UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

J. WHITFIELD LARRABEE, )
Complainant )
)
v. )
)
THOMAS SELBY ELLIS, III )
Respondent )
)

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the Judicial Conference of the
United States Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, the
Complainant files this Complaint against Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III (“Judge Ellis”) of
the of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In the Case of
United States v. Paul J. Manafort, Criminal Action No. 1:18-cr-83, Judge Ellis has
engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the effective administration of the business of the
courts, undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and
creates a strong appearance and reality of impropriety in violation of Canons 1, 2 and 3 of
the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

II. FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT

2. Judge Ellis has engaged in a clear pattern of unethical behavior involving a lack of
impartiality. In the course of a the jury trial in the Manafort case, Judge Ellis has engaged
in bullying behavior, disrespectful conduct, partisan rulings and statements, undignified
comments, intemperate conduct and other demeaning conduct toward Assistant United
States Attorneys responsible for prosecuting the case.

3. During the trial, Judge Ellis constantly and improperly interrupted the Assistant United
States Attorneys in the presence of the jury, he improperly criticized the government’s
evidence and strategy, he mis-stated the government’s legal theories and falsely implied
that the Assistant United States Attorneys had disobeyed his orders when they had not.
The judge berated the Assistant United States Attorneys for offering admissible and
highly relevant testimony and evidence regarding Manafort’s lavish lifestyle as related to
tax evasions charges.
4. After Assistant United States Attorney Uzo Asaye questioned a bank employee about
Paul Manafort’s failed attempt to obtain a $5.5 million construction loan on a N.Y.
property, Judge Ellis improperly intervened, stating: “you might want to spend time on a
loan that was granted.” The bias of the judge was evident because there was no defense
objection before the judge interjected his comment and the evidence was highly relevant
and admissible because an attempt to defraud was part of the conspiracy count in the
indictment. In their questioning, the United States Attorneys had no need to prove that
the loan was granted. In his questioning, Assistant United States Attorney Uzo Asaye
properly inquired about the evidence because it showed there was a crime whether or not
the loan was granted. The judge has extensive experience. The judge actively and
knowingly misled the jury about the government’s case.

5. By yelling at, rudely interrupting, constantly berating, demanding that they move more
quickly, injecting his commentary on the evidence and taking other actions against the
prosecutors, Judge Ellis engaged in a pattern of conduct that showed a lack of
impartiality, was prejudicial to the administration of justice and undermined public
confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

6. Judge Ellis yelled at, berated and attacked prosecutors based on their facials expressions,
then disrespectfully berated them for averting eye contact so as to avoid conflict with the
Judge. Judge Ellis stood up, shouted, “look at me,” and slammed his hand on the wooden
ledge in order to intimidate Assistant United States Attorney Greg Andres. The Judge the
berated Andres, “When you look down, its as if to say, you know, that’s B.S., I don’t
want to listen to you anymore.” In the tense exchange with Andres, the judge went so far
as to accuse the Assistant United States Attorney of “tearing up.”1 If the prosecutor did
tear up, it would be an entirely understandable and predictable result of Judge Ellis’
bullying behavior. The judge’s belief that an experienced federal prosecutor was brought
to the point of tears as a result of his harassment and bullying demonstrates the severity of
the problem. Judge Ellis created a hostile and offensive work environment for the
Assistant United States Attorneys to the point were he inflicted observable emotional
distress. The judge’s comment shows that he was aware that he was inflicting emotional
distress. Judge Ellis has gone so far as to declare, “I am a Caesar in my own Rome.” This
declaration is appropriate for narcissist and egomaniac, not federal judge. Judge Ellis’
conduct is a disgrace to the federal judiciary.

7. Even before the trial, Judge Ellis improperly speculated that Special Counsel Robert
Mueller was only prosecuting Manafort in order to coerce him to cooperate against
President Trump. Judge Ellis contributed to create a poisonous atmosphere where it
would be difficult to select a fair and impartial jury. Judge Ellis pushed jury selection
with excessive speed, increasing the chance that partisan jurors would be selected.

1
Fox News, Manafort trial Judge TS Ellis taunts and torments Mueller team: ‘Tears in
your eyes.” August 8, 2018
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/08/manafort-trial-judge-ts-ellis-taunts-and-torments-
mueller-team-tears-in-your-eyes.html

-2-
8. Judge Ellis was more interested in hampering the prosecution with unreasonable demands
for a quick and speedy trial than he was with carry out a fair trial. The most reasonable
explanation for his violations of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is that he
deliberately put his thumb on the scales of justice for partisan reasons. A less likely, but
entirely possible explanation, is that he was subject to other improper, corrupt or illegal
influences. A thorough investigation of this question is warranted.

9. The Assistant United States Attorney’s working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s
office likely have additional detail and information concerning Judge Ellis’improper and
unethical conduct in this matter.

10. It is unlikely that Judge Ellis’ misconduct in the Manafort trial were isolated incidents. If
Judge Ellis was willing to abuse his office in a trial of wide national and international
interest, it is likely that he has abused his authority in other cases. In evaluating the
violations set forth in this complaint, it is important to thoroughly investigate whether or
not Judge Ellis has perpetrated other incidents of harassment and unethical conduct.

III. VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES

VIOLATIONS OF CANONS 1, 2 AND 3

11. Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct of United States Judges provides that “a judge should
perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently.” Canon 3A(3) provides
that “[a] judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous” to all persons “with
whom the judge deals in an official capacity.” The Commentary to Canon 3A states that
“[t]he duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that
could be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.” [emphasis supplied].

12. The statements and conduct of Judge Ellis, described above, show an extraordinary lack
of “fairness” and “impartiality.” Further, no objective observer could conclude that Judge
Ellis’ treatment of Assistant United States Attorney Greg Andres was consistent with “the
duty to be respectful.”

13. Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides: “A Judge Should
Avoid Impropriety And The Appearance of Impropriety In All Activities.” The
Commentary to Canon 2A states that “An appearance of impropriety occurs when
reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances . . . would conclude
that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge
is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper
conduct by judges.” [emphasis supplied]. Canon 3A provides that a “judge should be
patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous” to all persons “with whom the judge deals in
an official capacity.” [emphasis supplied]. See Code of Conduct for United States Judges,
Canon 1 (“. . . A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should
personally observe those standards[.]”). Reasonable observers would conclude that Judge
Ellis was disrespectful, undignified, impatient, discourteous, bad tempered and displayed
an appalling lack of impartiality.

-3-
14. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that “[a] judge should
uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.” (Emphasis added.) The
explanation of Canon 1 states that an “honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in
our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should
personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary
may be observed.” (Emphasis added.) The Commentary to Canon 1 further provides that
“[d]eference to the judgments and ruling of courts depends on public confidence in the
integrity and independence of judges.” (Emphasis added.). As described in this
complaint, Judge Ellis displayed a range of unethical behavior that erodes public
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary in violation of Canon 1.

IV. RULE 6(d) CERTIFICATION

In accordance with Rule 6(d) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability
Proceedings, the factual statements in the Complaint are true and correct.

Signed under the penalties of perjury this 17th day of August, 2018.

___________________________
J. Whitfield Larrabee
Law Office of J. Whitfield Larrabee
251 Harvard Street, Suite 9
Brookline, MA 02446
jwlarrabee@gmail.com
(857) 991-9894

-4-