There are many reasons a judge may favor one party over another. Judges are human. We all have biases. Accepting Judeo-Christian teaching as truth, we all sin.

Did the opposing attorney walk into your judge’s chambers with a briefcase full of cash and leave without one?

Is your judge an Instrument of the shadowy cabal funded by dark money that is determined to do the bidding of an oligarchy?

Did your “family law” judge appoint a man to decide what is in the best interest of your children who openly approves of unprotected homosexual encounters with strangers and posted pictures of himself looking down the pants of a questionably under-aged boy?

Does your judge have a financial interest in the facility in which he incarcerated you?

I’ve seen all four of these scenarios play out.

To me, a reasonable person, each of these scenarios gives the judicial officer an appearance of bias. Yet, none of the judges was removed in response to a motion to recuse.

Having a judge show favoritism to the other party denies the most fundamental constitutional right to due process and equal protection.

Many jurisdictions will allow a person to recuse one judge from the case without cause. Unfortunately, most pro se litigants don’t have enough experience or even interest in what way each judge leans. The free pass usually expires once the judge makes a substantive interlocutory order. So once the self-represented litigant finds out he was marked as loser before the games began, it is too late to have the judge removed without a major effort.

Personally, I have filed several motions for recusal of judges. (You can download some samples below.) I think only one was granted. That was based on the judge having recused himself from the case once before, without any request from me. About a year after the biased judge’s voluntary recusal, the judge who took over decided to retire. The admittedly biased judge was appointed again, and this time did not voluntarily step down. He needed a nudge.

I filed a motion to recuse Commissioner Alan Friedenthal. My motion was denied. Years later, the California Supreme Court agreed with the Commission on Judicial Performance that Friedenthal appeared to be biased and embroiled in the case. (See yesterday’s post about filing a complaint with the judicial ethics commissions.)

But acknowledgment of an ethics violation does not automatically reverse the unfair decisions. I went all the way through the U.S. Supreme Court and Friedenthal’s life devastating orders were never unwound.

My complaint to the next level, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights did not land on deaf ears. Unfortunately, the UNHCHR is, like the judicial ethics commissions, a toothless tiger, and a slow old cat at that. They are all we have, so appeal to them, but any changes made to the system will be politically correct, super subtle, and slow.

There have been times where I filed a formal motion for recusal that was denied, but the judge was transferred to another assignment. Again, there never was a do over, and sometimes the replacement was more evil than the original, but there is some small gratification thinking the powers that be made an effort to limit the damages.

So, my friendly, non-legal advice is to take the next right step: write and file your motion for recusal. Just don’t get your hopes up that the corrupt judge will suddenly be struck by a bolt of integrity lightning or swallow a potion of honesty.

In the following appellate brief, the issue of recusal of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky was brought up for the first time on appeal. This motion is found at page 70 to 75. The volume and obviousness of the errors on the merits contributes to the appearance of bias that might cause the public to question the integrity of the court.