Update from www.SlappMaggy.com: Judge Roby denies motion for new trial / removal from the case

Update from Maggy Hurchalla at www.SlappMaggy.comOn March 8, 2018 Carlton Fields filed a motion of Prohibition on my behalf with the 4th District Court of Appeals (DCA). Based on Judge Roby’s obvious bias, it asks that he be removed from the case.  
 
On March 23, 2018, Judge Roby denied the Motion that requested either a new trial or to have this judge removed from the case.  
 
The Trial Judge has failed to act as a neutral arbiter and Mrs. Hurchalla will be irreparably harmed absent a writ of prohibition disqualifying the Judge. Below is the Introduction section.  To read the entire motion, click here.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d), (f), and (h), Petitioner-Defendant Maggy Hurchalla moves the Court for several measures of extraordinary relief stemming from the trial court’s improper actions during and after trial. Specifically, Mrs. Hurchalla seeks:

  1. A writ of prohibition reversing the trial court’s decision denying her motion for disqualification, which was made following an ex parte meeting after the commencement of trial during which the judge strongly advised Mrs. Hurchalla that she would certainly lose the case, that the public project she criticized was a good project, and that she could avoid a damage award by signing a letter consenting to a permanent gag order regarding the Lake Point project and making an abject written apology he purportedly prepared for her to deliver to Plaintiffs;
  2. A petition pursuant to Rule 9.100(d) Fla. R. App. P. for writ of mandamus to compel compliance with rule 2.420(b)(1) Fla. R. Admin. P. to provide access to the letter which was read aloud by the trial court during that in camera unreported session, which is material to Mrs. Hurchalla’s motion for disqualification and which she would file to establish a complete judicial record of the relevant proceedings below; and
  3.  A writ of common law certiorari to review (a) the trial court’s denial of Mrs. Hurchalla’s motion for entry of dismissal with prejudice of what had been a previously-dismissed without prejudice claim for a permanent gag order on her; and (b) the sua sponte granting of sanctions against Mrs. Hurchalla and her counsel with a hearing to be set as to the amount because her motion for final judgment “had been filed for purposes of delay.”

The court’s actions throughout these proceedings continue to demonstrate bias against Mrs. Hurchalla, denial of her fundamental due process right to a neutral arbiter, a continued violation of her First Amendment rights, and a departure from the essential requirements of the law. As a result, without the relief sought, Mrs. Hurchalla faces irreparable harm, leaving no adequate remedy on plenary appeal.

 

Related posts:


You must be logged in to post a comment.