THE KRUCKEMEYER BROMANCES
DEC 23, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 23, 2024
There’s a sham trial set for March 3, 2025.
There is no legitimate trial going to happen, for the reasons provided on LIT.
Let the anti anti-defamation league play their shenanigans with President Bush’s wingman at the helm.
In sha’Allah.
In Gregg v. State, No. 12-24-00132-CR, at *8-9 (Tex. App. Jan. 8, 2025)
“A Texas judge may be removed from presiding over a case for one of three reasons:
[s]he is constitutionally disqualified;
[s]he is subject to a statutory strike;
or,
[s]he is subject to statutory disqualification or recusal under Texas Supreme Court rules.”
Gaal v. State,332 S.W.3d 448, 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);
see also Tex. Const. art. V, § 11
(constitutional disqualification);
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 30.01 (West 2006)
(statutory disqualification in criminal cases);
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.053 (West 2023)
(statutory strike);
Tex.R.Civ.P. 18b(a)
(Texas Supreme Court rules for disqualification),
18b(b)(1)-(2)
(Texas Supreme Court rules for recusal including lack of impartiality and personal bias or prejudice against a party).
The grounds and procedures for disqualification and recusal are fundamentally different, as are the appellate remedies.
See In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
“We have said that the word ‘must’ is given a mandatory meaning when followed by a noncompliance penalty but this does not suggest that when no penalty is prescribed, ‘must’ is non-mandatory.””
– Image API, LLC v. Young, 691 S.W.3d 831, 841 n.54 (Tex. 2024)
This applies to Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a:
Timeline in Kruckemeyer case:
Blogger filed “Defendant’s Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge Tami Craft AKA Tamika Craft-Demming” on Monday, Dec. 11, 2023.
Within 3 days, Craft had to act on the Defendant’s motion, with two options available – she failed to do either, see;
(f) Duties of the Respondent Judge; Failure to Comply.
(1) Responding to the Motion. Regardless of whether the motion complies with this rule, the respondent judge, within three business days after the motion is filed, must either:
(A) sign and file with the clerk an order of recusal or disqualification;
or
(B) sign and file with the clerk an order referring the motion to the regional presiding judge.
When Craft did tardily respond, she did so some 44 days after the motion was filed or 41 days after the 3 days expired, this in turn made her order void for failing to meet the 3-day time limit.
Additionally, the wording of her order fails to meet the required textual language associated with (A) and (B) above, where she writes in a two-part order;
“I am ORDERED to recuse myself and refer this case to the Administrative Judge of the Trial Division for Transfer to another court.
Signed on January 23, 2024.
As a sub-note; the same Order is signed by the Admin Judge transferring the case to another District Court, but the wording of Rule 18 is clear; “…referring the motion to the regional presiding judge”, e.g. Susan Brown – not the Administrative Judge (Elaine Palmer).
Compare with:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Lauren Reeder and Verified Declaration on March 17, 2023,
and where;
Judge Reeder complied with the 3-day timeline by ORDER SIGNED DENYING RECUSAL OF JUDGE on March 20, 2023.
and compare with:
Ali Choudri case (, Defendant, Ali Choudhri’s Motion for Recusal on Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2023
ORDER SIGNED DENYING RECUSAL OF JUDGE on Monday, Aug. 28, 2028, complying with the 3-day mandatory timeline.
Note: The events thereafter in the Choudri case were shocking and confirm Craft is constitutionally disqualified.
