You are on page 1of 9

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


for the
FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

WILLIAM C. BOND,
Movant-Intervenor/
Appellant pro se.

No.: 14 - 6017

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

MOTION FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT TO RECUSE AND TRANSFER


1. This case concerns allegations of judicial misconduct and disability which are
novel in this courts litigation history that a U.S. circuit court judge and a U.S.
district court judge are conspiring to obstruct justice in a prominent Maryland
public corruption case to not only protect their friends and cronies, but also to
deprive this appellant of his constitutional rights to due process and other

protections.

2. This case also concerns facts which are novel: (1) that the U.S. DOJ actually
joined a pro se party to unseal their own criminal case in both the district and
circuit courts in 2009, but now in 2013/2014 are using the FBI and the U.S.
Marshals Service to attempt to thwart that very same goal; (2) and that the base
information regarding the alleged judicial misconduct and disability came from
appellants in-person meetings in 2010 with sitting U.S. Circuit Court Judge Paul
V. Niemeyer, who has been on this circuit court since 1990.

3. Some of this information was previously put before the district court by affidavit
in 2012, which was uncontested.1

4. Recently, this circuit court was challenged with some of these same allegations
in a 2013 petition for writ of mandamus, but declined to exercise any review, as
apparently appellant was not a crime victim in the underlying case according to
this court.2

1
2

Please see: The district courts docket no. 239.


Please see: CA 4 no.: 13-2462.
2

5. In addition to the district court 2012 affidavit, which was specific to that case
and action, appellant made other allegations regarding the alleged judicial
misconduct and disability in a 2010 federal lawsuit against the U.S. DOJ, which
was dismissed under a statute of limitations ruling in 2012, which stated that the
same two Article III judges at issue in this appeal were part of the conspiracy to
have former U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, Thomas M. DiBiagio,
fired in late 2004, in part, because of appellants criminal referral to that office,
which was being acted on at that very time, regarding some of the disqualified
attorneys in the case underlying this appeal, and a third Maryland Article III judge,
Marvin J. Garbis.3

6. The U.S. Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, bans Bills of Attainder.

7. Yet that is the essence of what Judge Niemeyer told appellant that he was being
subjected to in meetings totaling 6 hours in the summer of 2010. In fact, Judge
Niemeyer told appellant that his litigations should never have been brought
because of who the targets were and that they would never let him win.

Please see: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case no.: 1:10cv-01617-RCL, docket nos.: 6 & 26.
3

8. Judge Niemeyer told appellant that he had no right to his property which was
stolen from him, nor to the attorneys fees he was ordered to pay the criminals who
stole it.4 Further, Judge Niemeyer continued to wrongly tell appellant to seek state
remedies for his stolen copyrighted works, even though the Copyright Act
preempts any state solution.5

9. Judge Niemeyer also told appellant that he never read the manuscript he
liberally quoted from in his 2003 reported opinion, which is wrongly being used as
case law precedent in many other U.S. courts of appeal.6

10. Judge Niemeyer spent much time speaking to appellant in person about two
books: The Genesee Diary by Henri Nouwen and Crime and Punishment by
Fyodore Dostoevsky.

11. While grossly misunderstanding The Genesee Diary, and the fact that it was
written by a closeted homosexual too cowardly to face himself, Judge Niemeyer
Please see: CA 4 case nos.: 02-1139, 07-1720, 08-1171, 08-1320.
The United States Attorneys Manual clearly states this fact. Please see:
USAM 9-71.010.
6
Please see: https://www.courtlistener.com/ca4/513H/william-c-bond-vkenneth-blum-sr-kenneth-blum-jr-d/cited-by/
4
5

seemed fascinated with the authors vows of poverty and the story of the Abbeys
monks making him carry rocks from the river to the monastery, even though the
writer was only on a sabbatical, and his story was really just about short term
vacation, rather than a real lifestyle. Judge Niemeyer used this book anecdote to
illustrate his justification to appellant for depriving him of his money and property.

12. In regard to Crime and Punishment, Judge Niemeyer wanted appellant to know
that appellants life would only begin when he reentered prison a second time, for
a second punishment, for the act of killing his father, for which appellant was
already adjudicated a delinquent in 1981 in Ohio. For an Article III judge to make
such a statement to a person whose life he had already ruined is such a grossly
unconstitutional thing to say that it defies words of further description.

13. Judge Niemeyer told appellant about his fascination with reading criminal pre
sentencing reports as the first thing he did with each criminal appeal before him.

14. Appellant found Judge Niemeyers tone and fascination with these documents
disturbing, especially in relation to his many times quoted references to Jesus and
biblical interpretation of the law. Especially insulting to appellant was Judge
5

Niemeyers justification to impose a double jeopardy sentence upon appellant


while ignoring that he was ignoring one of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not
steal.

15. Judge Niemeyer told appellant that, in regard to appellants earlier cases, that it
appeared that [appellants] enemies had done everything they could do to destroy
[his] life. Appellant countered with the obvious fact that Judge Niemeyer had
made a serious mistake in his earlier ruling, based upon prejudice and wrong facts,
and that appellant would not be able to live a full life without a correction of the
wrong judgments against him, as the economic and social damage done to
appellant by Judge Niemeyers acts was impossible to solve. Judge Niemeyers
answer was that appellant should pray to Jesus even though it was only through
the stroke of Judge Niemeyers pen that his mistakes could be rectified.7

16. Appellant has found many enemies in this world based upon dislike of
appellants juvenile past. Interestingly, most of these enemies either had similar
problems with their own fathers and/or caused similar damage to their own
Judge Niemeyer was made well-aware of the facts presented, by affidavit,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case no.: 1:10-cv-01617RCL, docket no. 13, Exhibit B.
7

children. Judge Niemeyer fits into this category given his own history with his
immediate family, including issues of severe drug addiction.

17. Litigants do not come to U.S. courts as one may come for admittance to a
country club. Appellant has his constitutional rights to due process, to his own
property, and to the prohibition of Bills of Attainder. Further, 28 U.S.C. 455 is
mandatory, as are the U.S. Courts Judicial Canons.

18. In an earlier appeal of this case, this court ordered the government to respond
to appellants recusal motion. Appellant is not throwing stones at the government
for their answer at that time, but he certainly does for their non action since that
time. But Judge Niemeyer knew all along what he had done overtly and covertly to
thwart this appellant and, if he was honest, he would have recused from the case at
that time, nor did he ever attempt to rectify the wrongs he had committed, not only
to this appellant, but to the citizens of Maryland in this underlying case.8

19. Therefore, because Judge Niemeyer is an active member of this court, this
court must recuse itself in toto from any further considerations in this matter and
8

Please see: CA 4 appeal no.: 09-7572, docket nos.: 14, 16, 23, & 35.
7

transfer this case to another court of appeals which has zero contacts or association
with the Maryland federal court and its judges.9

20. In the alternative, this court should simply vacate all post judgment public
records requests district court orders in this case, remand this case to a visiting
judge, and order the Maryland U.S. Attorneys Office to be disqualified from any
further action in this matter.10

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________
WILLIAM C. BOND
Pro Se
P.O. Box 4823
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
The point of this motion is not to do a line-by-line list of all the illegal
and/or offensive things Judge Niemeyer said to appellant in-person, nor to list each
and every thing Judge Niemeyer and other Maryland Article III judges have done
to conspire against appellants rights from 2001 to present. But this court should be
clear that there is much more, including matters complained of in multiple criminal
referrals to U.S. DOJ, some of which were closely investigated over a long period
of time.
10
Certainly, the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit should conduct an
investigation into both what is going on in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland and why the Maryland U.S. Attorneys Office has allowed matters to
reach the boiling point where a motion such as this arrives with much prior
warning on this courts doorstep?
9

(443) 970-2887
proselitigator@aol.com
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of January, 2014, the required
number of copies of Appellants MOTION FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT TO
RECUSE AND TRANSFER were sent via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the
CLERK, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1100 East Main Street,
Suite 501, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and to KATHLEEN OCONNELL GAVIN,
Office of the United States Attorney, 36 S. Charles St., Fourth Floor, Baltimore,
MD 21201.

________________________________
WILLIAM C. BOND