Amber Givens v. Ray Wheless : 2 Judges. Zero Ethics One Cup

 

I. Nature of the Conduct

Amber Givens

Judge Givens’ conduct was affirmatively adjudicated by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct and resulted in a formal Public Reprimand  .

Her misconduct included:

• Allowing a non-judge (court coordinator) to conduct a bond hearing, creating a false appearance that the judge herself presided  .
• Failure to hear and decide matters assigned to her, including repeated violations of TRCP 18a(f)(1) by not timely granting, denying, or referring recusal motions  .
• Biased, intemperate, and discourteous behavior toward attorneys, supported by video evidence and affidavits  .
• Recording a private telephone conversation with Judge Wheless without his knowledge or consent, later offering it as evidence  .

Key point:

Givens acted, overreached, and created false judicial appearances, but her actions were investigated, adjudicated, and sanctioned.

Ray Wheless

Judge Wheless’s conduct, by contrast, has not been adjudicated, despite repeated verified filings and notice. The record instead reflects acts and omissions that avoided scrutiny.

The allegations supported by your filings and exhibits include:

• Issuing judicial orders before lawful assignment, including a competency examination order signed May 3, 2018, before the assignment order dated May 4, 2018  Competency-Order_for_Exam-_F1612037.pdf.
• Self-assignment after void acts, attempting to retroactively legitimize prior actions  Competency-Order_for_Exam-_F1612037.pdf.
• Failure to perform mandatory administrative duties, including ignoring or substantively denying verified motions to disqualify instead of referring them to the Chief Justice as required by TRCP 18a(f)(1)  .
• Administrative manipulation: unexplained delays, transfers without notice, refusal to produce assignment/recusal records, and disclaiming responsibility for record integrity  .
• Structural conflict of interest, where Wheless would be required to rule on the validity of judicial authority that derived solely from his own disputed administrative acts  .

Key point:

Wheless’s conduct is characterized not by overt spectacle, but by procedural silence, delay, and self-protection, which has prevented any merits review.

II. Relationship to Rule 18a (Recusal / Disqualification)

Amber Givens

• Repeatedly failed to comply with Rule 18a.
• Her failures were documented, investigated, and explicitly cited as grounds for public discipline  .
• Result: Public reprimand.

Ray Wheless

• Accused of the same core violation—failure to refer a verified disqualification motion.
• But unlike Givens, Wheless:
  
• Denied or ignored motions instead of referring them.
• Acted while conflicted.
• Has not been subjected to Commission review, despite notice and verified complaints  .
• 
  

Contrast:

Givens was punished for violating Rule 18a.

Wheless is alleged to have neutralized Rule 18a itself.

III. Transparency vs. Opacity

Dimension	Amber Givens	Ray Wheless
Investigation	Texas Rangers + Commission	None completed
Record	Extensive, public, sworn	Disputed, missing, altered
Accountability	Public reprimand	None to date
Exposure	Media scrutiny	Administrative insulation

IV. Institutional Role

Amber Givens

• A line trial judge whose misconduct was visible and concrete.
• Her errors embarrassed the judiciary but did not structurally disable oversight.

Ray Wheless

• Presiding Judge of the First Administrative Judicial Region.
• Controls assignments, referrals, and procedural gateways.
• His alleged misconduct, if true, prevents correction of judicial error downstream.

This is the most important distinction.

Givens distorted proceedings.

Wheless allegedly controls whether distortion can ever be rev

V. Bottom Line Contrast

• Amber Givens:
  A judge who misused authority, was caught, investigated, and disciplined.
• Ray Wheless:
  A presiding administrative judge who is alleged to have used procedural authority to avoid scrutiny, validate void acts, and block mandatory referral mechanisms, without any completed disciplinary review.

In short:

Givens represents judicial misconduct exposed.

Wheless represents judicial misconduct insulated.