Opposition of LTSC to Parker's "Motion for Recusal" has been filed
Formhandle
toilet paper.
Those with PACER access should find the opposition and proposed order soon.
In the meantime, here's a nicely-worded excerpt from section 4 of the opposition
(referenced from Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 550):
"Not all unfavorable disposition towards an individual (or his case) is properly
described [as bias or prejudice]. One would not say, for example, that world opinion is
biased or prejudiced against Adolf Hitler."
--
Form <formh...@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
Ray Gordon
running out of
> toilet paper.
I suppose everyone on this group decided to use the same pejorative
independently. No communication or awareness there!
> Those with PACER access should find the opposition and proposed order
soon.
Oooh: an *opposition to motion!*
So far we're quoting motions and not rulings.
> In the meantime, here's a nicely-worded excerpt from section 4 of the
opposition
> (referenced from Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 550):
>
> "Not all unfavorable disposition towards an individual (or his case) is
properly
> described [as bias or prejudice]. One would not say, for example, that
world opinion is
> biased or prejudiced against Adolf Hitler."
Unfavorable disposition towards an individual by a judge would be a
violation of 28 USC §455(b). Unfavorable disposition towards a case
generally requires things called memoranda and opinions by the court, that
is, if the decision wants to survive an appeal.
Adolf Hitler also didn't file this case.
Vince Runza
news:0xEOc.586$HW6.323@trndny01...
> > Hey GORK, got any more bogus paperwork to file with the court? I'm
> running out of
> > toilet paper.
>
> I suppose everyone on this group decided to use the same pejorative
> independently. No communication or awareness there!
Sure, there's communication. They read this newsgroup. Personally, when I
refer to you in email, I use your name or pseudonym. Here, you're GORK'ed!
Vince
--
8===Ğ
Vince Runza
He'd have hired a lawyer!
Vince
--
8===Ğ
Formhandle
> ...
> Adolf Hitler also didn't file this case.
Sir, you are no Adolf Hitler.
Ray Gordon
> > running out of
> > > toilet paper.
> >
> > I suppose everyone on this group decided to use the same pejorative
> > independently. No communication or awareness there!
>
> Sure, there's communication. They read this newsgroup.
Exactly.
Formhandle
GORK seems to be asserting that anyone who reads this newsgroup is part of a conspiracy
against him. I doubt anyone checks & posts to this newsgroup more than he does so I
guess that would make him the mastermind of a conspiracy against himself.
I also think he is seeing the "toilet paper light". Since he outlined recently how
frugal he is with his income, perhaps he keeps filing paperwork in court in order to
keep his own supply of toilet paper bountiful. I figure with the amount of bullshit he
dumps daily, he goes through a number of rolls every day, costing maybe $40-50 in toilet
paper. By filing complaints, motions, recusals, subpoenas, and all sorts of frivolous
paperwork, he gets the government to print up toilet paper for him free of charge.
The words "inexcusable failure" are probably smeared across his ass right now...
Ray Gordon
> >>> independently. No communication or awareness there!
> >>
> >> Sure, there's communication. They read this newsgroup.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> GORK seems to be asserting that anyone who reads this newsgroup is part of
a conspiracy
> against him.
The lawsuit pleads nothing of the sort.
Oh wait, you're not an attorney.
HC
>Ray Gordon (Gordon Roy Parker) wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Adolf Hitler also didn't file this case.
>
>Sir, you are no Adolf Hitler.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
HeeroYuy
Oh wait, neither is Gordon. Oh the hypocrisy.
Paul Robinson
> Ray Gordon (Gordon Roy Parker) wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Adolf Hitler also didn't file this case.
>
> Sir, you are no Adolf Hitler.
Oh, that was good, I'll give you five points.
Paul Robinson
> Hey GORK, got any more bogus paperwork to file with the court? I'm
running out of
> toilet paper.
>
> Those with PACER access should find the opposition and proposed order
soon.
>
> In the meantime, here's a nicely-worded excerpt from section 4 of the
opposition
> (referenced from Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 550):
>
> "Not all unfavorable disposition towards an individual (or his case) is
properly
> described [as bias or prejudice]. One would not say, for example, that
world opinion is
> biased or prejudiced against Adolf Hitler."
You missed an even better quote:
The judge who presides at a trial may, upon completion of the evidence,
be exceedingly
ill-disposed towards the defendant, who has been shown to be a
thoroughly reprehensible
person. But the judge is not thereby recusable for bias or prejudice,
since his knowledge
and the opinion it produced were properly and necessarily acquired in
the course of the
proceedings, and are indeed sometimes (as in a bench trial) necessary to
completion of
the judge's task. As Judge Jerome Frank pithily put it: "Impartiality is
not gullibility.
Disinterestedness does not mean child-like innocence. If the judge did
not form judgments
of the actors in those courthouse dramas called trials, he could never
render decisions."
In re J. P. Linahan, Inc., 138 F.2d 650, 654 (CA2 1943).
- {Liteky v. United States}, 510 US 550 at 561
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=510&page=550#11
I kind of like that line, "who has been shown to be a thoroughly
reprehensible person."
I should include that in my notary jurats in case I have someone like Ray:
"Acknowledged before me by _____, who is known to me personally, or proven
on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be a thoroughly reprehensible
person."
--
Paul Robinson, "A computer programmer and Notary Public in and for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, at large."
"Above all else... We shall go on..." _"...And continue!"_
Paul Robinson
>> Hey GORK, got any more bogus paperwork to file with the court? I'm
>> running out of toilet paper.
>
> I suppose everyone on this group decided to use the same pejorative
> independently. No communication or awareness there!
Well, there was plenty of communication. It's called a newsgroup. Messages
are posted and they flood fill every server and thus when someone sends a
message it goes to every server that takes that newsgroup, usually within
minutes or sometimes within a few hours after posting. That's the whole
idea. It ain't hard for other people to use the same phrasing when they can
read the messages others have wrote.
Were you born this clueless or did you have to take something to reduce your
intelligence? Presuming you had any to start with.
("Paul, this is your subconsious again. This is your second warning today.
You're getting perilously close to getting into a flame war. You're
supposed to stay out of this.")
Can't I have a little fun? I haven't been reading the messages here for
close to a month now. It's still just like a soap opera, you can skip
watching it for a few weeks, come back and the story hasn't changed much.
("I'll cut you a little slack but be careful.")