Acting vs. Reacting III

Another One of "Bush's Boy's" Reveal Bull-JSHIT

Judge Craig Fowler was appointed by Governor George Bush after winning an election for District Judge of the 255th Judicial District of Dallas County.  He took the bench on May 1, 1998.  Not to worry folks, just another "good ole boy, never meaning no harm," nor intending to be honorable as the facts reveal.

 For those of you not clear on why I refer to this judge as one of Bush's boy's, you'll have to see "Cebull #1, Hillman #195 (Bush Appointments)."  Go ahead click it, I'll wait, you know I always do...

Okay, since we're all up to speed, let's proceed.  I bring your attention to another one of Bush's fine appointments because judge Fowler was involved in a case that will show us exactly why Presidential appointment #195, Noel L. Hillman, is reacting as shown in the two civil actions that I am sharing with you in this blog.

This is going to take a minute or two, so plan accordingly.  In Riga v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline 224 S.W.3d 795 (2007), we find the following:

Background

The Commission brought a disciplinary action against Riga, alleging that Riga violated provisions of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and that Riga assisted Easton, his legal assistant, in the unauthorized practice of law. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 3.02, the supreme court appointed the Honorable Craig Fowler, judge of the 255th District Court of Dallas County, to preside over the disciplinary action. Easton filed a plea in intervention, bringing claims against Pamela Halliburton, the Commission's lawyer, and Suzanne Ross, a member of one of the State Bar's grievance committees. Riga filed counterclaims against the State Bar of Texas, the Commission, and Halliburton, seeking monetary 797*797 damages under title 42, United States Code, section 1983 and sanctions under state law. Easton later filed a motion to recuse Judge Fowler.

The State Bar, the Commission, Halliburton, and Ross filed a plea to the jurisdiction in which they argued (1) that Judge Fowler's appointment order did not authorize him to preside over any parties or claims other than the disciplinary action brought by the Commission against Riga and (2) that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over parties and claims outside the disciplinary action. Before taking action on the motion to recuse, Judge Fowler granted the plea to the jurisdiction on May 25, 2005. That order was not appealed.

In November 2005, Judge Fowler referred Easton's motion to recuse to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region, who later denied the motion. Acting in "an abundance of caution" after the denial of the motion to recuse, the State Bar, the Commission, Halliburton, and Ross asked the district court to reconsider its plea to the jurisdiction. Before the district court signed a second order on March 1, 2006 granting the plea to the jurisdiction, Riga and Easton on February 20, 2006 filed another motion to recuse Judge Fowler. The district court's March 1, 2006 order does not mention the pending recusal motion, but in a separate order on March 1, 2006, the district court referred the recusal motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. The record does not reflect the ultimate disposition of the recusal motion.

I must get this off my chest right away, did you notice how the court referred to the Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT), as "acting in an abundance of caution."  The judge writing the opinion substantiates the existence of (JSHIT) by that statement, huh?  But that's to be expected, we all act with an abundance of caution when treading through a pasture replete with cow dung. (You know "BS")

 But here's where Judge Fowler really fowls-up.  You see in the very next section of the opinion the above judge show's us why his colleague is not honorable, because he is caught red handed and this judge has no way to tip-toe around this pile of you know what.   224 S.W.3d 795 (2007), goes on to state:

Discussion

The record establishes that Judge Fowler was aware that a second motion to recuse was pending when he signed the March 1, 2006 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(c) requires a judge who declines to recuse to forward the recusal motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. Judge Fowler did this. However, Rule 186a(c) further requires that the trial judge may make no further orders and take no further action prior to a hearing on the forwarded motion. The only exception provided by the Rule is if the further order states good cause for ruling notwithstanding the pending recusal motion. Here, the order granting the plea to the jurisdiction does not refer in any way to the pending recusal 798*798 motion, much less state good cause for why the order was signed when the recusal motion was pending. Accordingly, the March 1, 2006 order is "void" because it was signed in violation of Rule 18a.

The judge writing the opinion above tell us that according to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure judges refusing to recuse themselves must forward the recusal motion to the presiding judge.  But note that even this judge attempts to soften the blow by saying that "Fowler did this."   Yeah but after the fact.  Oh, that's just an example of that obscure language that Abramoff warned us about, and now we see how the "Bush boy's" utilize this tactic.  (Those not familiar with the Abramoff "obscure language" revelation, go to "Abramoff Should Be Flattered.")

So, by now we all should know why judge Noel L. Hillman's ruling on the motion that he and Magistrate Karen M. Williams recuse themselves has not hit google scholar, nor this writers mail box.  The decisional case law above further reveals the reaction that Judge Hillman will make, yes we can see what they got cooking. 

 Those following this blog early on know that I usually post every day, and lately I have fell-off, why?  Because, as you can see I've been busy doing my research to make sure that judge Noel L. Hillman's latest (JSHIT) Order is void, as was the case in the matter before one of his boy's, Craig Fowler.  Yes, you guessed it I have the "BS" in hand and you don't want to miss this folks.

Please join me next time when I let another documentary cat out of the bag.

 Thank you for viewing and please share at will, a lot of careers could be saved from turning to the "Dark Side." We don't need more judges thinking that the (JSHIT) is with them. You are the force, the people must strike back.

O-B-1-Gaming Oracle!