A Pro Se Motion to Recuse A Judge

The Respondent Strikes Back

This motion to recuse judge is a legal work of art. I may not be a lawyer but this motion is kick ass! Anyone out there who want to recuse a judge should read this motion. Feel free to steal this and use it yourself.

This motion is also a preliminary step towards suing a judge. Judges have broud powers of immunity and are very difficult to file suit against. Every judge knows the Supreme Court decision Stump vs. Sparkman by heart. However, in Stump the court did rule that a judge can be sued for acts in "the absence of all judicial athority".

In this case I'm attempting to frame my argument around the concepts of what it is that gives judges judicial athority. The law allows, and rightfully so, that judges be given immunity so that they can do their job. Judges make tough and controversial decisions and without immunity they'd be getting sued all the time for doing their legitimate work. It would be nice if the rest of us had some immunity to do our legitimate work, but don't get me started on that.

A judges immunity from liability only exists to the extent that the judge is doing the work of the Court.  If it can be proven that an act of a judge was outside his judicial role, then his judicial immunity is compromised.

A judge is given protection to do the work of the Court as mandated under the Constitution and the Law. And his work is to try cases and make decisions that are at least an attempt to be fair but ultimately bring a case to conclusion. However, I think that if it can be demonstrated that if the judges actions are such that a reasonable person would conclude that these actions are not part of the scope of the role of judges in society, that the judge would be acting outside his judicial athority and can not envoke judicial immunity for these acts.

Having stated this concept, read my motion. This motion it a prelude to a federal civil rights lawsuit should the judge refuse to recuse himself. I will use these same arguments stating that the actions of the Judge can be shown to not be within the context of a judges role and is therefore not a judicial act. Hopefully this will pierce the veil of judicial immunity.

            IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI
                         FAMILY COURT DIVISION

VICKI LORRAINE PERKEL,               )
                                     )
                 Petitioner,         )  Case No. 194DR3198
vs.                                  )
                                     )
MARC PERKEL                          )
                                     )
                 Respondent,         )


             MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE AND ORDER A NEW TRIAL
             --------------------------------------------


COMES NOW, Respondent Marc Perkel and asks the Judge to recuse himself
and order a new trial. In support of this motion Respondent states as
follows:


1) In it's decision on Respondent's Motion to Supplement Judgement,
   where the Respondent asked the Court to order a payment schedule, the
   Court found that it does not have the authority to grant the motion.
   This is absurd. The Court does have this authority and the Court
   knows it and for the Court to state that it doesn't have this
   authority is an act of deception.


   The Respondent will remind the Court that just because he is
   representing himself doesn't mean the Court has the right to deny him
   due process. Although the Court may state the Court concluded the
   trial in it's decision on November 18th, the Respondent still has the
   right to make post trial motions and the Court has the duty and
   responsibility to rule on these motions. And that the Respondent
   expects the Judge to uphold the Constitution as he is sworn to do and
   protect the fundamental rights to due process as guaranteed by the
   14th Amendment.


2) Because the finding of the Court is in error the Court is obligated
   to rule on the motion based on it's own merits. Unless the Court
   intends to deliberately deny the Respondent the right to have any of
   his motions heard, which seems to be what the Court is saying to the
   Respondent in it's finding, the Court is duty bound to hear and
   consider the legitimate motions of the Respondent.


3) The court has ordered the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner and her
   attorneys the sum of $72,500. During the trial no evidence was
   presented by either the Respondent nor the Petitioner that the
   Respondent had that kind of money. In fact the records showed that
   the Respondent had to borrow money against his truck just to pay his
   legal fees.


   In it's order the Court makes no findings that the Respondent lied to
   the court about his cash assets or any statement as to how the Court
   determined that the Respondent had much more cash than either party
   alleged. If the Court is to let stand it's Order then justice
   demands that the Court state how it came to the conclusion that the
   Respondent is able to comply with the Order of the Court.


   The Respondent has made several attempts to give the Court the
   opportunity to either fix it's error of ordering the Respondent to do
   the impossible or to at least explain it's reasoning. The Court has
   refused to do either.


   The Respondent then petitioned the Court to set a payment schedule
   and the Court refused to act. By it's refusal to act, the Court is
   affirming that it believes that the Respondent has $72,500 cash at
   his disposal. If the Court doesn't believe that the Respondent has
   this cash available, one can only conclude that it is the intention
   of the court to deliberately and maliciously force the Respondent
   into bankruptcy.


   With a lack of evidence from either side indicating that the
   Respondent has this money, the Court is duty bound to make a finding
   as to how it concluded that the Respondent has the ability to pay
   this sum of money. If the Court refuses to make this finding then it
   can only be concluded by reasonable people that it is the intention
   of the Court to deliberately drive the Respondent into financial
   ruin.


4) The authority of the Court comes from the Constitution and the Laws
   passed by the Legislature. These documents define the role and
   authority of the Family Court and the duties of the Judges that serve
   there. It is the job of the Court to conduct a trial and to make an
   honest attempt at a fair and equitable judgement. It is the duty of
   the Judges on the Court to serve the Public and to bring cases before
   them to conclusion. It is the duty of the Court to correct clear and
   obvious error when brought to the attention of the Court. And it is
   the responsibility of the Court to ensure as best it can that justice
   be served in a fair and equitable manner. Judges take an oath to
   uphold the Constitution and are expected to abide by the Rules of
   Professional Conduct.


   As a Judge in Family Court it is your duty to do the work of a Family
   Court Judge and only that. The law does not give the Judges of Family
   Court the authority to deliberately ruin individuals financially. Such
   an act would been seen by a reasonable person to be an act that is
   clearly outside all judicial authority. Clearly a Family Court judge
   does not have the right under the Law to use his position and
   immunities to shield him from malicious acts that are clearly outside
   his scope of authority.


5) The authority of the Court exists so that judges can do the work of
   the Court that it is mandated to do under Law. If the Court isn't
   doing it's mandated work then the Court has no authority. In Family
   Court the mandate of the Court is to fairly divide the properties up
   in an equitable manner. It is the responsibility of the Court to try
   the case and to bring it to a conclusion. As part of the process the
   judge is required under the Law to make a Decision.


   But the Judge doesn't have the authority to make just any decision and
   walk away. The Judge is obligated under the Law to make decision that
   is at least possible. And when it is pointed out that he has mistakenly
   made a decision that isn't possible it is his duty to correct it.
   To make a decision that the Judge, or any reasonable person, knows is
   impossible and to refuse to correct it will not lead to the
   fulfilling of the work the Court is mandated to perform. And if the
   Judge isn't acting in a manner that would lead to the fulfillment of
   his mandate, he is acting in the absence of all judicial authority.


   In this case, your honor, it has clearly been pointed out to the
   Court in a manner that any reasonable person can understand, that
   it's Decision is impossible. That the Court has made obvious errors
   that is apparent to any reasonable person. These obvious errors were
   brought to the attention of the Court and were deliberately ignored.
   The Court was then asked to explain these errors and the Court
   refused to do so. In fact the Court tried to deceive the Respondent
   by stating it lacked the authority to correct it's errors.


   In light of this behavior of the Judge, the Respondent can only
   conclude that the Judge is on a mission that has nothing to do with
   the job the Law mandates him to perform. And if the Judge is not doing
   the work of the Court then the Judge doesn't have the authority or
   immunities of the Court and his decisions are therefore defective and
   invalid. Because of the obvious errors in the Decision, it is the
   Respondent's position that no decision has been made.


6) If the Court decides that it has the right to deny the Respondent
   due process by refusing to consider his post trial motions, then the
   Judge is refusing to do the work of the Court. If the Judge refuses
   to do the work of the Court then he lacks the authority and
   immunities of the Court. If the Judge can not or will not perform his
   duties as Judge then he is obligated under Law to recuse himself and
   get out of the way of justice.


   A Judge who stands in the way of justice and the law is acting
   outside of all judicial authority and thereby waives his rights to
   immunity from civil liability. The 14th Amendment guarantees the
   fundamental rights of citizens to due process and such rights require
   strict scrutiny of the Court. The Respondent therefore puts the Court
   on notice that the Respondent intends to defend his rights and to
   hold the Court liable for acts the Court takes against the Respondent
   that are done in the absence of judicial authority.


WHEREFORE, in light of the fact that the Judge is either unwilling or
unable to perform his duty as mandated by the Constitution and the Law
Respondent prays the Judge will recuse himself and order a new trial.


--------------------------------
Marc Perkel's Website * Respondent