Roger Stone moves to disqualify Obama judge
The sad and ugly truth is that even pro se litigants who can apply the law to their cases must still overcome judicial bias.
That’s not just me saying so. Now a federal judge is saying so.
Judge Richard Posner has served on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals since Ronald Reagan appointed him. A liberal in wolf’s clothing, he’s authored more than 3,000 opinions.
He’s known for tough questioning and comic relief in oral arguments.
Judge Posner retired this month, years earlier than planned. His reason? The court’s refusal to address entrenched judicial bias against people representing themselves.
As he told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, “I was not getting along with the other judges because I was (and am) very concerned about how the court treats pro se litigants, who I believe deserve a better shake.”
In a New York Times interview on his sudden retirement, Judge Posner accused the court of funneling pro se appeals to staff lawyers, to be summarily dismissed over trivial technical issues.
He said his colleagues refused to let him work with staff lawyers on their recommendations, which caused some tension on the court.
I gradually began to realize that this wasn’t right, what we were doing.
So he quit.
While Chief Judge Diane Wood responded to Posner’s claims by affirming his right to an opinion, she said none of the other judges agreed that pro se litigants were treated unfairly.
What else could she say, right?
Would you believe there’s an entire section of the ABA dedicated to helping judges mitigate their implicit biases regarding gender, class and race? But judicial bias against self-represented litigants is the biggest threat to justice, and there’s nothing to help judges grapple with that.
The law in every jurisdiction requires judges to overlook minor technical issues in pro se pleadings and motions, and to help unrepresented parties focus their oral arguments. Unfortunately, trial judges don’t feel bound by these laws, and appellant courts won’t enforce them on appeal.
Stone's lawyers say, in particular, that Judge Amy Berman Jackson's decision to assert that jurors in the case "served with integrity" strikes at the heart of Stone's motion for a new trial, which they indicated is largely based on whether at least one juror was inappropriately biased against him.
"Whether the subject juror (and perhaps others) served with 'integrity' is one of the paramount questions presented in the pending Motion," Stone's lawyers argued. "The Court’s ardent conclusion of 'integrity' indicates an inability to reserve judgment on an issue which has yet been heard."
Jackson made her remark during an impassioned rebuke of the arguments Stone's legal team offered during his trial. She said that Stone and his lawyers minimized the significance of his effort to frustrate congressional investigators as they sought to understand Russia's interference in the 2016 election, a grave national security challenge.
"Sure, the defense is free to say: So what? Who cares?" Jackson said. "But, I'll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care."
Stone was convicted last year on multiple counts of covering up to congressional investigators, as well as a count of witness intimidation for pressuring an associate to refuse to cooperate with Congress. Lawmakers sought Stone's testimony regarding his attempts to act as an intermediary between Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, but he repeatedly refused to tell House members about his multiple efforts to contact Wikileaks head Julian Assange, denying he had communications with certain associates that were later discovered to be voluminous.
It will also likely reach the receptive ears of the president, who has repeatedly amplified criticism of Jackson and repeated false claims about the nature of the charges against Stone.
Trump's allies are agitating for the president to issue a pardon or commute Stone's sentence, and though Trump is widely expected to do so eventually, the timing is uncertain. Jackson also used her sentencing comments to underscore that Stone's overarching effort in impeding Congress was to protect Trump from scrutiny.
Jackson delivered her sentence Thursday but delayed it until after she considers Stone's motion for a new trial. Though the motion was filed under seal, Stone's team indicated that it will focus on a juror.
"Stone’s Motion for New Trial is directly related to the integrity of a juror. It is alleged that a juror misled the Court regarding her ability to be unbiased and fair and the juror attempted to cover up evidence that would directly contradict her false claims of impartiality," his lawyers argued.
"The premature statement blessing the “integrity of the jury” undermines the appearance of impartiality and presents a strong bias for recusal," they added.
According to the February 5th order issued by Judge Jackson, Roger Stone cited a problem with a juror, however his motion was denied.
The details of the juror are unknown because the order released Wednesday was redacted, however, Roger Stone’s defense team in November tried to strike down several potential jurors who were overt Trump-hating leftists.
Several potential jurors in Stone’s case ended up being Trump-hating, Obama-era officials who admittedly voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 so Stone’s lawyer’s tried to strike them as potential jurors.
One of the potential jurors actually had a husband who worked in the DOJ and played a role in the Russian collusion hoax that ultimately took down Roger Stone — and Judge Jackson allowed her to remain as a potential juror!
Being that Amy Berman Jackson denied Stone’s motion for a new trial last week, it occurred before the DOJ backed down from the excessive sentencing handed down by Mueller’s thugs.
The order is about a potential issue with a juror and it's dated Feb. 5, so this all occurred before the resignations and withdrawals and Trump's intervention.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 12, 2020
Amy Berman Jackson is a corrupt liberal Obama judge who imposed a very strict gag order on Roger Stone even though he did nothing wrong.Stone was caught up in Mueller’s abusive Russia witch hunt simply because he helped Trump win the White House in 2016.
Federal Prosecutors on Monday recommended Trump confidante Roger Stone serve 7-9 years in prison for process crimes during the Mueller witch hunt.
In a rare move, the Department of Justice backed down from its abusive sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone.
All four prosecutors who signed Roger Stone’s sentencing memo seeking an excessive prison term of 7 to 9 years resigned like cowards on Tuesday after AG Bill Barr stepped in and smacked them down.
Mueller’s prosecutors and this corrupt judge made for a very toxic and abusive case against Roger Stone.
President Trump torched Demon Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Tuesday night.
Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking! https://t.co/Fe7XkepJNN
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2020
We reported months ago and again in May 2018, that Obama appointed liberal activist Judge, Amy Berman Jackson, was assigned to the most important court case in US history, the Manafort case in the Trump-Russia hoax investigation.
Sadly, Judge Jackson has a horrible far left record on the bench. In 2013 Judge Jackson rejected arguments from the Catholic Church that Obamacare’s requirements that employers provide cost free coverage of contraceptive services in spite of being contrary to their religious beliefs. This was overturned by the Supreme Court.
In 2017 Judge Jackson dismissed the wrongful death suit against Hillary Clinton filed by two of the families who lost loved ones in Benghazi. The families argued that Clinton had done little to help their sons and then lied to cover it up.
Then on January 19, 2018, Paul Manafort’s case was reassigned to Judge Jackson on January 19th, a few weeks after being filed.
It is unknown how she was assigned to the Manafort case or by whom. What is clear is that with her atrocious and slanted record to date, the Deep State and the Mueller team certainly wanted Judge Jackson overseeing the Manafort case.
On January 3, 2018, we reported that Paul Manafort filed a suit against the “Deep State” DOJ (Jeff Sessions), Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein and Corrupt Investigator Robert Mueller that should have shut down Mueller’s corrupt investigation!