A Kitsap County judge is set to rule tomorrow afternoon on a motion requiring a local journalist to remove more than 30 articles that have scrutinized the Clallam County Superior Court. The decision comes as the press freedom dispute enters a critical phase, with the presiding judge expected to determine whether the reporting warrants further legal action.
Simultaneously, a complaint was filed today with the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct targeting Clallam County Judge Brent Basden. The grievance accuses the judge of allowing his personal relationships and religious leadership roles to undermine his judicial impartiality. According to the filing, Basden has repeatedly allowed these external ties to interfere with his duties, creating a pattern that compromises the neutrality of the bench.
The core of the dispute involves a civil case initiated by a local religious leader, referred to in public records as an Elder. In July 2025, this individual was criminally charged by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department for making false statements to secure an elk hunting permit. Just eight days after the criminal charges were filed, the individual sought a civil protection order in Clallam County Superior Court.
The complaint characterizes the protection order as an attempt to use the court system to suppress investigative journalism. It argues that the order sought to classify the journalist’s First Amendment-protected reporting on the individual’s criminal conduct as actionable harassment.
The filing highlights a significant timeline discrepancy. Documentary evidence proving the individual had previously submitted false statements to obtain Wyoming hunting licenses was presented in court on November 8, 2023, during a different proceeding overseen by Judge Basden. The complaint alleges that the judge’s religious leadership body was formally aware of these discrepancies nearly two years before the protection order was sought.
Despite this prior knowledge, Judge Basden retained jurisdiction over the protection order case for approximately six months. The complaint notes that the judge did not recuse himself until February 23, 2026, a delay described as strategic. During this period, the filing alleges the judge concealed significant conflicts of interest while issuing orders that shielded the individual from journalistic scrutiny.
The complaint further details Judge Basden’s long-standing roles within the local religious community. From 2002 to 2007, he served as a Bishop, a position described as the highest spiritual, financial, and administrative authority for a specific congregation. Between 2010 and 2019, he held the role of Stake President, the top executive leader for the Port Angeles region. Currently, he serves as a Counselor in the Bishopric.
Citing official church manuals, the grievance argues that the Bishop and his counselors function as a unified executive body rather than independent actors. This structure, the complaint suggests, has facilitated a system where secular judicial authority is used to protect religious associates, effectively reviving an older model of shadow justice within Washington State courts.
Ecclesiastical Governance and Judicial Conduct in LDS Courts
A distinct leadership model governs decisions within a local branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, requiring a collective approach where major rulings must be jointly deliberated and unanimously endorsed by a three-person executive body.
doctrine reinforces that these leaders hold formal judicial authority, not merely advisory roles. Scriptural provisions assign the bishopric the function of a “common judge,” empowered to adjudicate disciplinary matters involving church members.
This framework draws directly from foundational LDS texts, which outline procedures for internal church trials. According to those texts, accusations against members require corroboration by at least two church-affiliated witnesses, excluding those deemed outside the faith.
Earlier reporting notes that this internal justice system echoes practices from the 19th century, when church leaders disciplined members for resorting to civil courts instead of resolving disputes internally. Records from that period indicate that legal actions taken in state courts—such as lawsuits between members—were viewed as deviations from ecclesiastical norms, sometimes resulting in formal reprimand or even expulsion.
One such case involved a Sequim resident, Benjamin Mavy, who held the office of Elder within the LDS congregation between 2023 and 2026. His standing within the congregation placed him under the jurisdiction of a presidency led by Judge Basden, whose authority extended over both spiritual and administrative matters.
Mavy’s relationship with the leadership went beyond formal oversight. High-Priest Matt Kiddle, Judge Basden’s long-time ecclesiastical partner, shared an especially close bond with Mavy—both personally and financially. At times, Mavy lived at Kiddle’s residence and publicly acknowledged him as his closest confidant.
This closeness came into focus during a 2025 hearing, when Mavy, under oath, referenced Judge Basden as someone with whom he shared “one of my closest friends”—a statement highlighting the overlapping circles of influence.
Under Washington’s Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, judicial legitimacy hinges on whether an impartial observer would deem the process fair and unbiased. A complaint filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct contends that Judge Basden’s conduct fell short of that standard, particularly by allowing personal ties to inform judicial outcomes.
Specifically, the complaint cites CJC Rule 2.4(B), which bars judges from letting social connections sway their rulings. Judge Basden continued to oversee proceedings even as Mavy openly leveraged his friendship with Kiddle, who also served on behalf of the presidency during key moments.
The entanglement extended beyond the courtroom. In July 2025, when Mavy trespassed on a property in Clallam County despite a police-issued notice, he reportedly used a vehicle registered to Kiddle to avoid interaction with law enforcement.
A more direct intervention occurred in December 2025, when Kiddle traveled to the complainant’s residence to personally serve a subpoena on Mavy—a matter pending before Judge Basden’s bench.
These dynamics reflect a broader pattern identified in the complaint: the LDS leadership structure facilitates informal, off-the-record communication between parties and presiding officers, raising concerns about compliance with Washington’s judicial ethics standards.
Rule 2.9 of the Washington Code of Judicial Conduct restricts judges from relying on ex parte discussions about cases under consideration. Rule 2.11 further requires recusal when a judge has firsthand knowledge of contested facts.
The complaint argues that the church’s leadership model systematically enables such practices, functioning as a structured channel for ex parte influence and information sharing before formal judicial proceedings begin.
Confidential Church Processes Raise Neutrality Concerns for Judge Basden
A formal grievance asserts that Judge Basden’s dual roles within both the civil judiciary and his local congregation have created structural conflicts of interest, particularly in cases involving Mavy. Because he serves alongside Matt Kiddle as co-counselor in the Ward Council, the two are required—under the LDS General Handbook—to hold weekly, highly confidential deliberations. These sessions, intended to assess members’ spiritual and personal well-being, include Mavy among those discussed.
The complaint contends this setup subjects Judge Basden to a steady flow of non-public information about Mavy’s private life, legal matters, and financial standing. It describes the Ward Council as operating like a formalized ex parte briefing forum, where the judge gains access to details that would otherwise remain outside the court record.
Tithing Records as Financial Intelligence
The Handbook’s “companionship principle” further deepens this dynamic. Under this framework, Judge Basden and Kiddle jointly review members’ tithing submissions, effectively “opening each envelope together.” Since tithing is calculated as ten percent of gross income, the data gathered provides the Bishopric with an accurate, up-to-date measure of a member’s earnings. This access, the grievance notes, enables the court to gauge litigants’ financial profiles without formal discovery.
According to the filing, Judge Basden leveraged this institutional vantage to gain systemic insight into Mavy’s domestic and financial circumstances—knowledge that remained hidden from the opposing party and sidestepped standard civil discovery procedures.
Dual Proceedings, Dual Roles
Perhaps the most significant tension arises from Judge Basden’s simultaneous engagement in both civil and ecclesiastical adjudication of Mavy’s conduct. A civil protection order filed against the litigant was intended to curb public reporting on Mavy’s prior false swearing in Wyoming—a civil offense. Yet under LDS policy, such misconduct also qualifies as a “serious sin,” triggering an internal church investigation.
The complaint highlights that false swearing, like perjury, falls under categories where the Handbook recommends a formal Membership Council. As a result, Judge Basden was actively reviewing the same incident from two vantage points: first, as a civil judge presiding over the protection order, and second, as a spiritual counselor weighing the implications of Mavy’s conduct in closed ecclesiastical sessions.
This layered oversight, the filing argues, creates a fundamental conflict. Church doctrine imposes a strict confidentiality duty on counselors, requiring them to safeguard internally shared information. When that same counselor sits on the bench, the complaint warns, the judge may use civil authority to reinforce ecclesiastical confidentiality—effectively issuing a state-backed gag order to shield a church investigation.
Administrative Actions Reflect Broader Patterns
The grievance further notes that Judge Basden’s approach to administrative responsibilities appears consistent with this pattern. From January 2020 through December 2025, he oversaw hiring for the Family Court Commissioner position, including the vetting of Brian Parker in late 2024.
At that time, the complaint states, Judge Basden learned of an Everett Police Department report outlining an active criminal probe into Parker over allegations of perjury and false statements. Despite this developing information, the filing alleges he moved swiftly to advance Parker’s candidacy, directing the court administrator to waive the standard one-year probation and verbally approving the appointment one week before the full risk management review concluded.
This sequence, according to the grievance, reflects a broader tendency to prioritize favored candidates while operating outside the usual procedural safeguards.
The legal filing contends that the use of civil administrative power in this instance closely parallels the historical abuses observed in the municipal courts of Nauvoo, where religious leaders serving as civil judges allegedly shielded their associates by subverting state legal procedures.
The complaint further alleges that after the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of prejudice citing disputed facts regarding a former employer’s arrest for perjury while serving with the Everett Police Department, the presiding judge declined to remove himself from the case.
According to the filing, the judge continued to rule on a motion that focused entirely on a police report he had previously obtained and reviewed during his administrative tenure as the defendant’s hiring manager. The complaint characterizes this action as the judge personally evaluating and dismissing the evidence before taking the bench.
Subheading: Holding the Judiciary Accountable
The complaint cites CJC Rule 1.2, which mandates that judges act in a manner that fosters public confidence in the judiciary’s independence, integrity, and impartiality.
The presiding judge managed the Mavy matter for approximately six months before eventually recusing himself. The filing argues that such a delayed recusal serves as an on-the-record admission that a conflict of interest existed. It asserts that a judge cannot remedy a pre-existing conflict by stepping down only after using judicial authority to advantage his social circle.
The complaint suggests that the aggressive pursuit of a $2,000 daily fine against the newspaper has triggered a Streisand Effect, inadvertently drawing national media attention, including coverage by the Cults to Consciousness podcast, to the alleged "shadow court" practices and a separate formal disciplinary complaint against the judge.
The Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent body tasked with investigating claims of judicial misconduct. In the recent case of In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Ruzumna, the State Supreme Court affirmed that using court processes for personal or administrative cover can warrant the harshest sanctions, including censure and removal from the bench.
Any individual, organization, or association may submit a complaint to the Commission. If the CJC determines there is probable cause for a violation, it issues a formal Statement of Charges, making the proceedings public. The Commission has the authority to admonish, reprimand, or censure a judge, and in severe instances, may recommend that the State Supreme Court suspend or remove the judge.
Complaints can be filed online through the CJC website, via a downloadable form, or by writing a letter detailing the judge’s identity, the specific conduct, witnesses, and supporting documents. Written complaints may be mailed to the Commission on Judicial Conduct at P.O. Box 1817, Olympia, WA 98507.
A complete copy of the complaint is available for public review.
Republishing Guidelines
Guidance on reusing this material
When sharing this content elsewhere, please adhere to the following specifications.
- Do not alter the substance of the article; only stylistic edits, changes in length, or updates to time-related details are permitted.
- For online republication, link to our canonical URL to ensure search engines attribute the original source correctly.
- The material cannot be sold or used primarily as an advertising vehicle.
For further inquiries, please contact us.