MOTION FROM A CONCERNED MOTION!UNITED STATES APPEALS COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT MARY SEGUIN : Plaintiff-Appellant VS. : C.A. No.: 2013-1241 LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, et al. Defendant-Appellees : PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S EXPEDITED EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL THIS CIRCUIT TO COMPLY WITH MANDATORY CONFLICT SCREENING AS SET FORTH BY THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AND MOTION TO REMAND FOR A HEARING ON RHODE ISLAND COURTS STRUCTURAL BIAS AND ACTUAL BIAS AND MOTION CHALLENGING NEW HAMPSHIRE’S DESIGNATED AUTHORITY TO SIT IN RHODE ISLAND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RECUSAL CASES The Plaintiff, MARY SEGUIN, pro se, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, hereby moves, on emergency and expedited hearing or relief, this Court to comply with Mandatory Conflict Screening as ser forth by the adopted federal policy by the Federal Judicial Conference in 2006, moves to remand for a hearing on Rhode Island Courts’ structural bias and actual bias, and moves to challenge New Hampshire’s alleged designated authority to sit in Rhode Island Conflict-of-Interest Recusal cases that bypasses 28 U.S.C. sec. 291, 292 and 295 in the case in this instant appeal, and others similarly situated. In support of her instant combined and related motions, the Plaintiff herein attaches to her emergency expedited Motions exhibits as evidence for judicial notice, and avers the following: Additionally, the Plaintiff, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, hereby challenges New Hampshire’s designated authority to sit in Rhode Island conflict-of-interest recusal cases, and avers the following: 1 The United States District Court of Rhode Island Has An Uncomfortable and Improperly Cozy Relationship with the United States District Court of New Hampshire Relative to Conflict-of-Interest Recusal Cases It is established without a doubt that 28 U.S.C. sec. 291, 292, and 295 provide unequivocally the power solely to the United States Supreme Court Chief Justice, or the Circuit Chief Judge or the Circuit Chief Judge Office, to assign an Article III district court Judge outside his district the authority and designation to sit in cases in which its own district court judges have recused from for conflicts of interest. The federal constitutional issue of due process governing conflict of interest situations is paramount to Congressional draft of 28 U.S.C. sec. 291, 292, and 295. Sections 291, 292 and 295 are clearly CONFLICT SCREENING federal laws governing the administration of the federal courts and federal judicial ethics. If this First Circuit federal Court harbors any doubts about the conflict screening purpose of 28 U.S.C. sec. 291, 292, and 295, the Plaintiff hereby attaches EXHIBIT A, publications by various circuits around the country and the United States Judicial Conference setting federal policies for federal circuits, clearly showing the adoption in 2006 by the Judicial Conference a MANDATORY CONFLICT SCREENING POLICY. The flurry of transferred Rhode Island conflict-of-interest recusal cases to New Hampshire district courts among themselves and bypassing the Circuit’s awareness or knowledge smacks of the two district’s refusal to apply conflict screening. They are even transferred via the magistrate route, 28 USC sec 636, showing the Public the judicial thinking, this is a loop hole of some kind to the 2006 Judicial Conference mandatory conflict screening policy. The types of Rhode Island cases being transferred in this loop hole fashion through 28 USC sec 636 are even more troublesome – there is a PATTERN of Rhode Island cases with federal plaintiff claims of bias, prejudice, harassment, corruption, bad-faith prosecution, structural bias, actual bias, conflict of interest, perjury, profiteering, honest services fraud, RICO, inadequate state forum, retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected criticism of government, and extortion, being transferred to New Hampshire under 28 USC sec 636, bypassing the Circuit’s mandatory conflict screening policy (unless the First Circuit is itself flouting the mandatory conflict screening policy, which becomes a separate matter of redress to the U.S. Supreme Court). Any defiance by this very Circuit flies in the face of its own Circuit’s Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, whose comments on the adoption of the ................................
Posted on: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 19:34:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015