In re Stolen

(difsfnting). I agree with 'the conclusion embodied in respondent’s admission and the majority’s opinion that respondent’s conduct was improper and reprehensible and have nothing to say in palliation.

The head and front of respondent’s offense is something he did while holding a judicial position. The loans he made are declared tainted because so made. The judicial office he held was one of legislative creation, and attached to it, at its birth, were express legislative provisions for his removal or punishment for any derelictions as such judicial officer. He held such office and performed its…