The Standard of Bias and who it applies to at the Fifth Circuit
In 2011, no bias would be found in a complaint against Hughes by the Burkes. He would abuse his authority in an attempt to intimidate the Burkes. Hughes should have found in favor of the Burkes there and then in chambers as the Bank brought the wrong loan papers. The lawyers would resign shortly after this conference – as they knew that there was no loan papers signed by the Burkes and the case was effectively at an end. However, Hughes bias was evident in every wrong word he uttered at the conference, snippets of which are provided in the video below.
In 2021 there’s been 3 cases where Hughes has been scrutinized that LIT’s been watching, 2 of which were reversed, namely the ISIS case and the Employment case. Both cases were removed from Hughes on appeal.
One case wasn’t reversed or the case reassigned because one of the judges on the panel was Judge King and the case was too close to her own family/bias – however, she did not recuse – and the case found no issue with Hughes, despite Hughes clearly violating the rules by looking outside the record (google searching the plaintiff’s business etc).
In summary, there’s only one doctrine that applies in Texas Federal courts, it’s called judicial immunity and it’s being criminally abused by Outlaws in Robes.
MAY 8, 2021
ORDER (JUDICIAL COMPLAINT)
Prose litigants John and Joanna Burke complain that United States District Judge Lynn N. Hughes acted in a “demonstrably egregious and hostile in manner” and “interjected, harassed and overshadowed” them at an initial hearing.
For example, they assert that the judge “refused [their] constitutional right to argue the fact that the case should remain in Civil Court,” commenced “Trial of the Case” even though the Burkes allegedly had no prior notice that such issues would be addressed and had no time to prepare, and “refused to let [them] state their case (or) refer to any case law.”
The Burkes allege that further Judge Hughes made “harmful, disrespectful and completely abhorrent” comments.
They allege further that when they told the court that they wanted to retain counsel, the judge “ridiculed [them] and [their] case in its entirety and then demanded that they not get legal counsel and save on further litigation costs,” and
“stated he would be there when the Foreclosure was scheduled with a wry smirk on his face.”
The Burkes also protest that Judge Hughes scheduled a pretrial conference “without consideration of the fact [they] required time to find legal representation.”
“However, a recording of the proceedings indicates that Judge Hughes was extremely solicitous toward them, suggested at the outset that they should retain counsel, and did not ridicule them or their claims in any way.”
To the extent that the complaint relates directly to the merits of the judge’s decisions, it is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(l)(A)(ii). In other respects, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of judicial misconduct, and the allegations are therefore subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(l)(A)(iii).
Judicial misconduct proceedings are not a substitute for the normal appellate review process, nor may they be used to obtain reversal of a decision or a new trial.
The complaint is DISMISSED.
Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, March 21, 2011