Marco Polo’s Garrett Ziegler has identified the “sitting” federal district court judge found to have committed judicial misconduct, perhaps most notably, for having having sex in her chambers. Ziegler concisely reports the facts and identifies “the subject judge,” as the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council Order gingerly puts it, or “the Subject Judge,” as the 20-page memorandum attached to the Order gingerly puts it. Ziegler has identified Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia as the Subject Judge.
More cautiously, Josh Blackman comes to the same conclusion via a longer and more detailed route here. Professor Blackman has sought a response from Judge Ross through a message to her courtroom deputy without further word so far.
Ziegler writes:
As Law360, Reuters, & Bloomberg Law have all reported, the Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on May 22nd which affirmed a limp-wristed reprimand released in February that lets a sitting federal district court judge off the hook. The federal judge had sex multiple times during the workday in her chambers with a current deputy chief of the Atlanta PD. The judge even gets to remain anonymous! At least by the 11th Circuit, that is…but Marco Polo is not the self-protecting Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
There were several clues in the document released on May 22nd that led us to this conclusion (timing, appointment date, LinkedIn bios, etc). There are only 2 people that fit the clues: Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia (which is based in Atlanta, as previously alluded to) and Deputy Chief Kelley Collier of the Atlanta Police Department. Both are also married to lawyers who are also paid by taxpayers. So not only were these two degenerates boinking on public property, they were also—along with their spouses—hauling in many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in salaries paid for by you. Along with many other ironies, Collier has led the “VICE” unit within the Atlanta PD.
The Subject Judge falsely denied the allegations at the outset. This too is judicial misconduct. The memorandum attached to the Order summarizes interviews the Subject Judge’s law clerks in part:
Hearing the Subject Judge engaging in intimate contact in the judge’s office had a significant and negative effect on the above-described clerks. Law Clerk A recalled losing focus at work and being unable to sleep. Law Clerk A was concerned about how the Subject Judge’s conduct, if it came to light publicly, might adversely affect the public’s view of the judiciary. Law Clerk C said that the clerk was made “very uncomfortable” by what the clerk heard coming from the judge’s office. Law Clerk B stated that the clerk was so unsettled by the noises the clerk heard that the clerk had to leave the office for the day.
Judge Ross’s activities in her office give new meaning to the idea of in camera inspection. Let’s just say the Subject Judge’s law clerks have more sense than the Subject Judge. Indeed, she is remarkably detached from work she assigns to them. She has been found to be a liar in the matter giving rise to the claim of judicial miscondcut. She has disgraced her office. One may reasonably doubt that a private reprimand does justice to her case.
