A huge injustice: Victims of a massive corporate crime in Texas had to wait seven long years to hear how much restitution they’d be paid. When the verdict was announced in late April, it was not what they expected: $0.
* Keeping the crime victims waiting for seven long years is itself in violation of Canon 3A(5). Let’s probe into this corrupt judge’s wrongdoings to disqualify him, and have his VOID Orders/Judgments vacated retroactively.
Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
Thanks to your procrastination, Judge Rainey is accused of unnecessary delay!It was you who helped his honor betray the trust of the poor Citgo victims!
Mr. Rainey: In disposing of matters lazily, slowly, inefficiently, and unfairly, you demonstrated undue regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and you had issues resolved with unnecessary cost and delay. You should have monitored and supervised cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs, but you didn’t. Sleeping on my two TRO Motions for 11.5 months and the Citgo case for 7 long years, you showed favoritism, partiality for the defendants, but bias, prejudice, and discrimination against the victimized plaintiffs.
Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.
Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small.
18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), which prohibits giving “anything of value” to a present, past, or future public official “for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.”
This is just a little down payment.
Upon signing the final judgment, your honor will get a box filled with 100-dollar packs plus wire transfers as promised.
International Illegal Bribery Schemes and International Whistleblower Reward Information Posted on January 30, 2013 by ricofraudonthecourt Click this link, if you have inside information on BRIBERY and CORRUPTION; don’t hesitate to take advantage of the Whistleblower Reward; Olympus Has Fallen: The Whistleblower Strikes Back — This article introduces: Whistleblower Security, a 24/7 whistleblower hotline, and a complimentary copy of eBook for downloading.
A Huge Corporation Just Got Away With Murder — And It …
mic.com/…/a-huge-corporation-just-got-away-with-murder-and-it-sets-a-…
I think as long as you’re not being malicious and you’re not hurting people, then you should not be ashamed of what you do. — Lily Allen
Mr. Rainey: I accuse you of helping the murderers by depriving the victims of the restitution they are entitled to! You’re malicious and you’re hurting the helpless people. You should be ashamed of what you do!
When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal, be tough. — Donald Trump
Mr. Rainey: I have been challenging you here for two years! Why haven’t you fought back? You are neither brutal nor tough to me but to the helpless Citgo victims, you are wickedly, unforgivably, reprehensibly brutal and tough!
I’m tired of malicious articles slandering me. — Barbra Streisand
Aren’t you tired of my articles accusing you of so many crimes you committed?
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges The Code of Conduct for United States Judges For a more complete Code, please click the above link.
Please go over the following excerpts to examine this corrupt judge’s past and present judicial and non-judicial acts that are in contravention of The Code of Conduct for United States Judges. I may have omitted some parts of the Code applicable to your circumstances, but these are what I am going to elaborate based on my personal experiences as a result of his violations of the Code.
CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY
Can 11.6 months’ waiting for two TRO Motions, 7 years for CITGO’s sentencing, and depriving the crime victims of any restitution they deserve look FAIR, IMPARTIAL AND DILIGENT? To the criminals, maybe!
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:
(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
You are neither faithful to, nor professionally competent in, the law , Mr. Rainey!
(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.
Sleeping on my two TRO Motions for 11.6 months, and CITGO’s sentencing for 7 years, you failed to promptly perform your official duty to hear and decide matters assigned, and violated CANON 3 (A)(5).
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.
(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014, you gave migratory birds $45,000. In handing down the sentence, you deferred your ruling on victim restitution and a remedial order and would issue a written order on those issues within the next 90 days. Why? Because at heart, you knew you were morally wrong and were afraid of looking the 80 victims in the eye and tell them they would get nothing to repay their medical and legal expenses, among others. Compared with the migratory birds’ rights, human rights are irreparably violated by your inhuman ruling, corrupt John!
Did you accord to every person who has a legal interest in the Citgo proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law? Didn’t the testimonies of their ten years’ miserable living in polluted air touch your heart? You may have heard them, but you didn’t listen and didn’t understand because you are heartless, soulless and lawless, Mr. Rainey!
All the fingers are pointing at you, Rainey!
You deprived them “of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” protected by both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Canon 3A(5). A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.
You call 11.5 Months for TRO Motions and 7 years for murderous crimes against the poor, helpless citizens prompt disposal of the business of the court?
I am so disappointed! How are we going to pay off the overdue medical bills?
(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.
(B) Administrative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court personnel.
(5) A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.
(C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a)the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b)the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
(c)the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
This is to show our appreciation in advance, Senior Partner Rainey!
My boss will wire the rest to your offshore account as soon as you rule in our favor after 7 years’ litigation!
Don’t mention that; just do it!
(d)the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household. COMMENTARY
Canon 3A(3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet. — Jean-Jacques Rousseau Yes, the fruit of patience is sweet to Citgo and Mr. Rainey!
He that can have patience can have what he will. — Benjamin Franklin Mr. Rainey, since you have patience to keep the victims waiting 7 years for nothing, you and your co-conspirators can have what you will.
Did Rousseau and Franklin say something wrong to benefit criminals like Citgo and you, John?
The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.
Canon 3A(4). The restriction on ex parte communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and others who are not participants in the proceeding. A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. A judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks and other court personnel comply with this provision.
A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved by the courts.
Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.
Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.
Canon 3C(1)(c). In a criminal proceeding, a victim entitled to restitution is not, within the meaning of this Canon, a party to the proceeding or the subject matter in controversy. A judge who has a financial interest in the victim of a crime is not required by Canon 3C(1)(c) to disqualify from the criminal proceeding, but the judge must do so if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(1) or if the judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii).
Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii). The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), the judge’s disqualification is required.
CANON 4: A JUDGE MAY ENGAGE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.
(D) Financial Activities.
(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge’s family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A “member of the judge’s family” means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge’s family.
(H) Compensation, Reimbursement, and Financial Reporting. A judge may accept compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the judge’s judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:
(1) Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.
(2) Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or relative. Any additional payment is compensation.
(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.
Canon 4F. The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources and the need to protect the courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial responsibilities, or tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Canon 4H. A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts, or investments, except as provided in this Canon. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and implementing regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference impose additional restrictions on judges’ receipt of compensation. That Act and those regulations should be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of compensation. The restrictions so imposed include but are not limited to: (1) a prohibition against receiving “honoraria” (defined as anything of value received for a speech, appearance, or article), (2) a prohibition against receiving compensation for service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a limitation on the receipt of “outside earned income.”
TO BE CONTINUED.
Paul Chen