RECEIVED CLERK OF THE S!)IA~ IN THE WEST VIRGINIA SENATE DATE:f-l(-{[(TtME: By: Lt:.. · · IN THE MATTER OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT CHIEF JUSTICE MARGARET WORKMAN Honorable Paul T. Farrell Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Presiding Officer CIDEF JUSTICE WORKMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS STATED IN PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Respondent Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman ("Respondent") has petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for a writ of mandamus with respect to the instant impeachment proceeding (the "Petition"). See Exhibit A. The Petition explains numerous infirmities in the impeachment proceeding, including violations of the constitutional separation of powers, precedent on the appointment of senior status judges, the right to due process, and procedural requirements for impeachment in the House of Delegates. Respondent respectfully requests the dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment against her for the reasons stated in the Petition, which is included with this motion and incorporated by reference herein. CHIEF JUSTICE MARGARET WORKMAN By Counsel: Benjamin L. Bail y (WVSB #200) bbailey@baileyg asser.com Steven R. Ruby (WVSB #10752) sruby@baileyglasser. com Raymond S. Franks II (WVSB #6523) rfranks@baileyglasser. com Holly J. Wilson (WVSB #13060) hwilson@baileyglasser.com BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 T: 304-345-6555 F: 304-342-1110 Counsel for Respondent :3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA CASE NO. State of West Virginia ex rel. Margaret L. Workman, Petitioner, v. . . Mitch Carmichael, as President of the Senate; Donna l Boley, as President Pro Tempore of the Senate; Ryan Ferns, as Senate Majority Leader; Lee Cassis, Clerk of the Senate; and the West Virginia Senate, Respondents. · PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS Marc E. Williams (WV Bar No. 4062) Melissa Foster Bird (WV Bar No. 6588) ThomasM. Hancock(WVBarNo.l0597) Christopher D. Smith (WV"Bar No. 13050) NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 949 Third Avenue, Suite 200 Huntington, WV 25701 Telephone: (304) 526-3500 Facsimile: "(304) 526-3599 Email: marc. williarns@nelsonrnullins.com Email: melissa.fosterbird@nelsonnmllins.com Email: tom.hancock@nelsonrnullins.com Email: chris.smith@nelsonrnullins.com Counsel for Petitioner TABLE OF CONTENTS lliTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. :.................... 1 RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................................................................................... 3 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................................................................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................... :................................................................................................ 5 Factual Background ......................... :........................................................... ·............,. ...................... 5 . . Procedural Background ................ :.............................................................................. :................... 8 JURISDICTION AND STANDIN'G .......................................................................................................... 9 . SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 11 STATEMENT REGARDlliG ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 13 ·:. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ ,..................... :..................... 13 I. The Articles of Impeachment violate the principles of separation of powers enshrined within the West Virginia Cqnstitution by usurping powers explicitly reserved for the Judicial Branch.................................................................................................................. 13 a. The Articles of Impeachment violate the West Virginia Constitution by exerting Legislative control over the Judicial Branch's exclusive budget powers ..........·.........,15 b. The Articles of Impeachment violate the West Virginia Constitution by appropriating the Judicial Branch's exclusive power to regulate judicial conduct. ........................... 18 II. The Alticles of Impeachment violate West Vil'ginia Constitutional precedent regarding the appointment of senior status judges .................................................................................. 20 III. The Articles of Impeachment violate the Petitioner's constitutional right to due process. 26 . a. The Senate,s impeachment proceedings fail to afford the Petitioner adequate due process because she received no specific notice of the chru:ges asserted against her ................................................................................................................................ 27 · b. The Senate's impeachment proceedings pose a substantial risk of erroneously depriving the Petitioner of her pension rights because the House knowingly ignored the procedures it adopted to govern the impeachment process when attempting to adopt its flawed Aliicles of Impeachment.. ................................................................. 29 IV. The House never voted on the resolution authorizing the Articles of Impeachment, and therefore the trial is illegitimate and unconstitutional ....................................................... 34 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 38 · ) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Accardi v. Ed. ofEduc., 163 W.Va. 1, 254 S.E.2d 561 (1979) .................................................... 31 Bd. ofEduc. ofCty. ofMercerv. Wirt, 192 W.Va. 568,453 S.E.2d402 (1994) ................... 27,28 Benedict v. Polan, 186 W.Va. 452, 413 S.E.2d 107 (1991) ........................ 2, 26 ~ennettv. Warner, 179 W.Va. 742,372 S.E.2d 920 (1988).-....................................................... 23 Dadisman v. Moore, 181 W.Va. 779, 384 S.E.2d 816 (1988) ....................................... 2, 4, 26, 29 F1•aley v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 177 W.Va. 729, 356 S.E.2d 483 (1987) ................................ 26,27 Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417,633 S.E.2d 771 (2006) ...................................................... 20 Matter of Callaghan, 238 W.Va. 495,796 S.E.2d 604 (2017) ................................................ 6, 19 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 113 S. Ct. 732, 122 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1993) .............................. 3 Rabe v: Washington, 405 U.S. 313, S.Ct. 993 (1972) .................................................. ::............... 28 Richmondv. Levin, 219 W.Va. 512, 637 S.E.2d 610 (2006) ..................................................... .'. 25 Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152 (1957) ................................................................. 31 Smith v. W Virginia State Ed. ofEduc., 170 W.Va. 593, 295 S.E.2d 680 (1982) ...................... 10 State ex rel. Bagley v. Blankenship, 161 W.Va. 630,246 S.E.2d 99 (1978) ......................... 10, 16 State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 157 W.Va. 100, 207 S.E.2d 421 (1973) ....................... 16 State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 158 W.Va. 390, 214 S.E.2d 467 (1975) ....................... 14 State ex rel: Brotherton. v. Moore, 159 W.Va. 934, 230 S.E.2d 638 (1976) ................................. 10 State ex rel. Frazier v. Meadows, 193 W.Va. 20, 454 S.E.2d 65 (1994) ..................................... 16 State ex rel. Kenamondv. Warmuth, 179 W.Va. 230,366 S.E.2d 738 (W.Va. 1988) ............... 23 State ex rel. Lambert v. Stephens, 200 W.Va. 802, 490 S.E.2d 891 (1997) ............................ 4, 21 State ex rel. Potter v. Office ofDisciplinary Counsel, 226 W.Va. 1, 697 S.E.2d 37 (2010) .......... 9 State ex rel. Quelch v. Daugherty, '172 W.Va. 422, 306 S.E.2d 233 (1983) ................. ,............. 14 State ex rel. W Va. Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. City ofCharleston, 133 W.Va. 420, · ! ........................... 56 S.E.2d 763 (1949) ................................................................................................................ 10 Stateexrel..Wilsonv. Truby, 167W. Va.179,281 S.E.2d 231 (1981) ...................................... 31 State Farm Fi7·e & Cas. Co. v. Prinz, 231 W.Va. 96, 743 S.E.2d 907 (2013) .. ;.......................... 23 State v. Buchanan, 24 W.Va. 362, 1884 WL 2784 (1884) ....................................................... ,.. 14 State v. Davis, 178 W.Va. 87, 357 S.E.2d 769, (1987) ................................................................ 23 Stern Bros. v. McClure, 160 W.Va. 567, 236 S.E.2d222 (1977) .......................................... 21, 23 Trimboliv. Bd. ofEduc., 163 W.Va. 1, 254 S.E.2d 561 (1979) .................................................. 31 U.S. ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499 (1954) ..................................... 31 UnitedStates v. Thomas, 367 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2004) ................................................................ 28 . Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 968 (1959) .................................. :.............................. 31 Williams v. Cummings, 191 W.Va. 370445 S.E.2d 757 (1994) ................................................... 23 Statutes w. VA. CODE§ 51-2-13 .............................................................................: .. :............................... 22 W.VA. CODE§ 51-9-10 ...................................................................... ;.................................. passini Constitutional Provisions W. VA. CoNST. art. III, § 10 .......................................................................................... '............ 4, 26 W.VA. CONST. art. III,§§ 13 ........................................... .-.: .......................................................... 20 W. VA. CaNST. art. III, §§ 14 ...................·...................................................................................... 20 w. vA. CaNST. art. III, § 17 ....................................................................................................... 4,20 W.VA. CaNST. art. IV, § 9............................................................................................................ 38 W.VA. CaNST. art. V, § 1 ................................................................................................................. 3 w. VA. CaNST. art. VI,§ 16 .......................................................................................... ;................ 11 W. VA. CaNST. mt. VI, § 24 .......................................................................................................... 34 . W.Va. CaNST. art. VI,§ 51 ............................................................................... ,................. 3, 17,18 · W. VA. CaNST. art. VI, § 24 .......................................................................................................... 34 W.VA. CaNST. mt. VIII, § 1 ..................................................................................................... 3, 19 W.VA. CaNST. art. VIII,§ 3 ...................................................... :.......................... 3, 4, 9, 15, 18, 22 w. VA. CaNsT. art. vm, § 5 ..............................._.............................................................. :............. 6 W.VA. CaNST. art. VIII,§ 8 ................................................ :..................... :.........·... 4. 18, 21, 22,23 Rules W.VA. R. Evid. 201 ....................................................................................... .'................................ 8 w. VA. R. App. P. 20 ..... ,........................................... ,................................... ~ ......................... :.... 13 .Other Authorities House Rule 135 ............................................................................................................................. 34 . House Rule 44 ................................................................................................................ :......... 35, 38 Joumal ofthe House ofDelegates (2018) ............................................................................... 35, 37 Judicial Reol'ganization Amendment.. ........................................................................ 21, 23, 24, 25 INTRODUCTION On August 13, 2018, the West Virginia House of Delegates ("the House") broke the law. On that day, the House adopted numerous Articles of Impeachment ("Articles") setting the Petitioner to stand trial before the West Virginia Senate ("the Senate"). What nefarious deeds of the Petitioner served as the basis for these Articles? The Petitioner had the audacity to fulfill her constitutional mandate of ensuring that West Virginia courts efficiently serve West Virginia citizens by appointing senior status judges to fill judicial vacancies. She had the audacity to exercise her constitutional authority to pass and utilize a budget for the State's judicial branch. In short, she had the audacity to perfmm the duties and exercise the powers mandated to her by the West Virginia Constitution. Despite the clear edicts of the West Virgilia Constitution, the House overstepped the bounds of its constitutionally-apportioned power and initiated proceedings to punish the Petitioner for exercising the powers explicitly provided to the judicial branch by the West Virginia Constitution. This cannot stand. This Court must order the Senate to halt proceedings that unde1mine the separation of powers principles enshrined in the West Virginia Constitution. Not only, however, do the House's Articles violate the separation of powers principles by seeking to punish the Petitioner for performing duties explicitly reserved for the judicial branch, the House's procedures in promulgating those Articles are equally repugnant to the West Virginia Constitution. The House's purported basis for Article XIV-that the Petitioner's conduct violated Canon I and II of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct-is a matter reserved solely for the judicial branch. Put simply, the judicial branch alone has the power to regulate the conduct of judges. Article XIV usurps that power, attempting to shift the 1 interpretation and enforcement of the Judicial Canons of Conduct to the Legislature. Again, this · is anathema to the separation of powers principles embodied in the West Virginia Constitution. · Perhaps more troubling than the House's abject failure to respect the separation of powers, however, is the House's failure to afford the Petitioner the due process every West Virginia citizen is due. Because the Petitioner is a lifelong public servant, the impeachment proceedings threaten the very pension that she has worked her whole career to attain. Therefore, · the Articles enacted ·by the Senate must affor~ the Petitioner due process; indeed, this Court recognized that "the realization and protection of public employees' pension property rights is a constitutional obligation ofthe State." Dadisman v. Moore, 181 W.Va. 779, 791-92~ 384 S.E.2d 816, 828 (1988), holding modified by Benedict v. Polan, 186 W.Va. 452, 413 S.E.2d 107 (1991) . (emphasis added). In adopting their Articles, however, the House utterly failed to afford the Petitioner the due process she must be affoi·ded under the.West Virginia Constitution. Not only do the Articles provide the Petitioner absolutely no notice of the. case the Legislature intends to bring against her, the Articles were promulgated in direct, lmowing contravention of the procedures the House created to govem the adoption of the Impeachment resolution. Furthermore, the plain language of the resolutions and . the an.alysis of a noted parliamentarian agree that the House of Delegates never adopted the necessru.·y lal').guage to proceed with impeachment. Accordingly, because the House violated the edicts of separation of powers and due process enshrined in the West Virginia Constitution and never adopted the effectuating resolution, the Petitioner requests that this· Court grant her Petition for Mandamus and order th~ Senate to halt impeachment proceedings premised on unconstitutional Articles of Impeachment. Petitioner further i·equests that this Court stay the Senate's ·proceedings until it can rule on the Constitutional deficiencies in the House's Articles. 2 RELIEF REQUESTED Certainly, the Legislature possesses the sole power of impeachment under the West Virginia Constitution. W. VA. CONE;T. att. N, § 9 ("the Impeachment Cl~use"). However, even the sweeping authority granted to the Legislature through the hnpeachment Clause is limited by the requirement that impeachment proceedings comply with the law. Nixon v. United States, 506 US. 224, 237-38, 113 S. Ct. 732, 740, 122 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1993) (holding that, although some impeachment issues are a political question, "courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits."). This Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeks expedited relief in the fmm of an order staying the impeachment proceedings until these constitutional issues are resolved, and further ordering the Senate to perfmm its noJtdiscretionary duty under the Constitution to halt the impeachment proceedings because they .. are premised on unconstitutional articles. QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Articles of Impeachment Violate the Doctrine of Separation of Powers 1. The West Virgi:i:ria ConstitUtion provides that "[t]he legislative, executive and judicial deprutments shall be separate. and distinct, so that neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others." See W. V f.· CONST. art. V, § 1. It also grru1ts the Judicial Branch plenary power to create and use its budget and to regulate ethical conduct and actions of judicial officers. Id. at art. VI, § 51; art. VIII, §§ 1, 3. In the Alticles ofhnpeachment, the Legislature seeks to impeach members of the Supreme Court of Appeals qfWest Virginia for exercising its plenary authority in expending its budget Moreover, many of the Legislature's Articles of hnpeachment ru·e premised on alleged violations of the Judicial Cru1ons of Conducta system of rules created and enforced solely by the Judicial Branch using its plenary power to 3 regulate the ?ondu~t of judicial officers. Do the Articles of Impeachment violate the doctrine of separation of powers? The Articles of Impeachment Violate West Virginia Constitutional Precedent Regarding the Appointment of Senior Status Judges 2. Under the West Virginia Constitution, the Judicial Branch is given power to create and maintain an efficientjudiciaty. See W.VA. CoNST. art. VIII, §§ 3, 8. It is fundamental that the courts are to be open to all people and must provide a remedy of due course of law to those who have suffered injuries. W.VA. CONST. art. III,§ 17. To do so, the Judicial Branch is empowered to obtain the resources necessary to maintain the judicial system. See, e.g., State ex rel. Lambert v. Stephens, 200 W. Va. 802, 811, 490. S.E.2d 891, 900 (1997). In some of the Aliicles of Impeachment, the Legislature seeks to impeach members of the Supreme CourJ: of Appeals for appointing Senior Status Judges to fulfill the Court's constitutional obligation to maintain open ·courts. Is West Virginia. Code § 51-9-10 unconstitutional to the extent it is inconsistent with the open courts provision and other provisions of the West Virginia Constitutioii,? The Articles of Impeachment Violate the Petitioner's Due Process Rights 3. Aliicle III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution provides ~hat individuals must be provided with due process of law. This Court recognized that individuals must be afforded substantial due process when their state pension rights are at issue. Dadisman v. lvfoore, 181 W. Va. 779, 791-92, 384 S.E.2d 816, 828 (1988). Impeachment proceedings place an individual's pension rights at issue. In re Watkins, 233 W. Va. 170, 175, 757 S.E.2d 594, 599 I (2013). Article of Impeachment XIV treats the Justices collectively, and does 'not provide notice of the enumerated acts to which each Justice is charged. Furthermore, per House Resolution 201, the Legislattri:e created a procedure designed to guarantee the faimess of the process, then 4 ignored those fairness guarantees. For example, the House stated forthcoming Articles of Impeachment would contain findings of fact. The Articles of Impeachment actually adopted by the House did not contain any Findings of Fact as required by House Resolution 201. Does Article ofimp~achment XIV violate the Petitioner's due process rights because the House failed to follow procedures it created to ensure the fahness of the impeachment proceedings and the 'impeachment proceedings implicate the Petitionerls pension? The Resolution Authorizing the Articles of Impeachment Was Never Adopted, Rende1·ing the Articles of Impeachment Null and Void 4: Under the West Virginia Constitution, the Senate may only proceed with an impeachmeJ?.t trial after the House impeaches a public official. See W.VA. CoNST. art. IV, § 9. Here, certain Articles of Impeachment were adopted, but no resolution was adopted authorizing . impeachment. Nor was a resolution adopted exhibiting the mticles to the Senate as required by House Resolution 201. Does the West Virginia House of Delegates' failure to adopt the enabling Resolution render the Articles of hnpeachment n1.111 and void and, standing alone, meaningless? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Factual Background The Petitioner, Margaret L. Workman, was appointed to the Circuit Coul,i of Kanawha County on November 16, 1981 by Govemor John D. Rockefeller, IV. She ran for the remainder of the unexpired term in 1982 and a full term inl984. In 1988, she was elected to the Supreme Comi of Appeals of West Virginia, serving a full term until 2000. After a brief retmn to private practice, she ran again for the Comi in 2008, and was again elected to a twelve year term. Thus, she has served in the state judiciary for almost thirty years. 5 ---------- The West Virginia Constitution: requ?res that "[t]hete shall be at least one judge for each circuit court and as many more as may be necessary to 1J:ansaet the business of such court." W. VA. CONST. art. VIII, § 5. The Sll:preme Court of Appeals is tasked with administering the courts and must keep the comt system open to the people. In fulfillment of that duty, ~hen exigent circumstances arise, the Chief Justice has appointed senior status judges in order to preserve the fundamental right of the people to open courts, pmsuant to the mandate in the West Virginia Constitution. In numerous instances, the Chief Justice found it necessary to appoint senior status judges . to serve at the circuit comt level as a result of protracted illnesses, judicial suspensions, or other extraordinary circumstances. The Governor sometimes does not appoint judges to fill vacancies, requiring the Chief Justice to appoint a senior status judge to keep the Comts open. For example, in 2017, the Supreme Court of Appeals suspended a newly elected circuit judge of Nicholas County for two years because of violations of the code of judicial ethics in ce1tain campaign advertisements. In re Callaghan, 23.8 W.Va. 495, 503, 796 S.E.2d 604, .612, cert. denied sub. nom., Callaghan v. W: Vii·ginia Judicial Investigation Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 211, 199 L. Ed. 2d 118 (2017). Because the newly elected Judge was suspended for two years, and because Nicholas County is a single judge judicial circuit, an extraordinary need for temporary judicial services arose in order to provide the people of Nicholas County with court services and to avoid the unconstitutional denial of access to the speedy administration of justice. The Chief Justice appointed senior status judge James J. Rowe to serve as the temporary circuit judge of Nicholas County. Judge Rowe travels from his home in Lewisburg each day to pe1fonn this service. Judge Rowe serves the people of Nicholas County effectively, attending to the cases on the circuit comt's docket. Using one senior status judge, rather than parading multiple judges 6· through the comthouse, allows for the· efficient and consistent ·adjudication of the matters pending in Nicholas County. At that time, the Supreme Court of Appeals' then-ChiefJustice Allen Loughry issued an administrative order, stating that "the chief justice bas authority to determine in ce1tain exigent circumstances that a senior judicial officer may continue in an appointment beyond the limitations set forth in W.VA. CODE § 51-9-10, to avoid the interruption in statewide continuity of judicial services." See App. 043-044. The Chief Justice recognized that continuity in the sitting circuit judge was vital to maintaining the efficient and fair administratio~ of justice and meeting the Comt' s constitutional obligation to keep the Comts open. Fmthermore, this Comt can take judicial notice of the fact that continuity of a sitting circuit judge is vital to fair and full operation of the courts. W. VA. R. EVID. 201. This is especially true for child abuse and neglect cases or complex civil litigation, just two examples of many where shuttling in· different judges every. few weeks would destroy the continuity necessary for a full and fair adjudication of the matter. Continuity is vital to the adjudic~tion of certain matters. The case load of a sitting circuit judge cannot be managed by committee. Addi~onally, this Court can take judicial notice that the supply of available senior status judges is not unlimited. Without going into deta:jl about any- individ:ual senior status judge, there are numerous reasons why some senior status judges may not be available for, or want to talce, 1 lengthy appointments far from home. Many of West Virginia's senior status· judges have significant health issues. Some have informed the Supreme Comt of Appeals that they can no longer take appointments due to their health. Some wish to be ·listed as senior status judges, but have expressed a lack of interest in accepting appointments. At least one is going blind, another 1 Senior Status Judges, as retired, are not required to accept an appo:intment and may decline an appointment for any reason. 7 is a resident of a nursing home, and some are physicE~;llY unable to travel. Others do work for the executive branch, precluding their appointment. Even among those that are healthy, some have personal commitments, like wintering in warmer climates, or other travel plans, which prevent them from accepting longer appointments. Often, these personal issues, whether health related or otherwise, are what led to the judge to retire in the :first place. 2 In addressing this issue, the House of Delegates did not consider how difficult it is to fill an appointment with a senior status judge in a rural part of West Virginia for six months, a year, · or two years. As a result, the Supreme Court of Appeals' constitutional duty to maintain open comts is not as simple as counting the number of senior status judges and counting the number of days that they are available ~or appointment. It is far more complex, mandating a case by case analysis. The Comt's Administrative· Order recognized as much. See App. 043-044. Indeed, the then-Chief Justice recognized that, to the extent West Virginia Code conflicted ':Vith the Comt's constitutional authority, the constitutional authority t~ces precedence. Procedural Background On August 7, 2018, the House Judiciary Con.unlttee considered recommendation of a resolution to the House of Delegates containing language adopting Articles of Impeachment and stating that the .Alticles be exhibited to the Senate. App. 001 to 014. That resolution was never adopted. On Augcist 13, 2018, after a motion to divide the question, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted on numerous individual Articles of Impeachment against the Justices of the Supreme Comt of Appeals of West Virginia. See App. 015-026. Those articles did not contain any language stating that any Justice should be impeached, and contained no language stating 2 The Court can take judicial notice of these facts pursuant to Rule 201 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. If any of these facts are disputed, Petitioner can provide supporting affidavits establishing these facts. 8 that the Articles should be exhibited to the Senate. Jd. Despite those infirmities, the individual Articles, but not the full language of the resolution, were adopted on the same day. Jd. The Petitioner is implicated in three of the Alticles. First, Alticle N seeks to impeach the Petitioner for paying senior status judges in excess of a statutory limit set by Legislature despite the fact that those senior status judges were needed to maintain the efficient functioning of the West Virginia judiciary. Id at 018. Next, Article VI largely echoes Article IV. Id. at 020. Finally, Article XN lumps all of the Justices together and charges them with a beVy of conduct that the House purpmted violated Canons I and II of the .West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct. Jd. at 025-026. . After the House adopted the Alticles, they moved to the Senate. On August 20, 2018, Senate Resolution 203 was adopted, setting fmth duties and adopting nlles of procedure to apply to the impeachment proceedings. See App. 027-039. A Pre-Trial Conference occurred on Tuesday; September 11, 2018. See App. 029. The trials are set to begin on October 1, 2018, and · .. the Petitioner's ti'ial is set for October 15, 2018. Given the pendency of those proceedings, Petitioner requests that this Court stay them until it resolves the issues raised in this Petition. JURISDICTION AND STANDING "Mandamus is a proper remedy to require the perfonnance of a nondiscretionary duty by various governmental agencies or bodies." Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Union Pub . . Serv. Dist., 151 W.Va. 207, 151 S.E.2d 102 (1966). "This Court's original jurisdiction in mandamus proceedings derives frorri Art. VIII, § 3, of the Constitution of West Virginia. Its jurisdiction is also recognized in Rule 14 of the West Virginia Rules of Appeliate Procedure and W.Va. Code§ 53-1-2 (1933)." State ex rel. Potterv. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 226 W.Va. 1, 4, 697 S.E.2d 37, 40 (2010). Writs of mandamus have been used to nullify and prevent the 9 commission of an unla'Wful and. unconstitutional act by the Legislature. See, e.g., State ex rel. Bagley v. Blankenship, 161 W.Va. 630, 650-51,246 S.E.2d 99, 110 (1978). Before this Court may properly issue a writ of mandamus, tbi·ee elements must coexist: (1) the existence of a clear right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) the existence of a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing the petitioner seeks to compel; ap.d (3) the absence of another adequate remedy at law. Syl. Pt. 3, Cooper v. Gwinn, 171 W.Va. 245, 298 S.E.2d 781 (1981). The first element, existence of a clear legal right to the relief sought, is generally a question of standing. Thus,. where the individual has a special interest in that she is part of the class that is being affected by the action, then she ordinarily is found to have a clear legal right. Walls v. Miller, 162 W.Va. 563, 251 S.E.2d 491 (1978). Moreover, where the right sought to be enforced is a public one in that it is based upon a general statute or affects the public at large, the m.andamus proceeding can be brought by any citizen, taxpayer, or voter. Smith v. W. Va. State Bd ofEduc., 170 W.Va. 593, 596,295 S.E.2d 680, 683 (1982), citing State ex rel. Brotherton v. Moore, 159 W.Va. 934, 230 S.E.2d 638 (1976); State ex rel. W. Va. Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Charleston, 133 W.Va. 420, 56 S.E.2d 763 (1949); Prichard v. DeVan, 114 W.Va. 509, 172 S.E. 711 (1934); State ex rel. Matheny v. Cty. Court ofWj;oming Cty., 47 W.Va. 672, 35 S.E .. 959 (1900). The Petitioner is a citizen, taxpayer, 'and voter in· the State of West Virginia. The Petitioner is granted under the West Virginia Constitution a right to open courts, a right to an elected judiciary, and a right to a legislative branch that follows the law. The Petitioner unequivocally has a special interest in these proceedings, as the Petitioner is an individual named in the Alticles ofiinpeachment. The Petitioner's position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Comt 10 of Appeals of West Vil'ginia; her livelihood, and her judicial pension, earned through a lifetime . of public service, are all at risk. In. regard to the second element, the legal duties of Respondents, the members of the· West Virginia Legislature took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the State of West Vil'ginia. See, e.g., W.VA. CONST. art. VI, § 16 (setting forth the oath of senators and delegates). · Fmiher, 1:l).e Clerk of the Senate has certain legal duties prescribed by statute and Senate Resolutions. Whether a legal duty exists on the part of the Respondents to follow the Constitution, the Legislature's own resolutions, and the law will be discussed in more detail herein. The third element is also met. ·"While it is tlue that mandamus is not available where another specific and adequate remedy exists, if such other remedy is not equally as beneficial, convenient, and effective, mandamus will lie." Cooper, supra, at Syl. Pt. 4, 298 S.E.2d 781. There is no question that no other adequate remedy is available, other than a Writ of Mandamus, to request an Order holding that the Legislature :ri::mst follow the law and their constitutional duties. None of the issues herein can be resolved by the impeachment proceedings alone. Even a ruling by the Presiding Officer of the impeachment proceedings can be ·overruled by a majority vote of the Senators present. App. 36. A Writ ofMandarrms is the most beneficial, convenient,-· and effective method to obtain a tuling on the issues described herein. No other remedy exists. SUMIViARY OF ARGUMENT In. making the law, the Legislature is also charged with following the law. However, the Legislature's impeachment effmis 1un afoul ofthe edicts ofthe West Virginia Constitution. First, the Legislature's in1peachment eff01is violate the separation of powers principles· enshrined in the West Virginia Constitution. Specifically, Articles IV, VI, and XIV of the 11 ------- Articles of Impeachment infringe on the Judicial Branch's sole ppwer to contml its budget. Additionally, the Articles of Impeachment repeatedly violate the sepru.•ation of powers principles by alleging Justices violated .the Judicial Canons of Conduct which regulate judicial conduct, ari obligation solely within the province of the Judicial Branch. Therefore, the above~referenced Articles must be stricken as unlawful, and the Senate's impeachment proceedings based on those unlawful Articles must be halted. Further, the Legislature seeks to impeach the Petitioner for complying with her constitutional duty to ensure that West Virginia Courts remain open and accessible for all West Virginians. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has fulfilled this duty, at times, by appointing senior status judges. However, the Alticles of Impeachment concerning the· appointment of senior status judges· cite to an inapplicable statute which, if applied as the Legislature directs, would be .unconstitutional on its face because it is inconsistent with the Corut's constitutional duties. Not only do these .AJ.·ticles seek to impeach the Justices for . complying with · their constitutional duties-these Articles are also entirely baseless· under established West Virginia case law. Therefore, they must be stricken, and the Senate's impeachment proceedings based on those unlawful Articles must be halted. Moreover, the Legislature's impeachment effmts run afoul of sacrosanct principles of due process. Due process is implicated here, as the Petitioner's rights to her livelihood and pension are at issue. The Petitioner's right to due process is violated because the Petitioner has not been afforded adequate notice of the charges against her. Specifically, under Article XN, several justices are chru.·ged collectively for. a series of acts that ru.·e attributable to some but not all-of them. Accordingly, the Legislature failed to comport with due process because it failed to provide the Petitioner with notice of the chru.·ges against her. ' 12 Finally, the House never adopted the operative, effectuating language regarding the Articles of Impeachment. That language was present in the original resolution drafted by the House Judiciary Committee, but not in the Articles of Impeachment ultimately adopted. This procedural flaw renders the articles null and void. In sum, the Senate is charged with complying with the Constitution when conducting impeachment proceedings. If it proceeds on the Articles brought by the House against the Petitioner, it fails to abide by the Constitution because the Articles are constitutionally deficient. Therefore, the instant proceedings must be halted. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Oral Argument is necessary, expedited relief is requested, and the Court's decisional process would be significantly aided by oral argument. Full oral argument pmsuant to Rule 20 is appropriate, because this Petition presents issues C?f first impression'before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, issues of fundamental public importance related to the function of government, and issues of constitutional interpretation. Therefore, the Petitioner respectfully requests Rule 20.oral argument. ARGUMENT I. The Articles of Impeachment violate the principles ~f separation of powers enshrined within the West Virginia Constitution by usurping powers explicitly reserved for the Judicial Branch. West Virginia's Constitution, like that of the United States and its forty nine sister states, provides for a: system of separate and co-equal branches of government. Under Article V, § 1 of the West Virginia Constitution, "The legislative, executive and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others; nor shall any person exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time, 13 except that justices of the peace shall be eligible to the Legislature." Based on that pi·ovision, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has long held that "[t]he legislative, executive and judicial departments of the government must be kept separate and· distinct, and each in its legitimate sphere must be protected." State v. Buchanan, 24 W.Va. 362, 1884 WL '2784 (1884). This edict is strictly enforced, "Article V, section 1 of the Constitution of West Virginia which prohibits any one department of our state government :fi:om exercising the powers of the others, is not merely a suggestion; it is pru.t of the fundamental law of our State and, as such, it must be strictly constmed and closely followed." Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Barker v. Manchin, 167 W.Va. 155, 279 S.E.2d. 622 (1981). To that end, the Court h~s dete:rm.ined, "Legislative enactments which are not compatible with those prescribed by the judiciary . or with its goals are unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers." State ex rel. Quelch v. Daugherty, 172 W. Va. 422, 424, 306 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1983). Accordingly, when one branch of government oversteps the bounds of its constitutionally-granted power, the oveneach "practically compels courts, when called upon, to thwru.t any unlawful actions of one branch of government which impair the constitutional responsibilities· and functions of a coequal branch." State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 158 W.Va. 390, 402, 214 S.E.2d 467, 477 (1975). For example, the Supreme Comt of Appeals of West Virginia struck legislation that limited its ability to control the process and standru.·ds for the admission to practice law. See State ex rel. Quelch, 172 W.Va. 422, 306 S.E.2d 233 (1983). h1 Quelch, the Legislatme passed a bill that eliminated the "diploma privilege" allowing graduates of the West Virginia University College of Law to practice in West Virginia without taking the bar exam. Id. However, under . ' Article VIII, Sections 1 and 3 of the West Virginia Constitution, the Judicial Branch has plenru.-y power to regulate admission to the practice of law. Id. at 423. Because the Judicial Branch is 14 constitutionally vested with the power to control admission to the practice of law, this Court detennined, "[a]ny legislatively-enacted provision regarding bar admissions that conflicts with or _is repugnant to a Supreme Court rule must fall." Id. at 424. Therefore, the Comt struck the law because it detel!Uined that, under separation of powers principles, the law constituted "an unconstitutional usmpation of this Court's exclusive authority to regulate admission to the practice oflaw in this State." Id. at 4~5. Similarly, the Legislature's impeachment efforts run afoul of the Separation of Powers pri:ticiples enshrined in the West Virginia Constitution in two ways. First, the Legislature's efforts 3 are an attempt to use punitive measmes to police the Judicia1y's budget. This is impermissible where the West Virginia Constitution grants the Judiciary the sole power to create . ' and· ~se its budget. Second, many of the Legislatme's impeachment aJ.ticles are premised on - . alleged violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct (particularly Article XIV); however, the Judicial branch-not the Legislative branch-is imbued with plena1y power to regulate judicial conduct. The Legislature·may not usurp the· Judiciary's role and judge otherwise legal judicial conduct where that function falls squa1·ely within the powers and obligations of the Judicial Branch. The Petitioner will explain each of the Legislature's usurpations in tmn. a. The Articles of Impeachment violate the West Virginia Constitution by exerting Legislative control over the Judicial Branch's exclusive budget powers. The West Virginia Constitution provides the Judicial Branch the sole power to contJ.·ol its budget. The Judicial Branch is cha1·ged with creating and enforcing its own budget. See W.VA. CONST. aJ.t. VIII, § 3 ("The comt shall appoint an administrative director to serve at its pleasure ' ' at a salary to be ftxed by the court. The administrative director shall, under the direction of the 3 Ce1tainly, some of the A.lticles of Impeachment against Justice Loughry involve using public resources for private gain, have nothing to do with legitimattt budgetary decisions, and the Petitioner is not arguing that those Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional under the budget provisions. 15 chief justice, prepare and submit a budget for the comt."). T~e West Virginia Constitution limits ·other branches of government from controlling the Judicial Branch's budget. Under Article VI, § 51, Provision 5, "The LegislatU1'e shall not amend the budget bill so as to create a deficit but may amend the bill by increasing or d~creasing any item therein: Provided, That no item relating to the judiciary shall be decreased." The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has interpreted this. provision broadly, holding, "The judiciary department has the inherent power to determine what funds are necess_ary. J for its efficient and effective operation" arid "Article VI, Section 51 of the West Virginia Constitu~ion, when read in its entirety, shows a clear intent on the pmt of the framers thereof and the people ·who adopted it to preclude both the Legislature and·th~ Governor from altering the budget of the judiciary depa1tment as submitted by that department to the Auditor." Syl. Pts. 1 & 3, State ex rel. Bagley v. Blankenship, 161 W.Va. 630, 630,246 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1978); see also State ex rel. Broth~rto~· v. Blankenship, 157 W. Va. 100, 116, 207 S.E.2d 421, 431 (1973) (fmding that Alticle 6, § 51 of the West Virginia Constitution evinces a clem· intent to preclude both the LegislatU1'e and the Governor from altering the budget of the Judicial Branch). This interpretation makes se~se-the plain intent of Article VI, § 51, Provision 5 is to "insulate[] the judicimy from political retaliation by preventing the governor and legislatU1'e from reducing the judiciary's budget submissions." State ex rel. Frazier v. Meadows, 193 W.Va. 20, 26,454 S.E.2d 65, 71 (1994). Despite the Judicial Branch's broad power to control its budget, the Legislatill'e, through the impeachment h'ial,· is attempting-in direct contravention of its constitutionally-limited powers-to infringe upon the Judicial Branch's constitutional power to conh·ol its budget. Importantly, the Alticles related to the Judicial Branch's use of its budget do not allege that the 16 Justices failed to comply with their budget as provided to them. 4 Rather, those Articles criticize how duly procured budgetary funds are used. In essence, the impeachment seeks to alter the Judicial Branch's budget by punishing Justices for using duly procured funds after the fact. In so doing, the Legislature oversteps the bounds of its constii.utionally-defmed role. It is undisputed the judicial branch has plenary constitutional authority to control its budget, and there is further no dispute that the expendittu·es that serve as the basis for the Petitioner's impeachment fall squarely within the Court's plenary power to control its budget. Basically, the Legislature is attempting to punish the Petitioner for using her unquestionable legal and constitutional authority to promulgate and use the judicial budget. This is impetrnissible. If the Legislature seeks a greater role in controlling the Judicial Branch's budget, the proper method of gaining that control is through a constitutional amendment5-not punitive measures intended to coerce the. Judiciary from using its duly enacted budget. Accordingly, because the Legislature is attempting to use punitive measures in an attempt to police the Judicial Branch's budget, the Legislature is overstepping its constitutionally-defined mle. 6 Therefore, the Petitioner seeks an Order·staying. 4 As discussed below, Articles IV, VI and XIV accuse the Justices of misusing funds to pay senior status judges, however, established West Virginia case law shows that the Supreme Court of Appeals may lise Administrative Orders to procure payment to ensure that the West Virginia courts :run properly-and that those Administrative Orders tmmp legislation to the contrary. See infra, at Argument section II. 5 Indeed, Amendment Question 2, a provision aimed at re-distributing the Judicial Branch's power to control its Budget, is on the ballot for consideration in the upcoming general election: 6 In addition to violating Alticle V, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution, the Alticles of Impeachment violate Alticle VI, Section 51, Provision 13: Per that Provision, "In the event of any inconsistency between any of the provisions of this section and any of the other provisions of the constitution, the provisions of this section shall ·prevail." W. Va. Const. art. Vl, § 51. Importantly, Article 6, Section 51 gives the Judiciary broad power to control its budget, prohibiting the Legislature fi·om altering the Judiciary's budgetary items. Here, the Legislature is attempting to impeach with the authority vested in it by Article IV, Section 9, which states, "Any officer of the state may be impeached for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor." Although this provision is not facially inconsistent with Article VI, Section 51, Provision 13, the Legislature's application of Article IV, Section 9 renders it in opposition to Article VI, Section 51. Article VI, Section 51 gives the Judiciary broad power to control their budget; however, the Legislature seeks to rein in that broad power using Article IV, Section 9 to punish the Court for using du1y procured budgetary funds. Simply put, the Legislature is attempting to use Article IV, Section 9 to punitively narrow the Judiciary's ability to control its budget, an act which is elsewhere prohibited. If the Legislature seeks the ability to exmt greater control over the Judiciary's budget, constitutional refmm-not punitive impeachment hearings-is the 17 - · · · ..· - - - - - - - - - - - - and ultimately halting the Senate's in1peacbment proceedings premised on the unconstitutional Articles oflmpeacbment. b. 'fhe Articles of Impeachment violate the West Virginia Constitution by appropriating the Judicial Branch's exclusive conduct. The Supr~me pow~r to regulate judicial Comi of Appeals of West Virginia has plenary authority to promulgate rules governing judicial conduct, and the rules it adopts have the force and effect of a statute. See W.VA. CaNST., rut. VIII, §§ 3 and 8. Additionally, whe~ a rule adopted by the Comi conflicts with another statute or law, the rule supersedes the conflicting statute or law. See W.VA. CONST., art. VIII,§ 8. The Court has "general supervisory control over all inteimediate appellate courts, circuit courts and magistrate courts," and "[t]he chief justice shall be the administrative head ~fall the courts." See W.VA. CONST. mi. VIII, § 3. Accordingly, the Comi also has the authority to "use its inherent rule-making power" to "prescribe, adopt, promulg;ate, and amend mles prescribing a judicial code of ethics, and a code of regulations _and standards of conduct and performances for justices, judges and magistrates, along with sanctions and penalties for any violation thereof." See W.VA. CoNS)'. art. VIII, § 8. Under this constitutional authority, the Comt can: Censure or temporm'ily suspend any justice, judge or magistrate having the judicial power of the State, including one of its own members, for m1y violation of any such code of ethics, code of regulations and standards, or to retire any such justice, judge or magistrate who is eligible for retirement under the West Virginia judges' retirement system (or any successor or substituted retirement system for justices, judges, and magistrates of this State) and who, because of advancing years and attendant physical or mental incapacity; should not, in the opinion of. the Supreme Court of Appeals, continue to serve as a justice, judge or magisttate. I d. proper way to exert that controL Because the impeachment clause creates an inconsistency with the budget clause, the budget clause must prevail. W.Va. Const. art. VI, §51. Therefore, the Legislature's use of Article IV, Section 9 is unconstitutional because it runs afoul of Article VI, Section 51, Provision 13. 18 - As a result, the investigations of any perceived or -···------------- ~omplained of violations of the provisions of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, including violations of Canons I and II, remain the exclusive province of the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Investigation Commission .is the only governmental entity in West Virginia vested with power to investigate violations of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct. This stmcture aligns perfectly with the West Virginia Constitution. "The judicial power of the state shall be vested solely in a supreme court of appeals." See W.VA. CoNST. art. VIII, § . 1. Specifically, with respect to discipline for violations of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, "[t]he Supreme Court of Appeals will mW,ce an independent evaluation of the record and recommendations of the Judicial [Hearing] Board in disciplinary proceedings." Syl. Pt. 1, W Va. Judiciql Inquby Comm 'n v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 233, 271 S.E.2d 427 (1980); Syl. Pt., In re Hey, 193 W.Va. 572, 457 S.E.2d 509 (1995); Iri re Callaghan, 238 W.Va. 495, 796 S.E.2d 604 (2017). "This Court is the final arbiter of legal ethics problems and must malce the ultimate decisions about public reprimands, suspensions or annulments of attorneys' licenses to practice law." Syl. Pt. 3, Com7n. on Legal Ethics v. Blair, 174 W.Va. 494, 327 'S.E.2d 671 (1984), cert denied, 470 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 139 (1985). Further, "[t]he West Virginia Constitution confers on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, both expressly and by necessary implication, the power to protect the integrity of the judicial branch of government and the duty to regulate the political activities of all judicial officers." Syl. Pt. 6, State ex rel. Carenbauer v. Hechler, 208 W.Va. 584, 542 S.E.2d 405 (2000) Axticle of hnpeachment XIV states that: "The failure by the Justices, individually and collectively, to cany out these necessmy and proper administrative· activities constitute a violation of the provision· of Canon I and Canon II of the West Virginia Code of Judicial 19 Conduct." ~pp. 026. Canon I states that "A Judge shall uphold and promote the Independence, Integrity, and Impartiality of the Judiciary, and shall avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety. " Canon II states that "A Judge shall pe7form the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially, Competently, and Diligently. " The LegislatUl'e has neither ihe authority to attempt to interpret, enforce, or construe the Canons of Judicial Conduct, nor the authority to revisit rulings interpreting those Canons. Any impeachment proceedmg which relies upon an interpretation by the LegislatUl'e of the CiUlons of Judicial Conduct is unconstitutional because the judicial branch-not the LegislatUl'e-is vested with the sole authority to regulate judicial conduct under the West Virginia Constitution. Therefore, this Court should stay the impeachment proceedings in the pendency of its ruling and issue a mandamus requiring the Senate to halt the impeachment proceedings because they are premised on unconstitutional Articles. ll. The Articles of Impeachment violate West Virginia Constitutional precedent regarding the appointment of senior status judges. The State Constitution requires the Supreme Corut of Appeals to keep the courts open and provide access to all. Specifically, West Virginia Constitution, Article III, Section 17 states: The courts of this state shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delaY, The State Constitution also establishes that individuals have the right to trial by jury in certain actions. See, e.g., W.VA. CONST. art. III,§§ 13-14. "The right of access to our courts is one of the basic and fund~ental principles of jmisprudence in West Virginia." Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 422, 633 S.E.2d 771, 776 (2006) (recognizing access to courts as a fundamental constitutional right). 20 In furtherance of the right of access to the comis, the Judicial Reorganization Amendment established a procedme for utilizing senior status judges for temporary assignment: A retired justice or judge may, with his permission and with the approval of t4e supreme court of appeals, be recalled by the chief justice of the supreme comi of appeals for temporary ~ssignment as a justice of the supreme comt of appeals, or judge of an inte1mediate appellate corui, a circuit comi or a magistrate corui. W. VA. CONST. mi. Vill, § 8. The Judiciary also has inherent power to obtain necessary resources and defend constitutional interests. See, e.g., State ex rel. Lambert v. Stephens, 200 W. Va. 802, 811, 490 S.E.2d 891, 900 (1997). "Prior to the adoption of the Judicial Reorganization . . Amendment, there may have been some question as to this Corui' s supervisory powers over lower comis. See Fahey v. Brennan, 136 W.Va. 666, 68 S.E.2d 1 (1951). It is now quite clear under the Judicial Reorganization Amendment that considerable supervisory powers have been conferred upon this Comt." Stern Bros. v. McClure, 160 W.Va. 567, 573, 236 S.E.2d 222, 226 (1977). The Supreme Comt of Appeals has relied UJ:>On its constitutional authority t? supervise , lower comts and recall senior status judges for tempormy assignments from time to time, often in cases of exigent circumstances. When a judge is absent from performing his or her duties for a significant length of time, but his or her position is not vacant, the Govemor is prevented from appointing a replacement for such judge. See App. 043-044. For exmnple, judges can be absent from the bench for protracted health problems, suspensions· due to ethical violations, or other extraordinary circumstances. The appointment by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Co:urt of Appeals of senior status judges to serve in such circumstances is therefore permissible under its explicit and inherent powers. West Virginia Code § 51-9-10 does not prohibit the Chief Justice from appointing a senior status judge to fill a vacm1cy on a tempormy basis in the face of exigent circumstances. 21 ---------·-·--·· That statute purports to prohibit paying senior status judges more than a sitting judge's salary. See, e.g., W.VA. CODE§ 51~9-10."7 Generally, that code section states that per diem payments and retirement payments to a senior status judge appointed from a panel "as needed and feasible toward the objective of reducing caseloads and providing speedier trials" cannot exceed the salary 8 for a sitting circuit judge. Constitutional provisions, however, cannot be superseded by a statutory provision of the legislature, such as W.VA. CoDE§ 51~9-10. 9 Moreover, there is substantial authority supporting the position that the Supreme Comt of Appeals can. estaplish rules that take precedence over statutes. The Constitution states that "The comt shall have power to promulgate mles for all cases and proceedings, civil and criminal, for all of the courts of the state relating to writs, warrant~, process, practice and procedure, which shall have the force and effect of law." W. VA. CONST. art. Vill, § 3; see also id. art. Vill, § 8 (noting the Supreme Court's "inherent rule~maldng ethical mles and rules of conduct for judges). 7 power" and granting it authority to adopt Fprthermore, the Judicial Reorganization W.Va. CODE§ 51~9-10, entitled "Services of senior judges" states: The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is authorized and empowered to create a panel of senior judges to utilize the talent and experience of former circuit court judges and supreme court justices of this state. The Supreme Comt of Appeals shall promulgate rules providing for said judges and justices to be assigned duties as needed and as feasible toward the objective of reducing caseloads and providing speedier trials to litigants througho.ut the state: Provided, 'That reasonable payment shall be made to said judges and justices on a per diem basis: Provided, however, That the per diem and retirement compensation of a senior judge shall not exceed the salary of a sitting judge, and allowances shall also be made for necessmy expenses as provided for special judges under mticles two and nfue of this chapter. 8 W.Va. CODE§ 51-2-13, entitled "Salaries of judges of circuit courts," states that "beginning July 1, 2011, the annual salary of a circuit court judge shall be $126,000." 9 In the House of Delegates, during the debate on the Articles ofbnpeachment, the suggestion was raised that Senior Status judges simply work for free after reaching the maximum salary under § 51-9-1 0. Of course, any judge placed . in such a situation could continue to work for free, or could simply inform the Supreme Court of Appeals they are no longer interested in continuing on that appointment and aren't interested in any more appointments until the 'following yem·. As contract employees, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia would have no authority to compel the Senior Status Judges to work for fiee, and indeed, as the Court lmows, a senior status judge can refuse an appointment for any reason. The absurd nature of the House's proposed solution demonstrates that these Articles of Impeachment were adopted without any consideration of the obligations imposed on the judiciary by the West Virginia Constitution. 22 A:rriendment expressly granted the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia the "power to promulgate administrative rules." Stern Bros. v. McClure, 160 W.Va. 567, 573, 236 S.E.2d 222, 226 (1977). Ali:icle VIII, Section 8 of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment recognized th~ inherent rulemalcing power ·which this Comi: previously used to adopt judicial rules and gave such rules "the force and effect of statutory law'' by amending Article VIII, Section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution to read: . When rules herein authorized are prescribed, adopted and promulgated, they shall supersede all laws and parts of laws in conflict therewith, and such laws shall be and become of no further force ~r effect to the extent of such conflict. Id. (citing W. VA; CONST. mi:. VIII, § 8); see also Syl. Pt. 2, Bennett v. Warner, 179 W.Va. 742, 743, 372 S.E.2d 920, 921 (1988) ("Under article eight, section three of our Constitution, the Supreme Court of Appeals shall have the power to promulgate rules for all of the comi:s of the State related to process, practice, and procedure, which shall have the force and effect of law."; State v. Davis, 178 W.Va. 87, 91, 357 S.E.2d 769, 772 (1987) (overtumed on other grounds); State ex rel. Kenamond v. Warmuth, 179 W.Va. 230, 232, 366 S.E.2d 738, 740 (1988); Teter v. Old Colony Co., 190 W. Va. 711, 724-25, 441 S.E.2d 728, 741-42 (1994); Williams v. Cummings, 191 W.Va. 370, 372, 445 S.E.2d 757,759 (1994). The Supreme Court of Appeals "has not hesitated to invalidate a statUte that conflicts with om inherent rule-making authority." State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Prinz, 231 W.Va. 96, 10s; 743 S.E.2d 907, 916 (2013) (noting "this Court's longstanding position that the legislative branch of government cannot abridge the tule-malcing power of this Com·t''). In Stern Brothers, the Court held that: The administrative rule promulgated by· the Supteme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, setting out a procedure for the tempormy assignment of a circuit judge in the event of a disqualification of a particular circuit judge, operates to supersede the existing statutory provisions found in W.Va. Code, 51-2-9 and -10 23 and W. Va. Code, 56-9 . .2, insofar as such provisions relate to the .selection of · special judges and to the assignment of a case to another circuit judge when a particular circuit judge is disqualified. Syl. Pt. 2, 160 W.Va. 567, 567, 236 S.E.2d 222, 223 (1977).'On May 19, 2017, pursuant to its mle-making authority, then-Chief Justice Loughry issued an administrative order, which stated that the coustitutional administrative authority of the Court to keep the courts of the state open 1l1lill.ps W. VA. CODE § 51-9-10 "in certain exigent situations involving protracted illness, lengthy suspensions due to ethical violations, or other extraordinary circumstances ... ," and that "the chief justice has ·authority to detennine in certain exigent circumstances that a senior judicial officer may continue in an appointment beyond the ljpritations set forth in W. VA. CODE § 51-9.,. 10, to avoid the interruption in statewide continuity of judicial services." See App. 043-044. To th~ extent a possible conflict existed between § 519-10 and the Judicial ~eorganization Amendment, this Administrative Order super~eded the statute, eliminating that possibility. This Administrative Order arose in pru.i from Judge Callaghan of Nicholas County's suspension from the practice of law due to violations of the code of judicial ethics in relation to certain campaign adv~1iisements he r~ against his political opponent. Because the newly elected Judge was suspended for two years, and no other judge sits in that circuit, an exu·aordinary need for temporary judicial services arose in order to provide the people of Nicholas County with court services and to avoid the unconstitutional denial of access to. the speedy administration of justice. 10 Although the Adminisu·ative Order does not explicitly reference and overrule § 51-9-10, it does state that where that statute comes into conflict with the Court's inherent duties under the 10 Litigants would not be served by sending a different senior status judge every week, and there was no such surplus of senior status judges to send. Judge Rowe commutes several hours a day for this appointment. 24 Constitution; the Admlnistrative Order and the Constitution take precedence ~ver the statute. Fmthe1more, the statement in the Administrative Order must be .applied retroactively, as it addresses "matters that are regulated exclusiv~ly by this Court pursuant to the Rule-Making Clause, Article VIII;, § 3· of the West Virginia Constitution." Richmond v. Levin, 219 W. V?-. 512, 514, 637. S.E.2d 610, 612 (2006). Therefore, the Administrative Order of the Supreme Comt of Appeals of West Virginia, Article VIII, § 3, and Alticle VIII, § 8 of the West Virginia Constitution, supersedes W.VA. CODE §51-9-10. See App. 043-044. Moreover, the Legislature's proclamation in W. VA. CODE § 51-9-10 cannot limit the constitutional authority of the Supreme Comt of Appeals set forth in the Judicial Reorganization Amendment. . A judge appointed based .on exigent circumstances is not simply providing daily stand-in duties to reduce caseloads and provide speedier trials, which are the two reasons listed ' ' in W. VA. CoDE § 51-9-10. Instead, such a judge is temporarily assigned to deal with "exigent circumstances" that left a court without a Judge, but did not constitute a vacancy which the governor could fill. Id. Because thes.e judges were appointed under a different authority altogether-the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia's administrative rules. and inherent duty and constitutional authority to keep the Courts open, which supersede the West Virginia Code, and which cannot be limited by an act of the Legislature absent a constitutional amendment-these senior status judges' salaries are not governed by W.VA. CODE§ 51-9-10. As a result, the Alticles of Impeachment relying on that section of the Code are unconstitutional bec~use they infi:inge upon the Chief Justice's stated authority under the Judicial Reorganization Amendment, to promulgate rules and administer the Judiciary branch pmsuant to West Virginia Constitution Article VIII, § 3. 25 Therefore, this Court should stay the proceedings in the pendency of its· ruling and issue a mandamus requiring the Senate to halt the impeachment proceedings because they are premised on tmconstii.utional Articles of Impeachment. ill. The Articles of Impeachment violate the Petitioner's constitutional right to due. process. Finally, the Articles of. Impeachment violate the Petitioner's constitutional right to due· process. Although the West Virginia Constitution vests in the Legislature the "sole power of impeachment," the Legislature may not wantonly use that power in a manner that violates the due process the Petitioner is due tmder Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution. See, e.g., Fraley v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 177 W.Va. 729,733, 356 S.E2d 483,487 (1987) ("The Legislature 'may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such [a property] interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards."'). Here, they seek not only to remove the Petitioner from her duly elect~d office, but to talce her livelihood. More specifically, because impeachment implicates the Petitioner's vested right in a state pension, 1.1 the Legislature must afford the Petitioner due process during the impeachment process. See In re Watldns, 233 W.Va. 170, 175, 757 S.E.2d 594, 599 (2013) ("[A] state official who is impeached fmfeits all rights to a state pension."); Dadisman v. Moore, 181 W. Va. 779·, 791-92, 384 S.E.2d 816, 828 (1988), holding modified by Benedict v. Polan, 186 W. Va. 452, 413 S.E.2d 107 (1991)' ("[T]he realization and protection of public employees' pension property lights is a constitutit VIrginia: . ' THAT, pursuant.to the ·authbrlty granted to the HCiuse of Delegatas hi Sectron 91 Article IV 5 Con~?tJtutloli of till? ~tat!? of .West Virgini.a, th~t Chief Justice M?rg:~ret 6 of tt1e Workman, Justice 7 Allen Loughry, Justice Robin D1;Wis, and Justlpe Elizabeth Walker, Jusfloes of the Supreme Court 8 of Appeals of West VIrginia, be lmpeacheo for maladministration, corruption; incompetency, 9 neglect gf duty, anc;f cert;ain high oritn£?.\3 and misdenieanoi13 pori1mitt.ed in thei.r Ol'liJacity and by 10 vlr.tue Qf their offioe;. as ...IU.Stices of the $.t.~preme Court.of Appeals of West Vlr~lnla, and that said i1 Articles of Impeachment, being fourteeh in number, be. and are hereby adopted by the House of 12 P$1egates, and that the sa)Tie sh~:d! be ~Xhlbite<:l to the Senate iii ~he following words and figures 1 13 to wjt; 14 ARTICLE$ exhi~itE!cl l;>y the HoU,Se of Pe!eg~tes of the $t.a~e pf Wef?t Virg]ili€\ iri tll.e nfilme ()f . 15 themseives and ail ofthe people:ofthe state of West Virginia against: 1'6 Margqret Workman, wpo W?$ j;lt th~ g~ne·r~l e!eoticin held In November 2008, ~uly 17 eiected to th!;l office of Justice ofthe suprem.e Court of Appeals of West VIrginia . App. 001 As Adopte" by J'qdiciary Committee, Al..lg~ 1 (Art/1!/es may be renumbered.. but content wlllnot ahange.) ·1 a,nd on the 29 1h day-of De.oeniber 20M, i'!fter having d.uly quaUfied a~ a. ji.!stloe by 2 taRing the required oath to support the Golistitutioli of tti~ United States and the 3 Con~titutiqn .of the !SM.e of WE?$t Virginia an,d faithfully glsqhar~e t~e dulles of th~t 4 office to ihe best of her sklli and judgment, entered upon the <;lil;lch~r~e Qfthe Eluties 5 there·ot: and·onthe 161!1 day of Febrw:\ry·zo18, was eleVated to the position of Chief 6 Jystice ~nd Elntereq upol'\ th~ .discharge of thl3 dyties ther~of; and 7 Allen 8 elected to the office of Justice qf th~ $upreme Court of Appeah'l of West Virgin~a 9 and on the 141h dEJY of December 2012, after having duly qUalified as a Justice by Lou~hry, who was· at the general el,ectlon field In Novemner 2012! duly Ulil~ec;l St?,tE$s and the 10 taking the required oath to support the Oonstitlltion of the 11 C,onstit~Hon ofl:he State of West Vlt.!;Jihla 12. office to the best of her skill and judgment, entered l!POn the discharge of the duties 13 thereof; .and 14 Robin Davis, who was at the general election helci in Nov~mber. 2012 duly elected 15 to the office of Justice· of the Suprem~ Court pf Appeals 1'6 the 1$11i pay of January 2013, after having cluly qualified c;~s a Justice by taking the 17 required oath to support the Constitutl.on of the l)nited ·States and the Constitution 18. of fhe Stale of West Virginia an,d faithfully discnaf!;)$ the duties of that office to the 19 best Qf her skill and judgment, entered LIP6n ,the <;lischarge of the dl)tir;l~ th!"lreqf; 20 and 21 Eli.za.b~th Wail~er, who was .at the general !31eotion held in Noveml;ler ~016 qu!y 22 elected to the office of Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of'\lvest Vir!;lin!a 23 atid ali the tjlh an·q faithfully discharge the <;lutles ·of th~t of West Virgtni? and ori day Of DeC:f:lt'(iber 2016, after having qujy·quallfjed ~$a J1,1$ti6e by 2 App. 002 by .Judiciary Committ~e, ~ug, 7 (Arilc/es may be renumbered, bu./ porilent will nQt cib(;lnge.) As Adopted 1 taJ~i.@ t~e required oat~ to suppor:t the Gonstitutign 2 conf;>titution of th~ State ·of West Virginia and fc,:\ithfi.Jily ctischarge thE?. dt.!ties of that 3 office to the best of her skill and judgment, eh'ter.ed·Upbh tlie tiischarge- of the duties 4 thereof; and 5 In maintenance and support of their hnpeaohment against them Margaret 9 Wgr-lpl;lats of W~st Virginia unmindful of the 12 dtitie9 of their high offices, and 13 the ~ate qfW~~ Virginia anq f~ithfuily dis.charg·e th~ c!uties of their office~ r:~s sw;:h J!Jstices, Whlle 14 in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justices, ih viofation of their oaths of office, theri 15 anc;I there, with regard to the discHarge of the duties ofthC?ir offices, b()mm~nclng in.or about 2012, 16 . did .knowingly and intentionally aot, and each ~ubsequently oversee. in thei.t capacity e~s Chief 17 J!lstict;J, and did in that capacity as Chi~f Justice sev~;~rally sign arid .approV!;l- the contracts 18 necessary to facilitate, at each s.uch relevant timE?, to ovE?rp·ay oertaih Senjpr Status ·19 viol;;dion ·of the statu.tory limited maX.lmum s:;tlacy for such J1.1dgf;l~, Which overp<;~yment is r;~ 20 .violation ofthe provf$fons ofW~Va. Code §51~2-13. ~nd W.Va. Code §51.:.9.,.10, and, in violation of 21 an. Administrative Order of the Silpreine Court ofAppe.a[s, in potential violation oftj1e provisions 22 o(W:va, 23 assist any person to obtain money to which he was not entitled, .and in potential vlolatioh qf tbe contrar~ to thE? oatlis taken by them to support the Colistitutioh of J~tdges in ' Cod~ §61-,3-22, r~lating to the cr.ime of fal9ifiQation of apqo_unt!'? with intent to enable qr 3 App.003 .o+$ Adopted b;Y .Judlc.iary Coanmitt~t;!, Aug, 7 (Article~ may be r.~n!lm~ered,, !)ut content will not change.) 1 prov.l$jons of W.Va. Code §~.:.1()~45, relating to the crlrne offraud agc;j.in$fthe WestVir~inia Public 2 Employees Retlrement.SY!'l.tem, ~nd, in potentia] violation ofthe provisions set forth in W.Va. Co!:fe. 3 ~61-3-24~ relating tb the crime of ·obtaining money, property and services by-false pretenses, and, 4 all of th_~ above are in vic:>latic;m of the provisions of Canon i arid Canon II of the West Virglni$.. 5 bt;ide qf Judicial Condu.ct. Art!cl¢ II 6 That the said Ohief Justic;E;J Margaret Workman, Justice Allen Lqughry, Ju~t(ce Robin 7 Davis, and Justice Elizabeth Walker, being at all times relew~nt Justices of the Supreme Court of ~ APPt?l;:lls i:)f West Virginia, unmlnd.f!..ll 9 talper 21 administrative activities: ·2.2 23. A) qf the duties of their high offioes, purppse~ includ.lng, but and contra,.Y to the oa'ths wlthaut lih1itatlot:~. to c~rtalh e!{arripl_e~. use of s~ate vehicles, for unneeded computers for home use, for fe!;]ula:r lunches from proper .supervisory oversight of the operations of the Court and the To preP.~re and adopt suffiCient and effective travel policies prior to October o(2016, a'nd Mlle!l th~rt?~ftl=lr to properly effect\;lat~ such policy py E;Jxcepting the JustiCEJ!? _frcirn 4 App. 004 As Adopted by Judit:;iary Committ~e, Aug. 7 (Aft/ales may be renumbered, but cbnteht will not chim~e.) 1 said pplicles, and suojected subordlnafes and employees. to 2 Ju€!tlce$.; a: greater burd~n than.the 3 1,3) Tp rE;Jport tax~bl~.frihge l;>eneflts, such a$ o:;~r Ul;le am;! regult,Jter··not That the said Justice Allen koughry1 V br;ilng a Jl,lstice of the Suprt?me Co!.lrt of Appeals pf 11 West Vir~lnia, unmindful of the dl,lti!3s of his high office, and obntrary to the oaths taken by him to 12 support the Constitution of the .Stqt~ ·of VV~st Virginia and faithfully dlscha.rge the d!Jties 13 office as such Justice, while ln the exercise ofthe functions of the offlc~ of Justice, in violl;ltion·of 14 his oath of offia$·, then and there, with regard· to the disohar~e bf the duties of his office, did 15 beginning In or about Beoember 2012, a~d continuing for -a period 16 and use state r;JOVernment vehicles for personal use; including, bl,lt hot limited to, using 17 v'eh!c!e E~nd gfilsbllne puri::ha.sea utilizing a stat$ issued fuel purchase card to travel to the 18 Greenbrier on one or more occasions for bo.ok slgnings ahd $ales, which such acts enriched his 19 -family and which acts constitute the use of state resources and property for personal g~in hi 20 violation 9fthe prmtlslohs of W.Va. Coc;i~ §68~2-5, the t:iroVlslbn~ ofthe West Virginia $tate Ethics of his of years, lntentlont?IIY acquire a state Act, and constitute a violation of th.e provisions .of c~non I of thEl VVes.t Virginia Cod~ of Judicia) 22 Conduct. 7 App. 007 As Adopte~ by Judh:i;~ny Committee, Aua. 7 (Articles may be renumbersr!, but con(ent will not ahange.) Artlcl~ VI 1 ThaJ the said Justice A1[13n Loughry, being at p.ll times relevant a Justice of. the Supreme 2 Court of Appeals .of West. Virginia, and at t~at relevant time Individually Chief Justice of the 3 Supreme· Court c;>f Appeals 4 qontr!'lry to the oaths taken by him to support the Constitutiqn of the $tp.\e of West Virgini~ and 5 faithfully discharge the duties qfhis offipe as such Ju~tfces, while In the exercise of the f~nctlrms 6 of the 9ffice of Justice, in viol~tion of his oa~l') of office, then and there, with regard to the discharg13 7 of the duties of his office, did on or about May 19, 2017, did In his capacity as Chief Justice, dr~rft 8 an Administrative Order of the Supreme Court of Appeals, bearing his signature, aufhoril..ing the 9 Supreme Court of Appeals to overpay certain Senior Status Judges in violation of the statutorily of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of his high offices, and a violation of the provisions of 10 limited maximum salary for such Judges, which overpayment is 11 W.Va. Code §51 ...2-13 and W.Va. Code §51-9-1 o; his authoriz;!'ltion of such overpayMents was a 12 violation of the alearstatutpry Jaw of the state of Wel:lt Vlq~inia, as set fo·rth in those relevant Code 13 ~eqtions, and, was an act in potential violation of the provisions setforth in W.Va. Code §61-3- 14 22, relating 15 obtain money to which h~ was not el")titled, and in potential violation of the provisions of 16 Code §5-10-45, rel~ting to the crime of fraud against the West Virginia Public Employei;O!s 17 Retirement System, and, In potential violation of the provisions set fqrth In W.Va. Code §61-3-24, 18 relating to the crime of opt\3,ining money, property and $er\iices by fal~e pretens{?s, and all of the 19 ~bove are In violation of the provisions 20 Judicial Conduqt. to the crime of falsification of accounts with of Canon int~nt to enable or assist any person to w. v~. I and Canon II of the W~st Virginia Cgde of Artl~le VIi 21 lhat the said Justice Allen Loughry, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of APPI39.1s 9f unminqflll qf the duties of his hig!l office, ahd contrary to the o~ths ~aken by him to 22 West Virginia, 23 support the Constitution of the state of we·st Virginia and faithfully discharge the t;luties of his App. 008 As Adopted ~Y J~dic&aay .Coltlnmtee~ A:liS• 1 (Arllci~$ may bl;l renqmb~reif, Ptlt c;onfent Will not r;J.~al!(1f!,) s\.(cli Justice, While hi the exerCise o"fthe functions ofth~ offio.e 9f justice,· in violation of 1 office .2 his oath o.f office; then and there·, with r~g::1rd to the discharge of the duties of his offit;lr?, dld wMt~ 3 state funds with little or no .opncern for the costs to be borne by the tax pc;~yer for unMcess:ary ~nd 4 IE~Vfsh spending 5 approximately $363,000, Which sum lncl4ded the pwr~hase of a $$1 1924 couch, a $3.3,750.flo.or, 6 and other such wasteful expenditure not necessa·ry for· thE! administration t>f justice and the 7 execution of the dU~!3S of the Court 1 Which re·presents a waste of stat~ futids. f,1!'3 in the ·rf?lit:iv~tion and remodeling 6f hili? person~! office, 'to the sUm of Article VIII ~ that the sa!cJ J.ustlce Ellz~bE;~th Walk~r, peing a 4ustipe of the Sup,teme Court of ,A,pp$als (:). of West Vlr~lnla, unmindful of th€3 duties of her high office, ~nd contrary to the oaths taken. by her 10 to..supj:JOrt the Constitution of the State. of West Virginia and faithfully tlischarge the duties of her 11 office as suph Justic~, while in the. exerqlse of the functions of t})e offjce of Justice, ih viol$tion bf 12 her oath of office, then ~nd th~re, with regard to the discharge of the puties of her office, did waste 13 state fulids with little or no concern for' the costs to be borne by the tax payer for unnecessary and 14 Iavis!, $pc::w:Hng in the tenov~?tion and remodeling df Mr personal office, which h~d been largely. 15 remodeled less than seven years prior, to the sum of approxima'tely $131,000, which sum 16 includE?,d, but Is not limited to, the purchase of approximately $27,000 in items listed as office 17 furnlshli'Jgs and wallpaper, an!=! other suqh wastefl)l 18 administration of justice and the execution of the duties of the Court, which represents~ waste of 1!;) state funds. e~Pe.nditl,.lre not nec~ss.ary fpr the Arti<;:ie IX 20 That the said JUstice Robin D~vls, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of 21 WE!st Virginia, unrninafuJ. of th~ dUti~s. of her high office, and contrary td ihe o13ths taken py lier to 22 support the Constitution of "the State. of Vvest 'Virginia and falthful.ly dlscha,rge th~ <;luties of h!;lf 9 App. 009 A.s Adopted by Judiciary- Committee, Aug. 7 (Aitloles may be renflmbered, but ilonleht wlil nat ahahge.) 1 office a$ ~uch Ju~tlce; whiie tn the. exercise :of the function~ .ofthe. office of J.u~ti"ce, in violation of -2 tier' oath of office, tht:m and there( with regard to the.discharge of the duties of her office, did waste 3 ~t~te f!JI1d$ with little i:_!r no c'ohGt;Jni for the cqst9 to be porn.(:! by t!iEl tE.J:iC pi;tyer for.unnE!i;l9$1!lafy and 4 lavish $pending in th~. renovation and retnodelinQ .of her personar nffice, to the sum of 5 approxrmately $50a,ooo, Whlah sum inoluaed, but is not limited to, the p~rcliase of an oval nig Q th_af co.st approximately $20,500, a qesk chair that C0!3f apprpxlmafely $8,()00 and :over $23,Q.Qci 7 In design .ssrvh;:es, anti other such w;;tsteful·expendit~Jre not necessary for the administration of 8 justice and tht? execlltiQn of the d,uti~s Qf the .CQI.jrt, Wlli9!1 r$prese!it~ a Wi'!~te (:if stat~? fOnd~. Article X . 9 That the said Justice Robin Davis, being at all trrn~?s relevant a Justice of the . supreme 10 C<;>urt of Appeals of West Virginia, and at certain relevant times indiVidually Chlef.Justtce of the 1'I Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, unmilidful of the duties of her high offices, and 12. o'Dnfraiy tq the oaths taken by her to support the Constitution of the State of We.st Virginia and 13· faithfufly discharge i:he duties ·of his office as 14 ef the office of Justit;e, in .violation of her oath of officE!, then and there,~ with re~ard to the disqharge 15 of the duties .bfher· office, did ih the ye.ar 20141 did ln her capacity as Chief Justh;ie •. sign certain 16 .Forms WV 48, to retain and compensate certain Senior Status Jud!;JeS the execution of which 17 forms aliowed tht! Supreme Court·of Appeals to overpay those certain Senior-status Judges in 18 viol~tiO,ii 19 violation of.the provisions of W.Va. co·de §51~2-13 i:ind W.Va, Code §$1 ..9~10; her authorization 20 of sUch ovatpaym~l'\ts was El violation of the clear statutory law of the state of West Virglhia, as ~1 SE(t forth 42 :?et forth ln W, Va. Code §61-3-22,. relatlns tq the orlme pf fal:?lflca~lon ·of accounts with intent tq 23 enable or assist al'\y person to obtain money to which he wa~ not entitled, and in potential vi61ation 24 of the pr.Qvislons of W.Va. Cotle §5.:1 0-4S, rell'ltirig to the crime offn:iud ~;~galrist the West Virghi(a $UCh Justice, while In the exercise of the functions of the statutorily limited m1=1Xim\.lm ·salarY for s~ch Jud!;Jes, which overpayment ·is a in thOse re!evant Code sections, ·and, was 1:1n act hi potential violation of 1he p~ovi9iohs 10 App. 010 As Adopted by Judiciary Committee; Aug. 7 (Arl!~le$ may be renumbered, but content will not chimge.) 1 Pt,~blic Employees Retirement System, and, in potential violation of the provisions set forth 2 W.Va. Code §61-3-24, relating to 3 pretenses, and al! of the apove are In violation of the provisions of Canon I and C13non II of the 4 West Virginia Oqqe of Jw;ficiai Condt,tct. in the crjme of obt~inin~ money, property and servic;:es by f~ise Articl$ ?(I 5 That the said Chief Justice Margaret Workman, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of 6 Appeals qf West Vlrglnla, unmindful of the duties of her high office, and contrary to t~e oaths 7 taken by her to support the GonstitL!tion of the State of Wes~ Vir~ihia and faithfully discharge the 8 duti~s 9 in vroiation of her oath of office, then arid there, with re~Jard to the disch;:~rge of the duti~s of her 10 office, did waste state fUnds wlth little or no cpnoern for thl? costs to be borne by the tax payer for 11 unnecessary and lavish spending in \he renovation ant! remodeling of her personal office, to the 12 sum of approximately $111,000, which sum inciudect, but is not limited to, the purchase of wide 13 plank cherry flooring, and other such wasteful expenditure not necessary for the administration of 14 justice and the exe~:;ution of the duties of the Court, which represents a waste of state funds, of her office as such Justice, whUe in the exercise of tht? functions of the office of Justice, Article XII 15 That the said Justice Margaret Workman, being at ali' times relevant a Justice of the 16 Supreme Court of Appeals of West VIrginia, arid at certain relevant times individually Chief Justice 17 of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of her high offices, and 18 contrary to th~ oathl:1 t~k~n 19 faithfully discharg·e the duties of his Qffice as such Justice, while in the ex~rcise t>f the functions ·20 of the office of ,Justice, in violation of her oath of office, then and th~re, with regard to thl? disch~ rge 21 of the quti~s qf her offipe, ~!d lfl the year 2015 1 did In her capacity as Chief justlce, sign certain 22 Forms WV 48, to reti:jin and Q9rripensate certain Senior Status Judges th~ ex~cution of which py h~r tp supp 0rt the Constitution. of the State of West Virginia and 11 App. 011 As Ad9pted by ..flldi¢i~ty Committee, Aug.·-7 (Artlo/es may biJ renumbered, but aoritehl will not change.) 1. forms allowed the Supreme Court of Appears -to overpay those ·.c~rtain Senior :status Judges in 2 violatlGh of the $ ylqlat!Qn of the prcivi~iQhfl of IJI/,Va. God!9 §51.:.2.-.13 and w:va. Cpde §.51..:9~1 0; her authorlz~tlon 4 of such overpayments was a violation of the oiear statutory law of the state of West Virginia; as 5 set forth in those relevant Code s~ctions.~ and, was an act In p6lentiaJ violation of-the provisions 6 s~t forth in W.Vp.. Code §€?1.;3_-22, relating to the crime of falsification of accounts with intent to ·7 enf;lble or assist any person to obtain money to which he was not entitled; anti In potentlai violation 8 of the provisions of W.Va. Gode §5-10-45, relating to thE} crime offrE~:1,1d against th~ vy~st Virginia ~ Pupllc Emplpyees Retirement System, and, In potential violation of thE? provisions set forl:h lh statuto~ily limited maximt,mi salary for :3i.Icll Judge·s; wl)ioh t?verpayirJ.eht i$ a 1d W.Va. Gode .§61 ~3-24, relatlnQ to the crime 11 prt;iten$~s •. and 12 W.e?>t VIrginia Cod.e of Judicial Conduct. of obtaining money, property and services by false al! of the above are in violation of the provl~ior'ls of Canon I anq Canon II of the Artie!~ 1~ XIll That the said JJ,.lstice Allen Lou~hry, beln~ a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of by him to 14 West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of his high office, and contrary to the oaths taken 15 s4ppott the OonstJtl)tlori of the 16 office as such Justice, While In the exercise of the functions of the office of Justice, In violation of 17 his oi:lth of office, then and there1 With regard to the discharge of the duties of his office, made ·ta stateme.rits While utider oath before the WE;3st Virginic;l 1S with ~elll:!erate intef\t to deceive, r~?gf;lrdlhg renovations 20 that he hat} no knowlec{~e qnd hwolvetnelit ih these relibvations; where evldehce presented 21 cleqrly demor\.$trated hrs in-.depth kr10wleage and partlqipation iH those rE!nov;:ttions, !!lnd, his Sta~e of We9t Virginia and faithfully discharge the quties of hi$ Hou~e of D~legatel:l Pjnanc~ ·committee, and purcihElses for his office, asserting 22 - intentional efforts-tQ de.celve 1nembc;Jrs of-the L.egJsl~ture about his particip~tion and ~nbwledge. .23· :ofthes~ acts, While under o·ath. App. 012 P.s Adopted by JLidiQiary Committee, Aug. 7 . (Articles maybe renumbered, b!il c;ont~;Jnt wlli no f. change.) ArticieXIV 1 that the sara Justice Allen Loughry, being· a Justlc$ of the Suprem!=J Court of Appeal!? of 2 West VirQinl~;"~, unmlndfuf of the du~i~s of his high office., and ci;intrary to the o~ths tak~n by him to 3 support the Constitution of the State of West Virginl.a and faithfully discharge tM duties of his 4 office as ~:_;uch Justice, while in the exeroise of the functions of the pffice of Justice, in violation of 5 his oath of office, then and there, with re~Jard to the discharge of the duti!?S of hls office, dlreot that 6 per~onal 7 monies, and these items were subsequently removed from his state office and converted to his I 8 personal use and benefit, which acts cont:>titute the use of state resources and property for I 9 personal ~ain in violation of the provisidns pictures and items be placed in customlz~d pi~ture frames and be paid for by state i. I I I ; of W.Va. Code §68-2-5. I I 10 WHEREFORE, the said Chief Justice Margaret Wor!