ART MCDONALD SHOWS HIS COWARDESS AND CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW

A judge faces no greater challenge than when he has to issue a ruling upholding the law which goes against the corrupt legal system.  If judges are allowed to run away from such situations, then the people will have no remedy against institutionalized corruption.

“B.  Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1)    A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate.

Nothing in my case remotely suggests McDonald is disqualified from the case.  Further, no one is suggesting recusal is appropriate.  Based on this the pleading objecting to his self-recusal has already been filed and forwarded to Regional Administrative Judge Missy Medary.  If she assigns a new judge, I will take her on mandamus to void the order.

The new Chief Justice in his State of the Judiciary speech said he would end this nonsense.  I will flood the Texas Supreme Court through mandamus relief every case I know of wherein judicial corruption is being ignored by Missy Medary.  The Chief Justice will decide, did he mean his words or were they all fluff.

ART MCDONALD'S PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF AVOIDING DIFFICULT CASES

In the case at bar city employee Omar Ochoa is being sued in ultra vires.  Although the law cannot be any clearer, the city of Brownsville claims Ochoa is immune from suit.   The ultra vires doctrine is a narrow exception to governmental immunity, under which a claimant may sue a government official for injunctive relief if the official has either acted without legal authority or failed to perform a ministerial duty. City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009).

In the case of Kathrine Roberts, Judge McDonald recused himself without a basis in law or under the Rules of Professional Conduct to avoid upholding the law court reporters are never immune from suit. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993).  Again, Judge McDonald sought to avoid ruling against a governmental entity.

In the case of Josefina Fisher, DA Saenz after receiving large donations from Alex Begum charged Fisher with obscene language to wit: “Calling Yolanda Begum a fake.”  Rather than uphold the law and dismiss the charges, without any basis in law Judge McDonald recused himself from the case.  A visiting judge immediately dismissed the criminal charges.

If judges can self-recuse themselves to avoid difficult political decisions, then the courts serve no purpose.  The greatest challenge to the integrity of the system is when a judge stands strong and speaks out against the lawfare.  Judge McDonald has a clear pattern and practice of running from any decision he deems too political.  This is a clear violation of the rules of Judicial Conduct, and not a basis for self-recusal. 

NO ONE WILL CHALLENGE ART MCDONALD

Let there be no mistake, Judge McDonald will not face a challenger in the primary.  The legal community would not support any challenger.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct will ignore the complaint.  At most the Texas Supreme Court may issue an opinion explaining under what terms a judge can self-recuse.

My work here is to simply lay the foundation for judicial reform which is something the new Chief Justice claims to support.  I have brought about numerous changes in reform.  

After a very large settlement Texas changed the law to require a doctor sign an affidavit that hospital collection efforts were unconscionable.  In that case the court of appeals reinstated my client's lawsuit. Texas responded by making it impossible for a victim of unethical hospital collections to sue.  This is how the system works.

The entire process concerning recusal was amended based on all of my wins.  They changed the laws so most of my cases would have been lost.

My point, this inevitable mandamus will result in the Texas Supreme Court changing the rules to make it harder for a judge to self-recuse. 

JOHN DOE CASE COMING ALONG

In preparing federal pleadings for the John Doe case, I am pleased to see how more and more federal judges are finding when a judge is engaging in lawfare they are not immune from suit.  

How can acting to obstruct justice and promote a criminal conspiracy ever be within a judge's duties?  Federal court of appeals judge, Ho, a Trump appointee wrote a strong dissent in a case sure to be heard by the Supreme Court.  Lawfare is never part of a judge's duties.

The Supreme Court is expected to take up another case which it has already remanded to the court of appeals.  Once the court of appeals rehears the case it will go back directly to the Supreme Court.  Villarreal v. Alaniz will eventually bring the issue of lawfare and immunity to a final end.  Under such facts judicial immunity will end.

John Does case cannot be any stronger.