JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT and OPC Complaint
Filed Against: Judge Robert C. Lunnen, State Prosecutor Craig Peterson
Filed By: Mark Stewart Allen, Pro Se Litigant
Date: [5-26-2025]
I. INTRODUCTION
This judicial complaint is submitted pursuant to applicable rules governing judicial conduct to formally document and request immediate review of serious ethical and constitutional violations committed by Judge Robert C. Lunnen in connection with Case No. 211401656 and related matters. These violations include obstruction of record preservation, denial of stipulated dismissal, suppression of evidence, judicial bias, retaliation against a pro se litigant, and refusal to ensure a fair and open courtroom. Judge Lunnen has failed to sign a dismissal he contracted to do Sept. 20, 2024, and now denies that. Additionally he said in that hearing “I know nothing about your case” after three years of presiding over a double jeopardy case. When called out the necessity to report misconduct, he feigned lack of knowledge which would be ethical violations for Diligence and Competency and Fairness to the Opposing Party and would include failure to report misconduct of the double jeopardy civil rights violations he presided over. Failure to self report.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2024, the State of Utah stipulated to dismiss Case No. 211401656 with prejudice, acknowledging that the matter had no further prosecutorial interest.
Despite this, on May 1, 2025, Judge Lunnen allowed and presided over a hearing without jurisdiction, established by Prosecutor Craig Peterson without standing, requiring Allen to participate, and in defiance of the stipulated dismissal. May 1, 2025 attached transcript identifies more than a dozen civil rights violations in less than 10 minutes in this hearing.
At that hearing, Judge Lunnen refused to issue or enforce mandatory administrative subpoenas to preserve Zoom recordings, to preserve the records, declined to enter Allen’s lawful filings into the record, muted Allen’s microphone three times, and openly threatened to declare Allen a “vexatious litigant.”
Allen has filed a Writ of Mandamus in connection with Case No. 160400655, seeking correction of a critical record that, once amended, topples jurisdiction over all subsequent cases.
Judge Lunnen has resisted these corrective measures, despite being informed that the underlying record omitted a dispositive August 4, 2016 “Case Settled” docket entry.
Ethical & Canonical Violations
Canon 1 – Integrity and Independence
Misrepresented judicial authority after already issuing rulings
Failed to uphold the integrity of the court by contradicting prior findings
Canon 2 – Impartiality and Fairness
Threatened to label Allen a “vexatious litigant” for lawful filings
Displayed bias against a pro se litigant seeking constitutional redress
Canon 3 – Diligence and Competence
Ignored months of motions, including writs, subpoenas, and preservation orders
Claimed to lack jurisdiction after having already ruled on substantive issues
Judicial Misrepresentation
Claimed unfamiliarity with the case on Sept 20, 2024 despite clear evidence of prior engagement (e.g., July 6 & Aug 17, 2022 hearings)
B. Constitutional & Federal Law Violations
Double Jeopardy Violation
Allowed renewed prosecution (via hearings) after case was dismissed with prejudice
Violates Fifth Amendment’s protection from being tried twice for the same offense
18 U.S.C. § 242 – Color of Law Violation
Exercised authority in a dismissed case, depriving Allen of constitutional protections
18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Obstruction of Evidence
Refused to preserve Zoom video/audio recordings, despite repeated requests
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil Rights Violation
Muted Allen during protected First Amendment speech on the record
Failed to process filings which would allow redress
Due Process Denial (Amendments V & XIV)
Ignored motions, refused to hear filings, and blocked procedural remedies
First Amendment Violation
Muted Allen’s microphone mid-statement during a lawful attempt to preserve the record
Chilled Allen’s right to petition the court for redress
Judicial Threats and Intimidation
Openly threatened vexatious litigant designation without cause, creating a chilling effect on future lawful filingsc
Attorney Craig Peterson has failed to self report double jeopardy violations spanning 3 years. failed to preserve the case history, failed to provide zoom screenings via Discovery requests and failed to report the misconduct of prior prosecutors acting under Color of Law. 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, 18 USC 1510, 1519. Rule 8.3.
Rule 8.3 – Failure to Report Judicial Misconduct
Peterson had an affirmative duty to report Judge Lunnen’s ethical violations and misconduct. He remained silent despite witnessing constitutional violations in open court.
Rule 3.8(d) – Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Failed to disclose prior dismissals, GRAMA evidence, and the State’s own stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Rule 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal
Misrepresented procedural authority by requesting a hearing after dismissal and failing to notify the court that jurisdiction had ended.
Rule 8.4 – Misconduct
Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by reviving a closed case and seeking to relitigate it outside lawful authority.
Professional Retaliation Against a Pro Se Litigant
Engaged in lawfare tactics against Allen by filing a hearing request solely to intimidate or burden him, violating ethical fairness standards.
II. Federal Violations
18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Participated in a hearing in a case dismissed with prejudice, thereby depriving Allen of due process and finality of judgment.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Obstruction of Justice
Actively collaborated in efforts to undermine a valid court order (dismissal with prejudice), interfering with ongoing administrative and federal review.
18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records
By failing to preserve or request Zoom recordings and relevant filings, Peterson contributed to the destruction or concealment of material evidence.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil Rights Violation
Participated in a scheme to deprive a citizen of civil rights without legal standing or jurisdiction.
42 U.S.C. § 1985 – Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
Coordinated with Judge Lunnen to suppress filings, mute the litigant, and deny procedural remedies after lawful dismissal.
42 U.S.C. § 1986 – Neglect to Prevent Civil Rights Violations
Failed to take reasonable steps to prevent Judge Lunnen’s misconduct once he became aware of constitutional violations.
III. VIOLATIONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
Refusal to Preserve Records: Judge Lunnen failed to issue subpoenas or orders to preserve essential Zoom hearing data and court materials directly relevant to ongoing federal inquiries and constitutional challenges. Violation: Canon 3; 18 U.S.C. § 1519; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Failure to Enforce Stipulated Dismissal: By refusing to honor the September 2024 dismissal agreement, Judge Lunnen violated the terms of a court-recognized contract between the State and Defendant. Violation: Canon 2; Contract Law Principles; 18 U.S.C. § 242
Retaliation and Intimidation: Threatening to declare Allen a vexatious litigant for lawfully seeking redress and attempting to preserve records constitutes retaliation and intimidation of a pro se litigant. Violation: Canon 2; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Denial of Due Process and Fair Hearing: Muting Allen’s microphone and ignoring or excluding court filings constitutes a deprivation of the right to be heard and undermines the principles of open justice. Violation: Canon 1, 3; Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV
Neglect of Duty Prior to Retirement: Judge Lunnen is set to retire on August 1, 2025. These actions, if not sanctioned now, will escape formal accountability. Violation: Canon 1; Judicial Code 3B(1)
Judge Lunnen stated on September 20, 2024:
“I have no jurisdiction… I am not an expert… I cannot consider these pleadings.”
This directly contradicts:
July 6, 2022: *”I took quite a bit of time to research through this issue…”
August 17, 2022: *”I’m deciding this on contract law… This is granted without prejudice…”
These discrepancies reveal that Judge Lunnen knew the case and had actively ruled on it multiple times. His denial of jurisdiction and knowledge served as an evasion tactic, not a genuine lack of competence.
Violations:
Canon 1 – Uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary
Canon 2 – Avoid impropriety and perform duties impartially
Canon 3 – Diligence and competence in adjudication
6. Contradictory Judicial Conduct: False Disclaimers of Knowledge and Jurisdiction
IV. RELIEF AND ACTION REQUESTED
The undersigned also formally seeks whistleblower protection under applicable state and federal law in order to submit protected evidence to the Judicial Conduct Commission without fear of retaliation, suppression, or further targeting by judicial officers, judges, court personnel, or the Attorney General’s Office. Allen is willing to testify and produce sealed materials under subpoena, provided protective measures are implemented to ensure his personal and legal safety.
The undersigned respectfully demands that:
Judge Lunnen be formally sanctioned for unethical and unconstitutional conduct.
The Judicial Conduct Commission order immediate injunctive relief requiring the preservation of all records and Zoom materials related to hearings in Case No. 211401656.
The Commission initiate a public review of Judge Lunnen’s fitness to serve during the remainder of his judicial term.
Any pending decisions under Judge Lunnen’s authority in this matter be frozen or vacated until an independent review is completed.
V. EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW
Mark Stewart Allen possesses substantial evidentiary materials, including:
Zoom audio/video recordings
Hearing transcripts
GRAMA responses and appeals
Stipulation documents and docket history
Communications evidencing the State’s concession of dismissal
The Court is urged to subpoena these materials immediately to prevent further loss or alteration and to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process.
Case 211401656 as of this writing has failed to docket multiple filings to preserve the record, for the recusal of Judge Lunnen, for whistleblower protections.
The Court transcripts demonstrate a pattern of disregard for Pro Se Litigants. Judge Lunnen repeatedly cut Allen off mid sentence and ultimately post dismissal with prejudice instructing his clerk to mute Allen multiple times while Allen was trying to force administrative obligations to preserve the record which the judge denied. 18 U.S. C. 1510, 1519. 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986 violations under Color of Law. Administrative Obligations to preserve an accurate court record are not optional. Judge Lunnen violated Allen’s due process, civil rights and First Amendment Rights to silence Allen requesting preservation of the crimes committed in the courtroom.
Furthermore on May 21 2025 a letter to the Office of Court Administrator was submitted which the JCC should obtain and review to identify systemic problems in docketing Pro Se litigants filings. An audit of my filings not being docketed timely is requested.
More than a dozen prosecutors participated in hiding exculpatory evidence which can be found in the court docket 211401656, unsealed case histories in case 191400132 and 171402280 compound the injustices and lawfare and can be provided in certified form to demonstrate how lawfare has been conducted in Utah County 4th District Court.
A Department of Justice full investigation is requested and a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the conduct of judges and prosecutors in these matters. Dozens of filings and pleadings to preserve the case histories have been ignored by Judge Lunnen. Immediate subpoenas to preserve the zoom screenings under direction of former Utah County Attorney David Leavitt should be granted Allen and immediately issued. Subpoenas are in the docket awaiting judicial approval for administrative preservation of the record in cases 191400132 (expunged) case 211401656 (dismissed with prejudice)- Lawfare is alive and financially prosperous to the Court system in Utah as the expense of citizens and tax payers.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Stewart Allen
Pro Se Litigant
s/ Mark Stewart Allen
—
9-12-2024 Filed- Motion for Writ of Mandamus
211401656 All transcripts numbered April 25 2025
JCC Filing MAY 1 2025 HEARING TRANSCRIPT WITH NOTATIONS – Google Docs
May 16th 2025 Motion to Preserve Record, Recuaal, Posted May 21st 2025