Hunt resigns
Gasparich-Padilla still faces probe by Judicial Standards Commission

By Zsombor Peter
Staff Writer

SANTA FE — Two local judges accused of abusing their official powers greeted Tuesday morning in rather similar situations, but bid the day farewell in quite opposite predicaments.

One, Magistrate Judge Rhoda Hunt, saved herself from investigation by the state's Judicial Standards Commission but sacrificed her job. The other, Municipal Court Judge Linda Gasparich-Padilla, saved her job for now but still faces investigation by the commission.

Both judges were scheduled for hearings in Santa Fe Tuesday afternoon before the New Mexico Supreme Court, which was charged with deciding whether to grant the commission's request to have them immediately suspended pending the outcome of the investigations.

Only Gasparich-Padilla showed up. Hunt saved herself the trouble by submitting a brief resignation letter earlier in the day.

"It is with great sadness and regret that I submit my resignation as magistrate judge for McKinley County, effective today," reads her letter to Chief Justice Richard Bosson. "It has been an honor and a privilege to serve the citizens of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation and I am committed to continuing that service in other ways now that I have left the bench." In her agreement with the Judicial Standards Commission, pending the Supreme Court's approval, Hunt promises never again to seek, become a candidate for, accept appointment to, or hold even pro tem. any judicial office. In return, the commission agrees to dismiss its case against her "without prejudice."

The agreement should also make moot efforts by the McKinley County District Attorney's Office to keep Hunt from presiding over any future cases it might try in District Court.

FBI not talking
What it means for Hunt's standing with the FBI which, according to court documents, has been conducting its own investigation is less clear. The FBI will neither confirm nor deny that an investigation even exists. Reports of the FBI investigation have only reached the public second hand through the District Attorney's Office and the Judicial Standards Commission, both of which have based their cases on it.

According to documents filed by the District Attorney's Office in McKinley County District Court, Hunt allegedly accepted amenities, from interest-free loans to credit card payments, in exchange for favorable rulings. The documents also accuse Hunt of having received free legal services from two local public defenders, Bobbie Franklin and Steve Seeger. Seeger, who regularly tries cases before Hunt, allegedly sold the magistrate judge a vehicle during her tenure.

The FBI also forwarded allegations that Hunt engaged in a fraudulent marriage with a Palestinian national to the Bernalillo County District Attorney's for review. Hunt allegedly married and then quickly annulled her marriage to the prominent Palestinian for a sum of at least $2,000, according to court records. However, no charges have been filed against Hunt in the matter.

Gasparich-Padilla, it seems, caught the FBI's attention while the bureau was investigating Hunt.

During the investigation, Gasparich-Padilla, in a Sept. 10, 2004, interview with agents, reportedly admitted to throwing away a stack of traffic citations that Hunt wanted dismissed. Hunt allegedly shoved the citations underneath Gasparich-Padilla's door with her business card attached. The Judicial Standards Commission's petition requesting Gasparich-Padilla's "immediate temporary suspension" without pay also accuses the municipal judge of providing "preferential treatment for a specified group of individuals and their families in Gallup."

Credibility cloudy
The commission hasn't yet formally charged Gasparich-Padilla of having violated the state's Code of Judicial Conduct, James Noel, the commission's executive director and general counsel, told the Supreme Court Wednesday afternoon. But the "cloud" the allegations have created, he argued, have already threatened to "undermine" the court's credibility with the public, and justified her suspension.

The commission should have to do better than that, insisted Luis Stelzner, Gasparich-Padilla's attorney, who attacked the FBI report's veracity. For one thing, Stelzner said, the agents supposedly relied on written notes from the interview to write their report, creating "inherent" room for error, and it wasn't certain that the agents even took notes. He also accused the report of "gross overstatements" and "racial stereotyping" in reference to the group of Arab Americans Gasparich-Padilla allegedly did favors for.

"The critical facts are clearly disputed," Stelzner insisted.

And if in dispute, he said, the Supreme Court could not rely on them to suspend his client.

While the commission's request was not technically punitive, Stelzner added, by proposing to take away Gasparich-Padilla's livelihood and possibly ruining her reputation, "it has a punitive effect."

Noel, in turn, presented the Supreme Court with nine previous cases involving disputed facts in which a request for immediate temporary suspension was at least considered. And even if there was some dispute, he said, there was no question that Gasparich-Padilla violated the Judicial Standards Code by not reporting Hunt.

Sigh of relief
After a few minutes of private deliberation, the five justices unanimously decided that wasn't enough to suspend the judge. With a sigh of relief, Gasparich-Padilla embraced her attorney after hearing the verdict. She walked out of the courtroom without acknowledging a request for comment.

Noel said the court's decision would have no bearing on the commission's investigation of Gasparich-Padilla. If, following its own hearing, the commission decided there was enough evidence to proceed, he said, it would file a notice of formal proceedings with the court, outlining its case and recommending punitive action.

If that happened, Gasparich-Padilla could find herself before the Supreme Court once again. Until then, she remains free to fulfill the duties of her office.