State vs. Thompson: judicial disqualification with Judge Stone

Discussion on judicial disqualification motions and procedural limitations in the criminal case of State vs. Thompson.
Highlights
1. Motion to Disqualify Judge Bagley
• Ronald Thompson filed a motion to disqualify Judge Bagley, citing bias and misconduct, including past violations of his constitutional rights and judicial complaints filed with the Commissioner for Judicial Fitness and Disability.
• Thompson argued that once a judge is disqualified for bias, they cannot regain impartiality, and their decisions cannot be trusted.
• Thompson referenced a signed order from December disqualifying Judge Bagley, though Fleming clarified that no such order exists for the current case.
• Fleming stated that Oregon law allows disqualification of only two judges per case under ORS 14-250 to 270, and Thompson has already exceeded this limit by filing motions against seven judges, including one from Crook County.
• Fleming cited case law, including Huffstutter v. Lind and State v. Ovalle, to support the procedural limitations on disqualifications and argued that Thompson’s affidavit lacked specific grounds for disqualifying Judge Bagley.
2. Motion to Limit Judicial Disqualifications
• Fleming filed a motion to limit judicial disqualifications, arguing that Thompson’s repeated filings are an abuse of the process and an attempt to achieve a de facto change of venue by disqualifying all judges in Deschutes County.
• Fleming requested an order preventing Thompson from filing future disqualifications based on impartiality or bias and limiting him to filing challenges under ORS 14-210 for cause with enumerated reasons.
• Fleming emphasized the need for oral arguments on future disqualification motions to ensure objections are heard before granting such motions.
• Thompson countered that all his disqualification motions were filed for cause and not due to unfavorable rulings, asserting that impartiality is a constitutional right and cannot be limited to two judges.
3. Judicial Assignment Concerns
• Thompson raised concerns about the appropriateness of the judge’s assignment to the case, questioning whether the assignment was properly authorized by the Chief Justice or Salem-level administration.
• The presiding judge acknowledged the concern but stated they had no additional information and would defer the matter to the state court administrator.
4. Plan for Rulings and Next Steps
• The presiding judge announced their plan to issue a letter of opinion within 10 days addressing motions in this case and several other cases involving Thompson.
• The judge clarified that no oral ruling would be issued during the meeting and that they would work on the opinion over the weekend and following week, despite being occupied with jury trials.
• The judge emphasized their intent to move forward with decisions to address the merits of the criminal prosecution and bring the judicial disqualification process to a close.
5. Constitutional and Ethical Concerns
• Thompson highlighted broader concerns about judicial misconduct, including ex parte communications, cash bribes, and improper actions outside the courtroom, which he claimed have persisted for over 12 years.
• He argued that limiting disqualifications to two judges undermines constitutional rights to impartial justice and fails to address systemic issues within the judiciary.
• Fleming refuted these claims, stating that belief in bias due to past rulings is insufficient grounds for disqualification and that statutory provisions are designed to limit such challenges to prevent abuse.
Next steps
1. Review the two cases mentioned by Mr. Fleming (Huffstutter v. Lind and State v. Ovalle) and include findings in the letter of opinion: Judge (assumed based on context).
2. Issue a letter of opinion within the next 10 days addressing motions in several cases involving Mr. Thompson, including the criminal case State v. Thompson: Judge (assumed based on context).