HP, I thought a judge was to be impartial?
Wouldn't a clear indication of bias before a case ( any case ) be grounds for appeal or removal? Or, is it just criminal law where innocence is presumed.
As others have alluded to, the impartiality is at the beginning of the case. A judge is clearly allowed to make decisions and evolve his feelings towards the case and, also, the conduct of counsel in connection with the case.
It is clear to me that the judge has lost patience with USAPA's counsel. He has said, many times, that counsel should be preparing for trial and that it will begin on April 28th. He has previously continued the trial date from his tentative setting of February due to discovery issues. Of late he has been denying all attempts to continue or otherwise delay the trial on the issues of liability.
At the beginning of the case I highly doubt Judge Wake knew who USAPA was, did not know their counsel and knew nothing of the dispute. Had he known any of the parties he would have likely recused himself. He didn't, and barring any proof to the contrary, he was impartial. It is the issues and conduct in his court that is causing the apparent evolution of his feelings. That does not impair his judgment. It gets to the matter of which plaintiff's have complained, both substantively and procedurally.
BTW, rather than going full out preparing for trial, I have heard that USAPA has filed documents again seeking a stay or postponement in the proceedings despite Judge Wake's clear statement that the trial will go on April 28th. Apparently an interlocutory appeal has been prepared regarding the class certification issue and USAPA's counsel has sought permission of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to accept that appeal.
Honestly, I can draw one of two theories from all of that.
The first is USAPA is doing everything it can to not go to trial on April 28th and is filing anything it can in any court to delay the trial. If this is true, how can they be preparing for trial with all their assets or do they have so many assets that they can adequately do both at the same time? (And who is paying for all of this?)
The second is that USAPA is fully prepared for trial, but is doing anything it can to delay the trial and is making a huge record for appeal when the case finally gets to that stage. (Again, the question arises who is paying for all of this?)
I believe my first option is the correct option.
) about anybody's daddy getting him hired at Piedmont in 1979. At that time, Piedmont had a strong anti-nepotism policy. If daddy worked as a pilot for Piedmont, it was impossible to get hired there at the time. The policy did not change until the mid-1980s.
