Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

did I send this about disqualifying judges?

Expand Messages
  • Pro Se
    Disqualification of Judges ... Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Disqualification of Judges


      Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
      In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
      Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
      That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
      Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
      One of our members not only did not receive justice from a prejudiced judge, but he does not believe that he received justice from the judge, as required by law.
      "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances."  Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
      Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
      Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves.  By law, they are bound to follow the law.  Does your judge follow the law?
      Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which further disqualifies the judge.  Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has disqualified himself/herself.  None of the orders issued any judge who has been disqualified by law are valid, they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
      However, as we know, many judges ignore the law, but by doing so, they not only attempt to harm you, the public, but they have made a mockery of the law, and have evidenced a disdain for Justices of higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal.  If judges do not have respect for other judges, why should judges expect the respect of the public?
      Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
      Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".  The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity.  The judge has no more lawful authority than your next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).  However since some judges believe that they are the Lord, they may not follow the law.  (Judge Rosen entered his courtroom each day, stood before the court audience, raised his hand, and stated that he was the Lord.  The night before he was to be indicted, he took a gun and blew his brains out.  So much for a judge being the Lord.)
      If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, has disqualified him/herself.
      However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that your judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
      One of our members has filed several motions for disqualification, only to have the judge ignore the motions. The member will post on this web-site several of the motions filed, to give the public a taste of the law and how judges ignore the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and we suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
      Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
      This member will post some of his motions here for educational purposes, and links to these motions will be found on this page.
      We will also inform you on what you can do to assist others in disqualifying judges. Please assist when requested.


      Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
    • frogfrmr@frogfarm.org
      ... That s the case here in California, my neighbors are not judges. The impersonators commit misdemeanors everyday and nobody but me and a few others
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 26, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > The judge has acted in the judge's personal
        > capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. The judge has no
        > more lawful authority than your next-door neighbor (provided that he
        > is not a judge).

        That's the case here in California, my neighbors are not judges. The
        impersonators commit misdemeanors everyday and nobody but me and a few
        others complain, which serves our interests but does nothing to spare
        the rest of their na�ve victims, as you can see even on this list as
        many Californians still have problems created by not holding "officers"
        to minimum qualifications.

        > One of our members has filed several motions for disqualification,
        > only to have the judge ignore the motions.

        The trick is for the member to be able to ignore the judge ignoring the
        motions. A disqualified judge cannot rule upon the issue of his own
        disqualification. If somebody ignorantly believes and acts as though
        the disqualified judge can proceed, guess what? He will, and the fact
        that the victim doesn't know the law will be made part of the record if
        he reacts.

        > The member will post on
        > this web-site several of the motions filed, to give the public a taste
        > of the law and how judges ignore the Supreme Law of the Land.

        In America today, everybody has the right to be stupid and wrong, even
        judges. Give me a stupid and wrong judge every time. (My problem is we
        can't get that far here - no real judges, just impersonators portraying
        judges for the believing audience.) After a while when I was in court
        for years straight, I came to believe that maybe, just maybe, these
        ridiculous antics of these people who at the time I thought were judges
        were designed to be wrong, so that I could win without any significant
        effort on appeal, out of the eyesight and earshot of the believers in
        the Peanut Gallery. It's something to watch for and consider.

        > The
        > Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the
        > Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in
        > treason <http://www.clr.org/crimjudg.html#treason> to the
        > Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically
        > disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and we
        > suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may
        > be engaged in extortion <http://www.clr.org/extortion.html> and the
        > interference with interstate commerce.

        That's one person's theory as to why they aren't taking the required
        oath of office. It prevents them from being tried for treason, and
        reduces every act to only a misdemeanor that to this day most people
        never recognize and to their detriment become willing accomplices.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Pro Se
        I ve made several FOIA requests to the CLERK[s] of COURT[s] in the MIDDLE DIST. of PA. I demanded a certified copy of the OATHS OF OFFICE of all federal
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 26, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I've made several FOIA requests to the CLERK[s] of COURT[s]
          in the MIDDLE DIST. of PA.

          I demanded a certified copy of the OATHS OF OFFICE
          of all federal judges, my requests are ignored...

          Moderator/Bear: You sound like a guy standing in a bank with a dumbfounded look on his face when they won't cash a check without an account or two forms of ID. I say this with confidence...there is nobody going to IGNORE MY Freedom of Information Act request! I see the attorneys at www.judicialwatch.org showing me how it is done. They are asking for way more embarrassing information than an oath and are going to court and winning when it is isn't given to them as required by law. They put their paperwork online for free. I had a clerk of court ignore my Open Records Act request until I threatened him with criminal charges for having done so. I got what I wanted. In that case it was proof that every judge in the county recused themselves from my cases after an en banc meeting whose primary subject matter was me. I think if you are going to the trouble, you might as well ask for the financial disclosures as well.

          I've heard
          they don't have any VALID OATH nor
          CIVIL COMMISSION nor certificate of election.

          Has anyone out there tried to get them?

          I did get state judges OATH"s through the A.O.P.C.
          Administrative office of PA courts & even asked some
          low level magistrates.

          I'd really like many of us to FILE a FIOA request - send these certified mail return receipt to all courts near you + send one 1st class mail w/ a certificate of mailing as well.


          Lets see what we get.

          p.s. I did send a notice to SEN. ARLEN SPECTOR about this issue.


          ---------------------------------
          Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
        • Pro Se
          IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS If a public officer authorizes the doing of an act not within the scope of his authority, he will be held liable. Bailey
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 27, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS


            "If a public officer authorizes the doing of an act not within the scope of his authority, he will be held liable." Bailey v.
            New York, 3 Hill (NY) 531, 38 Am Dec 669, affirmed in 2 Denio
            433.



            "The officers of the law, in the execution of process, are
            obliged to know the requirements of the law, and if they mistake
            them, whether through ignorance or design, and anyone is harmed
            by their error, they must respond in damages." Rogers v. Conklin
            1 Wall. (US) 644, 17 Led 714.



            "The authority of public officers to proceed in a particular way
            and only upon specific conditions as to such matters implies a
            duty not to proceed in any manner other than that which is
            authorized by the law." First Nat. Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526,
            145 So 204, 87 ALR 267.



            "A public officer is liable for the misconduct or negligence of his subordinates where he is entrusted with their selection or
            employment, and through carelessness or unfaithfulness appoint incompetent or untrustworthy persons." Wile v. Harrison, 105
            Okla 280, 232 P 816, 38 ALR 1408.



            "An officer who willfully and wantonly appoints an unfit and
            incompetent person for public duties may be liable for damage
            which proximately results therefrom." Richmond v. Long, 17 Gratt
            (Va) 375, 94 Am Dec 461.



            The courts are not bound by an officers interpretation of the
            law under which he presumes to act, Hofsommer v. Hayes, 92 Okla
            32, 217 P 477, citing RCL



            "Courts should not tolerate or condone disregard of law and
            arbitrary usurpation of power on the part of any officer. Ours
            is a government of law, and not of men, and before any act of
            any official will be sustained by the courts such act must be
            authorized by law." Ex Parte Owen, 10 Okla Crim Rep 284, 136, P
            197, Ann Cas 1916A 522.



            It is a general rule that good faith and absence of malice
            constitute no defense in an action to hold a ministerial officer
            liable for damages caused by his nonfeasance or misfeasances,
            Amy v. Supervisors (Amy v. Barkholder) 11 WaII.(S) 136, 20 Led
            101; for an officer is under a constant obligation to discharge
            the duties of his office, and it is not necessary to show that
            his failure to act was willful or malicious, 95 Ant St Rep 74.
            And this is likewise the rule in respect of officers with
            discretionary powers who have exceeded their jurisdiction and
            have acted without authority of law, Stiles v. Lowell (Stiles v.
            Morse) 233 Mass 174, 123 NE 615, 4 ALR 1365.



            It is a general rule that an officer -- executive,
            administrative, quasi-judicial, ministerial, or otherwise -- who
            acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without
            authorization of law may thereby render himself amenable to
            personal liability in a civil suit, Cooper v. O'Connor, 69 App
            DC 100, 99 F(2d) 138, 118 ALR 1440; Chamberlain v. Clayton, 56
            Iowa 331, 9 NW 237, 41 Ant Rep 101. If he exceeds the power
            conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea
            that he is a public agent acting under color of his office,
            Nelson v. Babcock, 188 Minn 584, 248 NW 49, 90 ALR 1472; or that
            the damage was caused by an act done or omitted under color of
            office, and not personally, First Naf: Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla
            526, 145 So 204, 87 ALR 267. In the eye of the law, his acts
            then are wholly without authority, Kelly v. Bemis, 4 Gray (Mass)
            83, 64 Am Dec. 50.


             Following the Westfall decision, Congress enacted the
                       Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation
            Act
                         of 1988 (the Westfall Act), which authorized the Attorney
                         General to certify that an employee was acting within
            the
                        scope of his office or employment at the time of the
                         incident out of which a suit arose; upon certification,
            the
                         employee is dismissed from the action, and the United States
                        is substituted, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) then governing the action, which means that sometimes the action
                        must be dismissed against the Government because the FTCA
                       has not waived sovereign immunity. Cognizant of the
                        temptation set before the Government to immunize both itself
                        and its employee, the Court in Gutierrez de Martinez v.
                        Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), held that the Attorney
                         General's certification is subject to judicial review.

               Of course, when a state is sued in federal court
                       pursuant to federal law, the Federal Government, not the
                        defendant state, is ``the authority that makes the law''
                        creating the right of action. See Seminole Tribe of Florida
                        v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 154 (1996) (Justice Soutter  dissenting).


                                  This view also has support in modern case law:'' .
                        . . the State's immunity from suit is a fundamental
            aspect of sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the
                        ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain
                        today . . . .''  Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713
            (1999).





            Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
            Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
          • beddi9@aol.com
            The more I read about immunity case law, the more I feel a sense of hope until I examine further the inner workings of our judicial system. The problems
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 10, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              The more I read about immunity case law, the more I feel a sense of hope until I examine further the inner workings of our judicial system.  The problems have never been that you can't apply principles of wrongdoing against a judge where immunity does not apply. The problems are that you cant get another judge to uphold those principles.  They are all siding with one another- it is the corrupt network. Most dont follow the code of conduct or uphold those principles of their office. Most in my opinion are rogue obsessed with power. The corrupt network has to be imploded. If anyone has ever applied the citations listed in your article and where it worked, please let me know. Also what may be even more worthwhile:  has anyone met and succeeded with the steps necessary to challenge judicial corruption and if so what steps were taken and what success was achieved?  Jabe  (NJ)




              Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
            • Frog Farmer
              ... Since my friend introduced me to the concept years ago, I ve disqualified every single actor portraying themselves in a position of authority over me.
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 10, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                beddi9@... [mailto:beddi9@...] wrote:

                > has anyone
                > met and succeeded with the steps necessary to challenge judicial
                > corruption and if so what steps were taken and what success was
                > achieved?

                Since my friend introduced me to the concept years ago, I've
                disqualified every single actor portraying themselves in a position of
                authority over me. "First things first", my momma used to say. "Never
                give anything to the game for free", my poker mentor says.

                In every case I've ever heard about, and you are free to provide me with
                differing examples, "the loser" waived important rights early and often,
                and many times out of a perceived need to appear "polite" and
                "submissive". Such waivers have real costs later.

                Waive no rights for any cause or reason, and you should have it "made in
                the shade"! Remember, Land of the Free is the Home of the Brave!

                Regards,

                FF
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.