Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
In looking at the applicable rule for change of judge for cause (ill will, undue friendship, or favoritism towards a party) I believed it was my strongest, most accurate, and only claim. I put some language in there about how I didn't think the judge had any ill will and that this case was an anomaly to hopefully soften the blow.
Yeah she was probably privately thanking you.
I'm not against motions to disqualify/recuse for well-established cause. "This guy was a prosecutor and tends to rule for the prosecutors' too much" doesn't meet that standard. It's a pain to get a judge who you feel has pre-decided the case against you, but the remedy for that is to build your record and take your appeal.
I will say, the judge disclosed and asked for a confidential ex-parte request from any party who wanted her to recuse herself while she considered recusing herself sua sponte. It was a classy move. And she clearly wanted out.
In my defense, that's not my argument. I kept the arguments to this case specifically and actually noted in the affidavit that I did not have any blanket concerns with the judge or his background.
What is your argument other than that he ruled against you (and you think he did so wrongly)? It's not just that I'm unsympathetic. I'm coming off of two straight cases before this guy (none of those reviews are from me, but you can guess I wouldn't be giving him 9s). But I'd never make a motion to disqualify or recuse absent a clear conflict of interest. For one thing, I'll lose. For another, I'm not just calling the judge wrong, I'm calling him unethical (no matter how nicely I try to put it), and I don't know when I'll have to appear in front of him again.
Essentially that the judge failed to even offer my client the opportunity to present any evidence and he heard evidence from a party who hadn't even filed a pleading and was offering evidence not contained in the original pleading, did not clarify or even attempted to discern the actual applicable law, and came to a factual conclusion that no reasonable trier of fact could have concluded without only believing the state's witness any ignoring/disbelieving other evidence which hadn't been impeached/discredited. I get that the last point comes across as whining like I lost, but the first two allege procedural due process violations permitted to the benefit of the state.
And could you not have raised any of these issues on appeal?Essentially that the judge failed to even offer my client the opportunity to present any evidence and he heard evidence from a party who hadn't even filed a pleading and was offering evidence not contained in the original pleading, did not clarify or even attempted to discern the actual applicable law, and came to a factual conclusion that no reasonable trier of fact could have concluded without only believing the state's witness any ignoring/disbelieving other evidence which hadn't been impeached/discredited. I get that the last point comes across as whining like I lost, but the first two allege procedural due process violations permitted to the benefit of the state.
I'm in front of this particular judge for multiple hearings on Tuesday.
I'm always nice to people when they ask, even though it pisses me off, so it's good to get this off my chest.
Someone tagged me in this on FB today. Oddly fascinating but once again made me happy I don't litigate.
How do you get the holes so rectangular? With nice and neat 90 degree corners? Do you use a level on the bottom? When do you put the ladder in? Have you ever forgot to put the ladder in and then couldn't get out til someone came around to help?
He is winning his appeal. I'd bet a considerable amount of monopoly money and bottle caps on that.
Not if we don't want this guy as our trial judge.And could you not have raised any of these issues on appeal?Essentially that the judge failed to even offer my client the opportunity to present any evidence and he heard evidence from a party who hadn't even filed a pleading and was offering evidence not contained in the original pleading, did not clarify or even attempted to discern the actual applicable law, and came to a factual conclusion that no reasonable trier of fact could have concluded without only believing the state's witness any ignoring/disbelieving other evidence which hadn't been impeached/discredited. I get that the last point comes across as whining like I lost, but the first two allege procedural due process violations permitted to the benefit of the state.
I'm in front of this particular judge for multiple hearings on Tuesday.
As others have said, all the time.
No. My issue is that we are dealing a judge whom I believe to be fair and impartial. If we proceed to trial/fail to file the motion I did within the statutory timeless my client would be effectively waiving the issue for appeal.
Yah. I'm not sure I would have felt it's the right thing, but if you do feel that way, you step up and get it done or stop calling yourself a lawyer. Guy wasn't kidding that he should have a gym bag for his balls.I fully admit to having no idea what's going on with most of this thread, including the matter at hand, but given what I've read I am proud of Woz for doing what seems like the right thing, under difficult circumstances.
I was there yesterday. Except we were talking about the term "paycheck."Holy crap that's funny. Definitely been there.
Same. I didn't laugh once and completely sympathized with the interrogator, who did a good job with a witness who was either stupid beyond belief or more likely obfuscating. The reenactment seemed to want to make us think the interrogator was a jerk, a seriously naive take.
I don't think the reenactment made the interrogator look like a jerk -- just understandably frustrated.
Sorry.
