Judge Maxine Thomas : Case of the Missing Key Takes a Twist

Ousted Los Angeles Municipal Court Presiding Judge Maxine F. Thomas complained Wednesday that published stories about a missing courthouse master key are just the latest in a series of attacks on her, and said she may revive her threatened lawsuit for reinstatement.

Since she dropped the lawsuit threat a month ago, she said in a prepared statement, “I have been subjected to a steady barrage of harassment, indignities and extreme pressure, the latest of which is the master key.”

Thomas’ colleagues voted overwhelmingly last month to remove her as presiding judge on grounds that she had been absent from the bench too much and that she had used the position to enhance her campaign for election to the Superior Court.

On Tuesday, The Times and other major newspapers quoted newly appointed Presiding Judge George Trammell as saying that Thomas had yet to return the master key to the civil courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.

Trammell said it would cost the court system about $7,000 to re-key 185 doors to courts, judges’ offices and other rooms. “You just can’t have an outstanding master key unaccounted for,” he said.

In her three-page statement Wednesday, Thomas declared: “I state here and now unequivocally that on July 2, 1986, I turned over to Judge George Trammell ‘all’ of the keys which I had in my possession relating to the office of Presiding Judge, including, but not limited to, the master key.”

She added: “Following my turning over ‘all’ of the keys, including the master key, my office was burglarized by someone with a key. The door was not forced.”

She said “a personal television set, a calculator, other personal items and certain files” were stolen from the office.

The county marshal’s office said it had received from security guards on July 15 a report of a television set missing. The reported break-in was not in the County Courthouse, but at Thomas’ new office in the Criminal Courts Building, where--according to Trammell--the missing master key would not open any doors.

“I don’t understand what that master key has to do with that (Criminal Courts) building,” Trammell said. He pointed out that she moved her belongings from the civil courthouse to her new office the evening of July 2.

Copies of Invitation

Also stolen, according to Thomas, was “the only existing copy . . . in California” of her letter inviting two U.S. Supreme Court justices to participate in her installation as presiding judge. Thomas said she had “informed the police that the possessor of that letter is probably the person who burglarized my office.”

She pointed out that Herald Examiner reporter Nancy Hill-Holtzman “wrote a story reporting on the contents of that letter last week.” She said: “Miss Holtzman would, therefore, have information which might lead to the apprehension of the burglar. I urge her to cooperate with authorities.”

At the Herald Examiner, City Editor Larry Burrough said: “Any implication that Nancy has knowledge of any break-in that she (Thomas) says took place is absolutely ludicrous. Absurd.”

He said the newspaper had heard rumors about the invitation long before the reported office burglary and had called the judge, who “told us the whole thing. The source of the story was Maxine herself.”

Complaints Against Press

Thomas would not talk to reporters on Wednesday, but referred further inquiries to attorney Geraldine Green, who said she knew little about the reported break-in or what doors the missing master key would unlock.

In her statement, Thomas complained about an editorial and news reports in The Times concerning the controversy. Each time The Times runs a story about her, she said, “they state as fact various and sundry charges which led to my removal, some of which I had never heard of.”

She did not specify the nature of those charges.

“It has now become abundantly clear that I may spend the rest of my life disputing any charges which the L.A. Times may feel free to publish,” Thomas continued.

Since no actual charges were ever filed, she said, the only way to avoid that is to “find a forum in which I can be afforded a full and fair hearing, present evidence in my defense to disprove the rumors, innuendoes and allegations that the Los Angeles Times feels free to state as proven fact.”

Decision Reconsidered

Therefore, she said, “since my dropping the lawsuit did not achieve the expected result (allowing the court to get on with its normal business), I have decided to confer with my counsel to reconsider that decision.”

The Times, she said, might be included in any such litigation because it “has taken upon itself to not only pronounce charges against me” but to “decide my guilt and adequacy of the punishment.”

Times counsel Jeffrey S. Klein responded: “The Times coverage of Judge Maxine Thomas has consisted of fair, accurate and balanced reports of the public controversy surrounding her tenure as presiding judge of the Municipal Court.

“The Times has not taken sides in the controversy; we’ve just reported the news, including the views and statements of Judge Thomas and others involved in the controversy.”