Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Motion to Recuse the Honorable Clay D. Land,M.D. Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455(a)

Orly Taitz, Esq Attorney & Counselor at Law 29839 S. Margarita Pkwy Rancho Santa Margarita CA ph. 949-683-5411fax 949-766-7603California Bar ID No. 223433Pro hac vice Middle District of GA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION

120 12th Street P.O. Box 124 Columbus, Georgia 31902

CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, M.D. F.S., §Plaintiff, §§ v. §§COLONEL THOMAS D. MACDONALD, § Civil Action No:09-106GARRISON COMMANDER, FORT §BENNING, GEORGIA, §GEORGE STEUBER, DEPUTY § MOTION TO RECUSECOMMANDER, FORT BENNING, § THE HONORABLEDR. ROBERT M. GATES, UNITED § JUDGE CLAY D. LANDSTATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, §BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,

de facto

§PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, §Defendants. §

MOTION TO RECUSE THE HONORABLECLAY D. LAND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455(a)

The undersigned Orly Taitz, former counsel to Plaintiff Captain ConnieRhodes files this Motion to Recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455(a), insupport of both theories of recusal. First, there is some circumstantial evidencethat Judge Clay D. Land may have had extrajudicial and ex-parte contacts withthe Obama administration, in particular from Attorney General Eric Holder (See Affidavit, Exhibit A). Second, a preliminary review of the results of theHonorable Judge Clay D. Land’s public disclosures concerning his investments, it

Motion to Recuse the Honorable Clay D. Land,M.D. Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455(a)

also appears to the undersigned that Judge Land may be disqualified because hehas equity ownership of certain securities (e.g. Microsoft and Comcast) which arealigned both politically and economically with a key Defendant in this case,namely the

de facto

President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, insuch a direct and personal way that it could be said that this Judge has a financialstake in the outcome of the former Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes’ originalcase-in-chief. See, for example, Judge Land’s signed disclosures at:http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/land-clay-dhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Land_Clay_D/2003.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Land_Clay_D/2004.pdf,http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Land_Clay_D/2005.pdf.http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Land_Clay_D/2006.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Land_Clay_D/2007.pdf The primary reason for the undersigned counsel to file this Motion toRecuse, however, is that Judge CLAY D. LAND has by his own actions created aconstitutionally intolerable situation in which he is both complaining party,prosecuting attorney, judge and jury regarding the charges of frivolous filing andsanctionable conduct which he has leveled

sua sponte

and filed pursuant toRule 11(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A troublesome aspect of a trial court's power to impose sanctions,either as a result of a finding of contempt, pursuant to the court'sinherent power, or under a variety of rules such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 11and 37, is that the trial court may act as accuser, fact finder andsentencing judge, not subject to restrictions of any procedural codeand at times not limited by any rule of law governing the severity of sanctions that may be imposed. See

International Union,United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell

, 512 U.S. 821,831, 114 S. Ct. 2552, 2559, 129 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1994) ("Unlike mostareas of law, where a legislature defines both the sanctionableconduct and the penalty to be imposed, civil contempt proceedingsleave the offended judge solely responsible for identifying,prosecuting, adjudicating, and sanctioning the contumaciousconduct.") The absence of limitations and procedures can lead to

Motion to Recuse the Honorable Clay D. Land,M.D. Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455(a)

unfairness or abuse.

Mackler Productions, Inc., v. Cohen et al.,

146 F.3d 126 (2

Cir., 1998).The Court’s Order to Show Cause, rendered September 18, 2009, expressly identifies the origin or authority of the court’s intention to sanction theundersigned as Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also states inconclusion: “The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it iscontemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as asanction for her misconduct.” Page 7 of 9-18-09 Order (Document 18 in theClerk’s Docket Report for this case on PACER). The text of the order is generally ambiguous and quite confusing as to exactly what Judge Land intends by hisorder, other that the use of the Court’s inherent “contempt” power in and for thepurpose of suppressing the undersigned counsel’s First Amendment Rights.To begin with, this Court has ordered the undersigned counsel to show cause why a “monetary penalty of $10,000.00” should not be imposed on her.The word “penalty” suggests that the Court considers this to be a CONTEMPTproceeding, as does the fact that, on pages 1-2 of the same September 18, 2009,order, the court writes “This filing

CONTEMPTUOUSLY

ignores the Court’sprevious admonition that Plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda.” (all caps and bold italichighlighting added for emphasis). If the words “penalty” and “contemptuously” be taken at face value, then indeed, the undersigned counsel is entitled to certainprotections, including a trial-by-jury. The United States Supreme Court has heldthat contempt punishable by more than a $500 fine or “penalty” is not petty, andthat an accused contemnor is entitled to a full “trial-by-jury.”

Frank v. United