West Virginia Supreme Court Justice who wrote book on political corruption faces 32-count judicial complaint

A West Virginia state Supreme Court justice who authored a book on political corruption is the subject of a new 32-count judicial complaint.

The state’s Judicial Investigative Commission filed the complaint against Justice Allen Loughry on Wednesday, alleging that he made “false statements with the deliberate intent to deceive” and “gave disinformation with the intent to harm another person.”

Loughry’s 2006 book, “Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide: The Sordid and Continuing History of Political Corruption in West Virginia,” details his distaste with political corruption in the state while arguing that the judiciary should be held to high standards, according to West Virginia MetroNews.

{mosads}

“Of all the criminal politicians in West Virginia, the group that shatters the confidence of the people the most is a corrupt judiciary,” he wrote. “It is essential that people have the absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our system of justice.”

Loughry’s office first drew suspicion when local ABC News affiliate WCHS reported that the state’s Supreme Court had undergone pricey renovations. The outlet reported that the justice was heavily involved in the $363,000 renovation of his office.

In its complaint, the commission alleges that Loughry lied to local reporters about the renovations, saying at the time that he was not very involved in the upgrades.

The justice faces additional charges over furniture he took from the state Capitol to his home office, including an antique desk, the Charleston Gazette-Mail reported.

The commission also alleges that Loughry hid a federal subpoena from his fellow justices while serving as the court’s chief justice last year.

“Because of this important development the other justices lost trust in Respondent as chief justice and removed him from office later that day by a vote of four to one,” the document states. “The sole vote for retention came from respondent.”

The commission states that any other justice could have challenged the subpoena, “but obviously could not if they were unaware of its existence.”