While reading a recent article about judicial misconduct in the United States and specifically in New York - reported, naturally, outside of this country, since the local "mainstream" media sources are deadly afraid of the subject - I came across a situation where a female attorney from Texas was slapped with contempt proceedings by a judge after she made a motion to recuse him.
My further research of that situation revealed a recitation of the following law in Texas applicable to procedures in motions to recuse:
" If a motion to recuse is filed, the judge only has two options: recuse himself or refuse to recuse himself.
If the challenged judge refuses to recuse himself, then he cannot hear any further matter in the case until an assigned judge hears the motion to recuse. See e.g.Jamilah v. Bass, 862 S.W.2d 201, 203 (Tex. App – Houston [14th Dist.] 1993)(orig. proc.). Any order signed by the challenged judge after a motion to recuse is filed is void. In re Rio Grande Valley Gas Co., 987 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1999, orig. proceeding)."
So, the attorney who was unlawfully slapped by the challenged judge with contempt proceedings for making a motion to recuse him continues to practice law.
Unlike me.
I was slapped with sanctions (which would have been void in Texas) by the exact same judge whom I was challenging on a motion to recuse.
In Texas, if a judge refuses to recuse, another judge should step in to determine the motion to recuse - and while that motion is pending, the challenged judge may not make any decision in the case. In other words, any proceedings on the case STOP if a motion to recuse is made and the challenged judge refuses to recuse.
Not so in New York.
In New York, the challenged judge is given an absolute discretion to decide the motion challenging himself.
Which resulted in sanctions - and suspension of law license - for me, while suspension of law license happened without providing me with any pre-deprivation hearing, because, in the eyes of the disciplinary court, I had enough "due process" in being slapped with sanctions by an enraged challenged judge.
After all, he "examined his own conscience" before denying my motion to recuse and slapping me with those sanctions.
Once again - why the State of Texas, which is not exactly known for its democratic ways in the courtroom - recognizes that a challenged judge is presumed biased in relation to a motion challenging his own impartiality and/or integrity and may not preside over or decide such a motion.
Why in New York an attorney may be suspended for making a motion to recuse while in Texas such a thing simply cannot happen - as a matter of law?
Shouldn't the right to earn a living be the same due process right and not depending on the whims of the legislatures in various states?
Especially that the rule of "discretion" for judges to preside over motions to recuse them is not even a statute, is not even a court rule - it is a judicial policy determination, illegal as legislating from the bench on an important issue of constitutional law.
Once again.
Why New York "justice" looks like cavemen's justice as compared to Texas?
No comments:
Post a Comment