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

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.