Complaint to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities

Complainant Leo Zimmermann PO Box 23221 Baltimore, MD 21203 Telephone (Google Voice): 678-744-9663 Judge Lynn K. Stewart Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Courthouse 111 N. Calvert St. Case Frank James McArthur [sic] vs Warden, BCDC Case number: 24H12000381 Case type: habeas corpus Hearing: December 28, 2012; 9:30 A.M. Relationship of complainant to case: Third party with no direct legal involvement Complaint I wish to claim that judge Stewart has displayed sanctionable conduct, including violations of the binding obligations of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct (MCJC). Most conspicuously, Stewart has violated the spirit and the letter of MCJC Rule 2.6, Ensuring the Right to be Heard. Part (a) of this Rule requires the following: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Frank James MacArthur obviously had a legal interest in a habeas corpus hearing for his own person. This hearing provided an opportunity to request bail and potentially make other demands of the court. For example, he might well have requested a change of venue, given his past statements that he feels personally targeted by elements within law enforcement, criminal justice, and the political establishment within Baltimore. Regardless of whether MacArthur has valid grievances, he has the right to express these grievances as per the above-cited rule (and more fundamentally by Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution). The hearing was initiated on MacArthur's behalf by State Delegate Jill P. Carter. Carter made a plea to Stewart that MacArthur be allowed to post bail, arguing that he had never committednor was he accusedof a violent crime. Stewart asked whether MacArthur's sister, Jean Arthur, had appeared to support her brother. She had. Stewart then asked MacArthur's supporters to stand, apparently to gauge whether community members would vouch for his character. A number of people stood: perhaps a majority of the third party observers in the small courtroom. Stewart nevertheless ruled, without a great deal of hesitation, that MacArthur would not be allowed bail. At this point, MacArthur himself asked to speak. Stewart said he could not, and guards began to escort MacArthur out of the room. As he was being led out, MacArthur made a remark about the unfairness of the justice system that was continuing his detention.

Although Ms. Carter filed the writ of habeas corpus on MacArthur's behalf, she has publicly stated that she is not MacArthur's lawyer. This should be clear from the fact that she was not present at earlier hearings for MacArthur, nor has she been present since. That she presented some arguments for why MacArthur ought to be allowed bail does not automatically confirm her as that person's lawyer for the purpose of Rule 2.6. If we interpret rule 2.6 strictly, we must take Carter at her word that she is not MacArthur's lawyer, regardless of how Judge Stewart may have perceived her status during the hearing. Frank James MacArthur therefore had and has no lawyer authorized to represent him for the purposes of this Rule. Judge Stewart has therefore violated Rule 2.6 by depriving MacArthur of his right to be heard. Comment [1] to Rule 2.6 states: The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed. Judge Stewart has also violated the spirit of the Rule, as contextualized by this Comment, by denying MacArthur the right to speak at a crucial moment in his detention. Rule 2.6 can be contextualized by Rule 1.2 of the Code, which states: (a) A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. (b) A judge shall avoid conduct that would create in reasonable minds a perception of impropriety. MacArthur has publicly claimed for years that the law enforcement and criminal justice systems in Baltimore are actively trying to suppress him because of his reporting on police activities and corruption. If Stewart is relying on evidence from MacArthur's web presence to justify the harsh conditions under which he is currently being detained, she should also be aware of these claims. Denying MacArthur's right to be heard at his habeas corpus hearing has demonstrably undermined public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. MacArthur has been unable to receive visitors in jail. He has been unable to make or receive phone calls. Friends and family report great difficulty in communicating with him via post. MacArthur was not permitted to speak during his Constitutionally-sanctioned opportunity to do so. In the process, he was denied the ability to describe his situation, to complain directly about the treatment he has received, or to advance new legal actions on his own behalf. Instead, the room was only able to hear his unauthorized remarks as he was taken away. Those who attended the hearing thus received the undeniable impression that the judicial system does wish to suppress MacArthur and silence his voice. I doubt many third-party observers felt otherwise! The harsh treatment MacArthur is currently receivingwhich many observers already feel to be disproportionate to the allegations he facesappears even more egregious when Judge Stewart seems to prove MacArthur's claims that he is being intentionally silenced. I therefore urge investigation into Judge Stewart's conduct, as well as sanctions, as well as an admonition to Judge Stewart that she always respect defendants' rights to be heard. Signature I solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of this document are true and correct

to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Leo Zimmermann