LAW OFFICES OF ROCKY ANDERSON

January 29, 2019

Via email: dthomas@utdem.org; mstevenson@utdem.org; syo@utculture.org;

cvillegas@utdem.org; eric@ldsdems.org; stroh.decaire@gmail.com;
jenwilroho@yahoo.com; jwilson@utdem.org; cas7w@yahoo.com;
cstormont@utdem.org; carolspackmoss@gmail.com; jmhennington@gmail.com;
acragun@utdem.org; jdprovost@le.utah.gov; jhennington@le.utah.gov

Utah State Democratic Party

Daisy Thomas
Crystal Young-Otterstrom
Cristobal Villegas
Eric Biggart
Stroh DeCaire
Jennifer Wilson
Charles Stormont
Carol Spackman-Moss
Jon Hennington
Alex Cragun

Re: Proceedings Relating to “Complaint” Against Rob Miller: Fundamental

Unfairness, Corruption, Violations of Due Process, Ex Post Facto
Application of UDP Policies/Procedures, Serious Violations of
Policies/Procedures, and Unanswered Questions

Dear Gentlemen/Ladies:

The Constitution of the Utah State Democratic Party (“UDP Constitution”) sets
high-minded goals and requirements for the Party. It provides that “Democrats of the Great
State of Utah, united in common purpose, acknowledge that we are a party of enduring
strength.”1 It reflects a dedication “to seek individual freedom in the framework of a just

1
UDP Constitution, Preamble.

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson Judge Building, Eight East Broadway, Suite 450, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Walter M. Mason 801-349-1690 | RockyAnderson.org | email: Justice@AndersonLawOffices.org
January 29, 2019
Page 2

society.”2 Crucially, the UDP Constitution reflects a “pledge [by Utah Democrats] to open,
honest ideals in the workings of this party . . . and to sustain the human and constitutional
rights of all persons.”3 The UDP Constitution notes, profoundly, that “[a] party which
hopes to call for the best the Nation can achieve must embody the best of our common
heritage and traditions.”4

Certainly, “the best of our common heritage and traditions” includes fundamental
fairness, due process, decency, humane treatment, and acting in conformity with the rule
of law—which includes following the Party’s Constitution, Bylaws, and policies and
procedures.

• That heritage and those traditions have been betrayed by the two-year smear
campaign by certain UDP members to destroy the life and reputation of Rob
Miller (“Miller”), a long-time, hard-working UDP stalwart and very decent
human being.5
• They have been betrayed by expressions of bigotry based on sex, race, and
age.
• They have been betrayed by the refusal of the UDP members who signed the
“Complaint”6 against Miller to accept the conclusive rulings of the UDP
Judicial Committee (“Judicial Committee”)—which were affirmed by the
UDP Executive Committee (“Executive Committee”)—that it does not have
jurisdiction over Miller.
• They have been betrayed by the highly public disclosures of the unproven
allegations,7 prior to the allegations being dealt with by the UDP according to
its policies and procedures.

2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
See Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Craig Axford, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A”.
6
The “Complaint,” signed by Mary Brady-Bishop, Jennifer Miller-Smith, Celina Milner,
Sheryl Ginsberg, Elizabeth Converse, Jill Haring, and Ellen Brady (collectively referred to
herein as “the Signers”), is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
7
The media coverage of the allegations, prior to any opportunity for the UDP Judicial
Committee to consider the matter, was relentless and, obviously, devasting for Miller and
January 29, 2019
Page 3

• And they have been betrayed by the failure of the UDP leadership to abide by
the policies and procedures of the Party governing the requirements for a
“complaint,” for the handling of the purported “Complaint” and the
determinations of the Judicial Committee in this matter, and for the holding
of a “trial.”

The high-minded goals and requirements of the UDP Constitution have been entirely
disregarded by:

• at least one member of the UDP, who was running against Miller for Chair at
the time the “Complaint” was submitted, and who has repeatedly
communicated publicly her bigotry on the basis of sex, age, and race;
• those who have publicly disclosed unproven allegations against Miller;
• those (including people who have no personal knowledge concerning any of
the allegations in the “Complaint”) who have viciously berated and publicly
denigrated Miller and others on the basis of gossip and unproven
“allegations;”
• those who have harassed and intimidated people because of their expressions
of friendship for Miller or for their belief that Miller is entitled to greater due
process than afforded by those who have fanned the flames of hatred and
bitterness; and
• those officials of the UDP who have, even though perhaps through oversights
or inadvertance, disregarded and violated the governing policies and
procedures of the UDP.

A cancer of division, vulgar hatred, bitterness, disregard for the rule of law, and lack
of principled leadership has infected the Utah Democratic Party, leaving it feeble, the target
of ridicule, and distracted from its core mission. The longer this matter is wrongfully
permitted to fester within the UDP, the greater will be the unjustifiable harm to Miller, his
family, and, ultimately, the Utah Democratic Party, which has already lost members
because of disgust with the pettiness, maliciousness, and intimidation by several UDP
members.

his family, severely damaging his reputation. Copies of some of the many news articles
describing the “allegations” are attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
January 29, 2019
Page 4

Imagine someone referring to “creepy middle-aged Persian gals.” All hell would
break loose, for good reason. However, intolerance for such bigotry seems to run only one
way for some people—in a way that should never be countenanced by the Democratic
Party.

Nadia Mahallati (“Mahallati”), who was running against Miller for Chair of the UDP
and was reputedly one of the ring-leaders of the smear campaign against Miller (and who
helped push the resolution for a trial before the Central Committee), has expressed her
bigotry based on age, race, and gender on more than one occasion.8 For instance, in a public
post about an event she attended, Mahallati described the diversity of the “crowd,” then
stated:

There’s also a larger shared (sic) than I’d like of creepy old white guys9

Mahallati did not stop with sexist, ageist, and racist public communications. She
publicly threatened and sought to intimidate anyone who was friendly toward Miller at a
Democratic convention, engaging in a vicious public attack against Miller simply because
of “allegations” against him—allegations about which she had no personal knowledge.
Mahallati wrote the following public Facebook message:

[W]e weren’t totally surprised when [Miller] showed up. It was still shocking
and we saw it as a complete lack of understanding the seriousness of the
allegations against him.

But the truly awful part, to me and many others, was seeing people flock to
him to engage in light-hearted conversation. Especially disturbing was the
behavior of some of the candidates and their volunteers who put winning
above all else and shamelessly went after him and his defenders for votes;
some even initiated hugs with him!

8
In addition to the Facebook post reference, where she denigrates “old white guys,” she
also made a disparaging, bigoted reference to “old white men” in a speech to the Davis
County Democrats, which can be seen and heard at https://youtu.be/8UbfqjRxDPk (at
0:32). The same bigoted reference to “old white men” has been made during other
presentations by Mahallati.
9
A copy of the Facebook post is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” (emphasis added).
January 29, 2019
Page 5

The sexism in our Party is real, and deeply embedded in our cultural (sic)
generally . . . .

As a final note, the shameful behavior of so many will not be forgotten.

This may have just been a temporary lapse of judgment, but if not, you
will be held accountable next time.10

In response to that threatening, presumptuous public post—which assumes that

Miller is compelled to disappear simply because of “allegations” that he disputes—one
reader stated:

I’m trying to understand this post better. I think it is odd to threaten to hold
anyone that shook Rob Miller’s hand at convention “accountable”. What do
you mean by that? It sounds threatening, but is ambiguous. And a handshake
seems pretty innocuous behavior for which to be threatened. Mostly, I wonder
what you mean by “accountable”.

A relative newcomer to Utah, Stan Rosenzweig (“Rosenzweig”) and his wife were
interested in becoming active in the Utah Democratic Party. They were potential party
activists and substantial contributors, but because of loathsome behavior by those who
would have denied Miller of any due process and who lashed out at those who questioned
the conduct of those people publicly attacking Miller, the Rosenzweigs have no remaining
interest in involvement with the Party.

On June 3, 2017, while Miller was still a candidate for UDP Chair, Cree Cheri
McNulty Segura posted the following on Facebook:11

I’m going to post about this everyday until he steps down…if Rob Miller gave
a fuck about these allegations, he would step the fuck down. He cares about
winning a stupid fucking chairs race, that shows to me that he is a fucking
piece of shit. And to everyone who keeps saying shit like “but I’ve known him
so many years” or “he has always been so nice” – fuck you, you are a special
kind of monster.

10
A copy of the Facebook post is attached hereto as Exhibit “E” (emphasis added).
11
The Facebook post is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”.
January 29, 2019
Page 6

Rosenzweig shared that post on Facebook and posted the following comment:

This is an example of a good person who has become so obsessed with gossip
that she has completely given up on the constitution and rights to legal
process. How sad this has become.

Following that observation, Rosenzweig was the recipient of a venomous public post
by Tina Escobar-Taft, who Rosenzweig, to this day, has never met:

Stan is a horrible misogynistic asshole. He stood by rob miller and tried to

shame his victims and silence their friends through intimidation. Fuck him12

All that because Stan Rosenzweig had the principled audacity to call for due process for
Miller, who Rosenzweig did not know.

Now, two years later, the pettiness, cruelty, utter nastiness, and divisiveness
continues because of the absence of the finality that is compelled by the decisions of the
Judicial Committee (affirmed by the Executive Committee)13 and by the governing policies
and procedures of the UDP.

12
The Facebook post is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.
13
The Decision of the Utah State Democratic Judicial Standing Committee, dated June 25,
2018, attached hereto as Exhibit “H”, reads, in part, as follows:

On May 25, 2017, seven individuals submitted a complaint to the Judicial

Standing Committee. On June 12, 2017, the Judicial Standing Committee
determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because the
Accused was no longer a member or officer of the Democratic Party, stating
“The Judicial Committee has reviewed the complaint dated May 25, 2017 and
all associated materials submitted by interested parties. The Judicial
Committee has determined that there is no longer an intra-party dispute and
lacks jurisdiction to pursue any further action specific to this complaint.”

Six of seven of the same complainants have now refiled that Complaint,
attaching the same document that was submitted in 2017. In addition, the
Complainants have raised concerns about the Accused’s media interactions in
2017 after the accusations became public. According to the refiled complaint,
January 29, 2019
Page 7

As a result of a malicious campaign of libels, slanders, threats, intimidation, and

massive violations of fundamental fairness, due process, and the bylaws and
policies/procedures of the Utah Democratic Party, Miller has once again been subjected to
outrageous abuses by several UDP members. The UDP is being used, manipulated, and
severely damaged by those same members. The damage must be stopped—and it is the
responsibility of the Executive Committee to stop it without further delay.

After suffering unjustified public humiliation, depression, and severe damage to his
reputation, Miller is now being faced with a purported decision of the State Central
Committee (“Central Committee”), in violation of the UDP Bylaws and
Policies/Procedures, that a trial will be held relating to certain claims that have been
repeatedly dismissed by the Judicial Committee. That is particularly curious inasmuch as
those Judicial Committee decisions dismissing the “Complaint” have been affirmed by the
State Executive Committee of the UDP (“Executive Committee”).

The manner in which this matter has proceeded has been fundamentally unfair and
unjust, to the point of being corrupt, dishonest, and cowardly.

these acts occurred following the Accused’s resignation from the party and
any party office.

Because this matter is the subject of a previous decision of the Judicial Standing
Committee, and because the key jurisdictional facts remain unchanged, the Judicial
Standing Committee still cannot pursue any further action with respect to the
resubmitted complaint. The Accused’s media actions after resignation from the party
do not subject the Accused to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Standing Committee.

The Utah Democratic Party is a voluntary organization, and the Judicial Standing
Committee has no authority to sanction those who are not members. Nor do the
Party’s Bylaws permit the Committee to re-open a complaint that was resolved under
prior leadership. Based on the foregoing, the Judicial Standing Committee finds that
it has no jurisdiction to investigate the May 30, 2018 Complaint against Mr. Miller.

The Judicial Committee did not refer the matter to the Executive Committee, consistent
with the anti-harassment policies and procedures adopted by the UDP.
January 29, 2019
Page 8

The following are matters of great concern:

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Miller has written to Ms. Thomas, as Chair of the UDP, with reasonable questions
and a request, which have still gone unanswered. We respectfully request immediate
answers to the following questions:

1. Miller has lost substantial economic opportunities since the “Complaint” in this
matter went public. He needs to take on work of all kinds, including repairing
and refinishing floors, whenever he can get the work. He was scheduled to work
for a client in St. George from January 31 to at least February 4. No one checked
with him regarding his availability for a “trial,” which was scheduled unilaterally
by the Central Committee. He has requested, by an email to Ms. Thomas and
others dated January 17, 2019, a continuance of the trial so he can meet his
work commitment.

He has also sought a continuance to allow him a reasonable opportunity to

prepare evidence and arrange for the attendance of possible witnesses. I only
recently committed to assist Miller, in the midst of major commitments in other
cases that require my attention. The unilateral scheduling of a “trial,” without
regard to Miller’s work schedule and his need for adequate time to locate counsel
and prepare for the “trial,” is completely at odds with the commitment to “the
fair adjudication of disputes” in Article I, Section 1(iv) of the Constitution of
the Utah State Democratic Party (“UDP Constitution”). Certainly, the Chair
and/or Executive Committee of the UDP can grant a continuance under these
circumstances notwithstanding the unilateral scheduling of a “trial” by the
Central Committee.

2. Will UDP Vice Chair Marcus Stevenson recuse himself from these
proceedings due to potential bias? (The reasons for Miller suspecting bias are
described in his January 17 email to Ms. Thomas and others.)

During the course of drafting this letter, we have been advised of additional
“trial” participants, some of whom should recuse themselves, or be disqualified,
for bias or because of a serious question about bias. What is being done to
screen out those people who are biased or where there is serious reason to
January 29, 2019
Page 9

believe they are biased? Please advise us of those who have recused themselves.
We will provide by another letter a description of our concerns about certain
people serving as “trial” participants and seek your aid in doing what is required
to make sure the “trial” is not simply a kangaroo court.

Additional questions have arisen, with respect to which we would appreciate

timely answers (which the Chair of the UDP should have readily available):

3. There are apparently two sets of “Anti-Harassment” Policies, one of which has
added several provisions that are not in the other. (Those sets of policies will be
referred to herein as “Both Sets of Policies.”) Strangely, neither set of policies is
dated and we do not have information about how or when they, or either of them,
were adopted. One of the sets, entitled “Anti-Harassment Procedures of the Utah
State Democratic Party,” (“Anti-Harassment Procedures”) is attached hereto as
Exhibit “I”; the other (with the additions), entitled “Anti-Harassment Policies &
Procedures of the Utah State Democratic Party,” (“Anti-Harassment Policies &
Procedures”) is attached as Exhibit “J”. On what date was each of the two sets
of policies effective and when and how were each of them adopted?

4. Is it the position of the UDP that either or both of the sets of anti-harassment
policies described in the preceding paragraph apply to this matter,
notwithstanding that they were enacted and implemented long after the
alleged conduct complained of by complainants; long after complainants
pursued their “complaint” the first and, perhaps, second times; and long
after the Judicial Committee found that the UDP and the Judicial Committee
had no jurisdiction over Miller? Does the UDP contend that ex post facto
application of policies, particularly those relating to jurisdiction over a non-
member and his First Amendment rights to disclose publicly the nightmare he
has experienced at the hands of the UDP and some of its malicious members, is
consistent with fundamental fairness and due process? If so, such an arbitrary,
capricious, and after-the-fact application of substantive provisions of UDP
policies is a betrayal of the commitment of the UDP to “dedicate [itself] to seek
individual freedom in the framework of a just society,” “to pledge [itself] to open,
honest ideals in the workings of this party,” “and to sustain the human and
constitutional rights of all persons.” (UDP Constitution, Preamble.) The ex post
facto applications of substantive policies or “procedures,” particularly those
dealing with jurisdiction over non-members and their First Amendment rights,
January 29, 2019
Page 10

would be directly counter to the guarantee in the UDP Constitution of “the fair
adjudication of disputes.” (Article I, Section 1(iv).)

5. The Central Committee purportedly passed a resolution that there will be a

“trial”, notwithstanding the determination, twice, by the UDP Judicial
Committee, that there was no jurisdiction over Miller. Pursuant to the UDP
Constitution, “[a] quorum of the State Central Committee shall be at least one-
twelfth of entitled members.” How many members are there on the Central
Committee and how many members were in attendance when the Central
Committee voted to require a “trial”? Please provide documentation reflecting
the number of members in attendance and whether a quorum was in attendance.
(In an email to the Chair of the UDP, dated January 22, 2019, Miller requested to
be provided the minutes from the Central Committee meeting and asked how
many people attended the meeting. He has not yet received a response to that
email, either.)

VIOLATIONS OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

1. Requirements for a Complaint.

On or about May 25, 2017, a letter was addressed to and delivered to the UDP
Executive Committee, signed by Mary Brady-Bishop, Jennifer Miller-Smith,
Celina Milner, Sheryl Ginsberg, Elizabeth Converse, Jill Haring, and Ellen Brady
(referred to collectively herein as “Signers”). (Exhibit “B”.) That letter has been
referred to since that time as a “complaint” in at least two proceedings before the
Judicial Committee, at least two proceedings before the Executive Committee,
and at least one proceeding before the Central Committee. (Although that letter
does not remotely constitute a “complaint,” within the requirements of the anti-
harassment policies that apparently have been applied in recent proceedings in
this matter, it will be referred to herein as the “Complaint”.)

As is readily apparent from the “Complaint,” there is no indication of who is

complaining about what or even if each signatory had first-hand knowledge about
anything claimed in the Complaint. As to each claim of purported conduct, there
is no indication of to whom it purportedly happened or who among the Signers
witnessed it, the identity of any other witnesses purportedly present, or when it
purportedly happened. As to almost all of the claims, there is also no indication
January 29, 2019
Page 11

of where the purported conduct occurred. Instead, several people joined together
shortly before the election for UDP Executive Officers (in which election Miller
was running for the position of Chair), after one or more of them vigorously
sought out others to join in the malicious campaign against Miller,14 and instead
of stepping forward and describing what purportedly happened to each of them
or in the presence of each of them, they teamed up and all signed the Complaint,
making numerous vague, misleading, and/or exaggerated claims. They did so
with the intent and result of undermining Miller’s prospects in the upcoming
election for UDP Chair and running off a long-time enthusiastic, committed, and
effective UDP member and destroying his reputation, putting him and his family
through utter hell.

The Complaint does not remotely comply with the following

requirements set forth in Both Sets of Policies (Paragraph 1.a.):

Any party filing a complaint should provide as much detail as possible

regarding their complaint, including any supporting documentation and

14
For instance, one of the Signers, Sheryl Ginsberg (“Ginsberg”), contacted a number of
women, fishing for information that might be used against Miller. One exchange by means
of a Messenger message between Ginsberg and Kelly Ann Booth during April and May
2017 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “K”) reads as follows:

[From Sheryl L. Ginsberg:] Hi Kelly Jeff Bell referred me to you. I’m a

recipient of sexual harassment by Rob Miller while I was volunteering at the
State Party. I never reported at the time because I was dumb. Anyway, I’ve
talked to several people recently who have had similar experiences or just
feel “creepy” around Rob. I would feel remiss if I didn’t bring this up
before the election for State Chair. Are you willing to let me know what
your experiences have been? Btw, I see that you are FB friends with
Shantelle; she and my son are law partners! Small Lake City. Thanks.

[From Kelly Ann Booth:] Hi Sheryl…sorry I just saw this message from a
while ago. I didn’t share your experience. Rob was always very
professional with me, and we did work together on projects. I never got a
creepy vibe from him. Of course, sexual harassment should not be tolerated,
and I am sorry for your negative experience. Best to you!
January 29, 2019
Page 12

the identity of any witnesses.

The “Complaint” was drafted and signed in such a way as to falsely convey
that each of the signers had experienced or witnessed “harassment.” That is how
some members of the news media mistakenly reported it to the public. As far as any
reader of a newspaper knows, seven women complained that Miller engaged in
sexual misconduct with them or that they witnessed sexual misconduct. Following
are some of the accounts in the media, which resulted from the dishonest and
misleading manner in which the “Complaint” was drafted and presented:

Seven female Democratic activists say they witnessed numerous

instances of sexual misconduct by Rob Miller—a candidate for Utah
Democratic chairman and the party’s former vice chairman and
treasurer.

Lee Davidson, “7 women allege sexual misconduct by candidate for Utah

Democratic Party chairman,” June 2, 2017, http://archive.sltrib.com/
article.php?id=5359823&itype=CMSID (emphasis added).

Seven women allegedly witnessed instances of sexual misconduct by a

candidate for Utah Democratic chairman . . . .

“Candidate for Utah Democratic chairman accused of sexual misconduct by seven

women,” New York Post, June 3, 2017 (originally published by Fox News)
https://nypost.com/2017/06/03/candidate-for-utah-democratic-chairman-accused-of
-sexual-misconduct-by-seven-women/ (emphasis added).

Several women have come forward alleging they were sexually

harassed by Rob Miller, one of the leading candidates for Utah
Democratic Party Chair.

Bryan Schott, “Several women allege sexual misconduct by candidate for Utah
Democratic Party chair,” Utah Policy, June 2, 2017, https://utahpolicy.com/index.
php/features/today-at-utah-policy/13383-several-women-allege-sexual-harassment-
against-candidate-for-utah-democratic-party-chair (emphasis added).

Even after almost two years, however, there has been no indication as to
January 29, 2019
Page 13

whether any or all of the Signers claim to have personal knowledge of any of the
claims described in the “Complaint,” and, if so, which ones. One of the Signers,
Ellen Brady (“Brady”), has admitted that she only knows of hearsay and had no first-
hand experience to justify her signature on the “Complaint.” A Messenger message
between Miller and Brady, dated April 12, 2017 (a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit “L”), shortly before the “Complaint” was provided to the Executive
Committee, reads as follows:

[From Rob Miller:] Why would you promote a rumor that is absolutely
untrue? I’m willing to hear an explanation before I seek counsel. Thank
you, Ellen.

[From Ellen Brady:] Anything I said to whomever it is that relayed the

information to you was based on a first hand account of highly
inappropriate actions from someone i [sic] view as credible. End of
this discussion.

One of the other signers also had no first-hand knowledge of the claims
in the “Complaint,” although such a lack of personal knowledge is nowhere
indicated there. In an email, Jeff Stern has stated as follows:

Mary Bishop was a dear friend, may she Rest in Peace.

When I last saw her, I asked her about the claims about Rob Miller and
the letter she had signed. She told me she personally had never
witnessed bad behavior from him, however was told by some in the
Cook Campaign, a few years back.15 (Emphasis added.)

2. Repetitive Demands by Complainants for a New Determination of Their

Claims, Even After Two Conclusive Determinations That the UDP Does Not
Have Jurisdiction Over Miller.

After two conclusive determinations by the Judicial Committee that the UDP
and the Judicial Committee does not have jurisdiction over Miller (Exhibit “H”),
the Complainants, simply because they do not like the result, incessantly demand

15
A copy of the email from Jeff Stern is attached hereto as Exhibit “M”.
January 29, 2019
Page 14

that the UDP once again consider their “Complaint.” That is clearly contrary to
the governing policies and practices of the UDP and, hence, the rule of law.

By letter dated May 30, 2018, more than a year since their first “Complaint,”
complainants presented a second “Complaint” (“Second Complaint”),16 referring
to a new “set of policies and procedures to address” harassment claims. In a blatant
attempt to apply the new policies and procedures in a fundamentally unfair ex
post facto manner, and subjecting Miller to at least double jeopardy concerning a
complaint that does not meet the requirements of the new policies and procedures
invoked by the complainants, the complainants insist on yet another consideration
of their “Complaint” and, in addition, “emails that became part of the original
complaint”—although Miller is unaware of any “emails that became part of the
original complaint.”17

There must be an end to this matter. It ended, conclusively, by the first

determination of the Judicial Committee in June 12, 2017, that it did not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim. Then, although submission of the matter to the
Executive Committee was not appropriate, the Executive Committee affirmed the
2017 decision of the Judicial Committee. That should have drawn this matter to a
close—and according to the Judicial Committee and the Executive Committee,
the matter had come to an end in light of the jurisdictional decision. But ignoring

16
A copy of the Second Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit “N”.
17
As if Miller were not entitled to the free exercise of his First Amendment rights, the
complainants also ask for “consideration of . . . Mr. Miller’s use of traditional media
immediately after the story broke and into the summer months.” Then they state: “We as
complainants carefully avoided sharing our stories with traditional media, because we
wanted the case to work through the Judicial Committee of the Democratic Party.”
(Emphasis added.) Not only was that blatantly false, inasmuch as one of the complainants
told at least one person that the “Complaint” can be made public and that person thereafter
made the “Complaint” public, leading to national coverage of the matter in the news media.
Also, the complainants maintain in their Second Complaint that they “wanted the case to
work through the Judicial Committee of the Democratic Party,” but, after the Judicial
Committee has ruled twice that the Party does not have jurisdiction over Miller, the
complainants ignore those determinations and insist, after two years of obsessing on this
matter, that the matter be considered by the Democratic Party once again—entirely outside
of governing policies and procedures and, hence, contrary to the rule of law.
January 29, 2019
Page 15

the finality of the decisions of the Judicial Committee and Executive Committee,
and counter to the rule of law and orderly procedure, the complainants kept up the
harassment and pushed for their original complaint to be considered again. So,
once again, the Judicial Committee rendered its decision, stating in part:

Because this matter is the subject of a previous decision of the Judicial

Standing Committee, and because the key jurisdictional facts remain
unchanged, the Judicial Standing Committee still cannot pursue any
further action with respect to the resubmitted complaint. The Accused’s
media actions after resignation from the party do not subject the Accused to
the jurisdiction of the Judicial Standing Committee.18 (Emphasis added.)

3. Governing Policies and Procedures of the UDP Require that the Matter be
Concluded with the Determination by the Judicial Committee, Without a
Referral to the Executive Committee.

The “Resolution for a Trial,” purportedly approved at a meeting of the Central

Committee on December 19, 2018,19 omits any reference to the 2017
determination by the Judicial Committee that it did not have jurisdiction.
However, it does note that the Judicial Committee found “that it has no
jurisdiction to investigate the May 30, 2018 Complaint against” Miller. The
Resolution also notes that the Judiciary Committee’s recommendations were
submitted to the Executive Committee for approval and were approved. Then it
notes that “complainants wish to appeal this decision.” Ignoring the lack of
jurisdiction over Miller, as well as the two prior decisions of the Judicial
Committee and the Executive Committee that there is no jurisdiction over Miller,

18
We recognize that this part of the Judicial Committee’s ruling is being repeated from an
earlier recitation at footnote 13, but repetition is perhaps the only means of getting it across
to complainants that they cannot keep raising their “Complaint,” at least in the Utah
Democratic Party, because the Party does not have jurisdiction over Miller. To do so not
only demonstrates contempt for the Judicial Committee and Executive Committee, but it
is a major distraction and wastes precious resources for no reason other than that
complainants refuse to accept “No” for an answer.
19
A copy of the “Resolution for a Trial,” dated December 19, 2018, is attached hereto as
Exhibit “O”.
January 29, 2019
Page 16

the Resolution purports to resolve that “a trial committee be formed” and that
“[t]he trial be on Sat., February 2, 2019 at 10am.”

The procedure utilized to get to that result was wholly violative of the policies
and procedures of the UDP.

Apparently, even though the Anti-Harassment Procedures and the Anti-

Harassment Policies & Procedures were adopted after the acts alleged by
complainants and after the “Complaint” was submitted to the UDP, they are being
applied in an ex post facto fashion to Miller. Even assuming that is appropriate—
which it is not, at least in terms of the substantive provisions such as jurisdiction
and the exercise of First Amendment freedoms—those policies and procedures do
not permit any action by the Executive Committee or the Central Committee
relative to a complaint if the matter is not “referred” to the Executive Committee
by the Judicial Committee in conformity with Paragraph 1.e.–f of Both Sets of
Policies. Such a referral was not made.

Paragraph 1.e. provides that after the Judicial Committee has made a decision,
“[i]n most cases, one of four outcomes are recommended: i. No Action . . . ii.
Resolve: The complaint is resolved informally with the assistance of the Judicial
Committee and/or a mediator. . . . iii. Refer: The complaint and the report of the
Judicial Committee investigation are referred to the Utah State Democratic Party
Executive Committee. . . . iv. Additional Time Needed.”

In this matter, the Judicial Committee determined in 2017 and again in 2018
that the “Complaint” could not be considered because there was no jurisdiction
over Miller because he was no longer a member of the Democratic Party. Hence,
there was no basis for any referral to the Executive Committee.

Paragraph 1.f. makes it clear that referrals are only to be made if the Judicial
Committee is recommending a sanction for the “alleged harasser”:

If the Judicial Committee refers the complaint to the Utah State

Democratic Party Executive Committee for consideration, it shall also
recommend an appropriate sanction or sanctions for the alleged
harasser.
January 29, 2019
Page 17

If there is no recommended sanction, then there is clearly to be no referral to

the Executive Committee. Absent a recommended sanction, the matter is
concluded at the Judicial Committee level.

To disregard the decisions of the Judicial Committee is not only contemptuous

of the Judicial Committee, but contemptuous of the rule of law—which in this
instance is apparently the anti-harassment policies and procedures. The rule of law
demands that people know beforehand what rules are to apply and how they are
to be enforced. In this matter, it seems as if there are no set rules but, rather, if a
certain group of people seeking to further torment Miller don’t get their way, the
rules can be ignored to keep up the harassment, distractions, and waste of
resources—all the while damaging the Democratic Party and undermining the
ideals for which it is supposed to stand.

Notwithstanding the absence of any provision for a referral to the Executive

Committee of the dispositive jurisdictional ruling by the Judicial Committee,
apparently the UDP Chair and the Judicial Committee Chair “agree[d] to suggest
that the Executive Committee review the Judicial Committee’s statement and
affirm or reject the Judicial Committee’s lack of jurisdiction, based on their
submitted statement.”20 According to the timeline provided by the UDP Chair, the
Executive Committee considered the matter on July 2, 2018, and voted to affirm
the decision of the Judicial Committee that there was no jurisdiction over Miller.21

That referral to the Executive Committee was done completely outside the
procedure outlined by the anti-harassment policies and procedures.22 Making
such a referral ran counter to the UDP policy requiring submission of an appeal
by complainants within fourteen days of notification, which was provided by
“Investigator” Woodhead on June 27, 2018.23 Further, the matter was not properly

20
This account is provided in a timeline provided by the UDP Chair, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “P”.
21
Exhibit “P”, page 3.
22
In fact, the UDP Chair’s timeline, Exhibit “P”, at page 2, notes that the Parliamentarian
Brad Townley opined that referral to the Executive Committee was “not required.”
23
See Exhibit “P”, page 2, which sets forth the following chronology:
6/26/18 9:29 A.M.: Investigator Woodhead emails Complainant 4, CC’ing
Investigator McGee with Judicial Committee decision.
January 29, 2019
Page 18

before the Executive Committee since the Judicial Committee had not made a
“recommendation” of a sanction—which is the only “recommendation” to which
reference is made in Paragraph 1.f. of the anti-harassment policies and procedures.

The violations of policy and procedure are even more evident when one
considers that, even if the Judicial Committee had made a “recommendation”
concerning sanctions, and even if the Executive Committee had approved the
recommendation regarding a sanction, (1) the Executive Committee affirmed the
second decision of the Judicial Committee that there was no jurisdiction over
Miller on July 2, 2018 (see UDP Chair’s Timeline, Exhibit “P”, page 3); (2) the
anti-harassment policies and procedures require that “[i]f the recommendation is
approved, the Executive Committee shall immediately inform the alleged harasser
and the complainant(s) in writing of the decision reached” (Paragraph 1.i., Both
Sets of Policies (Exhibits “I” and “J”) (emphasis added)); and (3) either party may
appeal the decision of the Executive Committee within fourteen days. (Id.,
paragraph 1.j.) The notice from the UDP Chair of the Executive Committee’s
decision was not provided until December 8, 2018, five months after the Executive
Committee’s decision. (See email from Daisy Thomas dated December 8, 2018, a
copy of which begins at the bottom of the first page of an email from Daisy
Thomas, dated December 17, 2018, to Marcus Stevenson and others, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “Q”.)

The bottom line, however, is that there is to be no referral to the Executive

Committee and, hence, no appeal to the Central Committee from any decision of
the Executive Committee, where the Judicial Committee has merely decided that
there is no jurisdiction over the accused. As Both Sets of Policies provide:

By way of clarification, it is the intent of these procedures that the

Executive Committee’s primary responsibility is to review the

6/27 11:42 A.M.: Complainant 4 replies to email, requesting information on

contesting the finding.
6/27/18 3:54 P.M.: Investigator Woodhead responds to Complainant 4 via email,
informing them that they have 14-days to submit an appeal, attaching the policy.
Target Appeal Deadline: 7/11/18
January 29, 2019
Page 19

procedures followed by the Judiciary Committee and the proposed

sanction . . . .24

SUMMARY

This matter cannot, consistent with the values expressed by the UDP Constitution
and the specific provisions of the governing policies and procedures of the UDP, be
permitted to fester any longer. Any action by the Central Committee is without effect
because it was acting as an appellate body from the decision of the Executive Committee,
the consideration by which was directly contrary to the policies and procedures governing
the “Complaint” in this matter. It is now the duty of the Executive Committee to remedy
the violations of policy and to conclude this matter once and for all, as it should have been
when the Judicial Committee first ruled that there is no jurisdiction over Miller.

The divisiveness, meanness, cruelty, dishonesty,25 and misconduct by those behind

the campaign to destroy Miller and his family—even at a tremendous expense of the Utah
Democratic Party—cannot be permitted to undermine the Party’s integrity and
commitment to the rule of law by strictly abiding by its own Constitution and policies and
procedures. To return the Utah Democratic to a body of people unified in purpose,
committed to enduring strength, fairness, and integrity, the mistakes of the past must be
acknowledged and the path made clear for the Party and its members to treat all, including
each other, with respect, dignity, and fairness.

Respectfully,

Ross C. Anderson

24
Both Sets of Anti-Harassment Policies and Procedures (Exhibits “I” and “J”, Paragraph
2.a.vii) (emphasis added).
25
Although no one has yet discovered who was responsible, someone seeking to do harm
to Miller even went so far as to send an email under a phony name to all UDP delegates
with the UDP name and address on the last page and with the headline on the front-page
blaring, “There is an URGENT matter the Utah State Democratic Party needs YOUR
help with.” The email sought other complainants against Miller and included a copy of
the “Complaint.”