IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION


Eugene W. Alpern                          )
                                          )
            Appellant                     )     No. 96-CV-1766
                                          )
            v.                            )     Judge Williams
                                          )
Lawrence Fisher                           )     Appeal of 93-B-7643
                                          )     Honorable Judge James
            Respondent                    )
                                          )

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE
IN BANKRUPTCY COURT CASE NO. 93-B-7643
FOR ACCEPTANCE OF UNEARNED COMPENSATION
FROM AN INTERESTED PARTY

     NOW COMES EUGENE ALPERN ("EUGENE") and moves this court to
immediately issue an order removing Judge Thomas James from case
no. 93-B-7643 and substituting another judge in his stead.
     An "Amended Application for Allowance of Compensation to
Trustee and for Allowance of Compensation and Reimbursement of
Expenses for Counsel to the Trustee" [the "Fee Application"] has
been scheduled for a hearing before Judge James on October 10,
1996.  In response to motions filed by EUGENE in this case
directed against Judge James, Judge James accepted the legal
services provided to him as an individual by the interested
parties, i.e. former Judge Lawrence Fisher ("FISHER"), the law
firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas and their attorneys, presenting
the Fee Application.  Judge James' rulings must be considered
biased, prejudiced, and not impartial.
     1.    Judge James has a personal stake in the outcome of the
underlying 93-B-7643 action.
           Judge James, FISHER, the law firm of Gardner, Carton &
Douglas and their attorneys entered into an arrangement wherein
FISHER, the law firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas and their
attorneys would represent Judge James personally in his defense
of the Motions to Disqualify Judge James, and in a Mandamus
Action before the Seventh Circuit.  While Judge James may be
represented by the U.S. Attorney, or in his refusal, either by a
paid attorney or a volunteer attorney in the Judge's defense of
the Motions to Disqualify Judge James, or in the Mandamus action,
he cannot, ethically or lawfully, be represented by an interested
attorney who is involved in any manner with the Bankruptcy action
before the judge, and over which the judge is presiding.
Notwithstanding that such representation is, at a minimum, a
conflict of interest, and for a judge to permit it demonstrates
the bias, prejudice, and partiality of the judge; Judge James
accepted the representation of FISHER, the law firm of Gardner,
Carton & Douglas and their attorneys in his behalf.
           The Motions to Disqualify Judge James, and the Mandamus
action, referred to above, were filed as a part of the proceeding
in this case, known as In re Estate of Eugene Alpern, 93-B-7643.
           Once Judge James accepted the personal legal services
of an attorney representing an interested party to the action, he
created or allowed to be created a conflict of interest.
Furthermore all of the above demonstrates a clear bias against
EUGENE by Judge James.
     2.    Further, Judge James, FISHER, and the law firm of
Gardner, Carton & Douglas entered into an agreement for FISHER,
the law firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas and their attorneys to
charge the estate for the legal services provided to Judge James.
           A.   As evidence of this arrangement, FISHER and the law
firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas and their attorneys filed a Fee
Application, charging to the estate the time spent by FISHER and
by the law firm of Gardner, Carton & Douglas and their attorneys
for the legal services performed for Judge James personally.
[Exhibit A, Fee Application exhibits B10, B11].
           B.   That Fee Application is scheduled for hearing on
October 10, 1996.
           Judge James, FISHER and the law firm of Gardner, Carton
& Douglas and their attorneys acted to defraud the estate with
charges against the estate for services that in no way benefitted
the estate.
     3.    Unless Judge Thomas James is removed immediately,
great, immediate, and irreparable injury would result to EUGENE,
his estate, the courts, and to society.
           It is clear and well settled law that once Judge James
accepted the services of an attorney involved in a case over
which Judge James was presiding, all of his rulings from that
date forward are tainted.
     4.    Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the
principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice",
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960),
citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13
(1954).  A judge receiving unearned compensation from an
interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the
appearance of justice.
     WHEREFORE EUGENE prays that this Court will immediately
issue an order substituting another judge for Judge Thomas James.

					Respectfully submitted,



					______________________________
					Eugene Alpern


Eugene Alpern
P.O. Box 672
Morton Grove, IL 60053-0672

















EXHIBIT A


containing


EXHIBIT B-10
(Motions to Disqualify Judge James)

and

EXHIBIT B-11
(Petition for Writ of Mandamus)


from


"Amended Application for Allowance
of Compensation to Trustee and for
Allowance of Compensation and
Reimbursement of Expenses for
Counsel to the Trustee"

email: clr@clr.org

	Return to "U.S. Attorney James Burns" page

	Return to Home Page