She has a First Amendment right to criticize the judge outside of court, but anything she puts in papers filed with the court can subject her to sanctions. She made accusations of bias against the judge, in papers filed in court, which are factually and legally bogus. (He is prejudiced against her because he owns stock in Comcast?) That is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and lawyers have been disbarred for that.
That may sound farfetched, but Comcast is "regulated" by the Obama-controlled Federal Communications Commission. As you may know, there has been some concern among people in broadcasting about the possibility of O's FCC abusing its authority by shutting down outlets as political retaliation against perceived "enemies." I think that might her point, although I'm not sure.
“She made accusations of bias against the judge, in papers filed in court, which are factually and legally bogus. (He is prejudiced against her because he owns stock in Comcast?) That is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and lawyers have been disbarred for that.”
While I agree that stating such things in court papers is a little over the top. How can you state they are “factually and legally bogus.” It is a matter of opinion....it might have made him prejudiced.
Also, as a previous poster pointed out....this “judge” was already biased before he heard the case. His smart ass comments emphasize that bias. He should not have heard this case. I hold him in contempt. In my opinion, as a private citizen, this judge should not be on the bench and his actions are contemptable...and possibly treasonable. I emphasize that is my opinion as a private citizen.