I am an uncle who has been fighting for guardianship for almost a year now. I started in April of last year. The judge kept rescheduling my case until my sister was terminated of parental rights and then told me my case is dismissed due to; 'not having biological rights to the children' (because of the TPR). In January I filed a modification for petition and have a court date in April of this year. My question is if I can have the judge disqualified? The same judge is who heard my sisters case, I believe the judge has formed a biased decision, based on her interest in the case. Other than the reason the judge has found, social services was holding me not having a license against me. Last I checked it was a right to drive, according to the constitution... It seems as if social services does not need to follow law. Oh and also, I contacted the social worker a couple a months after boys were taken and was met with resistance since I live out of state. Then when I finally did petition the court about a year and 5 months after them being taken into foster care; when I heard parents were being TPR. Then social worker told me, it should have been done sooner and lied to the judge about when I first contacted. They never talked to family members about taking guardianship, since they said my sister gave them no family members information. Well I left my info with the worker.

First off... you DON'T have the right to drive... and no its not in the Constitution that you do. Driving is a prieledge... one that's earned by passing tests... and a priveldge that can be taken away for a number of reasons.

Do you have the money to hire lawyers to fight to have something done to the judge... assuming the case would even be heard.. and is more likely than not to result in you losing.

Where ever you looked about a "right to drive" ***ok, I am still laughing on that... it is not true. There is no right to drive, it is a privilege.

Next, it appears you are trying to do this, without an attorney, sorry, never will work, the system, esp with social services, is build into the system. CPS works within the frame work, that they can do many things, first, for protection of the child, and then have hearings.You can request a judge excuse theirself, but that is all. If they do not, you may have a right to appeal a verdict.

You can't disqualify a judge. You can request a change but that is highly unlikely to be granted. And you would need a lot more proof than you have.

As the others have noted to get through the system you will need an attorney.

Driving is a right, so I do not see why you would laugh. "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Maybe I should not be posting on an amateur site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyboss

Driving is a right, so I do not see why you would laugh. "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Maybe I should not be posting on an amateur site.

---

Dude.. seriously... instead of ranting, can you point out exactly WHERE in the constitution its defined as a right... or even the Bill of rights... if its actually a right... its spelled out in those two documents... I know them really well, and I've never seen it anywhere. They aren't that long...it shouldn't be that hard to do.

Exactly what part of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" specifically spells out the right for drunks, addicts, the blind, and the dangerously reckless to drive on the highways and endanger the lives of everyone else?

I think its time you sought out a mental health professional....because you alone seem to have this delusion....despite the fact a large percentage of us have have at a minimum advanced college degrees....

And nevermind what we say....go buy yourself a car...and drive without a liscense...you can have that arguement with the police and the Judge. I'll wager a good ammount of money you will lose that argument in court. And end up like a few people I've seen in court driving without a liscense.....they got the priveldge of three square meals a day for free...while in custody of the County Jail for a year.

Judicial Selection in the States - Methods of Judicial Selection

Quote:

---

New York judges may be removed in one of three ways:

• Judges may be admonished, censured, retired, or removed from office by the commission on judicial conduct. The commission’s disciplinary actions are subject to review by the court of appeals.

• Judges of the court of appeals and justices of the supreme court may be removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. Other judges may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the senate on the recommendation of the governor.

• Judges may be impeached by a majority vote of the assembly and removed by a two-thirds vote of the court for the trial of impeachments. The court consists of the president of the senate, the senators, and the judges of the court of appeals.

---

You better get a sharp lawyer willing to go through this process. You better have documented proof, and not suspicions, or hurt feelings or just PISSED.

Now where's your link that driving is a right.

The OP is referring to this:
Right to Travel

This smacks of the same type of logic that says the income tax is illegal. What the sites that promote this garbage fail to understand is that Drivers licenses are issued by the states and NOT the federal government. And this is the jurisdiction of the states. Roads are maintained by the states, even parts of the Interstate Highway system. So it is the purview of the states to control whether people are allowed to operate a motor vehicle or not.

Sorry nyboss, but you are listening to the wrong people.

I wouldn't quote your rights to a cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation and asks for your license registration and proof of insurance, or the judge who has to hear why you don't have them. Especially if he got busted from the family court.

Here is a site with some info on your 'right' to drive. Which your right is taken and turned into a privilege, if not educated about it. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/DrivLicVRightToTravel.htm

And again, this is smoke and mirrors. As I said, this is a states rights issue, not a constitutional one. Second, the right to use the roads is not being interfered with. EVERYONE has a right to apply for a driver's license and, upon passing a test that shows they have the knowledge and skill to drive, can then use the roads.

There is nowhere in the Constitution that this so-called right is conveyed. The practice of toll roads, etc. has been around since before the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The passage you quoted was from a decision by a judge in a Federal case and therefore is not binding on the states. I notice that the site you linked to doesn't cite the cases they claim were a "win" (quotes THEIRS). All the sites I found making a similar argument using Thompson v Smith, fail to address the opposing arguments of state rights. One last point on Thompson v Smith. When a case is individual v individual, that means its a civil case, not a case against the government. Therefore this case had nothing to do the requirement to have a driver's license. If you really want to make an argument make sure you educate yourself on ALL sides of the argument, not just one.

The reality of the matter is that each state requires that a person obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle, the license is not to use the roads. If this argument was as applicable as you seem to think it is, then the laws requiring a driver's license would have been struck down in state courts all over the US. And that clearly has not happened.

But please feel free to take this argument to an attorney or make it pro se in front of a judge and see how far it gets you.

There are several cases that have been dismissed over this. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states;

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress.. . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, May be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyboss

There are several cases that have been dismissed over this. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states;

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress.. . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, May be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

---

You are free to walk, ride a bicycle.. or take public transit... NOTHING in there says a word about a right to drive... This train is not only off the tracks.. its not even in the railway right of way any longer.

I am referring to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Does it say it is limited to walking?

Here is a site that lays out court hearings and shows defenses used. Driver Licensing v. Right to Travel

This is for the some that can actually have a debate, but for the ones who results in name calling... seriously! Leave. This site is for answers, not kids thinking they know stuff, to find out society blanketed them from reality...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyboss

Does it say it is limited to walking?

---

I suppose you believe you have the right to fly any airplane you want anywhere too... as a pilot too. Why stop there... Demand to be on the next flight to the International space station.

If you are so absolutely convinced you are right... then what's your excuse for not having a car driving right now? I really want to hear this one... or is it that you know your argument is full of it and you don't have the right you are ranting about.

Put your money where your mouth is... go buy a car... refuse to insure and put plates on it because after all its some "right" you think you have... and when you get out of jail... you can tell us about how wrong you were.

You are wasting time trying to argue it with us, this isn't moot court and we don't buy into it....take it to a real judge in a real court and put your freedom up as a stake in it....if you are really that convinced you are right about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyboss

There are several cases that have been dismissed over this. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states;

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyboss

This is for the some that can actually have a debate, but for the ones who results in name calling... seriously! Leave. This site is for answers, not kids thinking they know stuff, to find out society blanketed them from reality...

---

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is issued by the United Nations and is NOT binding on the member countries, it is a guideline. Article 13, that you quoted, has little if anything to do with a state or country's right to regulate the use of motor vehicles. The US Constitution states nothing about a right to operate a motor vehicle. The only thing the Constitution deals with is interstate commerce.

The problem here is that you are taking things out of context and dealing in abstracts, not reality. You need to understand the facts of what you are reading. You need to research all sides of an argument, not just one side that is not presenting the whole story.

nyboss, do you have any more questions about asking for a judge to be removed from hearing a case? If not, this thread will be closed.

You may start a Discussion thread for discussing 'the right to travel'.

You are exactly right, but this is what I have to deal with if ever caught driving; so I hope it does work. If not then this is something I will have to deal with. But being I was young and dumb and have multiple drinking driving offenses, I have to deal with it. I have been sober for 7 years now and still NY keeps sending me 5 year revocations, even though nothing new added on my record. So excuse me for trying, so I can care for my 3 kids. I am a man who works and is almost about to graduate with a Bachelors. I appreciate people like ScottGem who can have a debate.

If you are arguing Constitutional rights with judges, and then wondering why you are being stymied at every turn, then you are seriously lacking in a sense of reality - regardless of who is right.

The judge trying my case in family court, is the same judge that tried my sisters case for the same kids. Is it possible to remove this judge, since their opinion could be biased?