Opinion ID: 2514846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Braun's Other Claims in Braun IV Are Meritless.

Text: Braun raises three additional claims in his appeal of Braun IV: (1) that both Judge Pengilly's decision directing Braun to seek relief before Judge Olsen and the settlement agreement itself created a process that is contrary to established law; (2) that the trial courts [68] erred by not demanding discovery and [by] allowing the opposing attorneys and the State of Alaska to withhold evidence; and (3) that the superior court judges who have adjudicated his lawsuits are biased and have facilitated efforts to avoid discovery and cover up evidence of illegal actions by the State of Alaska and the Denali Borough.
Braun claims that Judge Pengilly created a process that is contrary to established law by directing Braun to seek relief in the case before Judge Olsen, and that there is no provision in [the] Alaska Statutes for successive remedies to be challenged in this manner. But as discussed above, the case before Judge Pengilly ( Braun IV ) was inextricably linked to the case before Judge Olsen ( Braun I ) because the settlement brokered to resolve Braun I hinged on the constitutionality of the 2004 reapportionment plan, a subject implicated in Braun IV. For the same reason that Judge Olsen had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the 2004 plan, Judge Pengilly's decision directing Braun to seek relief in the case before Judge Olsen did not create[ ] a process that is contrary to established law. Similarly, Braun's argument that the settlement agreement created a process contrary to law because it allow[ed] the Denali Borough to delay `fair and effective representation' . . . in Denali Borough by repeatedly putting forth illegal apportionment plans must fail as we have already concluded that the 2004 reapportionment plan is constitutional.
Braun argues that the trial courts erred in their treatment of discovery by not demanding discovery and [by] allowing the opposing attorneys and the State of Alaska to withhold evidence. But Braun did not preserve this objection for appeal because he did not request discovery in Braun IV, a point the Borough makes and Braun does not contest. [69] Moreover, even had he done so, the issue would be moot. Because Braun conceded that he was not contesting the procedures by which the 2004 election was held, no amount of evidence would transform Braun IV into a valid election challenge. Nor has Braun preserved a discovery objection in Braun I, for as he notes, the parties chose to forgo discovery in that case on the issue of constitutionality. [70]
Braun's next claim is a general allegation of bias and judicial misconduct on the part of the judges who have presided over his various lawsuits: The record indicates that [t]rial [c]ourt [j]udges were manifestly erroneous, not impartial, and have facilitated efforts to avoid discovery and cover up evidence of illegal actions by the State of Alaska and the Denali Borough. I argue that some in the Fairbanks Court are aiding the State of Alaska, the Denali Borough and Mr. Walleri in an attempt to quash my appeal before this court. Braun also accuses his former attorney of deliberately withholding crucial evidence and claims that permitting the attorney to withdraw from his cases without appointing a replacement was an example of misconduct on the part of the courts involved. [71] The overall plan, Braun asserts, appears to be to narrow the focus and withhold evidence in [Judge Olsen's case] so that my prosecution of that case fails for lack of evidence. As we have noted, the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct requires that [i]n the performance of judicial duties, a judge shall act without bias and prejudice and shall not manifest [such bias or prejudice] by words or conduct. [72] Where a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, that judge should be disqualified. [73] But the burden of proof is on the party alleging bias, [74] and the issuance of a ruling adverse to that party is not, in and of itself, sufficient to meet the burden. [75] There is no evidence in the record to suggest that any of the judges involved in Braun's cases were biased against him. Declining to appoint counsel is not an indication of bias here because Braun's claims do not fall within any of the categories of civil cases for which appointment of counsel is required. [76] And we have already concluded that the trial court's treatment of discovery was not error. Furthermore, despite declining to decide the issue, Judge Pengilly actually provided Braun a list of three possible methods of challenging the constitutionality of the Denali Borough voting districts. Braun's claim of bias fails.