• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
OrlyTaitz,EsqAttorney
&
Counselor
at
Law
26302
La
Paz,Suite
211
MissionViejoCa92691ph.949-683-5411fax
949-586-2082
CaliforniaBarIDNo.223433UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTMIDDLEDISTRICT
OF
FLORIDA
TAMPADMSION
801
North
Florida
A\·cnuc.
#218
Tampa,
Florida
33602-3800
v.
SIMTECH,INC.,
LARRY
GRICE,CEO
OF
SIMTECH,DEFENSESECURITYSERVICES,COLONELLOUIS
B.
WINGATE,DR.ROBERTM.GATES,UNITEDSTATESSECRETARY
OF
DEFENSE,
BARACK
HUSSEINOBAMA,
de/acto
PRESIDENT
ofthe
UNITEDSTATES,Defendants.MAJORSTEFANFREDERICKCOOK,
§
Plaintiff,
§§§§§§§§§§§§§
CivilAction
Number:
8:09-cv-01382-RAL-EAJ
Motion
to
Recuse
the
HonorableRICHARD
A.
LAZZARA
TRIAL-BY-JURYDEMANDED
Pursuantto28
USC§1861
and
Seventh
Amendment
forallfactissuesinVerifiedComplaint
MOTIONTORECUSETHEHONORABLERICHARD
A.
LAZZARAPURSUANTTO28U.S.C.§§144and455(a)PlaintiffMajorStefanFrederickCookfilesthisMotiontoRecusepursuantto28U.S.C.§§144and455(a),insupport
of
boththeoriesofrecusal.ThebasicreasonforthisMotiontoRecuseisthatJudgeRICHARD
A.
LAZZARAhasunconstitutionallydeniedPlaintiff'saccesstothecourts
by
andthroughacoordinatedgovernmentcourse
of
action.Compare
Christopller
v.
Harbury,
536U.S.403,
122
S.Ct.2179;
153
L.Ed.2d413;2002(2002).Plaintiffsundersignedcounselhasfiledacertificate
of
goodfaithasrequiredby28U.S.C.§144inadditiontoPlaintiffsownaffidavitandthat
of
Plaintiffsexpertwitness.
MotiontoRecusetl'eHonorableRic/'ard
A.
Lazzara,M.D.Fla.,pursuantto
28
U.S.C.§§144
and
455(a)
 
By
unilaterallydenyingPlaintiff'saccesstotheCourts
in
violation
of
theFirst,Fifth,andNinthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution,JudgeRICHARD
A.
LAZZARAbarredPlaintifffromfilingameritoriouscomplaint,albeitone
of
firstimpression,seekingdeclaratoryjudgmentsconcerningtheorganizationandconstitutionallegitimacy
of
themilitaryandfurtherseekingconstructionandinterpretation
of
aU.S.Armycommissionedofficer'ssworndutytoupholdtheUnitedStatesConstitutionagainstallenemies,foreignanddomestic.WhenaJudgeshowsheavyhandedbiaswithoutevenitemizingtheACTUALissuesraisedinapleading,motion,andapplicationforTRQ,
he
isshowingpervasivebiaswhich
is
plainlyextrajudicial,becausethereisnopossible"judicial,litigationexperiencebased"sourceforthebiasandprejudice.ThisisnotacasewhereJudgeLAZZARA'sknowledgeandprejudiceresultssolelyfromhiscontactwithPlaintiffandhisCounsel
in
acasewhichhaslastedforayearandaquarter
of
litigation,ormore.
It
is
obvious
from
Documents3and6submitted
in
thiscasethattheHonorableRICHARD
A.
LAZZARAneverreadthefirstline
of
theComplaintorApplicationforTRQ.AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheld(perJusticeScalia)that...favorableorunfavorablepredispositioncanalsodeservetobecharacterizedas"bias"or"prejudice"because,eventhoughitspringsfromthefactsadducedortheeventsoccurringattrial,
it
issoextremeastodisplayclearinabilitytorenderfairjudgment.(Thatexplainswhatsomecourtshavecalledthe"pervasivebias"exceptiontothe"extrajudicialsource"doctrine.See,e.g.,
Davis
v.
Board
of
Sc"ool
Comm'rs
of
MobileCounty,
517F.2d1044,1051(CAS1975),cert.denied,425U.S.944,48
L.
Ed.2d
188,96
S.
Ct.1685(1976).)
Liteky
v.
U"itedStates,
510U.S.at551,
114
S.Ct.at1155,127L.Ed.2dat488(1994)(seefurtherdiscussionbelow).
Motio"toRecusetile
HOIlOrable
Ric/lard
A.
Lazzara,MoD.Fla.,pursuantto
28
U.S.c.§§J44
and
455(a)
2
 
DUEPROCESSVIOLATIONS
OFTHE
FIRST
ORDER
OF
MANGITUDEJudgeRICHARD
A.
LAZZARAhasinessenceoffended"traditionalnotions
of
fairplayandsubstantialjustice"toborrowthemostfamouslinefromJusticeStone'sseminalopiniononpersonaljurisdictionfrom
Int'l
Siloe
Co.
v.
Wasllington,
326U.S.310,316,66
S.
Ct.
154,90
L.
Ed.
95
(1945).JudgeRICHARD
A.
LAZZARAsooffendedthese"traditionalnotions"when
he
disposed
of
thisPlaintiffsApplicationforTROandComplaintwithin4businessdays,acting
suasponte,
atleastinsofarasthecourtelectronicrecordreveals.JudgeLAZZARAdismissedtheApplicationforTROthedayafteritwasfiled(July23,2009)onthesoleformalisticratherthansubstantivebasisthat:TheCourtobservesthatPlaintiff'sApplication
is
notaccompaniedbyacomplaintand,therefore,failstocomplywiththerequirements
of
LocalRules4.05(b)(2)and4.06(b)(I).Furthermore,astheEleventhCircuitCourt
of
Appealshasobserved,"[t]theris
no
suchthingasasuitforatraditionalinjunction
in
theabstract."
Klay
v.
UllitedHealthgroup,Inc.,
376F.3d1092,1097
(11
th
Cir.2004).8:09-cv-01382-RAL-EAJ.Document3,Filed07/23/2009,Page1
of2.
PlaintiffthenfiledhisComplaintonFridayafternoon,July24,2009,togetherwithaMotion
to
ReinstatehisApplication
for
TROandbyMondayafternoon,July27.2009,withinlessthan8Courtbusinesshours,JudgeRICHARD
A.
LAZZARAdismissedthisComplaintandrefusedtoreinstatetheApplicationforTRO(again
suaspOllte,
no
Defendantyethavingbeenserved.muchlessresponded).JudgeLazzarathenandthereruledasfollows
in
asingle
(if
grammaticallyunwieldy)sentence:HavingreviewedPlaintiffssubmissions,includinghisrecentlyfiledcomplaint,andacting
in
accordancewithitsobligationstoinquireintoits
MotiontoRecusetheHonorableRicllardA.Lazzara,M.D.Fla.,pursualltto
28
U.S.c.
§§144
and455(0)
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...