Legal Document Type: Legal Motion: Motion for Judicial Oversight and Rule 51 Certification

Case Information: Case 24SN-DR00104 | Status: Pending

Document Content:
The presiding judge has ruled against Counter-Petitioner multiple times despite clear evidence of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct by opposing counsel and related parties. A pattern of rulings suggests a lack of impartiality, requiring judicial review to ensure that future decisions are based solely on facts and law. The court has previously ignored or dismissed substantial evidence that directly contradicts claims made by Crycella Freitag and her legal team. The judge has failed to enforce accountability against those who have lied under oath, creating a prejudicial environment against Counter-Petitioner. Furthermore, given the pattern of adverse rulings and the clear appearance of judicial bias, Counter-Petitioner respectfully requests certification under Rule 51 for an immediate interlocutory appeal on the question of judicial bias. Waiting for a final judgment would cause undue prejudice to Counter-Petitioner and Felix, as the ongoing bias undermines the integrity of these proceedings and jeopardizes Felix�s best interests.
Due Process Clause � U.S. Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments): Every litigant is entitled to an impartial tribunal.
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009): When judicial bias is apparent or reasonably questioned, due process demands review.
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 2-2."11": Judges must recuse themselves when their impartiality can reasonably be questioned.
Requested "Relief":
The Court implements additional oversight, such as requiring written justifications for any rulings contrary to presented evidence.
The Court ensures that all evidence submitted in previous motions is properly reviewed before any further rulings and mandates an independent review of this case by an oversight panel to determine if prior rulings were improperly influenced.
Certification for Interlocutory "Appeal": The Court certifies the question of judicial bias for immediate interlocutory appeal under Rule 51, as the issue presents a sub