Legal Quagmire - Empiricum

Or is it simply the luck of the draw?

No, this is not about Iraq.

Rather, it's a discussion about the positional situation of Rambus in 6 venues: Virginia district court, California district court and California state superior court, Delaware district court, FTC, and the EU.

As the waiting game continues (see my previous - The Waiting Game), Rambus continues also in legal quagmire. The anticipated positively pro-Rambus ruling of Judge Ronald Whyte will temporarily take Rambus out of this quagmire even with a likely appeal by Hynix. Considering that Chief Judge Stephen McGuire of the FTC has already exonerated Rambus on the issues of spoliation and unclean hands, another exoneration by Judge Whyte on the same issues will likely be upheld by the CAFC and will put Judge Robert Payne on the defensive and cast him once again as "the villain" in this on-going legal drama.

If Judge Whyte in fact rules in favor of Rambus on the spoliation and unclean hands issues, it will not only preempt Judge Payne on these matters but also will put into question how he got assigned on the Samsung case by the Chief Judge of that district. What are the chances that his assignment was simply a luck in the draw? Or did the Chief Judge take into consideration ONLY the simple fact that Judge Payne is most familiar with the "Rambus story"? Or could it be that had another judge been assigned and gutsily scrutinized and criticized Judge Payne's IFX rulings on the same matters, that would have resulted in a problematical legal "scandal" in that district. At the appropriate and opportune time, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia SHOULD investigate this particular matter including allegations of conflict of interest.

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist once hypothesized that a federal judge cannot be impeached simply on the basis of erroneous rulings or judgments. I agree with Rehnquist on that hypothesis because the losing party has an appellate remedy. However, in a situation where the judge's ruling is not only considered "erroneous" but is also tainted with unmitigated prejudice and bias cloaked by an elaborate twisting of the facts and misinterpretation of the law and accompanied with allegations of conflict of interest that should have prompted the judge to voluntarily recuse himself, that judge, upon thorough investigation, MUST be impeached!

Perhaps it's only a matter of time.