 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality.
BUT THAT WON'T WORK WHEN THEIR GOOD BUDDY IS THE APPEALS JUDGE, AND THE PROSECUTOR IS TOO! HOW YA LIKE THAT RACKET!!
JUDGE MATZ:
"THERE IS ALSO A NEED TO CONFIRM THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE TRIAL, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS LIKELY TO BE, THAT I WILL ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF DR. BACKER, THAT KILLERCOP IS COMPETENT TO PROCEED."
"AND THE THIRD ITEM, ACTUALLY, I CAN TAKE CARE OF NOW. I'M NOT SURE IF COUNSEL KNOW THIS, BUT IT WAS HANDED TO ME TODAY, A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS THAT WAS FILED, I GUESS, YESTERDAY, BY KILLERCOP DIRECTLY, AND ASSIGNED TO ME AS IT NEEDED TO BE. NEITHER SIDE --"
THE DEFENDANT :" I WOULD MOVE THAT THE JUDGE RECUSE HIMSELF FROM RULING ON THAT HABEAS CORPUS."
THE COURT: "OKAY. WELL, I DENY THAT MOTION TO RECUSE
MYSELF, AND I DENY THE MOTION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, AND NO FURTHER
THE DEFENDANT: "I OBJECT TO THAT. "
~LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2003, PRETRIAL OF KILLERCOP.
DOCKET:
ORDER filed by Judge A. H. Matz as to KILLERCOP: Court does NOT deny defendant's habeas corpus petition filed 3/13/03, and whatever procedural and substantive right defendant might have under 28:2241 are NOT affected by courts statement at status conference 3/14/03, (cc:all counsel) (sbr) {Entry Date 03/21/03}
YES YOU DID, AND EVERYTHING ELSE THEREAFTER WAS ANOTHER FRAUD.
MEANWHILE... BACK IN HIZZZONER'S COURT OF NO LAW, HIZZZONER WAS ABOUT TO WHIP OUT HIS "SPECIAL" PUNISHMENT, FOR DARING TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF HIZZZZZZONER'S AND HIS FRIENDS FRAUDS. A SORT OF PRIVATE, PERSONAL CONTEMPT PUNISHMENT, OFF THE BOOKS. AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION, OF COURSE.
ONLY ONE TRIBUNAL EVER ADOPTED A PRACTICE OF FORCING COUNSEL UPON AN UNWILLING DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE STAR CHAMBER. -U.S. v FARETTA , 422 US 806 (1975) OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
CORRUPTION EXPOSED IN THE SECRET TRIAL OF KILLERCOP.com.
Look, you know you have to look, there!! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? (c)1997-2023 |
What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?" Federal law requires the "automatic" disqualification of a Federal judge under "certain" circumstances. NOT!
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." The 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. "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. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
THE TWITTER
THEY ALL IGNORED THEIR OATHS, THE FACTS, THE RULES,THE LAWS, AND THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENTS AND PROCEEDED FORWARD WITH A SELECTIVVE PERSECUTION IN A SECRET HEARING. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation to support this website from being censored. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE
CLICK HERE FOR ALL SALES OFFERS. (c)1997-2023
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
