• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 Cook v Simtech at 2By unilaterally denying Plaintiff's accessto the Courts in violation of the First,Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to theUnited States Constitution, JudgeRICHARD A. LAZZARA barredPlaintiff from filing a meritoriouscomplaint, albeit one of firstimpression, seeking declaratory judgments concerning the organizationand constitutional legitimacy of themilitary and further seeking constructionand interpretation of a U.S. Armycommissioned officer's sworn duty touphold the United States Constitutionagainst all enemies, foreign anddomestic.When a Judge shows heavy handed biaswithout even itemizing the ACTUALissues raised in a pleading, motion, andapplication for TRO, he is showingpervasive bias which is plainlyextrajudicial, because there is nopossible "judicial, litigation experiencebased" source for the bias and prejudice.This is not a case where JudgeLAZZARA's knowledge and prejudiceresults solely from his contact withPlaintiff and his Counsel in a case whichhas lasted for a year and a quarter of litigation, or more.
It
is obvious fromDocuments 3 and 6 submitted in thiscase that the Honorable RICHARD
A.
LAZZARA never read the first line of the Complaint or Application for TRO.As the United States Supreme Court hasheld (per Justice Scalia) thatRhodes v. MacDonald at 10In regard to the merits of the case,by unilaterally denying Plaintiff’s accessto the Courts in violation of the First,Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to theUnited States Constitution, Judge CLAYD. LAND barred Plaintiff from filing ameritorious complaint, albeit one of firstimpression, seeking declaratory judgments concerning the organizationand constitutional legitimacy of themilitary and further seeking constructionand interpretation of a U.S. Armycommissioned officer’s sworn duty touphold the United States Constitutionagainst all enemies, foreign anddomestic.When a Judge shows heavy handed biaswithout even itemizing the ACTUALissues raised in a pleading, motion, andapplication for TRO, he is showingpervasive bias which is plainlyextrajudicial, because there is nopossible “judicial, litigation experiencebased” source for the bias and prejudice.This is not a case where Judge LAND’sknowledge and prejudice results solelyfrom his contact with Plaintiff and hisCounsel in a case which has lasted for ayear and a quarter of litigation, or more.It is obvious from Documents 3 and 6submitted in this case that the HonorableCLAY D. LAND never read the first lineof the Complaint or Application forTRO. As the United States SupremeCourt has held (per Justice Scalia) that
 
 Cook v Simtech continued... favorable or unfavorablepredisposition can also deserve to becharacterized as "bias" or "prejudice"because, even though it springs fromthe facts adduced or the events occurringat trial,
it
is so extreme as todisplay clear inability to render fair judgment. (That explains what somecourts have called the "pervasive bias"exception to the "extrajudicialsource" doctrine. See, e.g.,
 Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of MobileCounty
 ,
517 F.2d 1044,1051 (CAS1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48
L.
Ed. 2d 188,96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976).)
 Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. at 551,114 S.Ct.at 1155, 127 L.Ed.2d at 488(1994)(see further discussion below).Rhodes v MacDonald continued…favorable or unfavorablepredisposition can also deserve to becharacterized as "bias" or "prejudice"because, even though it springs from thefacts adduced or the events occurring attrial, it is so extreme as to display clearinability to render fair judgment. (Thatexplains what some courts have calledthe "pervasive bias" exception to the"extrajudicial source" doctrine. See, e.g.,
 Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of  Mobile County,
517 F.2d 1044, 1051(CA5 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944,48 L. Ed. 2d 188, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976).)
 Liteky v. United States
 ,
510 U.S. at 551,114 S.Ct.at 1155, 127 L.Ed.2d at 488(1994)(see further discussion below).
 
 Cook v Simtech at 5
THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OFTHE COMPLAINT
Judge LAZZARA is prejudiced againstMajor Cook as an individual challengingthe constitutional legitimacy of the chainof command based on a constitutionalchallenge to the eligibility of thePresident, even though Plaintiff'scomplaint is simultaneously muchbroader in its significance than that onesingle issue, in that it seeks to reformU.S. Army custom, practice, and policiesregarding blind obedience to orders.That Judge LAZZARA's bias stems froman extra-judicial source is apparent from(and in fact, is the ONLY reasonable orpossible interpretation of) thesubstantive text of his orders.It is clear and obvious from JudgeLazzara's determination of Plaintiff Stefan Frederick Cook's lack of standingfrom the fact that he clearly and plainlydid not read the Plaintiff's Complaint orApplication for TRO, and from therapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating thesufficiency of his complaint.Rhodes v. MacDonald at 11
THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OFTHE COMPLAINT
Judge LAND was prejudiced againstCaptain Rhodes as an individualchallenging the constitutional legitimacyof the chain of command based on aconstitutional challenge to the eligibilityof the President, but he is more directlyprejudiced against this undersignedcounsel because of her perceived role inthe “politically controversial” “BirtherMovement.” Judge Land focuses on theequitable complaint for restraint of deployment even though Plaintiff’scomplaint is (was) simultaneously muchbroader in its significance than that onesingle issue, in that it seeks to reformU.S. Army custom, practice, and policiesregarding blind obedience to orders.That Judge LAND’s bias stems from anextra-judicial source is apparent from(and in fact, is the ONLY reasonable orpossible interpretation of) thesubstantive text of his orders.It is clear and obvious from JudgeLand’s determination of Plaintiff ConnieRhodes’ lack of standing (and theundersigned counsel’s “negligence” or“contemptuous disregard” of the court’sorders in failing to stand down whenordered to do so ) in and from the factthat Judge Land clearly and plainly didnot read the Plaintiff’s Complaint orApplication for TRO, and from therapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating thesufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues inPlaintiff’s complaint.
of 00

Leave a Comment

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