{"id":"q84a33592e2b3119f0119","batch_id":"batch-000065","seq":254,"speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:22.645Z","text":"2. Appearance of Judicial Impropriety Under Liteky / Caperton\nThe Court has previously recognized that the public disclosure of personal\naddresses constitutes a serious threat to the judicial process. For example,\nin Dkt. 7, the prosecution alleged that supporters of the defendant posted\nthe private home addresses of the Chapter 11 Trustee, the Trustee’s\nfamily, and other related parties, calling for protests at these locations. In\nDkt. 51, Judge Torres cited such postings as evidence of obstruction of\njustice and intimidation of officers of the Court, and used this as a factor in\nthe defendant’s bail denial. Yet, in direct contradiction to this precedent,\nthe Court itself has publicly posted the private addresses of a victim—\nmyself—and other self-represented petitioners in Dkts. 732 and 765. By\ntreating my filings in a manner that the Court has explicitly condemned in\nothers, the Court demonstrates a clear pattern of bias against pro se\npetitioners and victims, applying double standards in the administration of\nCase: 25-2726, 12/22/2025, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 28 of 34\njustice and disregarding the privacy protections mandated by Rule 49.1 /\n5.2.\nFurthermore, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009),\nestablishes that the probability of bias requiring recusal is heightened\nwhen a party is subjected to systemic disadvantage that could influence\nthe outcome. By publicly disclosing my personally identifiable information\nwhile previously criticizing similar disclosures by other parties (Dkt. 51), the\nCourt applied a double standard, fostering the appearance of impropriety\nand undermini","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q84a33592e2b3119f0119","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000065","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000065","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q84a33592e2b3119f0119","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q84a33592e2b3119f0119/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q84a33592e2b3119f0119","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q379fb73134ca0b06630d","speaker":"chu***","date":"2025-12-22T20:30:24.841Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q379fb73134ca0b06630d"},{"id":"q83f112ab4d18ce9a77bf","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:05.066Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q83f112ab4d18ce9a77bf"},{"id":"q4f016e0fbed26722084e","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:20.716Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4f016e0fbed26722084e"},{"id":"q567ec81e9c6fd09b526f","speaker":"rui***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:45.058Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q567ec81e9c6fd09b526f"},{"id":"q3d23801ef7c89dcdedd5","speaker":"him***","date":"2025-12-22T20:33:47.182Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3d23801ef7c89dcdedd5"},{"id":"q6407e5f159e64abe36e2","speaker":"chu***","date":"2025-12-22T20:35:41.642Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6407e5f159e64abe36e2"}],"parent_message":null}