TMatthewPhillip

Appeals are designed to correct "errors of law." However, in this case, there were no "errors of law." Hence, nothing to appeal. :)

"Judicial immunity tends to corrupt, while absolute judicial immunity corrupts absolutely." ~T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.

"...and isn't too different from tossing a coin." Nailed it!! :)

You are correct. It's a due process violation. Here, the judge wrongfully delegated her decision-making duties, and such delegation is forbidden by law. Such delegation is NOT a proper judicial act; therefore, the doctrine of judicial immunity does NOT apply.

At this stage of the lawsuit, the federal court presumed the truth of the A.I. allegations. The federal court ruled that such conduct, if true, is nevertheless subject to absolute immunity. Stay tuned for the appeal in the 9th Circuit.

"Judicial immunity tends to corrupt, while absolute judicial immunity corrupts absolutely." ~T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.

Appealing the judge's ruling would be meaningless. Appeals are designed to correct "errors of law." But here, the judge made no "error of law." Rather, the judge committed a grave ethical violation. The judge delegated her decision-making duties to a third party (ChatGPT!). In America, judges are forbidden to delegate their decision-making duties. Such delegation is NOT a "judicial act," and therefore, because there was NO "judicial act" -- judicial immunity does NOT apply. P.S. I'm the guy who sued the judge. :)

Judicial partisanship is at an all-time high. I dream of the day when all trial courts have A.I. judges for law and motion matters. The use of A.I. judges is the only way to eliminate judicial bias. P.S. I'm the guy who sued the judge.