Comprehensive Remedies for Addressing Judicial Delays and Inaction

Comprehensive Remedies for Addressing Judicial Delays and Inaction

1. File a Demand and/or Motion to Expedite or for a Ruling

  • Submit a motion formally requesting the court to issue a decision promptly.
  • Emphasize the harm, prejudice, or significant consequences caused by the delay.
  • Cite local rules or statutes requiring timely resolutions if applicable.

 

2. File a Complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board

  • File a formal complaint with the judicial conduct or disciplinary commission in your jurisdiction.
  • Complaints about unreasonable delays can trigger an investigation into the judge’s behavior.

 

3. Writ or Petition for Mandamus

  • Seek a writ of mandamus from a higher court to compel the judge to act.
  • Mandamus is appropriate when the delay amounts to a failure to perform a legally required duty.

 

4. Request Administrative or Supervising Judge Intervention

  • Appeal to the supervising or administrative judge, who oversees the judiciary’s efficiency.
  • They may inquire into the delay, intervene, or reassign the case to another judge.

 

5. Demand and/or Motion for Recusal or Disqualification

  • Request the judge’s removal if the delay suggests bias, incompetence, or dereliction of duty.
  • Include specific evidence showing the delay’s impact on your case or rights.

 

6. Appeal for Judicial Inaction

  • File an appeal based on the judge’s unreasonable inaction if the delay causes harm or procedural disadvantages.
  • Ensure this aligns with your jurisdiction’s appellate rules.

 

7. Seek Special Legislation (Rare Move)

  • In extraordinary cases, parties have lobbied for special legislative intervention, asking lawmakers to address systemic delays or specific judicial conduct.
  • This option is extreme and rarely successful but may be used in high-profile cases.

 

8. Use an Amicus Curiae Brief to Escalate Awareness

  • Encourage third parties, such as legal advocacy groups or bar associations, to file an amicus curiae brief.
  • These briefs highlight the broader implications of judicial delays, putting additional pressure on the court.

 

9. File a Federal Habeas Corpus Petition (For Criminal Cases)

  • If the delay occurs in a criminal case, defendants can file a federal habeas corpus petition alleging a violation of their right to a speedy trial or due process.

 

10. Raise Constitutional Claims

  • Argue that the delay violates constitutional rights, such as the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial (criminal cases) or Fourteenth Amendment due process rights (civil cases).
  • File in state or federal court, depending on jurisdiction.

 

11. Seek Media or Public Attention (Strategically)

  • In extreme cases, use media coverage or public advocacy to bring attention to the delay.
  • Be cautious to avoid contempt of court or reputational harm.

 

12. Request Congressional or Legislative Oversight (Federal Cases)

  • If the judge presides in a federal court, contact your congressional representative to address judicial inefficiency through oversight committees.
  • This rarely leads to direct intervention but can escalate systemic concerns.

 

13. Demand a Judicial Performance Audit

  • In some jurisdictions, judicial performance audits assess a judge’s case management efficiency.
  • Advocate for an audit by local or state judicial authorities.

 

14. Pursue Impeachment Proceedings (Extreme Measure)

  • File a petition or complaint asking for judicial impeachment if the delay constitutes gross misconduct or dereliction of duty.
  • Impeachment is rare and requires substantial evidence and political will.

 

15. Engage a Private Investigator or Legal Audit (Uncommon)

  • Hire an investigator or legal auditor to document the scope of delays, including other cases under the judge’s purview.
  • Use findings to bolster your claims in complaints or motions.

 

16. Leverage International Human Rights Tribunals (Rare, Applicable in Certain Cases)

  • If the delay violates internationally recognized rights, you may submit a claim to bodies like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
  • This is a rare option and more applicable to cases with significant rights violations.

 

17. Seek Arbitration or Mediation (If Allowed)

  • Request that the court refer the case to arbitration or mediation to bypass delays.
  • Not all jurisdictions permit this for judicial delays, but it can be an alternative for civil disputes.

 

18. File a Motion for Reassignment Based on Judicial Incapacity (Rare)

  • Argue that the delay stems from the judge’s incapacity, such as health issues or workload, and request reassignment.
  • This requires documented proof of incapacity.

Leave your vote

39393 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!