PatrickPretty.com

Tag: Joan Hughes

  • 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.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Curtis Richmond Filed Motion To Disqualify Judge; Other Pro Se Litigants Filed ‘Innocent Owner’ Motions To Intervene In AdSurfDaily Forfeiture Case

    UPDATED 1:59 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Curtis Richmond filed a motion to disqualify U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer from the AdSurfDaily forfeiture case before the judge had issued any rulings on a series of pro se pleadings by Richmond and others.

    The motion was included today in a blizzard of motions made public in the AdSurfDaily forfeiture  case. Some of them date back to February.

    At least three other pro se litigants filed separate motions to intervene in the case, and Richmond himself filed a separate motion for miscellaneous relief.

    The docketing of the filings came on the heels of a ruling Collyer made last week that denied individual pro se litigants standing in the ASD case.

    Motions to intervene that asserted an “innocent owner” claim were filed by:

    • Christian Oesch, Human Economic Resource Solutions, Midvale, Utah
    • Jeffrey Robinson, Ft. Myers, Fla.
    • Joan Hughes, Ottawa, Ontario

    Hughes’ filing appears to have been the first prospective intervention filed from Canada. A stamp on the paperwork indicated the document was submitted March 3.

    All three motions to intervene appear to use the Curtis Richmond litigation blueprint.

    In his motion apparently designed to force Collyer to step down, Richmond cites this reason: “For Cause Of Extreme Bias Per U.S. Supreme Court Cases & Other Legal Citations.”

    The motion to force Collyer to disqualify herself appears initially to have been submitted to the court in May.

    In a separate motion, apparently received in March and made public today, Richmond demanded a ruling of some sort. The document appears to have been filed in response to a motion Richmond filed in February that demanded Collyer issue a ruling in the ASD case within 30 days or face sanctions.

    “This Court and Judge Rosemary Collyer both have an Absolute Duty and Obligation Under Article VI Supremacy Clause and the Judge’s Oath of Office To Support and Defend the U.S. Constitution to Obey 18 U.S.C. Sec. 983 and the Civil Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000,” Richmond said.

    “If a Judge Willfully violates these Federal Staututes and the Claimant’s Constitutional Right of Due Process & Civil Rights, She Is At War Against The U.S. Constitution And When She Is Acting Without Jurisdiction and according to the U.S. Supreme Court is Guilty of TREASON.”

    Read Richmond’s motion to disqualify Judge Collyer.