- November 2, 2004 election. A number of attorneys that regularly
practice in Judge Nan Nash's courtroom made no secret of their
fundraising efforts on her behalf prior to the November 2, 2004
election in which she was a candidate. We have seen no evidence
that Judge Nash, now the head of Bernalillo County Second Judicial
District Family Court, recused herself from the attorneys' cases.
A well-known family law firm, Atkinson and Kelsey, hosted
a well-advertised fundraiser reception at their offices in October
2004 to raise money for Judge Nan Nash's campaign. The reception
announcement states,"Join the candidates for a fundraiser
reception at the office of Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A." Download
reception announcement as pdf The practicing attorneys at
the Atkinson and Kelsey firm at the time included David Kelsey,
Jon Feder, Thomas Montoya, Virginia Dugan, Denise Ready, Patrick
McDaniel, Gregg Velasquez, Sandra Gardner, and Allison Pieroni.
Download
page from the Atkinson & Kelsey firm web site as pdf,
September 2004. Now take a look at Judge Nan Nash's docket
calendar for September 23, 2004. Download
Sept 23, 2004 docket calendar as pdf Note the circled attorneys'
names on the two-page list: Denise Ready, David Kelsey, and Gregg
Velasquez from Atkinson and Kelsey. Judge Nan Nash was hearing
issues from these attorneys at a time when they were sponsoring
a large, publicly-known fundraiser event for her! Judge Nash did
not recuse from these cases, but kept right on hearing them regardless
of the impropriety. Apparently Judge Nan Nash attended the reception
and actually saw the attorneys there who intended to donate to
her campaign.
The Judicial Code of Conduct, a set of ethics laws for judges
from the New Mexico Rules, Annotated (NMRA) 21-800
states that:
|
"Candidates for judicial office . .
. shall not personally solicit or personally accept campaign contributions
from any attorney, or from any litigant in a case pending before
the candidate. Contributions from attorneys and litigants shall
be made only to a campaign committee . . . Campaign committees shall
not disclose to the judge or candidate the identity or source of
any funds raised by the committee. . . Download
entire text of Rule as pdf. |
Finally, a letter was mailed out to hundreds of
Albuquerque attorneys soliciting funds for Judge Nan Nash. At
least two of the signatories are attorneys who regularly appear
in family court.
Download solicitation letter as pdf. Has Judge Nan Nash fulfilled
her ethical duty and recused herself from all cases with the attorneys
that attended the Atkinson and Kelsey fundraiser? Has she recused
herself from all Atkinson and Kelsey cases? Clearly she had not
done so as of September 23, 2004. Would that legal office have
bothered to hold a fundraiser for her if it was believed that
as a result she would meet her ethical duty by law and recuse
from all Atkinson and Kelsey cases? What about the signatories
on the solicitation letter? Would you consider that a letter from
a "campaign committee", or from the four individuals
who are signatories on the letter? What does it matter that the
checks written at the Atkinson and Kelsey "fundraiser reception"
were made out to a campaign committee? Does that satisfy your
sense that Judge Nash had no idea who donated to her campaign?
She was at the reception. This is nothing less than the open courting
of favors from a judge who was predicted to become the head of
the Bernalillo family court. We, the public, should demand that
Judge Nash step down from the bench for this open, shameless disregard
for the Code of Judicial Conduct. Likewise, all members of the
bar who helped with her campaign or appeared at the "fundraiser
reception" (or hosted it) and argued in Judge Nash's courtroom
after the public advertising of this fundraiser, after their attendance,
after helping with her campaign, or after the solicitation letter
was mailed out should be disciplined. This is one of the clearest
indicators that New Mexico's family court system is corrupt! CFJ
wonders how many years such improprieties have been allowed to
fester in this system, and as a result how many judicial favors
are owed. We are under no illusions that this is the first time
such improprieties have occurred.
|
| last updated on
October 7, 2007
|
|