Doña Ana County Magistrate Judge Carlos Garza says he has been acting “erratic” and “paranoid” lately not because he is using drugs but because “people are out to get me without reason.”
Garza called me Saturday to respond at length to a host of allegations that threaten his future as a judge. He spoke quickly, saying his telephone battery might die, and did not allow questions.
The Judicial Standards Commission has asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to immediately suspend Garza without pay, force him to undergo urine and hair tests for illegal drugs, and explain why he should not be held in contempt for refusing the commission’s previous demand for the tests, which were sought because of allegations that Garza is using drugs. The court has not yet responded.
Garza is already on suspension with pay until Nov. 3 while the commission conducts five separate investigations into other serious allegations. He is also on judicial probation after admitting earlier this year that he improperly involved himself in a drunken driving case against a woman with whom he had a personal relationship.
In the interview, Garza again denied using drugs, and said some are out to get him because he stands up to unfair practices at the magistrate court – practices that have been put in place by former Magistrate Judge Caleb Chandler, who is tasked with helping clean up the mess at the court.
“This is a plan they have to get rid of me, and I think it’s wrong,” Garza said. “…The reason I’m in conflict is I’m not willing to act like a sheep.”
Garza said he was speaking with me because he has no other method of conveying his defense to the high court’s justices.
The Magistrate Advisory Committee of the Administrative Office of the Courts met with Garza in February because of allegations of drug use.
Garza said that’s true.
“Judge Chandler is behind this,” he said. “…I have every reason to be hostile to him. He has turned our court into a circus.”
Two clerks at the court have signed affidavits accusing Garza of misconduct. They claim his behavior has become increasingly erratic and paranoid in recent months, and that, while at work, he had white powder on his nostrils on two occasions.
Garza said he has had problems with some clerks in the court because they have “no respect, and it’s perpetuated by Judge Chandler.”
“The Judicial Code of Conduct prohibits judges from criticizing other judges,”
Garza also responded to the affidavits of both clerks, Nicole Gonzales and Melinda Gamboa. Several clerks have filed complaints against Garza in recent months, and both women accused Garza of saying he was going to retaliate against those court employees.
“Melinda Gamboa and I have had discussions, arguments, and when I say I’m going to turn in other people, it’s not retaliation, it’s discretion and it’s my right,” Garza said.
He said he has no problem with others holding him to a high standard, but he will do the same for them, calling that “fair play.”
Gamboa also complained that Garza had his two children with him on the bench while he was ruling on cases on July 6. Garza said he gets “harassed every time I miss a day” of work, even when his children are sick, but he did not directly address whether that allegation is true.
Garza said Gonzales owes him $500 “and she has avoided repaying it and I need my money.” Garza said he plans to sue Gonzales for the money.
He said the white powder both women reported seeing on his nostrils “looked like powdered sugar from a donut. … If they had asked me to take a drug test that day, I would have.”
This isn’t the first time Garza has made such a pledge. The Magistrate Advisory Committee reported in its letter that its members asked Garza to take a drug test. The committee claims Garza said he would do so “anytime, anywhere,” but when asked to do it that afternoon, Garza said he would not do so without first speaking to his attorney or sister, who he claimed he could not reach.
Garza said his statements show that Gonzales and Gamboa lack credibility.
“They’re very biased witnesses,” Garza said. “They don’t represent the entire court.”
In addition to attacking
Jose Arrieta, who had been representing Garza in the matters before the commission, recently withdrew as counsel. Garza said he decided to trust Noel to help him resolve the situation without legal representation. Noel, he said, has instead sought his suspension without pay.
“I have relied, to my detriment, on Jim Noel’s good faith,” Garza said. “… He wants to cut off my legs so I can’t defend myself.”
Garza said he arrived Thursday in
Garza said Noel told him, “You sign it now or forget it. … He said if I wasn’t there to sign it, we had nothing else to talk about.”
Garza also said an affidavit signed by Shariesse McCannon, a legal assistant at the commission’s offices, contains “misleading statements” and “selective information.” McCannon’s affidavit supports statements in Noel’s filing with the high court about conversations with Garza concerning the order to take drug tests.
Garza said he requested an extension to the commission’s Aug. 17 order that he take the drug tests within 24 hours, and also “questioned their jurisdiction.” The commission rule allowing such orders says judges must comply only if the order is “reasonable,” Garza said. He said the commission has not responded to his request.
But the commission rule related to medical examinations doesn’t use the word “reasonable.” It states that the commission can order any exam it “deems necessary.”
Garza said he won’t speak with the commission again until he has a new attorney, but later said even if his pay is taken away, he will defend himself without an attorney.
Noel made one statement in response to Garza’s comments.
“My office and I have treated him with the utmost respect and the utmost dignity, and we will continue to do so,” Noel said. “I can’t get into any discussions about stipulated resolutions in this matter, because it’s wholly inappropriate to do so.”
In speaking publicly about the proposed agreement and other proceedings before the commission, Garza may be violating rules of the commission and, possibly, the clause in the New Mexico Constitution that states that all proceedings before the commission “are confidential.” But Garza said he has to speak out.
“I’m very upset,” Garza said. “… I’m not going to be harassed, and I’ve been harassed far too long. This is very embarrassing, that they did this to me, and it’s very misleading.”
Garza also reiterated what he has said previously about the incident involving the drunken driving case against a woman with whom he had a personal relationship. He said he admitted to misconduct in that case “out of financial need.”
“I am rather confident that I did nothing wrong,” he said.
As to the five other investigations that led to Garza’s suspension with pay, Garza said he has filed with the high court “a solid defense on all those items, as solid as a rock.” That case, including Garza’s response, has been sealed by the high court.
Garza said he plans to file ethical complaints against
“I will file every complaint possible,” he said.
Garza also said he is a good judge and has heard “2-3 times (the number of cases heard by) the other judges.”
“Now if I’m an incompetent judge, how could I have cleared that many cases?” Garza asked.