Disqualification of Judicial Authority

K

Kibbs

New Member
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
CT law establishes under Rule 2.11 that a judicial authority can be disqualified if a reasonable person may conclude bias is possible. One doesn't need to prove bias, only that it is likely as perceived by a reasonable person.

I need help from this community to answer 8 survey questions. On perceptions of judicial bias. So as not to bias the survey results, I can't say anything more. Your participation may help me fight an uphill battle. Thanks for your consideration.

SURVEY - Disqualification of Judicial Authority
 
Is your survey related to your post from Dec. of '14?
.
.
.
Man from NC charged for out of state theft in CT?
.
.
.
.
Your survey is flawed.
The survey violates the very thing you allege the presiding judge has done, behaved in a less than impartial manner.
.
.
.
It always helps those not in the know to provide the entire cite, not just its numerical identifier.
.
.
.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/Recuse.PDF
.
.
.
The item you refer to as law is nothing more than a standard set by the ABA for judicial conduct.
.
A judge need not recuse himself (herself), as in MUST recuse.
.
.
The rule 2.11 suggests a judge consider bias, and if it is applicable, 2.11 is the vehicle/mechanism via which the jurist could recuse herself from the case.
.
.
.
Let's consider Secretary Lynch, Senator Clinton, former president Clinton, the FBI investigation, the deleted emails, behavior suggesting laws were broken, a purported chance 30 minute meeting on the Tarmac at PHX, a recent statement by Secretary Lynch about an innocent meeting, and the buzz about criminal charges against a certain presumptive presidential nominee.
.
.
.
Bias?
Some say yes, some say no, some say don't know, and others say they don't care.
If your nephew has a lawyer, allow the lawyer to try the case.
If your nephew has been convicted, or has plead guilty, even if this was relevant; it can't help.
 
Thank you for your response. The answer is no. This a survey involving my personal case. I've been fighting an enormous corruption matter that is extremely complicated. I would love to share the subject matter I'm at a hotel bar heading to bed.

The survey is a small part of a brief I am filing. It need only represent it's relevant part. There is an abundance of evidence towards proving bias, and the precedent of law suggests that the burden is not so great. This is going to be the second judge I've got disqualified and I also previously disqualified the chief probate administrators litigator from proceedings.

My case requires you suspend your disbelief. The shit in dealing with is prime time grade A corruption and coverup.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand the points you made, but my action is a good faith meritorious petition. This slubberdegullian has thwarted our statutory right to an appeal. I'll thank you kindly and leave you with the docket no. WWM-cv14-5005838-S. If you are interested in exploring further.

Happy holiday sir!
 
Kibbs said:
slubberdegullian
Click to expand...

I've always loved this word, (slubberdegullian = slovenly or worthless person) even if the dictionaries say its use today is archaic.

I need the exact case identifier, county, (district or circuit court), name of plaintiff or defendant.
In MD, I may not be able to see it, if one of the parties has requested anonymity.
 
army judge said:
I've always loved this word, (slubberdegullian = slovenly or worthless person) even if the dictionaries say its use today is archaic.

I need the exact case identifier, county, (district or circuit court), name of plaintiff or defendant.
In MD, I may not be able to see it, if one of the parties has requested anonymity.
Click to expand...

-—--------------------------------
RESPONSE

It is a probate appeal - brought to superior court action under CGS 45a- 186 in Connecticut, judicial dist. Of Windham at Willimantic. I've attached a link for your convenience.

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=WWMCV145005838S

You will be able to view pleadings and read motions. I'll cut through the chase, there are two actions - a motion to open / vacate judgment and disqualification. Positions 239 and 240.00.

There are exhibits.. I have nothing personal against the judge.

This is actually a very simple case made immeasurably complicated and obfuscated. It involves the transfer of a property by my mother to myself and my wife. Mom lived in the house rent free, she had private medical services, all family members knew that my mother intended to transfer the property and my sister, (only sibling). Knew and embraced it. We made sure that mom was advised by an attorney who was a probate court judge in Torrington, and a CPA to review tax and medicaid implications. She executed a quit claim.

We learned only recently of the previous relationships between these attorneys and the judge hearing the matter in appeal. The attorney opposite us was never authorized to represent his client, (my mother). They refused discovery, and we can now prove thanks to the acquisition of new information and documents, that the attorney who brought the action knew prior to its filing, that it was without merit. That she manipulated mom to change her will and disinherit me and my sister so that she could continue litigation after her death, she moved to take a mortgage out against the sole subject matter of litigation and did so without notice to the parties. - there are other things which I won't include because it is unimaginable to believe what these people have colluded to towards attempting to discredit me and stop our case from moving forward. I've been told by one law firm we may have cause for a civil RICO Action against the parties. I'll stop here and let your experience guide you.
 
I want my wife and I to be status quo ante.

I can prove that the lawsuit brought against us was conceived in fraud, and the attorney who represented the voluntary conservator (who was terminated). Was not authorized to represent her. I plan to argue that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant because of this and reset for new trial, where I can finally show the facts that this was a lawful transfer of property.

Then I plan to file torts against everyone involved.

I have made this my mission. You don't get to hurt my mother and my wife and my children and walk away.


bTW - my earlier legal writing is garbage but I've endeavored greatly to focus and improve it. I do t want to be involved in this at all but no one will take this case. Yes, it's a mess, but not because of me. Obfuscation is a fraudsters best friend. The issues at the heart of this case are simple ones.
 
Very interesting.
I'll start with what I term, the obvious, by trying not to behave as the infamous Captain Obvious.

You have a legal obstacle, judicial immunity.
An even greater bar to suing judicial officials than sovereign immunity.

It's been my experience that defendants of a certain ilk are far more clever, devious, or diabolical than your average bear.

I continue to believe that proving something to a legal certainty is far more difficult than asserting it.

If a plaintiff doesn't have a pack of lawyers seeking to represent her cause, the plaintiff often has a seriously deficient (or nonexistent) case.

I do wish you well.
 
I get it. Even worse is the hurdle of quasi judicial immunity bestowed upon conservators under Gross v. Rell in CT. Fraud unties all of that. I don't publish the silver bullet facts online, but I really do understand what you have said and I am in this until it's finished.

There are hurdles, but nothing in life worth doing is easy and these people cannot be allowed to bellow about this case around a water cooler about the bullet they dodged.

I may not be an attorney, but I am as persistent as water and gravity.

Thank you for your advice.

Have a happy and safe holiday.
 
This is a CT Law Practice Book Section 1.5(b) Question: My Goal is to Open and Vacate a Judgement of Dismissal based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction of the Court over the defendant.

The Rule mandates that the scope and authority of representation be in writing.

Here in this case there is a elderly person, having executed an engagement letter with an attorney. Attorney B, to recover property through an application to determine title brought to probate court under CGS 45a-98.

Another attorney, Attorney A, ends up being the VOLUNTARY (Emphasis) conservator for the person. Afterwards.

There is only one single written engagement letter which bars representation in appeals which was signed by the elderly client for Attorney B Only - prior to the appointment of a conservator.

Attorney B represented the voluntary conservator (attorney A ) in 6 probate appeals.
Together, these two attorneys charged over $260k.. to the elderly client. The purpose of litigation was to recover the property so that she could live there.. These two moved to take a mortgage out on the sole subject matter of litigation, the property..

There is no contingency fee arrangement..

Attorney A testified in probate hearing that she did not have a written agreement with Attorney B. The value of legal fees exceeds the value of the house and is greater than 100% the value of the estate.

QUESTION:

Practice Book 1.5(b) mandates that the scope and authority of engagement be in writing. Given that the only written engagement letter executed between the conserved person and attorney B, barred representation in appeals on Page 1, Paragraph 1, In Bold Face. And No other written engagement letter exhisted, and there is a judicial admission to that..

-- Was Attorney B authorized to represent Attorney A as a proxy for the conserved person in these appeals of probate brought under C.G.S. 45a-186?

-- if the representation is unauthorized - does it implicate the personal jurisdiction of the court over the conserved person?

-- The the party opposite have any standing under PB 3.4 (Fairness of Trial and procedures etc.. ) or is standing to assert this claim solely that of the fiduciaries and/or eventual executors for the conserved person?

Attorney A and B were fired and removed from proceedings. The aforementioned was recently discovered.

There appears to be no precedent in CT Law on this topic, and the implication of the courts jurisdiction over the person when representation is "unauthorized."
 
Please keep this discussion in the originating thread, thank you.
There's no need to open new threads for questions related to, or arising from the same topic.

I doubt that we can be of much more help to you.
Your questions are of a very technical nature, related to civil trial procedure.
You might wish to consult a civil appellate lawyer.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top