Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EDINVA

I would say that the brief filed and posted in this thread takes care of THAT. Not that you would notice.


Psst...the District Court’s decision was already upheld on appeal. Its a wee bit late to be asking the ORIGINAL TRIAL JUDGE to recuse himself!

That’s what I noticed aside from the fact that the word “vacation” of opinion is used incorrectly in the motion for recussal.

“The plaintiffs/appellants jointly move for recusal of the judge below pursuant to and the vacation of his opinions as a consequence of the recognition of his bias and appearance of bias under that statute.”

I think they want Judge Robertson to go on vacation. The correct term would be “vacating.”


24 posted on 06/01/2010 9:14:28 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777

If you were to read the brief you might notice that it asks that the appellate judges on the panel whose opinion you posted recuse themselves, having ‘embraced’ the lower court’s bias.

It’s the SECOND SENTENCE .. not too deep into the brief:

“They also request of the members of this Court, particularly those who have embraced the bias of the court below, that they consider their obligation to recuse themselves if they present even an appearance of bias under that statute.”

So how much DID you read or comprehend? You caught them out on the improper use of a single word? tsk tsk.


27 posted on 06/01/2010 9:32:47 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson