• Report: #50954

Complaint Review: Judge Ted Stewart, Federal Judge 10th Circuit, Utah District

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Sat, March 29, 2003
  • Updated: Mon, August 08, 2011

  • Reported By:
Judge Ted Stewart, Federal Judge 10th Circuit, Utah District
Http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/ Salt Lake City, Utah U.S.A.

Judge Ted Stewart, Federal Judge 10th Circuit Utah District Mormon Judge sits on two cases involving Mormon Church finds in favor of Mormon Church reversed on both Rip-off political corruption Salt Lake City Utah

*Consumer Comment: Peter Principle at work - Stewart made Chief Judge

*Consumer Comment: The Saint with the Vendetta....

*Consumer Comment: Good News, bad news. Judge Stewart finally recused himself!

*Consumer Comment: I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

*Consumer Comment: I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

*Consumer Comment: I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

*Consumer Comment: I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

*Consumer Suggestion: Yet another coincidence. Some try to trivialize this latest mistake as simply a procedural error. But that's how biased judges hide their deeds

*Consumer Comment: Thanks for being a good Christian witness

*Consumer Comment: Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits...

*Consumer Comment: Both local news papers, local TV/Radio station (KSL) are owned by the church. So any negative news about the LDS church can be quickly covered

*Consumer Comment: Sigh...again - You have not identified any BEHAVIOR that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that Judge Stewart was biased.

*Consumer Comment: Double Sigh

*Consumer Comment: Sigh... I'm just not a conspiracy theorist

*Consumer Comment: Missed the point (revised)

*Consumer Comment: Missed the point The issue is whether a Mormon judge, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Church, should be even sitting on cases involving his Church

*Consumer Comment: Quit wasiting the Court's time

*Consumer Comment: Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

*Consumer Comment: Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

*Consumer Comment: Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

*Consumer Comment: Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

*Author of original report: The Arrogance Continues

*Consumer Comment: We need to impeach these four judges (Stewart, Kimball, Kelly and Briscoe) to remove them from the bench.

*Author of original report: Corruption in the 10th circuit; Denver, CO

*Consumer Comment: disagree with mormon bashing

*Author of original report: Hear no evil. See no evil. But speak evil. (And double-speak.)

*Author of original report: Appealing the decision

*Author of original report: Does this sound right to you?

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This is a federal complaint filed in February 2003 against this mormon judge.

This is a complaint, per 28 U.S.C. 372(c)(1), against Judge (Brian) Ted Stewart of the 10th District Court of Utah for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Specifically, Judge Stewart has established a pattern of acting improperly by not summarily recusing himself in two separate lawsuits when his impartiality might be reasonably questioned. (Which it WAS, by various independent, public sources.) Further, after effectively being petitioned to recuse in one of these suits where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, he refused to recuse himself. [Quotes from 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and (b)(1). See Appendices A & B.]

The crux of this complaint is that Judge Stewart, as a Temple Mormon, has an inherent conflict of interest (in layman's terms) because these two cases involve the Mormon Church and because he's bound by a secret oath he's sworn in the Mormon Temple to consecrate everything he has to The Mormon Church for building up the Church on earth and ushering in a Mormon theocracy.

Opening Statement

To wit, Judge Stewart, widely reported in Salt Lake and much of Utah to be Mormon (Exhibits 1 & 2), did not recuse himself from two recent high profile lawsuits directly involving and affecting the Mormon Church. [Yes, courts have consistently held that membership in a church does not create sufficient appearance of bias to require recusal, but I will show the Mormon Church is no ordinary church, and thus requires extraordinary consideration.

I will show in this complaint that high level membership in the Mormon Church DOES, on its face, create sufficient appearance of bias in cases involving the Church.] Considering that non-Mormons in Utah (a sizeable minority) are already suspicious and murmur about the power the Church wields there (Exhibits 3A-B; 8; 10A-C; 11; 12A-C) - and that Salt Lake is the headquarter and power base of the Church - the onus was on Judge Stewart to be extra cognizant of the public scrutiny these controversial cases would be under. He should have followed the precedent set in the early church, recorded in the Bible: And in those days, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews {a sizeable minority} against the Hebraic Jews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration {of food}. To solve this problem, the early church placed Grecian Jews in charge of food distribution.

This was wise, for they not only addressed the meat problem, but also the meatier problem of murmuring, by removing all appearance of impropriety. Thus they maintained the people's trust. (Acts 6:1-5) Police departments follow this precedent today, assigning black police officers to predominately black neighborhoods to preclude charges from blacks of abuse by white officers. Likewise, Judge Stewart should have removed himself from these proceedings also, so as to avoid ANY appearance of impropriety, as required by Canon 2 in your Code of Conduct. (Appendix C) Had he done so, no one could claim the fix is in. But this, he did not do.

So those of us constantly vigilant must now ask, Was it merely coincidental that Judge Stewart found in favor of his Church twice in both these suits? Had he recused himself from the beginning, precluding my charge of prejudicial conduct, we would be spared this unpleasant inquiry. Respectfully, one has to be totally blind not to see even the appearance of impropriety here when a Mormon judge twice finds in favor of the Mormon Church. So I must now raise the ugly specter of wrongdoing.

Do two outcomes in a row favorable to one's Church merely reflect happenstance, the result of good law? Or do they reflect a sinister pattern? The fact that one decision was severely reversed on Appeal proves it can't be the former. (Docket 01-4111, Exhibit 7) As a minimum, it appears something other than the law influenced one of Judge Stewart's judgements. To those familiar with Mormonism, it's clear that Judge Stewart's relationship with his Church is what influenced his judgement. (Canon 2) This constitutes gross impropriety.

Now, The test for appearance of impropriety includes knowledge of ALL the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose. (Canon 2A) When you know ALL the relevant facts about the Mormon Church - specifically, that Judge Stewart, like all high Mormons, has repeatedly sworn a secret oath in the Mormon Temple to dedicate everything with which he's been blessed (that includes his judgeship), to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the building up of the Church and establishing a Mormon theocracy - when you know this, you see that he is compromised.

The Temple oath makes it impossible for Judge Stewart to be impartial in ANY case involving his Church. His oath requires he find for his Church! [The specific oath is called the Law of Consecration in the Mormon Endowment Ceremony and quoted in several Affidavits from independent former Mormons. (Exhibits 4A-J) They also attest that the oath is secret, and is the same in all Mormon temples.] And it's not just this oath that biases him. There's also something in this for him.

Mormon doctrine teaches that everything Judge Stewart does for building up the Church in this life buys him a better exaltation (a better godhood) in the next life. (Exhibit 5A-B) In his mind, there is a de facto quid pro quo! He believes (for the purposes of law, he knows) he will be rewarded in the next life for helping the Church in this life! Thus he violated 28 U.S.C. 455(b) (4), which requires disqualification for any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

If Judge Stewart had been rewarded for his rulings with a deposit of U.S. dollars in a Swiss bank account, that would be blatantly criminal. Being rewarded for his rulings with a deposit of spiritual dollars in The Bank of the Celestial Kingdom is no less criminal.

In light of this knowledge, these two facts are enough to create the perception in reasonable minds that Judge Stewart's impartiality is severely impaired. (Canon 2A) But I realize a Judge has home court advantage and you likely require me to present a preponderance of evidence. This I will do.

Purpose

My purpose in making this complaint is threefold. First, I want Justice - as did our Founders. (U.S. Const. preamble. See Appendix D.) Second, I want the Integrity of the Judiciary upheld - for it's the last bastion of a lawful society. Neither of these will result without this last: I want Judge Stewart publicly rebuked and restrained - for his sake as well as others. Neither he, nor any Mormon, should ever again be allowed to rule on a case even remotely touching the Mormon Church or its demonstrable enemies. Your Code of Conduct desires this too.

I was pleased to read your Code of Conduct. High standards. I was particularly impressed that your Canon 2 echoes the Biblical canon that elders in the (Christian) church are to be above reproach. That is, men who've been entrusted with the lives of their flock (like judges, whose decisions affect millions) are to be held to a very high standard, not even giving the appearance of impropriety. The Biblical remedy when a man fails at this is to shame him publicly.

Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. 1 Timothy 5:20

This I ask you to do. I'm not Mormon bashing but simply giving you all the relevant facts per your rules so you may make a reasonable, informed decision. This is a crucial aspect to this complaint, since much about Mormonism is not common knowledge outside of Utah. Most Americans, who only know of the Church via TV commercials, believe Mormonism is just another denomination of traditional Christianity. It is NOT! Clearly, the secret oaths taken in temples are not common knowledge nor traditional for most Americans.

Background & Discussion

The relevant cases are Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company, LLC vs. AT&T Broadband & The Deseret News and First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, et al. vs. Salt Lake City Corp with Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Intervenor, (a.k.a. The Plaza case), Docket numbers 2:00-CV-936ST and 2:99CV-912ST respectively. The Church is directly involved in the first by way of Deseret Management Corp (DMC), which owns Deseret News. DMC is a holding company of the Church, per their statement on the DMC website. (Exhibit 6) The Church is directly involved in the second as Intervenor. Even though the Appellate Court ruled against the Church in the Plaza case, the Church is still putting up a fight as of this writing. (Exhibit 7 & 8) That these are high-profile cases is stated in the court's own web page. (Exhibit 9) Additionally, both cases have garnered national attention (possibly worldwide) being reported in The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and as an AP story. The Plaza case was also covered on CNN. These articles give a fair presentation of the real issues involved, what's at stake for the Mormon Church, the public's perception of the Church and the power it wields there in Salt Lake.

The newspapers say it better than I can. On the Tribune case, from The Wall Street Journal: But as with so many matters in Utah, the power behind the putsch - some five years in the making - was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Working secretly to avoid a public backlash, the Mormon Church wielded its clout to vanquish a publishing family that church leaders have long regarded as hostile to Mormons, according to documents freshly unsealed by a U.S. district court judge in Salt Lake City. (Exhibit 10A) From the AP No other publications has consistently caused as much consternation for the Mormon church as The Salt Lake Tribune, which has chronicled the religion for all but the first 24 years of the faith's history in Utah. (Exhibit 10B) From a reporter for The Salt Lake Tribune, who had the perspective of working for The Deseret News: Reporters there [Deseret] try to slough off that fact, but they know better.

They know that most of the meaty stories in Utah are linked somehow to the LDS Church. It may be subtle, such as how a bill gets heard and wends its way through the Legislature. And it may be less subtle, such as the genesis of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The stories will never get told honestly by the Deseret News. Reporters are discouraged from choosing any story that criticizes the LDS church. Those who buck that system have had stories killed outright. (Exhibit 10C)

As for the Plaza case, from the Los Angeles Times, But it's more than a debate over civil liberties. In some ways this also is a dialogue over the soul of this city. And note that ... ordinary residents [are] fed up with what they perceive as Mormon domination. (Exhibit 11) In addition to these print reports, former Mormons and non-Mormons around the country also know the score, as evidenced by these exhibits. (Exhibits 12A-C) Question: When THE major newspaper in Salt Lake (The Tribune) publishes reasonable reports and Letters to the Editor claiming judicial bias, is that not sufficient to establish the appearance of impropriety, necessitating recusal?

The Church's motive in both these cases is the same: to silence dissidents. (Like the Church of Scientology's stated goal to destroy the Enemy.) The Biblical command is to win your enemies over, not silence them. The latter approach creates the suspicion that you've got something to hide. Given this atmosphere of distrust the Church has created, shouldn't a disinterested third party rule as Judge in these cases - as the law prescribes?

Judge Stewart admits he's a member of the Church, but insists he isn't biased. (Exhibit 13B) In the absence of knowledge about the peculiarities of Mormonism, some might argue that membership in the Church does not create sufficient appearance of bias to require recusal. But Judge Stewart is not just any Mormon - he is a Temple Mormon. (A higher degree of Mormon.) He's deemed worthy enough by his Leaders to receive a Temple Recommend which gives one permission to enter the Temple and participate in the Temple Ceremonies with its requisite oaths, covenants and obligations. Specifically, per the Affidavits in Exhibits 4A-J, in the Endowment Ceremony, he swore to keep the Law of Consecration - to use everything available to him to build up the Mormon Church on earth and usher in a Mormon-centric society in the future.

He would have first taken these oaths as a Mormon missionary, as all missionaries receive their Endowments before going on their mission. Later in life, he served in his ward's bishopric. (Exhibit 2) In order to serve in the Bishopric he had to be a High Priest and have long ago received his own Endowments, and now be a regular temple attendee, as an example and part of his Ward activities, according to Mr. Chuck Sackett, a former Temple Mormon, who could be called an Expert on the Church (credentials in Exhibit 4C, par. 2 - 4). It's unlikely a Mormon in Utah could be recommended to the bench without being considered worthy and having sworn allegiance to the Church. And since Senator Hatch, himself a Mormon, personally recommended Judge Stewart... (Exhibit 14)

Since the Ceremony is given in secret and, under solemn obligation, to be kept secret, none of these details is supposed to be known. And that brings up a subtle, but very important point of law.

Judge Stewart says in his Order Denying Recusal, no reasonable person knowing ALL the facts would harbor doubts about the court's impartiality in this case. (Exhibit 13F). This principle is found in Canon 2A which says The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of ALL the relevant circumstances a perception... But we don't know ALL the facts! We can't! They're secret!

In light of the fact that we can never know ALL the facts to make an adequate assessment of Judge Stewart's partiality, we must err on the side of caution. While our criminal law assumes a person innocent until proven guilty, we cannot be quite so gracious when it comes to positions of power. We know that positions of power can be - and are - abused. Hence your rules on avoiding even the appearance of impropriety or bias. Without the light of full disclosure, we must play it safe and insist he recuse.

It's not an undue hardship to find a judge who has not taken secret oaths. There's no compelling reason why Judge Stewart had to take these cases and his insistence to remain raises suspicion. It's foundational in our country that government be transparent. When it isn't, when we don't have all the facts, we have no real oversight and we, the people, become suspicious. This is the very scenario your Canons, Rules and the Law were meant to prevent. Therefore, Judge Stewart should have recused himself sua sponte from both these cases; was remiss for not doing so; and was doubly remiss for not recusing when petitioned by Plaintiffs in the Tribune case. Why didn't he? Shall we ask him?

With all due respect, while the Code of Conduct sets high standards, it falls short in implementing them. To wit, the concept of having a Judge (or anyone, for that matter) investigate themselves to see if they're biased is fatally flawed. On the assumption that evil men will seek positions of power for gain, and that the reason for lofty rules is to keep evil men from gain, the fatality is: only honorable men will recuse themselves! The dishonorable will not! Even if the subjective examination for impropriety is somehow truly objective, we all know how we feel when the FBI investigates itself and concludes it did nothing wrong. [It would be better to have other judges check for the appearance of impropriety when the claim is made as opposed to an internal introspective investigation.]

Putting intent aside for a moment, there's another issue, specific to these cases, about Judge Stewart deciding for himself whether he's biased or not. He may be unable, because he's trapped in a cult.

That's not meant as a pejorative, simply a statement of fact. (Exhibit 15A is a GOOGLE search for Mormonism' and cult' to get the pulse of the public.) Indeed, the Mormon Church meets many characteristics of a cult (Exhibit 15B). It's a distinct, monolithic organization with a clear power structure. It claims direct revelation from God. There are secret ceremonies. You are either in or out with severe spiritual and material penalties for leaving. (Ostracism, divorce, loss of employment.) And, it affects how you perceive the world in more than a few ways.

It's critical to understand this mind set because it so pervasively and subtlety affect a person's judgement when it comes to items touching his Church. First, understand the subjective nature of this dilemma. NO ONE who is in a cult knows they're in a cult. (If they knew they were in a cult, they'd get out.)

Unless one has been in a cult before, or knows someone trapped in one, it's hard to imagine how someone in a cult thinks. Probably the best example today is of the Cloning Cult - the Raelian's - who, while acknowledging that people say they are wacko, claim to be the most rational of all. Same claim from Scientologists. (Exhibits 15C-D) Judge Stewart has the freedom in this country to believe what he wants, but he does NOT have the freedom to sit on a case involving his Church.

While he may be as sincere as a Raelian, he is not a disinterested nor unbiased observer. And it's pointless to ask him if he has a conflict of interest. He'll give the same answer as the Raelian or Scientologist.

Mormonism claims divine revelation from God, complete with a Living Prophet. In fact, it claims to be the One True Church (and all the others are wrong.) Whether you believe their leaders speak for God or not doesn't matter - the important point is that Judge Stewart believes they do, and when his Church speaks, be it through Prophet, Apostle or President, (below) it's like God speaking to him. So if someone takes up a contrary position - as in a lawsuit - to what his leaders have ordained, that someone is dissenting against God. How does one escape being biased from that?

If you're not comfortable dealing with the religious aspects of my complaint, I will present yet another unique aspect to the Mormon Church - that it is, in fact, also a business. To wit, it's the largest employer in Utah. (Exhibit 16A) The Arizona Republic did a 4-day spread in 1991on the finances of this massive billion-dollar corporation. (Exhibit 16B-C) Their high-clergy automatically become Board Members in many of the Church owned companies, thus drawing a salary and benefits.

While most churches publish newsletters, this one publishes a for-profit Newspaper! While the Catholic church also is associated with money, it's not in the Life Insurance Business, Textile Industry, etc. like the Mormon Church.

Looking at it from this perspective, Judge Stewart, as a partner active in that business (he solicited new customers for two years on his mission), cannot be separate from that business. He will always have the appearance of doing what is best for the Corporation. He desires to see it grow, prosper, and beat the competition. Like any businessman, he desires that it squelch bad PR and dissidents, so as not to deter new customers.

It would be wrong for a judge who is a major shareholder in Microsoft to sit in a dispute between Microsoft and Netscape. Likewise, it's wrong for Judge Stewart to sit in a dispute between the Mormon Church and its rivals.

Rebutting Judge Stewart

I'm compelled to respond to four of Judge Stewart's reasons for not recusing himself on points pertaining to his membership in the Church. (Exhibit 13) First, he says he has no personal relationship with President Monson. (To be called as a witness.) The very fact that he addresses him by the title President (whereas a non-Mormon would not) speaks volumes. Mr. Monson is currently the #2 man in the Mormon Church! (Exhibit 17)

He serves their Living Prophet, which Mormons venerate like Catholics venerate the Pope. To him on the inside, he sees no conflict. To us on the outside, looking in, it's unseemly. Do you think he can he remain unbiased? Even if there's no actual bias, he must recuse when there's the appearance. 71 F.3d 347, 350 (10th Cir. 1995)

Is there not the appearance of bias here with The President? Second, Judge Stewart says, I do not have any financial interest in the subject matter of this case, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by its outcome. I'll grant the first - maybe. If, after retirement, Judge Stewart goes back into leadership in the Church (from whence he came), his salary depends on the finances of the Church. Competition from The Salt Lake Tribune might have curtailed the Church Corporation's profits. In the Plaza case, if Evangelical Christians continue their ministry there, Church membership and consequently, tithing, may also suffer. So he might suffer financially in the future if the Church loses. I've previously addressed the second issue - that of other interests. Anything he does now to help his Church buys him a better exaltation later. He does have an interest.

Third, with all due respect, I think Judge Stewart sets up a straw man and then grasps at straws. He cites the First Amendment and claims his right to be a Judge. NO ONE is denying his First Amendment right to be a Judge. Judge Stewart IS in fact a Judge irrespective of his religion. What we ARE saying is that he should not adjudicate any case involving his Church any more than a judge who's a Scientologist should adjudicate a case involving the Church of Scientology. Your rules anticipated occasional random juxtapositions, and, to make sure they truly are random (and not contrived) your rules require the Judge bow out.

Forth, Judge Stewart cites the Episcopal case as precedent for his action. I've already presented examples of some peculiar aspects of Mormonism that are outside the norm of most people's religious experience, upon which your previous ruling (on membership in a church not being sufficient for recusal) was based.

The Episcopal church is not at all like the Mormon Church. The Episcopal church is not monolithic, no one thinks it a cult, and it doesn't have secret ceremonies and secret oaths about ushering in a theocracy. Therefore, rulings written about the former do not summarily apply to The Latter.'

In the end, Judge Stewart assesses himself and says, The court finds that no reasonable person knowing all of the relevant facts would harbor doubts about the court's impartiality in this case. Respectfully, this is called poisoning the well and demonstrates the main problem asking people to see their own biases.

CONCLUSION

I've presented a lot of information as to why I harbor GREAT doubts about Judge Stewart's impartiality in these two cases. I'm not alone. Am I to conclude that the only logical conclusion left me is that 'm unreasonable or don't know all of the relevant facts? Is there no other possibility? What do YOU think? I pray you act.

The Saint
Phoenix, Arizona
U.S.A.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on JUDGES

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/29/2003 12:56 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Judge-Ted-Stewart-Federal-Judge-10th-Circuit-Utah-District/Salt-Lake-City-Utah/Judge-Ted-Stewart-Federal-Judge-10th-Circuit-Utah-District-Mormon-Judge-sits-on-two-cases-50954. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Judge Ted Stewart, Federal Judge 10th Circuit, Utah District

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 28Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Peter Principle at work - Stewart made Chief Judge

AUTHOR: Concernedcitizen - (Antarctica)

After all the judicial misconduct documented here, and his reluctance to recuse in the Salt Lake Tribune case when called for by Federal Law and the Code of Judicial Conduct, Ted Stewart has been made the Chief Judge of the Utah District.

The Peter Principle at work in government.

Couldn't the judiciary have found someone with integrity? How's your public confidence in the judiciary now?
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

The Saint with the Vendetta....

AUTHOR: Craig L - (U.S.A.)

Vendetta is the word not Saint.
It's people like you that build my faith and testimony in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). It points out your lack of understanding of our Christian Religion...
You are so off base as to what the Temple functions facilitate. Temple Covenants are for your progenitors...Mormons not only are involved in saving souls here and now we save souls that have passed on...That is what the Temples are for...We have the genealogy to prove it. Ancestors.com...By the way I'm sure your Temple work will be done for you when you pass from this life to the next...
Theocracy? You should stick to the facts of the case.
You should also take a few missionary lessons (Bicycle Army) and you might find what you are lacking in your life...True Joy, and yes it's in the Temples "The House of the Lord God".
What we do in the Temples is SACRED not secret...
May God bless you in your RIGHTEOUS endeavors.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

Good News, bad news. Judge Stewart finally recused himself!

AUTHOR: Concernedcitizen - (Antarctica)

Two years after this Ripoff Report was filed, Judge Ted Stewart, a Mormon in Salt Lake City, finally recused himself in July 2005 from a case involving his church.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050708/ai_n14726428

Too bad it took him so long and cost litigants millions of dollars as he ruled in favor of his church (surprise!), only to be overturned on appeal. He should pay for his obvious impropriety and for refusing four or five motions for recusal.

Thanks to the Ripoff Report for posting the complaint of judicial misconduct, informing the public! (And a private thanks to Judge Cassell in Salt Lake, who may have had something to do Judge Stewart recusing after being informed of this complaint. )

Now the bad news. In July 2006, another Mormon judge stepped in!

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,640197901,00.html

I lost track of what happened after that. It appears Judge Cassell, not a Mormon, stepped in last.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n19391714
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I commend you for obviously doing your homework on your cause. I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here. It is not a big secret that the Mormon church likes to twist arms to get what they want. I would like to see the church either get sued into bankruptcy or have the feds delcare them a business and nail them with back taxes. But it is all just a dream I am sure. I hope you get your wish and have this and other judges removed and/or disbarred for what you are claiming. Good luck!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I commend you for obviously doing your homework on your cause. I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here. It is not a big secret that the Mormon church likes to twist arms to get what they want. I would like to see the church either get sued into bankruptcy or have the feds delcare them a business and nail them with back taxes. But it is all just a dream I am sure. I hope you get your wish and have this and other judges removed and/or disbarred for what you are claiming. Good luck!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I commend you for obviously doing your homework on your cause. I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here. It is not a big secret that the Mormon church likes to twist arms to get what they want. I would like to see the church either get sued into bankruptcy or have the feds delcare them a business and nail them with back taxes. But it is all just a dream I am sure. I hope you get your wish and have this and other judges removed and/or disbarred for what you are claiming. Good luck!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here.

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I commend you for obviously doing your homework on your cause. I agree that there is a serious comflict of interest here. It is not a big secret that the Mormon church likes to twist arms to get what they want. I would like to see the church either get sued into bankruptcy or have the feds delcare them a business and nail them with back taxes. But it is all just a dream I am sure. I hope you get your wish and have this and other judges removed and/or disbarred for what you are claiming. Good luck!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 Consumer Suggestion

Yet another coincidence. Some try to trivialize this latest mistake as simply a procedural error. But that's how biased judges hide their deeds

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

This is out of chronological sequence. From late November 2004, before the 4th motion for recusal posted above. For the third time in these matters, the 10th circuit court of appeals overturned yet another ruling made by Mormon Judge Ted Stewart in favor of the Mormon Church.

Probably just coincidence that he keeps finding for his church but keeps being rebuked.

Some try to trivialize this latest mistake as simply a procedural error. But that's how biased judges hide their deeds. Suppose it was you and 335 million dollars?

You can read the story at
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,595109274,00.html

The Saint
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

Thanks for being a good Christian witness

AUTHOR: Carl - (U.S.A.)

Thank you for demonstrating such a good Christian witness right before Easter...not.

Perhaps you should be worrying about the log (or plank) in your own eye before worrying about the speck in mine. Matthew 7:3-5. It seems to me that the level of venom in your posts sounds like you are seeking revengeful or have a vengeful attitude at the very least. While you have your Bible out, take a look at Romans 12:9 for a refresher course on revenge.

Has this judge harmed you in some way? Have you presented any EVIDENCE that his alleged bias or alleged appearance of an impropriety influenced the result of these lawsuits in anyway? Would the outcome have been different if this judge HAD recused himself? Haven't the courts reviewed your evidence and rejected your contentions are every turn? Haven't the courts rules that there has not been a sufficient showing that the judge did anything wrong?

Good ahead and shake off the dust your feet. Just don't get my carpet dirty.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Consumer Comment

Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits...

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

You claim to be a born again evangelical Christian. Interesting.

Proverbs 18:13 He who answers before listening-- that is his folly and his shame.

I've pointed out twice now in rebuttals and at least twice in the report that "The requirement that Microsoft show ACTUAL bias is INCONSISTENT with the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a). Under that provision, "what matters is not the REALITY of bias or prejudice, but its APPEARANCE." You have eyes, but don't see.

Microsoft was successful in having its judge removed for prejudicial statements. They did not have to prove the judge was partial, but simply that he gave that appearance thereof. If you want become wise about the appearance of impropriety and how the Judicial Complaint process applies, read Part VI of the D.C. Court of Appeals' ruling, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

Matt 6:24 No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

Judge Stewart swore an oath of allegiance to the Mormon Church. That's one master. [You can't be in the bishopric and not have sworn the oath in Mormon temple. (Common knowledge among Mormons who have Temple Recommends. Ask any Mormon bishop, as I have, who's willing to talk about the ceremony.)] He also swore an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution. That's the other master.

If you don't see the appearance of a conflict when someone who's sworn an oath of allegiance to the Church sits on a suit where the Church is one of the parties, you deny the words of the one YOU claim as master.

Time to dust off feet. We're done.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment

Both local news papers, local TV/Radio station (KSL) are owned by the church. So any negative news about the LDS church can be quickly covered

AUTHOR: Michael - (U.S.A.)

I live in Salt Lake City and as a non-mormon life can be difficult at times. I just choose to ignore it. At least as best that I can. I have Mormon literature left on my door step weekly. I just use it to start the fireplace. No biggie.

Both local news papers, local TV/Radio station (KSL) are owned by the church. So any negative news about the LDS church can be quickly covered up. One has to go outside of Utah to really get news on what is really goin on. So much for the first amendment. Well, Utah isn't in the United States anyway..hehe.

However, there was a case in Park City where a gay was killed by some drunk red necks. The judge in the case found the a-holes NOT guilty. See, the judge is a practicing Mormon and since homosexuality is an abomination the judge said that the little faggot deserved it. A&E did a nice piece on this case in an episode of "City Confidential". Find it and watch it.

Or just Google the LDS church and see what is out there. Enjoy!!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#12 Consumer Comment

Sigh...again - You have not identified any BEHAVIOR that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that Judge Stewart was biased.

AUTHOR: Carl - (U.S.A.)

"I've presented a lot of information as to why I harbor GREAT doubts about Judge Stewart's impartiality in these two cases."

And you have presented no EVIDENCE of Judge Stewart's impartiality. You have present no EVIDENCE that the lawsuits could or should have been decided differently. You have not identified any BEHAVIOR that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that Judge Stewart was biased.

It sounds to me like the various courts and judges that have reviewed this issue reached the correct conclusion regarding the relative merits of your case.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#13 Consumer Comment

Double Sigh

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

In the report under Background & Discussion it clearly states, the relevant cases are "Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company... v. ... & THE DESERET NEWS."

The Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church, which it also clearly says in the report.

The 2nd case was "First Unitarian Church of SLC v. SLC Corp WITH the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of LATTER-DAY SAINTS, Intervenor."

The Church of JC of LDS is also known as the Mormon Church.

Did you even bother reading the report before posting your two comments?
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#14 Consumer Comment

Sigh... I'm just not a conspiracy theorist

AUTHOR: Carl - (U.S.A.)

Not that it is any of your business, but I'm not a Mormon. I'm a born again evangelical Christian, I'm just not a conspiracy theorist.

You posts are not a model of clarity and you seem to be implying that he judge should or would have ruled differently he or she not been Mormon. After reading some of the links that you posted, I can see the Mormon church wasn't even a named party to the lawsuit.

And it seems that every judge who disagrees with you needs to be impeached or punished.

You are barking up the wrong tree.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#15 Consumer Comment

Missed the point (revised)

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

Carl:

You apparently didn't read the law or understand it. (Scary if you're an attorney - or a judge.)

The issue in a complaint is NOT whether Judge Stewart ruled "correctly" or is, in fact, biased. That, ostensibly, is for the courts to decide. (Although as pointed out, above, you don't even have to prove bias if a party at trial. The requirement that Microsoft show actual bias is *** inconsistent *** with the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a). Under that provision, what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its APPEARANCE.)

The issue in a complaint is whether a Mormon judge, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Church, should be even sitting on cases involving his Church. He should NOT! The issue is the APPEARANCE of impropriety. That is an ethics problem. The judge should be punished. That is the purpose of filing a complaint of Judicial Misconduct under 28 U.S.C. S351, as affirmed by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Now, if he ruled against the Church in both cases, that would mitigate any claim of actual impropriety. But that wouldn't mitigate the appearance thereof, and a complaint would still be valid.

But Carl - he didn't rule against the Church. He ruled in FAVOR of His Church. Both times! You don't think there's any possibility he's biased?

If you can't see it, you're blind. Or are you Mormon?

Choose The Right.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#16 Consumer Comment

Missed the point The issue is whether a Mormon judge, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Church, should be even sitting on cases involving his Church

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

Carl:

You apparently didn't read the law or understand it. (Scary if you're an attorney.)

The issue in a complaint is NOT whether Judge Stewart ruled "correctly" or is, in fact, biased. That, ostensibly, is for the courts to decide. The issue is whether a Mormon judge, who has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Church, should be even sitting on cases involving his Church. He should NOT! The issue is the APPEARANCE of impropriety. That is an ethics problem, and that is the purpose of filing a complaint of Judicial Misconduct.

Now, if he ruled against the Church in both cases, that would mitigate any claim of actual impropriety. But that wouldn't mitigate the appearance thereof, and a complaint would still be valid.

But Carl - he didn't rule against the Church. He ruled in FAVOR of His Church. Both times! You don't think there's any possibility he's biased?

If you can't see it, you're blind. Or are you Mormon?

Choose The Right.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#17 Consumer Comment

Quit wasiting the Court's time

AUTHOR: Carl - (U.S.A.)

First, you have presented no evidence of any bias by the judge. You have assumed, without any supporting evidence, that a judge cannot decide a case involving a church is he or she belongs to that denomination. And you have presented any evidence that any of the other judges involved in the case are Mormons are biased in favor of the Mormon Church.

Second, the other judges have correctly noted that you haven't followed the proper legal procedures to challenge the judge's rulings. If you objected to the rulings in the lawsuit, you must appeal the rulings and not file a judicial ethics complaint. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the appellant to provide the Court of Appeal with a proper record and the appellant must demonstrate that the trial judge made reversible error in the rulings. You haven't even addressed the possibility that the "biased" rulings may have been legally correct.

I suggest you retain an attorney and learn proper legal procedure. Your ethics complaints won't do you any good.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#18 Consumer Comment

Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

One has to admire the tenacity of the McCartheys. Once again, in December 2004, they filed a fourth motion for the recusal of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart, who has been sitting on this case involving on one side, the Mormon Church, and one the other side, an enemy of the Mormon Church! This time, instead of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart deciding for himself that he's not biased in favor of his Church (a joke it in itself, asking a man if he's biased - ask Mark Fuhrman if he's biased against n*****s. This is even worse when you know that Judge Stewart took an oath of allegiance to the Church in the secret Mormon temple ceremony), this motion was decided by a Judge Cassell of the District of Utah. Judge Cassell claims the motion for recusal is "fully without merit." While he is not himself a member of the Mormon Church, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch nominated Judge Cassell. (More on that later.)

RipOff Report readers might be bothered by the concluding paragraph. "The court has carefully reviewed ALL of the claims so that ANY reasonable person interested in this matter would understand the relevant facts. Understanding the relevant facts, NO reasonable person would have any doubts about Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide the cases before him. Having thoroughly reviewed the motion, the accompanying affidavit and exhibits, and the arguments on all sides, the court concludes that there is no basis for recusal. The motion is therefore DENIED."

So, if you've been interested enough to read this Report, and after reading it, doubt Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide this matter, then Judge Cassell's conclusion is: you're unreasonable. Now who is being unreasonable here?

It's hard to know if Judge Cassell is simply ignorant, or immoral - neither which is good. He's certainly not upholding the law, which calls for recusal whenever there's the appearance of impropriety. In Microsoft's famous anti-trust case, where it won recusal of its judge, Microsoft noted "The requirement that Microsoft show actual bias is inconsistent with the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a). Under that provision, "what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its APPEANCE." Judge Cassell doesn't see even the appearance of impropriety here? Is he blind?

It's difficult to believe that anyone could live in Salt Lake City and NOT know something about Mormonism. Even the 10th Circuit, based outside Utah, has noted the Mormon Church is a "unitary, MONOLITHIC, religious faith." On considering a 1st Amendment issue involving the Mormon Church and the State, the 10th Circuit said Salt Lake City is ...a community and state whose UNIQUE social and political history reveals a LONGSTANDING tension involving the separation of church and state." (Would separation of church and state include a Mormon ruling on a federal lawsuit involving his Church?)

One wonders if Judge Stewart informed Judge Cassell of ALL the relevant facts, including the complaint of judicial misconduct filed against him, wherein Affidavits of the secret temple oath attest to the oath of allegiance he took to build up the Church? Or maybe this is more cover up. For when you get down to it, there's this small matter of perjury. Remember, Judge Stewart was asked if there was anything more to his relationship with the Church than church membership alone. He said, "In short, there is nothing more. By failing to disclose his oath of allegiance to the Church, he lied... under oath.

You can read the full Order here

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/att/00000994.pdf

Included in this update to the Rip-off Report are parts of that ruling with editorial comment (in [brackets]).

----------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Judge Ted Stewart has been presiding over three related cases dealing with, as the Tenth Circuit has called it, "a continuing fight over the ownership and control of The Salt Lake Tribune." [Is this a prejudicial statement by the 10th?] For nearly three years, the Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company has attempted to have Judge Stewart removed from the case. [Yeah, because he's biased.] The McCarthey Family has joined in that attempt for the last year. Judge Stewart has rejected three motions for recusal, [so what? Asking a man if he's biased - and believing his answer - is stupid.] and the Tenth Circuit has stated that no reasonable person, knowing the facts before the court, would "harbor doubts about {Judge Stewart's} impartiality." [Did you notice how the 10th Circuit cleverly obfuscates here, limiting the facts to only those "before the court"? This is the same bunch that read the complaint of judicial misconduct. They know about the secret Mormon oath of allegiance... but you see, as far as we know, the lawyers haven't brought this issue before the "court." Still, the judges are not doing their duty. They know there's the appearance of bias here. They simply want to sweep it under the rug.]

This court finds that the motion is untimely in part... [But folks, there's NO limitation on when a judge must recuse himself. A corrupt judge is a corrupt judge. Congress removed any supposed "strong duty to sit" which Judge Stewart wrongly cited. See "Recusal: An analysis of Case law under 28 U.S.C. Sections 455 & 144" p2, from the Federal Judicial Center.]

In December 2000, SLTPC filed the first of these related cases in an attempt to enforce the Option Agreement. The suit by SLTPC sought (1) a preliminary injunction against AT&T, MediaNews, and Kearns-Tribune to prevent the sale of The Tribune, (2) a declaratory judgment that SLTPC had an enforceable option to reacquire The Tribune, and (3) specific performance of the Option Agreement. The case was originally assigned to Judge Tena Campbell, but she recused. [Judge Campbell is not a Mormon. It's not clear why she recused.] After Judge Campbell's recusal (as well as subsequent recusals by Judge Sam and Chief Judge Benson), [Both Judge Sam and Judge Benson ARE Mormon. Hopefully, they recused because of the obvious appearance of impropriety in this case, since it involved the Mormon Church. But Sam, a Mormon, did not recuse from the federal Olympic scandal, where two of his Mormon brothers were charged with bribery to bring the Olympics to Mormon run Salt Lake City.] The case was randomly assigned [so they tell us] to Judge Stewart on July 16, 2001.

A second related but unconsolidated case was filed by SLTPC and randomly assigned to Judge Stewart in June, 2003. [Funny how these random assignments keep finding Judge Stewart.]

SLTPC filed suit challenging the third appraisal. Judge Stewart ruled that the appraisal process established by the Option Agreement was effectively an arbitration subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, which meant that great deference was owed to the arbitration, and that SLTPC had not presented sufficient reasons to set aside the third appraisal. The Tenth Circuit reversed on technical grounds, [oh, yeah? Is this bias from Judge Cassell showing through?] holding that the appraisal process was not meant to be binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, and remanded for further proceedings.

In the third related case, the McCartheys have alleged that they have the right, individually, to reacquire The Tribune.... That case was assigned to Judge Stewart on May 30, 2003, and was consolidated with SLTPC's lawsuit. [The courts sometimes say this is a matter of convenience. Until it happens to you.]

On May 13, 2002, approximately ten months after Judge Stewart was assigned the first case, SLTPC sent a letter to Judge Stewart requesting that he make a formal disclosure of any facts which might be relevant to his ability to sit impartially on the case. The letter raised three specific requests. First, the letter noted that President Thomas S. Monson, a member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, would be a "key witness" in the litigation, and that SLTPC intended to question his credibility. [For those of you not Mormon, this would be like having a Catholic judge sit on a case where an attorney intimates that the pope or a cardinal is a liar. That's how high up the chain Monson is to Mormons.]

The letter requested that Judge Stewart disclose whether he was a member in good standing of the LDS Church, along with any past interaction with Thomas Monson or other members of the hierarchy of the LDS Church. [Like, taking an oath to do everything the leader commands? Or loose your temple recommend if you don't, which is akin to being denied communion if you're a catholic. In Mormonism, you can't be a god someday if they won't allow you in the temple.]

Second, the letter noted that SLTPC intended to seek significant damages from DNPC and that DNPC is owned by Deseret Management Company, which is in turn owned by the LDS Church. [Now, this will sound unreasonable, but doesn't anyone see the APPEARANCE of impropriety when a Mormon judge is ruling on a case involving a company owned by the Mormon Church?]

The letter requested information as to whether this meant that Judge Stewart, as a member of and contributor to the LDS Church, had a financial or equitable interest in the case that would create an appearance of bias. [Yes, he does. Search for the phrase "spiritual dollars" in this report.]

In evaluating all the facts relevant to the May 13, 2002 letter motion, the court finds as follows: I have no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case. I have no bias or prejudice against or in favor of any party to this case. [But you took an oath to build up your Church! Hey, Judges! Remember some guy forcefully telling us I never had sexual relations with that woman...??? Turned out he was lying all along!]

On January 22, 2003, eight months after its original recusal motion was denied, SLTPC filed a Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, for Full Disclosure of Facts Relevant to Recusal and for Recusal. SLTPC alleged that this seemingly repetitive motion [more bias from Judge Cassell?] was appropriate because ... (3) Judge Stewart's disclosures on the issue had been insufficient. The motion requested further disclosure with respect to two issues: (1) Judge Stewart's support for and involvement in the LDS Church [like, the OATH he swore in the temple, called the Law of Consecration?]

Judge Stewart ruled (2) that the renewed motion to recuse was untimely; [Again, this is reversible error. There is no strong duty to sit.] and (3) that the motion had no merit.

Judge Stewart first noted that a "tremendous amount" of judicial resources had been spent in the intervening eight months and that "Plaintiff's current position on why it delayed renewing its recusal motion is so at odds with its actions and positions before this court during the period of delay that its position cannot be deemed credible." [Wrong. See above.]

"As a member, I do make voluntary financial contributions to The Church. In light of the amount of such contributions compared to the total of such contributions worldwide and the relationship of the parties to this case to the entity that I contribute to, no reasonable person could believe that any outcome of this case would in any way affect me personally, financially or IN ANY OTHER way." [This will probably seem unreasonable, but more perjury. See again "spiritual dollars" in this Report.]

Questioning a judge's impartiality without a good faith basis and doing so in an undignified and disrespectful manner is inconsistent with a lawyer's professional responsibility. [Oh, so you mean we have to kowtow and kiss your feet when a biased judge is perverting justice? Kissing body parts is politics, not law.]

SLTPC argued that these statements, based on extrajudicial activities which SLTPC did not have a chance to respond to, revealed that Judge Stewart harbored a bias against SLTPC, or at least that a reasonable person would question his impartiality. [YES! It's for US to decide if a judge is biased, not the biased judge himself.]

In May, 2003, the declaratory judgment case involving the McCarthey Family's rights under the Family Agreement was assigned to Judge Stewart. [More coincidence?] And in June, 2003, the appraisal case was also assigned to Judge Stewart.

Shortly after filing the Supplemental Request, the McCarthey Family petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Stewart to make the requested disclosures. [Which is EXACTLY what the 10th Circuit said was the proper venue for issues raised in the complaint of judicial misconduct in this report. (Do a search for mandamus in their response to the petition for review, previously posted in this report.) But when the lawyers did what the court said to do and filed the writ, the 10th reneged.]

The Tenth Circuit rejected the motion, stating: Judge Stewart has disclosed on the record that he has no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case arising from his service in Utah state government or from anything else. [Hey, 10th Circuit: ever think that Judge Stewart could be lying?] He also disclosed that, although he voluntarily contributes to his church, he has no present or contingent financial interest in a party to, or the outcome of, this litigation. [Hey, 10th Circuit: you KNOW he's lying since you read the complaint of judicial misconduct against him.] Finally, he has told the parties that he has no bias or prejudice in favor of or against any party involved in this litigation. [Oh, that makes us feel better. If a KKK judge said he wasn't biased against Blacks, We'd believe that too.]

The recorded facts simply demonstrate no personal bias or prejudice, nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubt about the judge's impartiality. [Therefore, dear reader, YOU are unreasonable. In fact, how dare you question a judge, you peasant surf!] Judge Stewart has addressed Petitioners' concerns regarding actual bias, extrajudicial knowledge of events and persons, and participation in the affairs of a stakeholder. [But, he could be lying.]

In sum, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, held that Judge Stewart had satisfied the disclosure requirements of 455, and, based upon these satisfactory disclosures, held that there was nothing to indicate personal bias or prejudice "nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." [This is called "circling the wagons."]

The Tenth Circuit's order was entered on May 26, 2004. On November 29, 2004, the McCarthey Family, now joined by SLTPC, filed the instant Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455(a), for Recusal. Submitted with the motion is the affidavit of Philip G. McCarthey. The current motion raises six arguments as to why Judge Stewart cannot be impartial:

* Judge Stewart's statements in his March 17, 2003 Order wrongly imputed to SLTPC and the McCarthey Family an attempt to invade his privacy, and demonstrate his prejudice against SLTPC and the McCarthey Family [prejudicial statements like this were enough to demonstrate Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's bias when Microsoft won his recusal by the D.C. court of appeals]

* The Tribune's negative reporting on Judge Stewart's nomination and service in Utah government create the appearance of bias; [Yep - that's ALL that's required by law!]

* Judge Stewart's gratitude to Senator Orrin Hatch, who actively supported Judge Stewart's nomination, creates the appearance of impartiality because Senator Hatch supported DNPC's attempts to acquire The Tribune; [And, now, since you know Judge Cassell was nominated by Senator Hatch, would it be reasonable to see the appearance of bias in this, Judge Cassell's Order? Hmmmm?]

* Judge Stewart's actions in the SLTPC litigation reveal a bias against the McCarthey Family. These events include.... Judge Stewart's statement that he did not believe the McCarthey Family's claims were separate from SLTPC's claims; [again, this was enough to disqualify Judge Jackson from Microsoft} and finally Judge Stewart cannot be impartial because of the McCarthey Family's attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus from the Tenth Circuit after Judge Stewart failed to make the requested disclosures. [Yeah, like, he didn't mention that oath of allegiance to the Mormon Church!]

The court will set forth the relevant legal standards below and address each of the above allegations in turn.

[The rest of the ruling is boring legal mumbo jumbo. More fox watching the hen house thinking, obfuscating the issue and perverting the law. The law is clear on this matter... you can read it for yourself, starting with the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, which, interestingly, is prominently posted on the Salt Lake City Court website.

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/judgepage.html

Further, "The Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of federal judges." {United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2001)} The Code of Conduct supercedes all the subsequent law, and in fact, is the bases for 455 and 144. Anything the courts do to diminish the strength of the Code and get around it is simply subversive.]

Under 28 U.S.C. 455(a), a judge is required to recuse himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." As noted by the Tenth Circuit earlier in this litigation, 455(a) contains an objective standard which requires disqualification "only where the reasonable person, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's
impartiality." This means that the judge "MUST recuse himself when there is the appearance of bias, regardless of whether there is actual bias." Where the question is close, the judge should recuse. [But Judge Stewart didn't, did he. In doing so, he broke the law.]
----------------------------------
This fiasco is reminiscent of Medieval times, when Catholic priests claimed you were too stupid to read the Bible for yourself, and even if you could read it, you needed (their) priesthood authority to interpret it. Judges have made themselves the arbiter of what the law says, even though this law about bias is plain and was written for us. But they've wrestled control away from us, and ol' boys club says not to worry, they'll police their own.

The more one looks into this, the more corrupt it is. It's time for some massive impeachments and term limits for federal judges. (See Mark Levin's book, Men in Black.) Absolute power has corrupted absolutely.

Thom S. Paine
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#19 Consumer Comment

Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

One has to admire the tenacity of the McCartheys. Once again, in December 2004, they filed a fourth motion for the recusal of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart, who has been sitting on this case involving on one side, the Mormon Church, and one the other side, an enemy of the Mormon Church! This time, instead of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart deciding for himself that he's not biased in favor of his Church (a joke it in itself, asking a man if he's biased - ask Mark Fuhrman if he's biased against n*****s. This is even worse when you know that Judge Stewart took an oath of allegiance to the Church in the secret Mormon temple ceremony), this motion was decided by a Judge Cassell of the District of Utah. Judge Cassell claims the motion for recusal is "fully without merit." While he is not himself a member of the Mormon Church, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch nominated Judge Cassell. (More on that later.)

RipOff Report readers might be bothered by the concluding paragraph. "The court has carefully reviewed ALL of the claims so that ANY reasonable person interested in this matter would understand the relevant facts. Understanding the relevant facts, NO reasonable person would have any doubts about Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide the cases before him. Having thoroughly reviewed the motion, the accompanying affidavit and exhibits, and the arguments on all sides, the court concludes that there is no basis for recusal. The motion is therefore DENIED."

So, if you've been interested enough to read this Report, and after reading it, doubt Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide this matter, then Judge Cassell's conclusion is: you're unreasonable. Now who is being unreasonable here?

It's hard to know if Judge Cassell is simply ignorant, or immoral - neither which is good. He's certainly not upholding the law, which calls for recusal whenever there's the appearance of impropriety. In Microsoft's famous anti-trust case, where it won recusal of its judge, Microsoft noted "The requirement that Microsoft show actual bias is inconsistent with the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a). Under that provision, "what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its APPEANCE." Judge Cassell doesn't see even the appearance of impropriety here? Is he blind?

It's difficult to believe that anyone could live in Salt Lake City and NOT know something about Mormonism. Even the 10th Circuit, based outside Utah, has noted the Mormon Church is a "unitary, MONOLITHIC, religious faith." On considering a 1st Amendment issue involving the Mormon Church and the State, the 10th Circuit said Salt Lake City is ...a community and state whose UNIQUE social and political history reveals a LONGSTANDING tension involving the separation of church and state." (Would separation of church and state include a Mormon ruling on a federal lawsuit involving his Church?)

One wonders if Judge Stewart informed Judge Cassell of ALL the relevant facts, including the complaint of judicial misconduct filed against him, wherein Affidavits of the secret temple oath attest to the oath of allegiance he took to build up the Church? Or maybe this is more cover up. For when you get down to it, there's this small matter of perjury. Remember, Judge Stewart was asked if there was anything more to his relationship with the Church than church membership alone. He said, "In short, there is nothing more. By failing to disclose his oath of allegiance to the Church, he lied... under oath.

You can read the full Order here

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/att/00000994.pdf

Included in this update to the Rip-off Report are parts of that ruling with editorial comment (in [brackets]).

----------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Judge Ted Stewart has been presiding over three related cases dealing with, as the Tenth Circuit has called it, "a continuing fight over the ownership and control of The Salt Lake Tribune." [Is this a prejudicial statement by the 10th?] For nearly three years, the Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company has attempted to have Judge Stewart removed from the case. [Yeah, because he's biased.] The McCarthey Family has joined in that attempt for the last year. Judge Stewart has rejected three motions for recusal, [so what? Asking a man if he's biased - and believing his answer - is stupid.] and the Tenth Circuit has stated that no reasonable person, knowing the facts before the court, would "harbor doubts about {Judge Stewart's} impartiality." [Did you notice how the 10th Circuit cleverly obfuscates here, limiting the facts to only those "before the court"? This is the same bunch that read the complaint of judicial misconduct. They know about the secret Mormon oath of allegiance... but you see, as far as we know, the lawyers haven't brought this issue before the "court." Still, the judges are not doing their duty. They know there's the appearance of bias here. They simply want to sweep it under the rug.]

This court finds that the motion is untimely in part... [But folks, there's NO limitation on when a judge must recuse himself. A corrupt judge is a corrupt judge. Congress removed any supposed "strong duty to sit" which Judge Stewart wrongly cited. See "Recusal: An analysis of Case law under 28 U.S.C. Sections 455 & 144" p2, from the Federal Judicial Center.]

In December 2000, SLTPC filed the first of these related cases in an attempt to enforce the Option Agreement. The suit by SLTPC sought (1) a preliminary injunction against AT&T, MediaNews, and Kearns-Tribune to prevent the sale of The Tribune, (2) a declaratory judgment that SLTPC had an enforceable option to reacquire The Tribune, and (3) specific performance of the Option Agreement. The case was originally assigned to Judge Tena Campbell, but she recused. [Judge Campbell is not a Mormon. It's not clear why she recused.] After Judge Campbell's recusal (as well as subsequent recusals by Judge Sam and Chief Judge Benson), [Both Judge Sam and Judge Benson ARE Mormon. Hopefully, they recused because of the obvious appearance of impropriety in this case, since it involved the Mormon Church. But Sam, a Mormon, did not recuse from the federal Olympic scandal, where two of his Mormon brothers were charged with bribery to bring the Olympics to Mormon run Salt Lake City.] The case was randomly assigned [so they tell us] to Judge Stewart on July 16, 2001.

A second related but unconsolidated case was filed by SLTPC and randomly assigned to Judge Stewart in June, 2003. [Funny how these random assignments keep finding Judge Stewart.]

SLTPC filed suit challenging the third appraisal. Judge Stewart ruled that the appraisal process established by the Option Agreement was effectively an arbitration subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, which meant that great deference was owed to the arbitration, and that SLTPC had not presented sufficient reasons to set aside the third appraisal. The Tenth Circuit reversed on technical grounds, [oh, yeah? Is this bias from Judge Cassell showing through?] holding that the appraisal process was not meant to be binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, and remanded for further proceedings.

In the third related case, the McCartheys have alleged that they have the right, individually, to reacquire The Tribune.... That case was assigned to Judge Stewart on May 30, 2003, and was consolidated with SLTPC's lawsuit. [The courts sometimes say this is a matter of convenience. Until it happens to you.]

On May 13, 2002, approximately ten months after Judge Stewart was assigned the first case, SLTPC sent a letter to Judge Stewart requesting that he make a formal disclosure of any facts which might be relevant to his ability to sit impartially on the case. The letter raised three specific requests. First, the letter noted that President Thomas S. Monson, a member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, would be a "key witness" in the litigation, and that SLTPC intended to question his credibility. [For those of you not Mormon, this would be like having a Catholic judge sit on a case where an attorney intimates that the pope or a cardinal is a liar. That's how high up the chain Monson is to Mormons.]

The letter requested that Judge Stewart disclose whether he was a member in good standing of the LDS Church, along with any past interaction with Thomas Monson or other members of the hierarchy of the LDS Church. [Like, taking an oath to do everything the leader commands? Or loose your temple recommend if you don't, which is akin to being denied communion if you're a catholic. In Mormonism, you can't be a god someday if they won't allow you in the temple.]

Second, the letter noted that SLTPC intended to seek significant damages from DNPC and that DNPC is owned by Deseret Management Company, which is in turn owned by the LDS Church. [Now, this will sound unreasonable, but doesn't anyone see the APPEARANCE of impropriety when a Mormon judge is ruling on a case involving a company owned by the Mormon Church?]

The letter requested information as to whether this meant that Judge Stewart, as a member of and contributor to the LDS Church, had a financial or equitable interest in the case that would create an appearance of bias. [Yes, he does. Search for the phrase "spiritual dollars" in this report.]

In evaluating all the facts relevant to the May 13, 2002 letter motion, the court finds as follows: I have no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case. I have no bias or prejudice against or in favor of any party to this case. [But you took an oath to build up your Church! Hey, Judges! Remember some guy forcefully telling us I never had sexual relations with that woman...??? Turned out he was lying all along!]

On January 22, 2003, eight months after its original recusal motion was denied, SLTPC filed a Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, for Full Disclosure of Facts Relevant to Recusal and for Recusal. SLTPC alleged that this seemingly repetitive motion [more bias from Judge Cassell?] was appropriate because ... (3) Judge Stewart's disclosures on the issue had been insufficient. The motion requested further disclosure with respect to two issues: (1) Judge Stewart's support for and involvement in the LDS Church [like, the OATH he swore in the temple, called the Law of Consecration?]

Judge Stewart ruled (2) that the renewed motion to recuse was untimely; [Again, this is reversible error. There is no strong duty to sit.] and (3) that the motion had no merit.

Judge Stewart first noted that a "tremendous amount" of judicial resources had been spent in the intervening eight months and that "Plaintiff's current position on why it delayed renewing its recusal motion is so at odds with its actions and positions before this court during the period of delay that its position cannot be deemed credible." [Wrong. See above.]

"As a member, I do make voluntary financial contributions to The Church. In light of the amount of such contributions compared to the total of such contributions worldwide and the relationship of the parties to this case to the entity that I contribute to, no reasonable person could believe that any outcome of this case would in any way affect me personally, financially or IN ANY OTHER way." [This will probably seem unreasonable, but more perjury. See again "spiritual dollars" in this Report.]

Questioning a judge's impartiality without a good faith basis and doing so in an undignified and disrespectful manner is inconsistent with a lawyer's professional responsibility. [Oh, so you mean we have to kowtow and kiss your feet when a biased judge is perverting justice? Kissing body parts is politics, not law.]

SLTPC argued that these statements, based on extrajudicial activities which SLTPC did not have a chance to respond to, revealed that Judge Stewart harbored a bias against SLTPC, or at least that a reasonable person would question his impartiality. [YES! It's for US to decide if a judge is biased, not the biased judge himself.]

In May, 2003, the declaratory judgment case involving the McCarthey Family's rights under the Family Agreement was assigned to Judge Stewart. [More coincidence?] And in June, 2003, the appraisal case was also assigned to Judge Stewart.

Shortly after filing the Supplemental Request, the McCarthey Family petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Stewart to make the requested disclosures. [Which is EXACTLY what the 10th Circuit said was the proper venue for issues raised in the complaint of judicial misconduct in this report. (Do a search for mandamus in their response to the petition for review, previously posted in this report.) But when the lawyers did what the court said to do and filed the writ, the 10th reneged.]

The Tenth Circuit rejected the motion, stating: Judge Stewart has disclosed on the record that he has no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case arising from his service in Utah state government or from anything else. [Hey, 10th Circuit: ever think that Judge Stewart could be lying?] He also disclosed that, although he voluntarily contributes to his church, he has no present or contingent financial interest in a party to, or the outcome of, this litigation. [Hey, 10th Circuit: you KNOW he's lying since you read the complaint of judicial misconduct against him.] Finally, he has told the parties that he has no bias or prejudice in favor of or against any party involved in this litigation. [Oh, that makes us feel better. If a KKK judge said he wasn't biased against Blacks, We'd believe that too.]

The recorded facts simply demonstrate no personal bias or prejudice, nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubt about the judge's impartiality. [Therefore, dear reader, YOU are unreasonable. In fact, how dare you question a judge, you peasant surf!] Judge Stewart has addressed Petitioners' concerns regarding actual bias, extrajudicial knowledge of events and persons, and participation in the affairs of a stakeholder. [But, he could be lying.]

In sum, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, held that Judge Stewart had satisfied the disclosure requirements of 455, and, based upon these satisfactory disclosures, held that there was nothing to indicate personal bias or prejudice "nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." [This is called "circling the wagons."]

The Tenth Circuit's order was entered on May 26, 2004. On November 29, 2004, the McCarthey Family, now joined by SLTPC, filed the instant Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455(a), for Recusal. Submitted with the motion is the affidavit of Philip G. McCarthey. The current motion raises six arguments as to why Judge Stewart cannot be impartial:

* Judge Stewart's statements in his March 17, 2003 Order wrongly imputed to SLTPC and the McCarthey Family an attempt to invade his privacy, and demonstrate his prejudice against SLTPC and the McCarthey Family [prejudicial statements like this were enough to demonstrate Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's bias when Microsoft won his recusal by the D.C. court of appeals]

* The Tribune's negative reporting on Judge Stewart's nomination and service in Utah government create the appearance of bias; [Yep - that's ALL that's required by law!]

* Judge Stewart's gratitude to Senator Orrin Hatch, who actively supported Judge Stewart's nomination, creates the appearance of impartiality because Senator Hatch supported DNPC's attempts to acquire The Tribune; [And, now, since you know Judge Cassell was nominated by Senator Hatch, would it be reasonable to see the appearance of bias in this, Judge Cassell's Order? Hmmmm?]

* Judge Stewart's actions in the SLTPC litigation reveal a bias against the McCarthey Family. These events include.... Judge Stewart's statement that he did not believe the McCarthey Family's claims were separate from SLTPC's claims; [again, this was enough to disqualify Judge Jackson from Microsoft} and finally Judge Stewart cannot be impartial because of the McCarthey Family's attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus from the Tenth Circuit after Judge Stewart failed to make the requested disclosures. [Yeah, like, he didn't mention that oath of allegiance to the Mormon Church!]

The court will set forth the relevant legal standards below and address each of the above allegations in turn.

[The rest of the ruling is boring legal mumbo jumbo. More fox watching the hen house thinking, obfuscating the issue and perverting the law. The law is clear on this matter... you can read it for yourself, starting with the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, which, interestingly, is prominently posted on the Salt Lake City Court website.

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/judgepage.html

Further, "The Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of federal judges." {United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2001)} The Code of Conduct supercedes all the subsequent law, and in fact, is the bases for 455 and 144. Anything the courts do to diminish the strength of the Code and get around it is simply subversive.]

Under 28 U.S.C. 455(a), a judge is required to recuse himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." As noted by the Tenth Circuit earlier in this litigation, 455(a) contains an objective standard which requires disqualification "only where the reasonable person, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's
impartiality." This means that the judge "MUST recuse himself when there is the appearance of bias, regardless of whether there is actual bias." Where the question is close, the judge should recuse. [But Judge Stewart didn't, did he. In doing so, he broke the law.]
----------------------------------
This fiasco is reminiscent of Medieval times, when Catholic priests claimed you were too stupid to read the Bible for yourself, and even if you could read it, you needed (their) priesthood authority to interpret it. Judges have made themselves the arbiter of what the law says, even though this law about bias is plain and was written for us. But they've wrestled control away from us, and ol' boys club says not to worry, they'll police their own.

The more one looks into this, the more corrupt it is. It's time for some massive impeachments and term limits for federal judges. (See Mark Levin's book, Men in Black.) Absolute power has corrupted absolutely.

Thom S. Paine
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#20 Consumer Comment

Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

One has to admire the tenacity of the McCartheys. Once again, in December 2004, they filed a fourth motion for the recusal of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart, who has been sitting on this case involving on one side, the Mormon Church, and one the other side, an enemy of the Mormon Church! This time, instead of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart deciding for himself that he's not biased in favor of his Church (a joke it in itself, asking a man if he's biased - ask Mark Fuhrman if he's biased against n*****s. This is even worse when you know that Judge Stewart took an oath of allegiance to the Church in the secret Mormon temple ceremony), this motion was decided by a Judge Cassell of the District of Utah. Judge Cassell claims the motion for recusal is "fully without merit." While he is not himself a member of the Mormon Church, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch nominated Judge Cassell. (More on that later.)

RipOff Report readers might be bothered by the concluding paragraph. "The court has carefully reviewed ALL of the claims so that ANY reasonable person interested in this matter would understand the relevant facts. Understanding the relevant facts, NO reasonable person would have any doubts about Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide the cases before him. Having thoroughly reviewed the motion, the accompanying affidavit and exhibits, and the arguments on all sides, the court concludes that there is no basis for recusal. The motion is therefore DENIED."

So, if you've been interested enough to read this Report, and after reading it, doubt Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide this matter, then Judge Cassell's conclusion is: you're unreasonable. Now who is being unreasonable here?

It's hard to know if Judge Cassell is simply ignorant, or immoral - neither which is good. He's certainly not upholding the law, which calls for recusal whenever there's the appearance of impropriety. In Microsoft's famous anti-trust case, where it won recusal of its judge, Microsoft noted "The requirement that Microsoft show actual bias is inconsistent with the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a). Under that provision, "what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its APPEANCE." Judge Cassell doesn't see even the appearance of impropriety here? Is he blind?

It's difficult to believe that anyone could live in Salt Lake City and NOT know something about Mormonism. Even the 10th Circuit, based outside Utah, has noted the Mormon Church is a "unitary, MONOLITHIC, religious faith." On considering a 1st Amendment issue involving the Mormon Church and the State, the 10th Circuit said Salt Lake City is ...a community and state whose UNIQUE social and political history reveals a LONGSTANDING tension involving the separation of church and state." (Would separation of church and state include a Mormon ruling on a federal lawsuit involving his Church?)

One wonders if Judge Stewart informed Judge Cassell of ALL the relevant facts, including the complaint of judicial misconduct filed against him, wherein Affidavits of the secret temple oath attest to the oath of allegiance he took to build up the Church? Or maybe this is more cover up. For when you get down to it, there's this small matter of perjury. Remember, Judge Stewart was asked if there was anything more to his relationship with the Church than church membership alone. He said, "In short, there is nothing more. By failing to disclose his oath of allegiance to the Church, he lied... under oath.

You can read the full Order here

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/att/00000994.pdf

Included in this update to the Rip-off Report are parts of that ruling with editorial comment (in [brackets]).

----------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Judge Ted Stewart has been presiding over three related cases dealing with, as the Tenth Circuit has called it, "a continuing fight over the ownership and control of The Salt Lake Tribune." [Is this a prejudicial statement by the 10th?] For nearly three years, the Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company has attempted to have Judge Stewart removed from the case. [Yeah, because he's biased.] The McCarthey Family has joined in that attempt for the last year. Judge Stewart has rejected three motions for recusal, [so what? Asking a man if he's biased - and believing his answer - is stupid.] and the Tenth Circuit has stated that no reasonable person, knowing the facts before the court, would "harbor doubts about {Judge Stewart's} impartiality." [Did you notice how the 10th Circuit cleverly obfuscates here, limiting the facts to only those "before the court"? This is the same bunch that read the complaint of judicial misconduct. They know about the secret Mormon oath of allegiance... but you see, as far as we know, the lawyers haven't brought this issue before the "court." Still, the judges are not doing their duty. They know there's the appearance of bias here. They simply want to sweep it under the rug.]

This court finds that the motion is untimely in part... [But folks, there's NO limitation on when a judge must recuse himself. A corrupt judge is a corrupt judge. Congress removed any supposed "strong duty to sit" which Judge Stewart wrongly cited. See "Recusal: An analysis of Case law under 28 U.S.C. Sections 455 & 144" p2, from the Federal Judicial Center.]

In December 2000, SLTPC filed the first of these related cases in an attempt to enforce the Option Agreement. The suit by SLTPC sought (1) a preliminary injunction against AT&T, MediaNews, and Kearns-Tribune to prevent the sale of The Tribune, (2) a declaratory judgment that SLTPC had an enforceable option to reacquire The Tribune, and (3) specific performance of the Option Agreement. The case was originally assigned to Judge Tena Campbell, but she recused. [Judge Campbell is not a Mormon. It's not clear why she recused.] After Judge Campbell's recusal (as well as subsequent recusals by Judge Sam and Chief Judge Benson), [Both Judge Sam and Judge Benson ARE Mormon. Hopefully, they recused because of the obvious appearance of impropriety in this case, since it involved the Mormon Church. But Sam, a Mormon, did not recuse from the federal Olympic scandal, where two of his Mormon brothers were charged with bribery to bring the Olympics to Mormon run Salt Lake City.] The case was randomly assigned [so they tell us] to Judge Stewart on July 16, 2001.

A second related but unconsolidated case was filed by SLTPC and randomly assigned to Judge Stewart in June, 2003. [Funny how these random assignments keep finding Judge Stewart.]

SLTPC filed suit challenging the third appraisal. Judge Stewart ruled that the appraisal process established by the Option Agreement was effectively an arbitration subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, which meant that great deference was owed to the arbitration, and that SLTPC had not presented sufficient reasons to set aside the third appraisal. The Tenth Circuit reversed on technical grounds, [oh, yeah? Is this bias from Judge Cassell showing through?] holding that the appraisal process was not meant to be binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, and remanded for further proceedings.

In the third related case, the McCartheys have alleged that they have the right, individually, to reacquire The Tribune.... That case was assigned to Judge Stewart on May 30, 2003, and was consolidated with SLTPC's lawsuit. [The courts sometimes say this is a matter of convenience. Until it happens to you.]

On May 13, 2002, approximately ten months after Judge Stewart was assigned the first case, SLTPC sent a letter to Judge Stewart requesting that he make a formal disclosure of any facts which might be relevant to his ability to sit impartially on the case. The letter raised three specific requests. First, the letter noted that President Thomas S. Monson, a member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, would be a "key witness" in the litigation, and that SLTPC intended to question his credibility. [For those of you not Mormon, this would be like having a Catholic judge sit on a case where an attorney intimates that the pope or a cardinal is a liar. That's how high up the chain Monson is to Mormons.]

The letter requested that Judge Stewart disclose whether he was a member in good standing of the LDS Church, along with any past interaction with Thomas Monson or other members of the hierarchy of the LDS Church. [Like, taking an oath to do everything the leader commands? Or loose your temple recommend if you don't, which is akin to being denied communion if you're a catholic. In Mormonism, you can't be a god someday if they won't allow you in the temple.]

Second, the letter noted that SLTPC intended to seek significant damages from DNPC and that DNPC is owned by Deseret Management Company, which is in turn owned by the LDS Church. [Now, this will sound unreasonable, but doesn't anyone see the APPEARANCE of impropriety when a Mormon judge is ruling on a case involving a company owned by the Mormon Church?]

The letter requested information as to whether this meant that Judge Stewart, as a member of and contributor to the LDS Church, had a financial or equitable interest in the case that would create an appearance of bias. [Yes, he does. Search for the phrase "spiritual dollars" in this report.]

In evaluating all the facts relevant to the May 13, 2002 letter motion, the court finds as follows: I have no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case. I have no bias or prejudice against or in favor of any party to this case. [But you took an oath to build up your Church! Hey, Judges! Remember some guy forcefully telling us I never had sexual relations with that woman...??? Turned out he was lying all along!]

On January 22, 2003, eight months after its original recusal motion was denied, SLTPC filed a Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, for Full Disclosure of Facts Relevant to Recusal and for Recusal. SLTPC alleged that this seemingly repetitive motion [more bias from Judge Cassell?] was appropriate because ... (3) Judge Stewart's disclosures on the issue had been insufficient. The motion requested further disclosure with respect to two issues: (1) Judge Stewart's support for and involvement in the LDS Church [like, the OATH he swore in the temple, called the Law of Consecration?]

Judge Stewart ruled (2) that the renewed motion to recuse was untimely; [Again, this is reversible error. There is no strong duty to sit.] and (3) that the motion had no merit.

Judge Stewart first noted that a "tremendous amount" of judicial resources had been spent in the intervening eight months and that "Plaintiff's current position on why it delayed renewing its recusal motion is so at odds with its actions and positions before this court during the period of delay that its position cannot be deemed credible." [Wrong. See above.]

"As a member, I do make voluntary financial contributions to The Church. In light of the amount of such contributions compared to the total of such contributions worldwide and the relationship of the parties to this case to the entity that I contribute to, no reasonable person could believe that any outcome of this case would in any way affect me personally, financially or IN ANY OTHER way." [This will probably seem unreasonable, but more perjury. See again "spiritual dollars" in this Report.]

Questioning a judge's impartiality without a good faith basis and doing so in an undignified and disrespectful manner is inconsistent with a lawyer's professional responsibility. [Oh, so you mean we have to kowtow and kiss your feet when a biased judge is perverting justice? Kissing body parts is politics, not law.]

SLTPC argued that these statements, based on extrajudicial activities which SLTPC did not have a chance to respond to, revealed that Judge Stewart harbored a bias against SLTPC, or at least that a reasonable person would question his impartiality. [YES! It's for US to decide if a judge is biased, not the biased judge himself.]

In May, 2003, the declaratory judgment case involving the McCarthey Family's rights under the Family Agreement was assigned to Judge Stewart. [More coincidence?] And in June, 2003, the appraisal case was also assigned to Judge Stewart.

Shortly after filing the Supplemental Request, the McCarthey Family petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Stewart to make the requested disclosures. [Which is EXACTLY what the 10th Circuit said was the proper venue for issues raised in the complaint of judicial misconduct in this report. (Do a search for mandamus in their response to the petition for review, previously posted in this report.) But when the lawyers did what the court said to do and filed the writ, the 10th reneged.]

The Tenth Circuit rejected the motion, stating: Judge Stewart has disclosed on the record that he has no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case arising from his service in Utah state government or from anything else. [Hey, 10th Circuit: ever think that Judge Stewart could be lying?] He also disclosed that, although he voluntarily contributes to his church, he has no present or contingent financial interest in a party to, or the outcome of, this litigation. [Hey, 10th Circuit: you KNOW he's lying since you read the complaint of judicial misconduct against him.] Finally, he has told the parties that he has no bias or prejudice in favor of or against any party involved in this litigation. [Oh, that makes us feel better. If a KKK judge said he wasn't biased against Blacks, We'd believe that too.]

The recorded facts simply demonstrate no personal bias or prejudice, nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubt about the judge's impartiality. [Therefore, dear reader, YOU are unreasonable. In fact, how dare you question a judge, you peasant surf!] Judge Stewart has addressed Petitioners' concerns regarding actual bias, extrajudicial knowledge of events and persons, and participation in the affairs of a stakeholder. [But, he could be lying.]

In sum, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, held that Judge Stewart had satisfied the disclosure requirements of 455, and, based upon these satisfactory disclosures, held that there was nothing to indicate personal bias or prejudice "nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." [This is called "circling the wagons."]

The Tenth Circuit's order was entered on May 26, 2004. On November 29, 2004, the McCarthey Family, now joined by SLTPC, filed the instant Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455(a), for Recusal. Submitted with the motion is the affidavit of Philip G. McCarthey. The current motion raises six arguments as to why Judge Stewart cannot be impartial:

* Judge Stewart's statements in his March 17, 2003 Order wrongly imputed to SLTPC and the McCarthey Family an attempt to invade his privacy, and demonstrate his prejudice against SLTPC and the McCarthey Family [prejudicial statements like this were enough to demonstrate Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's bias when Microsoft won his recusal by the D.C. court of appeals]

* The Tribune's negative reporting on Judge Stewart's nomination and service in Utah government create the appearance of bias; [Yep - that's ALL that's required by law!]

* Judge Stewart's gratitude to Senator Orrin Hatch, who actively supported Judge Stewart's nomination, creates the appearance of impartiality because Senator Hatch supported DNPC's attempts to acquire The Tribune; [And, now, since you know Judge Cassell was nominated by Senator Hatch, would it be reasonable to see the appearance of bias in this, Judge Cassell's Order? Hmmmm?]

* Judge Stewart's actions in the SLTPC litigation reveal a bias against the McCarthey Family. These events include.... Judge Stewart's statement that he did not believe the McCarthey Family's claims were separate from SLTPC's claims; [again, this was enough to disqualify Judge Jackson from Microsoft} and finally Judge Stewart cannot be impartial because of the McCarthey Family's attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus from the Tenth Circuit after Judge Stewart failed to make the requested disclosures. [Yeah, like, he didn't mention that oath of allegiance to the Mormon Church!]

The court will set forth the relevant legal standards below and address each of the above allegations in turn.

[The rest of the ruling is boring legal mumbo jumbo. More fox watching the hen house thinking, obfuscating the issue and perverting the law. The law is clear on this matter... you can read it for yourself, starting with the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, which, interestingly, is prominently posted on the Salt Lake City Court website.

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/judgepage.html

Further, "The Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of federal judges." {United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2001)} The Code of Conduct supercedes all the subsequent law, and in fact, is the bases for 455 and 144. Anything the courts do to diminish the strength of the Code and get around it is simply subversive.]

Under 28 U.S.C. 455(a), a judge is required to recuse himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." As noted by the Tenth Circuit earlier in this litigation, 455(a) contains an objective standard which requires disqualification "only where the reasonable person, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's
impartiality." This means that the judge "MUST recuse himself when there is the appearance of bias, regardless of whether there is actual bias." Where the question is close, the judge should recuse. [But Judge Stewart didn't, did he. In doing so, he broke the law.]
----------------------------------
This fiasco is reminiscent of Medieval times, when Catholic priests claimed you were too stupid to read the Bible for yourself, and even if you could read it, you needed (their) priesthood authority to interpret it. Judges have made themselves the arbiter of what the law says, even though this law about bias is plain and was written for us. But they've wrestled control away from us, and ol' boys club says not to worry, they'll police their own.

The more one looks into this, the more corrupt it is. It's time for some massive impeachments and term limits for federal judges. (See Mark Levin's book, Men in Black.) Absolute power has corrupted absolutely.

Thom S. Paine
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#21 Consumer Comment

Update: 4th motion for Recusal. The sausage continues.

AUTHOR: Thom - (U.S.A.)

One has to admire the tenacity of the McCartheys. Once again, in December 2004, they filed a fourth motion for the recusal of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart, who has been sitting on this case involving on one side, the Mormon Church, and one the other side, an enemy of the Mormon Church! This time, instead of Mormon Judge Ted Stewart deciding for himself that he's not biased in favor of his Church (a joke it in itself, asking a man if he's biased - ask Mark Fuhrman if he's biased against n*****s. This is even worse when you know that Judge Stewart took an oath of allegiance to the Church in the secret Mormon temple ceremony), this motion was decided by a Judge Cassell of the District of Utah. Judge Cassell claims the motion for recusal is "fully without merit." While he is not himself a member of the Mormon Church, Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch nominated Judge Cassell. (More on that later.)

RipOff Report readers might be bothered by the concluding paragraph. "The court has carefully reviewed ALL of the claims so that ANY reasonable person interested in this matter would understand the relevant facts. Understanding the relevant facts, NO reasonable person would have any doubts about Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide the cases before him. Having thoroughly reviewed the motion, the accompanying affidavit and exhibits, and the arguments on all sides, the court concludes that there is no basis for recusal. The motion is therefore DENIED."

So, if you've been interested enough to read this Report, and after reading it, doubt Judge Stewart's ability to fairly decide this matter, then Judge Cassell's conclusion is: you're unreasonable. Now who is being unreasonable here?

It's hard to know if Judge Cassell is simply ignorant, or immoral - neither which is good. He's certainly not upholding the law, which calls for recusal whenever there's the appearance of impropriety. In Microsoft's famous anti-trust case, where it won recusal of its judge, Microsoft noted "The requirement that Microsoft show actual bias is inconsistent with the language of 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a). Under that provision, "what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its APPEANCE." Judge Cassell doesn't see even the appearance of impropriety here? Is he blind?

It's difficult to believe that anyone could live in Salt Lake City and NOT know something about Mormonism. Even the 10th Circuit, based outside Utah, has noted the Mormon Church is a "unitary, MONOLITHIC, religious faith." On considering a 1st Amendment issue involving the Mormon Church and the State, the 10th Circuit said Salt Lake City is ...a community and state whose UNIQUE social and political history reveals a LONGSTANDING tension involving the separation of church and state." (Would separation of church and state include a Mormon ruling on a federal lawsuit involving his Church?)

One wonders if Judge Stewart informed Judge Cassell of ALL the relevant facts, including the complaint of judicial misconduct filed against him, wherein Affidavits of the secret temple oath attest to the oath of allegiance he took to build up the Church? Or maybe this is more cover up. For when you get down to it, there's this small matter of perjury. Remember, Judge Stewart was asked if there was anything more to his relationship with the Church than church membership alone. He said, "In short, there is nothing more. By failing to disclose his oath of allegiance to the Church, he lied... under oath.

You can read the full Order here

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/att/00000994.pdf

Included in this update to the Rip-off Report are parts of that ruling with editorial comment (in [brackets]).

----------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Judge Ted Stewart has been presiding over three related cases dealing with, as the Tenth Circuit has called it, "a continuing fight over the ownership and control of The Salt Lake Tribune." [Is this a prejudicial statement by the 10th?] For nearly three years, the Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company has attempted to have Judge Stewart removed from the case. [Yeah, because he's biased.] The McCarthey Family has joined in that attempt for the last year. Judge Stewart has rejected three motions for recusal, [so what? Asking a man if he's biased - and believing his answer - is stupid.] and the Tenth Circuit has stated that no reasonable person, knowing the facts before the court, would "harbor doubts about {Judge Stewart's} impartiality." [Did you notice how the 10th Circuit cleverly obfuscates here, limiting the facts to only those "before the court"? This is the same bunch that read the complaint of judicial misconduct. They know about the secret Mormon oath of allegiance... but you see, as far as we know, the lawyers haven't brought this issue before the "court." Still, the judges are not doing their duty. They know there's the appearance of bias here. They simply want to sweep it under the rug.]

This court finds that the motion is untimely in part... [But folks, there's NO limitation on when a judge must recuse himself. A corrupt judge is a corrupt judge. Congress removed any supposed "strong duty to sit" which Judge Stewart wrongly cited. See "Recusal: An analysis of Case law under 28 U.S.C. Sections 455 & 144" p2, from the Federal Judicial Center.]

In December 2000, SLTPC filed the first of these related cases in an attempt to enforce the Option Agreement. The suit by SLTPC sought (1) a preliminary injunction against AT&T, MediaNews, and Kearns-Tribune to prevent the sale of The Tribune, (2) a declaratory judgment that SLTPC had an enforceable option to reacquire The Tribune, and (3) specific performance of the Option Agreement. The case was originally assigned to Judge Tena Campbell, but she recused. [Judge Campbell is not a Mormon. It's not clear why she recused.] After Judge Campbell's recusal (as well as subsequent recusals by Judge Sam and Chief Judge Benson), [Both Judge Sam and Judge Benson ARE Mormon. Hopefully, they recused because of the obvious appearance of impropriety in this case, since it involved the Mormon Church. But Sam, a Mormon, did not recuse from the federal Olympic scandal, where two of his Mormon brothers were charged with bribery to bring the Olympics to Mormon run Salt Lake City.] The case was randomly assigned [so they tell us] to Judge Stewart on July 16, 2001.

A second related but unconsolidated case was filed by SLTPC and randomly assigned to Judge Stewart in June, 2003. [Funny how these random assignments keep finding Judge Stewart.]

SLTPC filed suit challenging the third appraisal. Judge Stewart ruled that the appraisal process established by the Option Agreement was effectively an arbitration subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, which meant that great deference was owed to the arbitration, and that SLTPC had not presented sufficient reasons to set aside the third appraisal. The Tenth Circuit reversed on technical grounds, [oh, yeah? Is this bias from Judge Cassell showing through?] holding that the appraisal process was not meant to be binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, and remanded for further proceedings.

In the third related case, the McCartheys have alleged that they have the right, individually, to reacquire The Tribune.... That case was assigned to Judge Stewart on May 30, 2003, and was consolidated with SLTPC's lawsuit. [The courts sometimes say this is a matter of convenience. Until it happens to you.]

On May 13, 2002, approximately ten months after Judge Stewart was assigned the first case, SLTPC sent a letter to Judge Stewart requesting that he make a formal disclosure of any facts which might be relevant to his ability to sit impartially on the case. The letter raised three specific requests. First, the letter noted that President Thomas S. Monson, a member of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, would be a "key witness" in the litigation, and that SLTPC intended to question his credibility. [For those of you not Mormon, this would be like having a Catholic judge sit on a case where an attorney intimates that the pope or a cardinal is a liar. That's how high up the chain Monson is to Mormons.]

The letter requested that Judge Stewart disclose whether he was a member in good standing of the LDS Church, along with any past interaction with Thomas Monson or other members of the hierarchy of the LDS Church. [Like, taking an oath to do everything the leader commands? Or loose your temple recommend if you don't, which is akin to being denied communion if you're a catholic. In Mormonism, you can't be a god someday if they won't allow you in the temple.]

Second, the letter noted that SLTPC intended to seek significant damages from DNPC and that DNPC is owned by Deseret Management Company, which is in turn owned by the LDS Church. [Now, this will sound unreasonable, but doesn't anyone see the APPEARANCE of impropriety when a Mormon judge is ruling on a case involving a company owned by the Mormon Church?]

The letter requested information as to whether this meant that Judge Stewart, as a member of and contributor to the LDS Church, had a financial or equitable interest in the case that would create an appearance of bias. [Yes, he does. Search for the phrase "spiritual dollars" in this report.]

In evaluating all the facts relevant to the May 13, 2002 letter motion, the court finds as follows: I have no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case. I have no bias or prejudice against or in favor of any party to this case. [But you took an oath to build up your Church! Hey, Judges! Remember some guy forcefully telling us I never had sexual relations with that woman...??? Turned out he was lying all along!]

On January 22, 2003, eight months after its original recusal motion was denied, SLTPC filed a Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, for Full Disclosure of Facts Relevant to Recusal and for Recusal. SLTPC alleged that this seemingly repetitive motion [more bias from Judge Cassell?] was appropriate because ... (3) Judge Stewart's disclosures on the issue had been insufficient. The motion requested further disclosure with respect to two issues: (1) Judge Stewart's support for and involvement in the LDS Church [like, the OATH he swore in the temple, called the Law of Consecration?]

Judge Stewart ruled (2) that the renewed motion to recuse was untimely; [Again, this is reversible error. There is no strong duty to sit.] and (3) that the motion had no merit.

Judge Stewart first noted that a "tremendous amount" of judicial resources had been spent in the intervening eight months and that "Plaintiff's current position on why it delayed renewing its recusal motion is so at odds with its actions and positions before this court during the period of delay that its position cannot be deemed credible." [Wrong. See above.]

"As a member, I do make voluntary financial contributions to The Church. In light of the amount of such contributions compared to the total of such contributions worldwide and the relationship of the parties to this case to the entity that I contribute to, no reasonable person could believe that any outcome of this case would in any way affect me personally, financially or IN ANY OTHER way." [This will probably seem unreasonable, but more perjury. See again "spiritual dollars" in this Report.]

Questioning a judge's impartiality without a good faith basis and doing so in an undignified and disrespectful manner is inconsistent with a lawyer's professional responsibility. [Oh, so you mean we have to kowtow and kiss your feet when a biased judge is perverting justice? Kissing body parts is politics, not law.]

SLTPC argued that these statements, based on extrajudicial activities which SLTPC did not have a chance to respond to, revealed that Judge Stewart harbored a bias against SLTPC, or at least that a reasonable person would question his impartiality. [YES! It's for US to decide if a judge is biased, not the biased judge himself.]

In May, 2003, the declaratory judgment case involving the McCarthey Family's rights under the Family Agreement was assigned to Judge Stewart. [More coincidence?] And in June, 2003, the appraisal case was also assigned to Judge Stewart.

Shortly after filing the Supplemental Request, the McCarthey Family petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Stewart to make the requested disclosures. [Which is EXACTLY what the 10th Circuit said was the proper venue for issues raised in the complaint of judicial misconduct in this report. (Do a search for mandamus in their response to the petition for review, previously posted in this report.) But when the lawyers did what the court said to do and filed the writ, the 10th reneged.]

The Tenth Circuit rejected the motion, stating: Judge Stewart has disclosed on the record that he has no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case arising from his service in Utah state government or from anything else. [Hey, 10th Circuit: ever think that Judge Stewart could be lying?] He also disclosed that, although he voluntarily contributes to his church, he has no present or contingent financial interest in a party to, or the outcome of, this litigation. [Hey, 10th Circuit: you KNOW he's lying since you read the complaint of judicial misconduct against him.] Finally, he has told the parties that he has no bias or prejudice in favor of or against any party involved in this litigation. [Oh, that makes us feel better. If a KKK judge said he wasn't biased against Blacks, We'd believe that too.]

The recorded facts simply demonstrate no personal bias or prejudice, nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubt about the judge's impartiality. [Therefore, dear reader, YOU are unreasonable. In fact, how dare you question a judge, you peasant surf!] Judge Stewart has addressed Petitioners' concerns regarding actual bias, extrajudicial knowledge of events and persons, and participation in the affairs of a stakeholder. [But, he could be lying.]

In sum, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, held that Judge Stewart had satisfied the disclosure requirements of 455, and, based upon these satisfactory disclosures, held that there was nothing to indicate personal bias or prejudice "nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." [This is called "circling the wagons."]

The Tenth Circuit's order was entered on May 26, 2004. On November 29, 2004, the McCarthey Family, now joined by SLTPC, filed the instant Motion, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455(a), for Recusal. Submitted with the motion is the affidavit of Philip G. McCarthey. The current motion raises six arguments as to why Judge Stewart cannot be impartial:

* Judge Stewart's statements in his March 17, 2003 Order wrongly imputed to SLTPC and the McCarthey Family an attempt to invade his privacy, and demonstrate his prejudice against SLTPC and the McCarthey Family [prejudicial statements like this were enough to demonstrate Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's bias when Microsoft won his recusal by the D.C. court of appeals]

* The Tribune's negative reporting on Judge Stewart's nomination and service in Utah government create the appearance of bias; [Yep - that's ALL that's required by law!]

* Judge Stewart's gratitude to Senator Orrin Hatch, who actively supported Judge Stewart's nomination, creates the appearance of impartiality because Senator Hatch supported DNPC's attempts to acquire The Tribune; [And, now, since you know Judge Cassell was nominated by Senator Hatch, would it be reasonable to see the appearance of bias in this, Judge Cassell's Order? Hmmmm?]

* Judge Stewart's actions in the SLTPC litigation reveal a bias against the McCarthey Family. These events include.... Judge Stewart's statement that he did not believe the McCarthey Family's claims were separate from SLTPC's claims; [again, this was enough to disqualify Judge Jackson from Microsoft} and finally Judge Stewart cannot be impartial because of the McCarthey Family's attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus from the Tenth Circuit after Judge Stewart failed to make the requested disclosures. [Yeah, like, he didn't mention that oath of allegiance to the Mormon Church!]

The court will set forth the relevant legal standards below and address each of the above allegations in turn.

[The rest of the ruling is boring legal mumbo jumbo. More fox watching the hen house thinking, obfuscating the issue and perverting the law. The law is clear on this matter... you can read it for yourself, starting with the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, which, interestingly, is prominently posted on the Salt Lake City Court website.

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/judgepage.html

Further, "The Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of federal judges." {United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2001)} The Code of Conduct supercedes all the subsequent law, and in fact, is the bases for 455 and 144. Anything the courts do to diminish the strength of the Code and get around it is simply subversive.]

Under 28 U.S.C. 455(a), a judge is required to recuse himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." As noted by the Tenth Circuit earlier in this litigation, 455(a) contains an objective standard which requires disqualification "only where the reasonable person, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's
impartiality." This means that the judge "MUST recuse himself when there is the appearance of bias, regardless of whether there is actual bias." Where the question is close, the judge should recuse. [But Judge Stewart didn't, did he. In doing so, he broke the law.]
----------------------------------
This fiasco is reminiscent of Medieval times, when Catholic priests claimed you were too stupid to read the Bible for yourself, and even if you could read it, you needed (their) priesthood authority to interpret it. Judges have made themselves the arbiter of what the law says, even though this law about bias is plain and was written for us. But they've wrestled control away from us, and ol' boys club says not to worry, they'll police their own.

The more one looks into this, the more corrupt it is. It's time for some massive impeachments and term limits for federal judges. (See Mark Levin's book, Men in Black.) Absolute power has corrupted absolutely.

Thom S. Paine
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#22 Author of original report

The Arrogance Continues

AUTHOR: M - (U.S.A.)

Since the 10th Circuit has refused to chastise Judge Stewart for his obvious bias as delineated in the above Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, and further, has chosen to side with him by denying the Writ of Mandamus, Judge Stewart has become predictably emboldened and remains as arrogant as ever. See for yourself.

By the way, the Motion for the Writ of Mandamus, which has now been adjudicated, has been and remains "sealed." That means you and I, the public, are not allowed to see it, even though it is part of the public record and seeing it would not taint of the case. (In other words, there's no legal reason for sealing the Motion. It's a political move.)

And you thought we had a transparent government.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This matter is before the court on The McCarthy's Request for Full Disclosures by the Court and The McCarthys' Supplemental Request for Disclosures by the Court. Upon consideration of the entire record, the court will deny the Requests for the reason that full disclosure was made long before the Requests were filed, as set forth in the Court's Orders dated May 16, 2002, March 17, 2003, and May 30, 2003. See/n re McCarthey, 368 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2004)(noting full disclosure provided and no evidence to the contrary presented). The McCartheys, through counsel, were served with each of those Orders.

It is therefore

ORDERED that The McCarthy's Request for Full Disclosures by the Court and The McCarthys' Supplemental Request for Disclosures by the Court are DENIED.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2004.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/att.html

for the court documents they'll let you see.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#23 Consumer Comment

We need to impeach these four judges (Stewart, Kimball, Kelly and Briscoe) to remove them from the bench.

AUTHOR: Alan - (U.S.A.)

I have read this complaint and find it most interesting. I believe that none of these judge's are not capable of making sound decisions in the interest of justice.

Why doesn't Judge Stewart just recuse himself? Why fight over whether or not you would have the right to hear the case? If someone has accused you of being bias, just leave! If you don't, this will only prove that you are bias and have some kind of self interest on your part.

It certainly would be a lot simpler for him to recuse himself and a lot less costly than the 4 times it has become before the courts. It would also show that the judge is a fair and honorable by recusing himself. To fight for a right to hear a case only shows there must be some kind of interest on that judge's part. As for the other judges, it makes me wonder if they are cover up for Judge Stewart's excuses of not recusing himself or if they are Mormons as well. There is obliviously something rotten in Denmark going on there.

This scares me as freedom loving citizen, because this is not freedom of religion like these judges claim it is. It is more like someone imposing there religion upon the citizens of the United States of America or Utah in this case. It also violates the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs as well as other citizens of the United States by not providing a separation of church and state. This also makes case law to that effect, which could be used in other states. This might or could mean that we all will be living by a Mormon rule imposed in a bias court system, which is like imposing the Mormon religion upon all of us U.S. citizens.

Courts can not be bias in anyway, shape, or form. Neither can the courts be perceived as being bias as well; because this only destroys or deteriorates the effect of the laws and justice system. Justice can not be properly upheld, if it is not blind. Evidence can not be weighted properly, if it is tipped in favor of another side. It would just make more sense to recuse ones self rather than to give yourself a bad name, show prejudice on your part, as well as for the justice system and the Mormon Church.

All of these judges should be ashamed of themselves. How can you judges call your self U.S. citizens, if you're in the business of violating citizen's rights and freedoms? How dare you judges use our constitution as a rag to clean up your messes! If you think you're helping (Mormonism) or Judge Stewart your not.

Don't think that you won't be punished by the Lord for your self interest in your church or legal system. This is one of the seven deadly sins. It's called vanity. It is vanity on your part for the church and serves no purpose in name of Jesus Christ. For you and your members of the church to believe that it is more righteous than other churches and others is vanity as well. For your church to tell its followers that there will be a special place for them in heaven and not other members of churches is vanity as well. Your church though might be right in saying there will be a special place for its followers, but it most definitely will not be in the Lords kingdom.

This judge should do himself a favor by stepping down as a judge, if these kinds of conflicts stop him from making the right choice. As far as the other judges go, they should step down as well as they can not realize there was a conflict of interest on Judge Stewart's part. This makes them as bias as Judge Stewart by protecting this unethical and illegal action.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#24 Author of original report

Corruption in the 10th circuit; Denver, CO

AUTHOR: M - (U.S.A.)

A lot has happened in the year since this Complaint of judicial misconduct was filed against a Mormon judge for sitting in two cases directly involving the Mormon Church. (Guess which way he ruled.) None for the better, sorry to report.

Because the 10th circuit was unwilling to discipline one of its own, the problem of judicial misconduct with Mormon judges continues. One might even say they're emboldened, as with any criminal found not guilty in court.

For example, since the 10th refused to act, Judge Kimball, a Mormon judge who had been a bishop and what they call a stake president (high up) in the Church, ruled in May 2004 in favor of his Church in yet another case directly involving the Mormon Church, the second Plaza case. (This is an ongoing case in Salt Lake, where the Church bought a public street in front of its headquarters to silence anyone who would dare to warn people the Church is not true.) Judge Kimball is related to a former President and prophet of the Mormon Church, and as a former bishop and stake president, has undeniably sworn the secret oath of allegiance to the Church during the temple ceremony, called the Law of Consecration which puts him in conflict with his constitutional oath of office. Is it any surprise which way he ruled? As a minimum, there's the appearance of impropriety here.

Since posting this original Rip-off Report, a cursory search has shown six cases so far where Mormon judges have ruled in favor of the Mormon Church, only to be overturned by the court of appeals each time. Think something's rotten in Utah?

One of the cases that started this Report continues and is the subject of this update. This involves Judge Stewart and the Salt Lake Tribune (i.e. McCarthey's).

Plaintiffs attempted to get yet another motion for Recusal. That makes three motions so far! Judge Stewart doesn't see (or, more properly, won't admit) he's biased. This is a stupid system. Asking judges if they're biased is subjective. It's like complaining to a cop who beat you that he used excessive force. We need a citizen's review board to test for the appearance of bias in judges. You can't trust a biased judge to decide he's not biased.

If you've been following this Report, the judicial council of the 10th circuit, in the Order on Petition to Review, said (wrongly) that an outsider has no business challenging the impartiality of a judge. (Contrary to what the law plainly says. See 28 U.S.C. Section 351. Any person may file a complaint.) Instead, they claim if one of the litigants thought there was bias and they were unhappy with the judge's responses in answering their questions about bias, a litigant could challenge that decision through a petition for writ of mandamus. (That's fancy legal talk for an order from the 10th, forcing the Mormon judge to answer certain embarrassing questions.) So that's exactly what the McCarthey's did!

Despite doing it the way the judges on the 10th circuit said to do it, the judges still denied the petition for a writ.

You can read the entire ruling by going here

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/att_hist2.html

and downloading document 961-1. Included in this update to the Rip-off Report are parts of that ruling with editorial comment (in [brackets]).

---------------------------------------------------------

Before SEYMOUR, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

[Note that both Judges Kelly and Briscoe read the Complaint of judicial misconduct posted in this Rip-off Report, complete with Affidavits from former (and a current!) Mormons attesting the secret oath of allegiance Mormons take in their temple ceremony. Therefore, these two judges cannot claim ignorance of the oath of allegiance. We must conclude they are knowingly and willfully perverting the law.]

This matter arises out a continuing fight over the ownership and control of The Salt Lake Tribune. In response to Petitioners' requests, the presiding judge, United States District Judge Ted Stewart, made various disclosures and repeatedly declined to recuse. Petitioners now seek a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to fully disclose all facts about (1) his financial contributions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), any DUTY HE MAY HAVE as a member of the Church TO UPHOLD THE DECISIONS OF ITS PROPHET AND FIRST PRESIDENCY [he swore an oath to uphold them!], and ANY OPINIONS HE MAY HAVE FORMED ABOUT THEIR CREDIBILITY [he believes the living prophet' is infallible!]; (2) his past dealings with Mormon Church leaders, authorities and officials, including all members of the First Presidency; (3) information ... and (4) any other matters that the parties might consider relevant to the issue of recusal under 28 U.S.C. 144 and 455. They also request a writ of prohibition directing Judge Stewart to take no further action in the Kearns-Tribune case until complete disclosures have been made in the record and petitioners have been given a reasonable time to consider whether to move for recusal. Because Petitioners have not satisfied their burden to show the right to additional disclosure is clear and indisputable [the burden on them is light, but the 10th has made it heavy], we deny a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which will issue only upon a showing ... [The rest of this is hogwash and a logical fallacy. The judges are saying, Because we've never said yes before, we're not going to say yes now. Regardless of the facts. What kind of logic is this?]

Judge Stewart has disclosed on the record that he has no independent knowledge of any of the events at issue in this case arising from his service in Utah state government or from anything else. [He could be lying, you know.] He also disclosed that, although he voluntarily contributes to his church, he has no present or contingent financial interest in a party to, or the outcome of, this litigation. [That's not true. When the Church succeeds, Judge Stewart succeeds. Anything he can do for the Church now will, according to the Church, benefit him in the afterlife. That is, he has a spiritual interest in seeing the Church succeed. He'll be a bigger god someday presumably with a bigger planet.] He has no leadership position in his church. Finally, he has told the parties that he has no bias or prejudice in favor of or against any party involved in this litigation. [What Judge Stewart thinks about his own bias is immaterial. The LAW plainly says a judge must recuse himself when there's the appearance of impropriety. Here's a case cite about this very issue: The requirement that Microsoft show actual bias is inconsistent with the language of 28 U.S.C Section 455(a). Under that provision, what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994).]

Petitioners have not presented information to the contrary; the record facts simply demonstrate no personal bias or prejudice [how about the fact the judge swore an oath of allegiance and the fact that the judge ruled in favor of his Church and was overturned by the 10th on appeal!], nor would a reasonable person knowing these facts harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality. [This is a lie and a trick judges often pull. It's called poisoning the well. It's a circular argument that goes like this: If you don't agree with me, you must not be reasonable. Remember, two of these judges read the Complaint of judicial misconduct that's posted in this Rip-off Report, complete with Affidavits attesting to the oath of allegiance all good Mormons make to their Church. They know full well it's reasonable to conclude Judge Stewart is biased.] Judge Stewart has addressed Petitioners' concerns regarding actual bias [that's a lie - he has not], extrajudicial knowledge of events and persons, and participation in the affairs of a stakeholder. Dissatisfied with his answers, Petitioners' now seek disclosure (essentially, discovery) to supply the factual basis for disqualification. [Which is EXACTLY what the 10th told the litigants to do in the Order on Petition!] Federal judges already provide detailed financial disclosures and we decline to craft a procedure that essentially will require district judges to submit to discovery (albeit in the form of mandamus directing disclosure) when a party lacks an adequate factual basis for disqualification on non-financial matters. [Oh, come on! These judges have purposely stuck their heads - to be kind - in the sand.]

Disqualification under 28 U.S.C. 144 places a substantial burden on the moving party to demonstrate that the judge is not impartial, not a burden on the judge to prove that he is impartial. [NO, not true. See law above about appearance of bias. These judges are picking and choosing which law they find convenient to follow, much like the Pharisees of old.] The affidavit of personal bias and prejudice need be timely, sufficient, and accompanied by a certificate of good faith of counsel. [They already filed three motions for recusal in this case! What more do you want?]

28 U.S.C. 455(a) provides no authority either. [A lie. Read 455(a) for yourself.] Under 455(c), the presiding judge must inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests. (emphasis added). [Inform himself? What a crock.] The statute thus places the judge under a self-enforcing obligation to recuse himself where the proper legal grounds exist. [And that, people, is the heart of the problem with the system. All drunk drivers think they drive pretty well when drunk. This is the problem with subjective evaluation. The system presupposes ALL judges are honorable. If that were true, we'd never impeach judges or discipline them for misconduct. But we do and we have.] A judge must make disclosure on the record of circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable question about his impartiality, see Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 866, 868, but we conclude that responsibility has been satisfied in this case given Judge Stewart's responses to Petitioners requests. [Oh - did Judge Stewart tell them about his secret oath of allegiance to the Mormon Church? NO.]

Section 455 contains an objective standard: disqualification is appropriate only where the reasonable person, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality. There must be a reasonable factual basis to question the judge's impartiality. [Do any of you Rip-off Report harbor doubts? I presume some of you must be reasonable.] The scope of inquiry is limited to outward manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. [They're making stuff up again. The law doesn't say that.] Id. Section 455 does not require recusal based only on assumptions about a judge's beliefs that are not substantiated by the facts of record. See Nichols, 71 F.3d at 351; Bryce v. Episcopal Church, 289 F.3d 648, 659-60 (10th Cir. 2002). [These cites are illogical and in conflict with each other and with the law. The first one says that every case about recusal is unique. Then they quote the second case as a precedent. But if every case is unique, then no case can be used to set a precedent in another. Classic double talk.]

Section 455 does not provide for discovery, and no case we have reviewed has endorsed such a procedure. [Maybe they didn't review enough cases?] There are sound policy reasons for not requiring a district judge to be a target of discovery. First, a judge cannot testify as a witness in a trial over which he presides. Fed. R. Evid. 605. Had Petitioners truly [did you catch the dig here?] been interested in following their suspicions, there are several avenues other than obtaining discovery from the presiding judge, e.g., discovery from Governor Leavitt, AT&T, or church officials. Absent some colorable factual basis [another dig], discovery may not be ordered simply because Petitioners do not believe the presiding judge. [Why not? Are they saying all judges are boy scouts and we have to believe everything they say? Do you believe the judges on the 10th here?] See United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As one court has noted in granting a motion to quash a subpoena to take discovery from a presiding judge:
Embroiling the presiding judge in the adversarial processes of any case is not only unseemly [Oh... we wouldn't want to do anything unseemly, would we. Not to a judge. What do you think they are - gods? You're seeing the good ol' boy's club mentality displayed here.

Which do you think is more unseemly - a biased judge judging himself, concluding he's not biased, or challenging a judge in open court about his bias?], it is calculated to give rise at the least to a resulting appearance of bias against the aggressor litigant although . . . that species of boot strap bias cannot be recognized, as a matter of law, as a disqualifying circumstance. To do so would simply invite manipulated harassment by any lawyer unscrupulous enough to willingly embark on a course of conduct designed to disqualify an otherwise impartial judge whose views are thought to be adverse to the interests of the client. [So change the system, and let a citizen's review board determine if there's the appearance of impropriety. But they're raising a straw man here: if the court thinks lawyers are acting unethically, then the remedy is to discipline the lawyers, not make a blanket rule that you can never challenge a judge.] Such a tactic would, at worst, cause an unjustified voluntary disqualification of the presiding judge or, at least, cause endless delay in the litigation while those maneuvers are in process. [Oh, boo hoo. So basically, all judges are good, are never biased if they don't say so, and don't you ever say otherwise!] Cheeves, 797 F. Supp. at 1582-83.

Finally, we note that merely because Judge Stewart belongs to and contributes to the Mormon Church would never be enough to disqualify him. Bryce, 289 F.3d at 660 ([C]ourts have consistently held that membership in a church does not create sufficient appearance of bias to require recusal.); Singer v. Waldman, 745 F.2d 606, 608 (10th Cir. 1984) (refusing to disqualify judge, who was a Mormon, when plaintiff claimed that the case was a challenge to the theocratic power structure of Utah). [As has been said over and over and over again, the Mormon church is not an ordinary church. No one in the Episcopal church swears a secret oath of allegiance to do everything he can to build up his church.]

[And now they cleverly change the subject and rally around the flag.] Religious freedom is one of the Constitution's most closely guarded values. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 491-92 (1961). [No one is denying Judge Stewart's right to be Mormon. What is being challenged, and rightly so, is his ability to be Mormon and sit on cases involving the Mormon church.] The First Amendment prohibits congressional action respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting its free exercise. Article VI, clause 3, provides that all governmental officers be bound by an oath to support the Constitution, and that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Should we require federal judges to disclose the firmness of their beliefs in religious doctrine, it is a very fine line before we enter the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 n.2 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring); see also Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Codispoti, 69 F.3d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1995). [More of the same hogwash. No one is saying Judge Stewart can't be a judge because he's Mormon. He simply cannot sit on cases involving his Church.]

The petition for a writ of mandamus and for a writ of prohibition is DENIED.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For those of you (like Mormons) who have trouble seeing a problem here, simply change the names and I think you'll suddenly see the light. For example, let's say the case involves the Ku Klux Klan in a property dispute against a black man. Say Judge Stewart is a Grand Kleagle in the KKK. Finally, let's say you're the black man.

Still think it's bashing? Hope you'll Choose The Right. Before it happens to you.

We need to impeach these four judges (Stewart, Kimball, Kelly and Briscoe) to remove them from the bench.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#25 Consumer Comment

disagree with mormon bashing

AUTHOR: Catherene - (U.S.A.)

How can you not say that you are mormon bashing. Being a "Temple Mormon" we consecrate ourselves to God for his glory not ours. If you understood anything about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you would realize that everything you have stated is based on hearsay. Yes we have ordinances in our Temples that are sacred. Just as the Catholics, Jewish and Muslims do, but does this give you the right to question what we believe to be our God given right to worship how where and when we want. I believe the Third Article of the Bill of Rights States and I quote" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sir, I am not saying that you don't have a legitimate complaint, however, i do not appreciate your denigrating our beliefs to soothe a few now former members of the Church. Is it possible that they are disgruntled because they were found not worthy or of misbehavior in their actions or lives? I would say to you consider the source and not judge every "Mormon" according to former church members.

Yes, it would have been politic to recuse himself however Judge Ted Stewart felt that he could have judged the case without conflict of interest. So did several other Judges according to your appeals process, therefore, Please quit denoucing The Church. This smacks of the persecution and termination orders of the early 1800's. We all have enough problems living in this world with wars, famine etc. without hatred of religion also.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#26 Author of original report

Hear no evil. See no evil. But speak evil. (And double-speak.)

AUTHOR: M - (U.S.A.)

Naturally, we're disappointed with this final decision to not discipline Mormon Judge Ted Stewart for sitting on two cases involving the Mormon Church, in which he ruled both times in favor of his Church. We take this dismissal as more double-speak lawyers are famous for. The Court's own Rules and Code of Ethics say there isn't supposed to even be the appearance of bias and allow for disciplinary procedures, such as a public rebuke when there is. But since when did Rules and a Code of Ethics matter in our courts?

(Interestingly, just the other day, the infamous Florida Supreme Court DID publicly rebuke a Judge Schapiro for misconduct, stating that his conduct damaged the public's trust in the legal system. This is how it's supposed to work. A small ray of hope.)

We grant the one legal point made in this dismissal that we offered no legal proof that Judge Ted Stewart has sworn the Mormon secret oath in the secret Temple Ceremony cited. How could we? It's done in secret!

Considering a lady just died last week at the hands of the New York police, who busted down her door and handcuffed her because in their minds they thought she had drugs, we figured in our case there was much more overwhelming probable cause (as we presented) for the Judicial Council to simply ask Judge Stewart if he went on a mission for his Church or had received his Endowments or sworn the secret oath (they're all the same). But, as you can see for yourself, the fix was in, and the 10th Circuit had no intention of looking into this dark matter.

Lastly, those interested should look at the Rules governing complaints of Judicial Misconduct, found at the 10th Circuit's own web site

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/forms/misconduct_rules_2002.pdf

In this dismissal, the Judge complains that Under complainant's approach, anyone at any time could raise a bias or prejudice issue to the Judicial Council ...

We point out this is EXACTLY what the Rules state. (See the first sentence on page 1 and Rule 1 (d) of the Rules.) It seems one of us is functionally illiterate.

----------------------------------------
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT


IN RE: CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT No. 2003-10-372-07


Before THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT


ORDER ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DISMISSINGCOMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT


This matter comes before the Judicial Council on complainant's petition for review of the chief circuit judge's order dismissing his complaint of judicial misconduct filed against a district judge in this circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 351 et seq. We have carefully reviewed the petition and underlying complaint,and, for the reasons explained below, we agree with the chief circuit judge's
decision to dismiss the complaint. The petition is therefore denied.

I

In his misconduct complaint, complainant alleged that the respondent judge "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts," 28 U.S.C. 35 1(a), by failing to recuse himself from two cases in which his church was either a party or the owner of a party.

Complainant was not a participant in either action. Complainant alleges that the respondent judge is not an "ordinary" member of his church, but is a "high level" member. He submitted several affidavits in support of his complaint indicating
that such a "high level" member of the church participates in secret church ceremonies that include the taking of an oath, although he did not submit any evidence indicating that the judge actually participated in these ceremonies or took this oath Complainant contends this oath requires the taker to dedicate everything with which he has been blessed to his church. He concludes that,
through this oath, the judge has dedicated his judgeship to the church and accordingly, will always rule in its favor regardless of the merits of the particular case. As evidence, complainant points out that the judge entered a ruling in the
church's favor in each of two cases identified by complainant, and that the Court of Appeals subsequently reversed both rulings.1

1 It should be noted for the record that the Court of Appeals had reversed the ruling in one of the cases prior to the time complainant filed his initial complaint, and reversed the second ruling between the filing of the complaint and the
petition for review.

II

Under the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, the chief circuit judge conducts the initial review of judicial misconduct complaints. See Misconduct Rule 4. On consideration of this complaint, the chief circuit judge determined that it should be dismissed because its asserted basis for misconduct-the alleged incorrectness of a judge's decision not to recuse himself in particular cases-was not a proper matter for review under the misconduct procedure:

Whether a judge should recuse in any case is an "extremely fact driven" matter, Bryce v. Episcopal Church, 289 F.3d 648, 660 (10th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted), that is reviewable on appeal. The respondent judge denied a motion to recuse in one of the cases on the general basis complainant raises. The parties did not challenge this decision on appeal. The parties in the other case did not seek his disqualification. In any event, the decision whether to recuse is a matter that should be addressed in the context of the particular case in which the issue arises. A judge's decision not to recuse may not be challenged through a misconduct complaint. See
Misconduct Rule 4(c)(2) ("A complaint will be dismissed if the chief judge concludes . . . that the complaint is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling."); see also Misconduct Rule 1(e) ("The complaint procedure may not be used to have a judge disqualified from sitting on a particular case. A motion for disqualification should be made in the case."). The complaint is therefore dismissed.

Dismissal order at 1-2.

III

Complainant filed a timely petition for review of the dismissal order. See Misconduct Rule 6(a). In his petition, complainant makes a number of challenges to and allegations regarding the chief circuit judge's decision. While none of these is persuasive, we address several of them below because they evidence a misunderstanding of the misconduct procedure as well as the appropriate manner of raising a question regarding whether a judge should be disqualified from sitting on a particular case.

Complainant contends that the dismissal order is without merit because "[i]t does not address the lawful remedy I asked for in my complaint." Petition at 1.

The remedy he presently states he was seeking in his complaint was, "I want [the respondent judge] publicly rebuked and restrained-for his sake as well as others."

Id. at 2. He claims that he knows he "can't ask for a judge to recuse himself. I didn't. What I said was, because he did not recuse himself in light of all the attendant evidence, [the respondent judge] violated your own rules and should be disciplined." Id.

The distinction complainant seeks to draw here is insubstantial. For there to be any question of "remedy," there obviously must first be a determination that the respondent judge committed some form of judicial misconduct. Complainant
presumes that this determination has already been made, but it has been made only in his mind. Neither the chief circuit judge nor this Council has made that determination. And for the reasons explained in the dismissal order and herein,we will not do so. Additionally, despite claimant's protestations to the contrary,he is effectively asking us to order the respondent judge to recuse himself from the two cases. We will not interfere with decisions in ongoing cases. See Misconduct Rule 1(e) ("The judicial council of the circuit. . . does not have the power to change a decision or ruling. Only a court can do that."). That authority
lies in certain circumstances with the Court of Appeals; it does not lie with the
Council.

Most importantly, however, because there is no blanket rule requiring recusal in every case involving a judge's church, see Bryce, 289 F.3d at 660, and because recusal issues are extremely fact-sensitive, see, e.g., id., Nichols v. Alley,
71 R3d 347, 351 (10th Cir, 1995), the only valid avenue available for examining alleged bias or prejudice toward a party lies within the confines of a particular case. Parties can seek information from a judge regarding possible biases orprejudices relevant to the case at hand. In fact, a party in one of the cases identified by complainant filed a motion seeking "full disclosure of facts relevant
to recusal," and the respondent judge answered the request for disclosure.

Complainant apparently believes he can present a better case for recusal than the affected party, see Petition at 2 ("With all due respect to the professional lawyers involved, I'd be surprised if the sealed motion [to recuse] was as thorough as my
complaint.. . ."), but nothing prevents complainant from contacting the parties and providing them information regarding alleged judge bias. If a party thinks a judge incorrectly refused to disqualify himself or herself, the party may
immediately challenge that decision through a petition for writ of mandamus, see Nichols, 71 F.3d at 350, or may wait until the case is concluded and raise the issue on appeal, see United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 996 n.9 (10th Cir. 1993).

Under complainant's approach, anyone at any time could raise a bias or prejudice issue to the Judicial Council-even if the judge's decision had been challenged and affirmed on mandamus or appeal-and ignore the existing appellate procedure for correcting district court errors. Unlike a recusal motion in a case,there apparently would be no Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 limitations nor any timeliness requirement, cf United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1276 (10th Cir. 2000).

Our misconduct rules clearly recognize the inappropriateness of such an approach to alleged judicial bias or prejudice. See, e.g., Misconduct Rules, Preface ("A complaint that a judge has exhibited bias toward a particular person. . . is not a ground for relief under Section [351 et seq.]. An appeal or a petition for writ of
mandamus may be an appropriate means for seeking relief for this type of conduct."); Rule 1(e) ("The complaint procedure may not be used to have a judge
disqualified from sitting on a particular case. A motion for disqualification should be made in the case."); see generally Rule 1(b) ("[Misconduct] does not include making wrong decisions-even very wrong decisions-in cases.").

IV

In summary, we are satisfied that a party's interests, and counsel's responsibility to zealously represent his or her client, provide sufficient incentive for them to raise all legitimate grounds for recusal within the context of a particular case and to allow the issue of a judge's alleged bias or prejudice to be fully aired. We will not allow the misconduct procedure to subvert that process.

The petition for review is denied.

So ordered this 28th May, 2003.


Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge On Behalf of The Judicial Council Of the Tenth Circuit

----------------------------------

The Saint
Phoenix, AZ
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#27 Author of original report

Appealing the decision

AUTHOR: M - (U.S.A.)

A person has the right to file a petition for review (a.k.a. an appeal) to the so-called Judicial Council to reconsider the Chief Judge's decision. This was done.

[They say you have 30-days to file, but if you ever do this exercise, please know that in reality, you have only 25. The 30-day clock starts on the date the decision is written. You have to have it to the Clerk before the 30 days is up. Time in the postal system eats into your precious time to respond. (They give you every break, don't they?)]

Notice in the petition a new, stronger charge is brought against Judge Stewart - perjury! Funny how the system operates: When our last President was accused of perjury, nothing much happened. Now Martha Stewart is accused of perjury, and a lot is happening. You'll see in the end, that the Judicial Council didn't investigate Judge Stewart at all.

Some animals are more equal than others.

-------------------------------------------

This is a petition to the judicial council for review of Chief Judge Tacha's Order dismissing a complaint of judicial misconduct against district judge Ted Stewart, case # 2003-10-372-07. I make this petition for the following reasons:

- Judge Tacha's order to dismiss is without merit, as it's off point, dismissing for an issue I never raised.
- When this complaint was written (in late January), Plaintiff in one of two cases I cited had just filed a Renewed Motion to Recuse. Two points here:
1. A Plaintiff continues to see and seek relief from what they also perceive as a biased judge, a fact that bolsters my complaint.
2. That Plaintiff's renewed motion nullifies an argument by Judge Tacha in her order to dismiss. Namely, that if Judge Stewart is so bad,' why didn't Plaintiff renew its motion? They already had. She didn't know. Her order is defective and demonstrates lack of due diligence. I would like a fair hearing.
- After this complaint was in process, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals once again sharply reversed Judge Stewart on the second of the two cases I cited in the complaint. To wit, while he once again ruled in favor of his Church, the Defendant, the 10th Circuit found the opposite and Reversed!

This second reversal completes a pattern of reversals now, wherein both cases I cited to demonstrate the appearance of impropriety have been reversed by an objective party - namely, the 10th Circuit. This new data point continues to affirm the claim Judge Stewart is engaging in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. 372(c)(1)

- Judge Stewart denied Plaintiff's renewed motion seeking his recusal. Two points here:
1. His denial was written during the time this complaint was before him, with the attendant Affidavits from former Mormons attesting to the secret oath of allegiance he swore to the Mormon Church. Yet, in spite of the facts cited that proves his bias and demonstrated that his impartiality was reasonably questioned, he remains unrepentant and unafraid of any reprimand from you. He still refuses to recuse himself and has become belligerent in his latest order. (Accuses Plaintiff of sandbagging.) This shows the utopian system of subjective self-evaluation and self-policing for prejudice is not working. Please act!
2. One would think with two Motions for Recusal, two Reversals and a well-written, well-documented complaint for Misconduct before him, a Judge would be extremely circumspect about remaining in a suit. But such is not the case here.

While Plaintiff's Motion still remains sealed (I wonder why?), I will rebut several points in Judge Stewart's new Order denying recusal that further demonstrate his prejudice and dogged determination to have a hand in this case involving his Church.
h One of the brethren,' Judge Edith Jones from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, recently gave a scathing speech titled The American Legal System has almost been corrupted beyond recognition. (Attachment) A local example of this occurred here in Phoenix, where a local judge did the proper thing and recused himself from several drug cases. (He is a marijuana legalization activist.) Unfortunately, he was summarily fired by the Presiding Superior Court Judge for not taking the cases anyway. (Attachment) While not your bailiwick, a strong, public, correct course of action here could send a badly needed signal throughout the Judiciary.

I also wish to bring up a new issue. In light of Judge Stewart's new Order, and per your Rule 10(b) of the Rules Governing Complaints, I now allege criminal conduct by Judge Stewart in that he knowingly and willfully committed perjury in his Order denying recusal. I will detail the false statements so as to make you aware of this conduct. Per Rule 10(b), I ask you to consult with the appropriate prosecuting authorities to press criminal charges for perjury and that you also consider a contempt of court action against Judge Stewart.

Rebutting Judge Tacha

The Order of Dismissal (Exhibit 1) is off point, and therefore is without merit. It does not address the lawful remedy I asked for in my complaint. Instead she created (and dismissed) an entirely different issue. (A red herring?) I asked for apples. She said, Your request for oranges' is denied.

To wit, in the complaint, I specifically said

I want Judge Stewart publicly rebuked and restrained - for his sake as well as others.

While I did not specifically cite your Rule 14(f) Order of corrective action, I do so now. (Exhibit 2, Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability.) Specifically, Rule 14(f)(1) gives you the authority to censure or reprimand the judge by public announcement which is exactly what I asked for. However, that request was not addressed in the Order of Dismissal. Instead, I was told that a judge's decision not to recuse may not be challenged through a misconduct complaint. And with that, she abruptly dismissed.

I'm rather indignant about this. I read the Rules - I even signed a statement under perjury to that effect. I know I can't ask for a judge to recuse himself. I didn't. What I said was, because he did not recuse himself in light of all the attendant evidence, Judge Stewart violated your own rules and should be disciplined. Because the order is off-point, it is defective. I ask the Council grant this petition for this cause.

In the Order of Dismissal, I was told whether a judge should recuse in any case is an extremely fact driven' matter. First of all, this is only a partial quote of that ruling and out of context. The full quote is We begin our application of the legal standards to these facts by recognizing that cases within 455(a) are extremely fact driven and must be judged on [their] unique facts and circumstances more than by comparison to situations considered in prior jurisprudence.' (Nichols v. Alley) I did exactly this. I supplied the unique facts about Mormonism and the secret oath of allegiance Mormons swear in their temples. Frankly, I'm somewhat offended by the implications of the statement. Did I not supply enough facts? What fact is still required that I did not supply that would convince the Court to investigate?

Further, Judge Tacha attempts to use a ruling to supercede a Rule. This seems backward. In reality, the Rule places only a light burden on me. From Nichols and your Canon, The trial judge must recuse himself when there is the appearance of bias, regardless of whether there is actual bias. All I have to do is demonstrate the appearance of bias and show his impartiality might be reasonably questioned. I not only showed it might, but I showed it was by several reasonable varied sources. The burden of proof on me should be very light, but it has been made very heavy.

Next, Judge Tacha notes that The respondent judge denied a motion to recuse... on the general basis complainant raises. That's an understatement! With all due respect to the professional lawyers involved, I'd be surprised if the sealed motion was as thorough as my complaint and contains Affidavits from former Mormons citing the secret temple oath called the Law of Consecration, whereby Mormons swear allegiance to their Church. The point being, they only made a half-hearted attempt at recusal. (It wasn't even a motion.) The fact that respondent denied the motion carries no weight. Also, did Judge Tacha obtain a copy of the sealed motion to compare its claims to mine? If not, then she did not give due diligence to this matter and I ask you grant this petition for this cause also.

She goes on to note that The parties did not challenge this decision [to deny motion to recuse] on appeal. This is not correct. The parties did in fact challenge this decision in a Renewed Motion to Recuse, filed on January 22, 2003. So this point becomes irrelevant. Also, an error like this also shows a lack of due diligence. I ask you grant this petition also for this cause.

So that there's no further misunderstandings as to remedy, I also asked that Neither he [Judge Stewart], nor any Mormon, should ever again be allowed to rule on a case even remotely touching the Mormon Church or its demonstrable enemies.

Perhaps I'm overreaching here, but this request could come under 14(f)(2), ordering a fixed temporary period wherein no new cases be assigned to the judge, as when any cases involving the Mormon Church are on the docket. My remedy for Judge Stewart is within the law (28 U.S.C. 455) and the Code of Conduct. Also, the listing in Rule 14(f) is not exhaustive, by its own statement, since Such action may include, among other measures... I suspect there's quite a lot of latitude in the Council's ability to discipline and control errant members under your authority. Ultimately, the Council could invoke 14(f)(5), forced retirement, to demonstrate how serious you are about judicial misconduct and the integrity of the Court.

Two many Reversals?

On February 24, after this complaint was filed, the 10th Circuit once again reversed Judge Stewart in the second of two cases I previously cited directly involving his Church. (Exhibit 3)

While only one Reversal in four rulings, the single reversal is nevertheless extremely important because it speaks volumes about Judge Stewart's perceptions and prejudices. Is it simply coincidence that Judge Stewart ruled it unlikely that an enemy of his Church would prevail in a trial over which he presides? Two Judges in the 10th Circuit found just the opposite, that there's a substantial likelihood that Tribune Publishing will prevail!

If this were a single, isolated occurrence, with no secret oaths of allegiance to the Church involved, no one could properly shout Misconduct! But this is not a single, isolated occurrence - and there IS an oath involved. This is another dot to connect in the ever-clearer picture of prejudicial conduct. Have I not presented enough facts to show a pattern and practice of misfeasance under color of law?

Two many Recusals?

Judge Tacha's comments notwithstanding, for the purpose of my complaint, it doesn't really matter whether any of the parties at trial made motions for Judge Stewart to recuse himself. The nature of a 28 U.S.C. 372 complaint is that anyone can make a complaint worthy of action. [As an extreme example, if I were an expert in psychology, I might notice a particular judge on CourtTV exhibiting all the classic symptoms of schizophrenia (mental defect), whereas others would not. I would be justified in making a complaint for disability, despite neither party seeking recusal for mental defect.] Instead of simply assuming an injured party doesn't see prejudice because they didn't motion for recusal, maybe the injured party knows that asking a Mormon if he's biased or to disclose his secret oath (where he's sworn he would rather have his throat slit than to reveal the secret) is a pointless exercise. Maybe they've resigned themselves that an Appeal out of state by non-Mormon judges is a better use of time and resources. (But that is not Justice.)

Nevertheless, in this case, an offended Plaintiff has now made two motions for recusal of Judge Stewart and I'll cite this as further evidence of Judge Stewart's prejudice. Aren't two requests a little unusual?

It would be interesting to speculate, in light of the 10th Circuit's February Reversal, if Plaintiff will file yet again, but Judge Stewart has made it clear that he has serious questions about whether Plaintiff has raised the recusal issue in good faith, or merely in an effort to undermine the court and overturn its rulings as part of a rather clumsy attempt to shop for a more favorable judge. Whereas they simply think he's biased. And that, my friends, sums up the whole problem of asking a man if he's biased. (Cf. Mark Fuhrman and the n____ word during the O.J. Simpson trial.)

Rebutting Judge Stewart

I'm compelled to rebut some Judge Stewart's statements in his Order Denying Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Recuse (Exhibit 4) for a number of reasons. First, if you should grant my petition, I suspect he will use the same arguments again that he has used twice now, and they need to be rebutted because they are wrong and I don't expect you'll be calling me to rebut him. Second, I need to demonstrate how insidious bias and prejudice is. White Supremacists are quite certain they are not biased nor prejudiced against Jews or Blacks. They merely think both are animals, and the earth should be eradicated of vermin. There's no arguing with these people, and asking them if they're biased is futile. And yet, this is the methodology we used to determine if a judge harbors a bias? We ask him? I don't doubt Judge Stewart is sincere in his belief he is not biased, but that doesn't mean he isn't biased. There's a unique mindset to the Mormon culture that has to be observed from the outside before one can see it. Unfortunately, space limits me from expanding on these points, so they are necessarily brief and not exhaustive.

p1 - The request was for Full Disclosure. Judge Stewart did not reveal the secret oath he's sworn in the temple that specifically relates to his Church. Therefore, he did not meet this request for full disclosure.

p5 - There is no timeliness requirement in the rules that I can find, nor should there be. Consider mental disability caused by Alzheimer's. You can't tell at the beginning of a trial if a Judge has Alzheimer's. Simply forgetting a name or forgetting a few rulings doesn't establish enough of a pattern, especially if you have no prior history with the judge. It takes a long time, and a series of gaffs before the possibility that something's wrong here is even broached. So it is with prejudice. One ruling that goes against you doesn't prove prejudice. It takes a lot of rulings going against you, that others have observed too and think are blatantly wrong. The nature of the beast is it requires time to ferret out. Therefore, tremendous amount of judicial resources not withstanding, when prejudice is suspected, a late motion to recuse is warranted, natural and to be expected.

p6 - If lawyers choose to sandbag, that's a separate issue of ethics that should be dealt with by disciplining lawyers. But again, the nature of discovering bias, like conspiracy, is that it takes a long time and is not obvious at first. As facts come out in a case, it is not unreasonable for the public, who might know something, to contact the parties involved or make comments in the press or for lawyers to do a little legwork. To simply write off a late complaint as sandbagging is patently unjustified... maybe even prejudicial.

p7 - no personal relationship. In legal parlance, that may be true. Most Catholics don't have a two-way relationship with the Pope. Nonetheless, they still have a personal relationship with him in that they venerate him. Would it be okay for a Catholic Judge to sit on a case where the Pope is on trial, even though the Pope wouldn't recognize the Judge if he were to pass him on the street? In the same way, Mormons venerate their leaders as I showed in Exhibit 17 in my complaint. Judge Stewart does have a personal relationship with his leaders.

Perjury

On page 10 of his Order denying Renewed Motion to Recuse (Exhibit 4), Judge Stewart addresses Plaintiff's attempt to distinguish this case from other cases with [Plaintiff] arguing that this case does not involve [church] membership alone, but that there is something more. This Order was filed on March 17. My complaint was in the system on February 4, and according to the Circuit Executive, distributed to Judge Stewart. Presumably, Judge Stewart had read, or at least seen my complaint documenting reasons for his bias, complete with Affidavits documenting the oath he's sworn in the Mormon temple to the Mormon Church.

Nevertheless, he then willfully and knowingly perjured himself with the next statements. Taking them in reverse order, he addresses the insinuation that there's more to his relationship with the Church than church membership alone. He says, In short, there is nothing more.

I'm sad to say, this is a lie. There IS more. There is the oath taken called the Law of Consecration wherein participants raise their right hand and swear to covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion. This oath goes beyond church membership alone, because there are many members of the Mormon Church who have never taken this oath. Judge Stewart knows that. And given my complaint, he must have known this oath is a key element in establishing his personal bias. As a minimum, in the interest of full disclosure, which Judge Stewart seemingly offers in his candid comments on previous pages, why didn't he disclose this oath he has taken for all to evaluate in the light of day? Will he do so now?

This issue of the oath is not disputable. But should he deny taking this oath in the temple, I am prepared to find as many witnesses as required to prove him false.

He also states he does not have any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome [of the case]. Sadly, another lie. I showed in my complaint that an element of the Mormon religion is that one has to earn their godhood. It is common knowledge in the Mormon religion that the amount of work done for the Mormon Church on earth in this life will directly affect one's exaltation in the next life. There is a quid pro quo. And of course, in keeping with his oath to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, Judge Stewart must necessarily desire to see the Church's enemies vanquished. While perhaps outside the normal meaning of other interests, this is not your normal case.

He says he does not have a financial interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome [of the case]. I also dealt with that issue in my complaint.

Given the timing of my complaint, being coincident with the writing of his order denying recusal, he seems rather contemptuous of the Rules regarding impartiality. If you think likewise, would you consider contempt charges?

Religion Aside

Let's be clear about this. The issue here is not about Judge Stewart being Mormon, so please don't let him define it as such. (He tried to do that in his orders denying recusal.) Rather the issue here is about the consequences of being Mormon. There's a subtle, but important difference, which I can make clear from the following news story.

A Muslim woman, who refuses to remove her burka for her driver's license photo, is suing Florida, claiming religious discrimination because they revoked her driver's license. (Exhibit 5) Clearly, this isn't a case of religious discrimination, for Muslims in Florida get driver's licenses all the time. Rather, the reason for the revocation is due to a choice she makes as a Muslim. In the same way, the issue with Judge Stewart is due to the consequences of taking certain oaths. Mormons are free in our country to pursue their religion and take whatever oaths they wish. However, there are consequences to their choices.

People are often called to make choices and suffer the consequences for their beliefs. Orthodox Jews choose to not eat pork - they are not being discriminated against if a ballpark only sells hotdogs. Some Catholics choose to not eat meat on Friday. That does not mean a restaurateur must offer him fish. Both the Jew and Catholic may go hungry those days. We do not have to cater to their religious choices.

In the same way, we should not cater to Mormon judges who have freely elected to compromise their allegiance to our country by swearing an oath that divides their allegiance where their Church is involved. In this country, we want and expect Judges whose integrity is above reproach.

Automatic Disqualification

Because the crux of this complaint is the secret temple oath called the Law of Consecration, I must insist that any members on the Judicial Council who have also sworn this oath automatically disqualify themselves, per Rule 8 (Exhibit 6), from voting on this petition, for again, that oath puts them in violation of 455(a) as their impartiality is reasonably questionable. Similarly, if this petition prevails and a Rule 9 Special Committee is convened, I must likewise insist that any members on the Special Committee be informed that because the Law of Consecration is the crux of this complaint, that if they've taken that oath, they are also automatically disqualified per 455(a) because that oath implies sustaining and supporting other Mormons, since Mormons consider themselves to be members of one monolithic organization, the Mormon Church.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#28 Author of original report

Does this sound right to you?

AUTHOR: M - (U.S.A.)

In early March 2003, the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit Court (Denver, CO) dismissed this complaint with the following order.

See if it seems right to you. There's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo here. If you're a lawyer, please note that the citation about recusal being "extremely fact driven" is from a ruling from Terry Nichols (of Oke City bombing fame). That ruling said that each case regarding recusal must be independently evaluated on the facts specific to each case. Which makes sense.

In other words, precedents don't apply to matters of recusal, since each case is different. (For example, Mormon Judges swear secret oaths of allegiance to the Mormon Church.) Yet, in the same breath, the Chief Judge cites a precedent of a Judge who was Episcopal as grounds for this Mormon Judge not recusing himself.

Your government at work.

This isn't the end of the story. After a dismissal by the Chief Judge, one can file an appeal.

-------------------------------------

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
No. 2003-10-372-07

Before TACHA, Chief Judge.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The complainant has filed a complaint ofjudicial misconduct against a district judge in this circuit. The Rules of the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, as well as the judicial misconduct statute, 28 U.S.C. 351 et seq., govern my consideration of this complaint.

Complainant contends that the respondent judge committed judicial misconduct by remaining on two cases in which the church of which he is an active member was a party. Complainant contends that the judge should have summarily recused himself in each case because he was heavily biased in favor of the church and, in fact, ultimately ruled in the church's favor in each case.

Whether a judge should recuse in any case is an "extremely fact driven" matter, Bryce v. Episcopal Church, 289 F.3d 648, 660 (10th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted), that is reviewable on appeal. The respondent judge denied a motion to recuse in one of the cases on the general basis complainant raises. The parties did not challenge this decision on appeal. The parties in the other case did not seek his disqualification. In any event, the decision whether to recuse is a matter that should
be addressed in the ~context of the particular case in which the issue arises. A judge's decision not to recuse may not be challenged through a isconduct complaint. See Misconduct Rule 4(c)(2) ("A complaint will be dismissed if the chief judge
concludes . . . that the complaint is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling."); see also Misconduct Rule 1(e) ("The com~p1aint procedure may not be used to have a judge disqualified from sitting on a particular case. A motion for disqualification should be made in the case."). The complaint is therefore dismissed.

The Circuit Executive shall transmit a copy of this order to complainant and to the respondent judge. To seek review of this order, complainant must file a petition for review by the Judicial Council. The petition must be filed with the Office of the Circuit Executive within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this order.

So ordered this 3rd day of March, 2003.

Honorable Deanell Reece Tacha
Chief Circuit Judge
On Behalf of The Judicial Council
Of the Tenth Circuit
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory
TEA