Hell Hath No Fury, Judicial Edition

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Dave70968

In Remembrance 2024
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,620
Location
Norman
http://www.kgou.org/post/group-funded-hamm-s-ex-wife-helps-defeat-judge-divorce-case

Group Funded By Hamm’s Ex-Wife Helps Defeat Judge In Divorce Case
By Oklahoma Watch & Paul Monies & Trevor Brown 22 hours ago

An outside group funded by Sue Ann Arnall, an Oklahoma City philanthropist, spent more than $65,000 to defeat an Oklahoma County district court judge who presided over her 2014 divorce case with billionaire oilman Harold Hamm.

The political action committee, the Oklahoma Good Government Fund, was formed in June and had one contribution, $100,000 from Arnall, according to state Ethics Commission reports. As an unlimited, independent expenditure PAC, it could raise and spend unlimited amounts on political races as long as it didn’t coordinate with campaigns.

The PAC bought direct mail and online ads, as well as a paid canvasser who went door-to-door to support Amy Palumbo in the race for the District 7, Office 3 position in Oklahoma County. The incumbent, District Judge Harold Haralson, also drew another challenger, Mark K. Bailey.

Palumbo won the race outright in the June 26 primary with 65 percent of the vote. Haralson came second with 18 percent, followed by Bailey with 16.5 percent.

It’s rare for incumbent judges to lose in judicial elections, and it’s rarer still for independent expenditures in judicial races. The $65,000 spent by the Oklahoma Good Government Fund was more than twice as much as Haralson raised and spent on his race. Palumbo reported $12,850, including $4,850 in loans, in her June 18 fundraising report.

Haralson presided over the 2014 divorce of Hamm and Arnall and drew criticism during the case from open government advocates for closing most of the testimony in the case. Hamm’s attorneys, along with those of Continental Resources Inc., which Hamm founded, argued the divorce case could jeopardize the oil company’s trade secrets. Hamm founded Continental in 1967 and was married for 25 years to Arnall, an attorney who also worked at the company.

The eight-week divorce trial ended with Haralson granting Hamm about $2 billion in marital property to Hamm, with Arnall assets worth about $25 million. In lieu of alimony, Hamm wrote a check for almost $975 million,to Arnall.

The couple is still involved in a protracted legal battle stemming from the divorce. Arnall claims a company the couple jointly owned sold assets in North Dakota’s Bakken shale formation to Continental at below-market value without her knowledge. That case is set for a pre-trial conference in November before Oklahoma County District Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons.

Arnall could not be reached for comment. Lesa Crowe, with Tulsa-based Oklahoma Good Government Fund, issued a statement on behalf of the PAC. She declined to answer follow-up questions.

“Given her large margin of victory, it’s pretty clear voters were excited to support Amy Palumbo,” Crowe said in a text message. “The incumbent almost finishing in third place shows voters were ready for a change. The Oklahoma Good Government Fund is going to continue to look for other good candidates to support across Oklahoma in the future.”

Haralson could not be reached for comment. Arnall told The Oklahoman that she did not create or operate the PAC and was not involved in its political messaging, and that Palumbo had approached her seeking support.​

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the group was exclusively funded by a single donation from Arnall that was about eight times what the challenger raised herself (nearer twelve, if you discount her loan to herself), and double what the incumbent spent. You can bet Judge Timmons--in front of whom Arnall has a case currently pending--has noticed that.

This, boys and girls, is why the Founding Fathers tried to insulate judges from elections and other political concerns.

Full disclosure: I've practiced in front of both judges. I have nothing ill to say of either. I don't know the issues in this case well enough to comment on specifics. I do think we're a little bit too open with family court records, even as we shield actual criminal convictions from casual view(some things are available, but only by taking the time to go down to the courthouse; meanwhile, we air family dirty laundry on the front lawn that is OSCN).
 

Dave70968

In Remembrance 2024
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,620
Location
Norman
I can’t fathom why “open government organizations” think they’re entitled to disclosures from civil proceedings in which the government isn’t a party.
Well, right now, the law says they are.

I would favor a change that allows for a lot of redaction in family cases, and even some other civil proceedings. We already allow NDAs for a lot of things.
 

ignerntbend

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
15,797
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Oklahoma
It's wrong because it was an inefficient way for her to spend her money. She should have chosen a project less vainglorious and self-serving.
I'll be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable on judicial matters, but how is what she did wrong? She feels a judge wasn't impartial and sought to influence a public election through advocating for another judge.
 

Dave70968

In Remembrance 2024
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,620
Location
Norman
I'll be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable on judicial matters, but how is what she did wrong? She feels a judge wasn't impartial and sought to influence a public election through advocating for another judge.
I didn't say it was wrong.

I said that she has a case pending before another judge (Judge Timmons) in the same courthouse (who, incidentally, used to be on the same docket as Judge Haralson, so it's certain they know each other), and that other judge can't help but have noticed that after displeasing this litigant, Judge Haralson lost his robe by her hand. Ergo, Judge Timmons has to at least be subconsciously feeling the pressure. I'm not suggesting that Arnall has made any overt threat toward Judge Timmons, but a reasonable person in Judge Timmons's robe would certainly have that in the back of her mind.

Thus the reason some judges (including all federal judges) are insulated from political concerns.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,954
Reaction score
17,401
Location
Collinsville
I didn't say it was wrong.

I said that she has a case pending before another judge (Judge Timmons) in the same courthouse (who, incidentally, used to be on the same docket as Judge Haralson, so it's certain they know each other), and that other judge can't help but have noticed that after displeasing this litigant, Judge Haralson lost his robe by her hand. Ergo, Judge Timmons has to at least be subconsciously feeling the pressure. I'm not suggesting that Arnall has made any overt threat toward Judge Timmons, but a reasonable person in Judge Timmons's robe would certainly have that in the back of her mind.

Thus the reason some judges (including all federal judges) are insulated from political concerns.

You're assuming Haralson was insulated from the political fact that Harold Hamm carries a HUGE political stick in Oklahoma. I can see where she might've felt slighted by Haralson (right or wrong) and saw a legal opportunity to respond in kind.

I'm all for keeping politics off the bench, but they're already there and no amount of lifetime appointments are going to change that. So when I see a dent put in judicial invincibility, I tend to view that as a friendly reminder. :)
 

Dave70968

In Remembrance 2024
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,620
Location
Norman
You're assuming Haralson was insulated from the political fact that Harold Hamm carries a HUGE political stick in Oklahoma. I can see where she might've felt slighted by Haralson (right or wrong) and saw a legal opportunity to respond in kind.

I'm all for keeping politics off the bench, but they're already there and no amount of lifetime appointments are going to change that. So when I see a dent put in judicial invincibility, I tend to view that as a friendly reminder. :)
There's no such thing as perfect insulation, that's true, but with a lifetime (or finite and non-renewable, either way) appointment, at least there would be a modicum of independence.

Expect Judge Timmons's next election to set a record for expenditures on a judicial election. You heard it here first.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom