legal opinions” of Professors Hazard and Freedman because they were based on "uninformed hearsay.” Id. at 781. It is true that this case differs from Eyeiman because these "Declarations are based on undisputed facts, not 'uninformed hearsay.’ " Def. Mem. at 6. However, as Judge Pollack's opinion makes clear, even if the professors had not been completely ignorant of the facts in that case, their declarations would still be "presumptuous,” "gratuitous,” and "extracurricular legal opinions.” Id. 7 . Specifically, the moving defendants cite United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 107-111 (D.C.Cir.2001) (disqualifying judge from imposing remedy in antitrust case based on his statements to the press); Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 28-29, 36, 41 S.Ct. 230, 65 L.Ed. 481 (1921) (<HOLDING>); In re Boston's Children First, 244 F.3d 164,
holding that an order granted simultaneously with a recusal order is void unless the trial judges written order  was but a reduction of an earlier adverse oral ruling made prior to the recusal holding that recusal was required based on newspaper report of interview with trial judge recognizing that section 455 requires judges to consider recusal sua sponte  holding recusal not required holding that recusal was required based on evidence of judges statements of bias against a particular ethnic group