On June 4, 2015, Judge Weill filed a motion to correct/clarify the Court’s May 21, 2015, order.
In it, he states that the Order contains three “disagreements” filed by Justices Kitchens, Chandler and King, all which refer to a judicial performance complaint filed by Alison Kelly against Judge Weill. The only complaint, though, was a 2013 informal complaint filed in 2013 that was “summarily dismissed by the Commission on Judicial Performance without any action.” But “[b]ased on the language in Judge Kitchens’ disagreement, and, to a lesser extent, on that used by Justices Chandler and King, a reader is left with the untrue impression that in this action, the Supreme Court has under seal and gave consideration to a pending judicial performance complaint against the undersigned.” Justice Kitchens’ disagreement refers to competing complaints (Bar complaint against Ms. Kelly and Judicial Performance complaint against Judge Weill) which leaves the impression that there are current complaints when there is no current Judicial Performance complaint.
if a formal complaint did exist, all matters pertaining to such, including the existence thereof and any documentation related thereto, would be subject to highly restrictive confidentiality requirements, unless appellate review of the Commission’s action is sought. Rule 1 of the Rules on the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance clearly states that one purpose of the rules is to “protect the judiciary from unfounded allegations.” Naturally, when a judicial complaint is dismissed without formal action, this serves an important purpose of protecting the judiciary “from unfounded allegations.” It follows that such should remain confidential so as not to give a mistaken public perception that a judge did something wrong, especially when he or she · has been cleared by the commission.