Should she have disqualified herself?

CLICK HERE to read some caselaw about this type of special situation.

Did the Judge even read the complaint shown above?

Page 6, Footnote # 2: "As Beggerly suggests, Rule 60(b)(3) would be directly applicable to Ballew's alleged situation, permitting relief "from a final judgment... [because of] fraud ...misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;" but by waiting over nine years to assert that the Government committed fraud in entering into the underlying qui tam settlement, Ballew lost the option of bringing a 60(b)(3) motion. Similarly, to the extent Ballew's allegations might have supported relief based on Rule 60(b)(1) ("mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect"), or Rule 60(b)(2) (newly discovered, evidence), they are also time-barred."

Page 9: "Ballew has failed to plead any grave miscarriage of justice. In the absence of a grave miscarriage of justice, a Rule 60(b) independent action can not be sustained. The district court's dismissal of Ballew's action for failure to state a claim is therefore AFFIRMED."

Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit, No. 99-11308, before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges, Robert C. Ballew, Plaintiff-Appellant versus United States Department of Justice and United States Coast Guard, Defendants-Appellees, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Civil Docket #4:99-CV-406-Y.

My God! How can she be so arrogant as to make these statements in light of the specific and exact wording of my claim of a "grave miscarriage of justice" in the main document she is tasked with using. How can the following not be a "grave miscarriage of justice":

1. The Executive Branch agency and DOJ encroached and "hijacked" the Legislative Branch's Congressional right to draft and write law by setting internal policies and customs that clearly violate the mandatory language of the False Claims Act ("Shall" is used 35 times. It can not be misunderstood!) and did not deliver the "proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim" to the Treasury Department as required by law. (See Plaut v. Spendthrift Et. Al., 514 USC 211, 115 S.Ct. 147);.
2. The Executive Branch agency and DOJ encroached and "hijacked" the Judicial Branch Court's right to decide a "fair and reasonable settlement" by not identifying and disclosing the entire pool of forfeitures and alternate remedies which were the true "proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim", violating the Constitution's Separation of Powers conditions (See Plaut v. Spendthrift Et. Al., 514 USC 211, 115 S.Ct. 147);
3. The DOJ did not include all of the defendant's forfeitures in the reovery "pool";
4. The money did not go into the Treasury Department's General Fund as required by law, but instead, the value was diverted back to the defrauded agency, without the required checks and balances of oversite by Congress, as specifically required by the law;
5. The public and other operators were not made aware of all of the systemic defects and unauthorized changes (safety of flight issues) to the helicopter system;
6. The taxpayers are now paying the defendants and their successors to fix the defendant's own defects, at twice the normal or market rate and, to this day, have not been given the truth; and
7. The original source Plaintiff would be morally required to tell anyone being placed in this position to never trust the FBI, DOJ or Courts system.