Scheidler files for WRIT of Mandamus to “disqualify” Washington State Bar Associates from serving as judge in his case against the Washington State Bar. According to 28 USC 455 “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Scheidler particularly wants Judge Ronald B. Leighton “disqualified” as he dismissed Scheidler’s case in 2012, calling it “frivolous on its face.” Leighton was subsequently reversed on appeal by the 9th Circuit for that dismissal as an “abuse of discretion”.
Scheidler argues to the 9th Circuit Court that Judge Ronald B Leighton must be “disqualified” as judge in his case filed against lawyers and the Washington State Bar. Scheidler also argues that all Washington State Bar Associates, who are Judges, must be prohibited from presiding over his case because the Washington State Bar and members of the Bar’s disciplinary office are defendants and are engaged in “case fixing” and other crimes by using the courts. Judge Leighton is refusing to disqualify despite the law, 28 USC 455, requiring judges to disqualify in cases in which they have “any interest” that may raise a question of their impartiality. Since Judge Leighton is a Bar Associate and the Bar is a defendant Scheidler claims there is such a conflict requiring disqualification.
Clearly Scheidler and Judge Leighton are at odds. Judge Leighton claims the “reversal and remand” of his earlier decision to dismiss Scheidler’s case “isn’t well taken” as evidence of bias. And Leighton simple refuses to address his connection with the Bar. Scheidler claims that an “abuse of discretion” suggest either incompetence or corruption and is grounds for sua sponte “disqualification.”
So Scheidler filed for a WRIT mandating Judge Leighton and all Bar Associates be disqualified from his case and an “outside” judge, not a Bar Associate, be assigned.
Scheidler is also pointing out to the 9th Circuit that “judges” cannot “judge their own conduct” with respect to the disqualification laws that apply to judges; as Judge Leighton has done. He calls this self-serving scheme for judges to determine their own “guilt or innocence” a “Fraud upon Society”. He feels that if a judge doesn’t disqualify that decision should be decided by a jury and not simply get another judge, who is bound by the same law, to ‘rubber-stamp’ the previous judge’s ruling on his own conduct. In this case, Judge Leighton, after he refused to disqualify, asked Judge Marsha Pechman to review his decision. Scheidler feels this is a violation in the way Leighton and Pechman have devised their own scheme to review their own conduct as a means to “modify and enlarge” their judicial powers — a violation of 28 USC 2072(b)
Scheidler claims a “citizen litigant” in a lawsuit against a “government litigant” cannot be decided upon the “rules” established by the courts. Scheidler argues citizens have the “rights” while governments have the “duty and obligations” to protect citizen rights.
According to Scheidler, the US Congress emphasized this distinction when they passed 28 USC 2072(b), which prohibits the courts from using their “court rules” to ‘abridge, modify or enlarge” any substantive rights. In other words, if all political power resides with citizens then “court rules” must not be used to deny “citizens their political powers” to decide cases in which it is a citizen v Government. In a lawsuit, such as the lawsuit filed by Scheidler, in which a citizen is challenging the conduct of the government, court rules must NOT BE USED to deny the powers citizens have over the governments that serve them.
Scheidler’s case involves a scheme devised by government lawyers that is intended to deny the retired/disabled citizen their Constitutional right granted by Washington State’s Constitution, Article 7, Section 10. Scheidler provided a copy of the government’s application to show how this “scheme to deny rights” is orchestrated.
Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed Scheidler’s lawsuit in 2012 under Judge Leighton’s claim he had “court rule” authority to dismiss Scheidler’s lawsuit. Leighton only said that Scheidler’s lawsuit was “frivolous on its face”. Leighton never addressed the “evidence” provided by Scheidler or why this evidence was ignored.
Scheidler appealed Judge Leighton’s dismissal to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded Judge Leighton’s dismissal as an “abuse of discretion” 2-years later, 2014. See 9th Circuit’s Memorandum
Now Scheidler want’s Judge Leighton “disqualified” from continuing as judge in his case. Scheidler claims Judge Leighton has already played his cards when he abused his discretion and dismissed the case in 2012. Scheidler claims Judge Leighton can no longer be trusted. Leighton has “abused his discretion” in favor of government, when it is Scheidler — the sole citizen litigant — who has the benefit of the law and only he has “substantive rights” at issue. Scheidler says “government” is obligated to citizens to protect these rights — including citizens’ rights to determine governments’ “just powers” as Washington’s Constitution, Article 1, section 1 expressly states. So far Judge Leighton has refused to disqualify and he has the “rubber stamp” approve of Chief Judge Marsha Pechman, who refused to allow another judge hear the remanded case. In Judge Pechman’s rubber stamp approval of Judge Leighton, Scheidler claims Pechman violates both 28 USC 455 and 28 USC 2072. Scheidler argues the District has devised a “court rule scheme” to decide if a judge has violated a “court rule.” This is simply a “fraud upon society” in using one court rule to validate the conduct of a judge based in another court rule… it is a blatant scheme to define “substantive rights” in using “court rules”, which is prohibited by 28 USC 2072.
Now Scheidler has been forced to file a WRIT of Mandamus asking the 9th Circuit Court to “order” a new judge in Scheidler’s case. Scheidler has noted precedent law that supports the disqualification of the judge who is reversed for an abuse of discretion. And precedent law of the District Court of Washington that provided an “outside” judge who wasn’t a Washington State Bar Associate when the WSBA was a named defendant — which is the case here, the WSBA is a defendant in Scheidler’s lawsuit and an “outside” judge should be assigned as in prior cases.
Scheidler also noted the problem with judges deciding their own compliance with the laws that apply to judges…. Justice Richard A. Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, has written on “The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory” saying, “moral inbreeding is as dangerous as biological inbreeding”, pg 68. Clearly “self-regulation”, notwithstanding it is the ideal pathway for criminals to commandeer our justice system, is moral “inbreeding” in the absolute and presents the same dangers to society that biological inbreeding presents to the offspring.
Now we must wait for the 9th Circuit to decide if “citizens” have the power over government, or if Judges have the power over citizens.