STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSV-CV-270
IN RE
SteKing2008
Petitioner
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL
The respondent in the above matter motions to recuse Justice Siteowner.
ARGUMENT
I. RIDING JUSTICES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Judge in this case was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, not as a Superior Court
Judge. N1-002 — 1st Congress (2022): Confirming Siteowner as Justice to the Supreme Court. If
he continues to act in such a capacity, it flouts the will of the people and throws a wrench in our
clear-cut structure of government.
Article V, Section VII provides that the Governor, with advice and consent of the senate,
“shall fill a vacancy in the office of the Chief justice of the State, associate justice of the
Supreme Court or judge of any other court,” (emphasis added). The disjunctive “or” as used here
creates two possibilities; associate justice of the Supreme Court, or Judge of any other court. It
does not say “and,” and so it cannot be both. The Governor cannot fill both vacancies with one
nomination. It reasons, then, that one confirmation cannot occupy both seats.
Because Justice Siteowner is a Supreme Court Justice, he lacks the jurisdiction to hear
cases in the Superior Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of the Superior Court
differ vastly. And the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction where the Constitution
provides. It does not have jurisdiction to hear civil, criminal, nor administrative claims at their
initial filling. See Rid. State Constitution Article V, Section III-IV. When Justice Siteowner, as a
Supreme Court Justice, unlawfully assumes the role of the District Court, he inherently defies the
jurisdictional limitations of the Supreme Court. It could be said that it is the institution that has
jurisdiction, not the individual justices. But Justice Siteowner is a member that comprises that
institution, and was confirmed with that express purpose. He cannot occupy the role or seat of a
Superior Court Judge because he was not confirmed to it. And he cannot ride down from the
Supreme Court to the Superior Court and do the Superior Court’s heavy-lifting because he
doesn’t have the Constitutional jurisdiction to do so.
To read this otherwise would be an affront to the people’s will, as well. Senators are
elected with the noble purpose of representing the views of their constituency in the process of
government. And when Senators vote on something, they do so with the understanding that the
law will be carried out in accordance with that vote. When they confirm the Director of the Park
Service, for example, they don’t anticipate him also occupying the role of Colonel of the State
Police unless of course they confirm him for that role too. In the event that an individual
transgresses this order, the actions of that person become illegitimate because one cannot operate
in a role he does not occupy.
II. RIDING JUSTICES HINDER APPELLATE PROCESS AND RAISE QUESTIONS
OF ETHICS
In the event that one of Justice Siteowner’s cases from the Superior Court is appealed to
the Supreme Court, he will have no choice but to recuse in observance of ethics. Of course one
cannot be a fair and impartial reviewer of their own judgment. But Judges are obligated by
Canon 1 of the Rules of Judicial Conduct to adjudicate in such a way. Siteowners position in the
Superior Court at the present moment, and his active adjudication on Superior Court matters,
predispose him to the law and to his interpretations of it which hinders his ability to fairly
adjudicate matters on appeal. In the event that he recuses on a matter in the Supreme Court, it
stands to harm the development of the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to have 5 Justices. It
presently has three. Without Justice Siteowner, it only has two. But in the event that only two
justices are present to hear a case, the case is not able to proceed because quorum cannot be met.
See Rid. R. Sup. Ct. Title I, Rule 5.1 (“Three Members of the Supreme Court constitute a
quorum.”) This means that our impressionable and young laws cannot be effectively ruled upon,
and reviewed by the Supreme Court. It is wrong to needlessly obstruct the system of our
judiciary and the importance of appellate review. And needless, it is. We have a sufficient
number of Superior Court Judges and magistrates to effectively and efficiently handle the cases
before it. There does not exist even a practical argument in support of Justice Siteowner’s
usurpation of jurisdiction. Beyond this, Siteowner’s decision raises questions of legitimacy. If
our courts cannot operate effectively, and our judges don’t occupy the seats they were assigned,
how does that fare in the eyes of the people—the eyes from which this court gets its authority?
Surely not well. The appearance of impropriety denigrates the authority of the judiciary. The
prospect of eroding such an important principle of government should be at the forefront of this
court's concerns. As such, Justice Siteowner should recuse from this case, and return to his seat.
Respectfully submitted,
CLIFFORD2
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
TURNTABLE5000
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
SHIGENOHARUMUNE
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
Date: April 13, 2022
