Scribd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

1.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada ) Non-Profit Corporation, and ) 2.

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED ) FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC. d/b/a ) AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CERTIFIED ) FORENSIC COUNSELORS, a Nevada ) For-Profit Corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 14-CV-00187-RAW ) 1.

NARCONON INTERNATIONAL, ) a California Non-Profit Corporation et. al. ) ) Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHREDER

Stripped of its pejoratives, false accusations and hyperbole, Defendants’ Response does not, because it cannot, dispute the key facts that require Judge Shreder’s disqualification: (i) Judge Shreder’s wife is a legal assistant for the relatively small firm that represents multiple defendants in this case; (ii) the law firm publically held out Judge Shreder’s wife as a legal assistant for defense counsel of record; and (iii) Judge Shreder failed to disclose his wife’s relationship with defense counsel. Defendants try to obscure the controlling legal standard – the objectively reasonable

appearanc

e of bias -- by wrongheaded insistence that Plaintiffs must prove an actual improper act by

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 833 Filed in ED/OK on 09/30/16 Page 1 of 7

2

Judge Shreder. Defendants evade the controlling standard because, when objectively applied, the controlling standard compels disqualification.

The Great Irony of Defendants’ Response

As Defendants’ overheated rhetoric demonstrates, Defendants have lost the capacity for objective thought. Defendants’ assertion that “no reasonable person” would question the appearance of Judge Shreder’s bias because he failed to disclose that his wife draws a pay check from opposing counsel’s firm borders on clinical delusion. Any objective person --

i.e

. persons not connected with this case -- would have doubts about the appearance of bias of any judge who failed to disclose that his wife holds herself out as the legal assistant for opposing counsel. A simple polling of lawyers and lay persons unconnected to this case will readily confirm that fact. In a stroke of perfectly insidious irony, Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs must have been aware that Judge Shreder’s wife worked for Steidley & Neal because, years ago, the spouse of one of Plaintiffs’ lawyers (Laurel Carbone) worked for the firm when she was a law student.

1

Doc. 795, p. 5. According to Defendants’ theory of imputed spousal knowledge, by virtue of Ms. Carbone’s spousal relationship with an associate lawyer in the firm, she is

1

Ms. Carbone was formerly married to Clark Crapster who is an attorney for Steidley & Neal. The couple separated in February 2013 and were divorced in April 2014. Ms. Carbone received her law license in November 2014.


3

“presumed” to know not only the first and last names of every person in her spouse’s law firm, including support staff, but also the occupation of the spouse of every firm employee. Apparently, however, the “presumed” flow of information between spouses in Defendants’ law firm doesn’t apply when one’s spouse is a federal judge. Defendants’ own argument, ironic as it is, proves that an objectively reasonable appearance of bias arises when a judge fails to disclose his wife works for opposing counsel of record. Ms. Carbone was not aware, until researching Judge Shreder’s background in connection with preparing the present motion, that Sandy Shreder was married to Judge Shreder. Defendants’ suggestion that Plaintiffs held onto this knowledge as a “trump card” is ludicrous. If Plaintiffs had, at the outset, known of Judge Shreder’s spousal relationship with defense counsel, Plaintiffs wouldn’t have sat back and waited to see how things progressed, thinking they were backstopped by an always-disfavored disqualification motion. Counsel (Paul DeMuro) raised the issue with Buddy Neal immediately upon learning of Judge Shreder’s spousal relationship with defense counsel.

The Correct Standard is Appearance of Bias, Not Actual Bias.

Defendants acknowledge the governing legal standard under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) (Doc. 795 p. 9), but then proceed to ignore it. Defendants repeatedly
