The U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit issued its opinion on December 5, upholding the original August 2023 decision by federal Judge Eric Melgren, denying former International President Newton Jones’ appeal. Melgren found in favor of the International Vice Presidents who, as the International Executive Council, sought to uphold Article 17 charges against Jones, resulting in his ouster.
“We are humbled and grateful the U.S. Court of Appeals saw reason in our actions. This was a stressful and trying time, but it was necessary,” said International President Timothy Simmons, who was among the International Vice Presidents filing Article 17 charges against Jones. “This confirms the IEC’s original action was proper and conducted in accordance with our constitution. We will continue to move forward and serve our members.”
The Court of Appeal’s opinion summarized the series of events, which began in February 2023 when Jones allegedly admitted during an IEC meeting that he had spent union funds to travel to Ukraine with his wife. Then-International Vice President Simmons investigated the claims of financial misconduct and shared what he discovered with International Vice Presidents John Fultz, J. Tom Baca and Arnie Stadnick.
In April 2023, IVP John Fultz brought Article 17 charges against Jones based on evidence alleging Jones had directed back pay to his wife while she was living in Ukraine, had spent union funds on private dining by his family and, as he had noted to the IEC, had spent union funds to travel to his private residence in Ukraine. During the Article 17 hearing on May 30, which Jones did not attend, Fultz presented evidence that Jones paid his wife over $100,000 for work she never performed; had spent about $40,000 on union-expensed meals for himself and family near his home in North Carolina; and had spent over $20,000 on flights to his home in Ukraine.
Details of events leading to the May 30 hearing and makeup of the hearing committee and voting members are available in the full court document, linked below, as well as further details about the original case.
On June 2, the IEC voted, finding Jones in violation of the constitution, removing him from office, stripping him from membership and directing him to pay back all misspent money. Jones, however, refused to step down and continued retaliatory actions against the International Vice Presidents who had acted against him. He filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in an attempt to stop the IEC’s action.
After hearings on June 20 and in July, just ahead of Melgren’s 2023 decision, Jones suddenly retired on July 31 and attempted to appoint his successor. In their opinion document, the appeals panel pointed to a letter Jones sent to lodge officers “bemoaning the ‘ugly … smear campaign against me and my wonderful wife.’” Ultimately, however, the district court affirmed the IEC’s decision to remove Jones, as “binding and entitled to full effect.”
Jones filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision, and a federal appeals panel consisting of three judges reviewed the case and decision, reviewed the union’s constitution and heard oral arguments from attorneys representing Jones and the International Vice Presidents (full audio is available in the link below). The panel unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision.
“I would encourage members to read the full opinion,” said Simmons. “There is a lot of helpful, detailed information in how the judges arrived at their decision after reviewing our constitution and dispelling the former president’s attempts to wrongly use the constitution in his defense against our Article 17 charges.”
The opinion states, in fact, that “the Vice Presidents took significant steps to ensure the integrity of President Jones’s hearing.”
It is important to note that this is a separate legal matter from another ongoing and pending federal case against Jones and other former employees of the union. Information about those matters will be provided to membership as it becomes available at the conclusion of federal court findings.
Read the full opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals: Full opinion
Listen to the oral arguments from both parties’ attorneys: Listen here
