Should Judge Martin Reidinger recuse from all WOFF-related cases?

Judge Reidinger speaks on the Nuremberg Trial

October 12, 2015: Mildred H. Keeter Auditorium at Cleveland Community College (CCC) filled up fast with members of Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). The excitement quickly built as children and adults alike took note of who was in the room and positioned themselves appropriately. This evening was another public display evidencing the quizzical proclamation of WOFF member’s interests in the Holocaust. For years leading to this moment, WOFF members traveled far and wide displaying their paintings and recreations of mementoes from this dark time in history. True to form, that night a few of their creations were on display in the foyer and adjoining hallways.

Karel Reynolds began with introductions. Next, we were served a glowing near worshipful endorsement by Hannah Davies of “The Honorable Martin Reidinger, United States District Court Judge for the Western District of North Carolina.” Reidinger proceeded to deliver his insights into the relevance of the Nuremberg Trial to events in our times. I listened intently, taking many notes.

Two others in attendance, Mitch Weiss and Nancy Burnette witnessed the warm reception and fawning attention given to Judge Reidinger. Before that evening, I didn’t know about Reidinger. Later, as I wrote about the event for my blog, I had no idea of the true irony which that night foretold.

Fast forward to 2018, the Assistant U.S. Attorney for Western NC, Daniel Bradley delivers to the court indictments against four WOFF members. Those include Dr. Jerry Gross, Jason Gross, Marion Kent Covington and Diane McKinny. The first three pleaded guilty, while Ms. McKinny pleaded not guilty and is set for trial in March. The presiding judge over the case is Judge Martin Reidinger. Other Federal Magistrates have orchestrated the hearings to this point. Reidinger is slated as Judge for McKinny’s trial and possibly for the sentencing hearings of Jerry Gross, Jason Gross and Kent Covington.

The conundrum unfolds before us. Of course, I do not know Judge Reidinger personally or professionally. I ask about recusal in light of the history Judge Reidinger specifically has with Hannah Davies, a WOFF member, an attorney with Farmer, Morris, PPLC; and in general, with the known public appearance and unknown potential private connection to others in WOFF. Do these factors suggest he should recuse from oversight of the four cases mentioned and others against WOFF members which may come before the Western District Court?

The relationship of Mrs. Davies to the Judge is well documented in several places. On the Elon University website, “Semester-in-Practice spotlight: Hannah Davies assists U.S. District Court Judge Martin Reidinger- Following a spring 2014 semester-in-practice with Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Hannah Davies L’14 accepted the opportunity to serve as judicial assistant and law clerk to Judge Reidinger beginning in August.

She explains, “My semester-in-practice experience was invaluable,” Davies said. “I participated in many meetings discussing cases, met numerous attorneys and accompanied Judge Reidinger in court for a criminal jury trial, a week long civil jury trial, summary judgment hearings, pretrial conferences, discovery hearings, supervised release violation hearings and numerous criminal sentencing hearings.” (link– viewed Jan. 20, 2019)

On another website for attorney referrals (here– viewed Jan. 20, 2019)-

“Mrs. Davies served as a full-time intern to United States District Court Judge Martin Reidinger from January – April 2014, and then served as his Administrative Law Clerk from August 2014 – May 2015. Judge Reidinger serves in the Asheville Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, where he handles numerous criminal cases, civil cases of all kinds, bankruptcy appeals, and social security disability appeals. Hannah truly enjoyed the opportunity to clerk for Judge Reidinger and to further expand her understanding of the law as she drafted numerous orders and assisted the Judge daily. Hannah has now joined Farmer & Morris Law, PLLC, where she serves clients in personal injury cases, social security disability cases, litigation, and estate planning…”

There is similar information on the Farmer & Morris Law, PPLC website.

Let me be clear, I am not criticizing Reidinger or Davies for the enduring and nurturing relationship between the two. The facts are known.

Let’s go back to 2015. That evening, I had two empty seats to my left between myself and Dr. Gross. I inadvertently stepped on his shoe as I passed him and his wife. I do not know if Jason Gross, Kent Covington or Dianne McKinny were present.

The public display of admiration, not only from Hannah, but the entire WOFF crowd was evident and actually expected- don’t you agree? Why would Karel invite him to speak if she did not admire and esteem his message and his work as a Judge? It was all very socially normal on one hand and on the other, an ironic event in the history of WOFF.

In that regard, can we ignore it?

Can we expect Judge Reidinger to completely divorce his judicial reflections on these cases from the years of an obviously positive and warm emotional relationship with Mrs. Davies and her friends?

In his words, from the written bio in the program at CCC:

“… my commitment to you is that in this post (as judge) I will seek justice of myself, I will treat all with respect, and I will remain humbled in this calling.”

Out of respect for Hannah, her friends and the Citizens of North Carolina, is this a time to humbly recuse?

This may already be in consideration and not publicly known. As we move closer to trial for McKinny and then sentencing for the three who pleaded guilty; we will take note what the Honorable Judge decides on this question.

Follow here:

Twitter – @religiouscults

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/johnhuddleauthor

YouTube- religiouscultsinfo.com

Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog. Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Jane told me and Josh confirmed it.

Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.

Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.

Guest posts reflect the opinions of the writers. Their opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of John Huddle or any other persons affiliated with this blog.

Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, for posts written by John Huddle, any information about WOFF is from his memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be.

Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted.

(Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 650.

2 thoughts on “Should Judge Martin Reidinger recuse from all WOFF-related cases?”

  1. It will never be answered unless someone brings it to the higher courts attention the 4th circuit court of appeals.

    Article III Judges such as Reidinger are there own boss, no one is over them, no one to police them. They think they are GOD. The rules, policies and laws are a false sence of security for those who work along side these all powerful evil individuals, providing absolutely no protection because the rules, policies and laws do not apply to Reisinger. Reidinger is guilty of the exact same crime of sexual harassment in which he sentences defendants to several years in prison while he is free to do as he wishes ie terminating women who refuse his advancements without following policy. Then it all gets swept under the rug.

    Yes, the answer is yes Reidinger should have recused himself, but he is much more involved with WOFF than has come to light. It is unheard of for an Article III to publicly speak at events, much less on behalf of an organization with a reputation such as WOFF for him to publicly associate, affiliate himself with the WOFF CULT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.