Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                        Calendar No. 75
111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    111-159

======================================================================



 
                  IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SAMUEL B. KENT

                                _______
                                

   June 17, 2009.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 520]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 520) impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of 
the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the resolution be agreed to.

                           I. THE RESOLUTION

                              H. RES. 520

    Impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high 
crimes and misdemeanors.

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              JUNE 9, 2009

    Mr. Conyers (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Schiff, 
Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. 
Delahunt, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Cohen, Mr. 
Forbes, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Pierluisi, and 
Mr. Gonzalez) submitted the following resolution; which was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                               RESOLUTION

    Impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
    Resolved, That Samuel B. Kent, a judge of the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is impeached 
for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following 
articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
    Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of 
Representatives of the United States of America in the name of 
itself and all of the people of the United States of America, 
against Samuel B. Kent, a judge of the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Texas, in maintenance and 
support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and 
misdemeanors.

                               ARTICLE I

    Incident to his position as a United States district court 
judge, Samuel B. Kent has engaged in conduct with respect to 
employees associated with the court that is incompatible with 
the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge, as follows:

          (1) Judge Kent is a United States District Judge in 
        the Southern District of Texas. From 1990 to 2008, he 
        was assigned to the Galveston Division of the Southern 
        District, and his chambers and courtroom were located 
        in the United States Post Office and Courthouse in 
        Galveston, Texas.
          (2) Cathy McBroom was an employee of the Office of 
        the Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas, 
        and served as a Deputy Clerk in the Galveston Division 
        assigned to Judge Kent's courtroom.
          (3) On one or more occasions between 2003 and 2007, 
        Judge Kent sexually assaulted Cathy McBroom, by 
        touching her private areas directly and through her 
        clothing against her will and by attempting to cause 
        her to engage in a sexual act with him.

    Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes 
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

                               ARTICLE II

    Incident to his position as a United States district court 
judge, Samuel B. Kent has engaged in conduct with respect to 
employees associated with the court that is incompatible with 
the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge, as follows:

          (1) Judge Kent is a United States District Judge in 
        the Southern District of Texas. From 1990 to 2008, he 
        was assigned to the Galveston Division of the Southern 
        District, and his chambers and courtroom were located 
        in the United States Post Office and Courthouse in 
        Galveston, Texas.
          (2) Donna Wilkerson was an employee of the United 
        States District Court for the Southern District of 
        Texas.
          (3) On one or more occasions between 2001 and 2007, 
        Judge Kent sexually assaulted Donna Wilkerson, by 
        touching her in her private areas against her will and 
        by attempting to cause her to engage in a sexual act 
        with him.

    Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes 
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

                              ARTICLE III

    Samuel B. Kent corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded 
an official proceeding as follows:

          (1) On or about May 21, 2007, Cathy McBroom filed a 
        judicial misconduct complaint with the United States 
        Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In response, 
        the Fifth Circuit appointed a Special Investigative 
        Committee (hereinafter in this article referred to as 
        ``the Committee'') to investigate Cathy McBroom's 
        complaint.
          (2) On or about June 8, 2007, at Judge Kent's request 
        and upon notice from the Committee, Judge Kent appeared 
        before the Committee.
          (3) As part of its investigation, the Committee 
        sought to learn from Judge Kent and others whether he 
        had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Cathy 
        McBroom and individuals other than Cathy McBroom.
          (4) On or about June 8, 2007, Judge Kent made false 
        statements to the Committee regarding his unwanted 
        sexual contact with Donna Wilkerson as follows:
            L  (A) Judge Kent falsely stated to the Committee 
        that the extent of his unwanted sexual contact with 
        Donna Wilkerson was one kiss, when in fact and as he 
        knew he had engaged in repeated sexual contact with 
        Donna Wilkerson without her permission.
            L  (B) Judge Kent falsely stated to the Committee 
        that when told by Donna Wilkerson his advances were 
        unwelcome no further contact occurred, when in fact and 
        as he knew, Judge Kent continued such advances even 
        after she asked him to stop.
          (5) Judge Kent was indicted and pled guilty and was 
        sentenced to imprisonment for the felony of obstruction 
        of justice in violation of section 1512(c)(2) of title 
        18, United States Code, on the basis of false 
        statements made to the Committee. The sentencing judge 
        described his conduct as ``a stain on the justice 
        system itself''.

    Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes 
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

                               ARTICLE IV

    Judge Samuel B. Kent made material false and misleading 
statements about the nature and extent of his non-consensual 
sexual contact with Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson to agents 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on or about November 30, 
2007, and to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
representatives of the Department of Justice on or about August 
11, 2008.
    Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes 
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

                            II. INTRODUCTION

    The Committee on the Judiciary, acting through and with the 
assistance of its duly appointed Impeachment Task Force, has 
conducted an inquiry into the conduct of Samuel B. Kent, United 
States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. In 
particular, the Committee has considered whether Judge Kent 
committed sexual misconduct against two women--Cathy McBroom 
and Donna Wilkerson--who worked in the courthouse where he 
presided. The Committee also has considered whether Judge Kent 
made false statements to his fellow judges who were 
investigating allegations of sexual misconduct made by one of 
the two women, and whether he made further false statements to 
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on one 
occasion, and to FBI and Department of Justice personnel on 
another occasion.
    After a careful study of the evidence, the Committee finds 
that Judge Kent did commit sexual misconduct against both Ms. 
McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson, conduct that included unwanted 
touchings and sexual assaults. The Committee also finds the 
Judge Kent made false statements to judges investigating this 
conduct, and made false statements to the FBI agents and 
Department of Justice prosecutors.
    Judge Kent's conduct is wholly unacceptable for a Federal 
judge and has brought disrepute upon the Federal judiciary. 
These acts reflect Judge Kent's abuse of his Office and his 
betrayal of the trust bestowed upon him by the people of the 
United States. Indeed, Judge Kent, whose duty it was to uphold 
and enforce the laws, instead thwarted and undermined the laws. 
It was his duty to use his position to dispatch justice 
impartially, but he instead abused the power of his position.
    As discussed below, Judge Kent has pled guilty to a felony, 
obstruction of justice, and has been convicted and sentenced to 
Federal prison. The Committee does not base its recommendation 
solely on the fact of the guilty plea and conviction, however. 
Rather, the Committee finds the facts underlying the guilty 
plea and the evidence regarding his sexual misconduct to 
overwhelmingly demonstrate that he is unfit to hold office. The 
Committee therefore recommends that Judge Samuel B. Kent be 
impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the 
United States Senate.

                 III. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF IMPEACHMENT

                 A. Pertinent Constitutional Provisions

    The following are the pertinent provisions in the United 
States Constitution that relate to impeachment:

          Article I, Sec. 2, clause 5:
            L  The House of Representatives . . . shall have 
        the sole Power of Impeachment.
          Article I, Sec. 3, clauses 6 and 7:
            L  The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
        Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall 
        be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the 
        United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall 
        preside: And no person shall be convicted without the 
        Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
            L  Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not 
        extend further than to removal from Office, and 
        disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, 
        Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party 
        convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to 
        Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according 
        to Law.
          Article II, Sec. 2, clause 1:
            L  The President . . . shall have Power to grant 
        Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United 
        States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
          Article II, Sec. 4:
            L  The President, Vice President and 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.

    In this regard, it has long been recognized that Federal 
judges are ``civil Officers'' within the meaning of Article II, 
Section 4.\1\ Finally, as to the life tenure of Federal judges, 
the Constitution provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\A commentator wrote in 1825:

      All executive and judicial officers, from the president 
      downwards, from the judges of the supreme court to those of 
      the most inferior tribunals, are included in this 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      description.

W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 
Philip H. Nicklin ed., (1829), 213 (The Law Exchange reprint (2003)). 
Another prominent commentator, Joseph Story, wrote:

      All officers of the United States . . . who hold their 
      appointments under the national government, whether their 
      duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or in the 
      lowest departments of the government, with the exception of 
      officers in the army and navy, are properly civil officers 
      within the meaning of the constitution, and liable to 
      impeachment.

2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 
Sec. 790 at 258 (1833) (citing Rawle) (quoted in Statement of Professor 
Arthur D. Hellman, Hearing on the Possible Impeachment of Samuel B. 
Kent of the Southern District of Texas, House Committee on the 
Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3, 2009), at 17).

          Article III, Sec. 1:
            L  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior 
        Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, 
        . . . .

           B. The Meaning of ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors''

    Thirteen Federal judges have been impeached in our Nation's 
history. The precedents from these prior judicial impeachments 
as to the meaning of the phrase ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' is highly instructive. The Committee takes note 
of these precedents in informing its recommendations to the 
House.
    The House Report accompanying the 1989 Resolution to 
Impeach United States District Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., 
summarized the British precedents for impeachment, the events 
at the Constitutional convention leading to the adoption of the 
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' formulation for impeachable 
conduct, and the interpretation of that term in the 12 judicial 
impeachments that had occurred prior to 1989. In its summary of 
the historical meaning of the term, the Report noted:

        The House and Senate have both interpreted the phrase 
        broadly, finding that impeachable offenses need not be 
        limited to criminal conduct. Congress has repeatedly 
        defined ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' to be 
        serious violation of the public trust, not necessarily 
        indictable offenses under criminal laws. Of course, in 
        some circumstances the conduct at issue, such as that 
        of Judge Nixon, constituted conduct warranting both 
        punishment under the criminal law and impeachment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\H.R. Rep. No. 101-36, ``Impeachment of Walter L. Nixon, Jr., 
Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H. Res. 87,'' 
101st Cong., 1st Sess., (1989) [hereinafter ``Nixon Impeachment 
Report''] at 5 (1989) (footnote omitted).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Report concluded:

          Thus, from an historical perspective the question of 
        what conduct by a Federal judge constitutes an 
        impeachable offense has evolved to the position where 
        the focus is now on public confidence in the integrity 
        and impartiality of the judiciary. When a judge's 
        conduct calls into questions his or her integrity or 
        impartiality, Congress must consider whether 
        impeachment and removal of the judge from office is 
        necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial 
        branch and uphold the public trust.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Id. at 12.

    The Impeachment Report that accompanied the Resolution to 
Impeach United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings stated 
that the phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' ``refers to 
misconduct that damages the state and the operations of 
governmental institutions, and is not limited to criminal 
misconduct.''\4\ That Report stressed that impeachment is 
``non-criminal,'' designed not to impose criminal penalties, 
but instead simply to remove the offender from office,\5\ and 
that it is ``the ultimate means of preserving our 
constitutional form of government from the depredations of 
those in high office who abuse or violate the public 
trust.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\H.R. Rep. No. 100-810, ``Impeachment of Alcee L. Hastings, 
Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H. Res. 499,'' 
100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988), at 6.
    \5\Id.
    \6\Id. at 7. The last three impeachments--those of Judge Walter L. 
Nixon, Jr., Judge Alcee Hastings, and Judge Harry Claiborne--followed 
Federal criminal proceedings, and the impeachment articles were to a 
great extent patterned after the Federal criminal charges. Similarly, 
the grounds for the Committee's recommendation of impeachment of Judge 
Samuel B. Kent also involve conduct for which he was indicted (and, in 
connection with one Article, pled guilty). However, the principles that 
underpin the propriety of impeachment do not require that the conduct 
at issue be criminal in nature, or that there have been a criminal 
prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              IV. BACKGROUND OF INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT 
                             OF JUDGE KENT

                        A. Judge Samuel B. Kent

    Samuel B. Kent was and remains a United States District 
Judge. He was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, 
and served nearly his entire judicial career in the Galveston 
Division of the Southern District of Texas. He was the sole 
judge in the Galveston courthouse, and wielded substantial 
power over the employees who worked there.

              B. Facts Leading to Judge Kent's Conviction

    On May 21, 2007, Cathy McBroom filed a judicial misconduct 
complaint with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit, alleging sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Samuel 
B. Kent. In particular, she alleged that he sexually assaulted 
her in March of that year. In response, the Judicial Council of 
the Fifth Circuit appointed a Special Investigative Committee 
to investigate Ms. McBroom's complaint.
    On June 8, 2007, Judge Kent, pursuant to his request, was 
interviewed by the Special Investigative Committee. The Special 
Investigative Committee sought to learn from Judge Kent whether 
he had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Ms. McBroom or 
with others.
    One person whose name came up in this interview was that of 
Donna Wilkerson, Judge Kent's secretary. As to Ms. Wilkerson, 
Judge Kent falsely stated that the extent of his non-consensual 
contact with her was one kiss, when in fact he had engaged in 
repeated non-consensual sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson. He 
also stated to the Special Investigative Committee that once 
told by Ms. Wilkerson that his advances were unwelcome, no 
further contact occurred, when in fact he continued his non-
consensual sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson.
    On September 28, 2007, in an order signed by Chief Judge 
Edith H. Jones, the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit 
suspended Judge Kent with pay for 4 months and transferred him 
to Houston.\7\ The Order did not disclose the underlying 
findings of fact or conclusions of law by the Special 
Investigative Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Order of Reprimand and Reasons, In re: Complaint of Judicial 
Misconduct against United States District Judge Samuel B. Kent under 
the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Docket No. 07-05-351-
0086, Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit, Sept. 28, 2007, available 
at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/news/news/
Judicial%20Council%20Order.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of Justice commenced a criminal 
investigation relating to Judge Kent's conduct, and on August 
28, 2008, a Federal grand jury returned a three-count 
indictment charging Judge Kent with two counts of abusive 
sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b), and one 
count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1). The abusive sexual contact counts 
charged him with ``intentional touching, both directly and 
through the clothing, of the groin, breast, inner thigh, and 
buttocks of [Ms. McBroom].'' The attempted aggravated sexual 
abuse count charged him with attempting to force Ms. McBroom's 
head towards his penis.
    After various pre-trial proceedings, the grand jury issued 
a superseding indictment on January 6, 2009.\8\ That indictment 
re-alleged the three counts involving Ms. McBroom. It also 
added two counts relating to Ms. Wilkerson. Count four of the 
superseding indictment charged aggravated sexual abuse, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1), namely, that ``[o]n one 
or more occasions between January 7, 2004 and at least January 
2005, any one and all of which [would constitute the 
offense],'' Judge Kent ``did engage in [aggravated sexual abuse 
of Ms. Wilkerson] by a hand and finger by force. . . .'' The 
superseding indictment also charged ``abusive sexual contact'' 
in count five, namely, that Judge Kent engaged in the 
``intentional touching, directly and through the clothing, of 
[specified parts of Ms. Wilkerson's body].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Superseding Indictment, United States v. Kent, Crim. No. 
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div., Jan. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the superseding indictment charged ``obstruction 
of justice'' in Count Six, stemming from Judge Kent's June 2007 
lies to the Fifth Circuit concerning his conduct relating to 
Ms. Wilkerson.

    C. Additional Facts Related to Judge Kent's Conduct During the 
                             Investigation

    At sentencing, the prosecutor represented that Judge Kent's 
obstruction conduct was not limited to the single set of false 
statements made to the Fifth Circuit. The prosecutor set forth 
three other incidents of obstructive conduct or false denials.
    First, at some point Judge Kent told Ms. Wilkerson that he 
had falsely denied his repeated attacks on her--and by so 
doing, according to the prosecutors, ``sent a clear and 
unambiguous statement that she must repeat that lie too. . . . 
She, in fact, drew from his statements that she was supposed to 
testify falsely before the grand jury, as well.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Transcript of Sentencing, United States v. Kent, CIM. No. 
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div.), May 11, 2009 
[hereinafter ``Transcript of Sentencing''], at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the prosecutor described two other occasions 
where Judge Kent made false statements in the course of the 
investigation:

          [O]n two separate occasions, the defendant asked for 
        and was granted a meeting with, first, the Federal 
        Bureau of Investigation, law enforcement agents. And 
        that was in December 2007. . . . He reached out to the 
        FBI and asked to sit down with them.
          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 [Ms. McBroom] and 
        about [Ms. Wilkerson].
          Then, [prior to the initial indictment in August 
        2008], 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 [C]hief 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 2007. He said that any attempt to characterize 
        the conduct between him and [Ms. McBroom] as 
        nonconsensual was absolutely nonsense. And that's in 
        stark contrast, Your Honor, to the factual basis for 
        his plea during which he admitted engaging in repeated 
        nonconsensual sexual contact with [Ms. McBroom] without 
        her permission.
          Then as to [Ms. Wilkerson], the defendant falsely 
        stated that he had kissed her on two separate occasions 
        when, in fact, it was over a much longer period of time 
        and it was much more serious conduct. Again, as the 
        defendant admitted in his factual basis.

                              *    *    *

          [H]is false statements both to the FBI and to the DOJ 
        trial team and his implication that [Ms. Wilkerson] 
        should testify falsely before the grand jury did 
        significantly obstruct and impede the official 
        investigation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Id. at 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         D. The Plea Proceeding

    On February 23, 2009, Judge Kent pleaded guilty to Count 
Six of the superseding indictment, obstruction of justice, 
pursuant to a plea agreement. As part of the plea agreement, 
the Government agreed to dismiss the remaining five counts at 
sentencing. In addition, the Government promised that it would 
not seek a sentence in excess of 36 months incarceration.
    In connection with the plea, the defendant signed a 
``Factual Basis for Plea'' that was filed with the court and 
set forth the conduct that constituted the offense. That 
factual statement represented, among other facts:

         4. LIn August 2003 and March 2007, the defendant 
        engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. 
        McBroom] without her permission.
         5. LFrom 2004 through at least 2005, the defendant 
        engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. 
        Wilkerson] without her permission.

                              *    *    *

        10. L[On June 8, 2007], [t]he defendant falsely 
        testified regarding his unwanted sexual contact with 
        [Ms. Wilkerson] by stating to the [Fifth Circuit 
        Special Investigative] Committee that the extent of his 
        non-consensual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] was one 
        kiss, when in fact and as he knew the defendant had 
        engaged in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with 
        [Ms. Wilkerson] without her permission.
        11. LThe defendant also falsely testified regarding his 
        unwanted sexual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] by stating 
        to the Committee that when told by [Ms. Wilkerson] that 
        his advances were unwelcome, no further contact 
        occurred, when in fact and as he knew the defendant 
        continued his non-consensual contacts even after she 
        asked him to stop.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\``Factual Basis for Plea,'' United States v. Kent, Crim. No. 
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div., [Feb. 23, 
2009]) [hereinafter ``Factual Basis for Plea''], at 2-3.

    At the plea proceeding, Judge C. Roger Vinson placed Judge 
Kent under oath, and inquired of him as to whether the 
representations in the ``Factual Basis for Plea'' were 
accurate:
          THE COURT [JUDGE VINSON]: I have a factual basis that 
        has been filed in this case, which has three numbered 
        pages and appears to have been signed by you and your 
        attorney Mr. DeGuerin and Mr. Ainsworth on behalf of 
        the Public Integrity Section of the Department of 
        Justice. That is your signature on this agreement?
          THE DEFENDANT [JUDGE KENT]: Yes,
          THE COURT: And have you carefully read and gone over 
        this factual basis for the plea with Mr. DeGuerin?
          THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
          THE COURT: Are those facts true and correct?
          THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Transcript of Plea Hearing, United States v. Kent, Crim. No. 
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div.), Feb. 23, 2009 
at 12.

    Thereafter, Judge Vinson questioned Judge Kent as to his 
understanding of the rights Judge Kent would be giving up by 
pleading guilty, Judge Kent's understanding of the terms of the 
plea agreement, and Judge Kent's mental competence to enter the 
plea. Judge Kent then pleaded guilty to Count Six of the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superseding Indictment:

          THE COURT: I find that the facts which the government 
        is prepared to prove with evidence at trial and which 
        are set out in the factual basis for this plea and 
        which you have admitted under oath are true [and] are 
        sufficient to sustain a plea of guilty to Count 6 of 
        the superseding indictment.
          I find that you're fully aware of the possible 
        sentence or punishment that may be imposed under the 
        law for this offense and you're aware of the operation 
        and effect of the sentencing guidelines and how those 
        guidelines may possibly affect your sentence.
          And, most importantly, I find that you have made your 
        decision to plead guilty to this charge freely and 
        knowingly and voluntarily and you have 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?
          THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Id. at 17-18.

    Sentencing was set for May 11, 2009.

                           E. The Sentencing

    The May 11 sentencing proceeding commenced with a lengthy 
colloquy concerning the calculation of the Federal sentencing 
guidelines. Thereafter, the two victims each addressed the 
court.
    First, Ms. McBroom spoke. She stated, in part:

          When I think of the events leading up to his 
        conviction, I'm consumed with emotion. Even though I 
        have been able to move on in both my personal life and 
        my career, I will forever be scarred by what happened 
        to me in Galveston.

                              *    *    *

          The abuse began after Judge Kent returned to work 
        intoxicated. He attacked me in a small room that was 
        not 10 feet from the command center where the court 
        security officers worked. He tried to undress me and 
        force himself upon me while I begged him to stop. He 
        told me he didn't care if the officers could hear him 
        because he knew everyone was afraid of him. I later 
        found out just how true that was. He had the power to 
        end careers and affect everyone's livelihood. That 
        incident left me emotionally wrecked and humiliated. It 
        was so difficult to face my coworkers when I knew they 
        had seen what happened to me.

                              *    *    *

          [E]ach time an assault occurred, he would later 
        promise to leave me alone and behave professionally, 
        and I so wanted to believe that.
          What I didn't know was that behind the scenes he was 
        telling a much different story. Now that the truth has 
        been exposed, I know so much more about his evil and 
        deliberate manipulation, and I'm utterly disgusted. He 
        was telling his staff members that I was the one 
        pursuing him. He even told his secretary that I would 
        do anything to have her job. . . . After the criminal 
        investigation began, he even bragged about his gift of 
        manipulation, which he thought would save him from 
        conviction. People were asking him to just resign, and 
        he would tell them if he had just 15 minutes with a 
        jury, he would be exonerated.
          There were times that other employees warned me that 
        judge was intoxicated, and that he was asking for me. 
        And during those times, I would refuse to answer my 
        phone or I would hide in an empty office.

                              *    *    *

          The last assault I had was more terrifying and 
        threatening than ever before. After forcing himself 
        upon me and asking me to do unspeakable things, he told 
        me that pleasuring him was something I owed him. That 
        was it for me. He had finally won. He had broken me and 
        forced me out. I could handle no more of his abuse.
          Keep in mind that I had already reported his behavior 
        to my manager. She knew about the assaults from the 
        very beginning. . . . She was also very afraid of him. 
        She had experienced his inappropriate behavior herself.

                              *    *    *

        Even though my children have been supportive and mature 
        from the beginning, I cringe when I think of how they 
        must have felt when they read in the paper Judge Kent's 
        claims that their mother was enthusiastically 
        consensual. . . .
          This judge has hurt so many people in so many ways. 
        Every employee in Galveston has been afraid of his 
        power and control. . . .\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Transcript of Sentencing, United States v. Kent, Crim. No. 
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tx., Houston Div.), May 11, 2009 
[hereinafter ``Sentencing Transcript''] at 48-51.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Wilkerson spoke next:

          For the last 7 years, I was sexually and 
        psychologically abused and manipulated. Sexual abuse 
        began on the fifth day, the fifth day of my career 
        working with Sam Kent. I knew Sam Kent better than 
        anyone and sadly no one really knows Sam Kent or the 
        truth of his life and how he has conducted himself. . . 
        .
          I would like to tell you about the real Sam Kent. Sam 
        Kent has spent his life manipulating people and abusing 
        his relationships with people. Certainly this has been 
        my experience the time I have known him. He has also 
        spent this time lying to everyone. 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 aberrant behavior. Some of his lies 
        have now been uncovered by his own admission, yet 
        because of his narcissism and inability to admit fault 
        and accept fault, except in an instant--or an instance 
        such as today when he thinks it will gain him some 
        mercy, or the day he pled guilty, he turns to even more 
        lies by publishing ridiculous statements in the 
        newspaper and blaming everyone and everything but 
        himself.

                              *    *    *

          He continues his manipulative behavior in seeking a 
        mental disability when just 2 years ago he fought hard 
        to make his accusers and the investigators know that he 
        was fully capable of keeping his bench.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Id. at 52-54. Judge Kent sought to retire on a medical 
disability. On May 27, 2009, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones of the Fifth 
Circuit denied this request.

    Thereafter, Judge Kent's attorney addressed the court. He 
requested that Judge Kent be sentenced to a medical facility, 
and that the court order drug and alcohol counseling. He 
further noted that ``although [Judge Kent] says that he is not 
an alcoholic, [he] is an alcoholic.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Id. at 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then Judge Kent addressed the court on his own behalf. He 
said he was a ``completely broken man, but in some ways a 
better person. . . .''\17\ He apologized to his staff--though 
he did not mention the two women directly--and to ``my wife and 
family and to my marriage, all of whom and which I have likely 
irretrievably lost.''\18\ He apologized ``to all who seek 
redress in the Federal system for tarnishing its image and 
because never again can I vouchsafe their interest[.]''\19\ He 
continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Id. at 59.
    \18\Id. at 59.
    \19\Id. at 59-60.

          I have had the benefit of 26 months of absolute 
        sobriety, a wonderful pretrial officer, a sensitive and 
        thoughtful presentencing officer, terrific attorneys 
        and excellent medical help. Through their assistance, I 
        have come to see what a flawed, selfish, thoughtless 
        and indulgent person I have been, and I have already 
        begun to try and put myself right and emerge from this 
        a better person.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Id. at 60.

    The prosecutor spoke and after summarizing Judge Kent's 
conduct requested a 36-month sentence, consistent with the plea 
agreement.
    Finally, Judge Vinson imposed the sentence:

          The consequence to you of your wrongful conduct is 
        not only the loss of a job which many feel is the best 
        job in the world, but also punishment under the law. 
        And as you well know, the law is no respecter of 
        persons, and everyone stands equal in this Court. And 
        former judges are no exception.
          Your wrongful conduct is a huge black X on your own 
        record. It's a smear on the legal profession, and, of 
        course, it's a stain on the justice system itself. And, 
        importantly, it is a matter of grave concern within the 
        Federal courts.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Id. at 70.

    Judge Vinson thereafter imposed upon Judge Kent a sentence 
of 33 months incarceration to be followed by 3 years of 
supervised release, a $1,000 fine, and restitution to Ms. 
McBroom of $3,300 and to Ms. Wilkerson of $3,250. Judge Kent 
was permitted to remain on release and required to surrender 
voluntarily to the prison designated by the Bureau of Prisons 
no later than 12:00 noon on June 15, 2009.

                          V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

             A. Establishment of the Impeachment Task Force

    On May 12, 2009, one day after Judge Kent's sentencing for 
obstruction of justice, the House passed House Resolution 424, 
providing that ``the Committee on the Judiciary shall inquire 
whether the House should impeach Samuel B. Kent, a judge of the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Texas.'' The next day, May 13, 2009, the Committee passed a 
resolution amending its January 22, 2009 resolution (which had 
established a Task Force to inquire into whether a different 
Federal judge should be impeached) to provide that the Task 
Force was to additionally conduct ``an inquiry into whether 
United States District Judge Samuel B. Kent should be 
impeached.''

                 B. Task Force Hearing of June 3, 2009

    The Task Force held an evidentiary hearing on its inquiry 
into whether Judge Kent should be impeached on June 3, 2009. 
Testimony was received from Alan Baron, Esq., the lead Task 
Force attorney, Ms. Cathy McBroom, Ms. Donna Wilkerson, and 
Professor Arthur Hellman, University of Pittsburgh School of 
Law. Judge Kent was also invited to appear and testify before 
the Task Force. However, both Judge Kent and his lawyer 
declined to appear.
1. Statement of Alan Baron
    Alan Baron, Esq., the lead Task Force attorney, provided an 
overview of the investigation. As part of his statement to the 
Task Force, he identified and introduced into the record the 
following documents:

        1) LThe original Indictment dated August 28, 2008, and 
        the Superseding Indicment dated January 6, 2009;
        2) LThe transcript of the February 23, 2009 Plea 
        Proceeding;
        3) LThe February 23, 2009 ``Factual Basis for Plea;''
        4) LThe transcript of the May 11, 2009 Sentencing 
        Proceeding;
        5) LThe Court's Judgment (setting out Judge Kent's 
        sentence), signed by Senior United States District 
        Judge Roger Vinson, May 11, 2009;
        6) LThe May 27, 2009 letter from Chief Judge Edith H. 
        Jones to Judge Kent c/o his attorney denying Judge 
        Kent's disability claim;
        7) LThe June 1, 2009 letter from Judge Kent to the Task 
        Force declining its invitation for him to testify;
        8) LThe June 2, 2009 letter of Judge Kent to President 
        Obama purporting to resign effective June 1, 2010.

    One issue in particular that Mr. Baron highlighted was the 
fact that the prosecutor at Judge Kent's sentencing proceeding 
represented to the Court that Judge Kent had made false 
statements to law enforcement in connection with the Federal 
investigation.
    In addition, Mr. Baron informed the Task Force that Judge 
Kent and his attorneys had been provided the opportunity to 
make submissions to the Task Force or to appear before it. The 
invitation to appear personally had been declined.
2. Testimony of Cathy McBroom
    Ms. McBroom submitted a lengthy written statement which she 
adopted under oath as truthful.
    In her written statement she described the following 
encounters in specific:

          [I]n August 2003, I encountered my first incident of 
        sexual assault by Judge Kent after he returned from a 
        long lunch, obviously intoxicated. After going to his 
        chambers to check my outbox, he greeted me in the 
        hallway next to the command center on the 6th floor. 
        Several court security officers were in the command 
        center at the time. Judge Kent asked me to show him the 
        workout room, which was about ten feet from the command 
        center. The security officers had set up some weight 
        equipment and used the room as a make-shift gym. Judge 
        Kent's speech was slurred, so I suspected he was drunk, 
        but felt I should respect his request. Once inside the 
        small room, he grabbed me and forced his tongue into my 
        mouth while trying to remove my clothing. He had one 
        arm around my waist and was using the other hand to 
        pull up my blouse and my bra, exposing my entire 
        breast. He also tried to force his hand down my skirt. 
        All the while, I tried to push him away, begging him to 
        stop. I tried to reason with him by telling him his 
        actions were inappropriate, but I became more and more 
        panicked, because he was not letting up. The door was 
        partially cracked open and I knew the guards must have 
        heard the struggle. I told Judge Kent that the guards 
        were right outside and could hear him, but he laughed 
        and said that he didn't care who heard him, or what 
        they thought. Finally, I threatened to scream. He 
        stopped abruptly, looked down at me with disgust, and 
        left the room. I sat down on the bench and cried for 
        several minutes before I was able to collect myself 
        enough to leave the room.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Statement of Cathy McBroom, Hearing on the Possible Impeachment 
of Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas, House Committee on 
the Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3, 2009) [hereinafter 
``McBroom Statement''], at 1.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    She described another encounter as follows:

          Once a security guard had warned me of Judge Kent's 
        drunken condition, and when I refused to answer his 
        calls, he came down to the 4th floor, into my office, 
        and sat in the chair in front of me. He started telling 
        me jokes and was being very loud and obnoxious. 
        Suddenly he stood up and started around my desk. I 
        stood up and backed up as far as I could, but he pinned 
        me between my desk and credenza, and started kissing 
        me, while grabbing my backside and breasts. While 
        trying to fight him off, I caught a glimpse of someone 
        in my doorway, but couldn't tell who it was. The person 
        left immediately without a sound. Again, after 
        struggling with me for a few minutes, Judge Kent gave 
        up and left. I felt humiliated, scared, and shaken. A 
        coworker came in sometime later and noticed that I had 
        perspiration stains on my blue silk blouse, and that I 
        looked disheveled. When she asked what was wrong, I 
        confessed to her that Judge Kent had tried to force 
        himself on me.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Id. at 2.

    She described the March 2007 encounter that resulted in her 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
filing a formal complaint as follows:

          The last and final sexual assault occurred on March 
        23, 2007. I was summoned to chambers to discuss an 
        internal administrative action that had occurred in the 
        clerk's office. After a brief discussion, he got up and 
        asked me for a hug. I told him that I would rather not, 
        but he indicated that he thought I owed him that much. 
        I finally agreed, but when I reached up to give the 
        hug, he grabbed my butt. I tried to pull away and told 
        him that I didn't consider that a hug. Judge Kent asked 
        if he could have just 5 minutes with me, pulled up my 
        sweater and my bra all at once, and quickly got his 
        mouth on my breast. I told him to stop and tried to 
        push him away. His bulldog started getting excited and 
        barking when he saw the struggle. I dropped some 
        paperwork that I had taken to chambers and the dog 
        started stepping on the papers, which momentarily 
        distracted the Judge. When I tried to leave, he grabbed 
        me again and reminded me that I owed this to him. He 
        tried to push my head towards his crotch and told me to 
        ``[commit oral sex].'' I resisted and he grabbed my 
        hand and forced me to rub his crotch. Suddenly he heard 
        someone enter the outer reception area and he became 
        irritated. He went to investigate and I was able to 
        break free. As I was leaving his office he said ``you 
        know, Cathy, I keep you around because you are a great 
        case manager and do great work. That doesn't change the 
        fact that I want to spend about 6 hours [performing 
        oral sex on you].'' I just turned and left the office. 
        By the time I reached the elevators, I was in tears. A 
        court security officer asked me if the judge had tried 
        to hit on me and I just shook my head ``yes.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Id. at 3.

    She generally described Judge Kent's efforts to gain access 
to her alone, sexual references that he made when speaking to 
her, and her efforts to avoid him. She also described the power 
that Judge Kent had and exercised as the only Judge in the 
Galveston Federal courthouse.
3. Testimony of Donna Wilkerson
    Ms. Wilkerson submitted a lengthy written statement which 
she adopted under oath as truthful. Ms. Wilkerson described 
generally Judge Kent's conduct towards her as follows:

          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 [breasts],'' ``let 
        me see those cute [breasts],'' ``you have the cutest 
        ass,'' ``I want to [commit oral sex on you],'' and 
        ``why don't you [commit oral sex on me]'' 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.

                              *    *    *

          During the most severe episode, he pinned me to a 
        chair in his office after pulling my pants and 
        underwear down.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Statement of Donna Wilkerson, Hearing on the Possible 
Impeachment of Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas, House 
Committee on the Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3, 2009) 
[hereinafter ``Wilkerson Statement''], at 1-3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    She also elaborated on Judge Kent's views of his own power:

          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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Id. at 1.

    Ms. Wilkerson claimed that she was afraid of speaking out 
and losing her job, and thus had not been forthright with 
investigators and law enforcement when initially questioned 
about Judge Kent's conduct towards her. It was not until her 
third grand jury appearance that Ms. Wilkerson described the 
full extent of Judge Kent's non-consensual sexual contact with 
her.
4. Testimony of Professor Arthur Hellman
    Professor Hellman provided expert testimony that, in 
essence, concluded that Judge Kent's conduct in making false 
statements to fellow judges (and thereby obstructing justice), 
as well as abusing his power as a Federal judge to sexually 
assault women, constituted independent grounds to justify his 
impeachment and removal from office.
    First, Professor Hellman reviewed the history of the phrase 
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' including the views of the 
Framers, the accepted body of scholarly interpretation, and the 
House impeachment precedents. He concluded that this phrase 
generally described acts that constituted an abuse of power, or 
otherwise generally rendered the judge unfit to hold office--
including a judge's exercise of ``arbitrary power.''\27\ As but 
one example, Professor Hellman cited from an influential 19th-
century treatise in making that point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\See Statement of Professor Arthur D. Hellman, Hearing on the 
Possible Impeachment of Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of 
Texas, House Committee on the Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3, 
2009), at 13-20 (``abuse of power'' discussed at 18-19; ``arbitrary 
power'' at 18).

          [William] Rawle then explains why the availability of 
        impeachment is particularly valuable as a means of 
        dealing with misconduct by members of the judiciary:
            L  We may perceive in this scheme one useful mode 
        of removing from office him who is unworthy to fill it, 
        in cases where the people, and sometimes the president 
        himself would be unable to accomplish that object. A 
        commission granted during good behaviour can only be 
        revoked by this mode of proceeding.
          The premise, then, is that the purpose of impeachment 
        is to remove from office ``him who is unworthy to fill 
        it.'' It follows, I think, that it is a sufficient 
        ground for impeachment of a civil officer--particularly 
        an Article III judge--that he has engaged in behavior 
        that makes him ``unworthy to fill'' that particular 
        office.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Id. at 19 (emphasis supplied by Hellman) (quoting William 
Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, (2d 
ed. 1829), at 218 (1970 reprint)).

    Professor Hellman concluded that, as a legal matter, there 
were ``two broad (and overlapping) categories of conduct that 
may justify impeachment. The first is serious abuse of power. 
The second is conduct that demonstrates that an official is 
`unworthy to fill' the office that he holds.''\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Professor Hellman likewise concluded that the facts in the 
record rose to the level necessary to warrant Judge Kent's 
impeachment. As to Judge Kent's false statements to the Fifth 
Circuit (the basis of his criminal conviction), Judge Hellman 
noted: ``False testimony by a Federal judge in a judicial 
misconduct proceeding falls easily within the realm of `high 
crimes and misdemeanors' that warrant impeachment.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As to Judge Kent's sexual misconduct towards Ms. McBroom 
and Ms. Wilkerson, Professor Hellman stated that if the 
evidence showed that Judge Kent abused his position in 
committing the acts and otherwise exhibited conduct that 
demonstrated his unfitness for office, then impeachment would 
be warranted on the basis of his sexual misconduct. As 
Professor Hellman stated:

          If [Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson] describe their 
        experiences in the way they did at the sentencing 
        hearing, and if the House credits their testimony, the 
        record will make a strong case for serious abuse of 
        power that does warrant Judge Kent's impeachment.

                              *    *    *

          The evidence would then point to the conclusion 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 remain 
        silent rather than to report his attacks to a higher 
        authority. Such behavior is, in Wooddeson's words, 
        ``official oppression'' that ``introduce[s] arbitrary 
        power.'' It is a high crime and misdemeanor.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Id. at 28-29 (citation omitted). Richard Wooddeson--the 
individual quoted by Professor Hellman--was an English historian of the 
late 18th century, a contemporary of the Framers. Professor Hellman, in 
his Task Force Statement, described Wooddeson's writings as having been 
relied on by the Supreme Court in other contexts associated with 
Constitutional interpretation.

    Professor Hellman provided the following analogy to support 
his conclusion why the sexual misconduct would support 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
impeachment:

        If Judge Kent had demanded that court employees give 
        him 10 percent of their salaries as a condition of 
        holding their jobs, no one would doubt that he 
        committed an impeachable offense. The sexual coercion 
        described at the sentencing hearing is no less 
        ``obnoxious,'' and the result should be the same.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Id. at 31 (internal footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Judge Kent's Letter
    In his letter of June 1, 2009, Judge Kent stated, in 
pertinent part:

         For several years, influenced by misguided emotions 
        that probably stemmed from innate personality flaws 
        exacerbated by alcohol abuse and a series of life 
        tragedies (most notably the emotional horror I endured 
        for years in connection with my first wife, Mary Ann's 
        slow, excruciating death from brain cancer), I began 
        relating to Mrs. McBroom and Mrs. Wilkerson in 
        inappropriate ways. . . . In doing so, I allowed myself 
        to maintain unrealistic views of how they perceived me 
        and my actions. I sincerely regret that my actions 
        caused them and their families so much emotional 
        distress.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Letter from Judge Samuel B. Kent to Task Force Members, Re: 
Statement of Judge Samuel B. Kent, Provided to The Task Force to 
Consider the Possible Impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent (June 1, 
2009), at 1. He also represented he had no pension or retirement and 
needed health insurance for his medical and mental health problems. Id. 
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           C. Factual Developments Subsequent to the Hearing

1. Obtaining Information Regarding Judge Kent's False Statements to Law 
        Enforcement
    Alan Baron, Esq., has interviewed the FBI agent who was in 
attendance when Judge Kent was interviewed by the FBI on 
November 30, 2007, and when Judge Kent made statements to the 
FBI and Department of Justice in a meeting of August 11, 2008, 
where he attempted to persuade the Department not to seek an 
indictment of him. In both instances, his testimony was 
inconsistent with that of Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson, and 
misrepresented the nature and duration of his non-consensual 
sexual contact with both women. Mr. Baron provided a copy of 
his memorandum describing those interviews to the Task 
Force.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\The Task Force also obtained the FBI ``302'' statements of 
interviews from the two dates on which Judge Kent met with the FBI and 
Department of Justice and which detail his effort to mislead 
investigators during those meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Prior Statements of Donna Wilkerson
    As noted in the discussion of her testimony, Ms. Wilkerson 
acknowledged that she was not fully forthright with law 
enforcement when first questioned about Judge Kent's conduct 
towards her. She provided some explanation for this, describing 
generally that Judge Kent told her what his story was (namely, 
a few kisses that stopped when she told him they were 
unwelcome) as a signal for how she should testify, and 
otherwise manipulated her by suggesting, prior to her first 
grand jury appearance, that her appearance might provoke him to 
commit suicide.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Ms. Wilkerson testified:

      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 [his psychiatrist] calls, 
      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.

Wilkerson Statement at 7.
    The prosecutors at sentencing specifically referenced that 
Ms. Wilkerson had not been truthful in her initial grand jury 
appearances--a fact they attributed to Judge Kent's attempts to 
influence her testimony. In the context of a discussion of the 
applicability of the ``obstruction'' enhancement under the 
Sentencing Guidelines, the prosecutor stated:

          The defendant in telling [Ms. Wilkerson] that he 
        had--he himself had falsely denied his repeated attacks 
        on her, he was sending a clear and unambiguous 
        statement that she must repeat that lie too. . . . She, 
        in fact, drew from his statements that she was supposed 
        to testify falsely before the grand jury, as well.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Sentencing Transcript at 5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly:

            [I] need to point out also that [Ms. Wilkerson] 
        also denied that involvement continuously until the 
        third time she appeared before the grand jury.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Id. at 10.

    Subsequent to the hearing, the Task Force obtained and 
reviewed the prior grand jury testimony of Ms. Wilkerson.

          D. Task Force Meeting and Introduction of Resolution

    On June 9, 2009, the Task Force met and approved a proposed 
resolution containing four articles of impeachment for 
recommendation to the Committee. Also at this meeting, four 
additional documents were submitted into the record. They were:

        1) LThe Judgment of Conviction of Judge Kent;\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\That document was also made part of the record at the Task 
Force Hearing of June 3, 2009.

        2) LMemorandum of Interview signed by Alan Baron, 
        Special Impeachment Counsel to the Task Force, 
        summarizing an interview with FBI Special Agent David 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Baker;

        3) LMemorandum of Interview signed by Kirsten Konar, 
        Esq., counsel assisting the Task Force, summarizing an 
        interview with Ms. Donna Wilkerson;

        4) LMedical and mental health records of Judge Kent 
        submitted by Ms. Jackson Lee

    Later that day, H. Res 520 was introduced by Chairman John 
Conyers, Jr., along with Ranking Member Lamar Smith, Task Force 
Chairman Adam Schiff, Task Force Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte, 
and every other member of the Task Force. The resolution was 
referred to the Committee.

        E. Judicial Conference Certificate Transmitted to House

    By way of a letter dated June 9, 2009, the Judicial 
Conference of the United States transmitted to Speaker of the 
House Nancy Pelosi a certificate setting forth its 
``determination that consideration of impeachment of United 
States District Judge Samuel B. Kent, of the Southern District 
of Texas, may be warranted.''\39\ The Judicial Conference 
noted, as a basis for its determination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\A copy of the transmittal letter and Certificate is attached to 
this Report.

          In sum, Judge Kent has stipulated, as the basis for 
        his plea of guilty, that
            L  (a) in August 2003 and March 2007, he engaged in 
        non-consensual sexual contact with a person ([Ms. 
        McBroom]) without her permission;
            L  (b) from 2004 through at least 2005, he engaged 
        in non-consensual sexual contact with a person ([Ms. 
        Wilkerson]) without her permission; and
            L  (c) in connection with a judicial misconduct 
        complaint against him, he testified falsely before a 
        Fifth Circuit special investigative committee regarding 
        his unwanted, non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. 
        Wilkerson], by understating the extent of that contact 
        and by falsely stating that it had ended after [Ms. 
        Wilkerson] told him it was unwelcome.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Factual Basis for Plea at 2. 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 351 et seq 
sets forth the procedures for the judicial branch to refer concerns 
regarding judges that might warrant impeachment to the House of 
Representatives. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 355(b)(1) provides:

      In general.--If the Judicial Conference concurs in the 
      determination of the judicial council, or makes its own 
      determination, that consideration of impeachment may be 
      warranted, it shall so certify and transmit the 
      determination and the record of proceedings to the House of 
      Representatives for whatever action the Hosue of 
      Representatives considers to be necessary.

               F. Full Committee Markup on June 10, 2009

    On June 10, 2009, the Committee on the Judiciary voted to 
consider the four Articles of Impeachment set forth in House 
Resolution 520. In connection with that Markup, two additional 
documents were identified and made part of the record:

        1) LLetter from Judge Kent's attorney, Dick DeGuerin to 
        the Committee on the Judiciary (June 9, 2009);

        2) L``Certificate To The Speaker, United States House 
        of Representatives [regarding District Court Judge 
        Samuel B. Kent],'' from the Judicial Conference, dated 
        June 9, 2009.

             VI. DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

    Article I charges that Judge Kent ``engaged in conduct with 
respect to employees associated with the court that is 
incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a 
judge.'' In particular, Article I charges that ``[o]n one or 
more occasions between 2003 and 2007, Judge Kent sexually 
assaulted Cathy McBroom, by touching her private areas directly 
and through her clothing against her will and by attempting to 
cause her to engage in a sexual act with him.'' Ms. McBroom 
testified to facts consistent with this Article, and Judge 
Kent, in his signed ``Factual Basis for Plea,'' admitted: ``In 
August 2003 and March 2007, the defendant engaged in non-
consensual sexual contact with [Ms. McBroom] without her 
permission.''\41\ The Article thus provides: ``Wherefore, Judge 
Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and 
should be removed from office.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\Factual Basis for Plea at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Article II charges that Judge Kent ``engaged in conduct 
with respect to employees associated with the court that is 
incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a 
judge,'' in particular, that ``[o]n one or more occasions 
between 2001 and 2007, Judge Kent sexually assaulted Donna 
Wilkerson, by touching her in her private areas against her 
will and by attempting to cause her to engage in a sexual act 
with him.'' Ms. Wilkerson testified to facts consistent with 
this Article, and Judge Kent, in his signed ``Factual Basis for 
Plea,'' admitted: ``From 2004 through at least 2005, the 
defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. 
Wilkerson] without her permission.''\42\ The ``Factual Basis'' 
also sets forth Judge Kent's admissions that he ``had engaged 
in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] 
without her permission[,]'' and that he ``continued his non-
consensual contacts even after she asked him to stop.''\43\ The 
Article thus concludes: ``Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is 
guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed 
from office.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Id.
    \43\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Article III charges that on June 8, 2007, when Judge Kent 
appeared before the Special Investigative Committee appointed 
by the Fifth Circuit to investigate Ms. McBroom's complaint, he 
made false statements concerning his non-consensual sexual 
contacts with Ms. Wilkerson. Judge Kent has admitted this 
during the February 2009 plea proceeding, and specifically 
admitted in the ``Factual Basis'' the substance of the false 
statements, as follows:

        10. L[On June 8, 2007], [t]he defendant falsely 
        testified regarding his unwanted sexual contact with 
        [Ms. Wilkerson] by stating to the [Fifth Circuit 
        Special Investigative] Committee that the extent of his 
        non-consensual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] was one 
        kiss, when in fact and as he knew the defendant had 
        engaged in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with 
        [Ms. Wilkerson] without her permission.

        11. LThe defendant also falsely testified regarding his 
        unwanted sexual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] by stating 
        to the Committee that when told by [Ms. Wilkerson] that 
        his advances were unwelcome, no further contact 
        occurred, when in fact and as he knew the defendant 
        continued his non-consensual contacts even after she 
        asked him to stop.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Id.

Article III goes on to note that Judge Kent was indicted, pled 
guilty, and was sentenced to imprisonment for the felony of 
obstruction of justice (in violation of title 18, United States 
Code, section 1512(c)(2)) arising from that conduct, and that 
the sentencing judge described the conduct as ``a stain on the 
justice system itself.'' The Article thus concludes: 
``Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes and 
misdemeanors and should be removed from office.''
    Article IV charges that on or about November 30, 2007, 
Judge Kent made material false and misleading statements about 
the nature and extent of his non-consensual sexual contact with 
Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson to agents of the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, and that on or about August 11, 2008, he made 
similar material false and misleading statements to agents of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and representatives of the 
Department of Justice. These statements were described by the 
prosecutor at Judge Kent's sentencing, and were confirmed by a 
Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent during the 
Impeachment Task Force investigation. The Article thus 
concludes: ``Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high 
crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.''

                            VII. CONCLUSION

    The following language from the House Report accompanying 
the Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., articles of impeachment also 
aptly sets out the core principles underlying and justifying 
the Impeachment Resolution against Judge Kent:

          The [House's] role is not to punish [Judge Kent], but 
        simply to determine whether articles of impeachment 
        should be brought. Under our Constitution, the American 
        people must look to the Congress to protect them from 
        persons unfit to hold high office because of serious 
        misconduct that has violated the public trust. Where, 
        as here, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that a 
        federal judge has committed impeachable offenses, our 
        duty requires us to bring articles of impeachment and 
        to try him before the United States Senate.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Nixon Impeachment Report, at 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     VIII. Committee Consideration

    On June 10, 2009, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the resolution, H. Res. 520, favorably reported without 
amendment by a rollcall vote of 29 to 0, a quorum being 
present.

                          IX. Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes took place during the Committee's 
consideration of H. Res. 520:
    1. Impeachment Article 1. Approved 30 to 0.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................              X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................              X
Mr. Rooney......................................................              X
Mr. Harper......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             30               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Impeachment Article 2. Approved 28 to 0.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................              X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................              X
Mr. Rooney......................................................              X
Mr. Harper......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             28               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Impeachment Article 3. Approved 30 to 0.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................              X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................              X
Mr. Rooney......................................................              X
Mr. Harper......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             30               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Impeachment Article 4. Approved 28 to 0, with one Member 
passing.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                                           Pass
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................              X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................              X
Mr. Rooney......................................................              X
Mr. Harper......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             28               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Motion to report H. Res 520 favorably. Passed 29 to 0.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez...................................................              X
Mr. Sherman.....................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Gonzalez....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei......................................................              X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member.......................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................              X
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................              X
Mr. Rooney......................................................              X
Mr. Harper......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             29               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  X. LETTER FROM JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 
                          REGARDING JUDGE KENT