There is a growing general public disdain for the judicial and legal establishment caused by the bias and unfair rulings of Judge Lloyd D. George.

Judge George's behavior on the bench has raised serious questions concerning his role as a federal judge and exhibits a pattern of behavior that indicates a growing bias against Hispanics and minorities as well as an extremely blatant courtroom bias against pro se litigants.

The record repeatedly shows that Judge George often ignores statutory laws enacted by Congress as well as the previous rulings of the Appellate Court and Supreme Court. Judge George often renders dishonest decisions that he knows to be devoid of factual or legal basis and is engaging in impeachable conduct. The following published cases are but a few samples. These are just for the 1995-96 terms, which will clearly show that Judge George's behavior on the bench is prejudicial to the proper administration of the court and is often reversed by the Appellate Court.

United States v. D'Amore, 56 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 1995):  Judge George exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, which is inexcusable for a federal judge. Judge George did not even inquire if the defendant or his court-appointed counsels had a conflict of interest among themselves.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: "It appears that the District Court had reached a tentative conclusion about the Defendant's motion for substitution prior to the . . . hearing." (At page 1204)

This would lead a person to ask, "Is it possible that Judge George engages in ex parte meetings before the hearings?"

In Riley v. Deeds, 56 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 1995), Judge George denied the granting of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had to reverse and remand because during trial the Judge was absent to respond to the juror's questions. The Judge's law clerk, instead of the Judge, was permitted to sit in and respond to the juror's questionings during deliberations. The Ninth Circuit held: "This resulted in structural error that rendered the Defendant's trial fundamentally unfair and deprived him of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Obviously, the undisciplined and capricious behavior of Judge George had rendered him unable to comprehend basic principles of the Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial.

Without a doubt the longer Judge George occupies the bench, the more erratic and illegally harsh his treatment of minorities and the poor becomes. His progressive inability to follow statutory mandates and Ninth Circuit directives has become increasingly more burdensome and time-consuming for the Court of Appeals, which regularly remands his cases back to his courtroom when involving Hispanic and other minority defendants.

Additional cases with meticulous record references will establish that Judge George has authored decisions which, in every material respect, are misleading and violate fundamental black-letter law and rudimentary due process.

United States v. Velez, 113 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1996):  The appellate court ordered a re-sentencing because Judge George sentenced Mr. Velez, a Hispanic, under the wrong sentencing guidelines in order to justify 75 months of imprisonment. Mr. Velez was convicted only of filing false reports to the immigration authorities.

But compare this case to a major tax fraud case in United States v. Silver States Disposal Service Inc., Case No. Cr-96-92-LDG, which was much publicized by the media. The government charged several defendants, non-Hispanics, with a 26-count indictment for false corporate tax return, mail fraud, aiding and abetting. Despite a plethora of damaging evidence against the defendants, Judge George pronounced light sentences of probation on some of the co-conspirators and less than 24 months of imprisonment on others.

When non-Hispanic pedophiles came before Judge George, he was far more lenient, sentencing individuals who have overtly assaulted the morals of both society and its children with less than one year of incarceration. Even these pedophiles were granted bail while their appeal was pending. See United States v. Ruddell, 71 F.3d 331 (9th Cir. 1995) Affirmed.

In United States v. Quintero-Barraza, 57 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 1995), Judge George sentenced a Hispanic defendant to two prison terms of 151 months each. Fortunately for the defendant, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sentence on the grounds that the defendant had been found guilty on one count of the indictment and therefore could not sentence the defendant on two counts.

In United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals once again was compelled to reverse the sentencing and remand for re-sentencing. Apparently, Judge George has difficulty understanding the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

Judge George's continued bias against minorities can easily be seen in the case of Nakaranurack v. United States, 68 F.3d 290 (9th Cir. 1995). In this case, Judge George refused to extend jurisdiction over an alien's petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus review of an immigration deportation order. The Ninth Circuit again had to reverse and remand with instruction to entertain the immigrant's petition.

Judge George also seems to have a very difficult time understanding the basic fundamental principles of jurisdictional law. See Ind. Guard Ass'n of Nev., Local No. 1 v. O'Leary, 57 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 1995), where the appellate Court reversed and remanded this case because Judge George displayed his ignorance of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2), by holding that a "military function" exception to the APA applied. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that Congress intended the military function exemption to have a narrow scope and that there was no evidence that the military exercised any direct supervisory control over civilian contract guards in this case.

Judge George also has a history of ruling in favor of Government in civil and criminal cases, regardless of the merit of the issues raised by defendants. Jones v. United States, 60 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 1995), necessitated the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service because there were genuine issues of fact that were blatantly ignored by Judge George.

Commodity Futures Trading v. Noble Metals Intern, 67 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 1995), again found the Ninth Circuit reversing Judge George in the grant of summary judgment because the Judge ignored genuine issues of material fact.

Mort v. United States, 86 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 1996):  Judge George displayed his abuse of discretion in refusing to exercise its equitable jurisdiction and dismissed the case in favor of the IRS. The Court of Appeals again reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Morts rather than the IRS.

Even women who are sexually harassed by their employers have difficulties seeking justice in Judge George's courtroom.  In Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1995), a sexual harassment discrimination case, Judge George flatly refused to allow the plaintiff's introduction in evidence of the Nevada Equal Right Commission's probable cause findings and excluded pertinent testimony of other female co-workers concerning the defendant's alleged sexual harassment. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Judge George committed reversible error and remanded the case for a new trial with instruction to allow this very important testimony of the other female employees.

In Judge George's court, unethical conduct of attorneys often goes uncorrected while pro se litigants are regularly treated with reckless disregard. In Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 1996), a pro se litigant brought suit against a corporation for selling him a defective motor home. During trial, the corporation's attorney had engaged in witness tampering with the pro se litigant's expert witness in violation of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. While this code clearly forbids any conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, Judge George ruled in favor of the corporation on all claims, failing repeatedly to censure the corporation's attorney. The Ninth Circuit again had to reverse and remand for a new trial with instructions to impose disciplinary action upon the corporation's attorney.

In Farmer v. McDaniel, 98 F.3d 1548 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge George's dismissal of a Writ of Habeas Corpus with instructions to consider Petitioner's amended petition.

In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co v. Otto, 106 F.3d 279 (9th Cir. 1997), Judge George's failure to consider the significance of the releaser's intent, thus denying rights and claims of the individual defendant against the powerful network of corporate representation, was once again reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit. Apparently, when it is a case of industry versus individual, Judge George favors the former while overlooking and ignoring the laws pertinent to the rights of the latter.

The above are just a few of the published cases for 1995 and 1996 terms. The majority of Judge George's court cases are not published, where atrocities and reckless disregard for minority defendant's constitutional rights are often perpetrated and go unnoticed by the public.

Judge George is known for manipulating the guidelines to create draconian sentences, which are handed down regularly on non-violent offenders simply because of their origin or color of skin. See, for example: United States v. Traslavina, CR-87-166 (1987), where a Spanish defendant and a first-time offender was sentenced to a 30-year term of imprisonment on a non-violent drug charge. The conspiracy sentence was clearly in violation of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Judge George ignored statutory and Supreme Court precedent and refused to correct the sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a). This case is presently on appeal in Pro Se Status.

Clearly, Judge George's pattern of ruling and his ruling in any individual case, most notably those involving minorities, indicate aberrational and erratic behavior to which no American citizen or foreign national should be subjected. Due to his obvious bias, Judge George should be recommended for impeachment or voluntarily step down and not subject the federal judiciary to further loss of public confidence.