1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,840
the motion.

2
00:00:05,940 --> 00:00:17,020
We have a short argument.

3
00:00:17,120 --> 00:00:20,820
Thank you. Good afternoon to

4
00:00:18,020 --> 00:00:21,620
the court. Council court staff.

5
00:00:20,960 --> 00:00:25,560
Thank you for having me. I'm

6
00:00:21,760 --> 00:00:27,560
honored to be here. The only

7
00:00:25,700 --> 00:00:29,260
request that I am asking of

8
00:00:29,260 --> 00:00:32,600
you is that the court

9
00:00:30,460 --> 00:00:33,920
instructs the court to

10
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:36,960
approve the motion for

11
00:00:32,720 --> 00:00:37,660
recusal. This is a simple

12
00:00:34,060 --> 00:00:40,940
matter of law. This court

13
00:00:37,100 --> 00:00:44,940
should instruct the trial

14
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:48,880
court under Barnes v. Harding

15
00:00:41,060 --> 00:00:52,780
Harling, 3, 6, 8, F 3, the 5,

16
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:56,020
73 pinpoint site. 5, 91. As

17
00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:57,120
noted on page 19 of my brief

18
00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:58,820
that the recuse you say you're

19
00:00:58,820 --> 00:01:02,820
asking for is a

20
00:01:00,660 --> 00:01:06,700
recusal issue. This is not

21
00:01:02,960 --> 00:01:07,800
only common sense. This is not

22
00:01:02,960 --> 00:01:10,700
only logical, but it ensures

23
00:01:06,840 --> 00:01:11,700
fairness. And it protects the

24
00:01:07,940 --> 00:01:14,540
integrity of our entire

25
00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:15,740
judicial system. And I'm

26
00:01:11,840 --> 00:01:17,740
also asking that the court

27
00:01:14,680 --> 00:01:18,740
instruct the lower court to

28
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:20,440
pursue into Barnes v. Harding

29
00:01:17,880 --> 00:01:21,120
that the recusal issue is a

30
00:01:18,880 --> 00:01:22,880
threshold issue that must be

31
00:01:20,580 --> 00:01:25,780
resolved before the court may

32
00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:26,460
consider any substantive

33
00:01:26,460 --> 00:01:32,400
issue. This is not only

34
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:34,200
logical, but it also protects

35
00:01:30,100 --> 00:01:34,960
the integrity of our entire

36
00:01:32,540 --> 00:01:38,300
judicial system. To allow a

37
00:01:34,340 --> 00:01:38,980
court who has a pending

38
00:01:35,100 --> 00:01:42,480
recusal motion to rule on

39
00:01:38,440 --> 00:01:44,480
other substantive issues is

40
00:01:39,100 --> 00:01:46,440
illogical. It births

41
00:01:42,600 --> 00:01:49,420
injustice and it defeats the

42
00:01:44,620 --> 00:01:51,920
entire purpose behind 28 USC

43
00:01:46,580 --> 00:01:53,920
4, 4, 5, our statute on

44
00:01:53,920 --> 00:02:01,040
the recusal issue.

45
00:01:56,300 --> 00:02:02,900
And I'm asking that the court

46
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:04,840
to do that. Yes. Yeah, I

47
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:06,940
filed. I filed a recusal in

48
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:08,940
the lower court. It's not

49
00:02:04,980 --> 00:02:10,940
pending. There's also a pending

50
00:02:07,080 --> 00:02:12,880
a rule 33 motion and the

51
00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:13,540
concern is right now there's a

52
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:19,520
dearth of guidance on this

53
00:02:13,020 --> 00:02:20,220
issue as to which motion the

54
00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:23,320
judge should hear first.

55
00:02:23,320 --> 00:02:27,960
Is a recurring holds the

56
00:02:25,840 --> 00:02:31,620
motion as well?

57
00:02:27,580 --> 00:02:35,200
The recusal was filed while

58
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:37,200
there was and appeal pending

59
00:02:31,760 --> 00:02:39,920
before this court. has

60
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:42,040
ruled on he has no earlier

61
00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:48,940
he's of us not by need now. I

62
00:02:40,060 --> 00:02:51,580
came in on the speedy. Now

63
00:02:51,580 --> 00:02:57,580
the district court. And I

64
00:02:52,280 --> 00:02:58,280
also filed a recusal motion.

65
00:02:55,220 --> 00:03:02,020
So it's made while the appeal

66
00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:04,920
is pending. Yes. On the theory

67
00:02:58,420 --> 00:03:07,060
that there are further

68
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:07,800
proceedings that will take

69
00:03:05,060 --> 00:03:11,000
place. Yes. So the the rule

70
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:12,840
33 was filed while the appeal

71
00:03:07,920 --> 00:03:13,940
was pending. And then since

72
00:03:11,140 --> 00:03:14,640
there would be another issue

73
00:03:12,960 --> 00:03:21,000
pending before the district

74
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:29,120
court, it's not a matter of

75
00:03:24,640 --> 00:03:30,220
the district court's advisory.

76
00:03:26,380 --> 00:03:31,220
Yes, mandamus petition. I'm

77
00:03:29,240 --> 00:03:32,880
a little confused by that

78
00:03:30,340 --> 00:03:33,620
because I thought that

79
00:03:31,340 --> 00:03:36,780
mandamus is only available

80
00:03:33,020 --> 00:03:38,880
when a district court has

81
00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:39,760
clearly exceeded the bounds of

82
00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:43,520
what's obviously its duties.

83
00:03:39,020 --> 00:03:45,060
But if you're suggesting that

84
00:03:39,900 --> 00:03:45,760
we should clarify something

85
00:03:43,660 --> 00:03:46,400
that has never been clear. And

86
00:03:46,400 --> 00:03:54,100
I'm not sure that's the right

87
00:03:47,140 --> 00:03:54,800
way to do it. I'm instructed

88
00:03:50,700 --> 00:03:58,380
by Schleggenhoff beholder,

89
00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:59,180
which is a United States

90
00:03:54,940 --> 00:04:02,180
Supreme Court opinion. 379 U.S.

91
00:03:58,500 --> 00:04:06,080
104 pinpoint site. 1, 1, 10,

92
00:03:59,300 --> 00:04:06,720
where they consider the use of

93
00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:07,420
advisory rates and then this

94
00:04:06,220 --> 00:04:10,180
advisory. And then this

95
00:04:06,840 --> 00:04:14,920
advisory rates. Yes.

96
00:04:14,920 --> 00:04:23,920
And then this advisory rate.

97
00:04:20,920 --> 00:04:24,660
Well, I believe that it's in

98
00:04:22,020 --> 00:04:25,360
part a mandamus and that you

99
00:04:24,060 --> 00:04:27,960
would be instructing the

100
00:04:24,780 --> 00:04:28,800
appellate court. What the

101
00:04:25,500 --> 00:04:29,460
Supreme Court told me about is

102
00:04:28,100 --> 00:04:29,460
it about a man?

103
00:04:28,960 --> 00:04:36,260
Advisory. I appreciate the

104
00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:37,460
correction.

105
00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:38,140
That's a pretty important

106
00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:41,340
Yes, it is. However, the the

107
00:04:41,340 --> 00:04:49,380
question is, what is the

108
00:04:42,040 --> 00:04:50,420
appropriate.

109
00:04:44,980 --> 00:04:51,380
1, 1, 3, pinpoint site. 1, 2,

110
00:04:49,520 --> 00:04:52,380
5, advisory rates are

111
00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:53,220
appropriate where their

112
00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:54,360
guidance is of sufficient

113
00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:55,420
importance. And there's a

114
00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:56,160
dearth of guidance on the

115
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:56,860
issue. Could you could you

116
00:04:55,560 --> 00:05:04,600
give us the full quotation for

117
00:04:56,300 --> 00:05:06,600
that, please? Without omitting

118
00:04:57,000 --> 00:05:07,600
any words.

119
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:16,540
I believe that the quote is

120
00:05:08,300 --> 00:05:17,340
part of the quote.

121
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:18,040
Mandamus. When the question is

122
00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:21,640
sufficient importance. Yes.

123
00:05:17,480 --> 00:05:25,480
I think we ever said. Grant

124
00:05:18,180 --> 00:05:26,420
and you're looking for us to

125
00:05:21,780 --> 00:05:27,120
grant. The that's I'm looking

126
00:05:25,620 --> 00:05:27,820
at the quote. You gave us part

127
00:05:26,540 --> 00:05:28,480
of the quote without

128
00:05:27,240 --> 00:05:32,520
indicating that you were only

129
00:05:27,940 --> 00:05:33,220
giving us part of the quote.

130
00:05:28,620 --> 00:05:35,620
I believe that the part of the

131
00:05:35,620 --> 00:05:40,620
quote is appropriate. I

132
00:05:36,320 --> 00:05:41,120
believe that the quote is

133
00:05:38,780 --> 00:05:41,820
appropriate. I think the

134
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:42,520
question is of sufficient

135
00:05:41,260 --> 00:05:44,560
importance. And there's a

136
00:05:41,960 --> 00:05:45,260
dearth of guidance on this

137
00:05:42,660 --> 00:05:45,960
issue. I believe that the

138
00:05:44,700 --> 00:05:52,600
case from Judge Kaplan's

139
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:53,340
concurrence. I'm reading from

140
00:05:46,100 --> 00:05:54,060
my notes right now. Perhaps

141
00:05:52,740 --> 00:05:54,840
you should go back and check

142
00:05:53,460 --> 00:06:00,540
your notes later to make sure

143
00:05:54,200 --> 00:06:01,180
you didn't.

144
00:06:01,180 --> 00:06:12,400
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I

145
00:06:04,820 --> 00:06:16,500
attached. I attached the

146
00:06:06,120 --> 00:06:17,200
recusal as as as an exhibit for

147
00:06:12,540 --> 00:06:20,140
this. But it deals with a cut

148
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:20,880
off of cross examination

149
00:06:17,340 --> 00:06:24,040
during the trial. It deals

150
00:06:20,280 --> 00:06:24,680
with behavior during a

151
00:06:21,000 --> 00:06:28,380
restitution hearing and it

152
00:06:24,180 --> 00:06:29,080
deals with a sentencing on a

153
00:06:29,080 --> 00:06:37,980
court order. So in terms of

154
00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:40,920
the sufficient importance,

155
00:06:33,780 --> 00:06:41,960
this court has noted that 28

156
00:06:38,120 --> 00:06:42,680
USC 4, 4, 5, that its purpose

157
00:06:41,060 --> 00:06:43,420
is the protection of the

158
00:06:42,080 --> 00:06:48,060
public's confidence in the

159
00:06:42,820 --> 00:06:52,000
impartiality of the judiciary.

160
00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:56,000
And further in like on the

161
00:06:56,000 --> 00:07:07,240
court order, the court

162
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:07,980
further noted that the 28 USC

163
00:07:03,900 --> 00:07:08,640
4, 4, 5, a is designed to

164
00:07:07,380 --> 00:07:10,880
promote public confidence in

165
00:07:08,100 --> 00:07:11,680
the impartiality of the

166
00:07:08,780 --> 00:07:12,380
judicial process. The rule

167
00:07:11,020 --> 00:07:13,080
functions as a critical

168
00:07:11,820 --> 00:07:16,880
internal check to ensure the

169
00:07:12,520 --> 00:07:20,580
just operation of the

170
00:07:13,220 --> 00:07:21,280
judiciary. Therefore, I would

171
00:07:17,020 --> 00:07:22,020
submit to this court that the

172
00:07:20,720 --> 00:07:24,020
public confidence in the

173
00:07:21,420 --> 00:07:24,720
impartiality of the judiciary

174
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:28,760
is the most important part of

175
00:07:26,680 --> 00:07:29,260
this. I'm not sure we have

176
00:07:27,420 --> 00:07:42,740
time to appreciate. But let's

177
00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:43,440
hear from. Thank you. Good

178
00:07:42,900 --> 00:07:44,140
afternoon. And may it please

179
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:44,840
the court. My name is time

180
00:07:44,260 --> 00:07:48,640
had your and I represent the

181
00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:49,440
government in this case. The

182
00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:50,140
government is not aware of any

183
00:07:49,580 --> 00:07:53,080
circumstance in which a

184
00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:53,780
petition for mandamus has been

185
00:07:53,780 --> 00:07:56,620
issued. And I would like to

186
00:07:54,420 --> 00:07:58,620
make a comment on this. I

187
00:07:54,960 --> 00:07:59,520
would like to make a comment

188
00:07:56,760 --> 00:08:00,500
on this. I would like to make

189
00:07:58,760 --> 00:08:04,200
a motion here which judge

190
00:07:59,660 --> 00:08:04,900
Garifas in this case deferred

191
00:08:00,620 --> 00:08:08,700
resolution of until after the

192
00:08:04,340 --> 00:08:09,400
criminal appeal was resolved.

193
00:08:05,040 --> 00:08:10,100
This petition was filed nearly

194
00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:13,500
a month before the mandate was

195
00:08:09,540 --> 00:08:14,240
issued in that criminal

196
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:14,940
appeal. Unless the court has

197
00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:15,640
any further questions. I

198
00:08:14,380 --> 00:08:16,240
request that the government

199
00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:24,940
finalize the court paper.

200
00:08:24,940 --> 00:08:25,940
Thank you.