[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL
B. KENT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 3, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-067 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE KING, Iowa
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Georgia JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico TED POE, Texas
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM ROONEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Task Force on Judicial Impeachment
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California, Chairman
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Wisconsin
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 3, 2009
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Task Force on Judicial
Impeachment.................................................... 1
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Task Force on
Judicial Impeachment........................................... 6
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and
ex officio Member, Task Force on Judicial Impeachment.......... 8
The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, and Member, Task Force on Judicial
Impeachment.................................................... 9
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Member, Task Force on
Judicial Impeachment........................................... 9
The Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Task Force on
Judicial Impeachment........................................... 10
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Member, Task Force on Judicial
Impeachment.................................................... 10
WITNESSES
Mr. Alan Baron, Special Impeachment Counsel, House Committee on
the Judiciary
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Ms. Cathy McBroom, Case Manager, United States District Court,
Southern District of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 153
Prepared Statement............................................. 160
Ms. Donna Wilkerson, Legal Secretary, United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 168
Prepared Statement............................................. 173
Mr. Arthur D. Hellman, Professor, University of Pittsburgh School
of Law, Pittsburgh, PA
Oral Testimony................................................. 176
Prepared Statement............................................. 179
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of Samuel B. Kent, Judge, United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas..................... 3
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 8
Material submitted by Alan Baron, Special Impeachment Counsel,
House Committee on the Judiciary
Original Indictment.......................................... 15
Superseding Indictment....................................... 19
Plea Agreement............................................... 26
Factual Basis for the Plea................................... 38
Transcript of Plea Hearing................................... 41
Transcript of Sentencing..................................... 61
Judgment of Conviction document.............................. 139
Letter from Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to Judge Samuel B. Kent.. 147
Letter from Samuel B. Kent, United States District Judge,
Southern District of Texas, to Barack Obama, President of
the United States.......................................... 151
TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL
B. KENT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2009
House of Representatives,
Task Force on Judicial Impeachment
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Task Force met, pursuant to notice, at 12:07 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Adam B.
Schiff (Chairman of the Task Force) presiding.
Present: Representatives Schiff, Conyers, Jackson Lee,
Delahunt, Cohen, Johnson, Pierluisi, Gonzalez, Smith,
Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Lungren and Gohmert.
Staff Present: Alan Baron, Counsel; Mark Dubester, Counsel;
Harold Damelin, Counsel; Kirsten Konar, Counsel; and Jessica
Klein, Staff Assistant.
Mr. Schiff. This House Judiciary Task Force on Judicial
Impeachment will now come to order. Without objection, the
Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing,
I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement.
This hearing has been called to commence the inquiry into
whether United States District Court Judge Samuel Kent should
be impeached by the United States House of Representatives.
Article I, section 2 of the Constitution vests the sole power
of impeachment in the House of Representatives. The task before
us is not one that we welcome; however, it is an important
responsibility that has been entrusted to us by the Founders.
In August 2008, a Federal grand jury returned a three-count
indictment against Judge Samuel Kent after a Department of
Justice criminal investigation. A superseding indictment filed
in January 2009 added three additional counts, for a total of
six counts charged. According to the indictment, Judge Kent is
alleged to have committed acts constituting abuse of sexual
contact and attempted aggravated sexual abuse in 2003 and 2007
against Ms. Cathy McBroom, a deputy clerk occasionally assigned
to Judge Kent's courtroom. Judge Kent is alleged of committing
acts constituting aggravated sexual abuse and abuse of sexual
contact from 2004 to at least 2005 with Ms. Donna Wilkerson,
Judge Kent's secretary. Aggravated sexual abuse is a crime
punishable under 18 U.S.C. Section 2241 by up to life in
prison. Finally, the indictment charges Judge Kent with one
count of obstruction of justice for corruptly obstructing,
influencing and impeding an official proceeding by making false
statements to the Special Investigative Committee of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding his unwanted
sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson.
On February 23, 2009, the day his criminal trial was set to
begin, Judge Kent pled guilty to obstruction of justice. As
part of his plea, he admitted to engaging in nonconsensual
sexual contact with Ms. McBroom without her permission in 2003
and 2007. Judge Kent also admitted to engaging in nonconsensual
sexual content with Ms. Wilkerson without her permission from
2004 through at least 2005. Finally, he admitted that he
falsely testified before the Special Investigative Committee of
the Fifth Circuit regarding his unwanted sexual contact with
Ms. Wilkerson. In particular, Judge Kent admitted making false
statements with regard to his repeated nonconsensual sexual
contact with Ms. Wilkerson.
On May 11, 2009, Judge Kent was sentenced to a term of 33
months in prison and ordered to pay fines and restitution to
Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson. Judge Kent is ordered to
surrender himself on June 15th for incarceration. The day after
his sentencing, the House of Representatives passed House
Resolution 424 by unanimous consent authorizing and directing
this Task Force to inquire whether Judge Kent should be
impeached. Accordingly, we are conducting this evidentiary
hearing today.
Article 3, Section 1 provides that the judges both of the
Supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during
good behavior and shall at stated times receive for their
services a compensation which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office. Article II, Section 4 of the
Constitution provides that all civil officers of the United
States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and
conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.
As we will hear today, historical precedent suggests that
there are two categories of conduct that may justify
impeachment: serious abuses of power, and conduct that
demonstrates that an official is unworthy to fill the office
that he holds. Therefore, the Task Force will examine whether
the conduct that Judge Kent has admitted to as part of his
guilty plea proceeding, namely making false statements in a
judicial proceeding, as well as other potential obstruction of
justice based on false statements to the FBI and Justice
Department, render him unfit to hold judicial office.
The Task Force will also examine whether the evidence of
sexual misconduct constitutes abuse of judicial power and
provides a further basis for Judge Kent's unfitness to retain
his office.
The purpose of this hearing is to develop a record upon
which the Task Force can recommend whether to adopt articles of
impeachment. These proceedings do not constitute a trial, as
the constitutional power to try impeachment resides in the
Senate. This inquiry will focus on whether Judge Kent's conduct
provides a sufficient basis for impeachment.
In order to develop the record, the Task Force has called
witnesses and will admit documents that will help us determine
whether the constitutional standard for impeachment has been
met. The Task Force has invited Judge Kent to testify before us
today. Judge Kent has declined this offer. The Task Force has
received correspondence from Judge Kent that he has asked to be
considered as a written statement for today's hearing. It will
be so considered and has been made available to all Members.
Without objection, I ask that it also be placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Judge Kent follows:]
----------
Mr. Schiff. The Task Force has also invited Judge Kent's
counsel to participate in the hearing and present arguments on
behalf of his client, as well as to provide the opportunity to
question any of the witnesses before us. Judge Kent's counsel
has also declined to appear or participate in the hearing.
We have also received a letter from Judge Kent to the White
House dated yesterday, June 2nd, stating his intention to
resign June 1, 2010, a year from now. Neither his surrender to
custody in 12 days nor his stated intention to resign a year
from now affect his current status as a Federal judge or our
constitutional obligation to determine whether impeachment is
warranted. This Task Force will proceed in a fair, open,
deliberate and thorough manner and our work has and will
continue to be done on a bipartisan basis.
I want to thank the witnesses, particularly Ms. McBroom and
Ms. Wilkerson, for their willingness to testify at the request
of the Task Force. We recognize the great sensitivity of the
subject matter.
After the Task Force Members have an opportunity to make
opening remarks, I will ask Alan Baron, counsel to the Task
Force, to introduce the documentary record and provide the
context for today's testimony. We'll then move to our panel of
witnesses. After the witnesses make their initial statements,
Members will have the opportunity to ask questions, observing
the 5-minute rule.
At the conclusion of the hearing, we'll be scheduling a
follow-up meeting of the Task Force to discuss whether to
recommend articles of impeachment to the full Committee for its
consideration.
I now recognize my colleague Mr. Goodlatte, the
distinguished Ranking Member of the Task Force, for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, can I make a parliamentary
inquiry? You had said, without objection, the letter from Judge
Kent would be made part of the record, correct?
Mr. Schiff. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert. That letter, as I understand it, is addressed
to this Committee. Is it made pursuant to any penalties for
making false statements to this Committee?
Mr. Schiff. Well, I would imagine that as a correspondence
and a statement to an official arm of the government engaged in
an impeachment inquiry, it would be subject to 18 U.S.C. 1001.
That is just a gut reaction to your question. But we can
certainly follow up and get you a more definite answer.
Mr. Gohmert. But it was not made under oath as the
witnesses--will they be sworn in today?
Mr. Schiff. The witnesses will be sworn in.
Mr. Gohmert. So that is not under penalty of perjury as the
witnesses will have here today?
Mr. Schiff. That's correct.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff. It is also, in addition to 18 U.S.C. 1001, an
offense to obstruct Congress. But in answer to your question,
vis-a-vis perjury, the letter is not, as I understand it--we
can consult further with the experts--not made under oath.
Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this important hearing in an expeditious manner.
Article III of the Constitution provides that Federal
judges are appointed for life, and that they shall hold their
offices during good behavior. Indeed, the Framers knew that an
independent judiciary, free of political motivation, was
necessary to the fair resolution of disputes and the fair
administration of our laws. However, the Framers were also
pragmatists and had the foresight to include checks against the
abuse of the independence and power that comes with a judicial
appointment.
Article I, section 2, clause 5 of the Constitution grants
the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment.
This is a very serious power which should not be undertaken
lightly. The impeachment of a Federal judge is a very
infrequent occurrence within the halls of Congress. In fact, no
Federal judge has been impeached in the last 20 years. It is a
power that Congress utilizes only in cases involving very
serious allegations of misconduct. However, when evidence
emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for
his own advantage, the integrity of the judicial system becomes
compromised, and the House of Representatives has the duty to
investigate the matter and take the appropriate actions to end
the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system.
Today we are investigating whether to issue articles of
impeachment against Judge Samuel Kent of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Judge Kent
has served for almost 18 years as the only Federal judge in the
Galveston, Texas, Division of the Southern District. Today
Judge Kent still holds the position of Federal judge despite
the fact that he is a convicted felon, having admitted to
obstructing justice by lying during an investigation being
conducted by his fellow judges that was looking into complaints
that he sexually assaulted at least two women court employees
who worked in the Galveston courthouse.
Judge Kent pled guilty to the obstruction of justice charge
on February 23rd. In pleading guilty to the obstruction of
justice charge, Judge Kent also admitted to engaging in, quote,
repeated nonconsensual sexual contact with a court employee
and, quote, nonconsensual contact with another employee despite
requests by the employee that the conduct stop.
On May 11, Judge Kent was sentenced to 33 months in prison.
He is due to report to prison on June 15. Despite his guilty
plea and pending incarceration, Judge Kent has chosen not to
resign his position as a Federal judge. Because his position is
a lifetime appointment, Judge Kent will be able to keep the
position as well as his salary and other benefits until he
either resigns or is impeached and removed from office.
Judge Kent was invited to appear at this hearing and
explain why his conduct does not justify impeachment. His
attorney was also invited to come today, but both Judge Kent
and his attorney have declined to attend.
Two of the women who were the victims of Judge Kent's
sexual assaults, Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson, have
decided to come forward and tell their stories to the Task
Force. I know this is not an easy thing for them to do, and I
want to personally thank them for their willingness to come
forward and testify.
It is not a pleasant task before us today, but it is a
necessary one. I welcome the testimony of all of the witnesses,
and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
And I would now like to recognize Mr. Conyers, the Chairman
of the Judiciary and ex officio Member of the Task Force.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Schiff. I will submit my
statement for the record.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
It is always a sad day when the House has to inquire into whether a
federal judge has betrayed his office and should be impeached. Yet that
is our task today.
I would like to make three points:
First, we meet today to carry out our Constitutional duty. The
Constitution assigns to the House the exclusive responsibility to
determine whether a federal judge should be impeached. Impeachment by
Congress constitutes one of the few checks on the judiciary, to be used
when a judge betrays his office or proves himself unfit to hold that
position of trust.
Second, this inquiry is entirely consistent with precedent. The
House has not shied away from impeaching federal judges in the rare
occasions when circumstances have so required. In the 1980s, for
example, the House impeached, and the Senate convicted and removed,
federal judges who had been convicted of felony federal offenses.
Indeed, I am one of the few Members of this House who recalls those
proceedings.
Third, our obligations to the House and the Constitution require
that we not prejudge the evidence in this case, or anticipate the
course of these proceedings. Judge Kent has pleaded guilty and has been
sentenced, but it is important that we consider all the evidence before
casting our votes. Congress's role is more than to simply rubber-stamp
a conclusion of a federal court.
In conclusion, I am pleased that the Task Force has moved so
expeditiously in this matter, and am also pleased that the Task Force
has made an effort to bring to light the full range of conduct of Judge
Kent that may bear on his fitness to be a federal judge.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and with that, I
yield the balance of my time.
__________
Mr. Schiff. I would now like to recognize Mr. Smith, the
Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary and ex officio
Member of the Task Force as well.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing following Judge Samuel
Kent's guilty plea and sentencing. This public hearing is an
indication of how seriously we take the possible impeachment of
Judge Kent.
Judge Kent, who is from my home State of Texas, comes
before the Task Force as a convicted felon having pleaded
guilty to obstruction of justice. As part of the plea
agreement, five counts of the indictment charging Judge Kent
with the sexual assault of two court employees were dismissed.
On June 15th, Judge Kent will start serving a 33-month prison
sentence. By resigning effective June 1, 2010, Judge Kent is
attempting to collect his full judicial salary for another
year, even while he sits in a Federal prison. Judge Kent and
his lawyer are banking on the fact that impeachments take time,
literally.
Judge Kent receives $465 of his taxpayer-funded salary
every day he remains in office. We are here today to put an end
to Judge Kent's abuse of authority and exploitation of American
taxpayers. Allowing Judge Kent to remain on the bench and
retain a taxpayer-funded salary is an affront to the very idea
of justice that Judge Kent once swore to uphold. Our
constitutional democracy depends on the rule of law and the
equal protection of the laws. These principles depend in turn
on a disinterested judiciary whose members cannot place
themselves above the law.
I am not unsympathetic to the claims that Judge Kent
endured difficult personal tragedies and may suffer from mental
illness; however, he does not have the right to continue to
serve as a Federal judge and to collect a Federal salary while
sitting in prison. And although his attorney claims that
Congress has, quote, better things to do than pursue
impeachment, I disagree. Ensuring that a Federal judge
convicted of a felony does not receive a taxpayer-funded salary
while sitting in jail is important to our system of justice and
a priority of this Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
At this time I will recognize any other Member who would
like to make an opening statement.
The Committee recognizes Mr. Cohen of Tennessee and Mr.
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an awesome responsibility to sit on a Committee
such as this dealing with impeachment. And I have read the
materials and the allegations that have been presented and what
is the guilty plea in the judge's case.
I do want to reflect on the fact that when I was a State
Senator in Tennessee, we had a similar situation, and we had a
judge, a State judge, who had confronted not an employee, but a
litigant before his bench, a female litigant in a divorce case,
and forced himself upon her. He was tried and convicted, and we
were unable to take his pension and judgeship away from him
because of the issue of prospective legislation and retroactive
activity. But we were able to pass a law because of that to in
the future not allow a judge who was convicted of a crime
pertaining to their office and in the conduct of their office
from receiving a pension or a salary after conviction.
It was a very important issue in our State, and it is
unfortunate that because of our laws we couldn't do anything
about it, and that judge continues to receive his pension. And
I think that it is something that many feel is--and I do--was a
miscarriage of public trust and of public treasuries. And I
have done everything I can and believe I have come into this
hearing without prejudicing my own thoughts based on the
experience I had on a similar-type case. But I do think public
officials need to maintain the public's faith in the system,
and the public tax dollars should only go to people who are
doing such, and if not, reflect poorly on the state of the
judiciary or our government in general.
So this is a case that is kind of a deja vu to me, and I do
think that the public Treasury should be protected as should
the public trust. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and now
recognize the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First
of all, let me thank you for holding this prompt hearing and
inquiry on whether Judge Kent should be impeached.
There is an urgency involved in this because in less than 2
weeks, Judge Kent will go to jail, and if the Congress doesn't
move, and that means both the House and the Senate, he will be
sitting in jail collecting a full judicial salary, which is
equal to the salary that is paid to the United States Senators
and Members of the House of Representatives. That in itself
would be outrageous.
Judge Kent has admitted to the activity that brought about
his conviction, and, unfortunately, he is putting Congress
through the time and expense of actually conducting this
inquiry and potentially impeaching him and trying him before
the Senate of the United States.
Let me point out as a result of his felony conviction, he
will undoubtedly be disbarred in Texas and consequently will no
longer be able to practice law even if he still remains a judge
in the year before his resignation becomes effective. That
means we do have to drop whatever we are doing and go ahead
with this simply as a result of the need to keep the public's
faith in the judicial branch of government and our ability to
remove those bad apples from office who refuse to go
voluntarily.
So I thank the gentleman from California for promptly
scheduling this hearing. I hope that we'll proceed to a
Committee markup on articles of impeachment and presenting them
to the House equally promptly. And I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I now
recognize the gentleman from Georgia Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this
issue promptly to our attention as well as to the American
people.
The integrity of our judicial system and our judiciary is
fundamental to the functioning of our legal system. And as a
former judge and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and
Competition Policy, I am aghast at the shamelessness of Judge
Kent, which has been displayed by trying to enhance his pension
benefits, and it is--the right thing to do is for him to resign
immediately. And that is pretty much my statement, sir.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman.
I'm sorry. I had someone whispering in my ear. Did you
yield back the rest of your time?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly I do.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
Does any other Member wish to make an opening statement at
this time?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
Mr. Schiff. You do want to be recognized?
I recognize the gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did Mr. Gonzalez----
Mr. Gonzalez. I'm waiving opening statement.
Mr. Schiff. You're recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding the meeting.
I think it is appropriate for me to not accept the burden
of an entire State, but it is sad that this case has occurred
in the State of Texas and particularly in the Houston-Galveston
area, which I happen to have the opportunity to represent.
I'm also disappointed that the Fifth Circuit did not find a
way to resolve this in light of what we have at least heard on
the issues of the mental state of the individual that we have
before us, but I will keep an open mind so that we can address
the questions both of the integrity of the bench, which I think
is enormously important, and get the particular bench that
Judge Kent held in the hands of an individual that will carry
out justice and the law; but I will also call upon his grace
and mercy for the understanding of the actions of individuals
who may be impacted by mental health needs and substance abuse,
certainly characteristics that we don't promote for individuals
on the bench. But I will be listening to the presentations made
by various stellar witnesses here who themselves have been
victims and as well try to utilize in addition to the
responsibilities of this Committee as it relates to the
impeachment of Federal officials, I will also try to
incorporate in my thinking his grace and his mercy.
I yield back.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
And would any other Member like to make an opening
statement?
Seeing none, at this point we'll hear from Mr. Alan Baron,
special impeachment counsel for the House Judiciary Committee,
who I have asked to set out the procedural history of the case
for the purpose of introducing the documentary record.
Mr. Baron is currently a partner at Seyfarth Shaw law firm
here in Washington. He is a graduate of Princeton University
and Harvard School of Law. After law school Mr. Baron clerked
for the Honorable Roszel Thomsen, chief judge of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland. He then held the
position of assistant United States attorney for Maryland from
1967 to 1970 until entering private practice.
Mr. Baron served as special impeachment counsel for the
U.S. House of Representatives from 1987 through 1989 by working
on two judicial impeachment proceedings during that time. Mr.
Baron was retained in October of 2008 as special impeachment
counsel by the House Judiciary Committee with regard to the
possible impeachment of U.S. district Judge Thomas Porteous and
thereafter U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent.
Mr. Baron, please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF ALAN BARON, SPECIAL IMPEACHMENT COUNSEL, HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Baron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schiff. You'll need to turn your mike on if it is not
on already.
Mr. Baron. Is that working?
Mr. Chairman, at the direction of----
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Baron, can you pull the microphone a little
closer to you? That might help.
Mr. Baron. Mr. Chairman, at the direction of the Task
Force, I and the staff undertook to investigate these
allegations concerning Judge Kent. One of the first things we
did was review the criminal case file where Judge Kent was
named as a defendant and gather various documents pertinent to
those proceedings. From reviewing those documents, I would like
to relate certain basic facts concerning Judge Kent and also
with regard to the chronology of the proceedings involving
Judge Kent.
Judge Kent is 60 years old. He was born in June 1949. He
has served as judge for the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of Texas in the Galveston Division, and he was the
only judge in the Galveston Division. He was nominated in
August 1990 to ascend to the bench, and he received his
commission in October 1990. He has served some 19 years.
Initially a complaint was filed against Judge Kent by the
person who is referred to as Person A. That is Cathy McBroom,
who is here today to testify. She filed a complaint on May 21,
2007, with the Fifth Circuit judicial counsel raising
allegations of sexual misconduct by Judge Kent.
On June 8, 2007, Judge Kent voluntarily, and indeed at his
request, appeared before the commission. On September 27, 2007,
Judge Kent was reprimanded and suspended by the Fifth Circuit
counsel for a period of 4 months, and thereafter Ms. McBroom
appealed the disposition of his case in that manner. At
approximately that time, she asked for it to be reconsidered,
but approximately at that time the Justice Department began an
investigation of Judge Kent, and they returned, as you refer
to, the original indictment that was referred to--returned on
August 28, 2008.
And if the Members would look in the binders that I believe
each of them has, they should have before them the original
indictment, which has three counts. It is brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, and it relates that Judge Kent was a U.S.
district judge in the Southern District, and relates that he
engaged in improper sexual conduct with Person A, who has since
been identified as Cathy McBroom.
Thereafter, on January 6, 2009, there is a superseding
indictment, which also should appear in the binder. That
document contains six counts. The first three are the same
first three from the original indictment involving Ms. McBroom.
Counts 4 and 5 relate to yet another person identified in the
superseding indictment as Person B. That is Donna Wilkerson.
Both Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson are here today to testify,
as noted earlier.
These counts speak of attempted aggravated sexual abuse,
abusive sexual contact, and they delineate in some detail the
actual conduct involved. There is a count 6 in the superseding
indictment, which is obstruction of justice in violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2). That is the count to which
ultimately Judge Kent pleaded guilty, and what it essentially
alleges is that when he appeared before the Fifth Circuit
counsel in June of 2007, he lied to them. He falsely stated to
them, according to the indictment, that the extent of his
unwarranted sexual conduct with Person B was one kiss, and when
told by Person B his advances were unwelcomed, no further
contact occurred, when, in fact, and as he well knew, he had
engaged in repeated, unwanted sexual assaults of Person B, et
cetera.
That was the essence of the lie, and then it alleges that
obstructed, influenced and impeded the Fifth Circuit's
investigation into the misconduct that had been complained of.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What page is that?
Mr. Baron. That appears at page 6 and 7 of the superseding
indictment as count 6.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Baron. Now, thereafter, on February 23rd, there are
three documents that are relevant. There is a plea agreement
that is entered into on February 23, 2009. There is a factual
basis for the plea, and then there is a transcript of the
guilty plea proceedings, all of which are dated February 23rd.
Looking first at the factual basis for the plea,
particularly at page 2, it relates the details of the manner in
which Judge Kent engaged in obstruction of justice, and
essentially that the counsel had sought to learn from him the
facts, and in essence he lied to them about the nature and
extent of the sexual conduct which was being investigated.
There is also a plea agreement dated February 23rd.
I would also note, to go back for a moment, that document,
the factual basis for the plea, is signed by Judge Kent and his
counsel.
There was also a plea agreement dated February 23rd. Page
1, he agrees--that is the defendant Judge Kent--agrees to plead
guilty to count 6, and the State--the prosecutors agreed to
dismiss counts 1 through 5 of the superseding indictment. On
page 2 of the plea agreement, it notes that the maximum penalty
under count 6 was 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of
$250,000. Further down the page on page 2, under ``factual
stipulation,'' Judge Kent agrees that the attached factual
basis for the plea fairly and accurately describes the
defendant's action and involvement in the offense to which the
defendant is pleading guilty. The defendant knowingly,
voluntarily and truthfully admits the facts set forth in the
factual basis for the plea.
There is a transcript of the guilty plea in court when
Judge Kent appeared to actually be rearraigned. He had
initially pleaded not guilty, and then he was being rearraigned
with regard to count 6 of the superseding indictment.
It is noteworthy that as part of that process, it is
incumbent upon the judge who is taking the guilty plea to
explore to be certain that the defendant understands what his
rights are, that the defendant knowingly can--is competent to
participate in the guilty plea proceedings, he understands
which rights he is giving up: the right to jury trial, the
right to have the government prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt, the right to testify, the right not to testify, that he
was entitled to presumption of innocence.
The judge goes through that entire litany with Judge Kent,
which, of course, Judge Kent would have been familiar with
because he had served as a Federal judge for all those years,
and at the end of that discussion, and this occurs at page 18
of that transcript, here is the judge speaking: And most
importantly, I find that you, Judge Kent, have made your
decision to plead guilty to this charge freely and knowingly
and voluntarily. And you've made that decision with the advice
of counsel, an attorney with whom you've indicated your full
satisfaction. So let me ask you now, Mr. Kent, how do you plead
to count 6 of the superseding indictment?
And then the defendant states, guilty.
I would go back just for a moment to page 10 of this
transcript at line 18. The Court, in its colloquy with Judge
Kent, says to him, the plea of guilty has the legal effect of
saying the charge is true. You understand that?
Judge Kent replies, yes, sir.
We also have the transcript of the sentencing proceeding
before the judge. That is a fairly extensive colloquy because a
great deal of time----
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Baron, that is item 3 in the Task Force
binders?
Mr. Baron. Yes, sir. That is.
The next document. An extensive colloquy occurs at that
point because one of the issues was where Judge Kent fit within
the sentencing guidelines, and there is sparring back and forth
between counsel and with the judge about how to calculate where
he stands within the sentencing guidelines. In the course of
that, I would ask and direct the Task Force's attention to page
6. The prosecution was in effect arguing for a higher number
within the sentencing guidelines, and it makes this
representation. I'm looking now at--well, we can start at line
1. This is the prosecutor speaking. He says, during the
voluntary interview, he was interviewed regarding his conduct,
and he repeated the same false statements that he later told to
the special investigative committee both about Person A and
about Person B. Then just before the trial team was going to
present the initial indictment to the grand jury--this is in
August of 2008--the defendant, through his attorney, asked for
a meeting at main Justice headquarters, and there in the
Assistant Attorney General's conference room he sat down with
his attorney and met with, among others, the trial team, the
FBI agents, the chief of the Public Integrity Section and the
Acting Assistant Attorney General, and during the interview
portion of that meeting, he again repeated the same lies. He
said that he had been honest with the FBI in December of 2007,
he said that any attempt to characterize the conduct between
him and person as nonconsensual is absolutely nonsense, and
that is in stark contrast to the factual basis for his plea
during which he admitted in engaging in repeated nonconsensual
sexual contact with Person A without her permission. And he
goes on with regard to Person B. And this was not refuted by
Judge Kent or his counsel.
They argued about what its significance was in terms of the
sentencing guidelines, but he did not deny that he had also
lied to the FBI and to the prosecutors on this other occasion.
Ultimately the judge imposed a sentence of 33 months, plus
a $1,000 fine and several thousand dollars to each of the
victims as kind of restitution. They both testified at the
sentencing in the context of impact on them as victims of Judge
Kent's behavior, and that is also found within this transcript.
I have obtained certified copies of the various--many of
the various documents I have referred to, the original
indictment, the superseding indictment, the plea agreement, the
factual basis for the plea. These are all here. I would offer
them to the Task Force so that that could be made part of the
record.
Mr. Schiff. Without objection, each of those documents will
be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
----------
----------
----------
Mr. Baron. I would also offer the transcript of the guilty
plea and the transcript of the sentencing, which the guilty
plea transcript is dated February 23, 2009. The transcript of
the sentencing is dated May 11, 2009.
Mr. Schiff. Those documents will also be made part of the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
----------
Mr. Baron. Finally one other document. There is an official
court document. It is the judgment of conviction in a criminal
case, and that, too, is dated May 11, 2009.
Mr. Schiff. That will be made part of the record as well.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
Mr. Baron. Now, subsequently, Judge Kent sought to retire
on disability, and he presented that to the Fifth Circuit
specifically. It was to be considered by Chief Judge Edith
Jones. Judge Kent presented to her voluminous materials
concerning his physical and mental health and his personal
history, and this is not an adversarial proceeding. There were
no countervailing doctors or anyone to argue. This was his
petition. On May 27, 2009--this document also should be in the
folders, I believe, that the Members have.
Chief Judge Jones considered all of the materials that had
been submitted to her, and let me quote from the letter. She
says, in order to evaluate this request, I have considered
numerous medical, psychological and psychiatric reports
concerning Judge Kent. I have spoken with nearly all of the
doctors who prepared those reports. And, skipping down, she
says, finally I have sought legal advice from the general
counsel of the administrative office of the courts.
She then goes on to conclude--this is on the second page at
the bottom of the second paragraph of her letter--taken
together, these facts do not show that Judge Kent's performance
of professional duties was affected by mental instability or
alcoholism before he was criminally investigated and indicted.
And ultimately the bottom line is, for these reasons I deny the
request to certify Judge Kent as disabled pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(a).
I would offer that that letter also should be made part of
the record.
Mr. Schiff. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
Mr. Baron. The Committee also received a letter dated June
1, 2009, and it is headed ``Statement of Judge Samuel B. Kent
Provided to the Task Force to Consider the Possible Impeachment
of Judge Samuel B. Kent.'' Judge Kent notes that his health
does not presently allow him to travel to Washington to address
the Task Force in person, and then he asks that his letter be
accepted as his written statement and to afford it any
consideration the rules may allow.
I would request that that also be made part of the record.
Mr. Schiff. Yes. That has been made part of the record as
well. I encourage the Members to read that.
Mr. Baron. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Task
Force, there is a letter dated June 2, 2009. It is addressed by
Judge Kent to the President of the United States. It reads as
follows: Dear President Obama, I hereby resign from my position
as United States district judge for the Southern District of
Texas effective June 1, 2010. So effectively 1 year from then.
I would ask that that also be made part of the record.
Mr. Schiff. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
Mr. Baron. That concludes my testimony.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that letter in our folder, that last
one that you read----
Mr. Baron. We got it in pretty late. We do have copies for
everyone. It is not in the folder, but we will distribute it.
There is someone ready to do that right now.
Mr. Schiff. We'll make sure that each of the Members gets a
copy of that letter.
Mr. Baron, thank you.
What I'd like to do now is turn to the first panel of
witnesses, and Mr. Baron will be available after the witness
testimony should Members have questions regarding the
procedural posture of the case.
Thank you, Mr. Baron.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, could I make a parliamentary
inquiry? Was there--in the transcript, the witness was alluding
to--there was mention of 413 notice in which they said it
wasn't just Person A, it wasn't just Person B, there were
additional victims of this defendant? Is that 413 notice--was
that made a part of our record as well by this witness? Was
that something that you had submitted?
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Baron, you can speak to that.
Only the documents that I think Mr. Baron referred to have
been made part of the record.
Mr. Gohmert. Then that was not one of them then.
Mr. Schiff. That's not one of the documents that this
witness has presented.
Mr. Gohmert. Thanks.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Baron.
Mr. Baron. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff. Why don't we begin. If the witnesses could come
forward to the table. We have been paced for a series of two
votes, So we will begin the testimony, and then we'll break and
return as soon as the votes are concluded. If our three
witnesses could come to the table, that would be great.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Schiff. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Just a moment of personal privilege, just
a moment. Let me acknowledge Mr. Rusty Hardin, who has
commended himself well. This gentleman--is he counsel? Mr.
Terry Yates. And I assume from the Houston area? If you would
allow me to acknowledge the gentlemen for commending themselves
well. And I know that Mr. DeGuerin is not here, but all the
lawyers who participated in this unfortunate set of
circumstances, I want to thank you for your service. And I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlelady.
At this time, I would like to introduce our panel of
witnesses. Our first witness is Cathy McBroom. Ms. McBroom
served the Clerk's Office for the Southern District of Texas
and had encounters with Judge Kent that ultimately led to his
prosecution and the proceedings today.
Our second witness is Donna Wilkerson. She served as his
secretary for 7 years and is also here to describe her
encounters with Judge Kent.
Our final witness will be Professor Arthur Hellman at the
University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He occupies the Sally
Ann Semenko endowed chair of the university and has been part
of the faculty since 1975. He is one of our Nation's foremost
scholars on Federal judicial ethics and has written numerous
articles on the topic. Professor Hellman has previously
testified at hearings in both the House and Senate, including
as a witness before the House Judiciary Committee, on the issue
of judicial impeachment. His other testimony has centered on a
range of issues concerning the Federal courts, and he provided
valuable assistance to Members of the Judiciary Committee in
drafting legislation to revise the handling of misconduct
complaints against Federal judges.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in today's
hearing. Without objection, your written statements will be
placed in the record.
Given the gravity of the issues we are discussing today, we
would appreciate it if you'd take an oath before you begin the
testimony.
Excuse me one moment.
If each of you would please stand and raise your right
hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Schiff. And I think what we will do is maybe reverse
the order in light of the votes and--well, one moment, please.
What we are going to do is we are going to break for votes.
That way we won't have to break for testimony. We have two
votes. We'll be back probably in about 40 minutes. Give you all
a chance to grab a bite to eat, and we'll resume. I ask Members
to return immediately after casting the last vote.
Thank you. We are in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Schiff. The Task Force will come to order.
Thank you. We'll start, Ms. McBroom, if you could begin
your testimony. Your written testimony has been made a part of
the record and thank you for beginning.
TESTIMONY OF CATHY McBROOM, CASE MANAGER, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Ms. McBroom. My name is Cathy McBroom. I've----
Mr. Schiff. I think your microphone may not be on.
Ms. McBroom. My name is Cathy McBroom. I have been employed
by the United States District Court for 10 years. I am the
victim that is referred to as person A in the indictment
against Judge Samuel Kent. We're here today because I filed a
complaint of judiciary misconduct against Judge Kent.
I began my career as a secretary for judge Nancy F. Atlas,
and I worked in that capacity for about 3 years. After that I
decided to pursue a case management position because I thought
I would be better suited for those type of responsibilities.
And I applied for the first available position, which was
actually for Judge Kent out in Galveston.
I want to describe several incidents to you that are very
difficult for me to talk about, but I think they are very
necessary and they may be difficult for you to hear. These are
incidents that I feel should never happen in the workplace. And
the fact that they happened to me and they were initiated by a
Federal judge is even more frightening.
The very first incident happened to me after I had been
working for the judge for about 8 months. I actually worked on
a different floor than the judge, but it was my responsibility
to come up a couple of times during the day and check my
outbox, also to bring paperwork to him, motions and things for
him to review. And on this particular day, I had come up in the
afternoon to check my outbox. And there was no one in chambers,
so I had the key, I let myself in, I checked my outbox, and I
was leaving his office to come back down to the elevator.
As I was walking down the hallway, I saw him coming toward
me. And he was laughing and being pretty loud, as he usually
was. As I approached him, I was actually coming pretty close
also to the command center. The command center was the place
where the security guards usually sat and they could monitor
the building from there. And I noticed in the command center
there were several of the security guards.
As I approached the judge, he asked me if I would show him
the workout room. There wasn't really an official workout room
in the building, but the guards had actually set up some weight
equipment, free weights and things, just a few pieces of
equipment in this little, small, kind of storage room that was
about 10, 15 feet from the command center.
I could tell that he was--had been drinking, because he was
slurring his words when he was asking me to show him the weight
room. But I went ahead and took him into the weight room and
pointed out the various exercise equipment that we had. And
when I turned he grabbed me. And when I say he grabbed me, he
grabbed with one hand sort of around my waist and he started
trying to kiss me and he actually did force his tongue into my
mouth. And at the same time that that was going on, he
immediately started trying to remove my clothing by--he pulled
up my blouse, he got his hand underneath my bra and pulled
everything up at once so that my breasts were exposed.
I was begging him to stop, telling him please don't do this
to me, please don't. I really love my job, I don't want to lose
my job. Please don't do this. He wouldn't listen. I was trying
to fight him off and keep his hands away from my body parts. He
also put his hand down--tried to force his hand down my skirt.
And I noticed that the door to the small--small room that we
were in was cracked open, and I knew that the security guards
must be able to hear what was going on in there. I even said,
Judge, the guards are right outside, I know they can hear us.
And he said, I don't care who hears us. He wasn't afraid of
that at all. And that even made me more frightened. I guess he
felt like he was powerful enough that no one was going to
approach him and no one was going to come and--come to my
rescue, and he was right.
Finally I threatened to just scream. I said, if you don't
stop I'm going to have to scream. And at that point he--he just
let go of me and just looked down at me with this disgusted
look on his face and then he turned and left. And I was very
shaken and upset and I sat down on a bench that was in the room
and just cried for a few minutes and wondered what--what do I
do now, what do I do? And I tried to collect myself, straighten
my hair, you know, get my clothes back in shape and I left the
office.
When I walked out of the office an important thing is that
I noticed were at least three men in that command center and
all three of them had gone; no one was there. I really believe
that they saw what was happening and they wanted to just leave,
because they didn't want to be involved.
From there I went immediately down to my supervisor's
office and I--I walked into her office and I said, why didn't
you warn me about him? And she said, what--what's going on? And
I told her he attacked me. And she knew immediately who I was
talking about. And she asked me to close the door and so I
closed the door. And she said, sit down, we'll talk. And I told
her--you know, I described the incident and told her that he'd
attacked me. And she said, well, do you want to file a
complaint? And I said I--I don't know what that means, I don't
know what you mean by complaint. All I know is I don't want to
lose my job, I know that.
And she said, well, I can't guarantee that you could keep
your job. I think that he's a Federal judge and he's not going
anywhere, and more than likely you're going to be the one to
go. And I thought about that for a moment and said that I'm not
going to file a complaint. I want to know what else I can do,
what are my other options. And she said, if you're not going to
file a complaint then I'll talk to you off the record.
So she sat down and she told me that he had done something
similar to her, but just not to that great of an extent. He
had--she was up in his chambers one day and he had forced a
kiss upon her, he had French kissed her. But she said that she
resisted and that that was an isolated incident that--that
never happened again. And that had been several years prior to
what had happened to me.
And so she really felt like that he would probably talk to
me later, and maybe even apologize, and maybe I'd never have to
worry about it again. I hoped that that was true.
So I went about my business as a case manager and sometimes
we'd go months without having that type of contact with the
judge. It would be strictly business for the most part. But
there were other incidents that arose after that. He started
calling me on the phone. There were several, I would say
probably more than 10 episodes, of him calling my office and
begging me to come up and give him a kiss or just come up and
talk to him. And I would resist.
And one other thing I want to say is after that first
incident, I did tell one of the security guards that he had
tried to attack me, and I was upset with this particular person
because he didn't do anything, because he just left. And he
said that he had to worry about his job, and his job was to
protect the judge. And he apologized, but he said there wasn't
anything he could do. So he agreed to try to watch out for me
in other ways. He agreed to tell me if he knew the judge had
been drinking, or the judge was looking for me, or he suspected
that the judge was going to do something like that; he would
call me ahead of time and give me a heads-up. So that sort of
helped me to initiate various coping mechanisms that would
allow me to stay in my position and sort of stay under his
radar and avoid him when I thought the situation was going to
be bad.
Another incident I want to describe is about avoiding him.
If I knew that he was back from a long lunch and he had
possibly been drinking and he was the only one up in chambers,
and I knew it was going to be a dangerous situation, if he
called me and I could see that it was his extension calling me,
his private line, I wouldn't answer the phone. I would just
avoid his phone calls. That was a hard decision to make. As a
case manager who is there to do your work, you always have to
analyze, does he want me for real business or does he want me
there because he wants to have sexual contact with me? It was
an extremely fine line that I walked, and a very difficult
position to be in.
Another incident that happened: He tried to call me several
times and I wasn't answering, so he came down to my office,
which was two floors down. He came right into my office, sat in
front of me, across the desk from me and just started being
friendly, loud, telling jokes. And, you know, I listened and
laughed and, you know, I tried to participate the best I could.
He then stood up and came--started coming around my desk.
And my instinct was to stand up, too. So I stood up, backed
away as far as I could from him, and there was a credenza,
actually just a table that I was using for a credenza behind my
desk. And I backed up completely against the credenza, and he
came around the desk, got in between my desk and me, and pushed
me up against the credenza and pinned me there and started
kissing and grabbing various body parts. My office door was
open--and he was a big man, he was over 6 foot, probably closer
to 6'3'', 6'4''--and I could sort of see over him to the
doorway to my office and I could see someone come to my office.
I saw someone there for a moment and they just turned and left.
I couldn't tell who it was.
But I feel like that's another example of people
understanding what was happening there but everybody being
afraid to address it, afraid to even come forward or say
anything. That incident ended similarly. It didn't get as far
as the first incident, because he wasn't able to get my clothes
up, but I was able to push him away and discourage him enough
that he eventually just left the room.
The other incident that I want to describe is one that
happened right before I left. It was the final incident that
happened to me. Judge Kent had called me up to his chambers to
discuss an administrative action that had been taken in the
Clerk's office, and I came up the elevator and turned to go to
his office and I noticed there was a security officer sitting
in the command center again. And he looked at me and said,
where are you going? I said, I've been summoned to chambers.
And he just kind of said, well, be careful. I still don't
understand what he meant by that, but I went down to the
judge's chambers. His secretary wasn't in, it was just me and
the judge. He asked me to come directly into his office, asked
me to close the door, and we had a brief discussion and I was
about to leave--I said, okay, thank you. And I was about to
leave the office and he said well, come give me a hug. And I
said no, let's don't. I don't want to do that. I'm not--please
don't start that. And he said, oh, come on. I've been good to
you. You need to come give me a hug, that's the least you can
do. So I did. I reached up and he came around the desk and I
was standing there and I reached up and gave him a hug. And the
instant that I did that he reached around and grabbed my
backside and pulled me in close to him, and then he started the
same thing. He started trying to undress me, take my clothes
off. He yanked my shirt, my sweater that I was wearing, and
this time my breast was exposed and he did put his mouth on my
breast. And meanwhile I'm pushing him away.
That day he had his dog, he had a bulldog that he brought
to work with him at times, the dog started barking and causing
a big commotion. I was afraid of the dog because the dog had
incidents of attacking people, too. So here I had the judge
attacking me and the dog barking and I was just trying to push
him away.
And at some point he pushed my head down toward his crotch
and asked me to do oral sex on him. He didn't use that
language, he used more explicit language. And then I resisted
and he grabbed my hand and placed my hand on his crotch. And I
was just still trying to push him away and escape and beg him
to stop. And at some point I heard someone come into the outer
office. And he heard that, too, and so that momentarily
distracted him enough to where I could break free.
And when he went into the outer office to investigate who
had come in, I made my exit. And as I was leaving the office he
made a statement to me that he thought I was a great case
manager and that I did excellent work for him, but it didn't
change the fact that he wanted to do sexual things to me. These
things are described in my written statement but they are too
embarrassing for me to talk about in public.
At that point I felt afraid enough that I wasn't able to
go--I knew I would never be able to go back to that office
again. I knew that I would be in danger if I continued to go
there. I felt like he--he felt like he had power and control
over me and could do whatever he wanted to me, and there was no
one that was going to help me or come to my rescue or even
believe me.
So I really didn't have any other alternative but to give
up my job, and this was a job that I had worked very hard to
attain. This was a job that I loved the responsibilities. I
still do. It's something that I had planned to work until my
retirement in. But I left the office and I decided that weekend
that I would write a letter to my manager and request a
transfer. So I did. I wrote the letter, I gave it to my manager
the next week. And in the letter I described the incidents and
I also asked for the transfer to Houston.
So the transfer was granted and I was offered a position in
Houston that was not a case management position, but it was
what they had available, so I accepted that position. And I--
you know, the history of my employment is just I worked in that
position until something of more of a case management in nature
came available, and I did that for a while. And just recently I
applied for--now I'm working for another Federal judge in a
case manager position. So I now have my job back, finally,
after 2 years.
One thing I want to say about my transfer back to Houston.
I was in a position working for the staff attorneys and I had
been doing that for oh, I guess, a month or so. And it still
bothered me that even though I had made a complaint to my
manager and the complaint had been addressed and I had received
a transfer, I felt that nothing, absolutely nothing, had been
done to correct the situation in Galveston. And I didn't think
anything was going to be done to correct that.
I knew that there were other victims out there and I also
knew that there will continue to be victims if no one did
anything. That thought nagged at me and just--I couldn't sleep
at night because I felt like I had a responsibility to say
something or do something to ensure that it wouldn't continue
to happen. So after a couple of months I decided to file my
judicial misconduct complaint. I wrote it myself, I mailed it
off myself, and I waited to see how the circuit or the
committee would handle the complaint.
Not too long after I filed the complaint, I got a letter
from Judge Jones stating that a panel of judges would be in
Houston to interview me. They did that; they came in and there
were three people that interviewed me. It was two judges and an
attorney. And it's my understanding that they interviewed other
people, coworkers and other people they thought were--could be
witnesses. The problem is that most the people in Galveston
were extremely afraid of Judge Kent, they were afraid of
retaliation. And a lot of people didn't feel at liberty to tell
the truth to the committee of judges. And they didn't feel like
they should offer any information that could have been helpful
to the case. They were afraid for their jobs.
I felt alienated completely, because people who were my
friends and my coworkers treated me as if I had the plague,
they were so afraid to be associated with me. Eventually I
found out that the circuit decided to reprimand the judge. And
in the reprimand they gave him 4 months of administrative
leave, with pay, as his punishment. That didn't seem entirely
fair to me. They also classified what happened to me as sexual
harassment. In my opinion what happened to me went way beyond
sexual harassment. That's when I decided to go forward with a
criminal complaint.
The criminal investigation brought on a whole--a whole new
form of stress. I mean there was--everything that I did, I felt
was under a microscope. Everyone was looking into my
background, they were subpoenaing all of my records, my
telephone records, my e-mail records, everything; everything I
did became public. And that was very frightening and incredibly
stressful not only to myself, but to my family. Seeing their
mother's name in the news and the way that--it was linked to
his claims of our ordeal being enthusiastically consensual was
just beyond belief. My children had to listen to comments from
other people about was it a consensual act, things like that,
or things that kids should never have to deal with.
My marriage suffered terribly to the point of just
disaster, because I was so--I was so completely stressed, I
suffered from anxiety, depression, loss of sleep. I barely
could even go to work every day, but I knew I had to have my
income and I had to continue on. So the very best I could do
was go to work and come home. I wasn't able to manage my family
responsibilities, you know, decisions with the kids and making
sure they met their deadlines in school and things like that. I
was not capable of doing that. And everyone relied on me to do
that, so I feel like I really let my family down in that area.
And I wasn't able to meet my husband's needs. All of that
contributed to an impact on my family.
So I just ask that you consider all of this when you vote
to impeach Judge Kent because it's just--it has been an
incredible ordeal for me, for my coworkers, for my family, for
the other victims involved. And I think it's very important.
Thank you.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Ms. McBroom. We very much appreciate
your willingness to come and testify today, and I know how
difficult it is. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McBroom follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cathy McBroom
ATTACHMENT
__________
Mr. Schiff. Ms. Wilkerson.
TESTIMONY OF DONNA WILKERSON, LEGAL SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity to let you know my story. I'm very nervous and
don't do well at public speaking so I ask for a little patience
with me.
My name is Donna Wilkerson, I am 45 years old. I live in
Santa Fe, Texas. I'm happily married to my husband of 25 years
and we have two teenage children who attend high school in
Santa Fe. I was a legal assistant and secretary in the private
sector for 19 years before going to work for the Federal
Government, and have worked for Judge Kent for the last 7 years
as his secretary in his chambers. I began working for Sam Kent
at the Federal court in December 2001. I left a happy and
rewarding career in the legal field to take what I felt was a
once-in-a-lifetime career opportunity as a secretary to a
Federal judge.
This job provided an income which exceeded my past salary
in the private sector, with excellent benefits for my family
and me. And it was a 20-minute commute from my home as opposed
to the law firm jobs I had in Houston, some 40 miles away.
One reason I am here today is to shed some light on what
until now has been viewed by many as sexual harassment and
sexual misconduct by Judge Kent. But in fact, it wasn't just
sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. His acts were sexual
assault. I have detailed those--these incidents involving these
assaults and the more minor incidents of misconduct and
harassment in my written statement that has been provided to
the Task Force.
I was a 7-year victim of Sam Kent's sexual and physical--
psychological abuse, I'm sorry. During my interview for this
job and several times subsequent to my being hired, Sam Kent
told me that he was the sole person responsible for his
personnel staff's hiring and firing, and his personnel staff
consisted of me and his two law clerks.
He also told me that he was the government. He would make
statements routinely: I am the government, I'm the Lion King.
It's good to be king. I'm the emperor of Galveston, the man
wearing the horned hat guiding the ship.
He warned me in my interview, three things which he said
would not be tolerated and would be grounds for my or our--with
the staff--immediate dismissal: Disloyalty to him, talking out
of school as he put it, and by engaging in behavior that would
be an embarrassment to the court.
Sam Kent's sexual abuse and misconduct with me began on the
fifth day of my job in December of 2001. He'd had a retirement
party that was hosted by some friends for his retiring
secretary whom I was taking her place. There was drinking and
eating at that luncheon. And once there, while his retiring
secretary and others were in the reception area of the
chambers, he called me into his office and shut the door. He
sat behind his desk and I sat in a chair in front of his desk.
He told me that he was very excited to have me coming to work
for him, to take Ms. Henry's place; that he thought I would be
an asset to him and the operations of the court and that he
thought I was intelligent and pretty and other random
compliments.
As he got up, appearing to be showing me out of his office,
I was walking in front of him to the door. He reached for the
door as if to open it for me but put one of his hands on the
door and the other hand on the other side, putting me between
the door and him. He leaned in and placed a kiss on my mouth.
After that he told me how beautiful he thought I was and that,
again, he was glad I was there. I did not know what to do, but
in my shock I did nothing but exit the room thinking, what in
the world was that and how am I supposed to handle this?
From that point forward, the abuse became more frequent and
more severe. The number of these incidents from minor to most
severe can be averaged at one to two times per month over a
year's time for a period of approximately 5 to 5\1/2\ years,
from 2001 to 2007.
Again, these episodes as to severity are set out in my
written statement. These episodes were routinely followed by
Judge Kent returning from long lunches where he was
intoxicated. And there were periods in this time that I--that
Judge Kent would stop drinking for several months and weeks at
a time. There would be times where he was out on extended
periods from the office wherein he obviously didn't have any
contact with me.
I've explained in the past that the severity of the sexual
abuse can be described using a bell curve as an example,
starting with the most minor of incidents of hugs and kisses
and escalating to the worse incidents of touching me
inappropriately, groping me outside my clothes, then inside my
clothes, both top and bottom, then attempting to and gaining
penetration in my genitals with his hand and placing my hand on
his crotch. And then there was one, or possibly two, most
severe incidents of sexual assault.
These episodes always occurred inside of his chamber,
sometimes in his office, and sometimes in the reception area,
or wherever in chambers he could corner me. Preceding the
incident he would always begin speaking in a vulgar and
inappropriate way to me, and telling me graphically what he
wanted to do to me. During these episodes I repeatedly told him
no, stop, stop acting like a pig, quit, cut this out, you
can't--we can't be doing this. I don't want to do this, behave
yourself, and so on and so on.
There were times when he would approach me from behind
while I was sitting at my desk and working at my computer. He
would quickly come up behind me and put his hands over my
shoulders and grope me on the outside of my clothes and then
down my shirt and into my bra. Sam Kent is a 6'4'' man weighing
260 to 300 pounds in any given period. Once cornered, caught,
or pinned there's no getting away. Each time when I was at my
desk and I knew that he was coming toward me in this manner, I
would scoot my chair under my desk as far as I could, crossing
my legs and arms to try to close myself off from him, all the
while telling him no. He would keep trying to get his hands on
me, but sometimes in this position I could literally keep his
hands from moving and keep his hands off of me to the point
that he would stop. But most times, however, I was not
successful.
At those times I would attempt to move away to an area in
the office where he would not--where he could not corner or
trap me, literally even getting pieces of furniture in between
us. I tried at all costs not to go inside of his office if he
were in there and calling for me. I would stand in the doorway
and talk to him and try to keep him off of the subject.
I know that it may be hard for some to understand or wonder
how I could have endured this situation without doing anything
about it. The reasons are many. My job was one that afforded--
I'm sorry--offered a significant amount of pay and benefits,
even more than that of my husband. I could not afford, nor do I
want to leave this job providing more than half of the income
for my family.
My husband is a man with a fairly short fuse, a man of very
few words who believes that part of his job as my husband and
father to our children is to protect his family. Had I told him
of even the first episode, the most minor of episodes, he
literally would have gone to Galveston courthouse and ``taken
care of the situation.'' I was very afraid of how he would
handle that situation. Any altercation, verbal or physical,
with Sam Kent would have resulted in my being fired. My husband
would face any variety of criminal actions and Sam Kent would
have blackballed me from the Galveston County legal community.
After the incidents became more severe, my husband's
reaction would have also been more severe. And whom exactly was
I supposed to tell after he repeatedly told me that he was the
government, he was the only one responsible for firing and
hiring me. He made it clear, over and over, that he was the
only person who made the decisions about his employees. And he
had made that evident by his getting rid of and transferring
several employees of the court whom he did not like or he felt
needed to be replaced because of his own reasons.
One final and painful realization in my coming forward was
dealing with my 14-year-old daughter and describing to her how
she should conduct herself, how she should never put herself in
a position that she has to take abuse from any young man, old
man, and what she should do; and that no job, no situation, is
ever worth that. How could I look her in the face and tell her
these things when I couldn't do it myself? So I had to come
forward, I had to do the right thing.
Sam Kent has spent his life manipulating people and abusing
his relationships with people. Abusing people not just
sexually, and not just women. Certainly this has been my
experience the whole time I've known him.
He has also spent his time lying to everyone. He is a
compulsive liar and he will never acknowledge what he has done
to the people around him. He continues to try to manipulate the
system and make excuses for his abhorrent behavior.
In the criminal case against him--although some of his lies
were uncovered by his own admission--because of his narcissism
and inability to admit fault and accept fault, he turned to
even more lies by publishing ridiculous statements in the
newspaper and blaming everyone and everything but himself.
Although this plea bargain required his claiming personal
responsibility for his actions, as soon as he was, out of the
courtroom he made statements to the press through his lawyer
which were lies, and made ludicrous excuses for his past lies.
I did not fully realize how Judge Kent manipulated me until
I was able to get out of his web, as he commonly referred to
his position with the people involved in his career and his
life.
I now realize how he maliciously manipulated and controlled
everyone and everything around him. Through the entire time I
was in this situation with Judge Kent he basically attempted to
buy me, buy my silence as well as others. He continued to
manipulate and control what I and others would say after the
action began by threatening to take his own life.
Before my first grand jury appearance, after he returned
from administrative leave, 20 minutes before my scheduled
appearance, he came to my desk and told me if anyone from Dr.
Hirschfeld's office calls--that's his psychiatrist, one of his
psychiatrists--please put them through right away. You know
they have me on suicide watch again, right? He even instructed
his law clerk in my presence to research his life insurance
policy to make sure that it did not contain a suicide
exclusion, so that if he killed himself his wife would still be
paid the benefits.
On another occasion, before my last grand jury appearance,
he told the law clerk that if I rolled on him, it would be all
he could take and he would kill himself. And of course she,
being my friend knowing the true story, notified me
immediately, as she was worried that he might carry out with
the plan, but that was exactly what he wanted her to do. He
abused those around him and misused the power that his position
brought him. He said that he hated bullies. And how sad is it
that he himself is the biggest bully of them all?
He continued his manipulative behavior in seeking a mental
disability when, just 2 years ago, he fought very, very hard to
make his accusers and the investigators know that he was fully
capable of keeping his bench.
I've heard today that he wrote a letter saying that he was
unable to travel here because of health concerns and health
reasons.
It is all contrived. I probably know Judge Kent as well as
anyone could. And I have to agree with Judge Jones' assessment
that his problems, psychologically and physically, have, of
course, been brought on by this situation. And yes, he is
psychologically impaired and a broken man, as he said, now. But
I truly believe that it's because of this situation. Who
wouldn't be psychologically troubled by this situation?
Judge Kent liked to say that he had to treat the lawyers
who appeared before them harshly, because if he was nice to
them that they would take advantage of him. He said that people
misunderstood kindness as weakness, and now I know that this is
what he truly believes. He saw my kindness to him as weakness,
and he took complete advantage of me. He abused his power
continuously and believed that no rules truly applied to him. I
witnessed this over and over and can give so many examples of
this behavior. He mocked, made racist comments. It pains me to
say that he routinely used the N word and abused criminal
defendants who came before him, litigants, lawyers, his
colleagues and people in his everyday life.
My life has been truly affected in ways that I can never
describe. No one can fully understand what it was like for me
to have this happen to me. My family and I are in counseling to
deal with the pain that he has caused. Our lives have been
turned upside down.
I have teenage children who have had to hear the ugly
details of sexual abuse perpetrated by someone they once loved
and trusted. On a daily basis I struggle with the past and the
pain that this situation has caused me. I'm mentally exhausted,
and every day is a struggle to heal, move forward and literally
function. My marriage has suffered significantly from the
stress of this situation, and I pray that it will survive. I am
angry at the toll that this has taken on me and my family and
the precious time I have been pushed, pulled, and taken away
from my children and my husband, time I can never regain. I
worry constantly about what my future will be like, both
personally and professionally. Until this matter is completely
concluded, the reality is that I'm reminded of the situation
daily and it is a source of constant angst and a complete drain
of my emotional and physical energy.
Ironically, until Sam Kent is off the bench, even the
administrative office will not release me from his grips. I am
still tied to him as a personal employee, tied to his budget,
and any attempt to reassign me has not been successful; but yet
he continues to earn his yearly salary as not only a convicted
felon but also a man who possesses all of the horrific
characteristics of everything a Federal judge is not ever
supposed to be, but who still holds on to his position and
seems to have protection from the real world.
Yesterday Judge Kent sent a letter to the President
advising of his resign--resignation as of June 2010. I ask for
your help in seeing to it that the right thing is done and that
he be removed from his bench as soon as possible. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you Ms. Wilkerson, again we very much
appreciate your willingness to testify and know how very
difficult it is.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donna Wilkerson
My name is Donna Wilkerson. I am 45 years old. I live in Santa Fe,
Texas. I am happily married to my husband of 25 years and we have two
teenage children who attend high school in Santa Fe. I was a legal
assistant and secretary in the private sector for 19 years before going
to work for the federal government and have worked for Judge Kent for
the last seven years as his secretary in his chambers. I began working
for Sam Kent at the federal courthouse in December 2001. I left a happy
and rewarding career in the legal field to take what I felt was a once-
in-a-lifetime career opportunity as the secretary to a federal judge.
This job provided an income, which exceeded my past salaries in the
private sector with excellent benefits for my family, and me and was a
20-minute commute from my home, as opposed to the law firm jobs I had
in Houston, some 40+ miles away. During my interview for this job and
several times subsequent to my being hired, Sam Kent told me that he
was the sole person responsible for his personal staff's hiring and
firing (his personal staff consisted of me and his two law clerks). He
also told me that he was the Government--``I am the Government''; ``I'm
the Lion King--it's good to be king'', ``I'm the Emperor of
Galveston'', and ``the man wearing the horned hat, guiding the ship.''
He warned me of three things which he said would not be tolerated and
would be grounds for my/our immediate dismissal: disloyalty to him,
``talking out of school'', and by engaging in behavior which would be
an embarrassment to the Court. He told me and subsequently routinely
told every law clerk a story of a former law clerk whom he ``thought
was his friend'' but upon the clerk's leaving for his law firm job, the
law clerk told everyone at the law firm that the judge had a drinking
problem, routinely became intoxicated on the job, performing many of
his duties while intoxicated and behaved in a manner unbecoming to a
federal judge. Mr. Kent advised at the end of that story how he hated
that law clerk for his betrayal and had not spoken to him since.
For the last seven years, I was sexually and psychologically
abused, manipulated and controlled by Sam Kent. His sexual abuse and
misconduct with me began on the fifth day of my job. I had worked the
first week at my job with Judge Kent's secretary of 20 years. She was
retiring. On Friday of that first week, a retirement luncheon was given
for her at a local restaurant. I was invited to and attended the
luncheon, which lasted approximately 2-3 hours where food and alcohol
were served. Mr. Kent, with others, became intoxicated, being loud and
obnoxious. During the party, pictures were taken of several groups,
including Sam Kent with his wife, former law clerks, attorneys and his
retiring secretary. During the taking of those photos Judge Kent joked
and laughed and grabbed his wife's breasts and buttocks in front of the
room full of people. After the party, everyone left except the few
courthouse staff and Judge Kent, who returned to the courthouse. Once
there, while his retiring secretary and others were in the reception
area of his chambers, he called me into his office and shut the door.
He sat behind his desk and I sat in a chair in front of his desk. He
told me that he was very excited to have me coming on board to take Ms.
Henry's place, that he thought I would be an asset to him and the
operations of the court, and that he thought I was intelligent and
pretty, and other random compliments. As he got up, appearing to be
showing me out of his office, I was walking in front of him to the
door. He reached for the door as if to open it for me, but put one of
his hands on the door and the other one on the other side, putting me
between the door and him. He leaned in and placed a kiss on my mouth.
After that, he told me how beautiful he thought I was and that, again,
he was glad I was there. I did not know what to do, but in my shock, I
did nothing but exit the room, thinking, ``what in the world was that
and how am I supposed to handle this?'' From that point forward, the
abuse became more frequent and more severe. The number of these
incidents, from minor to the most severe, can be averaged at 1-2 times
per month over a year's time, for a period of approximately 5-5\1/2\
years, from 2001-2007. However, there were periods of time during these
years that the incidents did not occur as frequently as 1-2 times per
month because he had periods of weeks and months of not drinking, as
well as several periods of extended time that he was out of the office.
These episodes were routinely followed by Judge Kent's returning from
long lunches wherein he was intoxicated. I have explained in the past
that the severity of the sexual abuse can be described using a Bell
Curve as an example--starting with the most minor of incidents of hugs
and kisses, then escalating to worse incidents of touching me
inappropriately, groping me outside my clothes, then inside my clothes
(top and bottom), then attempting to and gaining penetration of my
genitals with his hand, placing my hand on his crotch, and then topping
the curve at the most severe episode of once, and possibly twice,
pulling down my pants and performing oral sex on me. These episodes
always occurred inside of his chambers--sometimes in his office, and
sometimes in the reception area or wherever in chambers he could corner
me. Preceding the incidents, he would always begin speaking in a vulgar
and inappropriate way to me and telling me graphically what he wanted
to do to me. Statements of ``you have the cutest titties'', ``let me
see those cute titties'', ``you have the cutest ass'', ``I want to eat
your pussy'', and ``why don't you suck me off'' were common to the more
severe episodes. During these episodes, I repeatedly told him ``no'',
``stop'', ``stop acting like a pig'', ``quit'', ``cut this out'',
``you/we can't be doing this'', ``I don't want to do that/this'',
``behave yourself'', and so on and so on. There were times when he
would approach me from behind while I was sitting at my desk and
working at my computer. He would quickly come up behind me and put his
hands over my shoulders and grope me on the outside of my clothes and
down my shirt and into my bra.
Sam Kent is a 6'4'' man, weighing 260-300 pounds, in any given
period. Once caught, cornered or pinned, there was no getting away.
Each time when I was at my desk and I knew that he was coming towards
me in this manner, I would scoot my chair under my desk as far as I
could, crossing my legs and arms to try to close myself off from him.
All the while, telling him ``no''. He would keep trying to get his
hands on me, but sometimes in this position, I could literally keep
moving his hands off me to the point that he would stop. Most times,
however, I was not successful. Many times he would come towards me,
with his hands out, saying ``let me see those cute titties'', and other
times he would come towards me saying other vulgar things. At those
times, I would attempt to move away to an area in the office where he
could not corner, trap or pin me--try to get a piece of furniture
between us. I tried at all costs to not go inside of his office if he
were in there and calling for me--I would stand in the doorway and talk
to him and try to get him off the subject. During the most severe
episode, he pinned me to a chair in his office after pulling my pants
and underwear down.
When invited out to the lunches wherein he became intoxicated, we,
his staff, were expected to go. If one of us didn't go, for whatever
reason or excuse, he would be obviously upset with us about it, pout
about it, and even tell the other staffers that did attend that he was
offended. Many times after the abuse began, I declined to go to lunch
with the group, making an excuse not to go, then leaving before he came
back. These lunches would sometimes not begin until 1:30 or 2:00 p.m.
and he would not return to the office until 3:15 or even later. Before
some of the lunches that I or we did not attend, he would say before he
left that he was not intending to come back to the office and that I or
we could leave whenever we were finished with what we needed to do. I
took that opportunity to leave as soon as I could, before he might
change his mind to return to the office. Other times, he would announce
to me that he needed to come back to the office to finish ``signing
some orders'' and/or ``pay a few bills'', and that he wanted me to be
there when he returned. Those were always his words and I knew what
that meant--he was coming back to the office with the intent to harm
me. But I also knew that I had to be there when he returned for fear of
insubordination. Many times, I implored his career law clerk, one of
the people to whom I had told a portion of the story to, to be in
chambers with me so that he could not ``misbehave'' when he returned.
During the time after Cathy McBroom came to the court as his case
manager, I became aware of his sexual abuse of her, as well. We
discussed it on several occasions, and on occasions when I would leave
in order to be out of the office when he returned, I would call Cathy
and tell her that I was ``giving her a head's up'' because he had gone
to lunch and would be coming back to the office. She knew what that
meant, also, and although she was an employee of the District Clerk's
office and could not just leave, she would leave her office and go to
other places or offices in the building. Sometimes she would even take
her own ``leave'' to leave the office.
I know that it may be hard for some to understand or wonder how I
could have endured this situation without doing anything about it. The
reasons are many. My job was one that offered a significant amount of
pay and benefits--even more than that of my husband. I could not afford
nor did I want to leave the job, providing more than half of the income
for my family. My husband is a man with a fairly short fuse--a man of
few words--who believes that part of his job as husband and father is
to protect his family. Had I told him of even the first episode, he
literally would have gone to the Galveston courthouse and ``taken care
of'' the situation. I was very afraid of how he would handle the
situation. Any altercation, verbal or physical, with Sam Kent would
have resulted in my being fired. My husband would face any variety of
criminal actions, and Sam Kent would have blackballed me from the
Galveston County legal community. After the incidents became more
severe, my husband's reaction would have also been more severe. And
whom, exactly, was I supposed to tell? Sam Kent made it clear, over and
over, that he was the only person who made the decisions about his
employees. And he had made that evident by his ``getting rid of'' and
transferring several employees of the court whom he did not like or
whom he felt needed to be replaced because of his own reasons.
Sam Kent has spent his life manipulating people and abusing his
relationships with people, abusing people not just sexually and not
just women. Certainly, this has been my experience the time I have
known him. He has also spent this time lying to everyone. He is a
compulsive liar and he will never acknowledge what he has done to the
people around him. He continues to try to manipulate the system and
make excuses for his abhorrent behavior. In the criminal case against
him, although some of his lies were uncovered, by his own admission,
because of his narcissism and inability to admit fault and accept
fault, he turned to even more lies by publishing ridiculous statements
in the newspaper and blaming everyone and everything but himself.
Although his plea bargain required his claiming responsibility for his
actions, as soon as he was out of the courtroom he made statements to
the press through his lawyer which were lies and made ludicrous excuses
for his past lies.
I did not fully realize how Judge Kent manipulated me until I was
able to get out his ``web'', as he commonly referred to his position
with the people involved in his career and life. I now realize how he
maliciously manipulated and controlled everyone and everything around
him. Through the entire time I was in this situation with Judge Kent,
he attempted to buy me, as well as others, silence. He even went so far
as to make me (as well as his former secretary) a beneficiary in his
will--leaving us each a sum of money. He continued to manipulate and
control what I and others would say after the action began by
threatening to take his own life. Before my first grand jury appearance
after he returned from administrative leave--20 minutes before my
scheduled appearance--he came to my desk and told me, ``If anyone from
Dr. Hirschfield's office calls [his psychiatrist], please put them
through right away--you know they have me on suicide watch again,
right?'' He even instructed his law clerk, Carey Worrell, in my
presence, to research his life insurance policy to make sure that it
did not contain ``suicide exclusion'' so that if he killed himself, his
wife would still be paid the benefits. On another occasion before my
last grand jury appearance, he told Ms. Worrell that if I ``rolled'' on
him, it would be all he could take and he would kill himself. Of
course, she notified me immediately, as she was worried that he might
carry through with this plan, which was exactly what he wanted her to
do. Ms. Worrell was also, sadly, in his web of manipulation and
control.
He abused those around him and misused the power that his position
brought him. He said that he ``hated bullies.'' How sad is it that he,
himself, is the biggest bully of them all. He continued his
manipulative behavior in seeking a mental disability, when just two
years ago he fought hard to make his accusers and the investigators
know that he was fully capable of keeping his bench.
Judge Kent liked to say that he had to treat the lawyers who
appeared before him harshly because if he was nice to them that they
would take advantage of him. He said that people ``misunderstand
kindness as weakness.'' Now I know that this is what he truly believes.
He saw my kindness to him as weakness and he took complete advantage of
me. He abused his power continuously and believed that no rules truly
applied to him. I witnessed this over and over and can give so many
examples of this behavior. He mocked, made racist comments and abused
criminal defendants who came before him, litigants, lawyers, his
colleagues, and people in his everyday life.
My life has truly been affected in ways that I can never describe.
No one can fully understand what it was like for me to have this happen
to me. My family and I are in counseling to deal with the pain he has
caused. Our lives have been turned upside down. I have teenage children
who had to hear the ugly details of sexual abuse perpetrated by someone
they once loved and trusted. On a daily basis I struggle with the past
and the pain that this situation has caused me. I am mentally exhausted
and every day is a struggle to heal, move forward and literally
function. My marriage has suffered significantly from the stress of
this situation and I pray that it will survive. I am angry at the toll
this has taken on me and my family, and the precious time I have been
pushed, pulled and taken away from my children and my husband--time I
can never regain. I worry constantly about what my future will be like
both personally and professionally. Until this matter is completely
concluded, the reality is that I am reminded of the situation daily and
it is a source of constant angst and a complete drain of my emotional
and physical energy. Ironically, until Sam Kent is off the bench, even
the Administrative Office will not release me from his grips. I am
still tied to him as a personal employee, tied to his budget, and any
attempt to reassign me has not been successful. But yet he continues to
earn his yearly salary as not only a convicted felon, but also a man
who possesses all of the horrific characteristics of everything a
federal judge is not ever supposed to be, but who still holds on to his
position and seems to still have protection from the real world.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to explain my situation and
for your assistance in this matter.
__________
Mr. Schiff. Professor Hellman.
TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR D. HELLMAN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF LAW, PITTSBURGH, PA
Mr. Hellman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The testimony that
you have just heard makes all too clear the importance and,
indeed, the urgency of this hearing today. The question before
the Task Force is whether Judge Kent's conduct falls within the
constitutional category of high crimes and misdemeanors that
warrant impeachment.
I have submitted a statement in which I analyze this
question in some detail. Here, I will just briefly summarize my
conclusions.
In my view, based on the public record, Judge Kent's
behavior does fall within the constitutional category, high
crimes and misdemeanors. I reach this conclusion for two
independent reasons. First, Judge Kent has admitted to making
false statements in a judicial proceeding, specifically to a
judicial--a special committee that was investigatng a complaint
that he engaged in sexual harassment. This false testimony
makes him unfit to hold judicial office.
Second, there is evidence, now ample evidence, of sexual
misconduct that constitutes an abuse of official power and that
it provides further evidence of Judge Kent's unfitness to
retain his judicial position.
I will start with the false statements. Judge Kent has
admitted that when he appeared before the Special Committee of
the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council that was investigating a
judicial misconduct complaint filed against him, he falsely
testified regarding his unwanted sexual contact with Donna
Wilkerson. False testimony by a Federal judge in a judicial
misconduct proceeding falls easily within the realm of high
crimes and misdemeanors that warrant impeachment.
This is so, in part, because of the context. This Fifth
Circuit Special Committee was part of the mechanism that
Congress itself established in the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980. In that act, Congress made a considered
decision to give the judiciary itself the primary
responsibility for investigating and remedying misconduct by
Federal judges. If that system is to operate effectively, chief
judges and special committees must be able to rely on getting
truthful answers from judges who are accused of misconduct. By
testifying falsely before the special committee, Judge Kent
impeded the committee's performance of this congressionally
mandated task.
And the mischief goes even deeper. A second purpose of the
1980 Act was to allow the judiciary, as one sponsor said, to
isolate the most serious instances of misconduct and to set
before the House of Representatives a record of proceedings
revealing misconduct which might constitute an impeachable
offense. So when Judge Kent testified falsely before that
special committee he interfered with the judiciary's ability to
carry out that function, a function with constitutional
underpinnings.
As if that were not enough, there is another aggravating
factor. The purpose of Judge Kent's falsehoods was to impede an
investigation of acts of sexual misconduct that even then we
knew may have constituted abuses of Judge Kent's position as a
judge. As I develop more fully in my statement, abuse of
official power virtually defines the impeachable offense. A
public official who testifies falsely in order to cover up his
abuse of power is doubly unworthy to fill his office. And when
the official is a judge, the unfitness is inescapable.
The record also points to a second ground for impeachment,
the acts of sexual misconduct. On this point, Judge Kent's
admissions established that he engaged in repeated non-sex--
non-consensual sexual contact with two court employees who were
his subordinates. Now, if all you had was the admissions, I
think that I would be reluctant to conclude that the admitted
facts, without anything more, satisfy the constitutional
standard.
But, of course, there is more, a great deal more, the
testimony you have heard today from Cathy McBroom and Donna
Wilkerson. Based on that testimony and other evidence, you may
well find that Judge Kent relied on his position of authority
and control in the Galveston Division of the district court to
coerce employees of that court to engage in sexual acts for his
personal gratification and to coerce and intimidate them into
remaining silent rather than to report his attacks to a higher
authority.
If the record shows that, there can be no question that it
is impeachable behavior. It is, in the words of the
authoritative commentator, Richard Wooddeson, it is official
oppression that introduces arbitrary power. It is a high crime
and misdemeanor.
To sum up, there is at least one ground, and probably more,
for impeaching Judge Kent. He has proved himself to be unworthy
to fill the office he holds, and I urge the Task Force to take
the next steps in the process that will enable the Senate to
convict him and remove him from office. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Professor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hellman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur D. Hellman
__________
Mr. Schiff. We'll now begin the questioning, and I'll
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wilkerson, I wanted to ask you--Ms. McBroom went
through some of the chronology of how she filed the complaint
around how the disciplinary proceeding was begun. Can you tell
us a little bit about how you came to be involved in the legal
proceedings, whether it was through the grand jury or
otherwise, and what the course of the legal process was?
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, sir. I was questioned by the--initially
I was questioned by the Fifth Circuit panel, and then I was
called for grand jury testimony. I did not elaborate, I did not
tell the whole story from the beginning.
I became involved about a year and a half later. I did not
want to come forward from the beginning, but I was sought out
to tell the truth, and realized at a point that I had to tell
the truth and come forward and do the right thing. And some
people close to me also helped me make that decision that this
had to be done. And so that's how I got involved.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
Professor, I want to ask you a couple of questions. First
Mr. Baron related the part of the transcripts of the sentencing
proceeding in which the prosecutor made reference to the same
false statements that were the subject of the Fifth Circuit
proceeding. The judge had also made to the FBI the same false
denials. He also made reference to those same false denials
being made later to the Justice Department. False statements to
the FBI, false statements to the Justice Department in
connection with the same conduct, in view--in your view, would
those constitute impeachable offenses as well?
Mr. Hellman. Yes, I think they would. And I rely here in
part on the impeachment and conviction of Judge Harry
Claiborne, who was convicted of tax fraud unrelated to his
duties as a Federal judge. I think that if that is an
impeachable offense, this kind of falsehood is an easy case
after that.
Mr. Schiff. In terms of the testimony we heard today, can
you elaborate a little bit on whether it's necessary to show a
nexus between the sexual assaults that were described and his
position of authority or his responsibilities as a judge. Is
there--and the necessity of there being a nexus--in other
words, if the two women who testified today, let's say they
didn't even work in the courthouse but were assaulted in the
manner they described, would that be impeachment because it
also constitutes criminal conduct, or would you need to show a
nexus with his position of authority as a district judge, his
position as employer? Is a nexus required for impeachment and
has a sufficient nexus, in your view, been laid here?
Mr. Hellman. Let me take the first part of that question.
It is interesting that the question you pose was actually posed
in a slightly different context more than 150 years ago by
Justice Joseph Story, who was not only a Supreme Court Justice
but one of our most authoritative constitutional commentators.
And he posed that question: Suppose you had the misconduct--he
talked about bribery rather than sexual misconduct--and it was
totally outside the official capacity. He didn't quite answer
it, but he put the question: Would we have any less confidence
in that person's ability to hold his office simply because the
misconduct occurred in a private capacity? The answer obviously
to that question is no, you would not have confidence in the
ability to hold that office.
It seems to me, though, that you don't have to get to that
here. Based on the testimony here, you have ample evidence of
the nexus that this--that Judge Kent was able to engage in this
behavior repeatedly and over a period of time because of the
position of power he had as a Federal judge, and particularly
as the only Article III judge in that Galveston courthouse.
That's abuse of power, and abuse of power is quintessentially
what makes for an impeachable offense.
Mr. Schiff. Last question. The Constitution makes mention
of judges serving during good behavior, which has been
interpreted as meaning a life term. But I wonder whether those
words ``good behavior'' also add context to what the framers
meant by high crimes and misdemeanors. And the reason I ask is
this: Unlike other Federal officials, Members of Congress, the
President, who serve for a term of years and then are up before
the voters, the judges are never up before the voters. There is
only one method to be removed from judicial office, and that is
by impeachment.
Does that fact of there being no other remedy, no other
mechanism for removal, and the discussion or the mention of
good behavior mean that the framers had in mind either a
different view of what constitute a high crime and misdemeanor
in the case of judicial officer, or that good behavior should
inform that in some way? Is there any discussion of whether, in
the cases of someone appointed for life, that the same
definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is nonetheless
viewed in a different way?
Mr. Hellman. Unfortunately for us today, the sequence in
which the framers at the convention in Philadelphia considered
these questions doesn't enable us to give a confident answer to
that question. What is reasonably clear from the commentators
over a period of time is that the concept of high crimes and
misdemeanors does relate to the particular office because of
this emphasis on unfitness or unworthiness to hold the office.
And so I think in that sense you do look at judges a little bit
differently, partly because of the particular responsibilities
that they have, and partly because, as one of the commentators
did say, you cannot remove them from office otherwise. So that
does--that does put the context of the particular office, it
does make it important in that sense.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Professor. I now recognize the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
just want to make sure that the record is absolutely clear. And
I would like to ask both you, Ms. Wilkerson, and you, Ms.
McBroom, in your respective written testimonies you go into
some detail on exactly what the nature of the misconduct of
Judge Kent was against you. I'm not going to ask you to repeat
this in public, but I would like each of you to say whether or
not your detailed explanation is the truth and that is exactly
what happened. You can just say yes or no.
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Ms. McBroom. Yes, it's the truth.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now, all of the instances that you
described in your oral testimony, as well as in the written
testimony which has been included in the record, took place
while you were working, and during working hours; is that
correct or not?
Ms. Wilkerson. That's true.
Ms. McBroom. That's correct.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. So this was all harassment that occurred
on the job while the clock was running for both of your jobs,
correct?
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, none of these incidents occurred
outside of the courthouse, ever.
Ms. McBroom. Same with me.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I feel
compelled to apologize to both Ms. Wilkerson and Ms. McBroom
for the treatment that you have detailed to us today, and
hopefully you will accept the knowledge that your Federal
Government, the system of the judiciary, is one overall that
you can be proud of.
This is a difficult position for you to be in. And I
believe it is very important for you to know of the many
jurists and Members of Congress who stand away from the details
that you have offered here today. So thank you for your
coverage, for being here today, and accept this as an apology
for, again, what you have represented to us today.
Let me just try to find out from Ms. McBroom and from Ms.
Wilkerson, did you overlap in tenure in Judge Kent's court?
What were the years of service, again, Ms. Wilkerson? Can you
give me the year to year--I think you said something like 2001
to 2007; is that accurate?
Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you very much for your kind words.
Yes, our tenure did overlap. I came to the court in December of
2001. And, if I may speak for Cathy, I believe she came in July
or so.
Ms. McBroom. It was September of 2002.
Ms. Wilkerson. So I was there for almost a year before
Cathy came.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
And I think what you said, Ms. Wilkerson--and I will ask
both of you. You indicated that when the judicial panel came
forward, you were still at a point of intimidation and concern
about your employment. So tell me just what you did when that
panel came forward and asked you to speak to them?
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, ma'am, absolutely. At the time of the
Fifth Circuit interviews, Judge Kent earlier--I believe my
interview was in June, June sometime--Judge Kent had already
been interviewed.
Prior to that time, in between the time when Ms. McBroom
filed her complaint and the time that I was interviewed, Judge
Kent told me and told everyone that I knew of, including his
lawyer, that he had been inappropriate with me on several
occasions, kisses and hugs, a couple of times. The first few
times, in his words, were that I was sweet about it, I was nice
about it, but after the second or third time I made it very
clear to him that I wanted no part of that. He told me from the
beginning that that was his story, that was what he told his
lawyer, that is what he told the Fifth Circuit. And then,
ultimately, that is what he said that he told the FBI when the
criminal investigation began.
So that was the story that he told everyone. That is what
he told me. That is what he told his law clerks. That is what
he told even his colleagues, even the chief judge, I believe.
But, in fact, that is not what he said at all in his interview
with the Fifth Circuit and the FBI.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So he said less than that.
Ms. Wilkerson. He said less than the story he even told me.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And when you went--did you go before the
panel?
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, ma'am, I did.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And how did you feel the necessity--what
testimony did you offer?
Ms. Wilkerson. My testimony was that that was the story,
that I had been approached two or three times, a few times. I
made it very clear that it was unwanted and it was more than a
few times.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And that was on record, and----
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Then you still were in his
employ as a personal secretary?
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, ma'am. I let them know that the--with
that story.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You went forward with that. Well, that is
good. I just wanted to make sure that you were at that panel
and provided that information.
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, ma'am, I did.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. McBroom, so it was 2002 that you
started, and your complaint was filed when?
Ms. McBroom. I believe it was filed toward the end of May
2007.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. And you went before that panel, as
well?
Ms. McBroom. Yes, I did.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. And likewise gave your almost
complete testimony?
Ms. McBroom. I gave them every piece of information I had.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Let me thank you. And because my
time--Professor, let me ask you----
Mr. Schiff. Will the gentlewoman yield for just one moment?
I want to make sure we have a clear record on this, Ms.
Wilkerson.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Schiff. I thank you.
In your comments to the judicial panel, there are many
things that you did not tell them that you only disclosed
later. Is that correct?
Ms. Wilkerson. That is correct.
Mr. Schiff. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were clear
about that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I thank you for clarifying. I am
understanding that Ms. Wilkerson framed her testimony at least
with the items that the judge said, but, more importantly, that
she was against these--or she refused these sexual assaults or
advances--I don't want to characterize your testimony. But you
made it clear on the record at that time.
Ms. Wilkerson. Yes, ma'am, I made it clear there had been
more than one incident of sexual misconduct and that it was
against my wishes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I think that is clear.
Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me, I was just in the
middle of finishing very quickly with Professor Hellman.
Professor, it does seem quite clear in the law about the
idea of the impeachment standard. Where do you place the
representations about alcohol abuse and mental health concerns?
I would like you to--I am not sure what you have read or
the materials that you have read, but I do know that there is a
letter in the record from Judge Edith Jones, where they made
the determination that, I guess, obviously you are upset and
have some mental issues because you are in the midst of this
crisis.
Does there have any impact if this person represents or
proves that they had a mental health issue throughout the
period of these actions, as it relates to the impeachment
proceeding?
Mr. Hellman. Well, I suppose it has a view as an impact--
you know, you can feel perhaps a little bit more sympathetic
toward Judge Kent as an individual. The question, though, for
this Task Force in the first instance and then for the House
is, is he worthy of the position he holds?
And if he is not worthy of that position, as much of this
evidence indicates very strongly, then that background, it
seems to me, should not affect that determination. Because
without removal from office, he will continue to sit as a
Federal--not to sit as a Federal judge--to hold the title of
Federal judge, to receive the salary of a Federal judge, and
also to occupy a position that otherwise could be filled by a
new judge appointed by the President.
So that, it seems to me, is what is primarily relevant at
the impeachment stage.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Could you just--I will conclude on this
question. Could you just restate the premise? Is that
constitutional or case law on ``worthy to be''? Could you----
Mr. Hellman. Well, there is not--I mean, one of the other
points----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I want you to help us with the right
question, so that is why I am asking you.
Mr. Hellman. Right. Yeah, no, I think the--we don't have
case law on this for the simple reason that the Constitution
vests the impeachment responsibility in the House and the trial
responsibility in the Senate. Neither of those are judicially
reviewable.
For that reason, we rely heavily on the commentators. And
one of the most authoritative commentators uses the standard of
``worthiness for office,'' that a public official should be
removed if he has shown himself to be unworthy of the office he
holds. And so that is, I believe, the question here. And
obviously there is very ample evidence on that, at this point.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman.
I thank all the witnesses very much for your testimony.
I yield back.
Ms. McBroom. Mr. Chairman, may I add something to my
statement?
Mr. Schiff. Of course.
Ms. McBroom. There were several incidents of sexual
misconduct that were not alcohol-related. There were incidents
where I was called up to his chambers in the morning and he
tried similar things, tried to grab me, kiss me, fondle, when
he had not been drinking. It was not always alcohol-related.
As a matter of fact, he would go months at a time without
drinking. I can't say that each incident was because of being
intoxicated. It was not.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is an important clarification. I
thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlewoman. Her time has expired.
Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia?
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McBroom, can you describe generally the power that
Judge Kent exercised in the Galveston courthouse? Is it
basically true that it was a one-judge courthouse and he
basically ran everything and supervised everybody?
Ms. McBroom. Yes, it was a one-judge courthouse. I think
all of the employees were afraid to get out of line. I know
when I began my employment there, my own manager, the deputy in
charge for Galveston, sat down and talked to me and told me
that I needed to be very careful to stay under his radar, that
anything could set him off.
Mr. Goodlatte. So there was nobody in the courthouse that
you or anybody else really would feel like you could go to
complain----
Ms. McBroom. Not anyone who was not afraid of him.
Mr. Goodlatte. Right. Did Judge Kent do or say anything
that communicated to you that he felt he could get away with
his misconduct toward you because he was a Federal judge?
Ms. McBroom. Well, at the time I told you about in the wait
room, whenever I told him the security officers were right
outside, he didn't say it was because he was a Federal judge,
he just said, ``I don't care. I don't care who hears me.'' I
just understood that it was because he was in that position of
power.
Mr. Goodlatte. What did it take, because of this
environment, for you to be able to get the assistance or
support from somebody else? How did you follow through on this
to----
Ms. McBroom. Do you mean when I decided to request the
transfer?
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, yes. When did you first seek some help
in terms of dealing with the problems that you were having?
Ms. McBroom. Oh, I sought help from the very beginning,
from the very first incident by making my manager aware of what
is going on. And she even agreed that if there were times when
I felt threatened I could leave. She said, if you need to
leave, you just go ahead and go, take off.
But there were certain times when I actually had a lot of
work to do and he might have been in the building and may have
been looking for me, and I thought if I could temporarily just
escape until he left the office then I could stay and continue
to do my work. I know that sounds crazy, but I really did want
to perform my responsibilities. Sometimes I would just go hide
in an empty office until I knew that he had gone for the day.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Ms. Wilkerson, how did the fact that Judge Kent was a
Federal judge affect you in your initial response to his
actions?
Ms. Wilkerson. Well, as I said in my statement, I--what
could I do? He had made it very clear that he was the sole
person in our staff, the two law clerks and myself, he was the
sole person responsible for every decision there. And I
literally, when I came there, there was no training, there was
no--in fact, several times throughout the 7 years that I was
with him, I had asked to go to several training seminars and
such, and he declined those. There was no training. I was like,
who am I supposed to go to with this? Who am I supposed to tell
this to? How am I supposed to handle this?
Mr. Goodlatte. So you didn't even have the resource of a
supervisor----
Ms. Wilkerson. I did not have a manager. He was my manager.
He was the manager.
Mr. Goodlatte. And how did you ultimately bring this to the
attention of others, that you had been subjected to this
treatment?
Ms. Wilkerson. Initially, I told the Fifth Circuit panel
when they asked me in the investigation of Ms. McBroom's
complaint. That was the first time.
Well, let me back up. I had told two of our law clerks. One
was a career law clerk, and one was a term law clerk that had
left. And they've remained--she remains a co-worker and a dear
friend, and he remains a dear friend. And I had told them back
when. I had not told them the severity of it because it was too
humiliating. I had told no one, no one, the details because it
was too embarrassing and humiliating. Who could I tell these
things to? I hadn't told my husband. I couldn't tell anyone. I
personally felt I couldn't tell anyone.
So I told them, but--and they were in agreement, that's
awful. And one even went so far as to say, yeah, I think he is
a predator. What are you to do? Everyone, even--and this guy,
this friend of mine that was the former law clerk, of course he
was intimidated and afraid of him also.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I
wonder if I might have leave to ask one question of Professor
Hellman.
Mr. Schiff. Of course, without objection.
Mr. Goodlatte. It seems there are various views as to what
sort of conduct would be sufficient to justify impeachment. Can
you discuss for the Task Force how the concept of abuse of
trust or abuse of position fits within the concept of high
crimes and misdemeanors?
Mr. Hellman. Yes. Abuse of trust, abuse of a position
really is the heart of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Mr. Goodlatte. You may want to hit your speaker button
there.
Mr. Hellman. I think it is--I'll bring it closer there.
What is striking to me as I listen to the very courageous
testimony of Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson, this context is
new--sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment--but it
fits so closely to the description in one of the classic works
by the commentator Wooddeson, ``a magistrate who introduces
arbitrary power.'' Those were the words he used. And that is
what we are hearing about here today.
Judge Kent introduced arbitrary power into the Galveston
courthouse for his own personal gratification and satisfaction.
It is a sad thing for me to hear, as somebody both to listen to
the personal ordeals but also, as somebody who generally
admires the Federal judiciary, that there was a judge who
introduced arbitrary power, abused his power in this way. That
is the essence of an impeachable offense, in my view.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. And I think it is a sad thing for
all of us to hear.
And I want to especially thank Ms. McBroom and Ms.
Wilkerson for being willing to step forward and testify here
today. It is no--I don't think any of us can in any way
underestimate the stress that this must put you under. But we
thank you very much. You are providing a great service to your
country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. Pierluisi of Puerto Rico?
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to both of you, Ms.
McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson, for appearing before us. Few
individuals will ever experience the depth of pain and
humiliation you have felt because of Judge Kent's conduct.
You're both brave women for bringing his inexcusable behavior
to light.
As I see it at this point in this proceeding, Judge Kent's
refusal to resign immediately from his office adds insult to
injury. He already insulted you; he insulted all of us who
believe in the American justice system. He insulted everybody.
But now he injured everybody. Now he is insulting us.
One thing is to cause the damage he caused to you, and now
it is quite another and it is really flabbergasting that he
wants to keep earning a Federal salary while even incarcerated.
It makes no sense. He is forcing this Congress to take action.
And that's what this is all about.
Having said that, I imagine that no action that Congress
takes can make you whole for the unspeakable harm Judge Kent
caused you. Both of you mentioned the devastating impact that
he has caused in your personal and professional lives. So on a
human--on a personal basis, I just want to make sure, does this
process help you in healing? Does it help you in moving on? I
just want to hear from you on that.
Ms. McBroom. I find it extremely helpful, and it is helping
me to have closure, first of all, to know that I live in a
country where it does matter. In America, sexual assault is a
crime. Sexual assault in a workplace is even more of a crime,
in my opinion.
And it is--I just feel--I feel good about myself for coming
forward, and I am so grateful that everyone is taking notice
and that there is going to be action taken. It is very healing.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Pierluisi. You're welcome.
Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you for your kind words, as well.
Yes, this process, although very intimidating and out of my
comfort zone for sure, I do feel that this process will help. I
have kept thinking over this time, you know, the next step, the
next step, the next step of trying to move forward and heal,
and it seems like it couldn't get any crazier. This whole thing
has been surreal.
But all I can say is that, with each step forward, as
painful as it is and as painful as the past has been, I am
moving closer and closer to, you know, some sunshine in my days
and to a healing process that, like Cathy says, people are
taking notice and must take notice that this cannot and should
not ever be acceptable or tolerated and that the system will
maybe eventually, maybe not when we think it needs to be done,
but will take care of situations such as this. So thank you
very much.
Mr. Pierluisi. You're welcome.
I have no further questions.
Mr. Schiff. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Lungren of California?
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Hellman, your testimony is very helpful in terms
of establishing the parameters within which we work. And you
made it very clear that it is the Congress, both the House in
terms of impeachment and the Senate in terms of trial, who make
the final determination. And while precedent is important and
commentators are important, it is the collective judgment of
the House and the Senate that prevails and is not appealable.
You were asked a question about good behavior because of
the reference to the Constitution. I think as we try and
understand that, you go back to the Founding Fathers and you
look at the commentary, which I think is pretty important,
called the Federalist Papers, where I think it was Madison who
said that ``the Constitution is established for a virtuous
people. It would be insufficient for any other.'' And he was
talking generally about the public. But I think it is also
guidance in terms of those who are in official office.
He also went on to say, ``If men were angels, we wouldn't
need a government.'' But obviously we aren't and we need a
government. But he also said, ``Once you have selected the
people who are to govern, you have to watch those who are
governing.'' And that is our requirement here. We're supposed
to watch those who are governing. And, in this case, we are
given the responsibility to make judgments with respect to the
conduct of those who have lifetime appointments.
And I don't think it is a close question as to whether or
not what was related by these two witnesses here needs to have
a nexus to employment. If one, while being a Federal judge,
conducts himself in the way they have described, which in my
estimation are prima facie cases of sexual assault or in some
cases rape, there need not be a direct nexus to the job. That
makes it even worse. So I think that is a separate and
appropriate basis upon which we can impeach.
Secondly, it seems to me, what they have described here is
a case in which someone abused his power not only with respect
to these two women, but if you look at the conduct in its
entirety, it is obvious to me that he has used his influence to
corrupt the process in which other employees look the other
way. And that, to me, is one of the worst acts that someone
with authority can have. They essentially corrupt the actions
of others so that they either--they are aiding and abetting or,
in the least, they are looking the other way. And when you have
a Federal institution in a particular community which is the
Federal court, to have the power to corrupt that entire
workplace and the people who work within it is sufficient to
find within the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, in
my judgment.
To the ladies who testified here, what you have described
is a reign of judicial terror. And if we do not act here, we
not only do not do justice to you, but we send a message loud
and clear to the rest of the country that, when one gets a
lifetime appointment as a Federal judge, they are above the
law.
And if we allow him to sit in his incarcerated state and
continue to draw his salary and then get his pension, what we
have said is we are not serious about the fact that no person
is above the law; that, along with the tremendous authority you
get to be a Federal judge with lifetime tenure, the question of
good behavior really doesn't mean anything.
It either means something or it doesn't mean something. You
don't have to be, with all due respect, Professor, a professor
or a Member of Congress or a lawyer to look at two words,
``good behavior,'' and kind of figure out what they mean. And
what you two ladies have described here is the absence of good
behavior.
I happen to have a 91-year-old mother, I've got four
sisters, I have a wife, I have two daughters. What you have
described here is so unacceptable that Members of Congress have
got to act. This cannot be allowed to go forward without an
official response by this Congress.
And to let someone, first, try and get off on some sort of
dodge of his own physical disability or mental disability or,
secondly, to resign a year from now so that he can retain his
salary is totally unacceptable. And I want to thank the two of
you for the courage that you have displayed, because God knows
it is not easy for you to come forward and what it's done to
your families.
But we have to act based on the information you gave us.
This is not a difficult case. It is a clear-cut case. This man
should not be on the bench now; he shouldn't have been on the
bench. And we have the obligation to act to make sure that not
only he is on the bench but anybody else who would seek to be
on the bench or serve on the bench would never give a thought
toward acting the way he acted toward you and others.
So you have done a great service to this country by coming
forward. I know it's not easy, but there are a lot of people in
this country who respect you for what you've done and thank you
for what you've done. And now it is our obligation to do the
job that must be done based on the information that you have
given us.
Thank you very much for being here.
Ms. McBroom. Thank you.
Ms. Wilkerson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schiff. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez?
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to piggyback a little bit on what Mr. Lungren
said. And what is the amazing thing, Ms. Wilkerson and Ms.
McBroom, is both of you all have, in responding to my good
friend from Puerto Rico's question about how you're finding
this experience and you're saying, ``Well, it has been painful,
but it is gratifying that the system is working.'' But I hope
you realize the system is only working because you came
forward. The system would not have worked. And so, when we talk
about courage and bravery, that's what we are all discussing
here.
The second thought that I have is, look, sexual assault is
a violent act. Had the judge struck you, it would have been a
simple case. And we need to be reminded of that. Unfortunately,
in today's society, things are taken in context and such in a
way that we don't treat violent acts the same. But this was a
violent act, first and foremost. But your contribution is
making sure that people are held accountable.
And the last thought is, tremendous adversity, that you
come out of this stronger, that the family comes out stronger.
And that would be all of our wish for you. And I think that is
where you're headed. If you don't get there soon, I think you
will get there.
Professor Hellman, let me ask you quickly--because I do
want to take the sensitivity, sensibilities of the witnesses,
of the victims into account. I want them fully vested in the
process to the extent necessary, because to continue different
forums and different hearings does take its toll. It's just
human nature.
But in your paper, in your written statement, you have--let
me start off. ``The short answer is the House must exercise
independent judgment. It is not bound to determinations of
other actors in other proceedings. The longer answer is
fourfold,'' and then you go into examples. And you have, ``So I
believe that the House should not rely on the criminal
conviction as a basis for impeachment in and of itself. At the
same time, however, the House can legitimately rely on the
facts admitted by Judge Kent when he signed the plea agreement
as well as the factual basis for the plea.''
Preceding that paragraph, though, you allude to two
instances, one where a judge pled not guilty and was acquitted,
but nevertheless we use what was in the charging instrument as
a basis to impeach him. The second example you use is where a
judge--this is Judge Clayburn, in essence, where he was found
guilty, but that wasn't the basis for impeachment; it was the
underlying facts.
But in this case--in those two cases, these judges pled not
guilty. Isn't there some significance here in that we may be
able to get to A to B if, in fact, we recommend to the full
Committee that articles of impeachment be filed and they accept
our recommendation? Can't we get from A to B in the simplest
form possible? And that is relying on the plea--everything that
was encompassed, the finding of guilty to a felony, a Federal
felony, and the underlying facts that are encompassed in the
statement, as you suggest, the factual basis for the plea?
Mr. Hellman. Well, on the false statements, I do think that
the facts he has admitted to, without more, state an
impeachable offense on the false statements. It is on the
sexual misconduct that I think the admitted facts, without
more, don't quite get you from A to B. On the obstruction,
false statements count, yes.
And, of course, all you need is one article that the Senate
convicts by two-thirds and he is removed from office. That's
all you need.
Mr. Gonzalez. The reason that I state my question is
simply, if the full Committee moves forward with the
impeachment, then you know the role of the House of
Representatives. It is still up to the House of Representatives
to return, basically, like, an indictment. We are a big grand
jury; that's the way I always think of us, anyway. Then it goes
for trial before the Senate.
And to have to put witnesses to any extent or degree back
under the microscope at a national level, at this point, is
something, if at all possible--this is my own personal opinion;
it is definitely not anything I have shared with any of the
Members of the Task Force--that if we don't have to do it, we
shouldn't have to do it. And we can still, if, in fact,
impeachment is appropriate and the finding is appropriate, then
we move forward.
Can't we do that with what we have here, without fully
engaging the witnesses and having them being part and parcel of
that process?
Mr. Hellman. I appreciate and understand exactly the point
you make. And it is my view that, if all--if all you want is to
assure that Judge Kent will be--I suppose I should not say
``assure.'' It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and
each Senator will use his or her independent judgment. But it
does seem to me that the admitted facts on the obstruction
count that Judge Kent pleaded guilty to are sufficient to
impeach him and convict him on that without the need to get
into the details, the witnesses on the sexual misconduct.
Now, you may have other reasons for wanting to impeach him,
as some of these comments here suggest. But if the simple
question is, can he be removed from office, should he be
removed from office solely on the basis of these false
statements which he has admitted, I do believe that is
sufficient.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, without objection, just 1 minute. I wanted to
ask the witnesses----
Mr. Schiff. Without objection.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much.
You're aware of the letter this Committee has received from
Judge Kent. I think you all have alluded to it, and you've been
able to read it.
I'm going to ask you, since you're familiar with Judge
Kent, his demeanor and the manner in which he treated
individuals that came before his court, if a party came before
him, did Judge Kent hold that party accountable for their acts?
And let me go further than that. And if someone came before
him, a party or a defendant, and said, ``Oh, if you rule
against me or if you find me guilty, it will render me
penniless and without the health insurance I desperately need
to continue treating my diabetes and related complications as
well as my continuing mental health problem; please take these
realities into consideration to the extent that you may,''
would it have altered his judgment? What would he have done?
Ms. McBroom. He would have dealt with them severely. He
wouldn't have appreciated the fact that they were trying to
play on his sympathies.
Ms. Wilkerson. That's true.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wilkerson. He would have thrown some expletives in
there. There would be no question whatsoever.
Mr. Gonzalez. I appreciate it.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schiff. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Gohmert of Texas?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I do thank the witnesses for being here.
I did want to ask, we received a June 2, 2009, letter
addressed to the President from Judge Kent. It says ``personal
and confidential,'' but apparently he didn't just send it to
the President; it was provided for all of us. I don't know what
he means, ``personal and confidential,'' if he expected us to
consider this.
But I don't know, Professor, if you know, or perhaps the
Chairman knows, what the effect would be if we did nothing and
allowed him to resign effective a year from now on June 1,
2010?
Mr. Schiff. If the gentleman will yield?
Mr. Gohmert. Sure.
Mr. Schiff. He would remain a Federal judge for the course
of the year. He would draw his salary while incarcerated for
the year. And my understanding, although we would have to get
further analysis, he could change his mind a year from now and
decide to un-resign.
Mr. Gohmert. But if he resigned, would that end his ability
to get a pension?
Mr. Schiff. I believe--and counsel can correct me if I'm
wrong--that if he resigns from the bench or is impeached from
the bench, he would not collect his pension. Under the
circumstances of his years of service and his current age, my
understanding is that he would not collect----
Mr. Gohmert. He wouldn't get his pension.
Mr. Schiff. If he resigned prior to a certain age, which he
has not attained, or is impeached.
Mr. Gohmert. So if he did resign effective a year from now,
he does not get a pension, correct?
Mr. Schiff. I think that is correct.
Mr. Gohmert. Counsel was nodding. Is that correct?
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Well, as a former judge, I go into a hearing like this
understanding, first of all, you've had a Federal judge plead
to obstruction of justice, which indicates a great deal of
injustice from the judge. But since we are supposed to take
this up as a separate body and look at a separate punishment,
basically, of removing him, impeaching him, actually charging
him and pursuing elimination, which means no pension, no
salary, yet we have to take a fresh look.
So I'm constantly looking for issues of credibility. And
you've come in here today; you haven't been examined toughly.
I'm sure that that kind of stuff has happened, as you've been
questioned by the FBI and people all through this time. But he
pled guilty to obstruction of justice, and one might normally
think, well, that is sufficient unless we were to find that
there was an obstruction--I mean, there was some type of
miscarriage of justice in the obstruction plea.
But examining the plea transcript, I don't find anything
that indicates a miscarriage of justice. And in looking for
other issues, perhaps of credibility, of mental culpability,
mens rea, or contriteness which a judge likes to consider--and
is it true contriteness, or is this a manipulative type of
contriteness? Are there issues that indicate true
rehabilitation? You have both indicated that this is a
manipulative judge. So what indications do we have that that
may be the case even today or that he is contrite truly and he
is no longer being manipulative if the evidence is there?
Well, it certainly appears that when you have a judge who
lied to the judicial counsel, as we heard, who voluntarily
sought to make appearances in which he could lie, that that is
clear indication of great manipulation. And, as we have seen in
the transcript, you know, he again repeated the same lies. He
said he had been honest with the FBI in December of 2007 and
that--he went on to say that Person A--you know, acting with
Person A is nonconsensual is absolute nonsense, which we later
know he has admitted was actually not absolute nonsense but
actually was a fact. So, again, misrepresenting. Person B, he
said the defendant falsely--the transcript said falsely stated
that he attempted to kiss her on two separate occasions, when,
in fact, it was over a much longer period.
So, again, he is still trying to manipulate through this
process up to the actual sentencing hearing through this
transcript. But other indications, too--you know, we know this
is an articulate guy. We can take judicial notice of his
opinions and the things that he has said in court. He's got a
good vocabulary. He is articulate enough. But then we know he
also--because I want to know, is he really contrite? Is he
really feeling--has he been rehabilitated after what he has
been through?
We know he forced the Fifth Circuit to act upon his request
to retire with a disability, knowing what he had done, already
admitting to obstruction of justice. Boy, that is real
manipulation. And then you come in here and we have this letter
of resignation, June 2nd, addressed to the President, to retire
a year from now, which he could withdraw at any time. If we
took this and said, ``Oh, well, great, he is going to retire,
he is going to resign, and so we don't have to deal with it
anymore''--but he could withdraw that at any time within the
next year? That is real manipulation, not making it final, not
making it clear that he is resigned to the fact that he needs
to resign.
And then you compare that to the letter that's dated June 1
to this Committee, which the Chair and counsel have already
indicated comes not under oath, so should not carry the
credibility of someone who came in and took the oath. But in
that letter, he ends up saying that--as my friend from Texas
said, that removal from office ``will render me penniless and
without the health insurance I desperately need to continue
treatment.'' Well, that is contradictory to his resignation. He
completely contradicts himself. On one, he says he's got to
have this. And then the next day sends a letter saying, ``I'll
resign next year,'' which gives us a clear indication he has no
intention to resign next year. This is further manipulation,
and it is rather insulting.
So, last, we come to the issue--and I appreciate so much
the insights my friend from Texas had into this, Mr. Gonzalez.
But this not only has gone on beyond contriteness, but it is
further manipulation such that I don't think we should stop
even if we get a letter of resignation. I think this man needs
to be impeached. Because when you have a Federal judge who
would do all he can to get paid for doing the job of a Federal
judge while he is in prison for committing a crime while he is
a Federal judge, this is somebody who needs to be impeached.
And a message needs to go out to others that you're not going
to play games with this panel, you're not going to play games
with this Congress. You try to manipulate us like you have
others, then we are going forward. You want to resign, you do
it before you try to manipulate this body, or otherwise we are
taking it to the wall.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
I just want to conclude by thanking you, Ms. McBroom and
Ms. Wilkerson, again, for your courage in coming forward. I was
a law clerk for a Federal judge in Los Angeles, a judge of
great integrity. And it grieves me enormously to hear what you
suffered in your courtroom and the courthouse. It is
unimaginable.
And I want to echo the comments of my colleagues, that it
is a tremendous public service that you came forward. Had you
not come forward, Judge Kent would be sitting on the bench
right now and, very conceivably, mistreating or assaulting
other people in the courthouse. You've put an end to that. So
you've done a great public service in coming forward. We are
very grateful. We know how hard it must be, and I wanted to
thank you again.
We will be scheduling a fall meeting of the Task Force very
promptly to discuss whether to recommend articles of
impeachment to the full Committee for its consideration.
And I want to thank my colleague, the Ranking Member of the
Task Force, Bob Goodlatte, for his work.
I want to thank you, Professor Hellman.
And, with that----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Schiff. Yes, the gentlewoman from Texas?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is there a time frame for both our
discussions and then the procedure moving to the Senate?
Obviously, it has to go to the full Committee. Do we have a
range of time? I'm making an inquiry.
Mr. Schiff. Yes, it is my intention to move very quickly to
reconvene this Task Force to discuss what recommendation we
want to make to the full Committee. It will then be up to the
full Committee to schedule a full Committee meeting to act upon
the recommendations of the Task Force.
If the Task Force recommends articles of impeachment and
the full Committee then votes to approve those articles, it
would then be up to the floor schedule to schedule floor
action. But it would be my intention, not in the least of which
because I don't think we want this to drag on and further
prevent our witnesses from achieving some form of closure but
also for the reasons that my colleagues have explained, that we
move promptly and expeditiously.
Ms. Jackson Lee. A further inquiry is on the full Committee
proceedings. Are all parties invited, or do they act upon our
Task Force recommendations? Are parties invited again to the
full Committee procedurally?
Mr. Schiff. No. My understanding would be that the Task
Force will make a recommendation to the full Committee. We will
deliberate as in a legislative markup, but we will not have
witnesses at the full Committee hearing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I just may have a moment of personal
privilege, if you would, let me just--these are constituents
that live in and around the Houston area, and, obviously, the
story saddens me.
But thank you again for being such good people and willing
to expose yourselves. And thank you for also understanding that
there are good people around you who care about you. And you
have allowed us to clear the air for other workers, not only in
our area, in the Houston-Galveston area, but around the Nation.
So thank you so very much for your contributions.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlewoman.
This hearing of the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the Task Force was adjourned.]