by Elizabeth Vos, Elizabeth Vos:
UPDATE: 9/18/18 In another mind boggling twist, it was revealed after the publication of the following article that the recused Judge is in fact the Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum, who has served on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2014, and is apparently a member of the “Quill and Dagger” collegiate secret society.
The DNC Fraud Lawsuit has been no stranger to unusual and atypical occurrences. The latest unprecedented development continues this trend, potentially raising troubling questions as to the integrity of the Federal appellate process.
Disobedient Media has consistently covered the DNC Fraud lawsuit and its ongoing appeal as it has been doggedby outlandish events including voice-modulated phone calls, threats, and inexplicable deaths. Many such events have gone unnoticed and unreported by the legacy media.
Though the suit was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the dismissal is in the process of an appeal in the Federal 11th Circuit appellate court. A hearing in the matter had been set for September 25th. However, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case recently announced that the hearing had been canceled, with no date for a new hearing at the time of writing.
The cancellation of the September hearing became more alarming in the wake of news that it stemmed from the recusal of one of three Judges. A periscope statement made by Elizabeth Lee Beck, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, discussed the bizarre events earlier today, stating in part:
“Oral argument was set for September 25 in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit appeal, and it was assigned to that date for months. Less than two weeks before that hearing was supposed to happen, one of our three Judges recused herself. What that means is, for reasons that are unknown to us, decided that she is not fit to hear this appeal, it could be for any reason. Generally, it is for conflict of interest, but we don’t know what the reason is.
In every recusal that has happened in my Federal cases, the identity of the Judges recusing him or herself was disclosed to the public. In the DNC Fraud Lawsuit appeal, when the recusal came down, the identity of this third Judge was hidden. Now the other two Judges are Judges Hall and Carnes. All the circuit Judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals are listed on their website.
… So I called the clerk’s office to just find out the identity of the third judge… the clerk told me that she is not allowed to tell me this information… she concluded the call by saying she [the clerk] is actually waiting on the third Judge to give her permission to call me back, and let me know what her [the judge’s] identity is.
So it is up to this Judge who recused herself, to decide whether or not she is going to disclose her identity.”
As Beck explained, all 11th Circuit Judges are listed on their website, making the refusal to reveal the third Judge’s identity patently bizarre.
The recusal of the mystery judge, in addition to the inexplicable lack of a new court date to replace the canceled September 25th hearing raises concerns as to what kind of conflict of interest or other matter motivated the recusal, and what then led to this bizarre cover-up of the recusing Judge’s identity.
To most readers, it would seem unlikely and unnecessary that a Judge who had some legitimate, above-board conflict of interest with the defendants in the case – the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz – would feel the need to hide their identity for properly recusing themselves in the matter. Many Judges might have legitimately dealt with the DNC or Schultz, making a recusal necessary. In that case, why hide their identity?
The events lead one to query whether the Judge in question did not recuse herself due to conflict of interest regarding the defendants in the case. This opens an unanswerable slew of further questions as to whether there could have been any plausible conflict of interest with the plaintiffs, which seems very unlikely.
If there was no such conflict, one wonders what other motivating factors may have led to this late decision. These issues raise the overall potential for public speculation regarding the possibility of back-room threats or below-board deals of some kind, which then necessitated the cover-up of the Judge in question’s identity.