Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion to Recuse Judges Hull, Marcus, And Wilson

Motion to Recuse Judges Hull, Marcus, And Wilson

Ratings:

4.0

(1)
|Views: 380|Likes:
Published by Janet and James
This is Appellant's Motion and Brief to Recuse Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Hull, Marcus, and Wilson.
This is Appellant's Motion and Brief to Recuse Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Hull, Marcus, and Wilson.

More info:

Published by: Janet and James on Feb 16, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/18/2010

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITJAMES B. STEGEMAN,Plaintiff/Appellant APPEAL NO. 08-16174-CDISTRICT COURT NO. 1:08-CV-1971Vs.MOTION TO RECUSESUPERIOR COURT STONEMOUNTAIN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT;SUPERIOR COURT JUDGECYNTHIA J. BECKER;GEORGIA POWER CO.;BRIAN P. WATT;SCOTT A. FARROW;Defendants/Appellees
Comes Now Appellant who files Motion to Recuse Judges
Hull
,
Marcus
and
Wilson
from the above entitled matter under 28 U.S.C.S. §455, and Marshallv. Jerrico Inc,. 466 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980) whichstated: “The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or propertywill not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts of the law.”The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of theUnited States Constitution and Stone v. Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct.3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976) which held: “…like Federal courts, have a
 
constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.”Currently, before the United States Supreme Court is Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Cert.; United States Supreme Court Docket No.: 08-8320 filed January20, 2009 and docketed January 26, 2009 (see attached as “A”) from Appeal No.:07-13540-BB in which Judges Hull, Marcus and Wilson affirmed District Court’sOrder in case No.: 1:06-cv-2954-WSD.The following paragraphs will show grounds for recusal of the three abovelisted judges, who have in the past deliberately violated other litigant’s personalliberties and /or has wantonly, willingly refused to provide due process and equal protection to all appellants or appellees before the court, or has behaved in amanner inconsistent with that which is needed for a full, fair, impartial decision.
A.U.S.C. §455 Recusal Statute
In support of Appellant’s Motion, Appellant relies on 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2):“Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself inany proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.Due to the pending Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the United StatesSupreme Court
1
filed from this Court’s Affirmation of Judge Duffeys rulingdismissing Appellant’s complaint for Civil and Constitutional Rights violations;
1
There is a copy of the docketing attached hereto as “A”
2
 
and this Court like the Trial Court, refused to address Appellant’s “protected class”status as a disabled individual, as well as his
 Pro Se
status
2
. 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.”
3
“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
th
Cir.) (1988)citing Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1111(5
th
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
2
Pleadings of litigants that are disabled “protected class” status, or 
 Pro Se
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.
3
The American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, R.2.11(A)(2007).
3

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
PAtty Barahona liked this
Albertelli_Law liked this
Albertelli_Law liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->