FORMAL LEADERSHIP REPORT

Subject: Wickizer & Newby v. Cox et al. — Coordinated Avoidance and Constitutional Implications

Date: November 2, 2025
Prepared under the direction of Ed Wallace, Founder: The Republic Project / Utah Standard News Investigations Unit Distribution: Utah Legislative Leadership, Judicial Council, Attorney General’s Office, Utah Republican Party Executive Committee

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The case of Wickizer & Newby v. Cox et al. has revealed what filings reviewed by The Republic Project suggest is a systemic breakdown in Utah’s judicial neutrality.

In what may become one of the most consequential public integrity cases in state history, the Petition for Declaratory Judgment, filed August 11, 2025, alleges that Utah Governor Spencer J. Cox and associated state officials orchestrated a network of emergency, no-bid COVID contracts totaling tens of millions of dollars in aggregate funds. According to public filings, these contracts were allegedly distributed through overlapping political, donor, and advisory relationships that created potential conflicts of interest.

The petition seeks a judicial determination on whether the Governor’s management of federal CARES Act funds violated constitutional guarantees of due process, separation of powers, and public accountability.

Over the subsequent three months, the Third District Court declined to rule on four threshold motions filed by petitioners, while granting multiple extensions and procedural advantages to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). The resulting record, if verified, reflects a coordinated pattern of avoidance that functionally denied petitioners an opportunity for judicial review.

II. PROCEDURAL TIMELINE

Date	Action / Filing	Responsible Party	Result / Observation
Aug 11, 2025	Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment (notarized, digital submission)	Petitioners Wickizer & Newby	Accepted by clerk; no ruling issued.
Aug–Oct 2025	Four threshold motions filed (jurisdiction, conflict, due process)	Petitioners	No rulings entered.
Aug 2025	AGO requests multiple filing extensions	Attorney General’s Office	All granted by the Court.
Sept 2025	Court adopts AGO’s proposed scheduling order	Third District Court	Petitioners’ motions remain unaddressed.
Oct 22, 2025	Motion to Enter Scenario Analysis (detailing procedural coordination)	Petitioners	Acknowledged, not ruled upon.
Oct 29, 2025	Court grants AGO motion to stay response deadlines	Third District Court	Effectively halts petitioners’ progress.
Nov 5, 2025 (Scheduled)	Hearing on AGO Motion to Dismiss	Court	Expected dismissal prior to adjudication.

III. EVIDENTIARY ANALYSIS

A. Documented Coordination

Unruled Threshold Motions
Four procedural motions were filed and remain unresolved after three months, contrary to Utah R. Civ. P. 7(f), which requires written orders for every motion.

Adoption of Opposing Counsel’s Schedule
The Court adopted nearly verbatim the AGO’s proposed schedule, subordinating petitioners’ procedural rights to respondent convenience.

Unequal Filing Opportunities
The AGO was permitted multiple sequential filings, while petitioners were restricted from submitting parallel responses.

B. Constitutional Implications

Principle	Governing Provision	Observed Violation Pattern
Due Process	U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Utah Const. Art. I, §7	Refusal to adjudicate motions and unequal procedural treatment.
Equal Protection	U.S. Const. Amend. XIV	Preferential scheduling and treatment for state respondents.
Judicial Integrity	Utah Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2.2	Case management appears delegated to a party in interest.
Professional Ethics	Utah R. Prof. Conduct 3.3, 8.4(d)	AGO filings omit procedural facts visible in record.

IV. EVIDENTIARY CONTRADICTIONS

AGO Assertion	Documented Record
“Petitioners failed to timely respond.”	Court had stayed their response deadline.
“All issues are moot.”	Jurisdiction and threshold motions remain unruled.
“State acted in good faith compliance.”	Record shows unilateral schedule adoption and ignored motions.

V. PATTERN CLASSIFICATION: INSTITUTIONAL CAPTURE

According to public filings, this case illustrates what governance experts call institutional capture—a process where multiple branches of state authority coordinate to preserve political or administrative stability at the expense of transparency.

Judiciary: Avoidance of rulings that could expose systemic bias.
Executive (AGO): Procedural delays preventing substantive review.
Media: Limited coverage, sustaining public disengagement.

This alignment—referred to in investigative commentary as the “Utah Corruption Triangle”—represents a model of systemic self-protection by entrenched institutions.

VI. FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Oversight & Audit Actions

Request Judicial Performance Commission inquiry into the Court’s handling of procedural orders.
Refer AGO conduct to the Utah State Bar for review under Rule 3.3 (candor to tribunal).
Recommend a legislative subcommittee hearing on procedural equity and judicial independence.

2. Appellate & Federal Remedies

File expedited appeal to the Utah Supreme Court citing procedural deprivation under Rule 65B.
Prepare potential federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process and equal protection violations.

3. Public Accountability Measures

Continue documenting procedural irregularities for publication and congressional review.
Include findings in The Republic Project’s Institutional Capture Index for transparency tracking.

VII. CONCLUSION

According to public records, the Third Judicial District Court’s handling of Wickizer & Newby v. Cox et al. raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and judicial impartiality.
While the petitioners’ allegations remain under judicial review, the filings reviewed by The Republic Project suggest a pattern of administrative preference toward state actors.

If verified, these procedural irregularities may expose the state to both legal liability and public confidence loss, reinforcing the need for independent oversight and reform.

Constructive Reform Note

This report is not about assigning personal blame but ensuring that Utah’s governance structure remains transparent, accountable, and constitutionally sound.
Restoring procedural equality, where citizens receive the same impartial consideration as state agencies, is the first step toward rebuilding trust in the rule of law.

Prepared by:
The Republic Project / Utah Standard News Investigations Unit
Reviewed and approved for public and leadership distribution.

FORMAL LEADERSHIP REPORT: Subject: Wickizer & Newby v. Cox et al. — Coordinated Avoidance and Constitutional Implications