Judicial Conflicts

The judge who dismissed Pantle v. Crawford held financial interests — through broad market index ETFs — in BNY Mellon Corporation: the confirmed Treasury financial agent for the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) that is the central financial conflict at issue in this case. These holdings were identical across all three years of the case (2022, 2023, 2024). Discovery was frozen before this conflict could be formally established.

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in the following circumstances: He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

"A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household."

ETF holdings are not exempt from §455. Indirect ownership through index funds constitutes a financial interest. The statute does not require direct stock ownership — it requires a financial interest, however held. See In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 688 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1982) (mutual fund holdings subject to §455(b)(4)).

Source: Federal Judicial Financial Disclosure Reports database — pub.jefs.uscourts.gov. Downloaded May 29, 2026. Reports cover calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024 — the full duration of Pantle v. Crawford proceedings through dismissal.

Three findings: (1) State Street index fund held in 2023 — State Street owns 4.7% of BNY Mellon. (2) PIMCO fund purchased in 2024 — PIMCO manages the $13.8B fund identified by CUSIP 72202E492 in the underlying state case. (3) Mass portfolio restructure on September 22, 2024 — exactly 23 days after Pantle v. Crawford was filed.

Price's reappointment is currently under active review — merit selection panel established March 18, 2026. Recommendation due June 16, 2026.

The public comment submission address named in the reappointment notice is Elizabeth M. Warren, Clerk of Court — the same office that declined a March 26, 2026 request for Judge Mendoza's executed oath, citing FOIA exemption, and did not respond to a follow-up letter. USPS Certified Mail: 9589 0710 5270 2611 2000 36. → Warren card

Source: Federal Judicial Financial Disclosure Reports — pub.jefs.uscourts.gov. Downloaded May 29, 2026. 2024 report (filed 08/06/2025) covers calendar year 2024 — the year Pantle v. Crawford was active and the mass portfolio restructure occurred.

On March 26, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a formal written request to Elizabeth M. Warren, Clerk of Court, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, for a copy of the executed oath of office for Judge Carlos E. Mendoza. The office declined, citing FOIA exemption. A follow-up letter was sent and received no response.

Elizabeth M. Warren is also the named submission recipient for Magistrate Price's reappointment comments per the Florida Bar's March 18, 2026 notice — the same proceeding in which Price's financial disclosures are now documented on this site.

The Supreme Court recognized a general common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records, subject to the court's sound discretion. This right is not grounded in FOIA — it pre-dates and is independent of the statutory FOIA framework. The request to the Clerk's office was made expressly under this common-law standard, not under FOIA. Invoking a FOIA exemption as a response to a common-law access request is a documented non-sequitur in the administrative record.

Per the Florida Bar's March 18, 2026 announcement, all public comments on Magistrate Price's reappointment must be submitted to: Elizabeth M. Warren, Clerk of Court, 401 W. Central Blvd., Suite 2100, Orlando, FL 32801-0210 or by email to [email protected]. The same office that declined to produce Mendoza's oath is the designated recipient for public input on whether Price — whose financial disclosures are documented above — should receive an eight-year reappointment term. Panel recommendation due June 16, 2026.

Judicial employees do not appear in the pub.jefs.uscourts.gov online database — that database is limited to judicial officers (judges). Under the Ethics in Government Act, the Clerk of Court qualifies as a covered judicial employee required to file annual financial disclosure reports. Access requires Form AO 10A submitted to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Committee on Financial Disclosure.

Form AO 10A has been completed and submitted requesting Warren's annual reports for calendar years 2020–2024.

The structural irony, stated plainly

The federal judiciary — the institution whose authority derives entirely from a sworn oath to the Constitution — is the sole custodian of the documents proving that oath was taken. There is no independent verification mechanism. There is no public registry. The fox has not merely been placed in charge of the hen house. The fox has been placed in charge of verifying that the fox is qualified to guard the hen house, and filed the paperwork confirming this with himself.

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) — never overruled

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

If the oath is defective, the office does not exist. If the office does not exist, the entity holding the oath records does not have authority to hold them. The fox has not merely guarded the hen house. The fox has become the only authority capable of determining whether the fox was ever authorized to guard it.