Valsdad,
The SCOTUS has turned down appeals in that series of cases before; they aren't taking any of it. I am NO fan of the 9th, but their most recent decision (as of last month) is what stands in the Hage cases at this point. It's going back to be reheard and reconsidered (again). At this point, that's where it stands and all that is known.
That said, the trial judge in question has been, shall we say, "seriously criticized" by the appeals courts for years. He's been found to be: "dilatory"; "arrogant"; seeking an "assumption of power by one individual [] not acceptable in our judicial system"; and having "well established and inappropriately strong" feelings and bias against out of state attorneys.
The Appeals Court in the January decision was castigating in it's opinion of him as a trial judge - their degree of openness in overall opinion, in the printed decision, is striking. Their opinion on him is summarized this way:
Judge Jones's rulings in the case were "plainly" and "clearly" contrary to law; that he had "grossly abused the power of contempt"; that he had "harbored animus" against federal agencies; that his "bias" was a "matter of public record"; and that he had engaged in "improper treatment of government officials" in a previous case. The Court of Appeals stated that it had "expressed concern about Judge Jones' conduct in several other recent cases." Wikipedia article with links to case citations These are several different and unrelated cases with different reviewing panels of Appellate Court judges, all castigating the same trial judge in writing, in their opinions, for his unprofessional behavior and opinions. That is simply incredible.
There is a level of decorum still present within the judicial. An open and public rebuke of a trial judge like that just doesn't happen except in extreme instances. Going even further, when a case is remanded from the Appeals Court to the trial court, it goes back to the original presiding judge, unless something extraordinary occurs. In this case, the Appeals Court remanded and specifically ordered the case to go to another judge. That's almost unheard of in any case NOT involving a conflict of interest. They have now done that with this judge at least twice within the last six months on two completely separate and unrelated cases; that's unheard of. Ditto that to the open, public, in-decision rebukes several times over by different Appeals Court panels on this same judge's opinions. It is clear that the Appeals Court no longer trusts the trial judge to be exactly what a trial judge is supposed to be most of all - unbiased.
Again, I'm no fan of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are some loons on that bench (though, there is at least one great judge on it as well). However, you don't have an Appeals Court openly questioning and criticizing a trial court judge's actions and bias, in multiple cases, without merit and certainly not in the actual decisions on cases. With this trial judge, the Appeals Court is essentially saying that it no longer trusts his decisions on the merits of the case and on law, and they have done so several times over. That's simply extraordinary.
