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

Disqualifying Calif. State Judges

Expand Messages
  • originalfrogfrmr
    ... It might be informative for the list to hear about them. So, did you use the process at CCP 170? ... It would be interesting how a final arraignment was
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      > California. I only raised the Disqualification at the Superior Court level
      > since I did not have more time to take it higher. I had multiple processes
      > going on. I did file a petition for writ of mandate and prohibition to the
      > appellate div. of the sup. court on the issue of the court proceeding with
      > out having it's jurisdiction invoked by someone authorized to do so. They
      > played games with that.

      It might be informative for the list to hear about them. So, did you use
      the process at CCP 170?

      > They "lost" the original for which I have
      > confirmed delivery and signed return receipts. I had to take my cripple
      > self up to that court and physically deliver new orig. copies. They denied
      > it the very next day and the clerk failed to provide notice, so I didn't
      > find out until I inquired a week later. I already had 2 attempted
      > "arraignments" at that point.

      It would be interesting how a final arraignment was concluded and put into
      the record?

      > As CarlS mentioned, I was not sure how that entire process would be
      > handled when none of the "judges" out here have the valid oath on file.

      NONE??!! They found one for me! And out of over 40 oaths I've collected,
      I know at least ONE was correct!

      > I
      > am certainly willing to try to push that issue further next time since I
      > already know how to trip them up on other procedural deficiencies.

      If you do it when you are arrested, with only the cop and magistrate
      there, you make witnesses of each of them against the other.

      > In your experience will they really drop your cases if you hammer them on
      > that or do they hide behind the Vogel v. Los Angeles Cali. Supreme Court
      > ruling?

      They've disqualified themselves whenever I've said they are disqualified
      and I prove it. I've never had them go ahead with the CCP170 procedure.
      I have my own argument for whenever Vogel gets raised, but so far it's
      only been raised by people supposedly on my side!

      > Personally I saw that as a potential problem and given my health
      > issues I wanted to corner them on as many other issues as possible with
      > out creating an excess of work for myself (I don't mind putting in work,
      > but I've literally added fingertip neuropathy and carpel tunnel to my
      > health issues simply from all of my research and motions.).

      THe system is broken beyond repair. I can no longer pretend that any
      functioning parts still have any merit to them. All that's left to do is
      hope that the collapse doesn't take all our remaining time and that the
      new paradigm is more justice oriented.

      > --- On Mon, 6/3/13, frogfrmr@... <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
      >> What state?  If California, how many steps did you get in the
      >> disqualification?  Did you get to the state supreme court?

      Regards,

      FF
    • jai mann
      ... Yes. California Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). I recommend every one look up the disqualification procedures, even if you aren t in California, as it
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        >It might be informative for the list to hear about them.  So, did you use the process at >CCP 170?

        Yes. California Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). I recommend every one look up the disqualification procedures, even if you aren't in California, as it can give you an idea of what to look for in your own codes:
        http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=170-170.9

        >It would be interesting how a final arraignment was concluded and put into the record?

        They never got past the alleged
        arraignment. I tied them up by pointing out procedural deficiencies which I reminded the Judge must be addressed before an alleged defendant had to provide a plea, and before the court could attempt to enter a plea for them. I have seen
        evidence of some people who "refuse" to enter a plea and the court simply enters one for them. They clearly haven't read the statutory procedures for arraignment or they would be doing more than refusing to enter a plea. As you point out, criminal/penal procedural codes have many places to trip up these unlawful actors. Really, it behooves every one to examine such procedures, as not every thing applies to each individual, and only one who familiarizes themselves with such code can apply it in their defense of liberty.

        >NONE??!!  They found one for me!  And out of over 40 oaths I've collected,I know at least >ONE was correct!

        Well those with the appropriate oath are like fabled dragons. I believe you. Again, this issue is one I will try to push further next time. I have one win under my belt and should I be forced to deal with similar problems in the future, I have my foundation in place to work from.

        >They've
        disqualified themselves whenever I've said they are disqualified and I prove it.  I've >never had them go ahead with the CCP170 procedure.

        Excerpts from the transcript on this issue:

        Me: OKAY . WELL, ! HAVE GOT ONE OTHER CONCERN THAT HAS COME UP IN THAT TIME.
        THE COURT : OKAY.
        ME: AND THE CONCERN IS THAT I HAVE A COPY OF YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AND IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT IS IN THE LEGISLATED - - LEGISLATURE'S ISSUE OF THE CONSTITUTION --
        9 THE COURT : OKAY .
        ME: -- WHICH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ' S OFFICE SENT ME, AND HAS THE OATH IN IT, AND THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT OATHS . AND THIS IS THE OATH THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN BY EVERYBODY BEFORE THEY TAKE OFFICE, THE ARTICLE 20, SECTION 3 OATH . AND AS ! SAY, THE OATH THAT I HAVE HERE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THAT. SO THAT ' S
        THE COURT : I DON' T THINK IT WOULD DISQUALIFY THE COURT EITHER.
        I DON ' T - -
        ME: MAYBE NOT THE COURT, BUT I AM CONCERNED
        ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR OFFICE IS CONSIDERED VACANT --
        THE COURT : NO .
        MR. BIKLE: -- DUE TO -- WELL, THIS DOESN'T MATCH AND THE PENAL -- THE GOVERNMENT CODE 1010 I BELIEVE IT IS STATES THAT THE OFFICE IS VACANT IF THE INDIVIDUAL EITHER REFUSES OR NEGLECTS TO FILE THE ARTICLE 20 SECTION 3 OATH OF OFFICE.
        THE COURT : OKAY.
        WELL , SIR, HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO TELL YOU . IF YOU FIND -- IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE THE OATH OF OFFICE OF THE COURT, THAT ' S FINE, BUT YOU CAN DO IT AFTER AS PART OF ANY PROCEEDING YOU WANT TO HOLD AFTER THIS MATTER IS HEARD .
        ME: WELL, IT'S NOT THE COURT'S OATH OF OFFICE. THIS IS YOUR OATH Of OFFICE THAT i AM CALLING  INTO QUESTION. AND ANY PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING THEREAFTER WOULD BE IN QUESTION.
        THE COURT: THAT'S I AM TELLING YOU. IF I AM IN FACT -- IF MY OFFICE IS VACANT, WHICH I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT' S A PROBLEM. BUT LET'S JUST SAY THAT IT iS CORRECT AND YOU TOOK IT UP ON APPEAL AND
        YOU SAID THIS JUDGE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE ANYTHING IN MYCASE, THEN AT THAT TIME YOU WOULD PRESENT YOUR INFORMATION AND YOUR AUTHORITY TO ANY POWERS THAT BE TO PROVE THAT I DIDN' T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE .
        ME : WELL, SEE, AGAIN THIS GETS BACK TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE OF JUDGE IS EVEN OCCUPIED BY YOU. IF I WAS TO STATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN I WOULD BE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THIS OATH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE OATH REQUIRED TO TAKE THE OFFICE.
        THE COURT : WELL , SIR, WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH YOUR CASE AND YOU NEED TO TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR CASE. ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS, YOU HAVE TEN DAYS I THlNK
        FROM THE THME, WITH REGARD TO THE DISQUALIFICATION THAT A REVIEW
        ME: I WOULD LIKE ANOTHER JUDGE TO - -
        THE COURT: THAT A REVIEW ONLY BY WRIT OF MANDATE SOUGHT 8Y TEN DAYS OF NOTICE THROUGH THE PARTY'S DECISION. AND IN THE EVENT THAT A TIMELY WRIT IS SOUGHT AND AN APPELLATE
        COURT DETERMINES THAT AN ANSWER SHOULD BE TIMELY FILED, SUCH ANSWER IS FILED HEREWITH. SO WHAT DID YOU -- i DON ' T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
        ME: WELL, WHAT l WANT TO DO IS HAVE ANOTHER JUDGE THAT ME AND THE PLAINTIFF AGREE UPON PER 170.3 EXAMINE THIS. I CAN'T PROCEED IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT .
        THE COURT: SIR, WE HAVE TO PROCEED. I HAVE ALREADY STRICKEN THE DISQUALIFICATION AND THAT'S THE ORDER OF THE COURT .
        ME : THAT'S SEPARATE. AND I AGREE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE DONE THAT AND THIS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.
        THE COURT : WELL, IT IS NOTHING IN WRITING AND I AM DENYING THAT ORALLY . IF YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION ORALLY TO RECUSE ME BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE MY OATH -- MY OFFICE IS VACANT , THEN I AM GOING TO DENY THAT AT THIS TIME.
        ME: I CAN'T RECUSE YOU, NOT -- IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT, THEN THERE IS NOTHING TO BE RECUSED.
        THE COURT: OKAY. IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE OFFICE lS VACANT, THEN I AM TELLING YOU THAT
        I AM GOING TO PROCEED ON THIS CASE .
        ME: OKAY. AND I OBJECT .
        THE COURT : OKAY . YOU OBJECT . WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF FILING THE DATE FOR THE TRIAL DO YOU WANT TO SET IT FOR TRIAL?


        That's the extent of my arguments on oath disqualifications. I know I could have done better but it was my second appearance and I didn't quite have my nerves as well under control as on the 3rd and 4th appearances.

        Given that she said she was going to proceed any way do you have a recommendation for how I should have responded rather than giving a vague objection?
      • Mike
        Thank you jai for sharing your experiences. Reading your response has provided me with some ideas for what to research and some very nice information about the
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 9, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you jai for sharing your experiences. Reading your response has provided me with some ideas for what to research and some very nice information about the process for disqualification.

          In particular I found: "Deciding Recusal Motions: Who Judges the Judges?" by Leslie W. Abramson @:
          http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1944&context=vulr

          "Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law", Second Edition, Federal Judicial Center, 2010 @ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/judicialdq.pdf/$file/judicialdq.pdf

          and "Judicial Disqualification: What Next for Connecticut?" by Thomas J. Donlon, The Connecticut Lawyer, 2009/2010 @ http://www.rc.com/documents/what%20next%20for%20CT.pdf

          I am curious frog farmer if you will share how do you accomplish your method:

          >They've disqualified themselves whenever I've said they are disqualified and I prove it.  I've never had them go ahead with the CCP170 procedure. (emphases mine)

          To accomplish my purposes of preserving a Record for Appeal, I decided to write a FOIA Request for:

          1.) Oath of Office;
          2.) the record of his election pursuant to statute;
          3.) Record of Commission to qualify for office pursuant to statute;
          4.) Record of Voter Registration "Elective Franchise" (I located a statute: "Justices and judges not permitted to practice law or seek or hold elective or other office." Cross-reference: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31 "TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 20 - ELECTIVE FRANCHISE SUBCHAPTER I-H - NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION” (emphases added);
          5.) Any/all records of shareholdings of the judge's, or his assigns (retirement benefits), in the public corporation of the city he is representing;
          6.) Any/all records of shareholdings of the judge's, or his assigns (retirement benefits), in the public corporation of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

          The first three requests would qualify the judge, the following three may disqualify him. The last two may disqualify him under JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION UNDER CANON 3 (1) OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 10 (2d ed. 1992).

          Given the foregoing information from the FOIA Request Nos. 4-6 I expect a judge to disqualify himself, however as the articles above indicate, it is a matter of his own "judicial discretion" on the issues raised in a motion for disqualification.

          Michael


           
          Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.

          From: jai mann <jai_mann@...>
          To: frogfrmr@...

        • originalfrogfrmr
          ... bad behavior starts the clock to file paper] AND I AM DENYING THAT ORALLY . ... cannot rule upon his own disqualification!!] ... [Same reason you cannot
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 9, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            > Excerpts from the transcript on this issue:
            >
            > THE COURT: SIR, WE HAVE TO PROCEED. I HAVE ALREADY STRICKEN THE
            > DISQUALIFICATION AND THAT'S THE ORDER OF THE COURT .
            > ME : THAT'S SEPARATE. AND I AGREE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE DONE THAT AND THIS
            > IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.
            > THE COURT : WELL, IT IS NOTHING IN WRITING [read below to see that this
            bad behavior starts the clock to file paper] AND I AM DENYING THAT
            ORALLY .
            > IF YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION ORALLY TO RECUSE ME BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE MY OATH
            > -- MY OFFICE IS VACANT , THEN I AM GOING TO DENY THAT AT THIS TIME.[he
            cannot rule upon his own disqualification!!]
            > ME: I CAN'T RECUSE YOU, NOT -- IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT, THEN THERE IS
            > NOTHING TO BE RECUSED.

            [Same reason you cannot impeach Barry Soetoro!]

            > THE COURT: OKAY. IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE
            > JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE OFFICE lS VACANT, THEN I AM TELLING YOU THAT
            > I AM GOING TO PROCEED ON THIS CASE .
            > ME: OKAY. AND I OBJECT .
            > THE COURT : OKAY . YOU OBJECT . WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF FILING
            > THE DATE FOR THE TRIAL DO YOU WANT TO SET IT FOR TRIAL?
            >
            >
            > That's the extent of my arguments on oath disqualifications. I know I
            > could have done better but it was my second appearance and I didn't quite
            > have my nerves as well under control as on the 3rd and 4th appearances.
            >
            > Given that she said she was going to proceed any way do you have a
            > recommendation for how I should have responded rather than giving a vague
            > objection?

            Mr. Impersonator, you are attempting to snow me by ignoring section 170.3
            (c) (5), which plainly says that you are not permitted to pass upon this
            yourself. It is not your own illegal order that is to be appealed by writ
            of mandate, but the appeal mentioned pertains to the decision of the
            impartial judge we agree upon or who is named by the state supreme court.
            Please take a few moments to familarize yourself with the law and decide
            to conform with ALL parts of it, even those you apparently disagree with!

            170.3. (a) (1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be
            disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of
            his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding,
            except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is
            waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).


            (2) If the judge disqualifying himself or herself is the only judge or the
            presiding judge of the court, the notification shall be sent to the person
            having authority to assign another judge to replace the disqualified
            judge.


            (b) (1) A judge who determines himself or herself to be disqualified after
            disclosing the basis for his or her disqualification on the record may ask
            the parties and their attorneys whether they wish to waive the
            disqualification, except where the basis for disqualification is as
            provided in paragraph (2). A waiver of disqualification shall recite the
            basis for the disqualification, and is effective only when signed by all
            parties and their attorneys and filed in the record.


            (2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefor is
            either of the following:


            (A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.


            (B) The judge served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, or the
            judge has been a material witness concerning that matter.


            (3) The judge shall not seek to induce a waiver and shall avoid any effort
            to discover which lawyers or parties favored or opposed a waiver of
            disqualification.


            (4) If grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after
            the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding, but before the
            judge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the judge shall,
            unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify himself or herself, but
            in the absence of good cause the rulings he or she has made up to that
            time shall not be set aside by the judge who replaces the disqualified
            judge.

            >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
            (c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or
            fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified
            statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting
            forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the
            judge. The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable
            opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for
            disqualification. Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or
            his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the
            judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that
            the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.


            (2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose
            impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement may
            request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his
            or her place.


            (3) Within 10 days after the filing or service, whichever is later, the
            judge may file a consent to disqualification in which case the judge shall
            notify the presiding judge or the person authorized to appoint a
            replacement of his or her recusal as provided in subdivision (a), or the
            judge may file a written verified answer admitting or denying any or all
            of the allegations contained in the party’s statement and setting forth
            any additional facts material or relevant to the question of
            disqualification. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a copy of the judge’s
            answer to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in the
            action.


            (4) A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed
            shall be deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the
            clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a
            replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a).

            >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
            (5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon
            his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or
            otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that
            case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by
            another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the
            event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the
            judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial
            Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The
            clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the
            need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as
            possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may
            be made against the judge selected to decide the question of
            disqualification.


            (6) The judge deciding the question of disqualification may decide the
            question on the basis of the statement of disqualification and answer and
            any written arguments as the judge requests, or the judge may set the
            matter for hearing as promptly as practicable. If a hearing is ordered,
            the judge shall permit the parties and the judge alleged to be
            disqualified to argue the question of disqualification and shall for good
            cause shown hear evidence on any disputed issue of fact. If the judge
            deciding the question of disqualification determines that the judge is
            disqualified, the judge hearing the question shall notify the presiding
            judge or the person having authority to appoint a replacement of the
            disqualified judge as provided in subdivision (a).

            >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
            (d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge
            is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate
            from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the
            proceeding. The petition for the writ shall be filed and served within 10
            days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order
            determining the question of disqualification. If the notice of entry is
            served by mail, that time shall be extended as provided in subdivision (a)
            of Section 1013.


            (Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 567, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2007.)

            Maybe it's time to always take an 8th grade English teacher as an expert
            witness whenever we go tangle with these crooked fools!

            Regards,

            FF
          • originalfrogfrmr
            ... The first time I disqualified a judge I did some research on him and discovered that according to the local newspaper, he hated Volkswagen drivers.
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 9, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              > I am curious frog farmer if you will share how do you accomplish your
              > method:
              >
              >>They've disqualified themselves whenever I've said they are disqualified
              >> and I
              > prove it.  I've never had them go ahead with the CCP170 procedure.
              > (emphases mine)
              >

              The first time I disqualified a judge I did some research on him and
              discovered that according to the local newspaper, he "hated" Volkswagen
              drivers. Guess what I drove? When they called my name I rose to speak,
              saying I disqualified him, and I held up a copy of the newspaper. He
              immediately recused himself.

              The next time it came up I let word leak out about my disqualification
              "strategery", and that's when they flew in the judge from Pasadena who had
              the right oath. He's also the guy who colluded with the DA over lunch to
              alter the ticket illegally (a felony), which story I've already told here.

              Next time it came up was when the three cops were sent here to prevent
              domestic violence. I disqualified them all verbally and none objected and
              they went away.

              Next was a CHP woman who stopped to look at my place and tell me, "this
              can't be right!" and threatened to return with a building inspector. I
              told her, "make sure you both have your oaths and bonds in order as I'll
              be disqualifying you both if they are not. You could speed things up a
              bit by bringing the proofs with you." They never returned.

              Our local law study group chipped in to get certiifed copies of all the
              oaths of all the judges in this county. One or two oaths conformed, most
              did not, and few matched others.

              My current plan is to demand an immediate appearance (versus the one with
              necessary delay) before the magistrate on duty per Penal code section 810.
              There would be the first violation of my rights, as they don't usually
              have anyone complying with that requirement. At that meeting, with
              arresting perp in tow, I would demand that the formal verified complaint
              be laid according to law (most people waive this and accept a ticket,
              which is a waiver and permits a lower standard of due process called the
              "infraction process"). There won't be one, so whatever they attempt to do
              next besides wishing us all a nice day and agreeing to give me a ride home
              will prompt me to disqualify them on account of their missing oaths and
              bonds. I've never gotten to this point yet; they will not arrest me!

              I'd have to say that 90% of them enjoy our fun, and only a few suffer,
              like the sargeant who had to flee to Florida rather than answer to
              questioning on the stand. I had him served a subpoena in front of his
              neighbors, and the server mentioned child abuse out loud...

              Regards,

              FF
            • jai mann
              ... I didn t have that part memorized at the time but I knew it and had read it. I filed the verified objection (CCP 170.3(c)(1)) against the judge hearing any
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 10, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                >Mr. Impersonator, you are attempting to snow me by ignoring section 170.3(c) (5), which >plainly says that you are not permitted to pass upon this yourself.  It is not your own >illegal order that is to be appealed by writ of mandate, but the appeal mentioned pertains >to the decision of the impartial judge we agree upon or who is named by the state >supreme court. Please take a few moments to familarize yourself with the law and decide >to conform with ALL parts of it, even those you apparently disagree with!

                I didn't have that part memorized at the time but I knew it and had read it. I filed the verified objection (CCP 170.3(c)(1)) against the judge hearing any matters but it was with regards to a later Disqualification I laid forth. That witch still ignored the filing, and the clerk didn't do her job after getting the Ver. Obj. I almost forgot to add that clerk in to my federal suit. Thanks for reminding me :). When you have around 20 players who have committed violations of the law, the details do get overwhelming. Hopefully others are learning something from this too.

                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                >(c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any >party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial >before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of >the judge. The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after >discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification. Copies of the statement >shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who has
                appeared and shall be >personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided >that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.


                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                (5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon
                his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or
                otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that
                case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by
                another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the
                event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the
                judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial
                Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The
                clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the
                need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as
                possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may
                be made against the judge selected to decide the question of
                disqualification.


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