it to expend more time and
resources in order to get the information needed to evaluate the complaints.

(CL35.)

Other Louisiana Supreme Court cases where removal was ordered as the appropriate and

necessary sanction include: In re Afford, 07-1893 (La. 2/15/08), 977 So. 2d 811 (Removal from

judicial office was appropriate sanction for judge's misconduct, which consisted of using

prescription drugs to the extent they impaired her ability to preside in court, putting juvenile in

holding cell at adult facility, using court staff to perform many personal errands for herself and

her family, and engaging in impermissible ex parte communications in violation of numerous

provisions of Code of Judicial Conduct, all resulting in biging disrepute to the judicial office in

violation of La. Const. Art. V, Sec. 25, coupled with her failure to accept responsibility and

willful behavior.); In re Benge, 09-1617, (La. 11/6/09), 24 So. 3d 822, 845 (Removal from

judicial office was warranted for judge who failed to perfonn her judiciaI duties without bias by

awarding damages to plaintiff despite her belief that plaintiff did not prove his alleged injury on

the basis of outside influence of another judge, who suggested she award plaintiff an award

because plaintiff would "be there" for her, and her partiality for plaintiff's counsel.); h re

Laiche, 15-1691 (La. 3/15/16), 198 So. 3d 86 (Removal from judicial office was appropriate

sanction for Justice of the Peace, who among other misconduct, repeatedly abused and exceeded

his authority, improperly used his office to advance his own personal interests by overcharging
hx re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 10

and double charging peace bond litigants, repeatedly and impermissibly extended the terms of

peace bonds without conducting hem'ngs, repeatedly and impemffssibly issued peace bond

orders and judgments that interfered with an ongoing custody case in another parish, imposed

illegal jail sentences on two individuals, and failed to timely refund peace bond monies after

peace bonds expired without forfeiture, in one case $2000 for over two years.); and In re

Gremilliorx, 16-0054 (La. 06/29/16), 204 So. 3d 183 (Removal ordered for Justice of the Peace

who, among other conduct, rendered a judgment without giving the defendants a meaningful

opportunity to be heard, without requiting the plaintiff to present any evidence or swom

testimony, and without giving the defendants written notice of the judgment against them; and

displayed implicit bias in favor of the creditor and/or against the African American defendants'

efforts to defend the claim against them.)

Alford, Benge, and Gremillion further illustrate that "both La. Const. Art. g Sec. 25 (C),

and the Code of Judicial Conduct contennplate, and allow, removal for a broader range of

offenses than the illustrative list set forth in )iitaker." (citations omitted) Laiche 's egregious

conduct tracks the Fhitaker standard more closely as he used his office improperly for personal

gain, was consistently abusive and insensitive to parties and witnesses, and failed to perform his

judicial duties to the best of bis ability due to indifference. At the core of Judge Alford's

removal was a prescription pain dnug addiction and its effects on her ability to preside in court.

Judge Benge's judicial misconduct involved awarding a judgtnent for a plaintiff, not based on

the evidence, but on outside influences and relationships with another judge and plaintiff's

counsel. Justice of the Peace Gremillion's implicit bias was so offensive to the Commission and

the Court that it again sent a strong message that those jurists who display such biased treatment

of litigants in their court will be removed immediately. Given the totality of the misconduct in

tbis matter, proven by clear and convincing evidence, and in an effort to protect the public and

the public's corffidence in the judiciary, the Commission should vote to recommend the removal

of Judge Foxworth-Roberts.

Additionally, the application of the Chaisson factors to Judge Foxworth-Roberts' case

supports the recommendahon of removal. In re Chaisson, supra

(a) Whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evideneed a pattern of conduJ and

(b) the nature, extent, and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct.

Judge Foxworth-Roberts' egregious misconduct in this matter was anything but an

isolated event. Rather it was rmnpant and constituted a pattem of misconduct, as evidenced by
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 11

the facts that: (1) she lied to the OSC from the outset and said in her written response to the

complaint that "Judge Foxworth did not submit an insurance claim to her insurer after the

ce."; (2) she lied to the investigating police officer about the location of the burglary mid then

blamed the officer in her response to the OSC for "erroneously report[ing] her account of the

incident"; (3) she failed to disclose to her insurance company, USAA, the correct location of

auto burglaty; (4) in her campaign for District Court Judge on the Nineteenth Judicial District

Court (19th JDC), she ran a series of campaign ads that falsely claimed she was a "Proud U.S.

Army Captain mid Veteran of Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan Wars (enlisted as a private E-

I and rose to Captain)."; (5) Respondent was born on September 21, 1974, and was sixteen years

old dumg Operation Desert Storm; during her militaty career she was never deployed overseas

in Iraq or Afghanistan; her claims in her campaign ads to have risen to the rank of Captain in the

Army were false, and when the OSC was finally able to obtain her official Military Personnel

Records, they showed she was honorably discharged on July 31, 2010, as a First Lieutenant from

the United States Army Reserve (USAR), "as a result of being twice nonselected for promotion

to the rank of captain"; (6) She lied in her sworn statement to the OSC, continuing to claim she

rose to the rank of Captain in the Anny; (7) Respondent not only refused to assiSt the OSC M

obtaining documentation relating to her military service, she withheld important details and

documents relating to her USAA insurance claims, including the fact that she had made a claim

for her diamond engagement mg, which she had not included in her initial or supplemental

report to the police; and (8) After three written responses to the OSC and Judiciary Commission,

Judge Foxworth-Roberts continued to witbhold important and relevant information that was

necessary to evaluate the complaint against her, wbich resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of

resources and significmitly hindered the Commission's investigation of this matter. Like the

Court found in Laiche, Judge Foxworth-Robert's "conduct was serious, not isolated, and

evidenced apattenn ofmisconduct."Jaic&', 198 So. 3d at 105.

(c) Whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; and

(d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his/her private
life;

The conduct in this case occurred out of the courtroom. Her campaign conductleadingup to her

election on August 15, 2020, occiured in her capacity as a nonincumbentattorney candidate.

After her election in the special election, her improper conduct duig her campaign for a full

term occurred in Respondent's official capacity as an incumbent judge. Her failure to cooperate
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 12

with the OSC and Commission in responding to the complaint and the investigation, and

subsequent proceedings after the filing of the Notice of Heaig, occurred in her official

capacity, as a judge on the 19' JDC. While alleged judicial misconduct often arises in the

courtroom out of specific underlying cases, acts of judicial misconduct off the bench and/or in a

judge'sprivatelife canbejust asserious,andoftenmore so. See by re Haggerff, 241 So.2d 469

(La. 1970) (Illegal gambling, pmticipation in organization of assemblages for indecent purposes,

including procurement of woman for prostitution, and association with persons of known

al records warranted removal of judge.); h re Soileau, 502 So.2d 1083 (La. 1987)

(Sttiking law enforcement officer at a public festival warranted suspension without salary for six

months.)

(e) Whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred and
(f) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify her conduct

Throughout the pre-heaig course of this case Judge Foxworth-Roberts never acknowledged

any misconduct in connection with her actions. Finally, at the hearing Judge Foxworth-Roberts

half-heartedly acknowledged that she should have better supervised the content of Mr. Jenkins'

Central City News campaign ads, but refused to admit her failure to do so violated the Code of

Judicial Conduct. The OSC is not aware of any action she has taken to avoid such mistakes in

the future. Although in her Post Heming Brief Judge Foxworth-Roberts requested the Heazing

Officer to find "as to the cmnpaign advertisements, ...that she violated Canons 1, 2A, 7A(9),

7B(1), and 7B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Article g Section 25(C) of the Louisiana

Constitution", nonetheless Respondent continues to be in a state of denial as to much of her

misconduct and the seriousness of her actions. This eleventh hour acknowledgement of

campaign misconduct came only after her own incredible testimony at the hearing. Like the

Court found in In re Laiche, based on the evidence adduced at the heming, the Hearing Officer

found that Judge Foxworth-Roberts "repeatedly attempted to cast blame on others rather than

accept personal responsibility for the events at issue and demonstrated a troubling lack of

appreciation for the consequences of [her] actions-" Laiche, 198 So. 3d at 106. For example, in

the instant case the Hearing Officer concluded:

The Respondent impudently attemptedto cooperate with the

to justify her failure
Judiciary Commission's expanded investigation regarding whether she made false
representations in her campmgrx ads about herrank and her militag service. In her
testimony, she offered a host of excuses for refusing to supply the OSC with any
of her military records or to sign an authorization to help facilitate the OSC's
receiving her military records directly from the U.S. Department of the
Army/U.S. Army Human Resources Command... (CL28.)
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 13

(g) The length of sernee on the bench.

It is of no moment that much of Judge Foxworth-Roberts' campaign misconduct occurred as an

attorney before she assumed the bench. Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct specifically

applies to the political and campaign activity of both incumbent judges and non-incumbent

attomeys seeking judicial office. Respondent had been mi attorney for fifteen years and had rm

for judicial office once before when she engaged in this campaign misconduct. The Heatig

Officer found by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Foxworth-Roberts violated Canons

7A(9), 7B(1), and 7B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Canons 1 and 2A as an incumbent

judge in connection with her campaign conduct. Likewise, the Hearing Officer concluded that:

"The OSC produced clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's reports to the Baton

Rouge Police Department and her homeowner's insurance company, USAA, regarding the

details and location of the car burglary were false and intentional, as alleged in the anonymous

complaint that OSC received on May 7, 2021." (CL55.) Respondent made her victimhood a

focal point in her cmnpaign and even at the heming of this matter. The fact that Judge Foxworth-

Roberts was a new judge when she was called upon to respond to this complaint and the

Commission's inquiries and investigation, is absolutely no excuse for her utter false and

misleading responses and eventual refusal to tunn over docutnentary evidence.

The OSC placed Judge Foxworth-Roberts on notice on several occasions about its

concerns with her lack of cooperation and the consequences of a 5udge's failure or refusal to

cooperate in a Commission investigation as set forth in Supreme Court Rule XXIII, Section10.

(Also see In re Burgess, 11-2182, p. 9 (1/24/12); 85 So. 3d 604, 610, Supreme Court said:"The

iitial responses to the Judicimy Commission were incomplete and misleading as Judge Burgess

did not admit to taking any actions with respect to Jenifer's case... JudgeBurgess'sresponseto

the second questior4 was not even technically accurate . - This was clearly false. Judgesare

expected to act with the utmost candor in their dealings with the Commission, and Judge

Burgess's misleading and incomplete responses fell well short of this standard.");by re Free, 14-

1828 (La. 12/09/14), 2014 WL 7009546 (Judge's testimony lacked candor and credibility. Court

noted: "We agree and further concur in the Commission's assessmentthat such testimony

'diminishes his credibility in general."') Even a newly inducted judge shouldknow shemustbe

huthful mid cooperative with the Judiciary Commission and the Supreme Court.
In re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 14

(h) Whether there have been prior complaints about this judge.

Respondent has no prior reportable complaint history.

(i) The effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and
(i) The extent to which the judge exploited her position to satisfy her personal desires.

There is no doubt that Judge Foxworth-Robert's misconduct has significantly brought the

Louisiana judiciary and her court into disrepute. This matter and Respondent's misconduct have

already been the subject of several media reports in pit publications, on-line services, and

television broadcasts. Judge Foxworth-Robert's false and misleading campaign ads, signs, and

speeches about her military record and rank were and are particularly embarrassing to the

judiciary and a violation of the public's hust. Canon 7A(9) provides: "A judge or judicial

candidate shall not...knowingly make, or cause to be made, a false statement conceming the

identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact concetg the candidate or an opponent."

Judge Foxworth-Roberts deliberately used these false and deceptive campaign materials and

narrative to gain the public's vote and win an important judicial office- In addition, she

purposely misled the police regarding the location of the car burglary- And, after failing to

report some items as stolen, including the diamond engagement :mg, nevertheless claimed it as a

loss in her USAA insurance claim, which she later tried to hide' from the OSC. Now that the

tnuth has come to the forefront, those who will or would come before her for justice, would

neither respect Respondent's fairness nor hust in her integrity, because she has shown herself to

be totally lacking in uedibility.

The Benge case was a matter that brought a great deal of dishonor to the judiciary, as it

arose out of the higbly publicized comiption investigation at the 24' JDC in Jefferson Parish by

the federal government's Department of Justice. Secretly recorded wiretapped telephone

conversations by fl'ie FBI to and from Judge Bodenheimer, including severaldmnningcalls

between Judge Benge and bim, were necessarily made public in Judge Benge's judicial

misconduct case when the Commission felt compelled to send the case to the Court with a

recommendation of removal. In re Bertge, 09-1617, pp. 3-5 (La. 11/6/09), 24 So. 3d 822, 825.

Citing Hunter, the Court in explaining the necessity of Judge Benge's removalfrom the bench

said: "Likewise, the objective of a judicial disciplinary proceedingaisnot simply to punishan

individual judge but to purge the judiciary of any taint."' Also see Santino,supra at p. 15 ("A

judicial candidate who knowingly misrepresents any fact concemingthe candidateor an

opponent necessarily intends to mislead the public conceming the judicial election, thus
hi re:.Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 15

'i'inrlermininB the public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciaty." (citations omitted.)

Referig to Judge Santino's self-serving, exploitive actions the Florida Supreme Court

emphasized that: "It is 'difficult to allow one guilty of such egregious conduct to retain the

benefits of those violations and remain in office."' SaMno at 21.

There is a fundamental dishonesty which pemieates Judge Foxworth-Robert's words and

actions throughout every aspect of this case. Such dishonesty simply cannot be allowed to

remain a part of Louisiana's honorable judicimy. The OSC urges the Commission find a

recommendation of removal to be warranted to protect the citizens who might come before Judge

Foxworth-Robert's court in the future and to protect and preserve the integrity and impartiaIity of

the judiciary. Given the magnitude of the misconduct, and given Judge Foxworth-Robert's

demonstrated indifference, lack of personal responsibility, and lack of appreciation for the

consequences of her actions, the Commission should ultimately conclude that there is no middle

ground for redressing Judge Foxworth-Robert's serious and persistent misconduct.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed above, the OSC respectfully requests that the Commission

adopt all the Heming Officer's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and

specifically the Hearing Officer's ultimate findings that the OSC has proven by clear and

convincing evidence that the Respondent:

(1) violated Canons 1, 2A, 7A(9), 7B(1), and 7B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct; and

(2) engaged in persistent and public conduct prejudi6al to fl'ie administration of justice

that bigs the judicial office into disrepute in violation of Louisiana Constitution Article

V, §25(C) (1974).

For the reasons expressed above, the OSC recommends the Commission recommend to

the Louisiana Supreme Court that Respondent, Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, be removed

from judicial office and ordered to pay all the OSC's and Commission's costs related to these

proceedings.

[SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

In re: Judge Tiffany Foxwortli-Roberts, Case No. 0395
Page 16

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle A. Beaty (Q2942)

Special Counsel
Micliael D. Bewers (03027)
AsSistant Special Corinsel
The Judiciary Con'imission of Loriisiana
601 St. Cbarles Avenue
New Orleans. Louisiana 70130
(504) 568-8299

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY tliat a copy of tl'ie foregoing lias been served ripon Judge Tiffany
Foxwortli-Roberts, througli her attorneys of record, Dane S. Ciolino, Clare S. Roubion, Maity
Maley, and Steve Irving by email transmission, this 31st day of March 2025.