Julie Gordon has filed an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court in hopes of overturning the ruling by the Judicial Conduct Commission to remove her as Daviess County Family Court Judge. In the 27-page brief, Gordon “categorically denies” the JCC proved the various allegations of misconduct — most of which related to criminal cases involving her son — adding that they “cobbled together a compilation of frivolous, baseless, inflammatory, and at times even dangerous claims” to issue their ruling.
The brief was submitted by Gordon’s counsel, R. Kent Westberry. A copy of the brief was obtained by Owensboro Times Tuesday evening.
On April 22, following a 3-day hearing earlier that month, the JCC issued their ruling in this 25-page document, and a synopsis of the counts and violations can be found here. The Commission said their decision was “based on the totality of the circumstances and evidence presented at the Hearing and the broad range of repeated and systemic misconduct by (Gordon) over a substantial period of time.”
That JCC filing noted that Gordon “used her influence, contacts and position of authority to direct, control, or impact the outcome” of Dalton’s criminal charges.
In the brief filed Tuesday, Gordon disputes that the evidence was enough to merit her removal.
The brief reads, “Judge Julia Hawes Gordon categorically denies that the Commission has satisfied its burden of proving these violations, the most serious of which included her status as a victim of criminal conduct inflicted by her mentally ill and substance-addicted son. The JCC’s findings and conclusions failed to establish charges against Judge Gordon by the clear and convincing evidence, as required by the Rules.”
Gordon has consistently claimed she was acting within her rights as a victim in her son Dalton’s criminal cases. She also said the JCC failed “to present adequate proof on multiple counts,” Gordon said the remaining charges “can largely be attributed to her lack of adequate training and guidance — actions which do not reach the level of extreme and egregious behavior associated with removal.”
Conversations with Claud Porter and Nick Burlew
According to the JCC, Gordon tried to influence former District Judge Nick Burlew and County Attorney Claud Porter regarding Dalton’s proceedings. Numerous exhibits were included during the JCC hearing in April.
Among them were dozens of text conversations between Gordon and Porter, with Gordon asking Porter to take a wide range of actions, from speeding up court procedures to making connections with individuals involved.
In the brief, Westberry claims Gordon was not trying to influence Porter but was “exercising her lawful rights as victim” to consult with him. Porter testified that he interacted with Gordon as a parent rather than a judge when making his decisions.
Other evidence presented during the JCC hearing included a video clip from March 6, 2020, of Dalton appearing before Burlew, who tells Dalton that he talked to Gordon for 45 minutes earlier in the day about her son’s criminal case.
In the brief, Westberry wrote that Burlew’s remarks were an out-of-court statement and “classic hearsay.” Gordon also denied that such a meeting ever happened. In the brief, Westberry questions why the JCC did not take live testimony from Burlew.
“On the one hand, the JCC attaches such significance to Judge Burlew’s off-hand comment in a hearing tape that it hangs the harsh sanction of removal upon it. On the other hand, counsel for the JCC did not think Judge Burlew’s testimony was important enough to require him to actually show up and testify,” Westberry wrote.
Destruction of evidence claims
In their ruling, the JCC also said Gordon “took actions to destroy evidence and obstruct justice. She has attempted to alter, conceal, or tamper with Dalton’s social media accounts and cellular telephone content to protect him from criminal liability.”
The JCC pointed to recorded phone conversations Gordon had with Dalton while he was held at the Daviess County Detention Center. The calls took place in October 2017 and January 2018, and during portions of the call Gordon said she cleaned up/deleted Dalton’s social media accounts.
The JCC also pointed to a text conversation between Gordon and Clay Wilkey. In a vague message, Gordon mentions an investigation by Kentucky State Police in Dalton’s case and she writes that “All I know is he isn’t part of any human trafficking, and he hasn’t abused any children.”
The JCC made note of that text message in a footnote of their findings, writing, “It is also disturbing that Mr. Wilkey advised Judge Gordon to delete her texts about their conversations of a Kentucky State Police investigation involving Dalton’s phone and issues of sex trafficking and child abuse.”
Gordon’s brief included an entire section dedicated to “highly irrelevant and inflammatory comments” made by the JCC, and said that footnote was the “most egregious.”
“Aside from being extremely inappropriate and unnecessary, this statement completely distorts the true content of the text message thread. The JCC appears to have intentionally chosen to take an offhand, flippant comment and twist into something dangerously inflammatory. In doing so, the JCC recklessly placed Judge Gordon’s family’s safety at great risk by making grave misrepresentations that could quite easily incite violence. (One can only hope it was a reckless error, and not one made with intent to inflict harm.) The fallout of the JCC’s comment has been horribly embarrassing and, quite frankly, disturbing,” Westberry wrote.
In the brief, Westberry wrote that Gordon claims she deleted the accounts to keep Dalton from trying to buy drugs through social media contacts, and to remove content that was inappropriate for her younger children to see “as the phones Dalton had in his possession were taken (usually without permission) from his younger siblings.”
According to the brief, Gordon said that law enforcement had possession of the phone and returned it prior to her “erasing any adult content.” She said by law enforcement returning the phone they deemed it of no “evidentiary value” so there was no evidence to destroy, further adding that there was no testimony or evidence from KSP that she tampered with evidence or obstructed an investigation.
Communications with Clay Wilkey and Art Maglinger; GAL appointments; sanctions on workers
The JCC cited Gordon’s interactions with Wilkey (Dalton’s attorney) as ethical violations because he regularly practiced law in her courtroom. Gordon claims it was Wilkey’s responsibility to avoid a conflict of interest, not hers.
Gordon admitted there could be a conflict of interest with both Wilkey and with Andy Johnson‚ a partner at Gordon’s husband’s law firm. She said she sought guidance from the Judicial Ethics Committee and was told they could proceed, but she said she should have done more to avoid potential conflicts.
To that end, the JCC said that overall, Gordon improperly handled Guardian Ad Litem appointments. In the brief, Westberry wrote that Gordon claims prior to 2020 judges were given “absolute discretion” as to the GAL appointments. She also said the data presented to the JCC was not an accurate representation of her appointments.
The JCC also noted that Gordon imposed monetary sanctions on cabinet workers in one instance in 2017. The brief said it was a one-time instance and “was a mistake made early on in her career.”
Additionally, the JCC wrote in their ruling that Gordon used her influence as Family Court Judge to obtain favorable treatment from Daviess County Jailer Art Maglinger.
The JCC said Gordon “used her position to influence to arrange semi-private meetings in the jailer’s office with Dalton while he was incarcerated during non-visiting hours at the detention center. The Detention Center explicitly prohibits bringing in food and drink on visits with inmates, yet Judge Gordon frequently brought Dalton meals, drinks, magazines, and books on her accommodated visits. She routinely used her position to allow Dalton to enjoy privileges that other inmates were not permitted to receive.”
Gordon claims she used these visits to ensure her son’s safety, “as there were security risks associated with incarceration with people who had been punished” by Gordon as judge.
What’s next
It’s unclear how long the appeals process will take.
Though Gordon was removed from office, she is allowed by state law to continue to seek election. She lost in the Primary Election as she sought to regain her seat, but she has announced plans to run for the newly created second Daviess Family Court position.
Jennifer Hendricks and Thomas Vallandingham beat Gordon in the primary for the initial Family Court position and are currently set to square off in the General Election this fall. There were 14,900 votes cast in the primary, and Hendricks claimed 7,270 (49%). Vallandingham drew 4,393 votes, while Gordon finished with 3,237.
Anyone who files for the second position will appear on the November ballot, with the person receiving the most votes winning office. At the time of publication, only Andy Johnson had officially filed to run for the second position.
Gordon made her announcement via Facebook on Saturday, when she said her response to questions on whether she planned to file for the second judgeship was a “resounding yes.” Gordon declined to comment on her plans to run for the position prior to filing her appeal.
