IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution
v.
Westray and Partypig678
Defendant
MOTION TO RECUSE
In accordance with the Judicial Standards Act, this is formal request to recuse the presiding Judge due to bias. We respectfully allege:
1. This case deals with allegations involving money taken from the budget of the Department of State (DOS). The presiding Judge is now the Deputy Secretary of the Department of State. Given this is a senior leadership position within the DOS as next-in-line to Secretary, the presiding Judge would have a vested interest in protecting the Department of State and its budget. Given that, we believe there is a significant conflict of interest.
2. This case also deals with allegations involving money taken from the budget of the Department of Public Affairs (DPA), the presiding Judge is an employee of the Department of Public Affairs as an Archivist. While not as significant of a conflict of interest as the Deputy Secretary of the DOS, this may also present vested interests elsewhere.
3. The presiding Judge may also present the appearance of bias with respect to corporate ventures. It is possible that as the CEO of the Chip Corporation, there may be bias against a competing business such as Amazon. Given this and the clashing of corporate interests with the Co-Defendant, we believe there is a strong appearance of bias.
4. On June 9, the Co-Defendant was presented a cease and desist directly from the presiding Judge with respect to allegations of defamation against Chip Corporation. This could be seen as prior work as a lawyer against a party in the case.
5. The presiding Judge has made several disparaging comments in the past, including "Office memes = shit" on June 22 in reference to the Defendant. This could also create an appearance of bias against one who has an affinity for the wonderful television series known as The Office.
With respect to the Judicial Standards Act, I have cited §13.4.b the conflict of interests, §13.4.a the appearance of bias, and §13.4.e prior work as a lawyer for either party. We hope this is addressed accordingly so that a fair trial presided over by an impartial judge can occur.
DATED: This 9th day of July 2022