Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Corroboration via The Legal Papers (part III)

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