From Deseret News archives:
Utah's U.S. judges show wide-ranging portfolios
And potential conflicts of interest are numerous
Deseret Morning News graphic
Wealth of judges
Requires Adobe Acrobat.
|
And according to federal financial disclosure reports required of all federal judges, Utah's judges have a wide range of potential conflicts of interests, ranging from part ownership of a gold mine to a busted investment in the defunct energy giant Enron a business boondoggle that is now before the federal courts.
At least one judge is a millionaire, and two or three others could be close to joining the well-heeled club, according to their 2003 reports, the most recent year for which reports are available online by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Two have investments worth well into six figures, and the other three have little or nothing outside of their judicial salaries, according to the reports, which require judges to annually reveal, within certain ranges, their outside income and the value of their assets.
Prosperous judge
Far and away, U.S. District Judge David K. Winder is the most well-to-do of the federal judges in Utah.
According to his 2003 disclosure form, Winder has investment and trust assets worth at least $1.54 million, but they could be worth as much as $3.32 million. (The disclosures list only a range of the assets' value, not the exact amount.)
"I'm proud of my financial situation. I've saved and worked pretty hard," said Winder, a federal judge in Utah for 27 years.
Winder's disclosure form lists 28 different investments and trust income, everything from dividend payments of less than $1,000 from General Electric and Johnson & Johnson, to three different investment funds that each paid him between $15,000 and $45,000 in 2003 alone.
For the entire year, Winder showed income outside of his judicial salary of at least $71,500, though it could have been as much as $275,000, reports show.
While he has no qualms releasing information about those businesses with which he has financial dealings, Winder does question the necessity of including the amount of money attached to a particular asset. It should be enough to ensure judicial independence, he said, simply to make public the identities of companies themselves.










