Whether judicial ethics can be restored when systemic discrimination against disabled litigants occurs despite judicial immunity and potential constitutional violations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. How must judicial legitimacy be restored when judicial ethics are ignored and deprecated by systemic policy of courts in Californias while judicial immunity provides a runway to unchecked and long-term invidious discrimination against the disabled litigant that predictably leads to serious and irreparable injuries without any mechanism for relief or correction? When judicial ethics holds no potency and no force by intent of the California judiciary, is strict scrutiny required to prevent these prohibited acts! against the disabled litigant? Under these facts, what place should human rights have in the California courts and under the canons of judicial ethics? Should human rights be integral to standards of scrutiny applicable to the disabled litigant in the course of jurisprudence?? 2. May a judge who recuses himself from a case? after a party’s challenge to disqualify him, and thus admits to the appearance of impropriety, then resume presiding in the case at his whim at a later time and while the party is still litigating the same case? May such a judge, by resuming presiding in that case, evade the intended protections of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, and then personally deny a timely challenge under California Code of Civil Procedure 170.6 by the plaintiff*? Under such a fact ~ pattern, how must the conflict between California Code of Civil Procedure 1875, and 1 In the course of jurisprudence, discrimination based on disability by a court is always a matter of due process, and has the probability of causing a structural and unnavigable defect in constitutional due process. Under these facts which show that such discrimination is pervasive and persistent, disability must be necessarily treated as a suspect classification as a general rule, but requires a ‘sliding scale’ of scrutiny according to ‘the severity and the impact of the discrimination’. 2 The facts demonstrate a direct link between judicial discrimination and abuse, and irreparable physical and mental injuries. See [MS paper]. 3 And assigns the case to another judge 4 Who has previously challenged the judge’s ethics by showing cause under California Code of Civil Procedure 170.1 which the judge PERSONALLY ruled upon and thwarted, further traumatizing and incapacitating the victim of his unethical acts _ 5 A judge is required to use “all means necessary” to carry out the jurisdiction of the court, which California courts translate into the infliction of discrimination and injury and injustice to the disabled litigant. ii’ : Canon 3B(1)§ of California’s Judicial Ethics, and the admission of the appearance impropriety under the same judicial ethics, be resolved? Do the facts indicate collusion between the defendants and the judge’? 38. Is judicial ethics a public relations fraud upon the People that is used by the courts to manipulatively hold the public trust by making the appearance that judicial candor and propriety will control jurisdiction and the proceedings and the rulings by a court, while in reality, there is absolutely no potency or effect provided by canons of judicial ethics in thwarting prohibited or egregious judicial conduct® that the courts themselves permit to rise even to criminal proportions? Do higher courts in California ensure that judicial ethics have no legitimacy and offer no protections to litigants and to justice? Does the California Supreme court directly annihilate judicial ethics by precedent, and are the preemption of such precedents that nullify judicial ethics demonstrated by these facts®? Should any precedent in conflict with judicial ethics!° be required to expressly address or distinguish the effects and the invocation of judicial ethics? 4. May a judge who is challenged for violation of judicial ethics personally rule upon the challenge, and how should compliance with judicial ethics! be determined amidst the fraternity of judges!2 when the subject is the disabled litigant? 6 See discussion in