"I've got a secret... "

I've been reading Judge Brutinel's application for Supreme Court Justice.

Here's something interesting. Under the sub-Heading "Conduct and Ethics," is Question # 47: (It's his page 31. It's the PDF's page 27.)

Have you received a notice of formal charges, cautionary letter, private admonition or other conditional sanction from the Commission on Judicial Conduct or any other official judicial disciplinary body in any jurisdiction?

He answers, "Yes." He says "See Section II."

But if this information is in Section II, I can't find it. (Section I is titled "Public Information." Implying Section II is not.) It should be after Exhibit 3, Question 30. But Exhibit 4 skips to Question 68. (Does someone purposely create these PDF'd applications without embedded text so they aren't searchable? Guess I've got some OCR'ing to do.)

Does anyone know what Judge Brutinel may have been charged with? Send me a private anonymous comment if you know, with documentation and/or references.

I'm concerned about how serious this might be because we now know the Commission on Judicial Conduct gave Judge Hinson three HUGE passes over four years, over Constitutional violations that should have forced him out long ago.

The Commission has lost all credibility. (Hey, Legislature? Are you reading this? YOU should be the Check & Balance here.) Maybe the Commission did the same with Judge Brutinel? How do we know they didn't give him a huge pass for something especially egregious?

It seems to me this ought to be part of the public record. Even if he was found "not guilty" of any charges.

Look, any charges about you or me, no matter how frivolous, is public record. And we're not running for Supreme Court Justice! How much more should this information be public for a high public servant?

Let's remove the veil of secrecy. What was Judge Brutinel charged with? And what was the result? Concerned Citizens want to know.