|Plan for Recusing an Anti-Children Judge|
|The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sets
substantive rights. In Article V of the First Part, judges are said to
be our substitutes, our agents. Nowhere in the remainder of the
is the word "recuse" or the word "recusal" used. That
comes from outside the Constitution . . . and we know that . . .
we know we can bring a motion to recuse a judge.
The judiciary has, however, substituted itself for the legislature by restricting -- via case law -- the facts supporting recusal to those which occurred outside the case you're prosecuting or defending . . . the very case from which you want the judge to recuse him or her self .
This is absurd, of course, inasmuch as the ordinary person will likely have not interacted with the questionable judge outside the case he or she is prosecuting or defending.
It is also absurd because it is a judge-made condition -- a condition repeatedly re-inforced in judicial opinions -- solely for the purpose of protecting themselves from accountability, which is unlawful, if Article V is to have meaning.
Fortunately, however, recent case law HAS held that judges are accountable. See Com. v. Ellis, 429 Mass. 362, 371 (1999), where the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recognized that "Article 5 . . . provides that officers of government `are at all times accountable to [the people].'"
So, falseallegations.com calls for those who truly suffer from an intolerable judicial situation to file a motion to recuse on the grounds that the judicial officer, to wit, the judge, is an agent of the movant -- your agent -- and is "hereby this [your] motion" terminated from that agency. McDuffy v. Secretary of Executive Office of Educ., 415 Mass. 545, 561 n. 16 (1993):
The term "magistrates" is also used to refer to members of the judicial branch. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).When the judge denies your motion and refuses to recuse him or her self, write an interlocutory appellate petition immediately. I'd like to see interlocutory appeals on the recusal issue flood the single-justice session until the SJC publicly recognizes there is a problem out here and takes a case sua sponte in order to decide the issue based on its constitutional underpinnings.
|PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article I. All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. [As amended by Amendments, Art. CVI.]
. . .
Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
. . .
Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
NOTE: The argument comes in how to "reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.". . .
The remainding articles and amendments are at http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm
Nowhere does the word "recuse" or "recusal" appear in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
* * *
Everyone who is outraged by judges abrogating their responsibilities, please