in her brief that the PCC proceedings had caused her concern for her family’s “emotional and financial security,” we conclude that the record sufficiently demonstrates that Judge Coffey was complicit in a fraudulent transfer. See Estes v. Titus, 731 N.W.2d 119, 130-34 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (finding that a judgment creditor had a valid claim under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act where the judgment debtor had, prior to conclusion of the underlying case, entered into a consent divorce that transferred all of his assets to his former wife, thus making him insolvent), appeal granted, 731 N.W.2d 423 (Mich. 2007). By participating in the fraudulent conveyances, Judge Coffey contravened the public policies embodied in RSA 545-A:4, see Matter of Seaman, 627 A.2d 106, 122 (N. J. 1993) (<HOLDING>); Sup. Ct. R. 38, Canon 2 (“A judge shall
holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding an exception to confrontation clause must further important public policy holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding that a judges infringement of an important public policy is grounds for aggravation