BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Denies Curtis Richmond’s Disqualification Motion In ASD Case; Motions To Set Aside Forfeiture By Three Other Pro Se Litigants Also Denied
UPDATED 3:40 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) A federal judge said she will not recuse herself from the AdSurfDaily forfeiture case and has denied a motion by Curtis Richmond to disqualify herself. Meanwhile, the judge also denied motions by other pro se litigants in the ASD case.
Richmond filed the motion to disqualify Judge Rosemary Collyer, claiming the judge had displayed “extreme bias.” But Collyer denied the motion this afternoon in a Memorandum Opinion. Richmond is associated with a sham Utah “Indian” tribe and has a history of filing 11th-hour motions to force judges to recuse themselves from cases.
“Mr. Richmond is not a party entitled to seek disqualification,” Collyer said. “Mr. Richmond further contends that he can seek this Court’s recusal under Rule 63 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, erroneously referring to the Utah Rule as a federal rule. The Utah Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in this Court. Even if Mr. Richmond had attempted to proceed under the applicable federal statute governing disqualification, 28 U.S.C. § 455, he would be barred from proceeding because he is not a party to this case.”
Collyer also denied a motion by Richmond to unseat the judge that accused her of treason, declaring the matter moot.
Other pro se litigants whose motions were denied today include Christian Oesch, Jeffrey Robinson and Joan Hughes.
“Movants here are not the first to attempt to intervene in this case and seek its dismissal,” Collyer said. “The Court addressed previous motions to intervene in a July 16, 2009, Memorandum Opinion, wherein it found that the motions to intervene must be denied because the movants did not have a cognizable interest in the defendant properties, and therefore did not have standing to contest this forfeiture action.”
“The movants here are in the same position,” Collyer said. “Since these movants are ineligible to intervene and seek dismissal, they are not parties to the case and their motions to set aside forfeiture will also be denied.”
Collyer denied seven pro se motions to intervene July 16.
Wonder how long it will be before they all try again with nonsense Pro Se filings? I will be shocked if they don’t do it, which is stupid as she will just deny them as well. But these people don’t deal in reality, so why I say they will file again. Hope I am wrong.
Hi Lynn,
Richmond had said in court filings he’ll seek a writ of mandamus, and he has a history of going to appeals courts.
This might be of benefit to some readers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
Patrick
This is incredible. The Government has gone on record to say that they are willing to work to return money to the ASD victims and these clowns, along with Bowdoin, are delaying the procedure even more.
They quite obviously dont care about their downlines or anyone in the membership lower down the food chain who might stand to recover some of their losses.
They are only trying to help avoid what happens when the “winners” are discovered. My sponsors took out $100k + from asd. They are very scared and hope this drags on forever. When the money starts to get returned, the winners get discovered. They personally reimbursed some of their down line, in fear of retaliation. Imagine what Andy Bowdoin and allll the “winners” are dealing with, if only in their minds, at this time.
….not to mention the criminal and civil liabilities your sponsors face. They should be afraid — they are criminals, and they are liable for civil suits from their downlines, and the DoJ knows who they are……
I am looking for people who have an upline in the Minneapolis MN area who are interested in discussing a lawsuit against uplines here.
Saint Mike:
Sic ’em!
Civil action against these scamsters, the Ken Russos of the world, is it’s going to take to bring them down, make them think twice about promoting obvious ponzis.
I hope people join you in your legal efforts.
ARWR