Srnec ce ren 99-0021 FILE COPy SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST BBN REN FROM f E IN THE MATTER OF: COMPLAINT NO. 50-202: HONORABLE GLEN R. STOTLER, FAMILY COURT JUDGE of the 23 FAMILY COURT CIRCUIT STATEMENT OF CHARGES The Special Judicial Investigation Commission, pursuant to Rules 2.7(a) and (d) and Rule 2.8 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, has determined that probable cause does exist to formally charge Glen R. Stotler with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and has determined that formal discipline is appropriate based upon the following findings: 1 Respondent became a licensed member of the West Virginia State Bar on June 5, 1990 Respondent was appointed to the seat in the Twenty-Third Family Court Circuit (Morgan, Hampshire, and Mineral Counties) in 2011. He was elected in 2012 and re-elected in 2016. He has continued to serve in that capacity since his appointment. As a member of the Judiciary, Respondent has not been sanctioned by the Judicial Investigation Commission or the Supreme Court of Appeals. FCI Rock was elected to a new seat in the Twenty-Third Family Court Circuit (Hampshire, Mineral and Morgan Counties) in May 2016 and took office on January 1, 2017. Respondent and FCJ Rock are the only family court judges in the Twenty-Third Family Court Circuit. Respondent's primary office is in Morgan County, and FCJ Rock's primary office is located in Mineral County, West Virginia. By Order entered February 4, 2020, pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, Respondent was appointed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals(hereinafter referred to as “Supreme Court”) to the Judicial Hearing Board (hereinafter referred to as “JHB”), 5. The JHB has the authority! to conduct hearings on formal complaints filed by the Judicial Investigation Commission (hereinafter referred to as “JIC”) and make recommendations to the Supreme Court of Appeals regarding disposition of those complaints, 6. Onor about August 25, 2020, the JIC found probable cause existed and pursuant to Rule 2.7 (c) issued an Admonishment to FCJ Shuck for conducting “home visits” and the JIC stated that such home visits were not authorized by any statute, rule or case law and that they were “ill-advised and inappropriate.” FCJ Shuck was publicly admonished for his violations of Rules 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; and 2.5(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. FCJ Shuck did not object to the admonishment, 7. On September 23, 2020, JDC filed a Statement of Charges with the Clerk of Court after the JIC found probable cause and voted to issue a One-Count formal Statement of Charges against FCJ Goldston charging her with violating Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.4(B), 2.5 and Rules 3.1(A), (B) and (D) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 8. On or about September 30, 2020, FCJ Goldston and her counsel entered into a written agreement with the JDC whereby she would admit to (1) all of the facts contained in paragraphs 1 through 14 of the formal statement of charges; and (2) violating Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2(A), 2.4(B) and 2.5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for her behavior set forth therein, The parties set forth factors in mitigation. The parties further agreed to recommend sanctions of a censure, a $5,000.00 fine and the payment of costs. 2 See Rule 3 and Rule 3.11 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, 29. The agreement was signed by FC] Goldston and her Counsel Andy Nason on September 30, 2020, and by JDC on October 5, 2020. 10. By email dated November 18, 2020, the Chairperson of the JHB emailed a copy of the JIC’s public Admonishment of FCJ Shuck to Respondent. 11. FCJ Goldston’s hearing! was held on January 15, 2021. The JHB Chair presided over the hearing. In attendance were the following JHB members: (1) The Honorable Paul T. Farrell, Judge of the 6th Judicial Circuit; (2) The Honorable Richard G. Postalwait, Magistrate of Calhoun County; and (3) Respondent. 12, FCJ Goldston’s disciplinary matter? was one of the first judicial disciplinary cases that Respondent heard as a member of the JHB.* 13. FCJ Goldston, appeared with her Attorney Nason,‘ at the January 15, 2021 disciplinary hearing. JDC examined FCJ Goldston and FCJ Goldston testified that she signed the agreement, and she did so knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. FCJ Goldston’s statements to the JHB were made under oath and in the presence of her counsel. 14, Respondent's primary concern was the precedential impact that FCJ Goldston’s voluntary admissions of wrongful conduct would have on the powers of the Family Court Bench, 15. _ Respondent questioned both JDC lawyers at the hearing. ' Because of COVID 19 at Attorney Rumey's request and, with no party voicing an objection, the JHB members appeared via Microsoft Teams, 2 There were two formal matters set for hearing before the JHB on that date, one involved FCJ Goldston and the other involved a magistrate court judge. Both disciplinary matters had similar agreements with factual admissions, agreed upon rule violations, and recommendations as to sanction that were tendered to the JHB members. The “Stotler Letter” makes no reference to any alleged impropriety or misconduct by JDC with regard to the handing of the matter involving the magistrate court judge. ® Respondent is still a member of the JHB, but disqualified himself from the subsequent formally filed ethics case because the subject judicial officer is from the same geographical area. + FCJ Goldston and Attorney Nason were both over audio without video, but FCJ Goldston confirmed she was. physically present with her counsel during the judicial hearing 316. 17, 18. 19, 20. 21 22. 23, Respondent made no inquiry of FCJ Goldston regarding the voluntariness of the admissions. Respondent made no inquiry of FCJ Goldston about the impact her admissions of misconduct may have on the bench. In fact, Respondent did not ask FCI Goldston any questions at the judicial disciplinary hearing, Respondent did not advise the JIB members of any concems he had regarding the voluntariness of FCJ Goldston’s admissions. Respondent did not advise the JHB members of any concerns he had about the conduct of JDC. On January 20, 2021, IDC filed a Motion to Disqualify Respondent from the judicial disciplinary matter. By Order prepared by counsel for the JHB and entered January 22, 2021, Respondent declined to disqualify himself. On the same day, the Chairperson of the JHB, issued an Order requiring post hearing briefs by the parties addressing Icgal issues delineated by questions. The briefs were ordered filed by February 15, 2021, with any responsive brief filed by March 1, 2021 Attomey Nason filed a Response to the Judicial Hearing Board Questions on or about February 12, 2021 On or about February 16, 2021, IDC filed its post-hearing brief Along with the brief, IDC sought the admission of two additional exhibits - one was a copy of the transcript of the March 4, 2020 contempt hearing that occurred upon return from the search of Gibson's home. Although, the parties agreed upon joint exhibits for the January 15, 2021 hearing, the only portion of the contempt hearing that was jointly provided by the parties to the JHB was the morning portion prior to the search of the litigant’s home.$ FCJ 5 Attomey Nason agreed in advance to the Joint Exhibits and made no objection to the admission of Joint Exhibits at the January 15, 2021 hearing. 424, 25. 26, 21. 28, 29. Goldston’s Statement of Charges only addresses the conduct leading up to and including the search of the litigant’s home. However, when the JHB Hearing Examiner asked about it, JDC agreed to provide it to the JHB and had a transcript prepared of the same, The second exhibit was the cell phone video taken inside of Gibson's home by FCJ Goldston’s bailiff. Attomey Nason had no objection to the additional exhibits. On February 16, 2021, an amicus brief was filed by Mr. Gibson’s attomey, John Bryan and the same was ordered filed by order entered by the JHB on February 19, 2021, An order was entered on February 19, 2021, by the JHB that reflected a joint request was made by the parties and was granted by the Board admitting additional exhibits. Attomey Nason filed a corrective brief on February 22, 2021. Attorney Nason’s original and subsequent corrective February 22, 2021 brief stated at page 2, third full paragraph that: Respondent agreed to the admission of the violation of the Canons because the JIC took the position she had violated them; she respected that position. She believed from what she was told by discussion with the JIC that if she disputed the matter the JIC may seck her suspension from the bench. Attorney Nason also filed a Response Brief on or about March 1, 2021. Attorney Nason’s March 1, 2021 Response Brief Page 4, paragraph 4 stated that: In this regard, the Respondent admits that she was ill prepared for the meeting with JIC counsel on July 22, 2020. The Respondent was told the meeting would be an interview. Respondent specifically asked if she nceded an attomey and was told no. When the Respondent Judge Goldston arrived, she was put under oath, recorded, shown portions of various statutes, rules and cases for which she did not have time to rescarch, and told she could be suspended from the bench. Proceeding with what she had believed was just an interview was a mistake, Other Courts of record should not suffer the ramifications of that mistake Page 5, paragraph 132. 33 34, Respondent Judge Goldston was shown a portion of the Westover case, which is cited in the respondent's initial brief. The portion suggested the view resulted in a reversal and was not permitted. In fact, a full reading of the Westover case leads to the conclusion that views are allowed. On or about March 16, 2021, the JHB issued its recommendation in FCJ Goldson’s disciplinary matter and filed the same with the Supreme Court, The recommendation was an Admonishment and a $1,000.00 Fine. The recommended decision reflected that two members wanted a censure, with a reduced fine. Respondent dissented because in his opinion there was no clear and convincing evidence that FC] Goldston violated any provision of the Code. On or about March 18, 2021, Respondent's Family Court Coordinator, J.R Campbell, typed the first draft of the “Stotler Letter” as Respondent dictated the substance to her from his hand-written notes. The Microsoft Word document properties indicate that the creator was “Joy Campbell” and it was saved on J.R. Campbell's court-issued computer. (On March 19, 2021, the Microsoft Word document entitled “Dear Chief Justice Jenkins -the March 18" version of the “Stotler Letter” created on J.R. Campbell’s computer the day prior~ was opened and saved on FCJ Rock’s court-issued computer. On or about March 22, 2021, FCJ Rock made edits to the “Stotler Letter” and sent a TEAMs message to Respondent's Family Court Coordinator J.R Campbell at 3:11pm that stated: “President, Family Court Judge Association” “and what you have there is correct for Keith.” On or about March 23, 2021, JDC filed its objections to the JHB recommended decision with the Supreme Court and the same included a challenge to Respondent presiding over the case at the JHB level. On or about March 24, 2021, FCJ Rock continued to substantively edit the “Stotler Letter” and sent a TEAMs message to Respondent's Family Court Coordinator J.R. Campbell that stated: I think page 2 of the letter is missing” “page one stops in mid sentence and the next, page begins a new paragraph” “there is a type on page 2, first paragraph” “in the 635. 36. 37. 38. 39. parenthesis it should be 1956” “overall, the letter looks good. Please ask Judge to call me before you mail this. Thanks. On or about March 25, 2021, Respondent sent and/or directed his staff to send the “Stotler Letter” dated March 25, 2021, addressed to Chief Justice Jenkins and carbon copied Supreme Court Justice Walker; Supreme Court Justice Armstead; Supreme Court Justice Hutchison; Supreme Court Justice Wooton; Charles $. Trump, IV, Esquire, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee; Moore Capito, Esquire, Chairman House Judiciary Committee; Lisa A. Tackett, Director, Administrative Office; Joseph Armstrong, Administrative Director; and FCI Deanna Rock, President of the Family Court Judicial Association. Respondent alleged that Chief Judicial Disciplinary Counsel and Deputy Judicial Disciplinary Counsel engaged in serious misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of two Family Court Judges, specifically FCJ Goldston and FCJ Shuck. FCI] Rock’s March 22, 2021 and March 24, 2021, substantive edits provided to Respondent's staff are incorporated into the “Stotler Letter” that was sent by Respondent on March 25, 2021 On April 2, 2021, IDC Tarr received a call from Chris Dickerson of the West Virginia Record. He asked for a comment on the “Stotler letter” and, because she had not seen or heard about the existence of the letter, he emailed a version to her which had the fax line blacked out and some writing in blue ink that was crossed out. Mr. Dickerson indicated in his email that the writings and cross outs were on the letter when he received the letter. Upon inspection, the blacked-out portion of the “Stotler Letter” indicates the letter was sent from a court issued fax line that belongs to FCJ Rock. To date, Mr. Dickerson states he does not know the identity of the person or persons who sent him the “Stotler Letter.”40. 4. 42. 44, 45. On or about April 2, 2021, Respondent's Family Court Coordinator J.R. Campbell sent a |AMs message to Respondent's Secretary G. Johnson at 10:31am that stated: He had said he wouldn’t be here today, but he is here now. Apparently he has been chided for not sending a copy of that letter to the Chair of the Judicial Investigation Commission, so her came in here to and dictated a letter of apology. on the phone with his brother now. Neither the Chair of the Judicial Hearing Board, nor the Chair of the Judicial Investigation Commission were copied on the “Stotler Letter.” By letter dated April 2, 2021, Respondent apologized to the Chair of the JIC for the oversight and forwarded a copy of the March 25, 2021 letter. On or about April 6, 2021, FCJ Rock emailed a document drafted by or on behalf of FC) Goldston entitled “Jhb objections corrected” from FCI Rock’s personal email account to Respondent's court-issued email account. On the same date, FCJ Rock emailed Respondent a forwarded email subject titled “Fw: Corrected objections.” The email contained an attachment entitled “jhb objections corrected.docx” The body of the original email was composed by FCJ Goldston and contained the message “I didn’t finish my last sentence”. The email was sent from FCI Rock's personal email account to Respondent’s court-issued email account. ‘On or about April 9, 2021, Respondent’s Family Court Coordinator J.R Campbell sent a ‘TEAMs message to Respondent's Secretary G. Johnson “Roy asked if Judge actually wrote it or if I did—Boss got a little offended (1 secretly laughed... but never out loud).” On ot about April 9, 2021, Attorney Nason filed FCJ Goldston’s objections to the JHB’s recommended decision with the Supreme Court,46. Onor about April 12, 2021, the Chairperson of the JIC, provided th “Stotler Letter” to the Office of Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel and requested an investigation into the allegations made by Respondent. 47, On April 27, 2021, FCJ Rock sent an email to Respondent, The email included a response from JDC Tarr to a request for an advisory opinion by FCJ Rock and two other family court judges. The body of the email stated “So someone thinks Dave, Mary Ellen and | helped with your letter. Please read and tell me your response.” The email continued stating “This makes me very angry. Once again, she is making accusations without proof. Just like her and the problems of that office.” 48. On or about April 30, 2021, FCJ Rock (and two other FCJs) sent a letter to the Chair of the JIC condemning JDC Tarr for implying that they were involved in the drafting and submission of the “Stotler Letter.” The letter indicated that the unfounded accusation of their involvement in the “Stotler Letter” was more evidence of JDC misconduct and requested an apology, and that JDC be recused from anything pertaining to them in the future. 49. During the course of the ODC investigations into the allegations in the “Stotler Letter,” ODC took the sworn statement of FCJ Goldston® who appeared pursuant to a confidential investigative subpoena, with Attomey Nason, who represents her in the pending judicial disciplinary matter and Attomey Tully, who represented her in a related federal action, $ Respondent’ letter stated inorder to “verify and substantiate” the allegations, he “highly recommended] and requested)” that FCF Goldston be interviewee 850. SI 53, 54. 55, 57. During the course of these ODC investigations into the allegations in the “Stotler Letter,” ODC also took the sworn statement of FCJ Shuck’ and he appeared pursuant to a confidential investigative subpoena. Both FCJ Goldston and FCJ Shuck denied speaking to Respondent about the allegations that involved them that were in the “Stotler Letter.” On or about May 13, 2021, the Investigative Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board issued its closing of the investigations of JDC Tarr and JDC Lanham. The Investigative Panel found no merit to the allegations and ordered the matters be closed. The Panel directed the public closing be sent to the Chairperson of the JIC and the Administrative Director of the Supreme Court of Appeals. On or about May 25, 2021, the Administrative Director filed a judicial ethics complaint against Respondent with the Judicial Investigation Commission (1.D. No. 50-2021). By letter dated May 26, 2021, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, the Administrative Director's complaint was docketed and sent via First Class Mail to Respondent. After requesting and receiving an extension, on or about June 29, 2021, by and through counsel, Respondent filed an answer to the judicial ethics complaint. On or about September 7, 2021, Respondent appeared, both personally, and by and through counsel, and gave a sworn statement in the further investigation of the judicial disciplinary complaint. Respondent denied personally speaking to FCJ Shuck or FCJ Goldston about the allegations in the “Stotler Letter.” * Respondent's letter also stated in order to “verify and substantiate” the allegations, he “highly recommended] and request{ed]” that FCI Shuck be interviewed. 1058, 59, 60. 61. 62. 63, 65. Respondent testified that he “made assumptions” to form the basis of his accusations of JDC’s misconduct that involved FCJ Shuck’s case. Respondent testified that the allegations from FCJ Goldston’s briefs* formed the basis of his accusations of JDC’s misconduct. Respondent admitted and acknowledged that he wrote and sent the “Stotler Letter” and caused the same to be sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the other sitting Supreme Court Justices, as well as Charles $. Trump, IV, Esquire, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee; Moore Capito, Esquire, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee; Lisa A. Tackett, Director, Administrative Office; Joseph Armstrong, Administrative Director; and FCJ Rock, President of the Family Court Judicial Association, ‘The Supreme Court of Appeals issued its signed opinion in the FCJ Goldston disciplinary matter on November 18, 2021. A dissenting opinion was filed on November 19, 2021. The Mandate Order was issued on December 21, 2021 Respondent testified that he had no communications or conversations with anyone regarding the FCJ Goldston matter outside of the JHB. Respondent testified that he did not direct his staff to have any contact with any person or entity regarding FCJ Goldston’s judicial disciplinary case. Respondent denied by sworn testimony that he consulted with anyone prior to writing “Stotler Letter.” Respondent denied by sworn testimony that anyone other than his staff assisted him in drafting the “Stotler Letter.” * See Paragraphs 29 and 30 for the only accusations of JDC misconduct made by FCJ Goldston in her briefs before Respondent drafted the “Stotler Letter” on March 18, 2021 un66. Respondent denied by sworn testimony that anyone ghost-wrote the “Stotler Letter.” 67. Respondent denied by swom testimony that he advised anyone other than his staff of his intent to send the “Stotler Letter.” 68. Respondent denied by sworn testimony that he advised anyone of the substance of the “Stotler Letter” prior to sending the letter. After investigating and evaluating the Complaint, the Special Judicial Investigation Commission finds that there is probable cause to make the following CHARGES: CHARGE ONE As set forth above, because Respondent I°CJ Stotler failed to comport his conduct to the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, he has violated Rule 1.1 [Compliance with the Law] of the Code of Judicial Conduet as set forth in the Appendix. CHARGE TWO As set forth above, because Respondent FCJ Stotler, a member of the Judicial Hearing Board, made false and/or reckless statements regarding the integrity and conduct of Judicial Disciplinary ‘Counsel in the investigation and prosecution of judicial officers and disseminated the same, he brought unfair public scrutiny to the disciplinary system that undermined the integrity of the judiciary and damaged the public’s confidence in the judiciary, he has violated Rule 1.2 {Confidence in the Judiciary] of the Code of the Judicial Conduet as set forth in the Appendix. CHARGE THREE As set forth above, because Respondent FCI Stotler, a member of the Judicial Hearing Board, failed to act without bias or prejudice and failed to adjudicate the issues properly before him in the 12Goldston disciplinary matter, he has violated Rule 2.2 [Impartiality and Fairness] of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set forth in the Appendix. CHARGE FOUR As set forth above, because Respondent FCJ Stotler drafted and sent the “Stotler Leiter” to the Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals when the Goldston Matter was pending, he has violated Rule 2.9 [Ex Parte Communications] of the Code of Judicial Conduct as sct forth in the Appendix. CHARGE FIVE As set forth above, because Respondent FCJ Stotler drafted and sent the “Stotler Letter,” a public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the pending Goldston matter, to the members of the Supreme Court of Appeals; members of the Legislative Branch, specifically the Chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary; a member of the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court; the Administrative Director for the Supreme Court of Appeals; Counsel for the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals; and the President of the Family Court Judge Association, he has violated Rule 2.10 [Judicial Statements on Pending or Impending Cases] of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set forth in the Appendix. CHARGE SIX As set forth above, because Respondent FCI Stotler made false statements to Disciplinary Counsel regarding the preparation of the “Stotler Letter” and made false statements about whether he had received or had communications with anyone outside of the JHB about the Goldston matter, he has violated Rule 2.16 [Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities} of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set forth in the appendix. seeneeeeet 13Respondent is advised that he has the right to file responsive pleadings to the charges made against hhim not more than 30 days after service of the formal charges upon him by the Clerk of the ‘Supreme Court. Rule 2.10 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure provides: ‘The judge may file responsive pleadings as provided in the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such pleadings shall be filed by the judge with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel not more ‘than thirty (30) days after the date of the formal charges. For good cause shown, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may extend the time for filing such pleadings. STATEMENT OF CHARGES issued this the 15th day of March, 2022, and filed the 25" day of ‘March, 2022. v ‘The Honorable Christopher C. Wilkes, Chairperson Special Judicial Investigation Commission 1“APPENDIX: Canon 1 A Judge Shall Uphold And Promote The Independence, Integrity, And Impartiality Of The Judiciary, And Shall Avoid Impropriety And The Appearance Of Impropriety. Rule Li Compliance With the Law A judge shall comply with the law, including the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 1.2 Confidence in the Judiciary A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety Canon 2 ‘A Judge Shall Perform The Duties Of Judicial Office Impartially, Competently, And Diligently. Rule22 Impartiality and Fairness A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. Rule2.9 Ex Parte Communications (A)A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter, except as follows: (Q) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided:(@) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and (b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond. (2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received. (3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter. (4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge. (5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly authorized by law* to do so. (B)If'a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond. (CA judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed. (D)A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control. Rule 2.10 Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases (AJA judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing (B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. (C)A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to refrain from making statements that the judge would be prohibited from making by paragraphs (A) and (B). (D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, (E) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (A), a judge may respond directly or through a third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.Rule 216 Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities (A)A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies. (B)A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE MATTER OF: JIC COMPLAINT NO. 50-2021 SUPREME COURT NO. HONORABLE GLEN R. STOTLER, FAMILY COURT JUDGE of the 23" FAMILY COURT CIRCUIT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Rachael L, Fletcher Cipoletti, Chief Counsel, in her capacity as Special Counsel for the Special Judicial Investigation Commission, do hereby certify that I served the Notice of Filing and a true and accurate copy of the Formal Statement of Charges on Respondent by placing the same in the United States mail first-class postage pre-paid and addressed to Respondent's Counsel, Charles 8. Trump, IV, Esquire, on behalf of Family Court Judge Glen R. Stotler, at Trump & Trump, L.C., 171 S. Washington Street, Berkeley Springs, W.Va. 25411; and by email to [email protected] on this the 25 day of March, 2022. Cuts Rythael L, Fletcher Cipoletti, Chief Counsel Special Judicial Investigation Commission WV Bar I.D. No. 8806 City Center Fast, Suite 1200 4700 MacCorkle Avenue Charleston, WV 25304 (304) 558-7999 ricipoletti @wvode.oryIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE MATTER OF: JIC COMPLAINT NO. 50-2021 SUPREME COURT NO. HONORABLE GLEN R. STOTLER, FAMILY COURT JUDGE of the 23"! FAMILY COURT CIRCUIT Comes now Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel pursuant to Rule 2.8 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure and on behalf of the Special Judicial Investigation Commission and provides notice to Counsel for the Honorable Glen R. Stotler, Judge of the 23" Family Court Circuit, by email and United States Mail that on the 25" day of March, 2022, she duly filed the attached Formal Statement of Charges in the above-captioned matter with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia by hand delivering the original and ten copies to the Clerk’s Office located at the Capitol Complex, Building One, Room E-317, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, Charleston, West Virginia 25305. effully submitted, Cipolett!, Chief Counsel Special Judicial Investigation Commission WV Bar LD. No. 8806 City Center East, Suite 1200 4700 MacCorkle Avenue Charleston, WV 25304 (304) 558-7999 lei poletti @wvode.org