Amending the Recusal Law (28 U.S.C. Sec. 455)

965 Signatures Goal: 2,000

This petition adds specific language to the federal recusal statute that will compel judges to withdraw from lawsuits in which their university employers are a party. It supports the incorporation of Sec. 455(b)(5)(v) into the United States Code, Title 28, Section 455(b), which adds the following phrase to the existing recusal statute: "Serves as an instructor or on an advisory board of an educational institution that is a party to the proceeding."

The petition is a response to the conduct of a federal judge who taught at a university, was a board member of one of its research centers, received $5,500 to teach a summer course at a resort location in Greece, and who nevertheless presided over a series of lawsuits against that university during the same period while never disclosing her association with it. When confronted with this conflict of interest, this judge refused to withdraw despite the canons of judicial conduct that indicate disqualification, and in defiance of the federal recusal statute whose broad language was ignored. Throughout the country, judges associated with universities are called upon to adjudicate cases in which those universities are defendants in lawsuits.

As signer of this petition, you join with others who believe that amending the Recusal Law (28 USC Sec. 455) brings us one step closer to the goal of "Equal Justice Under Law," a right promised by our Constitution but imperiled through the abuse of judicial discretion and the lack of public vigilance.

For background to this petition, see this video.

Links


1

Highlight

November 28
Thank you for supporting this effort to help eliminate the judicial bias that arises from conflict of interest issues.

Is there a cause you really care about? Start a free petition like this one and make a real difference.

  • Talakkottur R DAVID
    Talakkottur R DAVID India, Palakkad
    May 27, 2017
    May 27, 2017
    I one hundred % support Dr. Carl Bernofsky. I was involved in an identical situation where the Judge was meeting the opposite counsel at her home and at his home and refused to recuse only when the US Supreme ordered for his recusal and resignation. See DAVID VS AT&T PART 7 for full details.
  • josh hallock
    josh hallock United States, Buna
    May 15, 2017
    May 15, 2017
    I am having same issues with a judge here in Jefferson co bmt tx
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous
    May 13, 2017
    May 13, 2017
    Need to learn more about ethics and afcs and judges.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous
    Jan 20, 2017
    Jan 20, 2017
    All "Titles of Nobility" should be held in Contempt of the Constitution and Conspiracy under 18 USC 241 and 242 and acts of RICO etc.
See More
965

Signatures

  • 4 weeks ago
    Talakkottur R DAVID India
    4 weeks ago
  • 1 month ago
    josh hallock United States
    1 month ago
  • 1 month ago
    Jerry Lahr United States
    1 month ago
  • 2 months ago
    Ruby Richthofen United States
    2 months ago
  • 4 months ago
    Valerie United States
    4 months ago
  • 6 months ago
    Nancy Holzheimer United States
    6 months ago
  • 7 months ago
    HERMAN LEE JONES United States
    7 months ago
  • 8 months ago
    Yvinne United States
    8 months ago
  • 9 months ago
    Jill Wallace United States
    9 months ago
  • 10 months ago
    Judith United States
    10 months ago
  • 10 months ago
    Susan Savion United States
    10 months ago
  • 10 months ago
    Alicia Payne United States
    10 months ago
  • 10 months ago
    Aziz Goksel United States
    10 months ago
  • 10 months ago
    Denis Rancourt Canada
    10 months ago
  • 10 months ago
    Kay Clark United States
    10 months ago
See More