Thus, the Court must accept as true all of the facts alleged in this Motion, and determine only whether these facts, if assumed to be true, would
prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial
Hayslip v. Douglas
, 400 So. 2d 553, 556 (4th DCA 1981). The
The test of sufficiency…is whether or not [a verified motion’s]
content shows that the party making it has a well-grounded fear that he will not receive a fair [proceeding] at the hands of the judge. It is not a question of how the judge feels; it is a question of
what feeling resides in the [movant’s] mind, and the basis for such feeling….
Berger et al. v. United States
, 255 U.S. 22, 35 (1921)], the Supreme Court of the United States considered and construed a statute very similar to [§38.10, Fla. Stat.], and it was there held that the facts alleged in the affidavit would be sufficient if alleged on information and belief. If the facts revealed have relation to the attitude of mind of the judge to the defendant in the inferior court, and are not frivolous or fanciful, they are sufficient to meet the command of the statute.
Siegel v. State
, 861 So.2d 90, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
Among the several ways that Judge Gievers
bias has become manifest over the course of the instant matter is by her relentless fabrication of negative
Dr. Hash in her orders, as well as her unqualified acceptance of Petitioner
s false and unsupported claims
, the Court
s adoption and October 28, 2013 issuance of Petitioner
s proposed order to show cause, which order simply continues Judge Gievers
ceaseless and baseless quest to throw Dr. Hash in jail at the expense of his constitutional rights, and which includes false, defamatory claims that are absolutely unsupported by the record, e.g., that Dr.