Motion to Recuse Judge Joe Black: His Wife Holds My Evidence, and His Account Keeps Watching Me

On June 1, 2026, I filed a verified motion in Harrison County asking Judge Joe Black to step aside from my criminal case — or to send the question to the Regional Presiding Judge for a neutral decision. I want to be precise about what this is and what it is not. This is not a claim that Judge Black committed a crime. It is not anger over a single ruling. It is a motion about the appearance of impartiality — the legal standard that asks one simple question: knowing these facts, could a reasonable person question whether this judge can be neutral?

I think the answer is yes. And I think you'll think so too once you see it laid out.

Two things sit at the center of this case. The bodycam and records I need to defend myself run through the Harrison County Sheriff's Office. And my public speech — my Facebook, my journalism, my posts on this site — is itself being treated as a bond-condition issue. Now hold those two facts next to two more: the judge's wife, Lt. Cindy Black, sits in the records/open-records chain that controls access to that evidence. And the Facebook account I identify as Judge Black's keeps showing up viewing and reacting to my stories — the very speech the court may be asked to restrict.

That combination is the motion. Here it is, in plain English.

What I'm actually asking the court to do

I asked the court, in plain terms, to:

• Accept the verified motion and the visual evidence appendix.
• Have Judge Joe Black voluntarily recuse, or refer the motion to the Regional Presiding Judge under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a.
• Take no further non-emergency action while the recusal question is pending, except for good cause stated on the record.
• Preserve everything — every HCSO and open-records communication, every bodycam and call-sheet request, every email, every screenshot, every Facebook story-view and reaction, and all native source files and metadata.
• Assign a neutral judge to hear this motion and, if it's granted, to preside over the underlying case.

That's it. Recuse or refer. Preserve the evidence. Let a neutral judge take it from here.

Why a reasonable person could question impartiality

The test is not whether I can prove bias today. The Supreme Court has been clear: recusal can be required when the probability of bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable — an objective question about public confidence, not the judge's private belief about his own fairness.

Look at what stacks up here:

• The judge's spouse is connected to the evidence-access chain and may be a material witness about bodycam, call-sheet, open-records, and police-report access.
• The judge's own account appears repeatedly viewing and reacting to my Facebook activity — while that exact activity is a disputed bond/speech issue the court may have to rule on.
• There's prior history — a 2018 misdemeanor matter with Judicial Officer Black, Joe — which alone proves nothing, but adds to the cumulative picture.

No single piece demands recusal. Together, they're exactly the kind of appearance problem the rules exist to prevent.

The evidence tells the story in two tracks

The visual appendix runs in two tracks. Track one: the judge's wife in the records chain. Track two: the judge's account watching my speech. Start with the two contact sheets, then look at the receipts behind them.

EX-RC-019 — The Cindy Black / HCSO records-request sequence at a glance. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-018 — Screenshots of the account I identify as Judge Joe Black's, viewing and reacting to my content. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

Track one: the judge's wife sits in my evidence chain

Lt. Cindy Black is identified in these records as Civil / Open Records / Transport for the Harrison County Sheriff's Office. The point isn't an accusation against her. The point is simpler and harder to wave away: she may be a material witness about why my evidence was, or wasn't, produced — and a judge should not preside over a case in which his spouse could be a witness on a due-process dispute that's central to the defense.

Watch the contrast across the chain. Early on, when the request concerned an earlier file, the communication was about fees and processing. Later, when the request was the bodycam I need for this case, the answer became "active case, call sheet only," and then no meaningful production.

EX-RC-002 — Lt. Cindy Black's role / HCSO records context. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-003 — Earlier records-request chain and responsiveness. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-004 — Earlier willingness to process a video-footage request. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-005 — My compliance and willingness to pay. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-006 — Earlier records-chain confirmation. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-007 — The later evidence-access dispute: bodycam withheld. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-008 — The defense need for the bodycam / due-process concern. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-009 — Follow-up request and the no-response issue. Attorney identity redacted. Classification: NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

Track two: the judge's account keeps watching my speech

My Facebook use is not a side issue in this case. I've been publicly defending myself, publishing evidence, asking for the bodycam to be released, and challenging speech-related bond conditions. The court may be asked to decide whether I can post, publish, or discuss my own case at all.

So when the account I identify as Judge Black's turns up — not once, but across multiple different stories and posts — viewing and reacting to that exact speech, it matters. It's extra-judicial exposure to the disputed facts, and to the words the court may be asked to restrict. The issue isn't one accidental view. It's a pattern.

EX-RC-010 — Account engagement with my Facebook content. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-011 — Extra-judicial exposure to my Facebook stories. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-012 — Repeated extra-judicial exposure. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-013 — Repeated extra-judicial exposure. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-014 — Repeated exposure to the disputed firearm / public-speech issues. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-015 — Repeated exposure to my public speech. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-016 — Repeated exposure to the disputed firearm / public-speech issues. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

EX-RC-017 — Repeated exposure to my court / public-speech activity. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

The prior history

EX-RC-001 — Prior judicial familiarity / cumulative appearance issue. Classification: RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION.

This 2018 matter doesn't decide anything on its own. I'm not pretending it does. It's one more piece of the cumulative picture when you set it beside a spouse in the records chain and an account that keeps watching my speech.

The law I'm standing on

• Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a — the procedure for filing, referring, and deciding a motion to recuse or disqualify a judge.
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b — the grounds for recusal, including when impartiality might reasonably be questioned, when the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, or when a spouse is likely to be a material witness or holds an interest that could be substantially affected.
• Texas Code of Judicial Conduct — a judge must promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and act without bias.
• Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) — recusal is required where the probability of bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable; the test is objective.
• In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) — no person may be a judge in his own case; due process guards against an unconstitutional potential for bias.
• Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) — due process is denied when circumstances create a real risk the tribunal isn't neutral.

How I've classified every piece of this

I label everything, so the court and the reader know exactly what kind of statement each line is — no blurring fact and belief:

• FACT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION: A folder titled "Joe & Cindy Black" exists and holds image files tied to HCSO records requests, Cindy Black communications, and Facebook view/reaction screenshots.
• FACT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION: The screenshots show Lt. Cindy Black communicating with me in Case File 25-019731 — a video fee schedule, an ID request, and an acknowledgement of receipt — then, later, an "active case / call sheet only" response.
• RYAN STATEMENT: The earlier file concerned the July 13, 2025 incident involving me and my father-in-law.
• RYAN STATEMENT: After my later bodycam/report request with counsel copied, I received no meaningful production resolving the bodycam issue.
• RYAN STATEMENT / NEEDS AUTHENTICATION: I identify the account in the story-view and reaction screenshots as Judge Joe Black's, and the screenshots show multiple distinct views/reactions — not one isolated view.
• DOCUMENTED INFERENCE: Spouse involvement in disputed evidence access, combined with repeated extra-judicial exposure to my Facebook activity, creates an appearance-of-impartiality issue requiring recusal or referral.

My sworn declaration

I signed an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury. In plain terms, I declared: that I believe Judge Black's impartiality can reasonably be questioned; that I understand Cindy Black to be his wife; that I've communicated with or about her regarding bodycam, call-sheet, police-report, and open-records matters; that I believe those records are central to my defense and that my access has been delayed, denied, ignored, or obstructed; that she may be a material witness on why records weren't produced; that I've preserved multiple screenshots of what I identify as Judge Black's account engaging with my Facebook content; that my public speech and journalism are directly at issue because I've been led to believe my online speech may be restricted or used against me; and that, for those reasons, I do not believe Judge Black should preside over my case. I declared it true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

The order I'm asking a neutral judge to sign

The proposed order: Judge Black recuses or the motion goes to the Regional Presiding Judge; no further action pending decision except for good cause; preserve all records, screenshots, communications, metadata, and native files.

The motion as filed

The filed motion — Harrison County, Texas. Court-focused summary and relief requested.

The bottom line

Recusal isn't punishment, and it isn't an accusation. It protects the court as much as it protects me. This case is going to involve public filings, public articles, bodycam, social-media evidence, public accusations, and disputed evidence access. It needs a judge with no family tie to the records dispute and no extra-judicial exposure to the very speech that's on the table. Referral to the Regional Presiding Judge is the clean, lawful, public-confidence-preserving path. That's all I'm asking for: a neutral judge, and the truth preserved.