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

criminal complaint against a judge

Expand Messages
  • Balsaman
    What is the difference and which has more force and effect, a recusal or a disqualification? As I have witnessed, judges do not often like, nor adhere to
    Message 1 of 8 , May 27, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      What is the difference and which has more force and effect, a recusal or a disqualification?

      As I have witnessed, judges do not often like, nor adhere to being recused.









      _____
    • Pro Se
      Below is some case law I used to get rid of Federal Judges that were bias towards me, the key  & difference was I showed appearance of bias & prejudice - in
      Message 2 of 8 , May 27, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Below is some case law I used to get rid of Federal Judges that were bias towards me, the key  & difference was I showed "appearance of bias & prejudice' - in addition, I motion of substitution for judge for cause...of which he could not "rule on"...thus he recused himself.

        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?


         



        What is the difference and which has more force and effect, a recusal or a disqualification?

        As I have witnessed, judges do not often like, nor adhere to being recused.

        _____


      • galvindwgalvin@aol.com
        The Motion is to Disqualify and then the judge recuses himself. nor adhere to being recused. _____
        Message 3 of 8 , May 27, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          The Motion is to Disqualify and then the judge recuses himself.
          nor adhere to being recused.

          _____
        • Jake
          re·cus·al  –noun Law.  the disqualification of a judge for a particular lawsuit or proceeding, esp. due to some possible conflict of interest or
          Message 4 of 8 , May 27, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            re·cus·al 
            –noun Law. 
            the disqualification of a judge for a particular lawsuit or proceeding, esp. due to some possible conflict of interest or prejudice.
            Origin:
            1955–60; recuse + -al
            Dictionary.com Unabridged

            Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.


            Typically, a judge "recuses" himself due to some potential conflict of interest, such as if he owns stock in a company which is a party to an action in his court, if a family member is a party to an action in his court, etc. & a "disqualification" would come from being removed from a case or from the bench altogether by somebody else.  The effect of either would be the same, regarding any case which the judge can no longer handle or rule on, for whatever reason.


            ~ ~ ~



            --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Balsaman <balsaman@...> wrote:

            From: Balsaman <balsaman@...>
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] criminal complaint against a judge
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 8:42 AM

             



            What is the difference and which has more force and effect, a recusal or a disqualification?

            As I have witnessed, judges do not often like, nor adhere to being recused.

            _____


          • Frog Farmer
            ... A recusal says he is a judge and is impartial. A disqualification says he is no judge at all, if it is over his oath or bond. Otherwise, a
            Message 5 of 8 , May 28, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Balsaman axed:

              >
              > What is the difference and which has more force and effect, a recusal
              > or a disqualification?

              A recusal says he is a judge and is impartial. A disqualification says
              he is no judge at all, if it is over his oath or bond. Otherwise, a
              disqualification for another cause or no cause acts like a recusal.

              Regards,

              FF
            • Daniel Nieves
              Has anyone tried humbly asking a Judge not to commit a crime against them?  Most patriots have been identified as radical, mad and angry but Ive been dealing
              Message 6 of 8 , May 28, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Has anyone tried humbly asking a Judge not to commit a crime against them?  Most patriots have been identified as radical, mad and angry but Ive been dealing with judges and officers and I very politely tell them and humbly say please do not "compell me to lie."  Subordination of perjury and Depravation of rights under color of Law is a crime.  If a judge compells someone to lie, they lose their immunity and can be sued in their individual capacity.  Why not just notify the judge politely? 

                --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:

                From: Jake <jake_28079@...>
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] criminal complaint against a judge
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 1:26 PM

                 

                re·cus·al 
                –noun Law. 
                the disqualification of a judge for a particular lawsuit or proceeding, esp. due to some possible conflict of interest or prejudice.
                Origin:
                1955–60; recuse + -al
                Dictionary.com Unabridged
                Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

                Typically, a judge "recuses" himself due to some potential conflict of interest, such as if he owns stock in a company which is a party to an action in his court, if a family member is a party to an action in his court, etc. & a "disqualification" would come from being removed from a case or from the bench altogether by somebody else.  The effect of either would be the same, regarding any case which the judge can no longer handle or rule on, for whatever reason.

                ~ ~ ~


                --- On Thu, 5/27/10, Balsaman <balsaman@optonline. net> wrote:

                From: Balsaman <balsaman@optonline. net>
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] criminal complaint against a judge
                To: tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
                Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010, 8:42 AM

                 


                What is the difference and which has more force and effect, a recusal or a disqualification?

                As I have witnessed, judges do not often like, nor adhere to being recused.

                _____


              • Frog Farmer
                ... Wow! Wish I could! Can t find any! Of course I don t look too hard; I just wait to deal with all these people who come to me claiming that that is who
                Message 7 of 8 , May 28, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Daniel Nieves wrote:

                  > Has anyone tried humbly asking a Judge not to commit a crime against
                  > them? Most patriots have been identified as radical, mad and angry
                  > but Ive been dealing with judges and officers

                  Wow! Wish I could! Can't find any! Of course I don't look too hard; I
                  just wait to deal with all these people who come to me claiming that
                  that is who they are. It's so disappointing to find out that they are
                  mere neighbors of the scoundrel and knave class. They love those FRNs
                  and have no moral or ethical problem endorsing paychecks and circulating
                  fresh debt paper. And nobody prosecutes for impersonation anymore, now
                  that BO is a shining example of political behavior and character.

                  > and I very politely tell
                  > them and humbly say please do not "compell me to lie."

                  How do you remain polite after a tasering?

                  > Subordination of perjury and Depravation of rights
                  > under color of Law is a crime.

                  Subornation of perjury (NOT Subordination) is a legal term describing
                  the crime of persuading another to commit perjury.

                  Subordination in banking and finance refers to the order of priorities
                  in claims for ownership or interest in various assets.

                  There is a rare word spelled "depravation" which has to do with
                  something being depraved, corrupted, and perverted. But the spelling
                  you're more likely to need is "deprivation," which has to do with being
                  deprived of desirable things like rights or freedoms.

                  Did you misspell, or are you now saying that Goldman Sachs has found a
                  new way to create derivatives by using their depraved sense of morality
                  to obtain ownership of our rights as if we were chattel outside of the
                  normal channel of getting people to use Federal Reserve Notes and
                  fractional reserve banking accounts?

                  > If a judge compells someone to lie, they lose their immunity and can
                  > be sued in their individual capacity. Why not just notify the judge
                  > politely?

                  Where we have no judge to notify, how about just making a public
                  declaration that we claim immunity because we are prisoners under
                  duress? That's really the only situation I can imagine finding myself
                  in here where we have no real officers who are in conformance with the
                  laws.

                  Actually, we have an understanding here where I live: they outnumber me
                  and I have frogs to farm, so for the well-being of both sides, we agree
                  to disengage and go on with our lives, they fleecing the sheeple, and me
                  enjoying the freedom most Americans used to enjoy because I know I can.

                  Regards,

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