Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Disqualification Judgemotion

    Enviado por

    laxmi999
    26 visualizações5 páginas
    Judge disqualification motion filed by Debtor in u.s. District COUrt for the district of california. Debtor alleges that judge has a personal bias and prejudice against him. Judge disqualifies himself from this case.

    Descrição original:

    Direitos autorais

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Judge disqualification motion filed by Debtor in u.s. District COUrt for the district of california. Debtor alleges that judge has a personal bias and prejudice against him. Judge disqualifies himself from this case.

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    26 visualizações5 páginas

    Disqualification Judgemotion

    Enviado por

    laxmi999
    Judge disqualification motion filed by Debtor in u.s. District COUrt for the district of california. Debtor alleges that judge has a personal bias and prejudice against him. Judge disqualifies himself from this case.

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 5
    ema cce aamnaniey This is Googles cache of htoiémmy.clcoro/Disaualv-.niml. is a snapshot ofthe page as t appeared on Dec 2, 2010 (0825.08 GMT. The currant pans could have changed inthe meantime. Learn more ‘These search tems are highlighted: Judge disqualifiestion motion These terms only appear in inks Text-only wersion pointing to tis pape: free [Bitor] The fllowng Melon to Disqualify Judge ems was heard it cour before Judge Temes on Decerer 20, 193, Athough the aw requires mandatory isqualfestio, Jude James dil no disqualify bins” ‘See sho Affidavit of Shite Sick, U ITED STATES BA KRUPTCY COURT ORTHFR DISTRICTOFILIT O1S FASTER DIVISIO Inve: ‘Bankruptcy No. 93-07643, [Beene Walter Ajpem Chapter 11 Judge Thomas James MOTIO_ TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE JAMES FOR AGAL ST NOW COMES the Debior, BUGENE ALPERN, inp pet, sijuris (NOT PRO SE), anal moves this Cour va ‘ssup an order dixqulifing Judge Jamos Ror this mater, pusuain’ w 28 US.C. §§14, 455, and anyother yppleable stamtes andor rules, du to his personal bias and prejudice agninst the Debtor. |. ‘The Debtor charges Judge James with personal bias and prejudice agninst the Debtor or various reasons, including, but nt limited to, denying, depriving, and overooking the Debtor's Duc Process Rishts. voting the Consttional Rights of Debior io have bis motions heard and mud upon, which denies the Debtor of meaning access to the courts; ‘manipulating the hearings to deprive, and to deny, the Deblor ofa meaning hearing onthe merits oFhis ease; tsuing| orders, sua sponte, which df na prove the Debtor with any mearingfil time to respond tthe exhibits ofthe opposing parties; vlating his dury to comply withthe Supreme Law of the Land; and violating his duty to apply th Law even ifthe judge does not agree with te Law. ‘This personal prejudice and bias evidenced by Judge James is an extension ofthe prejudice and bias of the Ilinois Federal District Cours and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals towards non-represented iats, as evidenced by caselaw from te time of Haines +, Kemer, 404 U.S. 520, 92 S.Ct. 94 (1972), tothe present. 2. Judge James violated his Oath to be a Judge, when he did not upbokl the U.S. Constitution in this matter. Judge James! aetions in denying, depriving, and overlooking the Debtor's leg and constiaral rights were prejudicial ‘agus: the Debror. 28 U.S.C. §483, Judge James did not fithtilly and impartially discharge and perform all the mandated duties incumbent ypon him Judge James acted withou jurisdiction. 3. Jndge James bas incationaly and effectively deniod the Debtor of his constitutional right to efctively"pettion eines guaran sna nT: 01m e/g ATIC Rs een mea SANNeNRaweNghis——_aRELC ema cce aamnaniey the Government fora rdress of pievances" U.S, Constitution, Amendment I, The Debtor has ed Petitions Motions -vdh ths coun, which this court bas fixed fo bear andre on ata meaning ine, Te Ele of this judge to prom hear, iva mearingfil manmer ard ata mearingfil tine, the Pettions- Motions ofthe Debior daes not sts the corstzaional right to a adress ofthe Debtor's grievances. The fire ofthis cour to hear ata meaningfltive a ina wearing mance the Peitions-Motions ofthe Debio, deprives the Debtor of is as and constiutonal igh; # prejudicial and biased pint the Debtor. Some ofthe Pettions Motions nce, but are not rite to, “Resporxe tothe Creditors Motion t> CComven Debtor's Chapter 11 Caso to Case Under Chapter 7", Motion for an Extension of Ti within which the Debtor dns the Exchsive Right to Fie his Chapter 11 Phan, and "Motion to Dismiss Creditors! Objector Judge James has effectively deniod the Debtor of the Debtor’ rights ofthe equal protection under the lav ‘under Auticle V1 of the U.S. Constitution. Judge James is been prejudicial and biased against the Debtor, by Judge James refs rule puri dhe Supreme Law of the Land. Judge Jams hus deprived the Debtor ofthe equal protection ofthe uw, by not applying the Supreme Law ofthe Land to the Debtor's position. 5. Tho United States Supreme Court stated: “Chief Iustice Marshall had long before observed in Ross v. Mimely. 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 Led. 608, 617, ‘at, upon principle, the operation of every juigment must depend on the power ofthe court o render that judgynent, In Williamson y. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 T.ed, 1170, 1189, it was said to be wel settled that {he jurbdiction of any court exercing auborty over a subject‘ may be inquired into in every other court when the proceedings inthe frmer are rod upon and brought bofire tho lor by a party eam the bent of such proceedings’ and the rile prevais whether ‘the decree or julgment has been given in a court of admiralty, ‘chineery, ecclesiastical court, or court of common law, oF whether the point ruled has arisen mder the ws of nations, the practice in chancery, orthe muipal ws of states.” Oki Wayne Mut, L. Assec. ¥. MeDonough, 204 US. 8,27 S.CL 236 (1907), By not complying with the bw, Judge James has prejudiced this Debtor, 6 While this court has linted discretion, it must le pursuant to lw at all tines. The Seventh Circuit has stated: °ChieIustise Marshall stated: "Cours are the mere imtrumens ofthe kay, and can willpothing, When they are ssid to exercise discretion, i ‘sa mere legal discretion, a discretion t be exercised in dscering the course prescribed by law, and, when that is discerod, ts the duty ofthe cout to follow i. Judicial power is never exorcisod forthe purpose of hing oll w the willofthe judge: akvays ir he purpose of ying eflect o the will of te legistature: o, in ‘uber words, wo the willofthe ku."' Litdeton v. Berbling, 468 F 2d 389, 412 (?thCit. 1972), cing Osborn ‘¥.Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 T.Fa 204 (1824); U.S, v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Ci. 1990), While a judge may bave discretion to make « rung which ray be erronsous, he has @ duty to rule onal vad jnsues, especially those hsues which deprive 4 party of is comstiuioral rubs, presented befbre tbe cour. Littleton, supra Faire to rue on the issues presented to this court denies, deprives, and overlooks this Debtor's constittional nights. Judge James has repeatedly acted in a manner prejudicial and biased against the Debtor. 7. Judge James bas manipulated the judicial process to deny, deprive, acto overlook the rights of the Debtor. Judge James has selected only those motions that he wan to her, mosly those ofthe erediors. Judge Jamas has intentionally selected only hose specie demands ofthe Debtors motions that he desires o hear ral wo grant, whe renee guaran sneae nT: OG im e/g TIC Rs cen MSN ANNeNRCneNGhns —_aREION ema cce aamnaniey ‘ntenionaly ignoring, not considering, and wot ring on tbe other speciicdenmnds of tae Debtor's motions that he does not desire to grant. Such manipulation of be jal proces bs prejucs and bissed again he Debut. As one example, Judge James ive an orer, sun sponte, on Noverber 3, 1993 wherein he ordered both he Debtor and the creditors to fe exhibits ar the same tine (December 15, 1993), knowing fill wel tht the Debtor's only burden was o respond tothe credo’ exibis, Judge James’ sua sue onder didnot allow the Debtor any tine o rspond to the creditors’ exhiis. (Only by the Debucrs own action was the Debtor abe to wet a paral extern of ine to espa to the erecitor’ exits. Stl, Judge James ed ot grant th Debtor sfc and meaingfl ims fbr a nor-represenied Rigi! o respond. Judge James again manure the judicial process to favor the creditors. Judge James actions are prejudicial and biased against the Debtor. Debtor bad demanded that he be given sufcies time to properly and meaningfully to respond tothe creditors. ‘Such meaningld time was not granted o the Debtor. 8. Judge James bas the duty to determin the vay ofall chins agninst the Fstate, which have been objected to by the Debtor, Judge James bas intentionally armed the Debtor by his refisal to hold any hearings on the jurisdiction of the court which issued the mill and void ordersjudemert. Its the bow that the jurisdiction of courts of tne jurbdicton, asthe slate divorve cout, eamot be presumed, ‘Yet Judge James has prejudiialy presumed thatthe state court had jurisdiction. Judge James has predetermined the question of the jurisdiction of he state cour, a court of mite jursciton, and has predetermined the valiity of the alleged claims against the Estate, without any hearing on the question ofthe want ofjursdictin of tit cour, indirect contradiction ofthe law under Okt Wayne, sunrs ‘The Supreme Law ofthe Land sates that the question of tho jure ofa cout at ised an ondenjulgment cen he questioned ite orderudgment i brought before this court fom another cour. Old Wayne, sopra. The eredtors tue brought before this cour ordersialements from court of ined jurisdiction, but Judge James refises to hear any

    Você também pode gostar