By Ed Wallace | Utah Standard News / The Republic Project (REPRO)

Publisher’s Note: The Republic Stands – When We Stand

Utah’s CARES Act scandal may prove that when government power meets public money, truth becomes the first casualty. Nearly a billion dollars in emergency COVID relief flowed through the governor’s office in 2020 – 2021: no-bid contracts, insider deals, donor kickbacks, and public-relations cover stories wrapped in the flag of “state emergency.” Most Utahns never saw where the money went. Most media never asked.

Then along came two citizens with no PAC, no press secretary, and no patience for corruption: Major Wayne L. Wickizer, a retired U.S. Army Special Forces intelligence officer, former FBI agent and UT AG Investigator, and Daniel Newby, a political corruption researcher and citizen-litigator. Together they filed a petition in Utah’s Third District Court demanding what every free people should demand… a public accounting. What they’ve uncovered so far suggests the state’s CARES Act program operated less like public administration and more like a well-oiled patronage network.

This report isn’t a theory. It’s a record of  filings, motions, receipts, timestamps, and a timeline of what happens when ordinary citizens confront institutional self-protection. It’s also a reminder that liberty is not self-sustaining. USN and the Republic Project (REPRO) exist because a moral infrastructure is the only sure foundation of a free people. For the full report on their filing, see this article: BREAKING: UT Governor Cox Hit with Explosive Corruption Lawsuit Involving ~$934 MILLION CARES Act Scandal – Utah Standard News
The Republic stands –  when we stand.

The Petition That Shook the Hill

On July 11, 2025, Wayne Wickizer and Daniel Newby filed what would become one of the most consequential civil petitions in modern Utah history: a Petition for Declaratory Judgment accusing Governor Spencer J. Cox and his administration of orchestrating a multi-million-dollar “pay-to-play” operation under the guise of pandemic relief.

The petition’s heart is simple but explosive: that CARES Act funds, intended for health, education, and economic stabilization, were diverted through no-bid contracts to favored donors and entities that later benefited the very officials overseeing distribution.

From the first paragraph, the filing reads like a moral indictment:

“The Governor of the State of Utah … used federal emergency funds as a political currency, rewarding loyalty and punishing transparency.”

If true, the allegations strike at the structural integrity of state governance… the wall that should separate public duty from private enrichment. Wickizer and Newby are not suing for money; they’re demanding accountability, a judicial declaration that the Governor’s use of CARES Act funds violated both Utah’s Procurement Code and the constitutional requirement of equal protection.

Citing procurement records and financial disclosures, the petition names contracts awarded without competition, documents showing bid solicitations issued after awards, and email chains obtained through GRAMA requests that appear to trace money from state vendors to political committees.

What’s at stake:
“This isn’t about politics,” Wickizer told USN. “It’s about restoring the rule of law. If one man can move federal funds off-books, then we have no Republic left to defend.”

REPRO Commentary – Systemic Implications

The first petition sets the pattern: two citizens using the courts to force institutional transparency. REPRO views this as a test case of “civic integrity versus captured governance.” Whether the allegations prove criminal or merely unethical, the state’s reaction, evasion, delay, and procedural inversion, reveals how modern bureaucracies protect themselves first and the Constitution last.

Status Note

Filed July 11, 2025. Assigned to Judge Teresa L. Welch of Utah’s Third Judicial District. Case #250 906 456
Respondents: Governor Spencer Cox, Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, and Attorney General Derek Brown. First hearing set for October 15, 2025.

The Thumb-Drive Filing

By late summer 2025, court watchers were already calling it “the case no one wants to touch.”
Wayne Wickizer, now 88, wasn’t waiting for permission. On August 5, he and Daniel Newby appeared in person at the Third District Court Clerk’s Office, carrying a small plastic thumb drive. Inside it: more than 575 pages of documentation including contracts, emails, GRAMA responses, and financial trail evidence connecting CARES Act funds to private political interests.

When the clerk hesitated to accept electronic media, Wickizer reportedly replied:

“You don’t have to read it, ma’am. Just file it. The truth will read itself.”

The thumb drive was officially timestamped and entered into the record, an old-school gesture of defiance against a digital bureaucracy that thrives on selective blindness. Every page, Wayne later explained, was evidence of “institutional capture through COVID cash.”

The Attorney General’s Office, representing Governor Cox, responded not by disputing the documents’ authenticity but by moving to stay all response deadlines, a procedural maneuver that effectively froze the case.

“That’s the trick,” Newby told USN. “They pretend it’s about form and format, but it’s really about running out the clock on accountability.”

REPRO Commentary – The Bureaucratic Firewall

REPRO analysts call this the “Document-Density Defense”: when officials stall substantive review by overwhelming procedure. Instead of addressing evidence, they question delivery methods, page counts, and filing forms. The irony? The same state that rushed through billion-dollar pandemic payments now pleads for “more time” to respond to citizens who simply ask where the money went, any why it went there.

Status Note

Filed August 5, 2025. Court acknowledged digital submission.
AG filed a Motion to Stay Response Deadlines pending “clarification.” No substantive response filed.
First court review scheduled for October 15.

The AG’s First Counterstrike

On September 12, 2025, the Utah Attorney General’s Office filed its first formal response – a motion so cautious it bordered on parody. Titled “Respondents’ Motion to Stay Response Deadlines, or in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time,” it read less like a defense and more like a stall.

Instead of refuting the allegations, the AG’s office argued that the petition was “voluminous,” “complex,” and “lacking clarity.” In plain English: We need more time to figure out how to answer this.

Wickizer’s reply was characteristically direct:

“If they can’t comprehend corruption, that’s not complexity—it’s complicity.”

He followed with a Motion for Clarification of Pleading Terminology, a filing so sharp it should be studied in every law school. In it, Wickizer accused the AG’s office of “intentional mischaracterization of pleadings to obstruct judicial engagement.” He included a timestamp comparison showing that the AG’s “incomprehension” claim came days after its attorneys had already cited specific sections of the petition in internal correspondence.

The effect was devastating. For anyone paying attention, the state had just admitted it was pretending confusion.

REPRO Commentary – Lawfare by Delay

This moment crystallizes a recurring pathology of modern governance: lawfare by delay.
When institutions can’t win on facts, they weaponize time itself by using procedural motions as shields against truth. REPRO identifies this as an early warning sign of systemic capture: when the guardians of law become its manipulators.

Status Note

Filed September 12, 2025.
AG’s motion granted pro forma on October 29 without judicial review of the opposition.
Next hearing: November 5, 2025 – the date citizens may finally see whether Utah’s judiciary stands with the law or its political patrons.

The October 15 Hearing That Wasn’t

If the citizens expected their day in court on October 15, they got a masterclass instead in bureaucratic dodgeball.

Wayne Wickizer and Daniel Newby arrived prepared to argue three pending motions: the Petition for Declaratory Judgment, their Motion for Clarification, and a Motion to Compel Threshold Rulings. They brought indexed binders, citations, and enough evidence to make any honest judge wince.

But the courtroom was dark. The clerk informed them that the hearing had been “reset administratively.” No notice. No explanation. And no entry on MyCase until days later.

“It’s hard to believe a judge can hold a hearing without a room, or a record,” Newby said dryly. “But this is Utah.”

Within hours, the Attorney General’s office quietly filed a “supplemental clarification” expanding its earlier motion for stay… another stall built on top of a stall. The court accepted it without challenge.

To outside observers it looked like nothing happened. But to anyone familiar with institutional capture, this was the tell: when accountability approaches, transparency disappears.

REPRO Commentary – The Vanishing Hearing

When a public hearing is canceled without public record, process becomes secrecy in motion. REPRO tracks these events as part of what it calls “administrative erasure” – a tactic where officials erase public scrutiny by burying procedure under “scheduling updates.” It’s the 21st-century version of shredding files.

Status Note

Hearing set October 15 → canceled without record.
AG files additional motion same day.
Petitioners prepare response and request formal schedule.

By late October, patience had expired. Wickizer and Newby filed their Motion for Clarification and Scheduling, a calm but blistering document that read like a cross between legal brief and autopsy report. They laid out three months of stonewalling in forensic detail:

. Four threshold motions ignored.

. Multiple AG filings granted without review.

. Judicial orders issued verbatim from AG’s proposals.

The motion accused both court and Attorney General of “purposeful coordination to achieve dismissal before threshold adjudication,” supported by timestamps and docket evidence.

Their filing didn’t plead victimhood… it documented a pattern. When the AG claimed confusion, they produced emails showing familiarity. When the court cited backlog, they produced date stamps proving selective response. It was as if two private citizens had become the auditors of an entire justice system.

“They’ve turned procedure into performance,” Wickizer said. “But every act is on record now.”

REPRO Commentary – Coordination as Evidence

To REPRO analysts, the October 22 motion marks the transition from allegation to proof of systemic alignment. Institutional capture is rarely announced with a memo; it’s revealed in patterns of avoidance and favoritism. Here, the pattern is mathematical: every AG motion acknowledged, every petitioner motion ignored. That’s not oversight… that’s design.

Status Note

Filed October 22, 2025.
Awaiting hearing November 5 to determine whether the court will address the threshold issues or dismiss outright.

Before the Gavel Falls

Three months, four motions, zero rulings. Every signal from the bench suggests that the court intends to dismiss without ever touching the substance of the case. But if that happens, it will prove the petitioners’ point more eloquently than any brief could: that Utah’s legal apparatus now protects its own power before the public’s trust.

Still, two citizens stand undeterred. They didn’t come to win popularity contests; they came to test the system itself. Whether the gavel falls in their favor or not, their record now exists in perpetuity: a map of how truth was cornered and who did the cornering.

“The fix is in,” Newby said quietly, “but so is the evidence.”

And that may be enough. Because the moment a court chooses expedience over examination, the Republic doesn’t collapse… it just reveals who is still willing to stand.

Chronology Appendix (Part 1)

Publisher’s Afterword

We publish this not as spectacle but as record. Two men, armed with nothing but documents and determination, have forced the State of Utah to show its hand. Win or lose on November 5, the evidence they’ve built stands as a blueprint for citizen oversight. This is what it looks like when the governed govern back.

Part 2 – “A House of Cards in the Courthouse”

October 15 – November 5, 2025

Judge Pressed to Clarify Legality of Cox Administration’s CARES Act Disbursements

Subhead: Petitioners Wickizer and Newby demand transparency in nearly $1 billion of federal relief funds amid mounting evidence of executive overreach.

Summary:
On October 15, 2025, the long-awaited hearing began with the state’s attempt to minimize and deflect. The court was asked to dismiss or dilute the petitioners’ claims, arguing the matter was “moot” or “nonjusticiable.” Yet, beneath the procedural smokescreen, the issue remained simple: Governor Spencer Cox’s administration had distributed federal CARES Act money in ways never authorized by the Legislature or federal government.

Wayne Wickizer and Daniel Newby, acting pro se, walked into that courtroom with a constitutional map and moral compass … both absent from the state’s legal team. Their filings laid out a clear claim: that the Governor’s discretionary spending of nearly a billion dollars constituted an unconstitutional exercise of power, bypassing the appropriations process entirely.

The hearing revealed the quiet panic of the establishment. Rather than defend the integrity of the disbursement records, the Attorney General’s office resorted to linguistic gymnastics by arguing, astonishingly, that “federal relief funds” were not “public funds” within Utah’s constitutional meaning. That line didn’t just raise eyebrows – it scorched credibility.

Evidence Cited:
Wickizer’s filings included direct excerpts from CARES Act oversight documents, state finance ledgers, and the Governor’s own press releases boasting of his “swift, flexible” pandemic spending. His accompanying affidavit introduced data trails showing patterns of disbursement inconsistent with legislative appropriations.

Contradiction and Context:
The State’s argument clashed with plain constitutional language: Article VII, Section 8 vests no such unilateral power in the executive. The budgetary sleight-of-hand, once examined in daylight, looked less like emergency agility and more like the self-justified excess of an unchecked bureaucracy.

Publisher’s Commentary:
You could almost see the defense melt under the weight of its own absurdity. The court transcript reads like a masterclass in bureaucratic tap dancing … the kind that starts with “Your Honor, we respectfully submit…” and ends with a red face and shuffled papers.

REPRO Commentary:
This hearing demonstrated why oversight isn’t optional. When government actors redefine words to escape accountability, they reveal the exact disease The Republic Project was built to expose: moral elasticity in the service of power.

Status Note:
The court reserved ruling on several motions and requested supplemental briefs. The petitioners, unfazed, filed a “Motion for Clarification of Pleading Terminology” the following week – a document now quietly circulating among legal reform advocates as a model of constitutional literacy from citizen litigants.

State Seeks to Narrow the Case and Petitioners Expand the Record

Subhead: New filings expose gaps in Utah’s pandemic finance trail and alleged coordination between executive agencies.

Summary:
Following the October 15 hearing, the State attempted a tactical retreat, filing motions to strike several exhibits as “irrelevant” or “redundant.” In response, Wickizer and Newby doubled down, submitting detailed evidentiary supplements that traced CARES Act transactions across multiple agencies including the Department of Health, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, and the Office of Management and Budget.

The records painted a picture of confusion and quiet defiance: overlapping allocations, missing reconciliations, and repeated references to “Governor’s Discretionary Fund” ….a fiscal creature that exists nowhere in Utah Code

Evidence Cited:
Bank transfers, state expenditure ledgers, and Freedom of Information Act correspondence provided the backbone of the new filings. Particularly damning were internal emails showing instructions to “expedite” disbursements ahead of legislative review.

Publisher’s Commentary:
For a team without official staff, Wickizer and Newby ran circles around salaried bureaucrats. It’s the kind of inversion that makes professional lawyers squirm, and taxpayers cheer.

REPRO Commentary:
What happens when average citizens uncover what auditors should have caught? That’s not rebellion … that’s Republic in action. This episode proves that moral courage, not access, defines legitimacy.

Status Note:
The court allowed the petitioners’ supplemental materials to remain on record, signaling that the door to discovery might stay open longer than the State hoped.

Motion for Judicial Integrity – Petitioners Question Court’s Neutrality

Subhead: A respectful but pointed motion raises the uncomfortable question: Can justice prevail when the defendant is the state itself?

Summary:
In late October, the petitioners filed a “Motion for Judicial Integrity,” challenging subtle procedural inconsistencies and requesting assurance that the bench would adhere strictly to Utah’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

This wasn’t bluster; it was preemptive accountability. Wickizer and Newby observed a pattern of deference toward state counsel and sought a record of impartiality … a rare and gutsy move in Utah’s political climate.

Evidence Cited:
The motion cited several docket irregularities and a scheduling delay that appeared to favor the State’s filings. It quoted case law affirming a citizen’s right to question the impartiality of proceedings without being penalized for contempt.

Publisher’s Commentary:
If you ever want to make government nervous, just remind it that the law applies to everyone. You could feel the courthouse temperature drop ten degrees when that motion hit the record.

REPRO Commentary Box:
Accountability doesn’t end with politicians; it extends to the very institutions that adjudicate their actions. REPRO’s ethos – “sunlight with structure” – demands that every actor in public service be bound by the same moral code.

Status Note:
The motion was taken under advisement. Sources close to the court suggest quiet discomfort but no open retaliation.

Headline: State’s Supplemental Filing Reveals New Contradictions in CARES Act Accounting

Subhead: Utah’s own documents confirm the petitioners’ central claim that funds were moved without clear authorization.

Summary:
By early November, the State submitted a supplemental filing meant to “clarify” previous statements. Instead, it inadvertently validated the petitioners’ argument: millions in CARES Act money had been distributed through “Governor’s Relief Accounts” not explicitly established by legislative appropriation.

Evidence Cited:
The filing attached spreadsheets showing transfers marked “Emergency Executive Distribution.” Several line items lacked budget codes, prompting even mainstream observers to ask whether the administration had blurred the line between emergency flexibility and fiscal fiction.

Publisher’s Commentary:
At this point, it’s like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of a hat that’s on fire…  impressive, sure, but you can smell the smoke of accountability coming.

REPRO Commentary Box:
Data don’t lie. The moment government records corroborate a citizen’s claim, the narrative shifts from “allegation” to “exposure.”

Status Note:
A follow-up hearing was set for November 5, where the court would finally confront the constitutional heart of the case.

Chronology Appendix (Oct 15–Nov 5)

. Oct 15: First evidentiary hearing — State argues CARES Act funds not “public money.”

. Oct 17: Petitioners file “Motion for Clarification of Pleading Terminology.”

. Oct 22: State files motion to strike exhibits; petitioners submit evidentiary supplements.

. Oct 28: Motion for Judicial Integrity filed.

. Nov 2: State submits supplemental filing admitting “emergency executive distributions.”

. Nov 5: Hearing scheduled on core constitutional question — authority and misuse of CARES Act funds.

Part 3 – The Reckoning

November 4 – Present

Petitioners Move to Stay Proceedings Amid Claims of Compromised Due Process

Subhead: The November 5 hearing confirms what many feared: the State has no coherent defense, only obstruction. Wickizer and Newby ask Utah’s 3rd District Court to halt all action pending DOJ review and remediation of procedural “taint.”

Summary:
The November 5 hearing marked a turning point. On November 4, the petitioners notified the court of their intent to file, and attached a copy of, a Motion to Stay Proceedings, asking Judge Teresa Welch to pause the state case against Governor Spencer Cox until two major issues could be resolved: the alleged procedural breakdown inside her own courtroom and an ongoing federal RICO and False Claims Act investigation under the Department of Justice’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Program (Tracking No. 20250310-0001).

The motion argued that the case had been “compromised by serious procedural deficiencies and tainting that violate due process and basic fairness.” Among the most troubling were the court’s failure to rule on pending motions, the instruction for the Attorney General’s office to draft the court’s own orders, unresolved standing questions, and possible ex parte communications between the court and state counsel

It also noted that the DOJ had confirmed an active federal review of the same allegations; misuse of $934,765,676.90 in CARES Act funds, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and potential pay-to-play schemes involving senior Utah officials.

Publisher’s Commentary:
That’s not a “motion,” that’s a constitutional alarm bell. When a judge lets one side write her rulings, you’re not in a courtroom anymore … you’re in a kabuki theater where justice wears the costume but not the soul.

REPRO Commentary:
The request for a stay was not obstruction; it was preservation. This was a textbook act of citizen oversight: stop the machine long enough to inspect the gears.

Status Note:
The court received the filing but proceeded with the November 5 hearing as scheduled. No written ruling on the stay was issued before the hearing commenced.

“Justice Died a Momentary Death” –  Court Dismisses Petition With Prejudice

Subhead: Judge Welch rejects the case outright; petitioners vow appeal and broader exposure.

Summary:
At the November 5 hearing, the State pressed for final dismissal. The petitioners reiterated that their 575-page Statement of Probable Cause had never been substantively addressed. Judge Welch ruled from the bench, granting the State’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, closing the case at the district level.

Outside the courtroom, retired Major Wayne Wickizer called the ruling “a momentary death of justice.” He alleged that a “gag order by proxy” had been issued through the court at the Attorney General’s request, effectively muzzling discussion of ongoing evidence and procedural unfairness

Despite the blow, Wickizer remained resolute: “Facts are facts. Our evidence wasn’t even considered. We believe either the Utah Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court will have to hear it. The First Amendment has been subverted in Utah, but justice will rise again.”

Courtroom Observers’ Account:
Eyewitnesses described the petitioners as composed and sharp. One veteran attendee remarked, “Wayne and Daniel were outstanding. They said what needed to be said. The state’s attorneys looked green and uncertain. The judge was polite but procedural, and it was obvious they planned to dismiss ahead of time.”

Observers described the moment as “David versus the Bureaucratic Goliath.” Yet unlike myth, this Goliath didn’t fall…  it simply retreated behind the fog of procedure.

Publisher’s Commentary:
If irony were admissible evidence, the case would’ve been won in minutes. The people arguing for accountability were silenced in the name of process, by the very process they challenged. Utah’s bureaucracy just proved their point for them.

It’s the oldest trick in the bureaucratic playbook: delay, deny, deflect, until citizens get tired. But this time, two men refused to blink.

The silence since has been deafening, and telling. When government can’t defend its actions, it hides behind procedure. The State’s refusal to answer straightforward constitutional questions should terrify anyone who still believes in representative government.

REPRO Commentary Box:
Accountability isn’t a phase; it’s a posture. Dismissal doesn’t erase the record; it fossilizes it. The Republic Project exists to ensure these records, and this precedent, aren’t buried in the administrative graveyard. Whether the courts act or not, the truth is already in the record, and that makes it permanent. The filings now stand as a documented blueprint of how institutional reflexes protect power at the expense of justice.

Status Note:
The Attorney General’s office never issued a formal rebuttal to the petitioners’ core claim: that Governor Cox’s administration violated the Utah Constitution’s separation of powers. The petitioners intend to appeal and to coordinate with federal authorities already reviewing related misconduct claims.

Aftermath and Public Response

Subhead: Citizens rally behind Wickizer and Newby as symbols of lawful resistance.

Summary:
Following the ruling, public support intensified. Grassroots forums and watchdog groups circulated the filings, viewing them as a case study in “lawfare”; weaponized procedure against citizen oversight.

Both petitioners began coordinating with allies to prepare federal filings and possible civil RICO actions against state actors. Simultaneously, faith-based and civic networks invoked their fight as proof that liberty survives only when defended.

Publisher’s Commentary:
There’s a reason bureaucracies hate transparency … it works by preventing corruption. It’s the old story with new actors: two citizens, a mountain of evidence, and a government allergic to daylight. The difference this time is documentation: everything’s in black and white, signed, timestamped, and filed. No spin can un-file a record. Every GRAMA request, every public record, is a thread. Pull enough of them, and the tapestry of corruption starts to unravel.

Wickizer and Newby have proven that one doesn’t need a newsroom, a budget, or a title to defend the Constitution. All it takes is persistence, and a refusal to be intimidated by titles like “Governor” or “Attorney General.”

REPRO Commentary Box:
This outcome strengthens REPRO’s long-term mission. When institutions fail internally, external oversight must rise. Documentation is the new defense of liberty. This case stands as a template for citizen action. REPRO’s oversight architecture, integrating constitutional scoring, fiscal tracking, and ethical audits, will expand these findings statewide. The Republic Stands –  When We Stand.

Chronology Appendix (Update)

• Nov 4: Motion to Stay Proceedings filed citing DOJ whistleblower review
  Motion to Stay
  .
  
• Nov 5: Hearing proceeds; court dismisses petition with prejudice.
  
• Nov 6: Petitioners announce appeal and cooperation with federal investigators.
  
• Nov 10+: Citizen groups disseminate filings; legal review continues.
  

REPRO Legal Assessment – Wickizer & Newby v. Utah Officials

1. Procedural and Strategic Strengths

What They Did Right:

• Documented Every Step: Their filings are detailed, evidentiary, and timestamped, creating a legally defensible record of process violations.
  
• Parallel Federal Path: By invoking the DOJ Corporate Whistleblower Program and RICO standards, they expanded jurisdiction beyond Utah’s control.
  
• Preservation of Standing: Despite dismissal, their Motion to Stay preserves the argument that procedural taint and conflicts of interest invalidate the court’s ruling.
  
• Public Integrity Narrative: They aligned the legal action with broader constitutional rights, framing it as public interest litigation – a move that strengthens potential federal appeal.
  

2. Tactical Weaknesses (Revised and Corrected)

Areas for Improvement:

• Ignored Summary, Not Lack of One: The petitioners did submit a condensed executive summary alongside their 575-page Statement of Probable Cause. The summary clearly delineated major findings, legal foundations, and exhibits – a disciplined approach for citizen litigants. However, the court appears to have disregarded both. The dismissal order and hearing record show no reference to the summary’s arguments or the federal overlap, indicating a willful procedural omission rather than confusion or overload.
  
• Venue Strategy: Filing initially in Utah’s 3rd District, before securing federal protective jurisdiction, allowed the AG’s office to exploit local institutional bias and procedural control. A federal venue from the outset may have insulated the filing from state political entanglement.
  
• Reliance on Judicial Neutrality: The team’s assumption that state judicial officers would apply equal protection and due process proved unfounded, especially given the AG’s apparent influence on the drafting of orders and procedural timing.
  
• Tone and Structure: While forcefully constitutional, future filings should maintain the same evidentiary density but incorporate tiered briefing; separating legal issues for each defendant class (executive, judicial, corporate) to streamline federal review.
  
  

3. Assessment of the Court and AG’s Actions

Court Conduct:

• The RICO report evidences patterns where state courts delegate drafting of orders to the AG’s office, an apparent breach of separation and impartiality.
  
• The judge’s failure to rule on the Motion to Stay before dismissal contradicts both Rule 7(c)(1) (Utah Rules of Civil Procedure) and basic due process.
  
• Dismissal with prejudice before evidentiary hearing violates the principle that procedural deficiencies cannot override substantive review in matters of alleged public corruption.
  

Attorney General’s Office:

• The AG’s delegation of authority to inexperienced or “green” deputies fits the RICO document’s description of intentional insulation by using intermediaries to shield senior officials.
  
• The alleged “proxy gag order” would constitute prior restraint if substantiated, a clear First Amendment violation under Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. United States.

4. RICO Correlation (from Attached Document)

From “A Comprehensive Report on Judicial Corruption”

• The report lays out a pattern of predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. §1961(1) including mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, retaliation against whistleblowers, and misappropriation of federal funds.
  
• It documents a vertical integration of corruption; executive offices influencing judiciary outcomes through the AG’s counsel, with political and financial beneficiaries identifiable in recurring networks.
  
• It cross-references case law (Dennis v. Sparks, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)) to establish liability for state officials acting in enterprise with private beneficiaries.
  
• This report will be the foundation of the forthcoming REPRO Federal Oversight Brief, tying Wayne’s filings to federal RICO jurisdiction.
  

5. David vs. Goliath Narrative

This is not merely a legal contest – it’s the archetypal struggle of two informed citizens standing against an entrenched, self-protecting political machine.
In Utah’s “David vs. Goliath” remake:

• David has replaced his sling with a 575-page evidentiary binder.
  
• Goliath wields taxpayer-funded attorneys and a judge’s pen.
  
• Each procedural ruling becomes a stone … either hurled in defiance or dropped into the swamp.

The moral isn’t who wins the first battle, but that David showed up in court at all.

6. Publisher’s Commentary 

If irony were a crime, this courtroom would be on death row. The AG’s office brings lawfare to a citizen fight, the judge moonlights as a stenographer for the prosecution, and the word ‘justice’ needs a witness protection program.

The motion to stay wasn’t a delay … it was a defibrillator. But the court pulled the plug before the shock. Utah’s legal establishment treats accountability like garlic to a vampire, and Wayne & Daniel had the nerve to bring sunlight.

So yes, justice died a momentary death – but she left a note, and REPRO has the copies.