FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 11, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 06 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 04 6- CV-ORL-2 2- GAP, BKCY No . 01 -0 05 33 -BK-ABB 6: 08 cv 00 04 6
InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LT D., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 6: 08 cv 00 26 8 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
6: 08 cv 00 26 9 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 6: 08 cv 00 27 0

2InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
6: 08 cv 00 27 1 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 36: 08 cv 00 02 72

InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 53 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 04 6- CV-ORL-GAP, BKCY No . 01 -0 05 33 -BK-ABB 6: 08 cv 00 04 6
InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., D eb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 4PETER R. GINSBERG,

PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , LAURO LAW

FIRM , Int eres te d P art y -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 6: 08 cv 00 26 8 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , LAURO LAW

FIRM , In te res te d P art y -Ap pe ll ee,

5ve rs us

EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 6: 08 cv 00 26 9 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., D eb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , LAURO LAW

FIRM , In te res te d P art y -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 6: 08 cv 00 27 0 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or . 6__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , LAURO LAW

FIRM , In te res te d P art y -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 6: 08 cv 00 27 1 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ees , LAURO LAW

FIRM , In te res te d P art y -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us 7EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 6: 08 cv 00 02 72 InRe: EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PETER R. GINSBERG, PETER R. GINSBERG, P.C.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , LAURO LAW

FIRM , In te res te d P art y -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us EVERGREEN SECURITY, LTD ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 1 1, 2 00 9)
8Befo re BI RCH, HULL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

FAY, Cir cu itJu dg e: Pet er R. Gi ns be rg an d P et er R. Gi ns be rg , P.C. ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on to affi rm

th e b an krup tc y

co urt’s i m

po si ti on of s an ct io ns . The b an krup tc y
co urt awa rd edsan ct io ns ba se d o n Gi ns be rg ’s act io ns in co nju nc ti on with t he fil in g of a Rec us al Mo ti on . Gin sb erg ass ert s t hr ee i ss ue s o n app eal : (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n a ffi rm in g t he ba nkrupt cy co urt’s Sa nc ti on s Ord er an d i ts im po si ti on of san ct io ns ; (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a ffi rm in g t he ba nkrupt cy
co urt’s d eci si on no t t o t es ti fy ab ou t o r di sc us s t he co m pl ai ntof ju di ci al
m is co nduc t; an d (3 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a ffi rm in g the ba nkrupt cy

co urt’s d en ia l o f Gin sb erg ’s Ore Ten us Mo ti on to Tran sf er the San ct io ns Mo ti on . W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt wh ic h a ffi rm edth e b an krup tc y
co urt. I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND Thi s ap pe al ari se s fr om

th e ad ve rs ary pr oc eed in g i ns ti tu te d b y Ever gr een Secu rit y , Ltd . (“ Eve rg reen ”) i n t he Ban kr up tc y Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Fl or id a. Ever gr een , dee m eda “po nz i s ch em e,” fi le d avo lu nt ary pe ti ti on for Ch ap te r 11 ba nkrupt cy

(“ th e m ai n c as e”). J onKni gh t an d An th on y Hug gi ns were 9pr in ci pa l ac to rs in th e sc he m e, bo th in di vi du al ly andth ro ug h v ari ou s co rp or at e

en ti ti es . R.W . Cut hi ll was app oi nt edas t he Ch ap te r 11 tru st ee t o re co ve r fu nd s be lo ng in g t o Ev erg reen in ord er t o p ay Ever gr een ’s cred it or s. Cu th il l i ns ti tu te d a n a dv ers ary pr oc eed in g fo r $6 .5 m il li on frau du le nt ly tra ns ferr edfro m

Ever gr een Trus t (a n e nt ity who ll y own edby E ve rg reen ) to Mat aek a, an d l at er t o Kn ig ht , Hug gi ns , andot he rs . Thi s ac ti onis refe rredto as 1 th e “ Mat aek a AP.” J ud ge Bri sk m anserve d a s t he ba nkrupt cy jud ge in th e m ai n
cas e an d t he Mat aek a AP. Pet er Gi ns be rg , of Pe te r R. Gin sb erg P.C. (co ll ect iv el y

“ Gin sb erg ”), rep res en te d Kn ig ht . GrayRo bi ns onatt orne y s Sc ot t Sp rad le y an d Mau reen Vituc ci serve d a s l oc al co un se l fo r Gin sb erg , as wel l as m ai n c ou ns el for Hug gi ns , Mat aek a an d At la nt ic Po rtf ol io Anal yti cs & Man ag em en t, In c. (“ APAM”)
. R. Sco ttSh uk er an d h is firm Lath am Sh uk er Ed en& Beaud in e LLP 2 (“ Lath am ”) re pr es en te d C ut hi ll an d Ev erg reen . Cu th il l p rev ai le d i n t he Mat aek a AP. The c ou rt i ss ue d ajud gm en t ag ai ns t Kni gh t, Hu gg in s, an d M at aek a joi nt ly andsev eral ly for n earl y $8 m il li on , and ag ai ns t APAM for$2 .5 m il li on . In an effo rt t o c ol le cton th e Ma ta ek a AP Ju dg m en t, Ev erg reen (th ro ug h C ut hi ll ) fi le d thr ee i nv ol un ta ry Ch ap te r 7 Knig ht and Hug g ins pled guilty to criminal cha

rg es arising fr om this t heft. The y wer e 1 sentenc ed to probation and fined. APAM was also a

named pa

rty in the Matae ka AP proc eeding
. 2 10ba nkrupt cy

pe ti ti on s ag ai ns t Kn ig ht , Hug gi ns an d APAM an d J ud ge Bri sk m an ap po in te d a n i nt eri m

tru st ee i n b ot h t he Kni gh t an d Hu gg in s i nv ol un ta ry act io ns . On J ul y 26 , 20 06 , th e co urt b eg anth e fi na l ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e in vo lu nt ary pe ti ti on s, an d Ev erg reen co m pl et edit s pr ima fa ci e cas e th atda y . The ne xtda y , on Ju ly 27, 2 00 6, Kn ig ht , Hug gi ns , Mat aek a, an d APAM , th ro ug h c ou ns el Gin sb erg , fil eda Mo ti onforRecu sa l, Mo ti on to Dis qu al ify, Dis cl os ur e o f al l Ex -Parte Co m m un ic at io ns an d R ev oc at io n o f al l Pr io r Ord ers (“ Rec us al Mo ti on ”) i n the m ai n c as e o nl y . The p art ie s re qu es te d t he co urt re cu se 3 it se lf, d is qu al ify Lath am , di sc lo se all ex p ar te co m m un ic at io ns an d fi li ng s, an d
rev ok e al l o rd ers pre vi ou sl y en te redin th is cas e an d a ll ot he r ad ve rs ary pr oc eed in gs . Less th ena m on th lat er, Gin sb erg fil eda Pet it io n fo r Writof Man da m us with t he di st ric t co urt as ki ng fora st ay of a ll pe nd in g p ro ceed in gs un ti l th e res ol ut io n o f th e Rec us al Mo ti on . A Sup pl em en ta l Pe ti ti on forWritof Man da m us was fi le d aweeklat er, s eek in g J ud ge Bri sk m an ’s rem ov al fro m rul in g
on th e Rec us al Mo ti on an d a ll rel at edpro ceed in gs . Bot h o f th es e wri ts were de ni ed
.Although G insbergand Spradle y both had a ha

nd in draftingthe Recusa l Motion, i t 3 appea rs that Ginsbergdid the lion’s share. ( Sanctions Order at 61) (“ The Te nor and c ontent of the Recusa l Motion and the Respondent’s billing re cords e stablish Ginsbergwas its principal draf ter a nd drivingforc e.”) . Since Spradley has not appe aled the imposition of sanctions, we ref er to Ginsbergas the a

uthor of the Rec usal Motion.

11On Oct ob er 1 0, 2 00 6 Ev erg reen fil eda m ot io n s eek in g s an ct io ns ag ai ns t

at to rn ey s Sp rad le y , Vituc ci , andGin sb erg , andth e la w firm s o f GrayRob in so n a nd Pet er R. Gi ns be rg , P.C. (“ San ct io ns Mo ti on ”). Gin sb erg th enfil eda th irdPet it io n fo r Writof M an da m

us reque st in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co m pe l J ud ge Bri sk m anto
reco ns id er an d re ve rs e th e d eci si on to ex cl ud e h im se lf a s a wi tn es s. Th e d is tri ct
co urt d en ie d t he th irdPet it io n fo r Writof M an da m us . Evi de nt ia ry

he ari ng s o n t he Recu sa l M ot io n wer e h el d o n No ve m be r 29 , 20 06 , Decem

be r 11 , 20 06 an d J an ua ry 29 , 20 07 . On Feb ru ary 27 , 20 07 th e ba nkrupt cy

co urt d en ie d t he Recu sa l M ot io n, an d o n Au gu st17 , 20 07 Ju dg e Bri sk m anis su edanOrde r to Sh ow Caus e whe th er s an ct io ns sh ou ldbe im po se d. On Au gu st28 , 20 07 Ju dg e Bri sk m anco nduc te d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on th e San ct io ns Mo ti on . The co urt g ran te d t he San ct io ns Mo ti on on Jan ua ry 2, 2 00 8. In th e San ct io ns Orde r, Ju dg e Bri sk m anim po se d m on et ary sa nc ti on s o f $3 71 ,51 7.6 9 ag ai ns t Gi ns be rg an d b arre d h im fro m pra ct ic in g b efo re the Uni te d S ta te s Ban kr up tc y Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a fo r a p eri odof f iv e y ears . 4 Gin sb erg ap pe al edbo th Orde rs . On Ju ne 17 , 20 08 , Dis tri ctCo urt J ud ge Ann e C. Pursuant to an August 8, 2007 settlement agree ment with Evergree n, Gra y Robinson 4 agree d to pay

Evergree n $300,000 in resolution of the Sanctions Motion. The cour t found this settlement amount “a

n appropriate sanc tion to redress a ll wrong ful ac ts of Gra y Robinson, Vitucci, and Spra dley

fallingwithin the purview of the Sanctions Motions, S ection 105(a ) of the Ba nkruptcy Code, and the Court’s inhe rent powe rs to sanction wrong ful conduc t.” (Sanc tions Orde r at 84-85.) 12Co nwa y

en te redanord er aff

irming , am on g o th er thi ng s, t he ba nkrupt cy co urt’s de ni al of t he recu sa l m ot io n andim po si ti on of s an ct io ns . II . LEGAL S TANDARD Fed eral co urts , in cl ud in g b an krup tc y co urts , po ss es s i nh eren t au th or it y to im po se san ct io ns ag ai ns t at to rn ey s an d the ir c li en ts . In re W al ke r, 53 2 F .3d13 04 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ Thi s p owe r is de riv edfro m th e co urt’s n eedto m an ag e [it s] own affa irs so as t o a ch ie ve th e o rd erl y an d e xp ed it io us di sp os it io n o f cas es .” Su ns hi ne Jr. St or es , Inc ., 45 6 F .3d12 91 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns
om it te d) . Fed eral st atut e 1 1 U.S.C. § 10 5( a) al so gi ve s the co urt t he au th or it y to

“su a s po nt e , tak [e] any acti onor m ak [e] any det erm in at io n n eces sa ry or ap pr op ria te to en fo rce o r im pl em en t co urt o rd ers or rul es , or t o p rev en t an ab us e o f pr oc es s.” 1 1 U.S.C. § 10 5( a) (2 00 5)
. W e rev ie w th e ex erci se of t he se po wers forab us e o f di sc ret io n. In re Su ns hi ne Jr. St or es , Inc ., 45 6 F .3dat 1 30 4. Un de r th is st an da rd , “ we as k wh ethe r [th e co urt] ‘ ap pl ie [d ] th e wro ng leg al st an da rdor m a[d e] fin di ng s o f fac t t ha t ar e cl earl y erro ne ou s.’” Id. (quo ti ng Byrn e v . Nezh at , 26 1 F .3d10 75 , 11 06 (11 th Cir
. 20 01 )). II I. DI SCUSSI ON

13Gin sb erg ap pe al s t he ba nkrupt cy co urt’s i m

po si ti on of s an ct io ns forth e dr aft in g, fi li ng an d l it ig at in g o f th e Rec us al Mo ti on . Gin sb erg all eg es th atth e di st ric t co urt erredin affi rm in g the san ct io ns be cau se (1) th e Rec us al Mo ti on was pr op er; (2) th e b an krup tc y co urt s ho ul d h av e d is cl os edth e ex is te nc e o f a
co m pl ai ntof ju di ci al m is co nduc t an d t es ti fie d t o i ts co nt en ts ; an d (3 ) th e ba nkrupt cy

co urt s ho ul d n otha ve pre si de d o ve r th e San ct io ns Mo ti on . W e ad dr es s ea ch co nt en ti on be lo w. A. Recus al Mot io n A party m ay

fil e a Re cu sa l M ot io n wh ena Ju dg e’s im pa rti al ity m ay
reas on ab ly be que st io ne d. Se e 2 8 U.S.C. § 45 5( a) (“ Any j us ti ce, jud ge , or
m ag is tra te jud ge of t he Uni te d S ta te s s ha ll di squa li fy hi m se lf i n any pro ceed in g i n whi chhi s i m

pa rti al it y m ig htreas on ab ly be que st io ne d.” ). “ The in qu iry of wh ethe r a jud ge 's i m

pa rti al it y m ig htreas on ab ly be que st io ne d u nd er § 45 5( a) i s an ob jecti ve st an da rdde si gn edto pro m ot e th e p ub li c's co nf id en ce i n t he im

pa rti al it y
an d i nt eg rit y

of t he jud ic ia l p ro ces s." Davi s v . Jo ne s, 5 06 F.3d13 25 , 13 32 n.1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . Thu s, t he co urt l oo ks to “ th e pe rs pe ct iv e o f a rea so nabl e o bs erv er wh o i s in fo rme d o f a ll th e su rr ou nd in g f

ac ts
an d c ir cu mst an ces .’ ” Ch en ey v. U.S. Dis t. Co urt fo r Dis t. o f Co lu m bi a, 54 1 U.S. 91 3, 9 24 (20 04 ) (quo ti ng Mi cro so ft C or p. v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 30 U.S. 13 01 , 13 02
14(2 00 0) ); s ee al so Glas s v . Pfeff er, 8 49 F.2d12 61 , 12 67 (10 th Cir . 19 88 ) (“ Und er th is sec ti on , factua l al le ga ti on s n eedno t b e ta ke n a s tru e, an d t he tes t i s wh ethe r ‘a
reas on ab le pe rs on , kn owi ng all th e rel ev an t fa ct s, wo ul d h arb ordo ub ts ab ou t t he jud ge ’s im

parti al it y .’ ” (quo ti ng Hin m anv. Ro ge rs , 83 1 F .2d93 7, 9 38 (10 thCir
. 19 87 ))). Gin sb erg ess en ti al ly ple d t hr ee b as es forth e ap pe aran ce o f im pa rti al it y : (1 ) th e fi li ng of aco m

pl ai ntof ju di ci al m is co nduc t ag ai ns t J ud ge Bri sk m anin a pr ev io us m at te r in vo lv in g S hu ke r; ( 2) th e b an krup tc y co urt’s ac cep ta nc e an d
co ns id erat io n o f Sh uk er’s ex p ar te an d o ve rs iz edfil in g; an d (3 ) Sh uk er’s vi ol at io ns of t he Flo rid a Ru le s o f Pro fes si on al Co nduc t. The ba nkrupt cy co urt fo un d tha t Gi ns be rg fai le d t o e st ab li sh an y leg al or f actua l s up po rt f

orth es e al le ga ti on s an d t ha t t he Mo ti on was fi le d fo r anim pr op er p ur

po se . W e fi ndth at th e b an krup tc y

co urt was no t cl earl y

erro ne ou s i n i ts fin di ng s o f fac t an d tha t i t ap pl ie d t he co rrec t l eg al st an da rd s. 1. Hud

so n’s Ju di cial

Co uncil Co m

pl aint On ap pe al , Gin sb erg ass ert s t ha t t he fil in g o f a co m pl ai ntof ju di ci al
m is co nduc t wi th th e Ju di ci al Co un ci l o f th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t was hi s m ai n b as is fo r fi li ng th e Rec us al Mo ti on . Gin sb erg ’s Recu sa l M ot io n re pe at ed ly referen ced th is co m pl ai ntof ju di ci al m is co nduc t (“ th e Co m pl ai nt ”), wh ic h was fil edby Phi l
15Hud so n (“ Hud so n” ) wit h t he Ju di ci al Co un ci l, re ga rd in g J ud ge Bri skm an ’s

co nduc t i n t he ba nkrupt cy act io n Ad va nc edTele co m m . Netwo rk , Inc . v. Dan ie l W . All en(“ ATN”). (Recu sa l M ot . at 2 .) InATN Shu ke r rep res en te d ATN, Hud so n re pr es en te d t he de fen da nt s/ cred it or s Dan ie l an d Dav idAll en , andJu dg e Bri sk m anin it ia ll y pr es id ed . Cut hi ll serve d a s a wi tn es s i n tha t ca se , bu t t he re i s n o o ve rlap i n t he pa rti es or t he is su es be twee n ATN an d t he in st an t b an kr up tc y pro ceed in gs . Acco rd in g t o t he Recu sa l M ot io n, Sh uk er fi le d a n ex p ar te m ot io n i n ATN, Ju dg e Bri sk m anhe ldan ex p ar te he ari ng on th atm ot io n, an d J ud ge Bri sk m an
or de redth e ex p ar te m ot io n b e rem ov edfro m th e d oc ke t. The se all eg at io ns are ge ne ral ly accur at e. Howev er, i t i s i m po rta ntto no te th e co nt ex t. ATN was at te m pt in g t o re co ve r fu nd s fr om th e All en s. At the m ot io n h eari ng , Shu ke r
ex pr es se d ATN’s co nc ern th atth e All en s wo ul d s ecre t as se ts in ot he r co rp or at io ns to av oi d turni ng th em

ov er. The All en s h adalr ead y be enrul edin co nt em

ptof t wo
or de rs rel at in g t o t he di sc lo su re o r rep atria ti on of a ss et s, s o ATN d idno t wan t t o gi ve th e All en s an y

adva nc e warn in g o f it s at te m ptto ha ve a te m

po rary recei ve r ap po in te d. Atth e h eari ng , Shu ke r an d J ud ge Bri sk m anals o d is cu ss edth e po ss ib il it y

of t he All en s b ei ng arre st edforco nt em pt . Ju dg e Bri sk m anag reedto ta ke th e h eari ng off

th e d oc ke t s he etso th atth e All en s wo ul d n otha ve adva nc e

16warn in g o f th e m at te rs di sc us se d t he rei n. A co urt re po rte r who tra ns cri be d t he

he ari ng was a ls o p res en t an d aful l re co rdwas m ad e. Hud so n l at er l earn edof t he ex p ar te m ot io n a ndhe ari ng an d fi le d a n Em erg en cy

Mo ti on to Dis qu al ify Oppo si ng Co un se l. At s om e p oi ntATN was tra ns ferr edto Ban krup tc y Ju dg e Je nn em an , who he lda he ari ng on th e Mo ti on an d de ni edit . In h er Ord er d en y in g t he Mo ti on , Ju dg e Je nn em anst at ed , “ ex p ar te he ari ng s, wh il e d is co ur ag ed , are s om et im es ap pr op ria te . In t hi s ca se , th e d eci si on to all ow ATN to pro ceedwith ahe ari ng witho utno ti ce t o the All en s d oe s n ot ap pe ar i m pr op er. Mo reo ve r, th e h eari ng was h el d o n t he reco rd .” (Am . Mem o. Op. Den . Defs.’ Em erg en cy Mo t. t o Di squa li fy

at 8 .) Ther eaft er, Hu ds on als o fil edth e Co m

pl ai ntwith t he Ju di ci al Co un ci l o f th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t. Inth is cas e, Gin sb erg fir stlea rn edof Hu ds on ’s Complai ntfro m Sp rad le y on Ju ly 7, 20 06 . Spra dl ey

rece iv edanem ai l fr om

anatt orne y

with h is firm

nam ed Jo hn Antho ny inf

orm in g h im

th atHud so n h adfil eda Co m pl ai ntrel at edto th e ATN m at te r. Ant ho ny hear d t hi s fr om an ot he r at to rn ey

(no t Hu ds on ). On the
sa m e d ay , Spr ad le y

sp ok e to Hud so n abo utth e Co m pl ai nt , con firm edth atHud so n ha d i n fa ctfil edon e, an d i nf orm edGin sb erg of wh athe ha d l earn ed . (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . II at11 9.) On Ju ly 8, 20 06 Gin sb erg be ga n re se arch in g t he Recu sa l Mo ti on . (Id. at18 .) Gin sb erg hi m se lf n ev er s po ke to Hud so n b efo re fi li ng th e 17Rec us al Mo ti on (id . at 3 0) , andne it he r Sp rad le y no r Gin sb erg ask edHud so n fo r a
co py of th e Co m

pl ai ntor o th er p ro of

of i ts fil in g (s ee i d. at30 ; 1 42 , 15 3- 54 ). At the san ct io ns he ari ng Gin sb erg tes ti fie d t ha t af te r rev ie win g t he ATN do ck ethe de te ct ed“pa ral le ls ” b etween th e ATN cas e an d t hi s o ne . (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . I at 1 69 .) Gin sb erg sai d h e was tro ub le d b y th e ap po in tm en t o f anin te rim tru st ee i n b ot h c as es . (Id.) Add it io na ll y , Gin sb erg cla im edth atSh uk er’s thr eat s of im pr is on m en t i n ATN rem in de d Hu gg in s an d Kn ig htof S hu ke r’s th reat s o f im pr is on m en t i n t hi s ca se (di sc us se d b el ow) , andth ey were co nc ern edab ou t t he im pl ic at io n t ha t Sh uk er wo ul d h av e Ju dg e Bri sk m an ’s app ro va l i n d oi ng so . (Id.) Gin sb erg th eref

or e fi le d t he Recu sa l M ot io n. Inth e Mo ti on , Gin sb erg all eg edth at“ Ju dg e Bri sk m anpre si di ng he re i s, hi m se lf, u nd er i nv es ti ga ti on by the 11 th Cir cu itCo urt o f App eal s fo ll owi ng ex pa rt e , all eg ed ly inapp ro pr ia te co m m un ic at io ns with M r. R. Sco ttShuk er.” (Rec us al Mo t. at2.) Gi ns be rg cla im edth atJu dg e Bri sk m an ’s fai lu re t o n ot ify the pa rti es of t he on go in g i nv es ti ga ti on , as wel l as Sh uk er’s ro le as afutur e wit ne ss in th e in ve st ig at io n, fu rth er b ol st eredth e ap pe aran ce o f pa rti al it y . (Id. at21 , 27 .)

a. Lac k o

f Fa ctua l Su

pp or t

18W e fi ndth atth e b an krup tc y co urt was no t cl earl y

erro ne ou s i n fi nd in g n o factua l s up po rt f

orGin sb erg ’s ass ert io n tha t t he ex is te nc e o f th e Co m pl ai ntcrea te d
anap pe aran ce o f im

pr op rie ty requ iri ng recu sa l. The m ere f

il in g o f a co m

pl ai ntof ju di ci al m is co nduc t i s n otgro un ds for
recu sa l. As S hu ke r’s ex pe rt wi tn es s Lube t ex pl ai ne d, i t wo ul d b e d etrimenta l t o th e jud ic ia l s y st em

if ajud ge ha d t o d is qu al ify himself an yti m e so m eo ne fil eda
co m pl ai ntab ou t h is co nduc t. A pa rty woul d o nl y ha ve to fil e a co m

pl ai ntto ge t a di ffer en t ju dg e. Lub ettes ti fie d t ha t t he Ru le s o f th e Ju di ci al Co un ci l o f th e Elev en thCir cu itGov ern in g C om pl ai nt s o f Ju di ci al Mi sc on du ctor Di sabi li ty (“ Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le s” ) al lo w lo ts of c om pl ai nt s t o b e fi le d, m an y

of wh ic h a re fri vo lo us . (Recu sa l Tr. Vo l. II a t 1 3- 14 .) The R ul es th eref

or e cre at e th ei r own
sc reen in g m ech an is m

forth es e co m

pl ai nt s; a st ag e o ne “ li m it edin qu iry” to de te rm in e whe th er a “ fo rm al in ve st ig at io n” in to th e v al id ity of t he co m

pl ai ntis
ne ces sa ry . (Id.) ; s ee al so Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le 4(a ) (“ th e Ch ie f Ju dg e m ay
co nduc t a l imi te d i nq ui ry fo r th e p ur po se of d et erm in in g –(1) whet he r ap pr op ria te
co rrec ti ve act io n h as be enor c anbe tak en wi th ou t the ne ces si tyfo r a fo rma l in ves ti ga ti on ; an d (2 ) whe th er the fact s s ta te d i n the co m pl ai ntare p la in ly unt ru e
orare i nc ap ab le of b ei ng est ab li sh edth ro ug h i nv es ti ga ti on .” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Thi s l im it edin qu iry reso lv es 98 % of a ll fil edco m pl ai nt s; on ly 2% of a ll
19co m

pl ai nt s ev er p ro ceedto th e fo rm al in ve st ig at io n s ta ge . (Recu sa l Tr. Vo l. II a t 13 -1 4.) Itwou ldcrea te anab su rdres ul t t o fo rce ajud ge to recu se hi m se lf b ecau se of th e 2 % po ss ib il it y

th atth e co m

pl ai ntwil l b eco m e anin ve st ig at io n a ndth e ev en
sm al le r ch an ce t ha t an in vo lv edpa rty will be cal le d a s a wi tn es s i n t ha t in ve st ig at io n. (I d.) Thus , th e m ere e xi st en ce o f a co m pl ai ntof ju di ci al m is co nduc t do es no t cr eat e an ap pe aran ce o f im pr op rie ty. Whi le a fo rm al in ve st ig at io n i nt o aco m pl ai ntm ay

tri gg er re cu sa l, the re i s
no ev id en ce o f anim

pe nd in g i nv es ti ga ti on he re. Yet , th e Rec us al Mo ti on refe rred to th e Co m

pl ai ntas a n “ in ve st ig at io n” twel ve ti m es , m ad e fo urte enim pl ic at io ns of th e ex is te nc e o f a fo rm al in ve st ig at io n, an d re ferr edto Sh uk er as a “ ke y pl ay er in th e in ve st ig at io n” an d a“ fu tu re wi tn es s.” (R ecu sa l M ot . at 2 1.) Du rin g t he San ct io ns Heari ng , Gin sb erg tes ti fie d t ha t h e as su med th ere was an“ on go in g in ve st ig at io n” by virtue of t he factth atHud so n’s Co m pl ai ntha d n otbe en di sm is se d fo r a num

be r of m on th s. Yet, acc or di ng to th e Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le s

5 th e le ng th of t im e th ata co m pl ai ntrem ai ns pe nd in g i s i rrel ev an t. Gin sb erg 6 fu rth er as se rte d tha t Sp rad le y us edth e te rm

“ in ve st ig at io n” whenrel at in g h is
At the time the Recusa l Motion was filed the Complaint had only been pe nding f

or five 5 or six months. (Sanctions Tr. Vol. I Iat 162.) Shuker’s Expert Wit ness L ubet testified that the House J udiciary Commi ttee has he ld a 6 series of hearings a

bout the leng th of time it has taken to handle the se complaints. (Rec usal Tr. Vol. I Iat 50.) 20co nv ers at io ns with Hu ds on (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . II at5) andSp rad le y tes ti fie d t ha t Hud so n h adus edth e te rm “ in ve st ig at io n” whenrel at in g the ev en ts to hi m (id . at 13 6- 37 , 14 2) . In Hu ds on ’s dep os it io n, h owe ve r, he tes ti fie d t ha t h e n ev er u se d t he te rm “ in ve st ig at io n.” (San ct io ns Orde r at28 .) Ant ho ny’ s d ep os it io n re ve al edhe di d u se th e te rm

“ in ve st ig at io n,” bu t An th on y adm it te d t ha t h e h adno fir stha nd kn owl ed ge of t he Co m

pl ai nt . (Recu sa l Ex . II at56 -5 7, 6 2.) An th on y co m pa red hi s kno wled ge of the Co m pl ai ntto kn owl ed ge ab ou t “ Bri tn ey Sp ears ’ di vo rce . . . a lo t o f pe op le have he arda lo t.” (I d. at56 -5 7.) Mo reo ve r, th e Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le s cl earl y st at e th atif t he Ch ie f Ju dg e
was co nduc ti ng a fo rm al in ve st ig at io n, Hu ds on (th e co m pl ai na nt ) wou ldbe in fo rm ed . See J ud ic ia l Co un ci l Ru le 4(c ) (“ If the co m pl ai ntis no t d is m is se d . . . th e Ch ie f Ju dg e sh al l ap po in t a s pe ci al co m m it te e . . . to i nv es ti ga te th e al le ga ti on s of th e co m pl ai nt. . . . The Ch ie f Ju dg e sh al l n ot if y th e co mpl ai na nt an d t he
co m pl ai ne d- of

jud ge of t he ap po in tm en t o f a s pe ci al co m m it te e . . . .” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Hud so n was ne ve r no ti fie d o f su ch an d n ev er i nd ic at edto any on e th athe ha d b een . Spra dl ey

tes ti fie d t ha t Hu ds on ’s on ly corre sp on de nc e wit h t he Ju di ci al Co un ci l o f th e Ele ve nth C irc ui t was imm ed ia te ly after h e fi le d h is Co m pl ai nt . (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . II at14 2.) Hu ds on rece iv eda le tt er co nf irming th e Co m

pl ai nt
was rece iv edan d s ub m it te d t o t he Ch ie f Ju dg e. (Id .) Spr ad le y furth er t es ti fie d
21th athe sp ok e wit h Hu ds on th ree o r fo urti m es aft er tha t “ wit h t he expr es se d re as on

to askif h e h adhe ardth e res ul t o r anup da te , andhe rep li edin th e n eg at iv e.” (Id
. at15 4.) Ev enth ou gh th e Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le s cl earl y st at e th atHud so n wo ul d be in fo rm edif h is Co m

pl ai ntwas d is m is se d o r m ov edto th e in ve st ig at io n s ta ge , Gin sb erg rel ie d o nl y

on th e fac t t ha t Hu ds on was n otin fo rm edof ach an ge in st atus to de em

itan“ in ve st ig at io n.” Thi s i s cl earl y anun reas on ab le rel ia nc e an d 7 jum p t o a n u ns up po rte d c on cl us io n. Si m il arl y , th e m ere e xi st en ce o f an ex p ar te he ari ng is no t g ro un ds for
recu sa l. As Lube t ex pl ai ne d t he re ar e m an y reas on s ju dg es pro pe rly ho ld ex p ar te he ari ng s, s uc h a s a t em

po rary rest rai ni ng ord er o r ba il rev oc at io n p ro ceed in gs . In de ed , inATN Jud ge Jen ne m anst at edth at ex p ar te he ari ng s m ay be ap pr op ria te . (Am . Mem o. Op . Den. Defs .’ Em erg en cy Mo t. t o Di squa li fy

at 9 .) In f

act , Ju dg e Je nn em anhe ldth atth e ex p ar te he ari ng in ATN didno t cr eat e th e ap pe aran ce o f

On appe al Ginsbergasser ts that “a tec hnical def

inition of investigation” wa s not 7 sug g ested. (I

nitial Br. at 34.) Spradley also testified at the Sanc tions Hearingthat he looked up the term " investiga

tion" in Webster' s dictionary and believe d it to apply

to the prese nt situation. (Sanctions Tr. Vol. I Iat 137.) Ye t, at the same he aringGinsbergtestified that his “unequivoc al understandingwas that the c omplaint had passed through the first phase , that the chief judge had come to the c onclusion there w as merit to the complaint, and that whether it was the chie f judg e or the c ommitt ee, w itnesses wer e g oing to becontac ted, information wa s to be g ather ed.” (Sanctions Tr. Vol. I

at 80.) This is not the dictionary definition of “investig ation,” but a definition in acc ordanc e with the proc edure outlined by the J udicial Council Rules indicating that Ginsbergwas a ssertingthe technic al def inition of investigation in the Recusa l Motion. 22im

pr op rie ty. (Id .) (“ [T]he co nv ers at io n [d id ] no t ri se to th e le ve l o f a s pe ci fic al ly id en ti fiabl e im

pr op rie ty.”). b. Lac k o

f Legal Sup po rt The ba nkrupt cy

co urt al so fou ndth atth e Rec us al Mo ti on lac ke d l eg al
supp ort. We agre e. The on ly case Gi ns be rg rel ie d o n fo r th e p ro po si ti on th ata co m pl ai ntof jud ic ia l m is co nduc t (wh ic h Gi ns be rg equa te s wi thanin ve st ig at io n) requi res
recu sa l was Uni te d S ta te s v . Garru do , 86 9 F . Sup p. 1 57 4 (S .D. Fla. 1 99 4)
. (Rec us al Mo t. at20 .) In Garru do , a di st ric t co urt ju dg e was un de r in ve st ig at io n b y th e Uni te d S ta te s At to rn ey ’s Offic e “ fo r acc ep ti ng gra tu it ie s wo rth th ou sa nd s o f do ll ars . . . .” Garru do , 86 9 F .Supp . at 1 57 6. Whil e p res id in g o ve r cri m in al cas es , th e jud ge was t ol d h e was th e “ subjec t” of ape nd in g Un it edSta te s At to rn ey ’s Offi ce i nv es ti ga ti on . Id. The Ju dg e was subs eque nt ly int erv ie wedby feder al ag en ts an d s erv edwith agra ndjury subp oe na du ces tec um . Id. On ce h e was in fo rm edth athi s s ta tu s was ele va te d t o t ha t o f a “ ta rg et ” th e jud ge recu se d h im se lf fro m all pe nd in g c riminal m at te rs . Id. Cri m in al de fen dant s co nv ic te d o r
se nt en cedby the jud ge whi le th e in ve st ig at io n was pe nd in g, b utbe fo re the jud ge
recu se d h im se lf, c ha ll en ge d t he ir c on vi ct io ns . Id. The de fen da nt s cl ai m edth atth e

23jud ge ha d an i nc en ti ve to curry fav orwith t he go ve rn m en t. Id . The d is tri ctco urt he ldth atrecu sa l was ap pr op ria te . 8 Gin sb erg arg ue s t ha t the cri m in al gra ndjury in ve st ig at io n i n Garru do an d th e p res en t ju di ci al m is co nduc t co m pl ai ntare an al og ou s. (Re cu sa l M ot . at 2 0) (“ Fo rtu na te ly the re ar e few ca se s i n wh ic h c ou rts ha ve ha d t o app ly the recu sa l st atut e to a ci rcu m st an ce i n wh ic h ajud ge is un de r anin ve st ig at io n li ke the in st an t in ves ti ga ti on . A no tabl e ex cep ti on is Garru do .” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Howev er, th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atJu dg e Bri sk m anwas u nd er i nv es ti ga ti on , letalo ne a cri m in al on e. Inou r vi ew, a ci vi l co m pl ai ntof ju di ci al m is co nduc t an d acri m in al gr an d ju ry

in ve st ig at io n a re n otan al og ou s. The fact s atis su e h ere a re fu rth er d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m Garru do . Gin sb erg rel ie s o n Garru do forth e p rin ci pl e th at“ anali gn m en t o f in te res ts be twee n t he pr es id in g ju dg e an d c ou ns el in a po si ti on to in flu en ce t he ou tc om e o f an in ve st ig at io n o r in qu iry affect in g t he jud ge wou ldcau se a reas on ab le ob jecti ve ob se rv er t o que st io n the im pa rti al ity of t he co urt.” (I ni ti al Br. at32 .) In Garru do , ho wev er, the pa rty con du ct in g t he in ve st ig at io n (the Uni te d S ta te s Go ve rn m en t)
was actua ll y

be fo re the co urt, s o t he co urt m ay ha ve ha d an i nc en ti ve to cu rry

This decision was a ffirme d by an 11 Circuit panel. A subseque nt en banc court split

t h 8 evenly on the question of re cusal, ther eby aff irming the previous rulingby operation of law. 24fav or . Here, th ere was no in ve st ig at io n, o nl y a co m pl ai ntwhi ch ha d a2% ch an ce of be co m in g a n i nv es ti ga ti on . Mor eo ve r, th e ex is te nc e o f th e in ve st ig at io n was well kn own in Garru do an d c ou ldth eref or e aff ectpubl ic co nf

id en ce i n t he jud ic ia ry . The i nv es ti ga ti on was d is cu ss edin va rio us ne wsp ap ers an d was pri nt ed
on th e fro ntpa ge of t he Mi am i Dai ly Bus in es s R ev ie w. Garru do , 86 9 F . Sup p. at 15 76 . On th e o th er h an d, ev id en ce o f th is Co m pl ai ntwas n otin th e p ub li c fo ru m
un ti l Gi ns be rg fil edth e Rec us al Mo ti on . A con fid en ti al co m pl ai ntth atth e p ub li c is no t awa re o f do es no t h av e an y affe ctonth e “publ ic 's c on fid en ce i n the im pa rti al it y an d i nt eg rit y

of t he jud ic ia l p ro ces s.” Se e Dav is , 50 6 F .3dat 1 33 2 n.1 2. Inth is reg ard , we agr ee wi th th e ru li ng s o f th e b an krup tc y co urt an d t he di st ric t co urt. 2. ExPar teCo m m uni ca tion s Inth e Rec us al Mo ti on Gin sb erg cit es to two all eg ed ly inapp ro pr ia te ex pa rt e co m

m un ic at io ns be twee n S hu ke r an d J ud ge Bri sk m anin th e Ma ta ek a AP pr oc eed in g: a di sc ov ery m ot io n a ndpro po se d fi nd in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of la w (“ FOFCOL”). 9
On appe al, Ginsbergasser ts that these incidents " wer e not intended a s separ ate 9 instances of

misconduct war

rantingrec usal." (Initial Br. at 34.) The incide nts merely demonstrate that an objective obse rver would question the court' s impartiality . (I d.) These 25a. Dis co ver y Mo tion The ba nkrupt cy

co urt fo un d t ha t Gi ns be rg ha d n o fa ctua l s up po rt f orhi s
as se rti on th atSh uk er “ ap paren tl y ” fil edan ex p ar te em erg en cy m ot io n t o c om

pe l 1 0 pr oduc ti on of d oc um en ts (“ Em erg en cy Mo ti on ”) an d tha t J ud ge Bri sk m an ’s
subs eque ntord er “ was acco m pl is he d wi th ou t a h eari ng ” ev enth ou gh Sp rad le y ob jecte d t o t he reque st edrel ie f. The re co rdsupp orts th e co nc lu si on th atsu ch an
as se rti on was g ro un dl es s. The fact s s urro un di ng th is sh owe d t ha t Sh uk er fi le d a n Em erg en cy Mo ti on in th e Kni gh t p ro ceed in g o n J ul y 17 , 20 06 , si x d ay s b efo re the Ju ly 24, 2 00 6 t ria l da te . Upo n re cei pt , Ju dg e Bri sk m an ’s cha m be rs cal le d S pr ad le y ’s off ic e to
sc he du le a he ari ng , bu t Sp rad le y was o utof t own an d u na va il ab le , andth ere was
no off er t o s en d s om eo ne els e fro m hi s o ffi ce. As t he tri al was s etforsi x d ay s aft er the Em erg en cy

Mo ti on was fi le d, “ [w]aiti ng to co nduc t a h eari ng up on Sp rad le y ’s return fr om

va cat io n was no t an op ti on .” (Rec us al Orde r at28 .) A he ari ng was t he refo re h el d a ndanOrde r was en te red
. alleg ations, howeve r, lac k fac tual support and ther efor e do not af fec t the appea

ranc e of pa

rtiality
. See Chene y , 541 U.S. at 924 (the de cision to disqualify must be “made from the pe rspec tive of a rea sonable obser

ver who is informed of all the surrounding f acts and circumstanc es .” (c itations omitted) (emphasis in orig inal)). Ginsbergtestified that he he dg ed his alleg ations with the word " appar ently " be cause 1 0 Ginsbergwas ne ver g iven either Shuker' s motion or the J udg e' s order . (Sanctions Tr. Vol. I Iat 43.) 26The re i s n o e vi de nc e, ho wev er, tha t t he Em erg en cy Mo ti on was fi le d ex pa rt e . Befo re fi li ng th e Em erg en cy Mo ti on Sh uk er em ai le d S pr ad le y , reque st in g
ex pe di te d d is co ve ry . Spra dl ey co pi edGin sb erg on hi s re sp on se , den y in g S hu ke r’s reque st . Thu s, b ot h S pr ad le y an d Gi ns be rg were o n n ot ic e th atSh uk er was
se ek in g d is co ve ry

an d t ha t a h eari ng was i m m in en t. Mo reo ve r, bo th Sp rad le y an d Gin sb erg were g iv enform al no ti ce o f th e fi li ng of t he Mo ti on . The ce rti fic at e o f
se rv ic e at ta ch edto th e Mo ti on in di cat es th atGrayRo bi ns on an d Gi ns be rg were bo th serve d e le ctro ni cal ly, by fax an d fi rs t-c la ss m ai l. Fin al ly, th e Ord er en te red 1 1
was no t Sh uk er’s p ro po se d o rd er, an d i n fa ctgra nt edon ly som e o f th e rel ie f th at Sh uk er re qu es te d. In ou r vi ew, Ju dg e Bri sk m anap pr op ria te ly addres se d a n
ev id en ti ary is su e wit hi n t he ti m e co ns tra in ts an d t he re was in factno ba si s fo r th e al le ga ti on s m ad e in th e Rec us al Mo ti on .

b. Find

ings of F ac t a nd Co nclus io ns of La w The reco rdals o fu ll y

supp orts th e fi nd in g o f th e b an krup tc y co urt t ha t Gin sb erg ’s con te nt io n tha t the co urt o rd eredth e p art ie s t o fi le ex p ar te FOFCOL
an d re li edon Sh uk er’s o ve rs iz edFOFCOL was witho utan y ba si s wh at so ev er.

Ginsberg ’s alleg ation of lac k of ser vice is eve n more c onfusingbeca use Ginsber g ’s 1 1 pro hac vic eapplication listed Gra y Robinson attorney

Vitucci as the designated pe rson to be serve d in the Matae ka Proce eding . Service to Ginsbergwas not re quired. 27A Ju ne 20 , 20 05 em ai l fr om Su sa n C ob erl y , Ju dg e Bri sk m an ’s ass is ta nt , in vi ti ng th e p art ie s t o fi le FOFCOL, no t t o e xc eed15 pa ge s, i s t he on ly writ te n do cu m en t Gi ns be rg pre se nt edto pro ve th e fi li ng s wer e co urt o rd ered . The em ai l di d n otdi sc us s s erv ic e. Bo th si de s s ub se qu en tl y subm it te d F OFCOL to th e co urt wit ho utservi ng each ot he r. Shu ke r’s FOFCOL was 46 pa ge s l on g. Mo nt hs lat er in a de po si ti on , Spr ad le y

an d Gi ns be rg lea rn edof t hi s 4 6- pa ge subm is si onwhen th e d ep on en t re ferr edto it
. Sp rad le y imm ed ia te ly sen t Sh uk er an em ai l ex pr es si ng hi s co nc ern ab ou t Eve rg reen ’s fai lu re t o c om pl y with the co urt’s 1 5- pa ge li m it at io n. (Em ai l fr om Sp rad le y to Sh uk er o f 10 /1 0/ 05 .) Shu ke r res po nd edto th e em ai l, s ta ti ng “ I
un de rs ta ndth aty oucal le d S us anab ou t the pa ge [le ng th ] an d wer e in fo rm edth e Ju dg e h as no t yet lo ok edat e it he r pr op os edfin di ng s. Th us , itsee m s t he si m pl e
so lu ti onis form e to cu t m in e d own to 15 pa ge s an d re pl ace t he lo ng er o ne .” (Em ai l fr om

Sh uk er t o S pr ad le y

of 1 0/ 17 /0 5.) OnNov em be r 3, 2 00 5 S hu ke r ag ai n
em ai le d S pr ad le y

to in fo rm

hi m th athe ha d s ub m it te d arev is ed , 15 -p ag e FOFCOL. “ By

th e way , we subm it te d re vi se d F OFCOL to da y whi ch were 1 5 pa ge s; th e Ju dg e n ev er re vi ewedth e lo ng er o ne . Thu s, I as su m e th atis no w a
moo t iss ue .” (Em ai l fr om Sh uk er t o S pr ad le y

of 1 1/ 03 /0 5) (em

ph as is ad de d) . The
ne xtda y Sp rad le y res po nd edinap pa ren t und ers tand in g: “ Tha nk s fo r th e n ot e re: 28fin di ng s an d c on cl us io ns . I’ ll cal l you i n awhi le .” (Em ai l fr om Sp rad le y to Sh uk er o f 11 /0 4/ 05 .) At the en d o f tr ia l the co urt al lo wedth e p art ie s t o fi le an ot he r se t o f FOFCOL. Sh uk er t es ti fie d t ha t Sp rad le y an d Gi ns be rg ob

jecte d t o h is su gg es ti on of no t ex ch an gi ng th es e subm is si on s. Anob jecti on was fi le d a nda he ari ng was
sc he du le d b utSp rad le y

an d Gi ns be rg op te d o utof t he he ari ng an d t he ir o bjec ti on
was th ereb y

withd rawn . Bot h s id es th ensubm it te d F OFCOL to th e co urt wi th ou t
se rv in g e ach ot he r. Thi s t im e Sh uk er s ub m it te d a15 -p ag e d oc um en t. Sp rad le y
an d Gi ns be rg , ho wev er, s ub m it te d a23 -p ag e fi li ng : a 1 5- pa ge do cu m en t en ti tl ed

“ Defen da nt s’ Pro po se d F in di ng s o f Fac t an d C on cl us io ns of Law” an d a n 8 -p ag e do cu m en t en ti tl ed“ Ci ta ti on s t o t he Reco rd .” All of t he subm is si on s wer e
m an ip ul at edto m ax im iz e wor d s pa ce: th e p art ie s u se d s m al le r fo ntan d m arg in s th anth e lo cal rul es all ow.

I. ExPar teNatur e The re i s n o e vi de nc e th atth e ex p ar te na tu re o f th e fi li ng s wer e co urtor de red . Spra dl ey

tes ti fie d t ha t “ I can no t s ta te with c ert ai nt y th at[Ms . Cob erl y ]
sa idth e Co urt s pe ci fic al ly say s you are n otto gi ve th e o th er s id e th e d oc um en ts . Bu t wh at ev er wo rd s wer e sa id , I cam e away w it h t he im pr es si on th at ’s whatwe were t o d o, an d the n the factth atth e p art ie s ac te d i n c on fo rm it y with tha t.”
29(Rec us al Tr. Vol . IV at 1 33 .) Gin sb erg di d n otdi rect ly comm un ic at e wit h M s. Co be rly, buttes ti fie d t ha t h e was to ldby Sprad le y th e co urt h adord ered ex p ar te fil in gs . (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . I at 9 5- 96 .) Gin sb erg furth er t es ti fie d tha t t he co urt
or de redth e se co ndFOFCOL b e fi le d ex p ar te in op enco urt an d t ha t h e o bjec te d a t th atti m e. (Id .) Howev er, Gin sb erg co ul d n otlo cat e a tran sc rip t o r an y ot he r
ev id en ce o f th is di rect iv e. (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . II at49 -5 1.) Nei th er ca n we. On t he ot he r ha nd , Shu ke r te st ifi edth atth e FOFCOL were fil ed ex pa rt e ba se d o n am

utua l u nd ers ta nd in g b etween th e la wy ers ; i t was no t b as edon a
co urt o rd er. (Id . at 1 85 -8 6.) Sh uk er ex pl ai ne d t ha t dur in g t he fir stfil in g t he tri al
was st il l o ng oi ng an d h e d idno t wan t t he op po si ti on ’s witne ss es to readhi s cl ie nt s’ FOFCOL an d c hang e th ei r te st im on y . (Id.) Forth e se co ndfil in g, Sh uk er te st ifi edth atth e tr ia l h adbe enso ex pe ns iv e th athe di d n otwantto ad d t he co st s of ex ch an gi ng an d o bjec ti ng to each ot he rs subm is si on s. (Id .) At b es t, Gi ns be rg pre se nt edev id en ce t ha t t he att orne y s h adso m e
un de rs ta nd in g abo utno t s erv in g e ach ot he r. W e fi ndno ev id en ce, h owe ve r, th at th e co urt or de re d

th e p art ie s t o s ub m itth e fi li ng s ex p ar te or t ha t t he co urt was
aware th atsu ch was b ei ng do ne .

ii . Rel ia nce o n 4 6-

pa geFil ing

30W e al so fin d n o e vi de nc e th atJu dg e Bri sk m anread , letalo ne rel ie d o n,

Eve rg reen ’s 46 -p ag e FOFCOL an d Gi ns be rg ha s p res en te d n on e. Due to th e o ve rlap b etweenth e co urt’s u lt im at e FOFCOL an d Ev erg reen ’s 46 -p ag e FOFCOL, Sp rad le y an d Gi ns be rg co nt en de d t ha t J ud ge Bri sk m anrel ie d
on th e 4 6- pa ge do cu m en t. (Se e Rec us al Tr. Vol . IV at 9 7; San ct io ns Tr. Vol . I at 10 0.) Sp rad le y

an d Gi ns be rg als o fe ltitsi gn ifi can t t ha t t he co urt n ev er d is cl os ed th e 4 6- pa ge subm is si on or f orm al ly rejectedth e o ve rs iz edfil in g. Yet, n ei th er Sp rad le y

no r Gin sb erg ha d a ny reaso n t o b el ie ve Ju dg e Bri sk m anor h is law cl erkactua ll y readth e 4 6- pa ge FOFCOL. (See, e .g., Rec us al Tr. Vol . III at67 , 15 3; San ct io ns Tr. Vol . I at 1 01 .) The o nl y ev id en ce p ro du ced
was th e em ai ls di sc us se d abo ve , whi ch su gg es t t ha t J ud ge Bri sk m andi d no t read th e 4 6- pa ge FOFCOL an d t ha t i t was a “ m oo t i ss ue .” Fu rth er, atth e ti m e th e Mo ti onwas fi le d, n ei th er Gi ns be rg no r Sp rad le y ha d s een th e 1 5- pa ge rep la cem en t FOFCOL o r th e FOFCOL s ub m it te d a t t he co nc lu si on of the tri al . (Recu sa l Tr. Vol . III at97 .) At th e rec us al he ari ng Sh uk er t es ti fie d t ha t al l o f th e fac ts an d
co nc lu si on s co nt ai ne d i n t he 46 -p ag e subm is si on co ul d b e fo un d i n Ev erg reen ’s two 15 -p ag e subm is si on s o r inth e FOFCOL i n t he Kim e o pi ni on , a rel at ed cas e ci te d i n Ev erg reen ’s 15 -p ag e subm is si on . Spra dl ey an d Gi ns be rg co nc ed edth at th ey ha d n ev er re vi ewedeit he r of Ever gr een ’s 15 -p ag e subm is si on s o r co m pa red
31th os e d oc um en ts with t he co urt’s u lt im at e FOFCOL. Gin sb erg says h e as su med

th atJu dg e Bri sk m anreadth e o ve rs iz edFOFCOL. Thi s i s an ot he r un jus ti fie d po si ti onin th e fac e o f em ai ls to th e co nt rary. Mo reo ve r, Sh uk er’s ex pe rt wi tn es s Pr of es so r Lub etex pl ai ne d t ha t ev enif th e em ai ls are i nc orrectan d J ud ge Bri sk m anactua ll y readth e 4 6- pa ge subm is si on , he co ul d h av e eas il y

di sr eg ard edit . Ind eed , jud ge s ar e as ke d t o d is reg ard
ev id en ce al l o f th e ti m e. Fi na ll y , we no te th ataltho ug h Gi ns be rg an d S pr ad le y were qui ckto accu se Sh uk er o f fi li ng anov ers iz edFOFCOL (“ Mr. Sh uk er t oo k a dv an ta ge of t he cl an de st in e fi li ng s b y bl at an tl y fl au nt in g th e p ag e li m it s i m po se d o n M ov an ts ” (em ph as is ad de d) ), th ei r own FOFCOL was ov ers iz edan d i n v io la ti on of t he Loca l Ru le s. (Re cu sa l M ot . at 2 7.) Onc e ag ai n, t he reco rdsupp orts th e b an kr up tc y co urt’s fi nd in gs . 3. Shuk er ’s Beha vi or Fi na ll y , th e Rec us al Mo ti on co m pl ai ne d o f Sh uk er’s b eh av io r an d st at em en ts whi ch all eg ed ly vio la te d R ul es 4-3 .4(g ) an d 4 -3 .4(h ) of th e Fl or id a Ru le s o f Pro fes si on al Co nduc t. The M ot io n a ll eg edShuk er m ad e “ un ethi cal 1 2
On appe al Ginsbergdoes not addre ss the alleg ations of Shuker’s imprope r conduc t. 1 2 Be cause Shuker’s c onduct was a lleg ed as a basis for f

iling the Rec usal Motion we still address it below. 32th reat s o f se ek in g, an d p ro m is es of o bt ai ni ng , th e in carc erat io n o f th e in di vi du al

Mo va nt s an d s im il ar thr eat s d ire ct edat M ov an t’s Co un se l.” (R ecu sa l M ot . at 3 .) The bankrupt cy

co urt fo un d t ha t Sh uk er’s b eh av io r di d n otris e to th e le ve l o f a di sc ip li na ry

rul e v io la ti on or c reat e d oubt s ab ou t t he ba nkrupt cy co urt’s im pa rti al it y . The rec or d s up po rts th is fin di ng .

a. Thre at

s to K ni gh t a nd Hug gins Afte r a co urt h eari ng in whi ch Shuk er s ou gh t o rd ers di rect in g Kn ig htan d Hug gi ns to rep atria te cert ai n fu nd s o r be he ldin civ il co nt em pt , th e Rec us al Mo ti onass ert s t ha t Sh uk er t ol d Kn ig htan d Hu gg in s t he y wou lden d up i n jai l i f th ey di d n otset tl e, an d Hu gg in s wo ul d “ di e injail .” (Rec us al Mo t. at9.) Itis no w cl ear t ha t thi s n ev er h ap pe ne d. Kni gh t’s o wn t es ti m on y

be li es th e fac ts as s ta te d i n t he Recu sa l M ot io n. The Mo ti on st at es th at“ Mr. Sh uk er ap pr oa ch ed[Kni gh t an d Hu gg in s] ou ts id e th e do orof the Co urt an d a nn ou nc edth at. . . [Kn ig htan d Hu gg in s] wou ld‘ en d up i n jail ’ an d t ha t M r. Hug gi ns , 67 -y ears ol d, ‘wou lddi e in jail .’ ” (Id .) Acco rd in g t o Kni gh t, h owe ve r, Sh uk er d idno t ap pr oa ch eit he r Kni gh t o r Hug gi ns , hi s
co m m en ts were m ad e o nl y

to Sp rad le y

an d Gi ns be rg . (Recu sa l Tr. Vo l. IV at16 2; Kni gh t Aff. at2.) Kn ig httes ti fie d t ha t wh il e Sp rad le y an d S hu ke r were s pe ak in g in th e h al lway, Shu ke r to ldSp rad le y if h e d idno t h av e a s et tl em en t o n h is de sk
33so on , Spr ad le y ’s cli en ts were g oi ng to go to jail an d Hu gg in s wo ul d d ie injail
.

(Id .) Kni gh t cl ai m s t ha t al th ou gh he was n otpa rt o f th e co nv ers at io n, h e was wit hi n e ars ho t an d o ve rh eardSh uk er’s thr eat s. (Id .) Hug gi ns , ho wev er, was in th e b athr oo m

(ou t o f ear sh ot ) atth e ti m e. (Id .) Bei ng withi n e ars ho t o f two la wy ers ne go ti at in g i s m

uc h d iff eren t t ha n b ei ng ap

pr oa ch ed by op po si ng co un se l. Fu rth er, i f Hug gi ns was i n the ba th ro om du rin g S hu ke r’s al le ge d t hr eat s, Sh uk er
co ul d n otha ve to ld

Mr. Hugg in s th athe “ wou lddi e in jail .” Mo reo ve r, Sh uk er t es ti fie d t ha t t hi s was a warn in g, n ota th reat . (Recu sa l Tr. Vol . IV at 1 96 .) If Hug gi ns an d Kn ig htdi d n otm ak e a s et tl em en t o ffer forth e
m on ey alr ead y owedth ey

ris ke d b ei ng fou ndin civ il co nt em ptan d s en t t o jai l. (Id .) Aga in , th ere i s s im pl y no supp ort i n t he reco rdforth es e al le ga ti on s. Su ch
m is st at em en ts refl ecteit he r a fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te or ade li be rat e at te m ptto de cei ve . b. Thre at s to S pr ad le y Inan ot he r ex am

pl e o f “ Mr. Sh uk er thr eat en [in g] to us e wha t h e ap pa ren tl y th ou gh t was hi s co urt-g ran te d ri gh t t o t hr eat enim pr is on m en t,” t he Mo ti on refe ren ces anin ci de ntat Kn ig ht ’s dep os it io n. (R ecu sa l M ot . at 9 .) Shu ke r was al le ge dl y en rag edwhen he saw Sp rad le y at t he de po si ti on . Shu ke r to ldSp rad le y 34to lea ve th e ro om an d thr eat en edth athe wou ldbe arre st edfortre sp as s i f he di d
no t l eav e. Sp rad le y

di d n otlea ve . Shu ke r th enlef t t he roo m , cal m eddo wn, an d returne d afew m in ut es lat er. The de po si ti on was t ak enwith S pr ad le y pre se nt . Aga in , th e Mo ti on fai ls to pu t t he in ci de ntinco nt ex t. Sh uk er t es ti fie d t ha t th e Kni gh t d ep os it io n a t i ss ue was n otforth e g en eral Mat aek a p ro ceed in g, b utfor th e p riv at e p ur

po se of a cces si ng Kni gh t’s fu nd s i n a idof e xe cu ti onof a n e xi st in g jud gm en t. Sh uk er d idno t b el ie ve th atSp rad le y ha d arig htto be at t he de po si ti on . Fu rth er, Hu gg in s was to be de po se d i m m ed ia te ly after Kn ig ht . Thu s, Sh uk er d id
no t wan t Hu gg in s’ cou ns el in th e ro om forKni gh t’s d ep os it io n. He d idno t wan t Hug gi ns to kn ow wh atKni gh t was be in g que st io ne d abo utor t es ti fy in g t o. Sh uk er h im se lf a ckno wled ge d t ha t h is be ha vi orwas i m pr op er. Sp rad le y
em ai le d S hu ke r th e n ex t d ay ou tl in in g t he in ap pr op ria te co m m en t an d S hu ke r
res po nd edwith a n apo lo gy em ai l. The lan gu ag e u se d i n t he Recu sa l M ot io n fa il s t o t el l t he who le st ory an d th ereb y ex ag ge rat es whatoc curred
. c. Thre at

s to Gins be rg The Mo ti on furth er m en ti on edth atSh uk er thr eat en edto fil e a b ar g rie va nc e ag ai ns t Gi ns be rg du rin g t he de po si ti on of C ha rle s B aro n o n Au gu st9, 2 00 5.

35Inou r vi ew, Sh uk er’s co nduc t i s u nd ers ta nd ab le in co nt ex t. At t he recu sa l

he ari ng , Shu ke r te st ifi edth atdu rin g apre vi ou s d ep os it io n Gi ns be rg in te rrupt ed hi m on nu m ero us oc cas io ns an d e ve n s to pp edth e d ep os it io n m id -que st io n t o t ak e Kni gh t (t he de po ne nt ) ou t o f th e ro om . Kni gh t al le ge dl y returne d t o t he de po si ti on an d, wi th ou t b ei ng ask eda rel at edqu es ti on , im m ed ia te ly retrac te d a pr ev io us an swe r. Duri ng th e Bar on de po si ti on Sh uk er t es ti fie d t ha t h e th reat en ed Gin sb erg with t he fil in g o f a b ar g rie va nc e if Gin sb erg co nt in ue d wi th th e sa m e
co nduc t. Sh uk er d idno t wan t Gi ns be rg to furth er i nt erfe re wi thth e d ep os it io n b y te ll in g B aro n h ow t o re sp on d t o que st io ns . Shu ke r ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e th reat en eda ba r gr ie va nc e to st op th is un ethi cal co nduc t. Gin sb erg do es no t co nt es t h is all eg ed
co nduc t. d. Ap

pe ar an ce o

f Im pr op ri et y Fi na ll y , th e Mo ti on ass ert edth atJu dg e Bri sk m an ’s app aren t en do rs em en t o f Sh uk er’s b eh av io r cre at edth e ap pe aran ce o f im pr op rie ty. (See , e.g., Re cu sa l M ot . at10 ) (“ Mr. Sh uk er co nt in ue d t o c rafthi s o wn s etof p ro cedur es , as en do rs ed by th e Co ur t ”); (id . at 2 8) (“ The pro ceed in g, an d p rio r pr oc eed in gs , so empo wer ed Mr. Sh uk er tha t h e fel t ab le to th reat enth e in di vi du al Mo va nt s wi th in carc erat io n . . . ”) (id . at 2 6) (“ Si m il arl y , [S hu ker ] ap pe ar s t o h av e re cei ved

a j ud ic ia l n od to
co nt in ue to ig no re the au to m at ic st ay . . .”); (i d. at9) ( “ Mr. Sh uk er thr eat en edto
36us e wha t h e ap pa ren tl y th ou gh t was hi s co ur t-gra nt ed ri gh t to th reat en im pr is on m en t.”) (em

ph as is ad de d) . Spra dl ey

an d Gi ns be rg als o t es ti fie d t ha t t he y be li ev edth e co urt en do rs edSh uk er’s act io ns . Duri ng th e rec us al he ari ng , Sp rad le y tes ti fie d t ha t h e drew anin fere nc e fro m Sh uk er’s co nduc t - t hr eat en in g im pr is on m en t o n t wo o ccas io ns - th atSh uk er b el ie ve d h e o nl y ha d t o c al l J ud ge Bri sk m anto sec ur e an arre st . (Recu sa l Tr. Vo l. III at 1 03 -0 7.) He t es ti fie d t ha t h e
was no t awa re o f an y

ad di ti on al fact s t ha t wo ul d s up po rt t he se all eg at io ns , bu t t ha t th e al le ga ti on s re fle ct edhi s “ im pr es si on ” b as edon Sh uk er’s b eh av io r. (Id .) Gin sb erg als o t es ti fie d t ha t i t s eem edSh uk er fe ltem po weredby Jud ge Bri skm an to actas h e wan te d. (Sa nc ti on s Tr. Vo l. I at10 4- 05 .) He st at ed : In th e co nt ex t of rev ie win g th e ATN m at te r, th e id ea t h a t Mr. Sh uk er fel t so co m fo rtabl e w i t h th reat en in g pe op le an d so co m fo rtabl e wit h do in g wha t he was do in g, th at he was pr ep ared to cal l Ju dg e Bri sk man i n f or as si st an ce an d effe ctua te Mr. Sp rad le y ’s arre st rai se d ad di ti on al red fla gs ab ou t wha t it was th at cau se d Mr. Sh uk er ap pa ren tl y to feel so em po wered in ou r pr oc eed in gs . (Id .) Gin sb erg lat er re can te d t hi s b as is forth e Rec us al Mo ti on (th e co urt’s
en do rs em en t o f Sh uk er’s b eh av io r) i n alet te r to th e co urt d at edJan ua ry 19 , 20 07
. Inth e le tt er, Gin sb erg st at ed :

37Oth er m at te rs ha ve be en rai se d i n t h e in st an t he ari ng , in cl ud in g

act io ns by Mr. Sh uk er in rel at io n to pa rt i e s a n d co un se l. Howev er, we do no t be l i e v e t h at an y ev id en ce ha s be en en te red reg ard in g a rel at io ns hi p be twee n y ou r Hon or an d Mr. Sh uk er th at sh ow [s ic ] th at y ou en do rs ed su ch act io ns , an d th us be li ev e th at , al th ou gh th e act iv it ie s were in ap pr op ria te , th ey do no t se rv e as a ba si s fo r th e rel ie f reque st ed by th e Mo ti on . W e be li ev e th at Mr. Sh uk er was act in g o n h is own at t ho se ti m es . (Let te r fro m

Gin sb erg to Ju dg e Bri sk m anof 1 /1 9/ 07 .) Gin sb erg tes ti fie d a t t he
sa nc ti on s h eari ng th atth e le tt er was on ly to cl ear up am is un de rs ta nd in g, h e n ev er al le ge d “ anil li ci t o r anim pr op er re la ti on sh ip be twee n M r. Sh uk er an d J ud ge Bri sk m an .” (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . II at14 .) Gin sb erg ex pl ai ne d t ha t fo r rec us al he
was on ly requ ire d t o p ro ve th atth e p ub li c m ig htpe rcei ve im pr op rie ty from Sh uk er’s act io ns , no t ac tu al co urt en do rs em en t. (Id ; s ee al so San ct io ns Tr. Vol . I at11 7.) In ou r vi ew, ho wev er, ev enth ou gh Gin sb erg pre se nt edno ev id en ce o f
co urt en do rs em en t, the Recu sa l M ot io n c le arl y accu se d the co urt o f en do rs in g Sh uk er’s act io ns . Suc h a n a ll eg at io n u nd er the se cir cu m st an ces is im pr op er. W e th eref

or e fi ndth atth e b an krup tc y co urt was no t cl earl y

erro ne ou s i n i ts factfin di ng whi chis ful ly sup po rte d b y th e rec or d. 4. Im pr op er Purp os e/ Ba d F aith On ap pe al , Gin sb erg all eg es th atth e fi li ng of t he Mo ti on was n ot
sa nc ti on ab le ; i t was well jus ti fie d i n fa ctan d l aw an d was bro ug htfora pr op er

38pu rp os e. Inou r vi ew, a co urt co ul d re as on ab ly con cl ud e th atth e co nt en t, t im in g,

an d t on e o f th e Rec us al Mo ti on in di cat e b adfai th
.

a. Sa nct

io ns Inth is cas e, th e b an krup tc y co urt s an ct io ne d Gi ns be rg un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ban krup tc y

Pro cedur e 9 01 1, t he co urt’s i nh eren t s an ct io ni ng po wers , and11 U.S.C. § 1 05 . On ap pe al to th e d is tri ctco urt, Gi ns be rg arg ue d t ha t t he San ct io ns Mo ti onvi ol at edRu le 90 11 's t wen ty-on e-d ay saf e h arb orpro vi si on . The d is tri ct 1 3
co urt fo un d t ha t i t was no t n eces sa ry to de ci de whet he r th e sa fe h arb orpro vi si on
was vi ol at edbe cau se th e sa nc ti on s i m po se d wer e cl earl y

va li d u nd er 1 1 U.S.C. § 10 5. In re Eve rg reen , 39 1 B .R. at 1 88 . W e ag ree. Und er Se ct io n 1 05 (a) t he co urt m ay tak e an y a ct io n “ ne ces sa ry

or ap pr op ria te to en fo rce o r im pl em en t co urt o rd ers or rul es , or t o p rev en t an ab us e o f pr oc es s.” 1 1 U.S.C. § 10 5( a). Thu s, a c ou rt m ay im po se san ct io ns if apa rty vi ol at es a co urt o rd er o r ru le . See, e.g ., Jo ve Eng ’g, Inc . v. I.R.S., 9 2 F .3d15 39 , 15 42 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (awar di ng san ct io ns un de r Sec ti on 10 5( a) fo r a v io la ti on of
anau to m at ic st ay

pro vi si on ).
The saf e har bor provision allows attorne y s to withdraw motions like this wit hin 1 3 twenty -one da

y s from the date of filing . I f a pa rty so withdraws the motion, it is not sanctionable . Even though Ginsbergdid not withdraw the Rec usal Motion within t wenty one day s from the da

te of filing , he argued that the Sanc tions Moti on was still in viol ation of the saf e harbor provision beca

use it was filed be fore the expiration of the extra three day s g iven for mailings. 39San ct io ns were al so im po se d u nd er the bankrupt cy co urt’s i nh eren t p owe r whi chis si m il arl y

no t af fect edby the saf

e h arb orpro vi si onof Rul e 9 01 1. To im po se san ct io ns un de r th e co urt’s i nh eren t p owe r, th e co urt m us t fi ndba d fa it h. Inre Walk er, 5 32 F.3dat 1 30 9. “ A fin di ng of b adfai th is warran te d wh ere a n at to rn ey kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly rais es a fri vo lo us arg um en t, o r arg ue s a
m eri to rio us cla im

forth e p ur

po se of h aras si ng anop po ne nt . A part y als o de m on st rat es ba d fa it h b y de la y in g o r di srup ti ng th e li ti ga ti on or h am pe rin g
en fo rcem en t o f a co urt o rd er.” (Id .) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . “ If p art ic ul arl y eg reg io us , th e p ur su itof acla im witho utreas on ab le in qu iry int o t he un de rlyin g fact s can b e th e b as is fora fi nd in g o f ba d fa ith.” Barn es v. Dal to n, 1 58 F.3d12 12 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ); s ee al so Jo ne s v . Int ’l Rid in g Hel m et s, Lt d., 4 9 F .3d69 2, 69 5- 96 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (fi nd in g t ha t a c ou rt m us t d et erm in e whe th er a re as on ab le in qu iry was co nduc te d p rio r to th e fi li ng of apl ead in g) ; In th e Ma tt er o f Med
. One , Inc ., 68 B.R. 1 50 , 15 2 (B an kr . M.D. Fla. 1 98 6) (fi nd in g t ha t fa il ur e to m ak e a
reas on ab le in qu iry int o wh ethe r a fi li ng all eg edva li d c la im s was san ct io nabl e). Fu rth er, co nt in ua ll y

adva nc in g “ gr ou nd le ss an d p at en tl y fri vo lo us li ti ga ti on ” is

“ ta nt am ou ntto ba d fa it h.” Glas s, 8 49 F.2dat 1 26 5.

b. Cha ll

eng es to Ad

ver seRul ings

40The ba nkrupt cy co urt was ful ly j us ti fie d i n fi nd in g t ha t t he Recu sa l M ot io n
was fil edan d l it ig at edas “ anoff en si ve li ti ga ti on st rat eg y .” (San ct io ns Orde r at 68 .) Ch al le ng es to adve rs e ru li ng s ar e g en eral ly gro un ds forap pe al , no t re cu sa l. Inre Walk er, 5 32 F.3dat 1 31 1; see als o B ol in v. St ory , 22 5 F .3d12 34 , 12 39 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ [E]xcep t wh ere p erv as iv e b ia s i s s ho wn, a ju dg e’s ru li ng s i n t he same
ora rel at edcas e are no t a s uf fic ie ntba si s fo r rec us al .”). Nev ert he le ss , a
co ns id erab le po rti on of t he Recu sa l M ot io n d is pu te d ru li ng s u nf av or ab le to th e de bt or s. (See, e.g ., Recu sa l M ot . at 2 ) (ref erri ng to “ a se rie s o f dubi ou s ju di ci al 1 4 act io ns tak enin co nju nc ti on with M r. Sh uk er.”) . The Re cu sa l M ot io n c rit ic iz es th e co urt fo r ap po in ti ng anin te rim tru st ee; no t s uf fic ie nt ly addres si ng th e 1 5
au to m at ic st ay ; gra nt in g t he di sc ov ery or de r; m ak in g i nc orrectFOFCOL in th e 1 6 1 7

At least twenty-seve n para g raphs in the Rec usal Motion disput ed adve rse r ulings. 1 4 "I g noringthe absolute de arth of e vidence justifying the appointment of an interim 1 5 trustee, a nd without making a

single findingof fa ct on the re cord or in his Order, Judge Briskman g rante d the appointment." (Recusa l Mot. at 9.) Ginsbergargued that Shuker a nd Cuthil l violated the automatic stay provisions in the 1 6 bankruptc y

code by seekingdiscovery

on at least four

occa sions and that the cour t "r efuse d" to enfor ce the automatic stay . (Recusa l Mot. at 11-12.) Ginsbergasser

ted that the expedited discover y motion dis cussed a

bove wa s filed ex 1 7 parteand grante d without a hearing e ven though Spradley objected to the r elief r equeste d. 41Mat aek a AP jud gm en t; an d m is cal cu la ti ng th e d am ag es awardin th e Ma ta ek a AP 1 8 jud gm en t. Spr ad le y

ev enco nc ed edin tes ti m on y th athe was “ real ly frus tra te d a t 1 9 th atpo in t, the factth atI fel t re li ef was co m in g d own in fav orof t he pl ai nt iff an d ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt s i n t he cas e an d i n afas hi on th atdi dn ’t app ear t o b e jus t.” (Rec us al Tr. Vol . III at14 6.) Yet , a recu sa l m ot io n i s an im pr op er v eh ic le to di sp ut e d is ag reeabl e ad ve rs e ru li ng s. Itis a cl ear abu se of s uc h apl ead in g. Add it io na ll y , Gin sb erg reque st edth e rev oc at io n o f al l or de rs pre vi ou sl y
en te redin th e Ma ta ek a AP an d re la te d p ro ceed in gs . In o th er wo rd s, Gi ns be rg
so ug htth e rev oc at io n o f m or e th an25 0 o rd ers all pre vi ou sl y en te redinth e Eve rg reen cas e. Yet, Gi ns be rg pre se nt edno ev id en ce t ha t thi s was an
ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ce wh ic h re qu ire d va ca tu r . Liljeb erg v. Heal th Serv s. Acqui si ti on Co rp ., 48 6 U.S. 8 47 , 86 3 (1 98 8) (no ti ng th at va ca tu r sh ou ldon ly be ap pl ie d i n “ ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces ” (ci ta ti onom it te d) ). In o urvi ew, reque st in g t hi s k in d o f rel ie f, whi le di sc us si ng nu m ero us rul in gs adve rs e to th e

The Rec usal Motion refe renc ed the Ma rch 22, 2006 judgment in favor of Evergree n, 1 8 claimingit was fac tually

inacc urate and providingspecific examples of the alleg ed inac cura cies. (Recusa l Mot. at 13-14.) The Rec usal Motion criticized the amount of damag es aw arde d to Evergree n, claiming 1 9 they wer e er roneously calc ulated bec ause of

J udg e B riskman' s relianc e on Cuthill's testimony and repr esentations. (Recusal Mot. at 16-18.) 42de bt or s, s tro ng ly sug ge st s t ha t t he Mo ti on was p res en te d t o h am pe r en fo rcem en t of th e b an krup tc y

co urt’s o rd ers . c. Dela

y Tac ti c The ba nkrupt cy

co urt al so di d n oterr i n c on cl ud in g t ha t Gi ns be rg fil edth e Rec us al Mo ti on to po stpo ne th e in vo lu nt ary ba nkrupt cy pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h is cl ie ntan d t he ap pe al fro m th e Ma ta ek a AP Ju dg m en t. Fi li ng th e Rec us al Mo ti onfru st rat edEver gr een ’s col le ct io n e ffo rts on an al m os t $ 8 m il li on jud gm en t. The Recu sa l M ot io n was fil ed th e d ay af te r Eve rg reen fin is he d i ts pr ima fa ci e cas e o n t he in vo lu nt ary ba nkrupt cy pro ceed in gs
an d i t ap pa ren tl y

was c le ar t o a ll co nc ern edth atEver gr een was g oi ng to pre va il
. The Mo ti on was n otfil edun ti l Jul y 26 ev enth ou gh m an y

of t he in ci de nt s th
ou tl in edin th e Mo ti on happ en edm uc h e arl ie r. Gin sb erg furth er p et it io ne d t he

2 0 di st ric t co urt t o s ta y

all rel at edpro ceed in gs . Gin sb erg als o c on ti nu al ly stal le d t he Recu sa l h eari ng . Two da y s b efo re the
sc he du le d p re-h eari ng co nf eren ce, h e so ug hta st ay

of t he pro ceed in gs pe nd in g t he
res ol ut io n o f hi s Pe ti ti onfora Writof M an da m us . Gin sb erg th enpo stpo ne d t he

The Shuker/Ginsbe rgdeposition skirmish happened almost a year befor e the Rec usal 2 0 Motion was filed, the 46-pa g e F OFCOL was filed te n months before the Recusa l Motion was filed and the issue appea

red to be moot, and the Shuker/Spradley deposition skirmish occurre d seven w eeks prior to the filing of the Recusa l Motion.

43fin al ev id en ti ary he ari ng foron e m on thdu e to hi s av ai labi li ty con st rai nt s an d

th os e o f hi s ex pe rt wi tn es s. Days bef or e th e tr ia l, Gi ns be rg ag ai n s ou gh t t o
co nt in ue th e tr ia l fo r two week s “ in ord er t o p ro pe rly prep are f orth e d ep os it io ns of th e wit ne ss es an d t o p ro pe rly prep are fo r th e fi na l ev id en ti ary he ari ng .” (Rec us al Ord er at14 .) Fin al ly, atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , aft er b ot h p art ie s fi ni sh ed pr es en ti ng th ei r cas es in ch ie f, Gin sb erg ask edfora co nt in ua nc e to pre se nthi s reb ut ta l ca se . The ev id en ti ary he ari ng was c on ti nu edalm os t t wo m on th s, atwhi ch ti m e Gin sb erg sen t a l et te r to th e co urt s ay in g h e d idno t i nt en d o n p res en ti ng a reb ut ta l ca se . Mo reo ve r, th e rec or d s ho ws Gi ns be rg tri edto de la y th e fi li ng of a n app eal
. Afte r fi li ng th e Rec us al Mo ti on , Gin sb erg fil eda m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n o f ti m e to ap pe al th e Ma ta ek a AP Ju dg m en t. The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t “ th e st at edreas on s fo r wan ti ng to pu t o ff fi li ng anin it ia l b rie f ha ve va rie d wi th each fil in g s eek in g de la y . Taken as awho le , th e rec or d i s caus e fo r co nc ern .” (D. Ct. Ca se 06 -cv 00 83 7- JA, D.E. # 4 3.) The se de la y in g t act ic s fu rth er s up po rt the ba nkrupt cy co urt’s fi nd in g o f Gin sb erg ’s badfai th
.

d. Dis resp ect

ful Tone

44Fi na ll y , th e b an krup tc y co urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atGin sb erg 's
ov erze al ou s l it ig at io n t act ic s, u se of f actua l i na ccu raci es , anddi sr es pe ct fu l be ha vi orde m on st rat e b adfai th
. Quo ti ng Bla ck st on e, th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t " th e la w wil l n otsupp os e a p os si bi li ty of bi as or f av ou r ina jud ge , who is alr ead y
swo rnto adm in is te r im

pa rti al jus ti ce, an d wh os e au th or it y gre at ly dep en ds up on th atpre su m

pt io n andid ea." Aetn a Life Ins . Co. v . Lavo ie , 47 5 U.S. 8 13 , 82 0 (1 98 6) (qu ot in g 3 W . Bla ck st on e, Co m m en ta rie s at*3 61 ). Thatdo es no t m ean th ata jud ge sh ou ldne ve r di squa li fy hi m se lf f or pe rs on al bi as or p reju di ce, b utit sh ou ldno t b e supp os ed . Andas t o c ou ns el , as t he Ohi o S up rem e Co urt h as pu t i t, [t]he la w d em an ds th at al l co un se l fo st er res pe ctan d d ig ni ty fo r t h os e who ad m in is te r an d en fo rce th e la w. Co nduc t th at i s de gr ad in g an d di s r es pe ct fu l to jud ge s an d fel lo w at to rn ey s is ne it he r zeal ou s ad vo cacy n o r a le gi ti m at e tri al ta ct ic . Lying to a tri bu na l an d m ak in g fal se accu sa ti on s ag ai ns t ju dg es an d fel lo w at to rn ey s ca n n ev er b e co nd on ed
. Co lu m bu s B ar As sn . v. Vo ge l, 8 81 N.E.2d 1 24 4, 1 24 9 (Oh io 20 08 ). Yet, t he reco rdsh ows Gin sb erg in du lg edin di sr es pe ct fu l s ta te m en ts witho ut le ga l o r fac tu al fou nd at io n. Gi ns be rg ig no redall fact s i nd ic at in g tha t t he co urt d id
no t d ire ctor e ng ag e in ex p ar te co m m un ic at io ns , rel y

on ex trajud ic ia l m at eri al s,
oren do rs e Sh uk er's act io ns . Gin sb erg kn ew ab ou t J ud ge Jen ne m an ’s ord er, y et

45Gin sb erg di d n otev enm en ti on th atJu dg e Je nn em anha d h el d t ha t t he ex p ar te

he ari ng was n otim

pr op er. In st eadof e ng ag in g i n areas on ab le factfin di ng in ve st ig at io n b efo re m ak in g al le ga ti on s, Gi ns be rg supp os edbi as an d fa vo r in all of J ud ge Bri sk m an ’s act io ns . Fo r ex am pl e, be cau se th e co urt d idno t d en ou nc e Sh uk er’s 4 6- pa ge FOFCOL, Gin sb erg cla im edth e o ve rs iz edfil in g was in te nt io na l: “ One can on ly reaso nabl y
co nc lu de th atne it he r th e Co urt n orMr. Shuk er ha d a ny in te nt io n of Mr. Sh uk er be in g l im it edto fil in g t he pro po se d fi nd in gs withi n t he pa ge li m itde m an de d o f th e Mo va nt s.” (R ecu sa l M ot . at 2 7) (em ph as is ad de d) . Gin sb erg als o as su med th e
co urt re li edon th e 4 6- pa ge FOFCOL ev enth ou gh th ere was ev id en ce t o t he
co nt rary. Fu rth er, the Recu sa l M ot io n c om paredJu dg e Bri sk m an 's c on du ctto cri m in al jud ic ia l m is co nduc t ev enth ou gh Gin sb erg ha d n o a ctua l, p ers on al kn owl ed ge of t he Co m

pl ai ntan d n o re as onto be li ev e th atitall eg edcri m in al
m is co nduc t. In de ed , Gin sb erg di d n otsp eakdi rect ly to Hu ds onab ou t the Co m pl ai ntbe fo re ca ll in g i t an “ in ve st ig at io n” or t ry to co nt actan y

of t he ot he r pe op le pre se ntat the rel ev an t ATN pr oc eed in g. Gin sb erg als o t es ti fie d t ha t h e was advi se d b y hi s ex pe rt wi tn es s J us ti ce Hard in g tha t " he ha d a n e th ic al ob li ga ti on to see th is th ro ug h" to co nv in ce t he
co urt t ha t Gi ns be rg di d n otfil e th e Rec us al Mo ti on fortac ti cal pu rp os es . 46(San ct io ns Tr. Vol . I at 9 0- 91 .) Howev er, the reco rdrefu te s t hi s co nt en ti on . The

reco rdsh ows th atHard in g d idno t ad vi se Gin sb erg to fil e th e Rec us al Mo ti on , as Hard in g was no t en ga ge d b y Gray Ro bi ns on un ti l af

te r th e Rec us al Mo ti on was fil ed . Ju st ic e Hard in g was als o n otgi ve n a ll of t he ev id en ce t o d ev el op hi s ex pe rt op in io n. Fo r ex am

pl e, Ju st ic e Hard in g was ne ve r to ldth atEver gr een fil eda
subs eque nt15 -p ag e FOFCOL, h e was no t s ho wn t he em ai ls be twee n S hu ke r an d Sp rad le y di sc us si ng whet he r th e co urt h adco ns id eredth e 4 6- pa ge subm is si on , no r
was he gi ve n t he 15 -p ag e FOFCOL t o c om pa re wi thth e co urt's ul ti m at e FOFCOL. (San ct io ns Tr. Vol . I at 5 4- 57 .) Mo reo ve r, Gin sb erg fai le d t o re -ev al ua te hi s ac cu sa ti on s af te r th e
ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e Rec us al Mo ti on . Gin sb erg rep eat edhi s cl ai m of
co urt-o rd ered ex p ar te fil in gs ev enaft er the recu sa l h eari ng rev eal edno ev id en ce of su ch a di rect iv e. Gin sb erg co nt in ue d t o a ss ertth atJu dg e Bri sk m anrel ie d o n th e 4 6- pa ge FOFCOL ev enth ou gh th ere wer e em ai ls refe ren ci ng th e d is cu ss io ns of Sp rad le y an d S hu ke r with the co urt’s s ta ff tha t t he 46 -p ag e subm is si on was n ot
co ns id eredan d a ll of t he in fo rm at io n i n t he ul ti m at e FOFCOL co ul d b e fo un d el se whe re. Add it io na ll y , Gin sb erg co nt in ue d t o a ll eg e th atth e Ju di ci al Co un ci l ha d l au nc he d an " in ve st ig at io n" in to Ju dg e Bri sk m an 's c on du ctev enaft er h e le arn edth atHud so n wo ul d h av e b een no ti fie d i f an"i nv es ti ga ti on " was in it ia te d.
47Fu rth er, aft er Kn ig httes ti fie d t ha t h e m erel y ov erh eardShuk er’s thr eat s o f im pr is on m en t, Gi ns be rg st il l co nt in ue d t o a ss ertth atSh uk er ap pr oa ch edKni gh t
an d Hu gg in s an d t hr eat en edth em with i m pr is on m en t. Si m il arl y , eve n a fte r Kni gh t te st ifi edth atHug gi ns was i n t he ba th ro om at t he ti m e o f Sh uk er’s al le ge d t hr eat , Gin sb erg co nt en de d t ha t Sh uk er t ol d Hu gg in s h e wou lddi e in jail . The ev id en ce pr oduc edat t he he ari ng was s uf fic ie ntforSp rad le y

an d Gra yRo bi ns on to pu ll ou t of th e Rec us al Mo ti on . Yet, ev enwith m ou nt in g e vi de nc e to th e co nt rary, Gin sb erg co nt in ue d t o a rg ue th e Rec us al Mo ti on . Fu rth er, Gin sb erg was e xt rem el y di ffi cu ltto de al with a nddi sr es pe ct fu l t o th e co urt. He ref

us edto an swe r th e co urt's qu es ti on s, t reat edth e co urt as an ad ve rs ary an d c on ti nu al ly m ad e in fla m m at ory st at em en ts . For e xa m

pl e, Gin sb erg
ex ag ge rat edth e im

pl ic at io ns of J ud ge Bri sk m an ’s act io ns , all eg in g t ha t h is
co nduc t “ rel at es di rect ly to t he jud ic ia l p ro ces se s, n am el y th e in te gr ity

of tria l tra ns cri pt s, an d apa rty’ s due pro ces s ri gh ts an d l ib ert y .” (Rec us al Mo t. at19 .) Gin sb erg op en edth e Rec us al Heari ng by clai m in g: "Yo urho no r ha s co m pr om is ed
m y he al th , y ou r Hon orha s co m pr om is edm

y imm un e syst em ." (Re cu sa l Tr. Vo l. I at5.) Gi ns be rg als o u se d a ccu sa to ry , un supp orte d l an gu ag e inth e th ree p et it io ns fo r writof m an da m

us ; as se rte d t ha t J ud ge Bri sk m anface d “ po te nt ia l careeren di ng pu ni sh m en t” ; an d a ccu se d h im of t ry in g t o s urrep ti ti ou sl y “brus h t he m at te r un de r 48th e car

pe t” so he co ul d “ ret ai n aut ho rit y ov er the se ve ry

im po rta ntis su es of jud ic ia l an d p ro fes si on al co nduc t." (Res po ns e Br. at16 .) Gin sb erg als o p ur

po se fu ll y pu rs ue d re cu sa l v ery publ ic ly. Afte r le arn in g o f Hud so n's Co m

pl ai nt , Gin sb erg di d n otfir streque sta pr iv at e h eari ng with J ud ge Bri sk m anan d a ll co un se l i n the se cas es to ad dr es s h is co nc ern s, n ordi d h e fi le th e Rec us al Mo ti on un de r se al (ig no rin g t he pre fere nc e fo r co nf id en ti al ity

in he ren t i n th e Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le s d is cu ss edbe lo w). Ins te ad , th e fi rs t t im e Gin sb erg rai se d the Co m

pl ai ntwas i n a31 -p ag e acc us at ory m ot io n wh ic h u se d t he term "i nv es ti ga ti on " twelv e ti m es an d re fere nc edadve rs e ru li ng s fi fty-fou r ti m es . Gin sb erg als o i m

m ed ia te ly bro ug htth e Rec us al Mo ti on to th e at te nt io n o f th e di st ric t co urt. He fi le d t hr ee p et it io ns fora writof m an da m us with t he di st ric t
co urt wh il e th e Rec us al Mo ti on was s ti ll pe nd in g. 2 1 Inou r vi ew, Gin sb erg ’s do gg edpu rs ui t o f a fri vo lo us cla im in di cat es ba d fai th
. B. Dis cl os ure o f the Co m pl ai nt
The Supreme Court has said: “Manda mus, prohibition and injunction aga inst judges 2 1 are drastic a

nd extraordinary

reme dies. We do not doubt power in a pr oper c ase to issue such writs. But they

have the unfortunate conseque nce of makingthe judg e a litig ant, oblige d to obtain persona l counsel or to lea ve his defe nse to one of the litigants bef ore him. These reme dies should be resor

ted to only

wher e appe al is a cle arly inadequate re medy . We are unwilling to utiliz e them as a

substitut e for

appea l. As ext raor dinary reme dies, they

arerese rved f

or re ally extraordinary

cause s.” Ex parte F ahey , 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947). 49The ba nkrupt cy co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to di sc lo se th e
ex is te nc e o f th e Co m

pl ai nt . The Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le s h av e st ric t co nf id en ti al it y

requi rem en ts . Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le 16 requi res th at“ co m pl ai nt s, re co rd s o f in ve st ig at io ns an d pr oc eed in gs rel at in g t o a ll eg at io ns of ju di ci al m is co nduc t o r di sabi li ty sha ll be
m ai nt ai ne d a s co nf

id en ti al m atte rs , andsh al l n otbe di sc lo se d t o t he publ ic .” Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le 15 (f) d oe s al lo w di sc lo su re o f a co m pl ai nt“up on th e wri tt en
co ns en t o f bo th th e co m

pl ai ne d- of

jud ge an d t he Ch ie f Ju dg e,” b utin ou r vi ew th e st ric t co nf

id en ti al ity

requi rem en ts in di cat e th e g en eral ly secre ti ve na tu re o f jud ic ia l co m

pl ai nt s. Thi s p refe ren ce fo r co nf

id en ti al it y

m ai nt ai ns publ ic co nf

id en ce i n the jud ic ia ry . Keepi ng th e ex is te nc e o f th e Co m pl ai ntco nf

id en ti al ke ptth e Co m

pl ai nt fro m “ affe ct in g the publ ic 's c on fid en ce i n t he im pa rti al it y an d i nt eg rit y

of t he jud ic ia l p ro ces s." Davi s, 5 06 F.3dat 1 33 2 n .12 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . It de fie s l og ic forGin sb erg to fil e a m ot io n a ss ert in g h arm to publ ic co nf

id en ce i n th e jud ic ia ry

when hi s o wn ac ti on s i n fi li ng th e Mo ti on an d a tt em pt in g t o m ak e th e Co m pl ai ntpubl ic are cr eat in g s uc h h arm . Sure ly if he was s o c on cern ed , Gin sb erg
co ul d h av e in qu ire d abo utth e Co m pl ai ntou t o f th e p ub li c eye. Yet, t he fir stti m e

50Ju dg e Bri sk m anwas a sk edto di sc lo se in fo rm at io n abo utth e Co m pl ai ntwas i n fu ll publ ic vi ew. In de ed , Gin sb erg was re le nt le ss in hi s at te m pt s t o fo rce J ud ge Bri sk m anto te st ify abo utth e Co m

pl ai ntan d m ak e itpubl ic . Firs t, Gi ns be rg li st edJu dg e Bri sk m anas awitne ss in th e p ret ria l d is cl os ur es forth e rec us al he ari ng . Whe n Ju dg e Bri sk m anen te redanord er ex cl ud in g h im se lf a s a wi tn es s, Gi ns be rg so ug ht to co m pe l J ud ge Bri sk m anto tes ti fy . After p os tp on in g h is reb ut ta l ca se du rin g t he Rec us al Mo ti on he ari ng , Gin sb erg wrot e a l et te r to Ju dg e Bri sk m an ag ai n reque st in g h e m ak e d is cl os ur es ab ou t t he Co m pl ai nt . Later, o n Au gu st8, 2 00 7, Gin sb erg fil edan ot he r Mo ti on Reque st in g t he Hon or ab le Arth urBri sk m anMak e Cert ai n Di sc lo su res on th e Rec or d (“ Dis cl os ur e Mo ti on ”) an d b efo re J ud ge Bri sk m anrul edon th e Dis cl os ur e Mo ti on , at t he co m m en cem en t o f th e sa nc ti on s he ari ng , Gin sb erg m ad e an ad di ti on al or e te nu s m ot io n t o h av e Ju dg e Bri sk m an di sc lo se hi s kno wled ge of t he Co m pl ai nton th e rec or d. Inad di ti on to th e Ju di ci al Co un ci l Ru le s’ pre fere nc e fo r co nf id en ti al it y , Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 6 05 als o s ta te s t ha t a ju dg e can no t t es ti fy at atri al in whi chhe is pre si di ng . F.R.E. Rul e 6 05 . Mor eo ve r, a jud ge is no t re qu ire d t o
recu se hi m se lf s o t ha t h e can tes ti fy . See, e.g ., Che ev es v. So . Cla y s, In c., 79 7 F.Supp . 15 70 , 15 82 -8 3 (M .D. Ga. 19 92 ) (h av in g ajud ge tes ti fy is m an ip ul at ed
51ha ras sm en t, as itwou ldcau se anun jus ti fie d v ol un ta ry

di squa li fic at io n o f th e pr es id in g ju dg e o r en dl es s d el ay s i n t he li ti ga ti on ); S en sl ey v. Al br it to n, 3 85 F.3d 59 1, 5 99 (5t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ a fed eral jud ge ha s a duty to si t wh ere n otdi squa li fie d whi chis equa ll y

as s tro ng as i ts du ty to n otsi t wh ere d is qu al ifi ed ”) (quo ti ng Laird v. Tatum , 40 9 U.S. 8 24 , 83 7 (1 97 2) ). As J ud ge Bri sk m anpre si de d o ve r bo th th e
recu sa l h eari ng an d t he san ct io ns he ari ng , he c ou ldno t t es ti fy at e it he r. Gin sb erg arg ue d t ha t J ud ge Bri sk m ansh ou ldha ve recu se d h im se lf f ro m bo th he ari ng s, b utSect io n 4 55 (a) p la ces th e b ur de n t o d eci de recu sa l o n t he jud ge who is th e subjec t o f th e Mo ti on . Sect io n 4 55 (a) s ta te s tha t “ an y jus ti ce, jud ge , or
m ag is tra te jud ge of t he Uni te d S ta te s s ha ll di squa li fy hi mse lf

. ” 1 1 U.S.C. § 45 5( a) (em ph as is ad de d) . Furt he r, jud ge s ro ut in el y pre si de ov er m ot io ns forth ei r own
recu sa l. Fo r ex am

pl e, Ju st ic e Sca li a p res id edov er a m ot io n t o re cu se hi m in a
cas e b efo re the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. Ch en ey , 54 1 U.S. at91 3. Th e Fi fth Ci rcu itals o h el d i n Inre Co rru ga te d C on ta in er An ti tru stLit ig at io n tha t “ [i]t i s fo r th e jud ge who is th e o bjec t o f th e aff id av it(of bi as ) to pa ss onit s s uf

fic ie nc y .” 61 4 F .2d95 8, 9 63 n.9 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) (qu ot in g 1 3 Wrig ht , Mil le r & Co op er § 35 51 at 3 75 ). 2 2

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), we 2 2 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 52Inth e ev en t t ha t J ud ge Bri sk m anerre d i n s om e ru li ng s, Gi ns be rg sh ou ld

ha ve wait edto de al with t he se is su es onap pe al . In re W al ke r, 53 2 F .3dat 1 31 1 (“ Adv ers e ru li ng s ar e g ro un ds forap pe al bu t ra rel y are g ro un ds forrecu sa l . . .”). The di st ric t co urt h ere ( th ro ug h J ud ge Ant oo n) advi se d Gi ns be rg as m uc h i n t he de ni al of Gi ns be rg ’s Thi rdPet it io n fo r Writof M an da m us , exp la in in g tha t Gin sb erg sh ou ldwaitun ti l J ud ge Bri sk m anis su eda ru li ng on th e Rec us al Mo ti on
an d th en ap pe al it , bu t Gi ns be rg si m pl y ig no redth is in st ru ct io n. Fu rth er, Gin sb erg ’s do gg edpu rs ui t o f Ju dg e Bri sk m an ’s tes ti m on y supp orts th e b an krup tc y
co urt’s fi nd in g o f ba d fa it h. Se e In du s. Ri skIns ur ers v. M.A.N. Gut eh of fnun gs hu tt e Gm

bH, 1 41 F.3d14 34 , 14 48 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) ("I m pr op er pu rp os e m ay

be sh own by exces si ve pe rs is te nc e in pu rs ui ng a cl ai m or d efen se in th e fac e o f rep eat edadve rs e ru li ng s." ). Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns we fin d t ha t t he bankrupt cy co urt was no t cl earl y
erro ne ou s i n i ts factfin di ng an d app li edco rrec t l eg al st an da rd s. C. Pres id in g o ve r the Sa ncti on s H ea ri ng Fi na ll y , th e b an krup tc y

co urt d idno t err in pre si di ng ov er the San ct io ns Mo ti on . On ap pe al Gin sb erg ass ert s t ha t J ud ge Bri sk m anwas t oo em ot io na ll y in vo lv edinth e m at te r an d s ho ul d h av e tr an sf erre d t he San ct io ns Mo ti on to th e 53di st ric t co urt o r an ot he r ba nkrupt cy co urt ju dg e. Incert ai n c irc um st an ces “ th ere
are c rit ic is m s o f jud ic ia l co nduc t wh ic h a re s o p ers on al an d s o p ro babl y pr oduc ti ve of b ia s t ha t t he jud ge m us t d is qu al ify himself

to av oi d b ei ng th e jud ge in hi s o wn ca se .” Ung ar v . Saraf it e, 37 6 U.S. 5 75 , 58 3 (1 96 4) . Howev er, tha t do es no t m ean th atev ery at ta ckon a jud ge di squa li fie s h im fro m si tt in g. Id .; s ee al so Sen sl ey , 38 5 F .3dat 5 99 . “ W e can no t as su m e th atjud ge s ar e so ira sc ib le an d
se ns it iv e th atth ey

can no t fa irl y

an d i m pa rti al ly deal with re si st an ce t o t he ir
au th or it y or wi th hi gh ly charg edarg um en ts ab ou t t he so un dn es s o f th ei r de ci si on s.” Un ga r, 37 6 U.S. at58 4. Re qu iri ng recu sa l fo r al l d is rupt iv e,
reca lc it ran t an d d is ag reeabl e co m m en ta ry wou ldun de rm in e th e jud ic ia ry . See Mayberry v. Pe nn sylvani a, 40 0 U.S. 4 55 , 46 3 (1 97 1) . “ A jud ge can no t b e driv en
ou t o f a cas e.” Id
. As we h av e fo un d t ha t J ud ge Bri skm anap pr op ria te ly pres id edov er the Rec us al Mo ti on he ari ng , we als o fi ndth atJu dg e Bri sk m anwas i n the be stpo si ti on to san ct io n Gi ns be rg forhi s co nduc t t he rei n. We furt he r ag ree wi thth e d is tri ct
co urt t ha t “ [w]hil e so m e o f th e Ban krup tc y Ju dg e’s rem ark s atth e sa nc ti on s he ari ng were i m

m od erat e, th ey

were n otsu ffi ci en tl y

eg reg io us to ‘ rev eal su ch a hi gh de gr ee o f fav or it is m or a nt ag on is m

as t o m ak e fai r jud gm en t i m po ss ib le .’ ” Eve rg reen , 39 1 B .R. at 1 89 n.6 (qu ot in g Li te ky v. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 10 U.S. 54 0,
5455 5 (1 99 4) ). In o urvi ew, Gin sb erg ’s egr eg io us co nduc t - i nc lu di ng in te rrupt in g

Ju dg e Bri sk m anan d g ro ss ly mis ch arac te riz in g the fact s - warran te d s om e o f Ju dg e Bri sk m an ’s adm on is hm en ts . Our rea di ng of t he tra ns cri pt s co nv in ces us th atfor th e m os t p artJu dg e Bri sk m ansh owe d g reatpa ti en ce an d a cco m m od at edGin sb erg , who was e xp eri en ci ng he al th pro bl em s, o ve r an d o ve r ag ai n. IV. CONCLUSI ON: REASO NABLENE SS OF SANCTI ONS Gin sb erg ’s un fo un de d a ll eg at io ns an d i m pr op er m ot iv e supp ort a f in di ng of ba d fa it h. Se e Inre Walk er, 5 32 F.3dat 1 31 0. We th eref or e b el ie ve th e co urt d id
no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng san ct io ns un de r ei th er Se ct io n 1 05 (a) o r th e
co urt’s i nh eren t au th or it y to san ct io n i m

pr op er co nduc t.

“ Ci vi l p en al ti es m

us t ei th er b e co m

pe ns at ory or d es ig ne d t o c oe rce
co m pl ianc e.” In re Dy er, 3 22 F.3d11 78 , 11 92 (9t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ci ti ng F.J. Han sh aw Ent ers ., Inc . v. Em eral d R iv er Dev ., Inc ., 24 4 F .3d11 28 , 11 37 -3 8 (9 th Ci r. 20 01 )). “ On re vi ew, itis no t n eces sa ry to ps y ch oa na lyze th e [at to rn ey s’ act io ns ] to di sc ov er the sm al le stdo ll ar v al ue th atwou ldde te r. Our t as k i s t o
en su re tha t t he di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n c raft in g asan ct io n awardreas on ab ly calcu la te d t o d et er l it ig at io n abu se .” Merr im anv. Se c. In s. Co
. of Hart fo rd , 10 0 F .3d11 87 , 11 94 (5t h C ir. 1 99 6)
.

55The ba nkrupt cy co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng bo th
co m pe ns at ory san ct io ns (m on et ary sa nc ti on s) an d s an ct io ns de si gn edto co erce
co m pl ianc e (s us pe ns io n) . In o urvi ew, Gin sb erg ’s rel en tl es s p ur su itof t he Recu sa l Mo ti on , eve n a fte r th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng rev eal edno factua l s up po rt f or Gin sb erg ’s con te nt io ns , dem on st rat es th ata m on et ary sa nc ti on alo ne wou ldbe in su ffi ci en t t o d et er Gi ns be rg fro m si m il arl y eg reg io us be ha vi orin th e fu tu re. The refo re, the im

po si ti on of m on et ary sa nc ti on s an d asu sp en si on is jus ti fie d. Mo reo ve r, be cau se Gin sb erg is a no n- ba nkrupt cy (by his adm is si on ), New York la wy er wh o app eare d pr o h ac vic e be fo re the Ban kr up tc y Co urt i n t he Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, we fi ndth ata fi ve y ear s us pe ns io n i n t ha t co urt i s n otto o
se ve re. Fi na ll y , th e m on et ary sanc ti on s i m po se d b y th e b an krup tc y

co urt wer e ba se d upo n t he att orne y s’ fees in cu rredby the ap pe ll ees an d wer e fu ll y supp orte d in th e rec or d. Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng an al y si s we a ffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to affi rm th e b an krup tc y

co urt’s i m

po si ti on of s an ct io ns . AFFIR MED.

56