Halverson counters lawsuit by ex-assistant with filing

Ileen Spoor, the judicial executive assistant Halverson accused of illegally fixing tickets on duty, filed a lawsuit in May against the embattled judge, claiming Halverson defamed and lied about Spoor in the local media.

Her lawsuit, which included accusations that the judge mistreated other staff, also seeks to get back personal property the judge has kept, including a file the judge has told police holds evidence of illegal activities, and Spoor’s Rolodex that holds personal phone numbers for her previous employer, Supreme Court Justice Michael Cherry.

Halverson’s motion to dismiss states that the judge has the right to state her professional opinion and a duty to report and discuss potentially unlawful activity.

“It’s just her professional learned opinion as an attorney. And attorneys, especially judges, should be free to comment on what they think is proper and improper,” said Robert Spretnak, Halverson’s attorney.

A successful defamation lawsuit would require a false and defamatory statement of fact, Spretnak said.

“Spoor has made spurious and potentially embarrassing allegations against her former employer in an attempt to pressure Judge Halverson into surrendering court property,” Spretnak stated in his motion.

The Rolodex and manila folder are not personal property, he said.

“I asked Ms. Spoor’s attorney: Show me the receipt where she bought it with her own money,” Spretnak said.

A judge has absolute privilege to speak publicly on all matters concerning law enforcement, he said.

Her statements regarding Spoor, although made off the bench, were done in an official capacity because they involved her staff, he stated in the motion.

Spoor has said it was inappropriate for a judge to pronounce judgment of guilt or innocence without any sort of judicial process.

She has also questioned why Halverson has refused to surrender the Rolodex and file to the county if she believes it’s public property.

In May, while Halverson was barred from the courthouse briefly after violating security protocols, the judge accused Spoor of illegally fixing tickets and helping people get out of jury duty, allegations which Spoor has denied.

Halverson referred comments to Spretnak through her spokeswoman.

Spoor referred comments to her attorney, James Adams, who had not yet seen the motion Wednesday evening.

At first blush, he questioned how Halverson could consider calling one of her employees a criminal as a judicial function.

“She’s not above the law. She’s just trying to find cover,” he said. “I would be shocked if a judge can spout off and call someone a criminal just because that’s what she thinks.”

A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for June 28, when Adams hopes to get back the Rolodex and Quick Fix folder.

Halverson fired Spoor, who now is employed with the county as a roving judicial executive assistant, on May 8 after she found Spoor’s folder entitled “Quick Fix.” In the file, Spoor has said she kept traffic tickets for friends that she gave to local attorneys to get adjudicated.

“The evidence will show that many of these ‘traffic citations’ were reduced to parking violations for plaintiff’s friends and associates without any apparent assistance from attorneys,” Spretnak stated in his motion.

Spoor said she gave friends’ tickets as a courtesy to attorneys trying to increase business. Everyone paid their fines and there was nothing illegal going on.

Traffic court judges frequently reduce tickets for good drivers, but Spretnak said the state bar might take issue with Spoor if she brought someone else’s ticket to a judge to handle without an attorney.

Court officials have denied the possibility that Spoor had tickets illegally fixed because only a traffic court judge could dismiss a ticket from the computer system.

Halverson is also in possession of e-mails she took from Spoor’s computer in which friends of Spoor ask her to help them get them out of jury duty.

Spoor has said she helped them delay service if they had a scheduling conflict.

Court officials continue to review Spoor’s e-mails in an internal inquiry to discover whether Spoor was doing anything illegal or unethical.