WPC,**w.ܶ. WP_TV07995950WP6)sportsbled)ssIWPTVWPC2 ______________________..ܶPAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE$..' '$ܶ  R{WP}10{WP}01Times8{WP}21{WP}12Yl$    M{WP}11   PWP 6.0 captionM{WP}16 # FHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh\UN Q(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular % X6 0( ($HU: ,rAZ"Arial RegularNw@  <D=>?@DADBDCUDӀN"4 GH$+,,--../ [3|xN j r XXXX\ XX   Ad FILEDXX \  August25,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM R 0D Y(3$ !  HU: ,  AZ"Arial Regular 0 (8G2$ !  X `   0  9XXR 0D ~(#$  0  HU: ,cAZ"Arial Regular+ B  dw m  $X `   2  9XX  ݀  9ԀLauderdaleCountywasoneinwhichaGeneralSessionsCourtJudgewasnotrequiredtobea  licensedattorney.Tenn.CodeAnn.16155005(1994).#9  #by- -A D3'dxdR 0Dr(3$ !     $X `   4  9XX   9ԀAfewoftheprovisionsintheCodearenotapplicabletoparttimejudges,noneofwhichareat  issueinthiscase.SeeRule10,ApplicationoftheCodeofJudicialConduct,Subsection(C).#9 ~#] AO\-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5R 0Dq($$   1  = D/' dxd+ BP Pd  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   inion Geneva  inion Geneva 4Q3.5.1'3.5.1, 1996 Corel Corporation Limited,Q3.5.1Created with WordPerfect 3.5.1.(#Z .Corel WordPerfectxHH(FG(HH(d'h**wYEF>PSetBPJobNStylZwp60versWDatSTR  PtPtYBYB (Hs ~v3  Oy F+ 2 - EYB| bYBh YBl YBp YBd `YBt YB` YB YBL YB YBP bYA YB gYB YB  YB(" 8YB,' YB0* YB4-  YB8/ vYB@ .YBH YA gYA YA YB YA 6YAfYB\ YAX{WP}10{WP}21{WP}12{WP}11WP 6.0 caption{WP}16{WP}01"Hl@' '" {WP}10 <<KK ..,,..,, Times۶HHlHзlHl$зHHlHз(d(  Helvetica(d(ٷA 7&XXdd7A   Times Э6 +0   Times         W ljl@'$' {WP}10 <<KK  Times  Helvetica $Y@Y@Y@FILED$ 0$' '0F$2August 25, 19982@F@N Cecil W. Crowson$N\' '$Appellate Court ClerkY@Y@Y@W       0' '0 pIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEEܶ*ܶAT NASHVILLE*8ܶ   8FܶFTܶ   Tbܶbpܶ  p~ܶ$  ~' '$ܶ$$$$$$$FOR PUBLICATION0  ' '0ܶ÷0  ' '0ܶ    Filed: August 25, 19980  ' '0ܶܶܶܶ$$ܶ$' '$ܶ÷IN RE: 0 ' '0ܶ÷HONORABLE BILLY WAYNE WILLIAMS)    No. 01S019805CJ000960   ' '0ܶ÷JUDGE, GENERAL SESSIONS COURT    !)   0&' '0ܶ÷LAUDERDALE COUNTY, TENNESSEE     )     (Court of    the Judiciary)   0&4&&' '0ܶ4BܶBPܶP^ܶ^lܶ lzܶ$$$$$$zܶ$$$$$$ܶܶ$$$$$ܶ  ܶ!!ܶ$$$$$$ $""' '$ܶ÷÷For the Respondent:$$For the Court of Judiciary:0##' '0ܶ÷÷0$$' '0ܶ÷J. Thomas Caldwell Jerry Scott 0%%' '0ܶRipley, Tennessee $$ Disciplinary Counsel$&&' '$ܶ$$$$ Murfreesboro, Tennessee0''"' '0ܶ÷0(("0""' '0ܶ))0>ܶ**>LܶJ++LZ LL++Z lJܶjxܶjxܶ$$ xܶ $''$ܶ   ͷ     ͷO P I N I O N 0*' '0ܶܶܶܶܶ  ܶ  ܶ  ܶ  ܶ  $ܶ$2ܶ2@ܶCOURT OF JUDICIARY AFFIRMED$$$$ANDERSON, C.J.V@N @N l' 'Vܶ  з ͪ    ͫ  '٬A 7 X XXdXXd7A "   Arial Regular"   ͭ  $This cause is before the Court upon Judge Billy Wayne Williams appeal from^' 'the Court of the Judiciarys judgment recommending that he be removed from theoffice of General Sessions Court Judge of Lauderdale County. ^ܶܶ$The Court of the Judiciary was created by the Legislature to investigate anddetermine charges of judicial misconduct. The legislation provides a process by whichsanctions may be imposed and a process for implementation of Article VI of theTennessee Constitution by providing a procedure for the removal of Judges fromoffice. Tenn. Code Ann.  175301(b)(1)(1994).  Qܶ$ Ql' '$ܶ$After considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, and conducting a del' 'novo review of the record, we conclude that the charges of judicial offenses committed)' 'by Judge Williams were established by clear and convincing evidence.  lܶܶ$We therefore affirm the action of the Court of the Judiciary suspending JudgeWilliams and recommending his removal from office. In light of this conclusion, therelevant statutes require that the question of Judge Williams removal from office betransmitted to the General Assembly for its review pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 175  311 (Supp. 1997). The Clerk of this Court shall send written notice to the speaker ofthe senate and the speaker of the house of representatives of the action of this Courtand shall certify the entire record on appeal, briefs, and a copy of this opinion to thespeaker of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives in accordance6 7 l6with the procedures and time limits set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. 175311(b)(Supp.' '1997). {WP}11  1    && "Hl@' '" {WP}10 <<KK  Times v3{WP}12HHl$$  1      HelveticaUnder the Tennessee Constitution, a judge may be removed from office by a concurrent vote'  'of both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly. Tenn. Const. art. VI, 6; see also In re Murphy, 726'  'S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tenn. 1987). Times$ &$֭0 ' '0ܶܶ0ܶ$0K' '$ܶBACKGROUND0KfK' '0ܶ    ͷ$After an investigation by a three judge investigative panel of the Court of thef' 'Judiciary, Billy Wayne Williams, General Sessions Court Judge for LauderdaleCounty, Tennessee, was formally charged with committing judicial offenses in violationof the Code of Judicial Conduct and Tenn. Code Ann. 175302 (1994). The formalcharges included three counts: count one charged that Judge Williams used aninmate from the Lauderdale County Jail to work on a house being built for JudgeWilliams son; count two charged that Judge Williams tried a felony offense when heknew or should have known that General Sessions Court did not have jurisdiction overfelony offenses; and count three charged that Judge Williams falsely answeredinterrogatories and falsely testified in a federal court proceeding.  ftܶtܶ$A trial was held before the Court of the Judiciary, composed of nine judges. ' 'According to the evidence,   Times    Helvetica Judge Williams was elected in 1990 to the parttimeN 8 l' 'Nposition of General Sessions Court Judge in Lauderdale County, Tennessee. JudgeWilliams, a retired highway patrolman, had never attended law school and was not a' 'licensed attorney.   ٬ {WP}11  2   ,  "Hl@' '" {WP}10 <<KK  Times v3{WP}12HHl$$  2      Helvetica Lauderdale County was one in which a General Sessions Court Judge was not required to be a'  'licensed attorney. Tenn. Code Ann. 16155005 (1994).  Times$$,֭    What little legal training he possessed as a General Sessions 6' 'Court Judge stemmed from attending seminars sponsored by the Tennessee GeneralSessions Judges Conference and the Administrative Office of the Courts.`ܶ`{ܶ$Count one charged Judge Williams with removing inmate Ira Welch from theLauderdale County Jail to work on a house being constructed for Williams son. JudgeWilliams conceded that he twice took Welch from the jail to his sons house. Hetestified that on the first occasion, Welch assisted in wiring the house by pushingelectrical wires through an access hole under the house, but on the second occasionWelch performed no work. Judge Williams testified that he bought lunch andcigarettes for Welch in compensation, and that he gave Welch a jacket that was notreturned. Welch, however, testified that he worked for Judge Williams at the house forthree or four days, and that his only compensation was two packs of cigarettes.  { nܶ n ܶ$Judge Williams asserted that he was unaware that the practice of using prisonlabor for personal work was illegal. Knowing and willful use of inmate labor by aprivate citizen, if not part of an approved work release program, is a class A' 'misdemeanor. Tenn. Code Ann. 412148(d)(2)(1997).   Times    Helvetica He believed that he hadN  , l' 'Ncommitted no impropriety because other county officials had also used prison labor asan  informal work release program. Although several other witnesses testified thatprivate individuals in Lauderdale County had a long standing practice of using inmatelabor for personal work, it was undisputed that Lauderdale County did not have aformal, approved work release program.  ܶ ܶ$Count two charged Judge Williams with improperly trying Kevin Maben inGeneral Sessions Court for the felony of hindering a secured creditor, when he knewor should have known that a General Sessions Court Judge has no jurisdiction torender a judgment in a felony case. The Maben case concerned an automobilepurchased by Kevin Maben from Bud Fitzhugh. When Maben failed to pay for the car,Fitzhugh sought and obtained a money judgment against Maben in Judge WilliamsGeneral Sessions Court in the amount of $1,100.41, plus court costs. There was noorder of possession for the automobile. In August of 1993, Fitzhugh, who had beenunable to collect on the judgment, filed a criminal warrant charging Maben withhindering secured creditors in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. 3913116, a class Efelony.   ܶ ܶ$On August 27, 1993, Maben was tried before Judge Williams and convicted ofthe felony offense. He was sentenced to serve eleven months and twentynine days inthe Lauderdale County Jail, suspended, with restitution of $1,219.00 to be paid in sixty(60) days. Over the next two years, a capias was issued for Mabens arrest on at least6 <7 l6four occasions for failing to pay restitution, and Maben served approximately sixty  seven (67) days in jail. His conviction was ultimately expunged based on the GeneralSessions Courts lack of jurisdiction to convict him of a felony. ܶ ܶ$Judge Williams admitted at trial that as General Sessions Court Judge helacked the jurisdiction to try and convict Maben of a felony offense. He asserted that   he did    not know the offense of hindering a secured creditor was a felony because herelied in good faith on the District Attorney to separate felony charges frommisdemeanors. The evidence further revealed, however, that Judge Williams hadfailed to advise Maben of his right to counsel, to indictment by grand jury, to a jury trial,and to subpoena and crossexamine witnesses. There was also evidenceestablishing that Judge Williams had tried at least five other individuals on the felonycharge of hindering a secured creditor. ܶ ܶ$Count three charged Judge Williams with falsely answering interrogatories andfalsely testifying in a civil rights action brought against him by Kevin Maben in UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. After a summary judgmentwas entered in favor of Maben on liability, discovery was taken relative to assets. OnJuly 28, 1997, Judge Williams answered an interrogatory under oath by stating that hehad $110,097.17 in an account with Capital Market Groups, Inc., at National Bank ofCommerce (NBC). On August 1, 1997, Judge Williams testified under oath that he hadnot transferred the NBC funds out of his name; he also specifically testified that he had6 7 l6$110,097 in his NBC account. After a jury returned a verdict on August 5, 1997, forMaben in the sum of $75,000 compensatory damages and $300,000 punitivedamages, an injunction was issued that day to prohibit transfer of the NBC account. Itwas then learned that Judge Williams had liquidated the NBC account on July 23,1997.   PܶPkܶ$The District Court held a hearing on charges of contempt and testifying falsely. Judge Williams asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege to all questions regarding theNBC account. An employee of NBC, however, testified that Judge Williamstelephoned her on July 18, 1997, and ordered her to liquidate the account. A checkwas issued to Williams on July 23, 1997, and the check was cashed. The DistrictCourt ruled that the evidence was  overwhelming that Judge Williams had knowinglymade material false statements during the proceedings with regard to the NBCaccount. It ordered that the funds be paid into the registry of court and that the matterbe referred to the United States Attorney for a possible prosecution for perjury. k^ܶ^yܶ$Judge Williams testified before the Court of the Judiciary that the answers to theinterrogatories had been prepared by his attorney based on records that were severalweeks old, and that he did not read the responses before signing them. He alsotestified that he had merely transferred the NBC funds to an account jointly owned byhe and his wife. The NBC employee also testified before the Court of the Judiciary6 6 l6and again related the details with regard to receiving instructions from Judge Williamsto liquidate the account in July of 1997. yFܶ$Fa' '$ܶ"COURT OF THE JUDICIARYS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS0a|aQ' '0ܶ$After the trial, the Court of the Judiciary found that all of the charges againstJudge Williams had been established by clear and convincing evidence. As to countone, the court observed that using an inmate for personal benefit is a misdemeanorcriminal offense under Tennessee criminal law, and held that the conduct violated' 'Canons 1A and 2A of the Code of the Judiciary. {WP}11  3    && "Hl@' '" {WP}10 <<KK  Times v3{WP}12HHl$$  3      Helvetica The Court of the Judiciarys opinion notes that a prior version of the Code of Judicial Conduct is'  'applicable to counts one and two against Judge Williams, while the present version of the Code applies to'  'count three.  Times$&$֭ Canon 1A states in part that  a judge' 'should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards ofconduct and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity andindependence of the judiciary will be preserved. Canon 2A states that  a judge shallrespect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotespublic confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. |ܶܶ$With regard to count two, the Court of the Judiciary found that Judge Williamsrepeated violations in trying felony offenses without jurisdiction, and failing to advisethose before the court of their most basic constitutional rights, went beyond mere legal6  80 l6error and established a failure to maintain professional competence as required byCanon 3B(2):$@' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0@N@6' '0ܶ$$The evidence clearly established that Judge Williamsexhibited a persistent pattern of making legal errors. Uncontroverted evidence established that on at least sixoccasions he tried felony cases that he lacked jurisdiction totry. Moreover, during his testimony before this Court, JudgeWilliams revealed an appalling lack of knowledge of thelegal rights of the defendants who appear in his court and apervasive pattern of ignoring those rights. . . .This Courtfinds that Judge Williams clearly exhibited a persistentpattern of making legal errors, and that those errors wereserious and involved the basic constitutional and statutoryrights of those who appeared before him.# N#ܶܶ$' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷThe court also held that the conduct violated Canon 2A, i.e., that a judge shall respect' 'and comply with the law.HܶHcܶ$Finally, as to count three, the Court of the Judiciary found that Judge Williamsfalse interrogatories and testimony violated several ethical provisions: Canon 1A, thata judge  personally observe high standards of conduct. . .so that the integrity andindependence of the judiciary will be preserved; Canon 2A, that a judge  shall respectand comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes publicconfidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; and Canon 4(A)2, that ajudge conduct his or her extrajudicial activities so as not to  demean the judicialoffice.c;ܶJ ;V ;1 V lJܶ$In light of these findings of fact and conclusion of law, the Court of the Judiciaryheld:$f' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$Given the seriousness of the judicial offenses committed by6' 'Judge Williams, the Court hereby recommends removal ofJudge Williams from office. This Court notes that itsrecommendation for removal from office is subject to appealto the Tennessee Supreme Court and action by theTennessee General Assembly. Tenn. Code Ann. 175  310, 311. Pending such appeal and any applicable actionby the General Assembly, this Court hereby suspendsJudge Williams from office effective upon the entry of thisOpinion and Order until the Tennessee Supreme Courtand, if applicable, General Assembly have acted on thisCourts recommendation or until Judge Williams term ofoffice shall expire. . . ./ R' '/ܶ  Times ͷ   Helvetica    Times    Helvetica  ͷ0R`R' '0ܶ$`n' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$Judge Williams elected to appeal to this Court. In addition to challenging then' 'sufficiency of the evidence in several respects, he argues that as a nonlawyer, he wasunaware of many of the relevant legal and ethical provisions and should be held to alower standard than judges who are licensed attorneys. We review his contentionsbelow.nܶ$' '$ܶ  Times ͷ   Helvetica    Times    Helvetica  ͷǀANALYSIS0+' '0ܶDe Novo Review0+F+' '0ܶ$At the conclusion of a full hearing, the Court of the Judiciary is required to makefindings of fact and conclusions of law, and is authorized to take the following action:$ F|' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0 ||' '0ܶ$$(1)Suspension without impairment of compensation for # #ܶ$$$such period as the court determines;J  2  lJܶܶ$$(2)Imposition of limitations and conditions on the##ܶ$$$performance of judicial duties, including the issuance of a ceaseܶ$$$and desist order; ܶܶ$H(3)Private admonition by the investigative panel of thecourt##ܶ$$ !with the consent of the judge. . . .;&ܶ &4ܶ$H(4)Enter into a deferred discipline agreement; and #  4B#ܶ  BPܶ$H(5)Enter judgment recommending removal of the judgefrom#  Pl#ܶ$$$office. lzܶ zܶܶTenn. Code Ann. 175301(f)(1)(5)(Supp. 1997).ܶ$' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0' '0ܶ$Our review of the Court of the Judiciarys findings and conclusions is de novo.' 'Tenn. Code Ann. 175310(b)(1)(1994).  Times    Helvetica Although no presumption of correctness is2' 'afforded to the findings or conclusions, we observe that the ninemember court belowwas in a better position to determine credibility issues and resolve conflicts in theevidence because it had the benefit of hearing the testimony and observing the' 'demeanor of the witnesses firsthand. Nonetheless, our de novo review of theT' 'transcript and the record indicates that the evidence was not only clear andconvincing, but overwhelming in establishing the three counts against Judge    Williams.   ܶܶ$With regard to count one, Judge Williams admitted that he used an inmate from' 'the Lauderdale County Jail to help build a house for Williams son. He testified:b% %  l' 'bܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0' '0ܶ$$[T]hat morning I came to town and rode around the Squarelooking for somebody to help me to put some wire, I had torun some wire from the panel into the kitchen area. Someone had to go under the house and push the wireback up through the floor. And I couldnt find anyone so Iwent by the jail and I asked the dispatcher, I said do youknow anybody that can got there and help me push somewire up the floor. And [inmate] Ira Welch was sitting there ina chair and another subject with him and both of themjumped up .... And the dispatcher told Ira that he could go.. . .# #ܶ ܶ$$He rode out there with me and I had to push the wire downthrough the floor from the panel. . . .So I pushed the wiresdown through there and he crawled over to the kitchen areaand stuck them back up.##ܶ$' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0' '0ܶ$Ira Welch testified that he did not volunteer; that he was removed from jail andaccompanied Judge Williams to work on Williams sons house on several occasions. While there was some conflicting evidence regarding the number of times Welchworked, the extent of work, and the payment, or lack thereof, the clear and convincingevidence indeed, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrated that Judge Williamsengaged in these acts. Judge Williams defense was that he was unaware that suchconduct constituted a crime and that other private individuals in Lauderdale Countyhad committed the same acts, notwithstanding the lack of an approved work releaseprogram. Neither assertion serves as a defense.$ ' '$ܶb+    + l' 'bܶ$  Times  Helvetica As the Court of the Judiciary discussed, the use of a prison inmate for a privatepurpose is a criminal offense:$;q' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0qq6' '0ܶ$$Any private citizen, corporation, partnership or otherbusiness knowingly or willfully using inmate labor inviolation of subsection (b) commits a class A misdemeanorand, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of onethousand dollars ($1,000) and by imprisonment for notmore than eleven (11) months and twentynine (29) days. Each day inmate labor is used in violation. . .constitutes aseparate offense.# #ܶ ܶ$  ' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷTenn. Code Ann. 412148(d)(2)(1997). The statute makes an exception where the ' 'inmate is used in an approved workrelease program. Tenn. Code Ann. 412148(b)(1997).  \ܶ\wܶ$Accordingly, we fully agree with the Court of the Judiciarys conclusion thatJudge Williams conduct violated Canons 1A and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The former provision states that  a judge should participate in establishing,maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall personally observethose standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will bepreserved. Canon 2A states that  a judge shall respect and comply with the law andshall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity andimpartiality of the judiciary. See also Tenn. Code Ann. 175302(3) & (8)(1994).wOܶJ Oj Oj lJܶ$With regard to count two, there was clear and convincing evidence that JudgeWilliams tried and convicted an individual for a felony offense notwithstanding that theGeneral Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Williams concedes as much. Healso asserts that while he knew the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor,he acted in good faith reliance on the District Attorney General to sort the felonyoffenses from the misdemeanors in his court.zܶ7ܶ$The evidence in the record belies this defense. The trial of Kevin Maben for afelony offense was not an isolated occurrence. Moreover, it was accompanied byJudge Williams demonstrated and repeated failures to advise defendants in hiscourtroom of their most basic and fundamental constitutional rights. On numerousoccasions before the Court of the Judiciary, Judge Williams testified that he asksdefendants only whether they plan to hire an attorney and whether they intend toplead guilty or not. He admitted that he did not advise defendants that they have aright to an attorney, a right to have a grand jury review the charges, a right to a jurytrial, and a right to confront witnesses. As the Court of the Judiciary found:  JudgeWilliams revealed an appalling lack of knowledge of the legal rights of the defendants' 'who appear in his court and a pervasive pattern of ignoring those rights  Times    Helvetica .0 7 ` E' '0ܶ ` {ܶ$Judge Williams conduct in this regard apparently stemmed from his lack oflegal knowledge and training yet, as a judicial officer, Judge Williams failed to takeappropriate steps to correct these deficiencies. We agree with the Court of the6 7 { l6Judiciary that these circumstances establish a violation of Canon 2A, (judge shallrespect and comply with the law), and Canon 3B(2)(judge shall maintain professionalcompetence); see also Tenn. Code Ann. 175302(3)(1994).  {!-ܶ!-!Hܶ$Finally, with regard to count three, our review demonstrates that there was clearand convincing evidence to establish the charges against Judge Williams. Thetestimony showed that Judge Williams liquidated over $100,000 of assets in an NBCaccount on July 18, 1997, and received a check for the proceeds on July 23, 1997. Judge Williams nonetheless answered an interrogatory under oath on August 1, 1997,stating that he had not transferred the NBC funds out of his name. Moreover, onAugust 1, 1998, he testified under oath in federal court as follows: !H"ܶ "" ܶ$HQ:So in your NBC account you have $110,097.00 ?# " ";#ܶ$$A:Yes, sir./";"V' '/ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$HQ: Have you transferred that out of your name since last"Vz' 'month#"V"r#ܶ$$$or do you still own that?"r"ܶ$ ""' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$A: I did not have it transferred, no, sir, I dont transfer.0 """' '0ܶ ""ܶAgain, the interrogatory response and the testimony under oath occurred after JudgeWilliams had in fact liquidated the NBC account in question.  ""ܶJ "# "# lJܶ$Judge Williams testified before the Court of the Judiciary that he failed to readthe interrogatory responses prepared by his attorney, even though the responses borehis signature and were made under oath. He also testified that he had transferred theNBC account to one he owned jointly with his wife, but never disposed of the proceedsand therefore he had not transferred the account. Judge Williams testimony, however,is contradicted by the findings and conclusions made by the federal district judgeduring the federal proceeding: that the proof was  overwhelming that Judge Williamsmade false statements and false testimony under oath.#%#ܶ #$ܶ$The Court of the Judiciary found that the record proved by clear and convincingevidence that Judge Williams deliberately made false statements in the federal courtproceedings concerning the transfer of the assets in the NBC account. $$iܶ$ $i$' '$ܶ$Our independent and de novo review of the record also leads us to agree with$_' 'the Court of the Judiciary and conclude that clear and convincing evidenceestablishes the charges in count three. We also agree with the Court of theJudiciarys conclusion that Judge Williams conduct and false statements under oathconstituted violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. See also Tenn. Code Ann.175302(3)(1994). In particular, Canon 1A, which requires that a judge  personallyobserve high standards of conduct. . . so that the integrity and independence of thejudiciary will be preserved; Canon 2A, which requires that a judge  respect andcomply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public6 %\7$ l6confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; and Canon 4A(2), whichstates that a judge comport his or her extrajudicial activities in    a manner    that does not    demean    the judicial office. $%ܶ$%%' '$ܶ$Accordingly, we have conducted a de novo review of the entire record before%l' 'the Court without affording a presumption of correctness to the findings or theconclusions entered by the Court of the Judiciary. Tenn. Code Ann. 175  310(b)(1)(1994). There is no question, in our view, that all the charges against JudgeWilliams were supported by clear and convincing evidence, and that these chargesamounted to judicial offenses in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Tenn.Code Ann. 175302 (1994) . %&ܶ$ &&' '$ܶxStandards for NonLawyer Offenses0 &&&D' '0ܶ$A defense argued by Judge Williams throughout the proceedings was that as aparttime, nonlawyer judge, he should have been held to a different standard than fulltime judges who are licensed attorneys. He also argues, particularly as to counts oneand two, that he was unaware that his conduct was illegal or unethical or in violation ofany provision in the Code of Judicial Conduct.&'mܶ'm'ܶ$Judge Williams arguments are specifically rebutted by the Code of JudicialConduct, which states that     anyone,    whether or not a lawyer, who is an officer of ajudicial system and who performs judicial functions . . . is a judge within the meaning of6 '7' l6this Code. Although properly elected as a nonlawyer General Sessions Court Judgein Lauderdale County under the statutory law, it is beyond dispute that Judge Williamswas a judicial officer performing all of the judicial functions attendant to the office. The' 'Code of Judicial Conduct, therefore, was expressly applicable to Judge Williams. {WP}11  4   \  "Hl@' '" {WP}10 <<KK  Times v3{WP}12HHl$$  4     Helvetica A few of the provisions in the Code are not applicable to parttime judges, none of which are at'  'issue in this case. SeeàRule 10, Application of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Subsection (C). Times$$\֭0'(Y(:Q' '0ܶ(Y(tܶ$Moreover, we cannot accept the view that Judge Williams ignorance of the lawor the pertinent ethical standards is a factor that we should consider in his favor. As theSupreme Court of Mississippi has observed:$(t(' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0 (((' '0ܶ$$Any county judge, circuit judge or chancellor who pleadsignorance as a defense to a violation of the Code of JudicialConduct should do so with great care. Claim of ignoranceof the duties of his office or negligence in carrying out thoseduties as a defense to judicial misconduct is tantamount toan admission by an accused judge that he does notpossess the qualifications necessary to hold the office towhich he has been elected.#()C#ܶ)C)Qܶ$)Q)_' '$ܶ  з ͪ    ͫ   ͷMiss. Comn on Jud. Perf. v. Chinn, 611 So.2d 849, 856 (Miss. 1992)(quoting, In Re)_v' 'Collins, 524 So.2d 553 (Miss. 1987)). The Mississippi Court further observed that when a person assumes the office of [Judge], he or she accepts the responsibility ofbecoming learned in the law. Id. at 856. )_)ܶJ )) ),) lJܶ$We agree with these observations. Judge Williams ignorance of the relevantstandards highlights only his failure to accept the responsibilities of the office, leadingto the judicial offenses committed in this case. Ignorance cannot be accepted as adefense in this case, nor can a lesser standard of ethical conduct be applied to JudgeWilliams.)*}ܶ      $*}*' '$ܶ(CONCLUSION  Times  Helvetica 0***' '0ܶ$The Court of the Judiciary unanimously recommended that Judge Williams' 'should be removed from office. We unanimously agree.  Times    Helvetica Based on our de novo review*' 'of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence to establish that Judge BillyWayne Williams committed the judicial offenses as set forth in this opinion. Theoffenses were serious, reflecting not only poor performance and poor judgment both inand out of the courtroom, but in two of the three counts, there was evidence of theactual commission of crimes. These offenses, standing alone, provide justification forrecommendation of removal.*+ܶ++ܶ$In recommending removal, however, it is also significant that Judge Williamsconduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and reflected poorly on the judicialsystem as a whole. Public confidence in the performance and impartiality of thejudiciary is maintained only when judges rigorously adhere to the Code of Conduct. Violations of the Code, if left unaddressed, diminish public confidence and injure the' 'entire judicial system.   Times    Helvetica As the Preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct states:b+,H,-7 ,-7,H l' 'bܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ0,X,f,X' '0ܶ$$Our legal system is based on the principle that anindependent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret andapply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary iscentral to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts thatjudges, individually and collectively, must respect andhonor the judicial office as a public trust and strive toenhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. Thejudge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution ofdisputes and a highly visible symbol of government underthe rule of law.# ,f-#ܶ --ܶ$--' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷSup. Ct. Rule 10, Preamble to Code of Judicial Conduct; see also In re Murphy, 726-' 'S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tenn. 1987). --Rܶ-R-mܶ$Accordingly, we affirm the Court of the Judiciarys recommendation that JudgeBilly Wayne Williams be removed from office. The Clerk of this Court shall send writtennotice to the Speaker of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives ofthe action of this Court and shall immediately certify the record on appeal, briefs, and acopy of this opinion to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives in accordance with the procedure set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. 175  311(b)(Supp. 1997). Costs of this appeal shall be paid by Billy Wayne Williams, forwhich execution shall issue if necessary.-m.Eܶ$.E.`' '$ܶ   ͪ    ͫ ͷ$$$$$$$______________________________0 .`.n.`' '0ܶ$$$$$$$Riley Anderson, Chief Justice .n.|ܶ .|.ܶJ .. .2. lJܶ$..' '$ܶ    ͷCONCUR:0...' '0ܶ..ܶDrowota,    Holder,    and Barker, JJ. ..ܶ   $..' '$ܶBirch, J., not participating  Times0...F'  '0ܶ./ܶ