Friday, December 04, 2009

More on the possible recusal of Walther

I've had time now, to review what happened today:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The hearing to quash the indictments, meanwhile, was fraught with confusion and tension.

The hearing began at 10 a.m., and Goldstein had barely finished saying the defense lawyers weren’t all present when the judge said the court would be in recess till 11 a.m.

One of the attorneys had car trouble outside of Sterling City, Goldstein said.

Walther walked to her chambers while Goldstein continued to ask about a previous motion for continuance, so the hearing could proceed at a later time.

His question went unanswered."
Walther is a rude autocratic unjust jurist. She's done this before, walking out on proceedings, usually on a Friday. Remember Memorial Day Weekend?
The San Angelo Standard-Times (May 30th, 2008) - "Judge Barbara Walther left the courtroom this evening without signing an order to restore custody of the children to their parents."
This brutal witch forces witnesses and attorneys and distressed plaintiffs up against a whole holiday weekend to deal with the consequences of her actions. Well it's about time someone started slapping back.
"Then Goldstein dismissed all of the defense’s witnesses until 2 p.m., much to Walther’s surprise.

'Who dismissed them?' she demanded to know when the hearing resumed at 11 a.m.

'Counsel,' Goldstein replied, referring to the defense."
The only phrase that comes to mind at the moment, is someone has grown a pair. The defense is tired of being shoved around, and has become aggressive and assertive. Translated this seems to be "I'm an officer of the court Judge Walther, you left the court room without dealing with my motion, I did as I saw fit, wanna make something of it? Hmmm?"

Of course you can't say it that way, but that would be my take on what he really meant. This is what he said though:
"Goldstein said he meant the court no disrespect but said he had no choice

He said he was ashamed of having called so many witnesses and then having them wait until 11 a.m. and then having them wait for the state to present its case, so he dismissed them until 2 p.m."
But let's hear what he really thought:
"I was goaded into excusing the witnesses," Goldstein said.
Now he goes for the "witch slap:"
"Just as the prosecution had begun to question its first witness, Goldstein stood and asked again whether the judge had heard his motion for continuance."
This is downright confrontational, and Walther says she did hear, and denied the motion.

Well Judge, if you deny a motion, you owe it to the person whose motion you denied, to TELL him. We all have had encounters with controlling depots who enforce power by turning away, mumbling something and walking out. Goldstein his having none of it:
"Goldstein approached the bench with his motion to disqualify the judge."
So basically, the defense says; "You wanna play rough? We're now playing rough.
"The judge who will hear the motion was not named during Friday’s hearing, but Walther told the defense 'in anticipation of your motion' another judge was on standby."
Ever the control freak, aren't we Judge? I don't know procedure, but I rather doubt a judge can pick the judge to judge her own recusal. She knows the name she says, but "won't tell." How petty.

Either that or she doesn't know the name and she's just being snippy and is taking shots on the way down, acting like she's in control of something, that she's not in control of, or at least, shouldn't be.

At one point Eric Nichols is quoted as saying "Oh give me a break."

What did these people expect? That this is a "slam dunk?" That the constitutional questions aren't real? That Walther's behavior isn't dictatorial and grounds possibly for dismissal from the case? That this wouldn't be asked, credibly, during the trial? That the defense wouldn't assert itself? Well, it's happened. Deal with it. It's not going to stop either.


Sphere: Related Content

8 comments:

kbp said...

"...but I rather doubt a judge can pick the judge to judge her own recusal"

I've seen that in cases. IIRC, it has happened before with walther on some issue.

As for recusal, I'm trying to step back and re-focus. While it is a goal to defend the men, ALL defense attorneys accepted walther as the judge to hear the cases in this court.

If they do not want her now, why not? Maybe they wanted the first appeal for a case to be from her court! The troublesome rulings were for ALL defendants by walther.

A big objective is to get the church documents back. It's hard to tell watching from the outside, but there should be strategies for every move.

Whatever the strategy may be, it's a given all the defendants are in it together for the long haul.

There are advantages there, having so many cases to use for new ideas, different approaches.

The Pharisee said...

Clearly there is a strategy, and we are seeing parts of it. One of them may well have been to let Walther stay on long enough to hang herself and to be involved in all aspects of the case.

And then to be "shocked" that she wasn't performing her duties correctly.

That scene from Casablanca is timeless and instructive. I wonder if it applies here.

Alinusara10 said...

While it is a goal to defend the men, ALL defense attorneys accepted walther as the judge to hear the cases in this court.
-------------------------------
Heh! By ALL you must mean none.

Stamp said...

Unfortunately, the motion was filed untimely. Blues has fleshed it out.

duaneh1 said...

If the indictments are quashed, wouldn't it be easy enough to reindict them with a new Grand Jury.

Allen Keate is facing a 1st degree felony because of this enhancement to the penal code that I wasn' aware of.

(f) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree, except that an offense under this section is a felony of the
first degree if the victim was a person whom the actor was
prohibited from marrying or purporting to marry or with whom the
actor was prohibited from living under the appearance of being
married under Section 25.01.


IMO this is a grave injustice.

The Pharisee said...

Riiiiight Stamp. Blues doesn't know hac from hoc.

kbp said...

Just checking back here. So TBM says it's "untimely".

He quotes;
"At least ten days before the date set for trial or other hearing... . . . , any party may file with the clerk of the court a motion stating grounds why the judge before whom the case is pending should not sit in the case."

With the recusal matter having been addressed every direction, and the defense having WANTED the cases heard in walther's court in that county, I sincerely doubt it's an ...as TBM puts it ...'"oops" we're just fresh out of law school'.

It looks more like they want it on record and dared walther to use the technicality of not being "timely".

All she has to do now is rule she's there to stay, she's above the rules because another rule allows her to ignore WHY she should hand the case to another judge.

The Pharisee said...

As I have remarked before, Blues doesn't know a hac from a hoc. Blues also has Malonis for an attorney, and anyone who has willingly chosen Malonis as an attorney of their sole and unmodified will (I discount guardians) falls under the umbrella of foolish, since no one with any real intelligence or wisdom would choose that woman as an attorney.

By those two counts, Blues is right only in he same way a broken clock is.

I confess to being a fool myself with regard to "Lambchop," because at one time, I did regard Blues to have relevance.