Federal Magistrate Paige Jones Gossett Engaged in Criminal Conspiracy

 

Paige Jones Gossett

United States Magistrate for South Carolina

For MORE juicy details, visit: Disgraced Cop!

Federal Magistrate, Paige Jones Gossett, has engaged in a conspiracy to inflict unlawful confinement upon Glen K. LaConey, a Plaintiff in civil rights actions, Glen K. LaConey v. Alan McCrory Wilson, C/A 3:21-CV-02740 and C/A 3:18-CV-850. Gossett is a longtime family friend of South Carolina Attorney General, Alan McCrory Wilson, a Defendant in the above cases and the stepson of Addison “Joe” Graves Wilson, Sr., United States Representative for South Carolina's 2nd Congressional District. Gossett concealed her relationship with Wilson in both cases; thereby, rendering her complicit both during and after the fact of the underlying conspiracy. Following is an excerpt from LaConey's Motion to Amend Complaint filed in the 3:21-CV-02740-CMC-PJG case:

"Plaintiff Glen K. LaConey (“LaConey”) filed his civil rights action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 241 and other violations giving rise to the within action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for initial review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

The United States Magistrate, Paige Jones Gossett, (“Gossett”) having reviewed LaConey’s Amended Complaint in accordance with applicable law, Gossett concludes that all LaConey’s claims of civil rights violations and conspiracy are subject to summary dismissal, either because LaConey fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or because the defendants are immune from suit. Gossett, by her Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommends that this case be summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process. 

Based on newly developed information concerning judicial impropriety of Gossett, LaConey now seeks to amend his complaint and add Gossett as a Defendant in this matter. LaConey has learned that Gossett is a longtime, intimate acquaintance of Addison “Joe” Graves Wilson, United States Representative for South Carolina's 2nd Congressional District and stepfather of Defendant Alan McCrory Wilson (“Wilson”), Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. Additionally, Gossett has exhibited a pattern of presenting grossly erroneous and distorted facts, and making gross omissions of pertinent facts, in her Reports and Recommendations to the court, in favor of Wilson and other Defendants, both in the within matter, as well as in the related matter of Glen K. LaConey v. Alan McCrory Wilson, et al., Case No. 3:18-850-CMC-PJG.  

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). 

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.” 

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7thCir.1989). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202. 

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would be valid. They are void as a matter of law and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”). 

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that the judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (if he is not a judge). 

The said acts and omissions of Gossett are a glaring appearance of impropriety, under the attendant circumstances. Based on such acts and omissions of Gossett, in obstruction of justice, by her role as reviewing Magistrate, in cases in which Wilson was a defendant, LaConey contends that Gossett was and is complicit, after the fact, of conspiracy to inflict unlawful confinement upon LaConey. An uncontrived review of both cases would evince both the appearance of impropriety of Gossett, as well as substantiate LaConey’s claims that Gossett is complicit, after the fact, in the underlying conspiracy. LaConey is forwarding a full report to the headquarters of the United States Attorney for referral to the South Carolina District Office." 

Joe Wilson Congratulates Paige Jones Gossett:  

file:///C:/Users/ https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2009/1/28/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E159-3

Meet Joe Wilson's Son, Alan M. Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General:

Joe Wilson's stepson vs. insurance mogul's son-in-law in South Carolina runoff (washingtonpost.com)

"Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked." Jeremiah 30:23, KJV