Motion to Recuse — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 210, filed 08/29/24)

Summary

A Motion to Recuse filed August 29, 2024 as Document 210 in United States v. Nathan Reardon, Case No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, filed pro se by Nathan Reardon. Numbered paragraphs ask Judge Lance Walker to recuse himself from this and all future court proceedings against Nathan Reardon. The motion argues that rulings on the right to bear arms, detention without bail, the November 2022 sentencing, and a self-employment ban show the Judge is not impartial, and says the First Circuit vacated some of those decisions. It closes by asking the Judge to recuse from all of the filer's cases. A certificate of service states that a copy was mailed by USPS to Andrew Lizotte.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Pagelof8 PagelD #: 1396

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

NATHAN REARDON

MOTION TO RECUSE

1. This is the defendants Pro Se filing for a motion for Judge Lance Walker to recuse
' himself from this and all future court proceedings against defendant Nathan

Reardon.

2. Inthe beginning of 2022 Judge Nivison made a ruling taking away defendants right to
bear arms, even though no threats were alleged or made, and no violence was

threatened or alleged.

3. You made the decision to reinstate defendants 2.4 amendment right to bear arms
and wrote a well thought out decision describing why it was a violation of his second

amendment rights.

4. Defendant was encouraged and believed; this was the beginning of the judicial
system being fair after having his constitutional right to bare arms, taken away

unjustly.

5. To the shock of the defendant and his council, at the time, just a few days later you
changed your mind and took away his second amendment rights again. Without
explanation of what changed your mind and several days after your original and well
thought out decision. Why does a federal judge change his mind on a decision that
was made just a few days earlier when no one filed motions against that decision?

We still don’t know.

Page 1 of 8
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Page2of8 PagelD #: 1397

6. Defendant was arrested for accepting rent from tenants that were applying for
COVID-19 Relief related funds alleging it was a violation of his bail conditions. The
bail conditions clearly state defendant was not allowed to apply for funds, nowhere

did it say he could not receive rent payment from people that had applied for funds. |

~ Defendant was not applying for rent relief because he was not paying rent, the
tenants were. twas determined that defendant was a danger to society because-he—-
received rent for apartments that were lawfully occupied by tenants. Another
amazing miscarriage of justice. Defendant was held without bail, even though major
drug traffickers, bank robbers, human traffickers’, rapists as well as murderers are
granted bail from this very court, as well as many others throughout the state and
country. Defendant was accused of a clerical bank loan error not Murder. You
denied all motions brought before you by defendants’ council Hunter Tvarras.

7. Aftera plea agreement was signed for no more than 12 months and a day and
despite the federal sentencing guidelines being 6 to 12 months, you sentenced
defendant to 20 months based on “intended losses” that the government and the
defendant agree that not one penny of that was ever given to him. Still, you punished
defendant for that. Your reasoning was that you needed to punish defendant harsh
enough to deter others from crime. Appeal was dragged out by AUSA until the
appeal was determined moot, a strategic move for sure. Entire sentence was served
even though appeal was brought. The signed plea agreement was fraudulent from
the beginning. Another calculated move to be sure.

8. Atthe sentencing in November 2022 you entirely denied all objections to the
probation report, while simultaneously granting everything that the government
asked for. Later the first circuit vacated that decision as not meeting the legal
standard. Not one thing went in favor of the defendant despite multiple mitigating
factors. You said you considered them, | argue you never did.

9. After defendant served the term of imprisonment, while he was on probation, ‘his
probation officer alleged several, first time, non-criminal actions that were an
alleged infringement on probation conditions. Defendant again was again held
without bail as ordered by you, despite evidence that allegations were unfounded,
and those allegations were dismissed after defendant spent time in jail without bail.
Defendant was forced into another fraudulent plea agreement in order to hopefully
be reunited with his distraught children. You determined the defendant was a
danger to society because his wife had a lawfully owned firearm in her closet
without the knowledge of the defendant and the defendant was not even on the

Page 2 of 8
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Page3of8 PagelD #: 1398

property. The firearm charge was dropped because of a lack of evidence. But it was
allowed to be left in play by yourself, because it kept me in jail without bail again,
right? This seems to be a pattern skillfully used against the defendant. The question

10.

11.

12.

is why does a person who was not accused of a violent crime or hurting anyone have _

to be held in jail multiple times without bail when murderers walk the streets with

bail?-We stilt don’thave-an answer for that— = —

Despite the fact, there were no new crime allegations, and this was a first-time
offense for technical probation violations you sentenced defendant to the maximum
nine months for a bottom of the line class C violation, where no one was hurt, and
no new crime was committed. In addition, there were multiple mitigating factors
that were acknowledged by you and then ignored. Defendant has seen multiple
cases in this very court that were new crime and they only received six months.
Hardly fair or impartial by any reasonable standard.

In the sentencing of November 2022 you stated on the record that it would probably
be OK and there could be some middle ground found for self-employment. The
district attorney agreed with that and the defendants council had objected to that
restriction. Literally everyone said they agreed the defendant could be self
employed in some fashion. Instead of finding the middle ground at that time, you re-
imposed an over burdensome self-employment ban that the first circuit found to be,
lacking legally and vacated your decision. The self employment ban is not the
minimum restriction needed to protect the public’s safety.

Rather than taking time to reflect on the first circuit decisions, as well as the things
that you personally said on the record, and the things that the district attorney said.
You did not lift the self employment ban, you simply restated everything that was
already on the record and reinstated it. Instead, you took the opportunity to go ona
half an hour personal attack on the defendant on a legal and public record. Actually,
stating on the record that you used the unfounded and unverified information
published in the Bangor daily news as a reason for violating the defendant. Then
stating on record that the defendant is a narcissist, even though he was never
diagnosed as one professionally. The district attorney was also allowed by you to
make derogatory personal statements multiple times at multiple hearings against
the defendant when they have nothing to do with the alleged crime or the
sentencing. Still, it was allowed to happen on your watch. Without hesitation or
pause to consider the damage you were allowing and perpetuating on the

Page 3 of 8
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Page4of8 PagelD #: 1399

defendants reputation. This has been allowed to become a personal bash session
ever time rather than a court of law and order.

13.1 have also been told by multiple lawyers across the-country that these charges”

~ should’ve been dismissed before| was even indicted because youcannotcommit ~~

_bank fraud against a non-bank entity (US V. MICHAEL BOUCHARD 828. F.34
116;2016 U.S. App LEXIS 12498. Docket No. 14-41 56-cr) The SBA is not and never
has been a bank, and therefore bank fraud charges should’ve never been brought
against defendant. Despite the fact that defendants’ council did not file a motion to
dismiss, even after he was asked to file a motion to dismiss by defendant multiple
times. Multiple additional new legal counsel have told defendant that judges are
supposed to see these things and a dismissal should’ve happened regardless of the
lack of legal representation for defendant.

14. You took defendants freedom, you ended his marriage in divorce, you forced him to
close multiple legal corporations, you made him miss his only sons first tooth, you
made defendant miss the passing of his dog after years of caring for the animal that
was adopted from the shelter, defendant lost multiple properties while in jail
because he could not adequately defend himself and was getting moved to multiple
facilities and not getting mail, you forced his family into bankruptcy after trying to
keep his family with a roof over their head with low income because of probation
restrictions, you took a father of 5-away from his minor children for over 2 years, you
stopped the sole source of income for his family of 7, you took his peace and ability
to respect a system that was designed to protect people not destroy lives of those
who are simply trying to make something out of their lives. | think the damage you
inflicted is substantial enough and you should recuse yourself from further
destroying this defendants life. | don’t know what has caused you to hate me so
much but at this point it doesn’t matter. The bias and unfair destruction of my life

needs to end. This abuse of power needs to end.

15. Defendants life has been substantially destroyed. For rape? No. For murder? No.
For drug trafficking? No. What was this destruction for? Wait for it.... A loan, that is
being paid back 100%. Almost 10,000 of was paid back before he was even
sentenced. A gesture to show Your Honor that the loan would be paid back if
freedom was considered. This went ignored. This seems extreme to everyone
except for you and the overzealous DA Andrew Lizotte. The federal government
spent hundreds of thousand of dollars and wasted precious resources that could
have been used to stop child traffickers and violent criminals and take them off the

Page 4 of 8
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Page5of8 PagelD #: 1400

street. A loan for $59,145.00 warranted years of investigations and endless
prosecution and removal of a father providing for his young family for years.
Hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars spent for this is extreme and

uneccessary. Additional fact that never considered was defendant was allowed up _

to a 2 million dollar loan without an audit. Why did defendant only borrow enough to.
cover payroll fora few-weeks-and not “take” 1.9 million-and-go-on-vacations or by
boats and fancy cars like others? Defendant was not even accused of taking a 3 day
weekend. One sided stories make a person out to be something they may not be.
Shallow digging by the DA paints an unclear picture. But why waste time getting to
the truth instead of something that makes great headlines for the new and
overzealous DA trying to make his mark on the back of a hard working father of 5

right?

16. You labeled the defendant a narcissist on public record because you say he needs
humility. So because defendant is not depressed and on Prozac and because he is
confident in his training and proven abilities over the past 24 years, you publicly
mislabeled and humiliated him as a narcissist on a permanent legal record in open
court with the press there? Hardly fair or impartial.

17. You didn’t take a violent offender off the street. You didn’t save anyone from harm.
You allege that defendant has to be restricted to protect the public from serial bank
loan fraud even though defendant has never had a bank loan for the business in 23
years until the the PPP loan during COVID. Somehow that fact never made it to your
opinions. You took a father of 5 away from his young children, causing them
irreversible emotional damage. You took a real estate developer that is helping to
rebuild the 3-4 million units the government says it needs to house middle and low
income earners throughout the country and here in Maine. You took a son away from
his aging parents and overburdened them to care for his young family. You took an
employer away from employees and forced many of them into unemployment
because defendant was held without bail after being abruptly arrested for accepting
rent from tenants. With tremendous power comes tremendous responsibility and
that can not be seen in any of the actions taken against the defendant so far.

18. You and the DA paint the defendant as an utter failure that cannot be trusted to run
businesses. The question you never asked was how did he grow the business for 21
years before the loan and how did it survive after the loan in 2020? The business was
still operating more than 2 years after the $59,145.00 loan. To believe the 6 weeks
worth of payroll the loan covered changed the defendant's life for years before and

Page 5 of 8
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Page6of8 PagelD #: 1401

years after would be more than naive. These are questions that were never raised by
the governments side because of the seemingly blind hatred possibly fueled from
the slanderous and libel articles you read in the extremely inaccurate Bangor Daily
=—— News disparaging printings against defendant. You Say the money that was in the
= account before the loan was from his father. That i is true, | money was never kept in
accounts because it was being constantly reinvested_as smart business owners do.
His father was his partner. Him making a deposit into the account is neither illegal
nor devious, despite how you and the DA painted it in your 30 minute highly
inaccurate diatribe about me at sentencing to which | could not respond to

afterwards.

19. Another fact that was never brought up was that the properties in question during all
of this were acquired in January 2020. Before COVID was even announced and
months before the PPP loan was introduced. Tying the properties or defendants’
business growth to the alleged fraud is extraordinarily misguided and patenily false.
Defendant was successful for over 20 years before the loan and he was still
successful after the loan was well past spent on legitimate business expenses. The
PPP loan covered payroll, the same payroll his businesses had for over 20 years
prior to the loan, and this freed up other funds for nice gifts for his father like the
infamous cayman 400.00 boots or the toys bought on amazon for a couple of
hundred dollars or the dog being neutered just like the past 5 dogs the defendant
had over the past 20 years. In a blinded statement these things may seem
extraordinary. What the government failed to do was compare the defendants
spending the 5 years prior to the loan and the 2 years after the loan. If anything,
spending was limited during the covid loan era because of massive spending on the
new properties from January 2020. Is spending 400.00 on a gift for someone’s
fathers birthday illegal or extreme? | think not, yet it was a focal point in the
investigation, the news articles and the prosecution as well as your statements
against the defendant. After a forensic accounting was done, over $400,000.00 went
through the defendants account in 2020. Another fact that simply was never put on
the record. This simple fact makes the $59,145.00 loan far less spectacular, doesn’t
it? One sided and incomplete truths have destroyed the defendants life. Enough is

enough. Please recuse yourself.

Therefore, the defendant Nathan Reardon, is respectfully asking you, Judge Lance Walker,
to recuse yourself from any further interactions with defendant Nathan Reardon on this

Page 6 of 8
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Page 7of8 PagelD #: 1402

case or any future cases that may arise. You have acknowledged, but ignored mitigating
evidence. You have denied 100% of all motions by defendant even when yourself and the
AUSA are on the record saying that a middle ground could be reached, yet it never was. You

~ have held defendant in jail without bail even when bail was appropriate andjust. You --

removed a father of five and the only source of income from his young family long-term,
even though it was not necessary, causing permanent financial and emotional damage to
them. You have refused to remove legally deficient restrictions, even though they were
vacated by the first circuit court of appeals which is rare for a higher court to do. You have
over sentenced the defendant multiple times and did not use the minimum possible
standard and your decision was therefore vacated by the first circuit court of appeals as
legally deficient. You stated on the record that a punishment that the first circuit court of
appeals found to be legally deficient is OK to reimpose after it was vacated because you
say itis” not permanent”. Somehow temporary makes legally overburdensome and not
meeting the legal minimum standard ok in your opinion. You have opened up the federal
government to a potential slander and libel case based on your and the AUSA, on the
public record, unfounded and unwarranted personal attacks on the defendant making
statements of opinion, as a fact when there is no professional or licensed diagnosis to back
them up. More specifically calling the defendant a narcissist. This is not about a singular
decision that you made in the past week or two decisions you have made in the past
month. This is about a lengthy and voluminous set of decisions that have been made over
the past three years that have completely destroyed and derailed the defendant's life and a
family's life over a small loan that is being fully repaid. Enough damage has been done. This
is about your decisions that have been vacated by the first circuit court of appeals and yet
you reinstated them after you said on the record, that a “middle ground” could be found.
No middle ground was reached or even approached by you, ever. After over 3 years of over
sentencing, and overzealous prosecution there appears to be no middle ground between
the defendant and yourself. It appears to defendant that you are not impartial and there is
some sort of personal animus that you are taking out on the defendant rather than being
fair and impartial as a federal Judge is required to be. Please recuse yourself from all

defendanis' cases.

Nathan Reardon
Pro Se

PO Box 52

Page 7 of 8
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 210 Filed 08/29/24 Page 8of8 PagelD #: 1403

Detroit, ME 04929

207-745-7575

Certificate of service,

A copy of this was mailed by USPS to assistant US district attorney Andrew Lizotte.

Page 8 of 8


File and source

File

210.pdf

Size

2,400,208 bytes

SHA-256

0604c2e8ef95e7bd7c878e092051b28ef4788babf4da1d6f610c892a11389d3a

Our copy

210.pdf

Original

No public link identified.