In the previous blog post, I described the commencement of a case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a court within the mandatory appellate jurisdiction of the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where Judge Alex Kozinski, then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, appeared as a party-objector, along with his wife, attorney Marcy J. Tiffany.
I also described the non-disclosure by Alex Kozinski of the "social relationship" and the ex parte communications with the first presiding judge Dean D. Pregerson at the time he filed his and his wife's objections in a case where Judge Dean D. Pregerson was presiding.
Now did Alex Kozinski - or his attorney wife Marcy Tiffany, for that matter - disclosed the fact and contents of the ex parte communications with Judge Dean D. Pregerson on the issue material to litigation.
Nor did Alex Kozinski - or his attorney wife Marcy Tiffany - or Judge Dean D. Pregerson - disclose at any time during litigation that Judge Dean D. Pregerson's father Harry Pregerson is Alex Kozinski's colleague on the 9th Circuit court for 27 years, and a subordinate for 5 years.
So much for these ethical "forgetfulness" of the three attorneys, two of them federal judges who serve only "during good behavior".
Once again, at no time did Alex Kozinski make a motion to change venue and transfer litigation from the district court that was subordinate to Alex Kozinski's appellate court - and, apparently, nobody else did, most likely because attorneys and judges, being subject to disciplinary authority of Alex Kozinski in his official capacity, were afraid to upset him.
Which tells us a lot about attorneys' and judges' belief in the integrity of their colleagues.
Judge # 2, Beverly Reid O'Connell, was assigned to the case on November 5, 2013, 7 months after being appointed to that court. Apparently, the case was assigned from a social contact and son of a long-time colleague to a novice on the federal bench who was supposed to take the blame for any possible errors in litigation.
At the time of assignment, her court was hopelessly disqualified from presiding over the case, and picking any "replacement" judge from that same court and with appellate jurisdiction remaining in party objector Kozinski's court was putting a torn band-aid upon a whole in a sinking ship.
Judge O'Connell herself was within the disciplinary authority of Alex Kozinski, a completely disqualifying conflict of interest.
Yet, the novice Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell remained on the case from November 5, 2013 (docket of assignment order # 69) to December 19, 2013 (docket of assignment order # 102).
During her 1 1/2 month's assignment to the case 33 filings were made on the docket - that's a record in a civil case.
Alex Kozinski actively made new filings in the case during Judge O'Connell's assignment and argued his opposition to a motion in front of her.
On December 19, 2013 Judge O'Connell filed an "Order of Recusal". Here it is.
Irreverent teenagers usually have one word adequately describing a reasonable person's reaction after reading this order.
Duh?
All of that is correct, Judge O'Connell, but didn't you know that BEFORE you were assigned to the case and AT THE TIME of your assignment? What made it so long for you to step down?
That was not the last recusal in the case.
Who was assigned next, how inappropriate was the process of assignment, how long the newly assigned Judge # 3 served and how he recused, read on in my next blog post.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment