Now the clock begins
to tick, and we shall know if Judge Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams will
recuse themselves from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407. I have shared with you in a previous post
that Judge Noel L. Hillman pounced upon the recusal motion within 33 minutes of
its filing to set the date for hearing on 2/21/2012. [See second paragraph of "Absolute Immunity via Recusal"]
On May 15, 2012,
civil action 08-cv-02407 will become four years old, and during that period
this writer has never receive such a quick response from the court, as was the
case of receiving the notice that the recusal motion would be heard on
2/21/2012. It would appear to follow
that Judge Noel L. Hillman would act with the same speed in rendering his
opinion, would it not? Hence, this
writer should be receiving some (JSHIT) in the mail today, 2/22/2012 and John
and Jane Q. Public should have access to the same via the internet on Friday
2/24/2012, right, or its another case of justice delayed is justice denied,
HMM?
Today, while we
await our response lets take a look at what another legal paper has to say
about a judges recusal. "HISTORY OF AND PROBLEMS WITH THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK, by Richard E. Flamm," at page (10/13)
states:
"It has been said that the net effect of the 1974
amendments to § 455
was to
“liberalize greatly the scope of [judicial] disqualification in the
federal courts,”65 and in some ways, that may be
true. But the amended
statute was not without its own problems. For one thing, as one federal
district court
judge tersely noted, “[i]t is not
so easy as the Congress and
the Court of Appeals seem to think it is to determine
what ‘a reasonable
person knowing all the relevant facts’ would think
about anything, much
less about the impartiality of a judge.”66 Another problem is that, while the
1974 amendments to § 455 supposedly displaced the
“duty to sit” concept
with a rule requiring judges to resolve any doubts
about whether
disqualification was warranted in favor of
disqualification, a spate of recent
federal court decisions have affirmed preamendment
case law holding that
a federal judge is as obligated to sit when the facts
do not give fair support
to a charge of prejudgment, as the judge is to recuse
when the facts warrant
such action.
Yet another problem is that federal judges who
are called upon to
decide disqualification motions are under no
obligation to explain their
rationale, either for recusing themselves or for
declining to do so. This is
problematic because, while
federal judges do recuse themselves in many
situations, a judge who
does so rarely writes an opinion explaining why. In
contrast, judges who
decline to disqualify themselves often write lengthy
opinions explaining their
reasoning."
Having no doubt that
we will get the latter of the above, I have taken the liberty to share with you
the real reason why these judges are pursuing their course of action, and that
is because they know that all it takes is one of the litigants in 11-cv-06304
to say that she was not at a deposition on July 22, 2010, and this band of
cohorts entire gig is wrecked, do you agree? [See 10th paragraph of "A gratia--ExGratia--Aah JSHIT" and the 4th
paragraph of "Appearance of Justice w/ Aroma of J.S.H.I.T, But!"]
Thank You for
waiting with me,
The Casino Gaming
Oracle!
No comments:
Post a Comment