Judicial Recusal

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a
Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification
is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable
questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or
state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and
impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified."
[Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the
partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of
partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S.
847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias
or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779
F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the
appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually
biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a),
is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge
but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the
judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge
to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might
reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir.
1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the
Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only
actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received
justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle
that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v.
United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v.
United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge
receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is
presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need
not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated
to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor
v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself
even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that
this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte,
even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves.
By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not
disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given
another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly,
further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the
disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced
an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified
himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been
disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that
they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or
effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is
violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United
States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a
tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144,
but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified
by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her
property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime
of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in
the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial
capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner,
has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor
(provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow
the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court
not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge
has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it
would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and
since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may
not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on
this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required"
and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against
the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged
in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been
automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without
jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal
acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference
with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for
their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with
interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to
engage in such acts.