Judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Melissa Julian Maricopa County Superior Court filed with Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, Finchem v Hobbs

Judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Melissa Julian Maricopa County Superior Court filed with Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, Finchem v Hobbs

A Judicial misconduct complaint was filed against Judge Melissa Julian Maricopa County Superior Court on December 17, 2022 with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Complaint

Mark Finchem in Mark Finchem v Adrian Fontes and Ruben Gallego and Katie Hobbs explains how Katie Hobbs, as chief elections officer in Arizona, abused the power of her office.

"Secretary Hobbs repeatedly and publicly refused to recuse herself*”

And specifically:

“29. Hobbs abused her office of Secretary of State by threatening county officials with criminal charges and indictment for failure to certify a defective election process."

Under Demand for Relief Finchem requests:

“F. That the court order a referral to the Attorney General to investigate Secretary Hobbs for willful acts in violation of impartiality under AR.S. §§ 16-452 and § 38-503 according to ARS. § 16-1010."

The first two sub sections of Statute 38-503 state:

“A. Any public officer or employee of a public agency who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any contract, sale, purchase or service to such public agency shall make known that interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such contract, sale or purchase.

B. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision."

A is about monetary enrichment and B "substantial interest in any decision of a public agency".

Obviously A is not applicable but B certainly is.

Judge Julian in her ruling focuses on the non applicable sub section A and ignores sub section B.

Why?

The only 2 choices that come to mind are:

1. Bias

2. Incompetence

In my humble opinion the average middle school student could read the statute and discern the difference.

From the ruling:

"Recusal/Perceived Conflict

Mr. Finchem first alleges that Ms. Hobbs “had an ethical duty to recuse herself” after her gubernatorial opponent “perceived a conflict of interest” and then “repeatedly and publicly called for Ms. Hobbs to recuse herself.” The only authority cited in the Amended Statement is to A.R.S. § 38-503, which prohibits self-dealing by public employees.

These are not well-pled facts; they are legal conclusions masquerading as alleged facts. As such, this court is not obliged to assume their truth. See Jeter, 211 Ariz. 386, 389, ¶ 4. Further, and even as “legal conclusions,” Arizona law does not support them."

She continues this rant ignoring sub section B and her reasoning looks like a left wing social media posting.

Looks like bias to me.”

Lawsuit:

Ruling: