COOK v SIMTECH - MOTION to Alter Judgment MOTION for ReHearing Re 6 Order - 09 2009-08-06

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

.....f

' - ~

.-

.....

•.-

. F ~ _

~

Ody

Taitz,EsqAttorney

&

Counselor

at

Law

26302

La

Paz,Suite

211

MissionViejo

Ca

92691ph.949-683-5411fax

949-586-2082

CaliforniaBarIDNo.223433UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTMIDDLEDISTRICTOFFLORIDATAMPADIVISION

801

North

Florida

Avenue,#218

Tampa,

Florida

33602-3800

v.

SIMTECH,INC.,

LARRY

GRICE,ChiefExecutiveOfficer

Of

SIMTECH,Inc.,DEFENSESECURITYSERVICES,COLONELLOUIS

B.

WINGATE,DR.ROBERTM.GATES,UNITEDSTATESSECRETARYOFDEFENSE,

BARACK

HUSSEINOBAMA,

de

facto

PRESIDENT

of

the

UNITEDSTATES,Defendants.MAJORSTEFANFREDERICKCOOK,

§

Plaintiff,

§§§§

§

§§§§§§§

§

§

CivilAction

Number:

8:09-cv-01382-RAL-EAJ

Rule59(a)(1)(b)MotionforRehearing

in

Equity,Rule59(e)Motion

to

Amend

or

Alter

Judgment,

Rule60(b)(2)-(b)(4)TRIAL-BY-JURYDEMANDED

Pursuant

to

28

USC§1861

and

Seventh

Amendment

forallfactissues

in

OriginalComplaintasAllowed

by

FRCPRule

38

Rule59(a)(1)(B)MotionforRehearinginEquity(NewEvidence,

Fair

Hearing)Rule59(e)MotiontoAmend

or

Alter

Judgment

(ManifestInjustice,Clear

Error)

Rule660(b)(4)MotionforRelieffrom

Judgment

VoidduetoBias

and

Prejudice

&

Rule60(b)(2)NewEvidence

PlaintiffMajorStefanFrederickCookfilesthisCombinedMotionforRehearing,toAmend

or

AlterJudgment,andforRelieffromJudgmenttogetherwithhisMotiontoRetroactivelyRecuseJudgeRICHARD

A.

LAZZARApursuantto28U.S.c.

§§

144

and455(a),insupport

of

boththeories

of

recusal,filedas

of

evendate.Thebasicreasonunderlyingallthesemotions

is

tocorrectatleasttwoclearerrors

of

lawandtopreventmanifestinjusticeforthereasonsexplained

in

theMotiontoRecuse.JudgeRICHARD

Plaintiff'sRule59(e)Motionto

Amend

orAlterJudgment

A.

LAZZARAhasunconstitutionallydeniedPlaintiffsaccesstothecourtsbyandthroughacoordinatedgovernmentcourse

of

action.Compare

Christopher

v.

Barbary,

536U.S.403,122S.Ct.2179;

153

L.Ed.2d413;2002(2002).PursuanttoRules59(a)(1)(B),59(e),and60(b)(2),Plaintiffattacheshisaffidavit(Exhibit

A)

andExhibitB(inparticular)asnewevidenceinthiscasewhichwasnotavailabletotheundersignedPlaintiff

or

hiscounseluntilapproximatelyJuly3I-AugustI,2009.Thisdocumentremainssubjecttoexpertauthentication,regardingwhichlettersrogatoryweresubmittedAugust1-2,2009,

in

causenumber09-cv-00082-DOC

in

theCentralDistrict

of

California,SantaAnaDivision.WhateverJudgeLazzara'spervasiveandextrajudicialbiasandprejudiceagainst

Plaintiffs

constitutionalchallengetotheU.S.Armychain

of

commandasone

of

several"ongoingconspiracy"theoriestobebrought"toanearlyend"assoonaspossible,(seeCase8:09-cv-0l382-RAL-EAJDocument6,Filed

07127/2009

Page2

of

3),thisissignificantnewevidence,andshouldbeevaluatedboth

in

light

of

thestandards

of

Rule59(

a)(1

)(B)andRule60(b)(2).

DENIAL

OF

PLAINTIFF'SSTANDINGWASBOTHCLEAR

ERROR

ANDMANIFESTINJUSTICEWITHIN

THE

MEANING

OF

RULE59(e)

Byunilaterallydenying

Plaintiffs

accesstotheCourtsinviolation

of

theFirst,Fifth,andNinthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution,JudgeRICHARD

A.

LAZZARArenderedhisjudgment

of

dismissalVOIDwithinthemeaning

of

Rule60(b)(4).Furthermore,whenJudgeLAZZARAruledthatPlaintiffhadnostanding,therebybarringPlaintifffromfilingameritoriouscomplaint,albeitone

of

firstimpression,seekingdeclaratoryjudgmentsconcerningtheorganizationandconstitutionallegitimacy

of

themilitaryandfurtherseekingconstructionandinterpretation

of

aU.S.Armycommissionedofficer'ssworndutytoupholdtheUnitedStatesConstitution

Plaintiff'sRule

59

(e)

Motionto

Amend

orAlterJudgment

2

against

all

enemies,foreignanddomestic,JudgeRICHARD

A.

LAZZARAcommittedamanifestinjusticecoupledwithaclearerror

of

law.IfPlaintiffStefanFrederickCookdoesnothavestandingtofilesuittoobtainadeclaratoryjudgmentregardingtheU.S.Armychain

of

command,thenthereis

no

suchthingas"standing"tobringanysuitfordeclaratoryorinjunctiverelief.

In

otherwords.JudgeRICHARD

A.

LAZZARAhasrendered

all

declaratoryjudgmentactionsauthorizedbyFederalstatutenugatory,and

he

hasdonesosimultaneously.unreflectively,withoutjustification,andveryheavyhandedly.PlaintiffwouldsubmitthatitisalsomanifestinjusticeandclearerrortodismissaTROforfailure

to

fileacomplaintsimultaneouslyandwithouthearing,withoutevenaffordingaPlaintiffachance

of

aday

or

twotofilehiscomplaint.Thelocalrules

of

theMiddleDistrict

of

FloridadonotunambiguouslyrequirethatacomplaintandseparateapplicationforTRObefiledsimultaneously,butthatishowJudgeLAZZARAfirstthroughoutPlaintiffscaseonJuly23,2009,Document

3.

Finally,itwasclearerrorandmanifestinjusticenottoallowatrial-by-jury

of

allissuessotriableinthiscase.WhenaJudgeshowssuchheavyhandedbiaswithoutevenitemizingtheACTUALissuesraised

in

apleading,motion,andapplicationforTRO,he

is

showingpervasivebiaswhichisplainlyextrajudicial,becausethereisnopossible"judicial,litigationexperiencebased"sourceforthebiasandprejudice.This

is

notacasewhereJudgeLAZZARA'sknowledgeandprejudiceresultssolelyfromhiscontactwithPlaintiffandhisCounselinacasewhichhaslastedforayearandaquarter

of

litigation.ormore.It

is

obviousfromDocuments3and6submittedinthiscasethattheHonorableRICHARD

A.

LAZZARAneverreadthefirstline

of

theComplaint

or

ApplicationforTRO.

As

theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheld(perJusticeScalia)that

Plaintiff'sRule59(e)Motionto

Amend

or

AlterJudgment

3

of 00

Leave a Comment