Thursday, May 19, 2011

Judges Who Refuse to Recuse Taint Our Justice System

By Andrew Kreig

Three recent state, federal and Supreme Court controversies show how judges thwart the public's right to due process when judges with apparent conflicts refuse to recuse themselves.

Tracy Gilbert by State of Texas

Texas judge Tracy A. Gilbert, for example, decided a custody case in March by ending a father's legal relationship with his child. The judge continued to preside even after the father showed in mid-trial that the mother's attorney also represented the judge in a separate paternity case.

The law of recusal is clear-cut: It's not enough for judges to act in an unbiased manner when suspected of a potential conflict of interest. A judge must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

One test is whether any independent and reasonable observer might think that an appearance of bias exists. If so a judge must withdraw from supervising a case. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Liljeberg v. Health Svcs. Acq. Corp. that a judge must also inform litigants of potential conflicts, not simply wait for the parties to become super-sleuth detectives.

In reality, however, litigants have scant power to enforce the rule, especially if a judge is determined to retain control.

For one thing, litigants may not know of the judge's conflicts until so late in the process that the Liljeberg holding is, in effect, ignored. Second, litigants and their attorneys may fear a judge's power too much to push the recusal issue. Third, a judge may become so arrogant or deeply compromised that he or she disdains legal requirements. Finally, other judges and opinion leaders show scant interest in scrutinizing judges more rigorously, especially if any scandal seems likely to fade away because watchdogs lack resources.

These problems are well-known in the justice system, particularly after a coal company CEO made $3 million in campaign donations to re-elect a West Virginia state Supreme Court of Appeals justice. That justice then wanted to rule on his donor's appeal of a $50 million jury verdict against his company, A.T. Massey. This led the U.S. Supreme Court to describe the right of parties to a fair judge in the 2009 case, Caperton v. Massey. More specifically, the court ruled that the West Virginia justice should have disqualified himself from hearing the appeal.

But even Massey illustrates a litigant's difficulty in removing a judge. The court decided the case by a 5-4 margin, and not every litigant has $50 million of incentives to keep fighting such battles.

[more from source,]

* * * *

This blogger's two comments posted to the above article on

Judicial Retaliation
A Connecticut Governor, John G. Rowland, took bribes from the Mafia so they could get federal tax dollars to build, run, and supply facilities such as "Kiddie Max" prisons for kids. That was okay until he allegedly got into a power struggle with the State's Judicial Branch. Judges allegedly saw to it he got prison for interrupting their power and money plays.

I tried to have a Connecticut judge removed for bad behavior and bias in civil cases. That judge didn't recuse himself and sentenced me to a year in prison for resisting being mugged on my own property.

A Police State needs rigged courts. Organized Crime needs rigged courts. We the people are left holding the bag. If we say anything there is swift retaliation and prison. 2 of my friends who were to expose Connecticut judicial corruption on public access television, just both recently passed away of natural causes.

It is time to clean house.


Reply: An Independent Grand Jury System
The police are guards and armed revenue collectors for the state. There is no obligation for them to protect and serve, they do so as they please. Courts are rubber stamps on abuse. Lawyers are allowed to commit all sorts of public theft and infiltrated all levels of government. There is mutually assured longevity by being part of the organized crime club of government and courts. A People's Grand Jury can change that.

Private Investigators who are not puppets to the state, and non-lawyer grand jury members with limited terms who are pooled from the general public to hear evidence to bring indictments against criminals from Obama on down should be heard by a legitimate venue to get justice.

Former Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called himself the "People's Lawyer" as Attorney General. He seemed to cover up, or not investigate, every allegation of public corruption while he allegedly awarded former law partners millions of dollars in no bid contracts. Blumenthal is organized crime friendly and refused to prosecute alleged Bilderberger Chris Dodd who on the Banking Committee of the US Senate took bribes from banksters so they could loot trillions from us. Blumenthal now sits in Dodd's seat. Grand Juries would fix this.

* * * *

[click here] for:

The War on You

* * * *



Anonymous said...

This is a case of an arrogrant judge. I to was impacted by his ruling just last month. This man clearly abused his powers in my case by taking conversations "off the record" in court to hide his bias, predjuice, and partial opinion. He would then come "back on the record" for his ruling. The specific ruling involved religious freedoms which speak for itself but yet after absolutely NO EVIDENCE or arguments for that matter, he made a ruling impacting my rights as a father according to the TX Family Code and my basic consitutional rights. Lastly, recusing himself goes beyond this article. This judge's decisions are based on the "good ole boys" of montgomery county TX. Specifically, Mike Stocker could represent a party who admits to murder but could still get a favor ruling from Tracy.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. Your post was added to the the Child Support section of

Anonymous said...

A few months ago, this judge also ordered a pro se, disabled, unemployed mother to pay child support to the father, a documented abuser, who makes a few hundred thousand dollars a year (and had a hot shot attorney.) The State documents the mother as "permanently disabled" and unable to work as a result, but the judge said she is "intentionally underemployed" in official court documents, and made the order anyway. Is it just me or does that sound like discrimination? I am not usually one to criticize, but it seems like this judge has a fairly serious problem making judgments which are consistent with public welfare.

The_SRV said...

I hear you anonymous. We need to get rid of judges. They can be tyrants and aren't removed for malicious and criminal behavior. We need a people's Grand Jury System.

Youtube word search grand juries explained.

Word search Jonathan J. Kaplan. Word search Chris Kennedy Connecticut.

JHickey said...

A judge in Ottawa, Canada had to recuse himself this week after he threw a temper tantrum and condemned a Defendant because he was accused of being in conflict of interest:

Canadian judges are appointed by government ministers, they are not elected.

-Joseph Hickey