Motive for Chuck's judicial rulings???

I've always said, look for the motive. Seems ole Chuck here has some motivation for past rulings.

A U.S. District judge has been asked to step down from a valley fill permit case.

Fola Coal Co. wants to stop U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. "Chuck" Chambers from conducting an upcoming valley fill hearing in which it is a defendant. The reason: The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, a plaintiff in the valley fill case on Chambers' docket, is listed as one of the judge's activities in the 2008 Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

The company's attorney, James "Jim" S. Crockett Jr., a member of Spilman Thomas & Battle, said he filed a motion Oct. 10 to disqualify Chambers.

"In 28 years, it's my first one, and they're not common," Crockett said. "A lot of times these things start when a judge brings them up."

Chambers said while he once belonged to the group, it has been at least a decade since he was a member. The brief denotes that the company believes Chambers' previous involvement with the Highlands Conservancy creates an appearance of impropriety. The group also has been a plaintiff in past cases Chambers has ruled on.

Source

He was also a member of the Democrat Party.

And probably a member of a church.

And the WV Bar Association.

As I recall, the WVHC used to give complimentary membership to legislators and other public officials.

Chambers said while he once belonged to the group, it has been at least a decade since he was a member. The brief denotes that the company believes Chambers' previous involvement with the Highlands Conservancy creates an appearance of impropriety. The group also has been a plaintiff in past cases Chambers has ruled on.

But it is OK to go to Europe with Massey CEO's?

I understand that the judge in question wasn't a federal judge but the situation is still the same.

As I recall, the WVHC used to give complimentary membership to legislators and other public officials.

Absolutely. I was at a WVHC quarterly Directors meeting this weekend. The current membership computer database format of WVHC goes back to 1988. Our membership secretary reports that other than as a complimentary subscription to the WVHC newsletter , The Highlands Voice, when he was a state legislator- and which is routinely awarded to all 134 state legislators and many other state and federal employees and some members of Congress- Chambers has not otherwise been a member of WV Highlands Conservancy.

Seems to me that I recall Chambers ADMITTING to paying the 'minimum' required membership fee to get "The Highlands Voice" in the Gazette in the article by Ken Ward (isn't he a member as of WVHC as well) where Chambers refused to step down from the case.

You guys can get your feathers all ruffled if you like. The bottom line is, this guy paid to receive your anti-coal publication, he clearly has a pre-set bias so there's clearly an appearance of impropriety.

Yes, he should recuse himself from this case as he was a paid member of one of the parties in the lawsuit.

If that doesn’t meet the guidelines for a judge to recuse himself, what does?

TerryRC wrote:Chambers said while he once belonged to the group, it has been at least a decade since he was a member. The brief denotes that the company believes Chambers' previous involvement with the Highlands Conservancy creates an appearance of impropriety. The group also has been a plaintiff in past cases Chambers has ruled on.

But it is OK to go to Europe with Massey CEO's?

I understand that the judge in question wasn't a federal judge but the situation is still the same.

No, Maynard should have been tossed from the WVSC. But just because he couldn't abide by the law, doesn't mean Chambers should take the same action.

He paid membership and was part of an environmental group that has business before his court. It clears meets recusal guidelines.

Aren't you the one that's always preaching fairness and doing what's right? So what's up.

Well Aaron I think you have a valid point, if he was in fact a member.

But if he was just a "complimentary" member whose only involvement was receiving the newsletter, then not so much.

I suspect he was also on the list to receive propoganda from the Coal Ass. guys as well, don't you?

He didn't subscribe to the Coal associations publications. He did pay to recieve the the WVHC Ass. implying he shared your views. He has no business deciding a case for a group in which he was a paid member, plain and simple Sherm. He should recuse himself.

Aaron wrote:He didn't subscribe to the Coal associations publications. He did pay to recieve the the WVHC Ass. implying he shared your views. He has no business deciding a case for a group in which he was a paid member, plain and simple Sherm. He should recuse himself.

He was not a paid member. He was a complimentary member by virtue of being a member of the state legislature.

No, Frank, you are WRONG. Hell, a simple Google search would have brought up his statement, which I pasted below, that appeared in the Gazette.

He was not a complimentary member from being a member of the legislature and that is not why he was ask to recuse himself, at least according to his statement. He admitted that he sent money to, participated in panel discussions and even hosted events for an organization that now has business before his court.

He claims it was a minimum amount but no matter how small the amount, an appearance of impropriety exists, just as it would in any case involving Don Blankenship and the WVSC .

The dollar amount is not relevant and it doesn't matter how long ago his membership ended as, like it or not, it does in fact create an appearance of impropriety and he should have recused himself. At least that's how I see it.

And that's how you've seen it in the pass when the shoe was on the other foot. So are you now singing a different tune because it involves a very liberal judge with a history of siding with an organization he used to be a member of AGAINST a practice that he and you oppose?

That seems just a wee bit hypocritical to me.

Chambers, who was a member of the Legislature from 1978 to 1996, declined to discuss the matter because the case is still pending in his court. He did issue a written order Wednesday clarifying his involvement with the Conservancy. "To the best of my recollection, sometime in or around the mid-1980s I began receiving a periodic newsletter published by the Highlands Conservancy," Chambers wrote. "I believe that for some period during my legislative tenure I may have made the minimum financial contribution necessary to be a member and continue to receive the newsletter. I did not participate in the organization's meetings or other activities." The judge wrote that during his decade as House of Delegates speaker, he may have participated in a panel discussion or event sponsored by the event. He ended his membership before he left the Legislature, and has not been involved with the group at all since, he wrote. Conservancy lawyers said they had checked the organization's membership records, and there is no evidence Chambers was a member or gave the group money since 1994.

Aaron wrote:No, Frank, you are WRONG. Hell, a simple Google search would have brought up his statement, which I pasted below, that appeared in the Gazette.

I don't care what appeared in the Gazette. "Google search" does not access the records of WVHC. Chambers was not a paid member of WVHC. Whether he sent WVHC a contribution I do not know. But he did not have a paid membership- at least not in the past 20 years.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:No, Frank, you are WRONG. Hell, a simple Google search would have brought up his statement, which I pasted below, that appeared in the Gazette.

I don't care what appeared in the Gazette. "Google search" does not access the records of WVHC. Chambers was not a paid member of WVHC. Whether he sent WVHC a contribution I do not know. But he did not have a paid membership- at least not in the past 20 years.

HE ADMITTED TO MAKING A CONTRIBUTION IN ORDER TO BE A MEMBER OF THE WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY AND RECEIVE YOUR LIBERAL NEWSLETTER Frank.

Those are his words, not mine.



Additionally, he admitted to participating in panel discussions and sponsoring events on behalf of the WVHC. Like it or not, he was an active member and this does create an appearance of impropriety. Just because it was before your time doesn't change the plain and simple facts.

The man is biased and has a pre-determined opinion about the practice of which he is supposed to rule against. I don't think so. He should have recused himself and you know it. PERIOD.

He should have recused himself and you know it. PERIOD.

No, not a period, only a comma. The debate will go on.

Do you think that the 4th Circuit federal court of appeals will agree with you that he should have recused himself?

I have no idea what the 4th circuit will do. What I do know is that it shouldn't be up to them. Chambers should have recused hiself as he was an active member of a group that is a party in a case before his court.

If you argue that he's not biased Frank then you've lost what little credibility you had in commenting on Blankenship, Massey and the WVSC.

I did not say that he wasn't biased. I said that he had not had a paid membership with WVHC- only a complimentary membership that all 134 state legislators have.

And according to Judge Chambers own admissions, you are wrong.

"To the best of my recollection, sometime in or around the mid-1980s I began receiving a periodic newsletter published by the Highlands Conservancy," Chambers wrote. "I believe that for some period during my legislative tenure I may have made the minimum financial contribution necessary to be a member and continue to receive the newsletter.

Those pesky facts.

The minimum financial contribution necessary to be a complimentary member is zero.

Then he's not a very smart man, is he Frank because he gave you guys money when according to you, he didn't have to. Yet gave you money he did. He said so.

"To the best of my recollection, sometime in or around the mid-1980s I began receiving a periodic newsletter published by the Highlands Conservancy," Chambers wrote. "I believe that for some period during my legislative tenure I may have made the minimum financial contribution necessary to be a member and continue to receive the newsletter."

If he received a complimentary issue, why didn't he just say so? Instead he said he gave you money to be a part of your liberal environmental group. And on top of that, he participated in panel discussions and sponsored events.

Hell, Brett Benjamin had less public involvement with Massey and you guys call for his head.

A tad hypocritical, don't you think Frank!!!

I have not called for Benjamin's head. I have called for a change in the way election campaigns are financed so that another rich coal operator cannot buy another state SC judge.

As opposed to a liberal judge paying to be a member of a liberal environmental group. You guys didn't have to buy a judge, he came to you. That's pretty good.

His ruling on a case involving you is just as unethical, but still pretty good. If nothing else, a whole lot cheaper, right Frank!!!

Benjamin receives from Blankenship a successful 3 million dollar election campaign.

Chambers says he gave a few dollars to WVHC.

So you tell me, who is buying whom?

I never said you had to buy your guy. I said he came to you willing. Which is all the more reason that he shouldn't be ruling on a case in which you guys are the plaintiff’s, right.

I mean, one could argue that while Benjamin did benefit from political advertising paid for by Don Blankenship, as he had no previous relationship with Blankenship or Massey, he's not beholden to them in the same manner Judge Chambers is to you guys, whom he sought out.

Right Frank!!!

I'll live with whatever the 4th Circuit says about that.

In the past it said that, "..................... litigants are entitled to a judge free of any personal bias, but not to a judge without any personal history before appointment to the bench."

ziggy wrote:
In the past it said that, "..................... litigants are entitled to a judge free of any personal bias, but not to a judge without any personal history before appointment to the bench."

Clearly Chambers does not meet that criteria. He was an active, PAID member who should have recused himself.

You're fine with the 4th ruling and I understand why you feel that way Frank. But me, being that I'm pretty big on personal responsibility and one owning up for one's own actions, I think Chambers is wrong here and if the 4th rules to let him hear the case, I would like to see it appealed.

Clearly Chambers does not meet that criteria. He was an active, PAID member ........................

No, he was not. He was a complimentary member- just as were 133 other state legislators.