[The judge] strongly disputed the charges in his written responses, saying they were based on “biased, misrepresented, and, in some cases, purely manufactured information” from people who wanted to take him down politically
...
The commission said there had been prior ethics complaints against [the judge], which it handled in two cases with private admonitions.
Those cases involved some of the same allegations against [the judge] as the current case, which was relevant because he’d been cautioned about similar matters before, the panel said.
Several of the charges against [the judge] involved an effort to set up a home-incarceration program — with electronic ankle monitors — in order to finance a drug-treatment facility, which had been a longtime dream of [the judge]’s, according to the commission’s order.
Many more violations detailed.
"Although the initial complaint for the instant action came from a sole defendant disgruntled by the ankle monitor process and administration, the ultimate evidence presented at the Final Hearing established that those allegations were the tip of the iceberg
...
"To justify his conduct, he expressed his belief that 'generational' differences motivate modern judges to be more involved in finding solutions to society’s problems"