and this Court like the Trial Court, refused to address Appellant’s “protected class”status as a disabled individual, as well as his
. An objective observer,lay observer, and/or disinterested observer would entertain significant doubt of these three judges’ impartiality.“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding inwhich the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
“Disqualification is required if an objective observer wouldentertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality…toconclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judgemust be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). “…an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of thefacts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought wouldentertain a significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality”. SeeParker v. Connors Steel Co.,
855 F.2d 1510 (11
Cir.) (1988)citing Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1111(5
Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed. 2d22 (1980).
B.Due Process and Equal Protection
The Rulings of the Trial Court and Affirmation by this Court in Stegeman v.Georgia, et., al., resulted in the case at bar. Had Superior Court of Stone Mountain
Pleadings of litigants that are disabled “protected class” status, or
status, aretreated differently than a non-protected class member, or a represented litigant. Both thisCourt and the Trial Court failed to view Appellant’s pleadings going against SupremeCourt findings, stare decisis and past case precedent.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, R.2.11(A)(2007).