THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 204 S Highlander Way Howell, MI 48843-2073

(517) 546-8079

EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE NOW COMES PLAINTIFF GEORGE EDWARD LYONS,

States that Honorable Judge Stanley Latreille or other Judge’s did not follow court procedures or guidelines of the MCR. 2.003.

And denied George Lyons from due process of law. ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands;
 
A. That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge and if there is not a Chief Judge these cases be re-open and all judgments be removed and Sent to the State of Michigan Administer office for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq., B.

That this Honorable Court to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and C. That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law.

D. Honorable Judge Stanley Laterille did not follow these procedures. Plaintiff demands that these procedures be followed per the MCR. 2.003 And must be followed. Procedure: Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows: “The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31. As per and if the above would follow under conflict of Interest, and are not used as witnesses in this case and others cases that are being filed in the near future.


The July 10, 1995 amendments of MCR 2.003, and Rules 3A, 3D, 6C, and 7B of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and new MCR 9.227 and Rule 7D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, are based on the proposed revision of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct submitted by the State Bar Representative Assembly. See 442 Mich 1216 (1993). They are effective September 1, 1995. (3) Ruling.

The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion, (a) In a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo; (b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo. ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands;

1.That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq.,

2.That this Honorable Court Chief judge to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and

3. That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law. Plaintiff George E. Lyons made this motion and says:

1. Within the past (14) days,

Plaintiff has become aware of facts giving Rise to disqualification in all lawsuits and therefore this motion has been brought in a proper, timely manner under MCR 2.003 et seq.

2. This Honorable Court and other legal representatives cannot impartially hear any matter involving this case because:

3. that his Honor Stanley Laterille is being called as a witness in this case.

4. Also being called as witness is Attorney Charles Widmaier, Neil Neilson, Douglas Cameron, and there companies. a. This Court and other legal representatives is biased or prejudiced for or against either or both of the parties to this action, and biased in favor of past/present Defendant’s.

Defendant’s attorney, which is disqualifying under MCR 2.003(B) (2); b. This Honorable Court and other legal representatives are disqualified by law for numerous other reasons under the provisions of MCR 2.003(B) (7).

1. That this Honorable Court and other legal representatives and all other Livingston County judicial or Circuit officers and court personnel should be disqualified from acting upon, hearing, deciding or otherwise participating in any further disposition of this case in any manner, except to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003(B) (2) and to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003 (B) (2) and or MCR 2.003 (B) (7), the grounds for which are stated herein are stated herein and in the attached affidavit.

2. That per Plaintiff Witness List the following is included.

5. Charles Widmaier (P-38376) Material Witness Live Attorney for the Defendants confirm audio 822 E. Grand River Avenue Brighton, Michigan (810-229-9340) ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS

6. Employees of Harris & Literski Material Witness Live 317 E. Grand River confirm audio Brighton, Michigan 48116

9. All Judges’ of Livingston County Material Witness Live Court system District / Circuit confirm audios and all employees’ Honorable Judge Burress Material witness Live 58. Honorable Judge Hegarty Material witness Live 59. Honorable Judge Latreille Material witness Live 60. Honorable Judge Reader Material witness Live 61. Honorable Judge Delvero Material witness Live 62. Honorable Judge Reck Material witness Live 63.

Honorable Judge Pickeranin Material witnesses live all employees of Livingston Material witness Live County.

FOOTNOTE: THE ABOVE WERE ALSO CALL AS MATERIAL WITNESS IN THE 39
 EMERGENCEY MOTIONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE’S FOR BIASNESS.

64. Magistrate Brown Material witness Live And if the above would follow under conflict of Interest, and are not used as witnesses in this case and others cases that are being filed in the near future.

The July 10, 1995 amendments of MCR 2.003, and Rules 3A, 3D, 6C, and 7B of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and new MCR 9.227 and Rule 7D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, are based on the proposed revision of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct submitted by the State Bar Representative Assembly. See 442 Mich 1216 (1993). They are effective September 1, 1995. (3) Ruling.

The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion,

(a) In a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo;

(b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request: A. that this motion be granted; and, B. that this matter be thereafter transferred to the State Court Administrator’s office for reassignment to wherefore another circuit as required by MCR 2.003 et seq. RELIEF ALTERNATIVE, THIS WAS MOTION IS DENIED,

Plaintiff respectfully demands; That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq., That this Honorable Court to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law. Procedure: Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:

“The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.: MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification.

 The Judge complained of then holds a hearing and decides the motion. The motion was denied, and then the plaintiff is NOW referring the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion or submit this to the State of Michigan administrator Office for a de novo on the record 32/33. This motion is being request by the Plaintiff and per MCR 2.003 be followed. And placed before the Chief Judge and “The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.: Respectfully submitted this January 31st, 2007 By: __________________________________

George E. Lyons, Plaintiff P.O. Box 226 Pinckney, Michigan 48169 734-657-1679

This case on Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde setting George Lyons up for N.S.F. Charges. When I recovered the evidence the Prosecutors office refused to represent me. This emergency motion for Disqualification done in 2007- and 2002, 2003, and 2004, 2005, 2006 Six times Stanley Laterille was disqualified: And others were a total of 39 times the same verbiage. All denied by the Judge’s of Livingston County courts.

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY) 210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816) This case on Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde setting me up for N.S.F. Charges.

When I recovered the evidence the Prosecutors office refused to represent me. State of Michigan court administrator For assignment of case to another judge GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE Latreille

P.O.BOX 226 Case no.06-021758-Z PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK

PLAINTIFF -V- RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W 7709 PARTRIDGE HILL, Brighton, Michigan 48116 Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court Bowling Green, KY 42103-2508 UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS

Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W 5640 Shoshoni Pass Pinckney, Michigan 48169 540-823-3271 Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564

DEFENDANTS David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River Suite 200 Brighton, Michigan 48114

Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169

 Kenneth V. Zichi 734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue, Howell, Michigan. 48543

Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139

Douglas Cameron 810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street Brighton, Michigan 48116 IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK 3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier 734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River, Brighton, Mi.48116 AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE STANLEY LATERILLE AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT’S, AND PLACING THESE CASES ON STAY UNDER INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION. Plaintiff George E. Lyons, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the following facts are true to the best of his personal knowledge; or are based on information and belief, and as to those he believes them to be true; and if sworn as a witness in this matter he would competently testify and produce other evidence to conclusively prove as follows: 1. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, and on information and belief, has numerous personal contacts and acquaintances among all of Livingston County judges, court clerks, other court employees and personnel. 2. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, these allegations beginning many years ago, became directly, indirectly, regularly and routinely involved and enmeshed with all Livingston County and Washtenaw judges and other court personnel in numerous legal, political, fraternal and social organizations. Structures and activities; all of which on information and belief, has provided and continues to provide numerous opportunities for judicial and extra-judicial ex-parte contacts with Livingston County and Washtenaw judicial officers and other court personnel. 3. Plaintiff believes that the HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, acting herein, has and will actively use his/ and their long-time positions, influence, access to judges and access to court records: to make ex-parte contacts with members of the Livingston County bench and /or their employees in attempts to create bias in defendant’s favor; to surreptitiously remove materials from court records to which Plaintiff is a party; and to otherwise deprive Plaintiff of his rights to due process in this case in any manner possible. 4. On information and belief, HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and Other legal representatives, for past clients has already used his status and connections to misinform and intimidate potential attorneys for defendants in this case and thereby effectively deprived Plaintiff of legal representation herein. 5. Plaintiff believes that, from its inception, Defendant’s and other past clients has been given special considerations in the handling and treatment of the instant case by 44th Livingston county Circuit court and personnel, due to bias in favor of Defendant’s and their attorney. 6. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, herein is inextricably involved and enmeshed in numerous judicial and extra-judicial matters which include, in general, all Livingston County judicial and circuit officers and other court personnel. 7. All members of the Livingston Judicial and Circuit County bench would have a natural inclination or tendency, if sitting in judgment, to be biased in favor of Defendant’s and/or against Plaintiff due to the status and judicial connections of Defendant’s counsel and past attorney’s. 8. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, has too many opportunities, and is of a mind, and has already undertaken, to improperly engage in ex-parte communications with Livingston County Judicial and Circuit court judges relative to this case; And the has repeatedly representation of Due to the circumstances and relationship existing between the HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, and all judicial and Circuit court officers in Livingston County; Plaintiff believes he cannot get a fair trial or hearing in this county. 9. Plaintiff has presented to this court, and other courts evidence to support the removal of this Case No’s. 06-021758-CZ, STORZBACH'S,FRIBERG'S,LALONDE’S AND FEEBACK’S 04-020652 KOPP’S AND 04-021106-CK Marcich’s to a de nova hearing to the State of Michigan Administration Hearing to be transfer to another circuit court. 10. Defendant George E. Lyons hereby swears under penalty of perjury that all facts stated in the forgoing Affidavit In Support of Emergency Motion for Disqualification and Denying Summary Disposition and court rulings of the Honorable Judge Stanley Laterille of the Defendant’s are true to the best of his personal knowledge or stated on information and belief, and as to those facts he believes them to be true. By: _____________________________ George E. Lyons, Plaintiff Subscribed and sworn to before me This_______day of ___________. 2007 Notary Public: ____________________________. STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY) 210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816) State of Michigan court administrator For assignment of case to another judge GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE P.O.BOX 226 Case no.06-021758-CZ PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no 020652-CF-B 734-657-1679 Case no.04-20684-CK PLAINTIFF -V- RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W 7709 PARTRIDGE HILL, Brighton, Michigan 48116 Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court Bowling Green, KY 42103-2508 UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W 5640 Shoshoni Pass Pinckney, Michigan 48169 540-823-3271 Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564 DEFENDANTS David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River Suite 200 Brighton, Michigan 48114 Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi 734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue, Howell, Michigan. 48543 Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron 810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street Brighton, Michigan 48116 IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK 3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier 734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River, Brighton, Mi 48116 BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE. DISQUALIFICATION LAW AND ARGUMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY DISPOSITION JUDGMENT AND 7 DAY NOTICE. AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT’S. AND PLACING ALL CASES ON STAY UNTIL AFTER INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION OR OTHER INVESTGATOR’S FROM THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS FOR FILING FALSE SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS. DISQUALIFICATION LAW AND ARGUMENT These underlying principles of disqualification law are well settled. What the Michigan Supreme Court said almost 125 years ago in Stockton v Township Board is and Peninsular Railway v Howard, it remains valid and binding today: “It Is among the First objects of civil government, to deprive persons of the power in adjudge finally for themselves, and conclusively assert their own causes; and so fundamental is this rule of justice, so essential to the order, peace, and even stability of government, that however broad the terms of a grant of judicial power may be, this principle remains operative, and gives rise to a tacit exception from the general words of the grant’s…The principle … asserts itself wherever judicial powers are employed by a body appointed by law…the rule is not confined to cases where the person is both judge and party. The principle… applies to the elements and substance of the controversy, and in general, where the case is of such a nature as to make it necessary, in its course or final issue for the Trier to pass upon his own implicated rights or interest, the rule attaches and unseats him. Subtle … The court ought not to be astute to discover refined subtle distinctions to save a case from the operation of the maxim, when the principle it embodies bespeaks the propriety of its application. The immediate rights of the litigants are not the only object of the rule. A sound public policy, which is interested in preserving every tribunal appointed by law from discredit, imperiously demands its observance. “10 Exactly what are the: implicated rights or interests”10 which will disqualify a judge? As was held in Stockton, supra, the can be found in the “elements and substance of the controversy:” what the Supreme Court almost a century later referred to as the “circumstances and relationships” of a case when it decided Glass v State Highway Commission, 23 citing the U.S. Supreme Court in Murchison. “A fair trial is fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationship must be considered. This court has said, however, that every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge…not to hold the balance site, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law, ’23 Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform it high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” 24 The Glass court said, “Such reasoning applies equally to Michigan’s assurance of due process.” Therefore, virtually any “circumstances or relationship existing between a judge and a party litigant which would offer “ possible temptation to an average” person “ not to hold the balance nice, clear and true” between contending litigants denies due process of law and is interest enough to provide grounds for disqualification. ”23” We expect our judges to be human beings with normal human faults and shortcomings like the rest of us, not angles in robes. We realize there are some situations where it would be extremely difficult for any judge to remain neutral and impartial, the often-quoted opinion in Wayne County Prosecutor v. Doerfler 24 “Justice Cardozo has stated. “ Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of instincts and emotions and habits and convictions which make the man, be he litigant or judge. “27 A judges are not expected to bring with him to the bench a blank mind and personality. As he becomes, by necessity, a composition of the general experiences of his life, refined and honed by his legal training and legal experience so that the desired judicial temperament will hopefully emerge. “28 To require a blank mind is unreasonable, but to demand an impartial and clear appraisal of each new case is not. A judge may well be subconsciously prejudiced in one way towards the evidence or the parties in a case before him. It is his duty not to permit these prejudices to override his responsibilities in providing a fair forum for the determination of controversy. This duty should ideally motivate the judge to request reassignment of the case if he is aware of any prejudices which he holds which would interfere with his impartiality “29 Modern disqualification rules, grounded in public policy, exist as much for the good of the court as for the good of any litigant; and every judge has a duty to avoid even the appearance of bias, prejudice or partiality. Freely granting disqualification when justified and necessary to achieve that end. As was said in Warren Schools v. MERC: 2 “The object of this rule…is more than guaranties that a legal dispute will be resolved objectively by unbiased and impartial persons. It is also a shield against any suspicion on the part of the litigants and the public that any subjectivity, bias and partiality contributed to the outcome of the dispute. The though behind such was best expressed by Justice Frankfurther in Baker v Carr 22: The Court’s authority – possessed of neither the purse nor the sword – ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court’s complete detachment, in fact and in appearance…” 22 The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted a rule stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Withrow:”4 judges and decision-makers should be disqualified without a showing of actual bias where “experience teaches that probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable, “4 Throughout the last century. Courts have slowly but surely broadened the measure by which a disqualification “threshold” can be reached, steadily relaxing the standards for it employment. While early decisions tended more toward requiring concrete evidence of bias such as direct financial or personal interest, there was a gradual movement toward requiring only an appearance of bias, now well-established; and, more recently, the trend is allowing a petitioner’s reasonable belief that bias exists to establish the appearance of bias, to wit: In a 1981 decision, Pitoniak v Borman’s, 5 the court held: “A basic requirement of the constitutional right is due process is a hearing before a fair, unbiased and impartial decision-maker. 1/2/3/4/5 A party who challenges the impartiality of a judge need not show actual prejudice; it is one in which: experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. “4/5/6 then in 1982, the Michigan Court of Appeals held, in People v Lowenstein: 14“… (Some disqualification cases)… deal with how much of an allowance our courts will make for a judge’s inherent human failings. No human being (even a judge) is completely prejudice-free. But our judicial system requires judges. Therefore we make allowances. Under normal circumstances, we will assume (absent evidence to the contrary) that the judge is free enough from bias to make a tolerably non-partisan Decision. For example, a judge will occasionally preside over a case involving a defendant who had earlier pleaded guilty to the offense. Because this situation often enough arises and because the appearance of impropriety is not that high, we allow the trial judge to remain in charge of the case absent a showing of actual bias…A C However, we realize that some situations are just too dangerous. Judges normally are not subjected to such special pressures and “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies in human weaknesses, we find that the appearance of justice requires the judge to disqualify himself. The test is not (just) whether or not actual bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused. “17 In fact, even though a judge personally believes himself to be unprejudiced, unbiased and impartial, he should nevertheless certify disqualification where there are circumstances of such a nature to cause doubt as to his partiality, bias or prejudice. “18/6/2 (emphasis added) And circumstances of such a nature as to cause doubt can arise from the mind of a petitioner, as was held in1986 by the Florida Supreme Court, which arrived at the Michigan result by applying the same analysis from a different perspective, making several important points along the way as emphasized below: “ … The facts alleged in a motion to disqualify need only show that the party making it has a well-grounded fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge. Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge may be biased, and not the judge’s own perception of his or her ability to act fairly. … The sufficiency of the allegations depends upon whether he or she has successfully established the actual existence of prejudice. The letter standard would render the motion for disqualification virtually futile and result in the sort of adversary proceeding between judge and petitioner that create bias or the appearance thereof even where none had existed before. “33 (emphasis added) And further to that: “Generally, disqualification of a judge from action in a proceeding in which he is not wholly free, disinterested and independent is intended not merely for the benefit of the parties to the suit, who are entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, but for the general interests of justice, by preserving the purity and impartiality of the courts, and the respect and confidence of the people for their decisions. Moreover, judicial tribunals must not only be, but appear to be impartial, so that where circumstances are such as to create in the mind of a reasonable man a suspicion of bias, disqualification may be warranted although there is no proof of actual bias. “36 (emphasis added) No matter where the evolution of disqualification theory may lead, the eternal catch -22 of disqualification law will always follow: upon any request for disqualification, if there exists even a reasonable suspicion of the presence of bias, prejudice or partiality any failure to grant the request tends to beg the question, lead to more suspicion and possibly create the evil otherwise truthfully denied and sought is be avoided. A truly independent non-biased judge considering such a situation should not care about retaining jurisdiction of any particular case; but instead rise above one’s self, respect a petitioner’s well-plead request and promptly proceed to remove all grounds for any suspicion of doubt, by granting Disqualification. Procedure: Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows: “The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31. : MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification. The Judge complained of then holds a holds a hearing and decides the motion. If the motion is denied, then the party or attorney may refer the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion de novo on the record 32/33. Respectfully submitted this January 31, 2007 By ______________________________________ George Edward Lyons P.O.Box 226 Pinckney, Michigan 48169 734-657-1679 TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES 1. US Const, Am XIV; Mich Const 1963,art 1,set 17; 2. In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136; 75 S Ct 623( 1955) 3. Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564, 579; 93 S Ct 1689 ( 1973) 4. Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 351 ( 1975 ) 5. Pitoniak v Borman’s, Inc. 104 Mich App 718, 722-723(1981) 6. Withrow v Larkin, 421, US 35, 47; 95 S Ct 1455( 1975) 7. Mathews v Eldridge,424, US 319, 335; 96 S Ct 893 ( 1976 ) 8. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254, 263-271; 90 S Ct 1011 (1970) 9. Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne County, 386 Mich 1 ( 1971) 10. Stockwell v Township Board, 22 Mich 341 ( 1871) 11. Peninsular Railway Co. v. Howard, 20 Mich 18 ( 1870) 12. People v Houston, 179 Mich app 753, 756 ( 1983 ) 13. Clemens v Bruce, 122 Mich App 35, 37-38 (1982) 14. People v Lowenstein, 118 Mich App 475, 481-432 (1982) 15. United State v Grinnell, 384 US 563; 86 S C: 1698 (1966) 16. People v Rider, 93 Mich App 383 ( 1979 ) 17. Ungar v Sarafite. 376 US 573, 588: 84 S Ct 841 (1964) 18. Merritt v Munster, 575 P2d 623, 624 (Okla. 1978) 19. Strong v Pontiac General. 117 Mich App 143, 148 (1982) 20. Wayne County v Recorder’s Court, 81 Mich App 143, 148 (1982) 21. Warren Schools v MERC. 67 Mich App 58 (1976) 22. Baker v Carr. 369 US 186, 267; 82 S Ct 691. 737 – 738 (1962) 23. Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510; 47 S Ct 437 (1927) 24. Offutt v United States, 348 US 11, 14; 75 S Ct 11 (1955) 25. Glass v State Hwy Const. 370 Mich 482 ( 1963 ) 26. Wayne County Prosecutor v Doerfler, 14 Mich App 428( 1968 ) 27. Cardozo, Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 167. 28. Utilities Com v Pollak, 343 US 451, 466; 72 S Ct 813 ( 1952 ) 29. Mirych v State Fair Commission, 376 Mich 384( 1965 ) 30. Consumer Power v Iosco Circuit Judge, 210Mich 572 (1920) 31. Hayes-Albion v Kuberski, 108Mich App 642, 657-658 (1981) 32. Gruprynski v Bay Judge, 166 Mich 118, 123-124 (1988) 33. People v Gauntlett, 134 Mich 737, 757-761 (1984) 34. MCR 2.003 et seq. 35. Caleffe v Vitale, 65 ALR 4th 67, 71-72 (1986) 36. See 46 Am Jur 2d, Judges ss. 86; see also ss. C (1) (a. b) of Canon 3 of the Code 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Am Jur 2d Desk book) GEORGE EDWARD LYONS BLOG: 14 YEARS OF CORRUPTION: http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com/