The judiciary has, however, substituted itself for the legislature by restricting -- via case law -- the facts supporting recusal to those which occurred outside the case you're prosecuting or defending . . . the very case from which you want the judge to recuse him or her self . 

This is absurd, of course, inasmuch as the ordinary person will likely have not interacted with the questionable judge outside the case he or she is prosecuting or defending.

It is also absurd because it is a judge-made condition -- a condition repeatedly re-inforced in judicial opinions -- solely for the purpose of  protecting themselves from accountability, which is unlawful, if Article V is to have meaning.

Fortunately, however, recent case law HAS held that judges are accountable.  See Com. v. Ellis, 429 Mass. 362, 371 (1999), where the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recognized that "Article 5 . . . provides that officers of government `are at all times accountable to [the people].'" 

So, falseallegations.com calls for those who truly suffer from an intolerable judicial situation to file a motion to recuse on the grounds that the judicial officer, to wit, the judge, is an agent of the movant -- your agent -- and is "hereby this [your] motion" terminated from that agency.  McDuffy v. Secretary of Executive Office of Educ.,  415 Mass. 545,  561 n. 16 (1993): 

The term "magistrates" is also used to refer to members of the judicial branch. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

blow your horns continuously as you pass the location of each and every courthouse, particularly in Massachusetts,

 

write to each and every representative and senator, particularly in Massachusetts,

 

write Letters to the Editors, particularly in Massachusetts,

 

call each radio and television station, particularly in Massachusetts,

 

call each judge's lobby, particularly in Massachusetts, and ask, "Have you earned your paycheck, benefits, and future pension today?"