TMatthewPhillip

2 ms·

1.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
Appeals are designed to correct "errors of law." However, in this case, there were no "errors of law." Hence, nothing to appeal. :)
2.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
"Judicial immunity tends to corrupt, while absolute judicial immunity corrupts absolutely." ~T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
3.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
"...and isn't too different from tossing a coin." Nailed it!! :)
4.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
You are correct. It's a due process violation. Here, the judge wrongfully delegated her decision-making duties, and such delegation is forbidden by law. Such delegation is NOT a proper judicial act; therefore, the doctrine of judici
5.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
At this stage of the lawsuit, the federal court presumed the truth of the A.I. allegations. The federal court ruled that such conduct, if true, is nevertheless subject to absolute immunity. Stay tuned for the appeal in the 9th Circuit.
6.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
"Judicial immunity tends to corrupt, while absolute judicial immunity corrupts absolutely." ~T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
7.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
Appealing the judge's ruling would be meaningless. Appeals are designed to correct "errors of law." But here, the judge made no "error of law." Rather, the judge committed a grave ethical violation. The judge de
8.
by TMatthewPhillip 3mo ago
Judicial partisanship is at an all-time high. I dream of the day when all trial courts have A.I. judges for law and motion matters. The use of A.I. judges is the only way to eliminate judicial bias. P.S. I'm the guy who sued the judge.