My name is Daryl this legal case has all but destroyed my family for exercising a legal right below are exerpts from the latest court filing....
Argument
The Harris CountyClerks Office enters a general denial in its contest of the petitioners affidavit, a boiler plate pleading that would be an embarrassment to most attorneys with any pride in the work considering the legal dynamic. General Denials seem to be the strategy of the guilty a legal tactic employed when there is no legal defense available for what they’ve done .
The petitioners have seen this legal utility before, The defendants filed a a general denial to the petitioners cause of action a general dnial that would later be vitiated by the weight of the petitioners evidence leaving the defendants on the brink of cupalbility both civil and criminal.Like the defendants the Office of Harris County Clerk and itd assistants and deputies find themselvevs guilty of provable wrongdoing with no legal defenses available for what they done.
The intervention(contest) by the clerk’s office is filed in anticipation of the fallout sure to come due the eschew of the responsibilities by its assistant and duputy clerks. Responsibilities that are prescribed by law. No circumstances of mitigation exist that would pass muster that would in any way …….
Although the attorneys for the HARRIS COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE file their CONTEST TO THE AFFIDAVIT per Rule 20.1 TRAP giving them the express right to contest the paupers affidavit filed in the petitioners cause of action.. The Harris County Clerks Office is using TRAP 20.1 As a smoke screen. This smoke screen is employed to hide the fact that the Harris County Clerks office is actually acting in the matter as a interventionist as per rule Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. The Harris County clerks Office have an undeniable and ……….justiciable interest in the petitioners cause of action as well as its outcome.
A person might wish to intervene in a lawsuit if he or she has an interest that will be affected by the outcome of the ccase. Issues of justicability abound and are evident in the throughout the petitioners cause of action. In Fact the only reason the Office Harris County Clerk under the stewardship of Chris Daniel are not defendants is the fact that the petitioners have not joined them as parties. See TRCP 38-40.
Harris County has a problem, a systemic problem extending beyond the Harris County Civil Courthouse to the Harris County Constable Office Precinct 4 and that the half of it.as is shown below
Harris County Contable Offce Precint 4 served an outdated, Writ of Possession well past it shelf life of 30,60,90, days this. The petitioners knew this when Harris County deputy Derrick Fields executed the invalid document . Derrick Fields was asked by the the petitioners too see the Writ of Posession that was being executed Deputy constable Fields Derrick Fields replied by saying” to the petitioners Do You Want To Make This Criminal”.
Petitiners alledge that Derrick Fields knew the writ of Possesion was invalid but was either paid to execute the invalid writ or some sort of favor. Derick Fields is Guilty of theft and armed robbery by the very letter of the law as is every one in the petitioners residence that day. Harris Couty has the temerity to bring a contest to the paupers affidavit after causing the petitioners to become paupers….. the unabashed guile is maddening
There is no argument as to the facts because the facts are provable by verifiable evidence in the form of documents filed as exhibits filed in the 129th judicial court Harris County ….the gall
Judicial District court
1) The Defendants apparent ability extends to office of Harris County clerk example Defendants Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgement was set for submission on June 30th 2014 at 8:00 a.m . Petitioner Barnes spoke with the clerk of the court and was told to disregard the Submission and Notice Of Hearing set for June 30th 2014.
2) Defendants submitted documents with the title Notice Of Hearing, instead of Notice Of Submission although the plain language of the document clearly show it as a Notice Of Submission.
3) Defendants 2nd Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment was set for submission on July 7th ,2014 at 10:30 a.m as evidenced by defendants Notice Of Hearing ( exhibit A). Apparently this particular setting was actually treated as if it was a Notice Of Oral Hearing on the Defendants Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment.
4) The Honorable court contacted the petitioners on July 7th,2014 inquiring if I knew of the oral hearing , as petitioners were a no-show for the oral hearing. At that point confusion arose because of the hearing held on July 7th 2014 ,petitioners would think that it would have to be dismissed as a matter of routine, if not at the very least re-set for lack of Service.
5) The Order signed by the honorable court is the order that was disregarded by the petitioners on the direction of the clerk.
6) ) Mysteriously The Notice of Submission filed on July 7th is now missing again I can assure you it was there see exhibit…….
7) Likewise the defendants ability not only move and remove official pleadings within the courts official docket but to have the ability inserted apparent falsehoods into the court docket , in the court docket appears the clerks entry of case settled on August 5 2013 and August 12th 2013 settlement, no such settlement occurred see exhibitthis could not have been done without the help of Harris County assistant clerks and coordinators
County Court #2
- Intentionally not following procedure in the filing of official court documents as set out in Tex.R.Civ.Proc.24 and 25
- Filing of these records should include the following procedures as the instruments are presented to the clerk:
- File-mark the instrument to show the date and time received.
- Collect the appropriate fee and issue a receipt.
- Enter the instrument's type, date of receipt, and fee collected into the
civil file docket.
- Place the instrument in the file folder and note the type of instrument
- and date filed on the outside of the folder.
However this not what happened, Petioners on multiple occasions tried to file documents in the harris county clerks office ,only to be refused by County Clerk Maria De La Rosa flatly refused to file any of the petitioners documents at the behest of Kevin Fulton (defendant/attorney)as officers of the court.
In case there is any misunderstanding of what the petitioners are saying let me restate. Assistant clerk of Harris County Maria De La Rosa told me Daryl Barnes in person that she didn’t file them because an officers of the court told her not to and that she had to do what the officer of the court instructed her to do. None of the petitioners pleadings were filed until after the case was closed.
- This despite the fact that multiple attempted filings of petitioners pleadings including sending it to the clerks office certified mail twice and twice attempting to file them in person. Resulting in a default judgement and the loss of all their property ,disruption of our children education and a state of homelessness and constant stress and mental anguish that endures to this day.
There is a common series of events underlying the Petitioners’s claims, tying the separate Defendants into a larger ongoing conspiracy, including the illegal actions of Harris County asst. Clerk Maria De La Rosa. While attempting to hide this travesty from public view by entering into the public record that the illegal and outdated writ of possession having no force or effect had not been executed and had been returned by Deputy Constable unserved. It was only after multiple phone calls and a trip to the clerks office did the record reflect that it had been executed.
1) Clerks refusal to file document the pleadings until the case had been decided
2) Clerks held three sets of documents and filed all three sets simultaneously leading to a default in the petitioners appeal of forcible detainer action
3) Repetitive reissuing the writ of possession in
4) Executing a invalid writ of possession
5) Refusing to allow the petitioners to see the writ of possesion
6) Refusing the right to remove their property
7) Specifically Demanding that we not take desktop,laptop,digital camera,or filing cabinet
8) Given fifiteen minutes to leave
9) Telling plaintiff Goff to stay home on the date of hearing because she was to sign a new lease default by misdirection and a clerks refusal to file opposing documents exhibit……
10) Leading to the loss of petitioners property and legal files in a blatant attempt to destabilize the opposition attorney This was done with full knowledge of the assisiant and deputy clerks and the clerks of Harris County Failed to performed their duties as pre creibed by neither Harris County Clerks Manual
Defendants and Maria De La Rosa Clerk of Harris county Civil Court No.2 willfully and knowingly participated in a scheme to deny the plaintiffs due process rights,
Maria De La Rosa Clerk of Harris county Civil Court No.2 willfully and knowingly participated in a scheme to deprive the petitioners of their property,
Defendants and Maria De La Rosa Clerk of Harris county Civil Court No.2 willfully and knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the court
Defendants and Maria De La Rosa Clerk of Harris county Civil Court No.2 did commit fraud against the court
Maria De La Rosa Clerk of Harris county Civil Court No.2 did conspire and acted in furtherance of the conspiracy to harm the petitioners
Asst clerk Willie Frazier of the 129th Judicial District Court willfully and knowingly participate in a scheme to deny the plaintiffs due process rights, afforded them by the U.S and Texas Constitutions
Asst clerk Willie Frazier of the 129th Judicial District Court willfully and knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the court
Asst clerk Willie Frazier of the 129th Judicial District Court willfully and knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the petitioners
Asst clerk Willie Frazier of the 129th Judicial District Court willfully and knowingly participated in a scheme to tamper with or otherwise fabricate official court records.
The actions described, alledged and mostly proven are the result of an arbitrary unrestrained exercise of governmental power and a despotic of abuse of authority at multiple levels ie… Fortunately within the American english lexist a word that define this social and political dynamic that word is Tyrany
Folks they will win if they can continue to keep the oppossition attorney destabilized, this is america and this shit is real what i need is 4 months of stability for me and my family to function, so that i may function as an attorney and finish this fight they have already lost by the letter of the law,
NO. 201234954
Demeatrice Goff
Daryl Barnes
Plaintiffs,
v.
National Housing Development
Corporation, Colony , LLC
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE COUNTY
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HARRIS
STATE OF TEXAS
IN RE DARYL BARNES DEMEATRICE GOFF V. NATIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, COLONY , LLC CASE NO. 201234954
PETITIONERS MOTION TO RECUSE
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ
AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Related Case:
First Court Of Appeals Houston:
Civil Action No. 01-15-00060-CV
CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECUSE.. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …..… 5
MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION …………………………………………………………...…………5
I.INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . . . . .. . .6
II. LEGAL RECUSAL STANDARD. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.
III.MICHAEL GOMEZ, THE OPPOSITION AND PRO SE LITIGANTS…………………………………………………..………….…….…..8
- DISCOVERY OR LACK THEREOF………………………………………………………..……..………….8
V.INTEROGATORIES OR LACK THEREOF……………………………………………………..………..……….…9
- INITIAL DISCLOSURE…………….………………………………………..9
- GROUNDS FOR RECUSA……………...…………………………………10
A.18(B)1 GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL………..………..…………………………….10
B 18(B)2 GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL……………………………………………………………………….…………10
IN SUMMATION………………………………………..………………………12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U.S.C 28.455
T.R.C.P Rule 18(a) and (b),. Tex.Gov.Code. Ann-25.00255 and
TEX GV. CODE ANN. § 74.059 :
Aguilar v. Anderson,855 SW2d 799 (Tex. App. – El Paso, 1993, denied),
Rogers v. Bradley, 909 SW2d 872 (Tex.1995
see Aguilar v. Anderson,855 SW2d 799 (Tex. App. – El Paso, 1993, denied), Chief
Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co., 609F. 2d 1101, (5th Circuit, 1980)
Rosas v. State, 76 SW3d 771 (Tex. App. – Houston [1stDist.] 2002, no writ)
See Lambert v. Tschope, 776 SW2d 651 (Tex. App. –Dallas 1989, denied) see also
Re Norman, 191 SW3d 858 (Tex.App. – Hou. [14th] 2006.
NO. 201234954
Demeatrice Goff
Daryl Barnes
Plaintiffs,
v.
National Housing Development
Corporation, Colony , LLC
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE COUNTY
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HARRIS
STATE OF TEXAS
MOTION TO RECUSE
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ
Comes now PetitionerS, Daryl Barnes and Demeatrice Goff and pursuant to , T.R.C.P Rule 18(a) and (b),. Tex.Gov.Code. Ann-25.00255 and U.S.C 28.455 pro-se, being first duly sworn, states that he believes the Honorable Michael Gomez is biased and prejudiced against him personally, and against pro se litigants in general. The United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS. The following brief show clear evidence that the said Judge is unable to make clear and fair judgments because his discrimination against the Petitioner…….
Therefore, Petitioner respectfully demands The Honorable Michael Gomez to recuse himself in light of the accompaning evidence. Petitioners brief is attached herewith
Daryl Barnes /s/ Daryl Barnes
Demeatrice Goff /s/ Demeatrice Goff
7741 James Franhlin
Houston, TX 77088
832-988-0403
MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE OR DISQUALIFY JUDGE MICHAEL GOMEZ
Introduction
This motion, to recuse Judge Michael Gomez is filed with great trepidation and reluctance Recusal motions can be offensive to the challenged judge because
of its challenge to conduct over which the judge had some choice and then rely on that conduct to challenge the judge’s impartiality. It has been said that with recusal, there are no limits on counsel’s ingenuity in alleging a basis for removal of a judge. However this not the case in the instant motion , in the instant motion for recusal Michael Gomez impartiality will be on full display and evidenced.
The law states that any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
- That litigants are not only entitled to a fair-minded judge but also to a
judge with the unquestioned appearance of fairness. Rule 18(b) provides that recusal is mandatory in any proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See Aguilar v. Anderson,855 SW2d 799 (Tex. App. – El Paso, 1993, denied),
The only question is, whether a reasonable person on the street, with adequate knowledge of the facts would question the judge’s impartiality. The Texas Supreme Court cited that concurrence in Rogers v. Bradley, 909 SW2d 872 (Tex.
1995), stating that courts should evaluate a motion to recuse from is not whether the Honorable Joyce Steinhardt is impartial in fact, but rather whether reasonable men might question her impartiality under all circumstances.
litigants are not only entitled to a fair-minded judge but also to a
judge with the unquestioned appearance of fairness. Rule 18(b) provides that recusal is mandatory in any proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. see Aguilar v. Anderson,855 SW2d 799 (Tex. App. – El Paso, 1993, denied), Chief Justice Max Osborn echoed the adoption of
the Kansas Supreme Court rule affecting questionable impartiality of a judge, that is, whether a reasonable person on the street, with adequate knowledge of the facts would question the judge’s impartiality. The Texas Supreme Court cited that concurrence in Rogers v. Bradley, 909 SW2d 872 (Tex.1995), stating that courts should evaluate a motion to recuse from a disinterested observer’s point of view Be that as it may there is a question of Michael Gomezs partialality
The law says that as a Judge it is the duty of the Judge to do the work of a
…….and only that. The law does not give the authority to deliberately ruin individuals financially and emotionally and it does not give authority to any
person in this or any other case the right to repeatedly use the Court for revenge or malice or to discriminate due to gender, race or legal status.
Such an act would be seen by any reasonable person to be an act that is clearly outside judicial authority and an act of malice and prejudice see……. and a bent of mind on the part of the court. A Judge does not have the right under the Law to use his position and immunities to shield him or others from taking responsibility for the malicious acts clearly
being allowed to take place in the Courtroom. Furthermore the court should not be allowed to use its power to do the work for or against others. In fact a
district Court Judges takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and should be expected to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct and to follow not only the law he himself puts in writing and signs, but the written law which is in place for the good of all people.
Recusal Standard
RULE NO. 2– The Reasonable Person Standard Rule 18b(2)(a) T.R.C.P. sets a recusal standard when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co., 609F. 2d 1101, (5th Circuit, 1980) the Fifth Circuit considered a case in which the trial judge’s father was a senior partner in a law firm representing one of the parties. Additionally, one of the other partners had ongoing business dealings with the judge. The Court reasoned that the overriding concern with the appearance of propriety stems from a need for
unwavering confidence by the public in an unimpeachable judiciary. Ordering recusal, the Court stated “a judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.” (id. p. 1111)
“A judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification [recusal] ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street,” Potaschnick v. Port City Construction, 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1980).
Recusal is appropriate if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts as to the judge's impartiality, Rosas v. State, 76 SW3d 771 (Tex. App. – Houston [1stDist.] 2002, no writ)
ARGUMENT
Michael Gomez, The Opposition and Pro Se Litigants……..
Because the act of appearing Pro-se, installs and grants an individual under the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Texas, full authority to act as an officer of the court in all matters both civil and criminal, it has has caused great consternation in the minds of some judicial officers.These judicial officers would have you believe that pro se litigants are to br thought of as
,being uneducated, and almost certainly “lack[ing] . . . both the skill and knowledge adequately needed to prepare their cause of action They are believed to be unduly burdensome on judges, clerks, and court processes;many pro se litigants require additional time at the clerk’s office and in the courtroom because they do not understand the procedures or the limitations of the court.
None of the above is the problem in the petitioner cause of action in fact the petitioners have more than held their own against a cadre of attorneys. The attorneys answer to what must a have been a quite startling development as to the petitioners legal ability. The Honorable court allowed the defendants and their attorneys to create and employ less than ethical legal maneuvers, fraud, deception and outright disregard the Tex,R.Civ.P and case law’, giving the defendants the ability to prevail on a basis other than the merits of the case.
Discovery or Lack Thereof
National Housing Developement Corporation has seemingly chosen as a legal strategy to stonewall any attempt by the plaintiffs to engage in the discovery process. After repeated attempts by the petitioners’ to elicit a response to their
legal first request for admissions from the respondents, petitioners turned to the court for redress through motions to compel that were never ordered ,needless to say petitioner shave yet to receive a response to properly served and legally requested admissions served on Kevin Fulton August15th 2012.
Petitioners second request for first set of admissions were served on
Kevin Fulton on March 26th 2013.To date there has been no response
Petitioners spoke verbally with you( Mr. Kevin Fulton )via phone on March 18th 2013 and inquired of Mr. Fulton as to when an answer to the interrogatories served with the petitioners original petition could be expected , Mr. Fulton s answer was” I will get back to that”.
On October 23rd 2013 we conferred by email as to the request for admissions and responses to interrogatories. I asked you for a hard date for responses. To date you have refused to give a date certain as to the response and answers to legally propounded and served discovery…bringing us to our current position.
The respondents have refused to provide responses and has declined to provide any date certain that it will provide responses to petitioners request for lawful discovery.
The respondent’s failure to provide any responses to Discovery is seriously hampering the petitioner’s ability to schedule depositions in this case, and to timely complete Discovery leading to a trial setting within the strict time deadlines contained in the Docket Control Order as issued by the honorable court.
Interogatories or lack thereof
Petitioners spoke verbally with ( Mr. Kevin Fulton )via phone on March 18th 2013 and inquired of Mr. Fulton as to when an answer to the interrogatories served with the petitioners original petition could be expected , Mr. Fulton s answer was” I will get back to that”.
I spoke with (Kevin Fulton) acting attorney in person on April
29th 2013 where I inquired again as to the interrogatories where he
stated “I’ll get with you in a week
On October 23rd 2013 we conferred by email as to the request for admissions and responses to interrogatories. I asked for a hard date for responses. To date you have refused to give a date certain as to the response and answers to legally propounded and served discovery…bringing us to our current position.
The respondents have refused to provide responses and has declined to provide any date certain that it will provide responses to petitioners request for lawful discovery.
Initial Disclosure
Request for Disclosure as per rule Tex.R.Civ.P filed and served on Oct 8th 2013
The respondents have refused to provide initial disclosure
The respondents have refused to provide responses and has declined to provide any date certain that it will provide responses to petitioners request for lawful discovery.
The respondent’s failure to provide any responses to Discovery is seriously hampering the petitioner’s ability to schedule depositions in this case, and to timely complete Discovery within the strict time deadlines contained in the Docket Control Order as issued by the honorable court.
The point in this, it shows a court operating outside the bounds of any known legal process as were the defendants and their attorneys
DUE PROCESS
In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment may necessitate recusal,
Section 1.clearly state that
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. One should not have to revisit this issue but………This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, this concept is clearly non-existent in the petitioners cause of action
Grounds For Recusal
Petitioners bring this Motion For Recusal And Disqualification viaRule 18b. and grounds stated therein to include18b (1) and18b (2)
18(b)1 Grounds for Recusal.
A judge must recuse in any proceeding in which:
(1) the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned;
The judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because circumstances and parties present a temptation to the judge to decide the case on basis other than a fair and impartial evaluation. Those circumstances include not only as stated above the obvious prejudice displayed by The honorable Michael Gomez , but also
(2) the political power and social structure that the the Honorable Michael Gomez is enamored with and believes in above the rule of law itself
(3) the fact that Kevin Fulton was the Republican Candidate for Justce of the Peace
(4) the fact that National Housing Development Corporation is a multi-million dollar corporation coupled with the the fact the supposed independent judiciary in Harris County…….
(5) The Harris County Clerks Office obvious involvement in the matter
(6) the apparent willingness of the Honorable Judge to overlook obvious violations of the discovery process
(7) the apparent bent of mind held by that the Honorable Judge that allowed the defendants to do whatever they wanted as for the petitioners cause of action.
(8) the defendants legal actions however contrite and frivoulous will be met with favor by this judge . Case in point the Harris County Clerks Office involvement is petitioners cause go beyond what the clerk is legally authorized and obligated to do.
Using the Harris County Attorneys Office under the leadership of Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan and Senior Asst, Attorney Greg Ferguson bring a contest to the petitioners affidavit in an attempt to shield itself from the fallout that is sure to come barring settlement of the action, a verified affidavit that has stood throughout the cause of action. On its face the Contest filed by Vince Ryans office is frivolous, unwarranted and meant to delay further proceedings in the Houston First Court of Appeals as petitioners status as indigent can be proven by receipts for housing and,other expenses and affidavits. The fact is the Office of Harris County Clerk bring this challenge because of predictability……. predictability is what The Honorable Judge provides and what the Office of Harris County Clerks and their attorney Senior Asst, Attorney Greg Ferguson of the Harris County Attorneys Office and other defendants desire. ……..
The Honorable Judge Michael Gomez should be recused from the petitioners cause of action.
18(b)2the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party ;
The Honorable Michael Gomez has not only shown a personal bias and prejudice concerning the subject matter and the parties but an outright predisposition to ruling in any way that favors the petitioners.
Any perusal of the Courts docket by anyone not astute at law and of common sense would immediately see what the petitioners have endured at the hands of the opposition attorneys , defendants, and the Honorable Michael Gomez . As evidenced below by the courts docket that is 201234954 The Honorable Judge has refused to signed any of the petitioners pleadings and motions that require a ruling be made and an order signed. The Honorable Judge Michael Gomez has also failed to leave any discernible documentation,oppinnions or legal explanation as to the dispositions of the petitioners motions , issuing verbal rulings from the bench affecting the petitioners right to interlocutory appeals. This fact can be shown below by looking at the courts docket and the absence of legal rulings and orders signed by the Honorable Judge . In fact the only rulings ever signed were in favor of the defendents. There has been no enforcement whatsoever of procedural
rules, this action and of itself reflects bias-not merely in appearance, but in fact-in favor of the represented party
The Honorable Michael Gomez has failed to rule on PETITIONERS MOTION FOR REHEARING within 90 days after it was taken under advisement as pert TEX GV. CODE ANN. § 74.059 : again leaving no order granting or denying the petitioners motion setting up an almost guaranteed situation ripe for mandamus and in furtherance of delay. As the Petitoners Motion For Rehearing still sits in the rulings docket as UNDER ADVISEMENT
Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before a judge other than Judge Michael Gomez, at which hearing he may adduce evidence to show that Judge Michael Gomez is prejudiced againt the petitioners.
The instant motion must be heard by a judge other than Michael Gomez
IN SUMMATION
Equality before the law, like universal suffrage, holds a privileged place in our political system, and to deny equality before the law delegitimizes that system .... when these rights are denied, the expectation that the affronted parties should continue to respect the political system ... that they should continue to treat it as a legitimate political system-has no basis. Where counsel for one of the litigants
signs a verified affidavit alleging conduct and statements on the part of a trial judge which, if true, shows bias and prejudice or the appearance of bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge, it is an abuse of discretion if that judge does not withdraw from the case, even though he or she believes the statements are false or that the meaning attributed to them by the party seeking recusal is erroneous. In such a case, the judge should not pass upon the truth or falsity of the facts alleged in the affidavit, but only upon the adequacy of the motion as a
matter of law.
Petitioners are acutely aware of the unenviable task of judging a colleague’s behavior and that task involves the assigned judge having a duty to grant a meritorious recusal motion if necessary,as well as poses the courage to deny an unwarranted motion.
Facts have been set forth that create a reasonable inference of a "bent of mind" and thought process that will and have prevent/prevented the judge from dealing fairly with petitioners who are seeking recusal,
Petitioners believe that after analysis legal or not, a clear pattern of bias has been established.
Petitioners believe and hope the administrative judge concurs that probative evidence have established the basis of the Recusal of Judge Michael Gomez.
Petitioners request that the The Honorable Michael Gomez promptly refer the motion to the Administrative Judge.
Either agree to the recusal or request the Administrative Judge to decide the recusal as perSee Lambert v. Tschope, 776 SW2d 651 (Tex. App. –
Dallas 1989, denied) see also
In anticipation of the Recusal motion defects if any, petitioners ask that determinations of any procedural inadequacy be referred to the Administrative Judge, even if motion is defective see In Re Norman, 191 SW3d 858 (Tex.App. – Hou. [14th] 2006.
A judge must grant a motion for disqualification if the motion and supporting affidavits state facts from which it reasonably may be inferred that the judge has a bias or prejudice that will prevent him from dealing fairly with the party seeking recusal. The judge must accept the affidavits filed with the motion as true even though the judge believes that the statements contained in the
affidavits are false."
Petitioners movant have provided enough facts to establish that a reasonable
person, knowing all the circumstances involved, would harbor doubts as to the impartiality of the trial court, but only when the bias is of such a nature and extent asto deny the movant due process of la, Rosas v. State,76 SW3d 771 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st District] 2002,no writ history)
Therefore Petitioners respectfully ask the Honorable Michael Gomez to recuse or disqualify himself or refer the matters to Administrative Judge for Proper Adjudication please help us