This post was edited to correct the fact that Judge Bensonetta Tipton Lane did not respond to Tameka’s Motion for Recusal. It was attorney John Mayoue who filed a response. Judge Lane legally cannot respond to the motion for recusal.

Usher’s attorney John Mayoue came out swinging in a legal response to Tameka Foster-Raymond’s motion to recuse Judge Lane from presiding over the bitterly contested case of Raymond vs Raymond.

In her Motion for recusal, Foster-Raymond accused the judge of showing bias toward Usher’s attorney John Mayoue who contributed to her 2008 campaign for re-election.

In a lengthy response obtained by HipHopEnquirer.com, Mayoue called Tameka’s petition “an assault on the integrity of the court.” Mayoue called Foster-Raymond’s Motion for recusal “baseless, unwarranted and untimely.”

He argued that “Lawyers and law firms routinely contribute to the election and re-election campaigns of both trial and appellate judges.”

Mayoue pointed out that Tameka’s own co-counsel was hired by a law firm that also contributed to the judge’s re-election coffers.

Mayoue wrote that the court “exercised overwhelming compassion” in giving Tameka leniency, such as presenting witnesses and documents out of order and refusing to identify “assets in which she currently held an interest.”

In addition, he wrote, Tameka asked that Usher be “ordered to give her more post-divorce money and even that he buy her a multi-million dollar home!”

But most interesting in the lengthy court document was the inclusion of this blog post as “EXHIBIT D” — including every comment under it.

Mayoue notes that Usher never called Tameka prior to the final verdict, and “no such recording exists” between Usher and Tameka.


More from Sandrarose.com:

  • Does Usher have the victory in the bag?
  • Tameka Raymond calls Usher’s girlfriend ‘barren’
  • Tameka Foster-Raymond fears Usher’s stalker will harm her kids
  • Tameka Foster-Raymond Files Motion for New Trial

    • Photos: John E. Davidson/Getty Images North America