where a defendant can come out there and tell me that a particular individual is not representing him. You can indicate that you are not satisfied with him, and it is for me to make that decision.” After reviewing the statements in their context, we are unable to conclude that they demonstrate animosity, hostility, ill will, or distrust toward defendant. Instead, they demonstrate nothing more than judicial expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction and annoyance that are within the bounds of what judges, as imperfect people, sometimes display, and such statements do not provide a basis for finding that Judge Cieslik was prejudiced against defendant. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56, 127 L. Ed. 2d at 491, 114 S. Ct. at 1157; see also People v. Blanck, 263 Ill. App. 3d 224, 232-33 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Although we recognize the concern raised by
holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity holding motion for substitution of judge properly denied where movant failed to attach affidavit holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendant failed to establish even a threshold basis for his substitution motion holding that an isolated comment made during a momentary lapse of judicial composure does not demonstrate the prejudice necessary to obtain a motion for substitution for cause