[Editor Note]:  Is Judge B. Schmetterer attempting to find excuses, not law, for his ruling to be made sometime in March?  From this editor's viewpoint and the viewpoint of the parties filing affidavits with the court, Judge Thomas James evidenced the "appearance of partiality".  Both Judge James and Judge Schmetterer have the duty, and no discretion, in following the law.

The question is whether Judge Jack B. Schmetterer will follow the law and vacate all of Judge Thomas James' orders issued since Judge James gave the first indication of his "appearance of partiality", i.e. on or before December 20, 1993, as a matter of law, or will Judge Schmetterer join Judge James and Judge Fisher in their scheme to defraud the estate, and Schmetterer's acceptance of the bribing of a judge.  Would Judge Schmetterer have become an accessory after the fact to the bribing of a Federal judge and a participant in a scheme to bribe a judge?

EUGENE W. ALPERN
P.O. Box 672
Morton Grove, IL 60053







February 4, 2000
 
 

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer
Bankruptcy Judge
Northern District of Illinois
219 S. Dearborn - Rm. 682
Chicago, IL 60604

          Re: Case no. 93-7643
              In re Eugene Alpern

Dear Judge Schmetterer:

I am in receipt of your self-serving letter, dated February 1, 2000 and postmarked February 2, 2000, sent to me at your instructions by your secretary.

I object to your misrepresentation in your letter. A motion is not required for the disqualification of a judge for his "appearance of partiality". United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985).  Contrary to your allegation, a motion does not have to be filed.

Further, your sending carbon copies to at least two persons, one of whom is not a party to this specific issue, plus the publication of the motions and affidavits filed in the record of the case on the Internet attesting to a judge's disqualification and seen by thousands of persons daily makes the letter a part of the case.

No judge should give the "appearance of partiality" to any person before the court. Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960).
 

Yours truly,
 

Eugene W. Alpern

cc: Internet
      Dean Harvelis

bcc: 

Copyright 2000 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                    All rights reserved.

    email: clr@clr.org
    Created February 4, 2000

    Editor's Note, February 17, 2000