fbpx

Whitefish Judge Wants Hearing Over Ethics Allegations

By Beacon Staff

A Whitefish Municipal judge is asking the Montana Judicial Standards Commission for a full hearing concerning an ethics complaint filed against him by a Columbia Falls woman stemming from a traffic dustup in a parking lot last summer.

Bradley Johnson in the recent request says his reputation as a sitting judge is at stake and is asking for a prompt hearing, and has waived his right to confidentiality to allow media coverage.

“It is important to the public that the credibility of the judiciary be maintained, to include the disciplinary proceedings and actions taken by the Montana Judicial Standards Commission,” Johnson wrote in a Nov. 9 letter to Shauna Ryan, executive secretary of the state Judicial Standards Commission.

Johnson was responding to an Oct. 10 letter he received from Ryan that informed him a complaint had been filed against him, the Daily Inter Lake reported.

“I generally deny any misconduct, and specifically deny any violation of relevant judicial canons of ethics,” Johnson wrote.

Cynthia Howell confronted Johnson on July 9 at the Columbia Falls Post Office. She said she told the judge to slow down on city streets. Johnson denies he was speeding.

Johnson and Howell have conflicting stories about what happened in the parking lot, with Howell contending Johnson reached into her vehicle, which Johnson denies.

Johnson reported the encounter to police and Howell was cited for disorderly conduct, but the charge was later dismissed by Columbia Falls City Court.

“It is essentially a ‘he said, she said’ situation,” Howell said. “I do not lie nor have I ever lied.”

In her complaint, Howell cited violations of rules that deal with promoting confidence in the judiciary; impartiality and fairness; bias, prejudice and harassment; avoiding abuse of the prestige of judicial office; and extrajudicial activities in general.

Wrote Johnson in his letter: “I contend that any factual representations offered by the aggrieved person are subject to dispute and in need of independent verification.”