Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 1 of 27 PageID 4527

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION R. Lance Flores, Vicki Clarkson, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION 3:11-cv-00726-M -BH In the Matter of:

Scott Anthony Koster, et al. Defendants.

A 9

Barbara M.G. Lynn, Judge, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, USMJ.

VERIFIED MOTION FOR THE RECUSAL OF BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE AND IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL DISQUALIFICATION OF BOTH JUDGE AND MAGISTRATE AND MOTION FOR THE VACATION OF ALL ORDERS AND FINDINGS PREJUDICIAL TO THE PLAINTIFFS BY COLLATERAL ATTACK AND MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT COMES NOW the Plaintiff R. LANCE FLORES, individually and separately files and asks Barbara M.G. Lynn, Judge, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, USMJ to recuse themselves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144. OR IN THE ALTERATIVE Should there be a refusal to recuse, Plaintiff, petitions pursuant to the statutorily mandated disqualification under 28 U.S.C. 455 of BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and
1 2 2 1

Appointed by William J. Clinton - Year Service: 2000 In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. 455(a) provides that [a]ny judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In keeping with the aim of promot[ing] confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible, United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.2003) (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988)), recusal under 455(a) turns on whether an objective, (continued...)
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 1

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 2 of 27 PageID 4528

IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ, the Judge and Magistrate of this action, without any waiver directed or implied to further disqualifications.
3

I THE MOTIONS These motions are brought against BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ, ( i.) for engaging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in them as a Federal judge and Federal magistrate, ( ii.) and for engaging in a pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge. 1.1 This motion is initially raised for the voluntary recusal of BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ, whose behavior does not comport with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges inclusive of the prevailing opinions on recusal issued by the Codes of Conduct Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States where rule governing cause to recuse is identified under 28 U.S.C. 144 for such an alarming and destructive pattern of conduct including but not limited to the abuse of authority, where such acts are not subject to immunity, limited or otherwise. 1.2 Plaintiff attaches hereto below in this filing, verification by affidavit stating that the facts and reasons incorporated herein, supporting the belief that there is bias and prejudice in accord with U.S. v. Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 1992). 1.3 FURTHER, Plaintiff seeks the dissolution and vacation of all findings and orders
5 4

(...continued) disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality. United States v. Scrushy, 721 F.3d 1288, 1303 (11th Cir.2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). [emphasis added] 3 U.S.C. 455. Recusal under 455 includes all federal judges, the grounds in subsection (a) are waivable only after full disclosure on the record, the grounds in subsection (b) are not waivable, and the party is not limited to one motion. The D.C. Circuit has stated that [t]he Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of federal judges. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 5 [A]ny doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal. Patti, 337 F.3d at 1321, infra.
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd 4

Page 2

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 3 of 27 PageID 4529

issued by BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ holding them as void for the reasons discussed below based on the relevant filings and applicable law. The orders, dismissals, and rulings issued by BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ should be DECLARED VOID and STRICKEN from the record of the Court in this case as the rulings and orders are fraught with bias, prejudice, and issued in violation of law and thusly void as a matter of law resulting out of the Judge and Magistrate alarming and destructive pattern of conduct. 1.4 AND FURTHER, that a Stay of Proceedings issue, until such time of filings and rulings of Judicial Complaints filed pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 372(c) in the United States Court 5TH Circuit Court of Appeals/Judicial Council against BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE, submitted by the Plaintiffs, members of the various bars, judicial review organizations, and interested parties among public. 1.5 ADDITIONALLY, that the stay include such time as necessary for the completion of submission of complaints for review by the Chief Judge and in a tribunal for the Northern District for disciplinary actions or removal of Magistrate IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ. 1.6 LASTLY, the pattern violative acts and omissions of law and rule demonstrated by BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ in conduct prejudicial to the effective administration of the business of the court and their pattern of abusive behavior has brought the undeserved disrepute upon the federal judiciary and particularly the courts of the Northern District, especially following the disciplinary action against Judge John H. McBryde by the judicial council for the Fifth Circuit. In distinction to the sitting jurists of the Northern District, Magistrate Judge Ramirezs decorum and judicial behavior should not be allowed as a detractor of the Northern District of Texas, nor our Circuit, nor taint the trust of the public in our judiciary.
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 3

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 4 of 27 PageID 4530

1.7 AND RESULTING THEREFROM, Plaintiffs being aware of the Judges and Magistrates engaged misconduct, malfeasance, and acts of moral turpitude, entreated nonprofit nonpartisan organizations, members of the House of Representatives (as sponsors), and fellow citizens from the several states, to sponsor, or otherwise petition for a determination of competency and maladministration of the Judge and Magistrate by a tribunal. Whereby, if individually found competent, and not disabled, the action against BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE should proceed to impeachment or disciplinary action by the Judicial Council on the merits of the Petitions and Judicial Complaints. IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ, should be brought before a tribunal assembled by the Chief Judge to determine the disciplinary action or removal.
6

II FOREWORD

Chicago Judge Gets 10 Years In Bribe Case in F.B.I. Inquiry

AP Published: August 9, 1984 [reporting events relating to the sweeping investigation Operation Greylord]

CHICAGO, Aug. 8 Federal District Judge Charles Kocoras imposed the sentence on Associate Judge John Murphy of Cook County, who was convicted June 14 of 24 counts of mail fraud, racketeering and extortion after a 10-day trial.

''At some point you became an infidel to the cause of justice,'' Judge Kocoras said. ''it would demean yours and my high office if a substantial penalty was not imposed for your substantial prostitution of it.''

Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 and Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 351(a), any person may file a complaint against a judge for conduct that contravenes court processes.
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 4

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 5 of 27 PageID 4531

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE III INTRODUCTION 3.1 Plaintiffs are R. Lance Flores and Vicki Clarkson. 3.2 The RICO Defendants are Scott Anthony Koster, Francis E. Wilde a/k/a Frank Wilde, Steven E. Woods a/k/a Stevie Lee Woods, Jon Divens, Bruce H. Haglund, Mark Alan Gelazela a/k/a Mark Zella, William Chandler Reynolds, Kerim S. Emre, John T. Childs, Richard D. Hall, Winston Jerome Cook, any and all additional Unknown Parties as John/Jane DOE(s).Defendant list is incorporated herein from the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. 3.3 The RICO Nominal Defendants are Alicorn Capital Management LLC, Bank of America, Berea Inc, BMW Majestic LLC, Brandon Colker, Busch Law Center LLC, Cook Business Services LLC, Deutsche Bank, & Deutsche Bank AG London Branch, Gregory Botolino, Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd., Ti, (HSBC) Hong Kong, China, Ibalance LLC, Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA), Idlyc Holdings Trust (New Zealand), Interlink Global Messaging, Larry J. Busch, Jr., Matrix Holdings LLC (Matrix), Maureen OFlanagan Wilde, Shillelagh Capital, Corp., Success Bullion USA LLC, TCF Bank, Thomas P. Harlan, Trask and Affiliates Ltd, Vladimir Pierre-Louis, Wachovia Bank (Los Angeles, CA), Ozark Mountain Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, and William Chandler Reynolds.
7

Purpose of This Motion 3.4 The RICO Co-conspirators are Brandon Colker, Eugene Fletcher, Hing Teik Choon, James Linder, Larry J. Busch, Jr., Melissa Shapiro, and Thomas P. Harlan. 3.5 This motion is brought about by the Judges and Magistrate overt prejudicial behavior in favor of the several RICO Defendants who have been since criminally indicted,

As more substantially defined and set forth in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Document 36 Filed 03/19/12)
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 5

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 6 of 27 PageID 4532

on related criminal charges as well as those RICO Defendants which took part in the ongoing conspiracy and acts of racketeering. The essence of this RICO complaint is based on, inter alia , two-hundred one (201) predicate crimes committed by the RICO Defendants; the aforementioned, all supported by verified and manifest evidence before this Court, hence filed in the Record through the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Prostitution of the Bench Quandary of the Early Conditions 3.6 Shortly after the filing of this suit on 08/21/2011 Plaintiffs filed motion and brief in support (Doc. 10, 11 respectively) to extend the time for service and alternate service. It wasnt until 02/01/2012 that an order (Doc. 12, sealed) for service was granted in part and denied in part w/directives, by RAMIREZ. This event began RAMIREZs noticeable campaign to delay, interfere and inflate the cost of litigation by delaying service. Magistrate Ramirez withheld service of the defendants for just over five months. Plaintiffs grew suspicious of court scheduling after examining the dockets of other judges courts and found other courts with similarly loaded dockets. None had any indications of the instituted delays of service as could be attributed to those imposed upon the Plaintiffs by RAMIREZ. 3.7 A re-examination for the circumstances and events of that surround these early events reveal: The Dilemma of the Later Developments 3.8 On or about March 18, 2012, Plaintiffs became wary of the Magistrates and Judges complicity in the cover-up of certain criminal activities by RICO Defendants. Plaintiffs observed that the same criminal influence was being extended into this Court and corrupting its orderly, impartiality and propriety administration of the Court though
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 6

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 7 of 27 PageID 4533

RAMIREZ and LYNN. 3.9 Plaintiffs anticipated the continuance of that criminal influence through other observations and that it was enviable that disqualification would be warranted. It then became necessary to establish and memorialize formal manifest evidence in order to withstand attack where might a recusal or disqualification decision turn on Patti or Scrushy (supra, p. 2 fn 2). The Plaintiffs engaged the participation of disinterested third party organizations to observe and present the facts of this case relating this resulting recusal and disqualification to lay individuals, to determine: whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality. Scrushy, id. 3.10 In order to memorialize the candid observations and statements and affidavits, of lay observer[s] they were to be taken and documented; the evidence, therefrom, to substantiate by empirical evidence, from a body of lay observers, the criteria necessary to prove up and establish the stated legal requirement of Scrushy. These observations were then to be memorialized within Judicial Complaints to the Fifth Circuit (Judicial Council) and included in Petitions for Impeachment.

Abuse of Authority - High Crimes and Misdemeanors 3.11 The unlawful acts intentionally committed by RAMIREZ through her unmitigated bias and the furtherance of that bias through the collusion of LYNN exhibited aberrant judicial behavior and unlawful extra-judicial acts against the Plaintiffs. Their behavior clearly rises to the level of malicious misconduct and malfeasance in violation of ! 18 U.S. Code 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law. ! 18 U.S. Code 241 - Conspiracy against rights.
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 7

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 8 of 27 PageID 4534

! Deprivation of Honest Services (Honest Services Doctrine) The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Skilling v. United States ruled to avoid finding the statute to be unconstitutionally vague. The Court interpreted the statute to only cover "fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who ha[s] not been deceived."
8

In 1988, Congress enacted a new law that specifically criminalized schemes to defraud victims of "the intangible right of honest services."
9

3.12 There is substantial evidence that BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ purposely and intentionally ignored RICO Defendant criminal activity in the Court and advocated in behalf of Defendants egregious behavior and those criminal acts by more than one or more of the now criminally indited RICO Defendants and co-conspirators. Such said behavior and acts include fraud upon the Court, and instances of perjured affidavits submitted by various RICO Defendants.
8 9

Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the Fifth Circuits requirement of a violation of state law to support an honest services fraud conviction served the objectives of: giving public officials fair notice of what conduct would subject them to federal prosecution; minimizing the potential for selective enforcement against public officials; and limiting the influence federal prosecutors would have over state and local public ethics standards. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit joined the majority of circuits, including the First, Fourth and Eleventh, holding that 1346 prescribes a uniform federal standard for honest services, neither tethered to nor limited by applicable state statutes, even though those circuits could not agree on the precise contours of that standard. The Ninth Circuit found no evidence that Congress had intended to condition the meaning of honest services on state law or that it intended the criminality of official conduct under federal law to depend on geography. It also reasoned that Congress has a legitimate interest in ensuring that legitimate state action affecting federal priorities (such as energy policy) is not improperly influenced and that Congress ability to protect federal interests through the federal fraud statutes should not be unduly hampered by the vagaries of and variations between state ethics laws. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, in reinstating the honest services doctrine after McNally [McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)], Congress intended to bring at least two core categories of official misconduct within the reach of 1346, regardless of whether a state law had been violated: (1) taking a bribe or otherwise being paid for a decision while purporting to be exercising independent discretion and (2) nondisclosure of material information. Accordingly, the district courts exclusion order was reversed and the government was free to proceed with its prosecution of Weyhrauch for honest services fraud. However, the Ninth Circuit made it clear that it was expressing no opinion on what effect, if any, state law would have if it expressly condoned or excused the conduct involved in the federal prosecution of a public official or on the role of state law in honest services fraud prosecutions in the private context. The full text of the Ninth Circuit decision can be found at United States v. Weyhrauch, 548 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2008).
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 8

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 9 of 27 PageID 4535

Malice Aforethought and Abuse of Authority 3.13 By RAMIREZs and LYNNs acquiescence, acceptance and failure to act upon these instances of perjured affidavits and falsified documents which were known by them to be falsified and/or perjured, in motions presented by certain RICO Defendants. The falsified documents were challenged by the Plaintiffs for their veracity, and shown to be perjured. Nonetheless, they were accepted as true by the RAMIREZ and LYNN in spite of their obvious falsification. The failure to act on the crimes and disallow the perjured affidavits by RAMIREZ and LYNN, violated the rights and protections of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution which entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in all cases. 3.14 Judge and Magistrate, by extra-judicial action for which they had no authority to undertake, violated statutory requirements of the Federal Rules, where directive was mandatory and provided for no discretion whatsoever to the Court to rule otherwise. RAMIREZ intentionally and purposefully violated, with malice aforethought, the statutory requirement to uphold and enforce Rule 11. In the stead of Rule and Law, RAMIREZ manufactured unconstitutional law to benefit a RICO Defendant that had never made an appearance in the instant action. It is clearly evident that RAMIREZ intended to advocate for that RICO Defendant. This violation of law was sanctioned by LYNN, who knew it to be unlawful, and was fully aware that the same issue had been adjudicated in this same Court previously by Jeff Kaplan, USMJ, in accordance with rule and law, and contrary to the violation by RAMIREZ and LYNN. See Plaintiffs Motion to Strike, &c. (Doc. 357 Filed 06/10/13) 3.15 Further, RAMIREZ and LYNN became pro-active in their prejudice against the Plaintiffs shortly after the appearance of RICO Defendants Scott Koster and John Childs.
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 9

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 10 of 27 PageID 4536

Thereafter the Judge and Magistrate began wielding their abuse of power as a weapon of their cabal ministry to unlawfully interfere and obstruct the Plaintiffs discovery in the behalf of the RICO Defendants in an unlawful manner never seen in the Northern District nor the Fifth Circuit previously. 3.16 Never in the history of the U.S. Fifth Circuit trial courts has there been presented in a Racketeering case so comprehensive a pleading supported such extensive verified prima facie evidence. And, never has any member of the trial court judiciary of the inferior courts since Associate Justice Robert W. Archbald, Judge George W. English, Judge Alcee Hastings, Chief Judge Walter Nixon, Judge Samuel B. Kent, and Judge Thomas Porteous, been so flagrant in the abuse of power now exhibited in this case. 3.17 Plaintiffs file this motion asking Judge BARBARA M.G. LYNN and Magistrate IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ to recuse themselves because of their malfeasance and misconduct, where the Plaintiffs are sure to testify against them in future proceedings. 3.18 For these reasons, the Judge and Magistrate cannot be impartial arbiters where such cannot be legally justified and will conflict with the law arising under 28 U.S.C. 144 Bias or prejudice of judge: Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 10

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 11 of 27 PageID 4537

IV MEMORANDUM STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL LAW

4.1 The circumstances and facts which surround this case are substantial at the very least. The Internet has given rise to a modern form of organized crime that has made significant departures from the conventional mid Twentieth Century Gangs. The modern Internet racketeering form is far more global reaching and behavior more akin to the Russian Mafia which is more dynamic and amorphous than is the well-established Italian Mafia which adheres to an astringent hierarchy. This difference makes the Internet-based gangster more effective and illusive to track without the use of sophisticated digital and network forensic tools.

Prosecution of Mobsters in the Flourishing Modern Organized Crime Industry and Those of the Instant Cause 4.2 The modern Internet gangster are aware of the difficulty of mounting a successful civil suit or even criminal action against them. Likewise, they have even less fear of state or federal authorities assisting their victims. They know well that complainants will rarely get past the intake officer of any agency. The indifference to individual citizen complaints to officials in federal agencies, assures the modern criminal their crimes will pay off. A recent example, is, after the many red flags that might have tipped officials off to Bernie Madoffs fraud, and eight SEC investigations
10

over sixteen years, Madoff was not caught.

4.3 The initial activities of the various criminal organizations involved in this case have evolved, for the most part, around 2005, though a number of individuals have been engaged in criminal activities years earlier. The Plaintiffs have been involved in or aided a

Madoff Chasers Dug for Years, to No Avail Regulators Probed at Least 8 Times Over 16 Years; Congress Starts Review of SEC Today; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111743915052731.html
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

10

Page 11

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 12 of 27 PageID 4538

number of criminal investigations since 2009. Their suit has been the bench mark of a number of criminal and civil suits, using evidence from this case including affidavits and other information to establish criminal prosecutions. 4.4 Most recently, a number of defendants identified in this case have been indicted on criminal charges related to the issues in this case. More are expected in 2014, to wit:

RICO Defendants & Co-conspirators Involved with Recusal/Disqualification

4.5 Jon Divens, Attorney at Law, as RICO Defendant and affiliated with Law Offices of Jon Divens & Assoc. LLC a RICO Enterprise. ! Engaged in fraud upon the Court by presenting fraudulent statements in his answer (Doc. 163) to the Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. His fraud and falsifications were 11 challenged by Plaintiffs with proof of the frauds and falsifications. Both RAMIREZ and LYNN were fully aware of Divens falsifications and frauds. Divens refused to recant or replead to cure his fraud, thus his status of criminal filing of falsified documents stood before the Court undefended. Stole $1.5 Billion in negotiable securities, and additionally absconded with cash from the interest paid on the bonds which exceeding $350,000. Divens moved and hid assets from rightful owners. Judge Steven Wilson stated Divens testimony was not credible. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 262 (Doc. 173-1 Filed 8/17/12). Comprehensive Document containing information of Divens nexus to the RICO enterprises and activities VERIFIED REPLY & PROVE-UP OF PREDICATE CRIMES (exceeds necessary criminal standards of proof of Eighty-six predicate crimes committed) (Doc. 207 Filed 09/21/12) Disbarred from the California Bar on 10/26/2013 resulting out of the fraud/theft activities of he and Francis (Frank) Wilde Two counts of moral turpitude, Multiple acts pattern of misconduct. Divens misconduct caused

VERIFIED REPLY & PROVE-UP OF PREDICATE CRIMES and VERIFIED MOTION TO STRIKE JON A. DIVENSs ANSWER FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY THE PERJURY AND FALSE STATEMENTS OF JON A. DIVENS and MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE SEC V. WILDE, ET AL. DEPOSITION OF FRANCIS E. WILDE and MOTION FOR FINDINGS OF FACT ON PLAINTIFFS PROVE-UP OF PREDICATE CRIMES and MEMORANDUM LAW (Doc. 207 Filed 09/21/12 PageID 3164)
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

11

Page 12

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 13 of 27 PageID 4539

significant harm to both B&G and Amedraa. At a minimum, respondent has deprived B&G of $241,980.43 and Amedraa of $157,444.40. More fully detailed in Plaintiffs Exhibit 298. Participated with Francis Wilde in the theft of $66 Million from Plaintiffs portion of a $5 Billion HSBC Hong Kong financial instrument causing more than $220 Million in actual damages.

Both RAMIREZ and LYNN were well aware of Divens entry into the Court with unclean hands through his fraud upon the Court shown by Plaintiffs well-documented response. Magistrate RAMIREZ and Judge LYNN, took great strides to cover up the falsifications and Divens unclean hands hiding them from the light of day, thereby aiding and abiding the falsifications, thus biasing the Court against the Plaintiffs, obstructing justice, and making a mockery of justice, due process, and the Court.

4.6 John Thomas Childs IV as RICO Defendant and affiliated with Colker-Childs-IGM (Interlink Global Messaging) a RICO Enterprise identified in the instant case. ! Indicted 11/15/2013. A co-defendant indicted on securities fraud and named in a criminal case in the State of Alabama. (Case # CC2013 002441) - State of Alabama vs. Childs, Baldwin Co. Originally held on a $1,000,000 bond, reset for $100,000, however he was found in breach of the Conditions of Bond. The State of Alabama is now seeking John Thomas Childs IV his arrest and revocation of bond. See also, Plaintiffs Exhibits 299, 300 and 302. Baldwin County Sheriff's Office Entered the Court with unclean hands by engaging in fraud Bay Minette, Alabama upon the Court by twice presenting perjured affidavits in his answers to the Court. His perjury was challenged with proof of the documents falsifications. Childs refuse to recant, thus his status of criminal perjury stood before the Court undefended. Childs was instrumental in the theft of Plaintiffs funds as an unlicensed broker and account manager. He directed investment to Mark Alan Gelazela for a $5 billion instrument which was purchased with an SBLC acquired from HSBC (Exhibit 25 Doc. 1-4) using, in part, Plaintiffs funds for the acquisition. 1st Count of perjury (Doc. 39, 39-1, 39-2) 2nd Count of perjury (Doc. 41, 41-1) RICO Defendant Childs, is presently also a defendant in the Yellow Brick Road Complaint (Case No. 0:13-cv-02266), along with RICO Defendant Scott Alan Koster, RICO Defendant Richard Hall and RICO Co-conspirator Larry Busch Jr. for Fraud in the Inducement, Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, Civil Theft, and Conversion. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 304. Childs is also a defendant named in the civil case Oil Korea Co., Ltd., vs Page 13

! ! !

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 14 of 27 PageID 4540

Intermediary Network, LLC; John Childs; Larry J. Busch, Jr.; Busch Law Center, LLC; and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Filed on April 24, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, for Theft of Money in the amount of $300,000. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 297. John Childs attorneys suborned the perjury in each filing even though Plaintiffs had identified his perjury to the Court, thus both failing to recant given the opportunity. Other government authorities have used the Flores/Clarkson suit affidavit information, inter alia, to prove that John Childs had perjured himself in other courts. (e.g., see Exhibit 301) Flores and Clarkson plead and proved-up the perjuries of Childs claim that he never did any business outside California. The Plaintiffs prove-up showed that he did and the Grand Jury in Alabama, using other information as well as the Flores/Clarkson evidence and pleadings from the instant case, found Child did business outside of California, thus, affirming the Flores/Clarkson perjury claims against Childs. (See Doc. 71 and 72.)

Both RAMIREZ and LYNN knew of Childs perjury in the Court and that his attorneys had suborned Childs perjury. Though Plaintiffs documented and presented the perjury crimes to Magistrate RAMIREZ and Judge LYNN, they took great strides to cover up the perjuries and Childs unclean hands hiding them from the light of day, thereby aiding and abiding the falsifications, thus biasing the Court against the Plaintiffs, obstructing justice, and making a mockery of justice, due process, and the Court.

4.7 Michael Cramer, Counsel for Childs ! Engaged in fraud upon the Court by twice suborning perjury which was not defended. However, RAMIREZ and LYNN both ignored the perjury and suborning perjury criminal offences. Though Plaintiffs documented and presented the perjury crimes to RAMIREZ and LYNN, the judge and magistrate took great strides to cover up the perjury and hid it from the light of day, thereby aiding and abiding the perjury and obstructing justice, thus biasing the Court against the Plaintiffs, obstructing justice, and making a mockery of justice, due process, and the Court. See 1st Count of perjury (Doc 39, 39-1 39-2); 2nd count of perjury (Doc. 41, 41-1)

4.8 Adam C. Gallegos, Counsel for Childs ! Engaged in fraud upon the Court by twice suborning perjury which was not defended. However, RAMIREZ and LYNN both ignored the perjury and the criminal offences of suborning perjury. Though Plaintiffs documented and presented the perjury crimes to RAMIREZ and LYNN, the judge and magistrate took great strides to cover up the perjury and hid it from the light of day, thereby aiding and abiding the perjury and obstructing justice, thus biasing the Court Page 14

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 15 of 27 PageID 4541

against the Plaintiffs, obstructing justice, and making a mockery of justice, due process, and the Court. See 1st Count of perjury (Doc 39, 39-1 39-2); 2nd count of perjury (Doc. 41, 41-1) 4.9 Lloyd Ward, Counsel for Childs ! Engaged in fraud upon the Court by twice suborning perjury which was not defended. However, RAMIREZ and LYNN both ignored the perjury and suborning perjury criminal offences. Though Plaintiffs documented and presented the perjury crimes to RAMIREZ and LYNN, the judge and magistrate took great strides to cover up the perjury and hid it from the light of day, thereby aiding and abiding the perjury and obstructing justice, and making a mockery of justice, due process, and the Court. See 1st Count of perjury (Doc 39, 39-1 39-2); 2nd count of perjury (Doc. 41, 41-1)

4.10 Brandon Colker as RICO Co-conspirator and affiliated with Colker-Childs-IGM (Interlink Global Messaging) a RICO Enterprise identified in the instant case. ! Colker was recently indicted and arrested and named in a criminal case in the State of Alabama. He is presently awaiting a criminal trial. (Case No. CC-2014-0436) His role was to find investors for the John Thomas Childs and Larry Bush Jr.s fraud schemes according to the indictment naming Childs by a Baldwin County Grand Jury, in Alabama. Plaintiffs Exhibit 303

Brandon Colker Baldwin County Sheriffs Office Bay Minette, Alabama

4.11 Scott Anthony Koster as RICO Defendant ! Koster is named as a co-defendant indicted on securities Scott Anthony Koster Fugitive fraud and named in a criminal case in the State of Alabama. He is presently a fugitive with warrant outstanding for his arrest. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 299 at 5. Koster engaged in fraud upon the Court by presenting Wanted by the fraudulent statements in his answer to the Plaintiffs Second Baldwin County Sheriffs Office Amended Complaint. His fraud and falsifications were Bay Minette, Alabama challenged with proof of the documents falsifications. Kosters refused to recant or replead to cure his fraud, thus his status of the criminal filing of falsified documents stood before the Court Page 15

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 16 of 27 PageID 4542

undefended. (Doc. 92, 92-1) Koster is the central figure in the Plaintiffs suit as well as numerous other actions. His location is not known. He is presently a fugitive from justice. The Baldwin County Prosecutor and Sheriffs Office have an arrest warrant for Koster but he remains at large. Koster was chiefly responsible for working with Mark Alan Gelazela, Jon Divens and Francis Wilde to purchase a $5 Billion financial instrument of which $66 Million belongs to the Plaintiffs. The instrument matured during the prosecution of this suit in which RAMIREZ orchestrate an elaborate delay scheme and the purposeful delay of the discovery process in which the Plaintiffs could not subpoena records for the SBLC issued by HSBC for the matured bond. Eventually, RAMIREZ and LYNN conspired to deny all discovery such that Plaintiffs were refused the entirety of their due process rights for the discovery process. RAMIREZ and LYNN were fully aware of the need of discovery in a case as complex as the one at hand and worked together to insure the complete denial of Plaintiffs due process rights. RAMIREZ and LYNN were fully aware of the numerous off-shore bank accounts held by the various RICO Defendants because those accounts had been presented to the Court in evidence by the Plaintiffs. Also, RAMIREZ and LYNN were fully aware of the large funds held by the Defendants at various times. RAMIREZ and LYNN were fully aware of the fraud upon the Court perpetrated by Koster.

Both RAMIREZ and LYNN were well aware of Kosters entry into the Court with unclean hands through his fraud upon the Court shown by Plaintiffs well-documented response. Magistrate RAMIREZ and Judge LYNN, took great strides to cover up the falsifications and Kosters unclean hands hiding them from the light of day, thereby aiding and abiding the falsifications. Their acts thus biased the Court against the Plaintiffs, obstructing justice, and making a mockery of justice, due process, and the Court.

4.12 Larry J. Busch, Jr. as a RICO Co-conspirator and affiliated with Bush Law Center LLC a RICO Enterprise. ! Larry J. Busch, Jr. is a co-defendant indicted on securities fraud and named in a criminal case in the State of Alabama Baldwin Co. Case No. CC-2014-0123. See also Plaintiffs Exhibit 299. RICO Co-conspirator was the money man for John Childs, and Escrow Attorney in the Oil Korea fraud scheme using Busch Law Center as the RICO Enterprise. In the Oil Korea fraud scheme he and Childs absconded with funds from investors which were immediately transferred to offshore accounts to

Larry J. Busch, Jr. Baldwin County Sherriff's Office Bay Minette, Alabama

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 16

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 17 of 27 PageID 4543

! !

the Dominican Republic. He is named as a defendant for acts of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, breach of contract, negligence, and constructive trust. Busch was indicted and arrested in January 2014, and named in a criminal case State of Alabama vs. Larry J. Busch, Jr., and charged with two counts of securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of employing a device, scheme or artifice to defraud, jail records show. Plaintiffs Exhibit 303. Plaintiffs sought discovery from John T. Childs, IV because Childs withheld information about Buschs participation in hiding funds and illegal transferring funds belonging to Plaintiffs which should have presented in initial disclosure. Plaintiffs asked the Court several times for initial disclosure which was continually ignored by Childs and not enforced by IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ. IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ continued in her pattern of persistent efforts to prevent or otherwise hinder Plaintiffs discovery efforts by staying discovery, unfiling Plaintiffs multiple motions to compel discovery, and ordering the delay of Plaintiffs discovery efforts by one-hundred days. The continuous prejudicial efforts to stop discovery and extraordinary interference with due process and the proper administration of the Court were wholly the criminal calculus of malice aforethought by IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ and BARBARA M.G. LYNN.

4.13 Mark Alan Gelazela principle solicitor, broker and manager of the investment and prime bank instrument purchases and investments. He was the contact and coordinator for Francis E. Wilde and Jon A. Divens and their RICO enterprises. ! RAMIREZ and LYNN were fully aware of Mark Alan Gelazelas bank account information as the Plaintiffs had placed into evidence that information. Both the Judge and Magistrate was aware that Gelazela had a New Zealand bank account which was disclosed in the SEC case depositions and presented to the Court by the Plaintiffs. Gelazela disclosed where he transferred and held money. By RAMIREZs and LYNNs conspiracy to deny the Plaintiffs due process right to discovery they intentionally protected Gelazelas banking accounts and funds. With malice aforethought, RAMIREZ and LYNN insured that any of the monies that Gelazela had laundered in New Zealand were protected from exposure by the Plaintiffs, which insured the opportunity and time for Gelazela to move any ill-gotten funds elsewhere. Details of Gelazela involvement in Racketeering activities and other frauds is set forth more fully in the Deposition of Gelazela to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC case # 8:11-cv-00315, Plaintiffs Exhibit 275 (Doc. 205) The continuous and extraordinary interference with Plaintiffs due process and the proper administration of the Court were wholly the criminal calculus of malice aforethought by IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ and BARBARA M.G. LYNN. Page 17

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 18 of 27 PageID 4544

High Crimes and Misdemeanors Irma Carrillo Ramirezs and Barbara M.G. Lynns Fraud upon the Court & Abuse of Authority and Power Contrived to Shelter Rico Defendant Mark Alan Gelazela & Criminal Enterprises

4.14 RAMIREZ and LYNN engaged in criminal behavior intentionally committing with collaborative malice aforethought. RAMIREZ exhibited unmitigated bias and the furtherance of crimes through her collusion with LYNN exhibiting aberrant judicial. Their behavior clearly rises to the level of malicious misconduct and malfeasance by criminal violation of laws 18 U.S. Code 241, 18 U.S. Code 242, as well as the Deprivation of Honest Services. By committing these crimes each individually and jointly RAMIREZ and LYNN conspired to falsify the record and commit fraud upon the court.

4.15 Plaintiff incorporates by reference the alleged Gelazela correspondence to Barbara M.G. Lynn (Doc. 216 Filed 10/24/12); Ramirez USMJ FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 353 Filed 05/20/13); Plaintiffs MOTION TO STRIKE FROM THE RECORD OF THIS CASE THE PURPORTED MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT MARK ALAN GELAZELA and COLLATERAL ATTACK ON MAGISTRATE JUDGES FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 357 Filed 06/10/13); Plaintiffs Exhibit 296 (doc. 357 Filed 06/10/13) Jeff Kaplan - ORDER (Case 3:08-cv-00388-M Doc. 100 Filed 05/23/08); Lynn - ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 358 Filed 06/28/13) 4.16 On October 24, 2012 a document was sent to Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn with
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 18

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 19 of 27 PageID 4545

attention to Court clerk for Judge Lynn via the U.S. Postal Service in an envelope having no return address and appearing to have been mailed or re-mailed from Los Angeles, California on October 18, 2012. The one-page document appears to have a signature affixed, however the validation of that signature cannot be authenticated. The document was wholly unverifiable. 4.17 The purported motion to dismiss document has i.) no address of the Signer, nor ii.) an e-mail address of the Signer, nor iii.) a telephone number of the purported Signer affixed to Doc. 216 for which the signer is required to affix to any document submitted to the Court in order to be a valid pleading pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11(a) which requires the signers address, e-mail address, and telephone number to be affixed to the pleading: Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. [emphasis added] Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) 4.18 The Rule does not make any allowances for discretion. None whatsoever. Given the facts that attach, any ruling to the contrary is purposeful, malicious and illegal because both the magistrate and judge were bound by oath, the Cannons relating to judicial conduct, the Constitution and statutes to uphold the rule of law. Both RAMIREZ and LYNN freely chose to aid and abet the RICO conspiracy. Both conspired to violate and did violate the law for the
UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS: 241. Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to (continued...)
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd 12 12 13

Page 19

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 20 of 27 PageID 4546

benefit of the RICO Defendant Gelazela and in doing so, committed crimes, thus joining the RICO conspiracy. 4.19 If per chance the signer was Gelazela, which is doubtful, the RAMIREZ/LYNN purported motion to dismiss document could not meet Constitutional muster of a valid motion in any case. The signer of the purported motion to dismiss letter, had a personal responsibility to comply with the pleading requirements which included revealing the signers identity, location, and contact information by conforming to specifications Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a): [T]he signer has a personal, nondelegable responsibility to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 before signing the document. Garr v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 33 F.3d 1274, 1278 (3rd Cir. 1994) (emphasis added) 4.20 Because Plaintiffs had filed an objection
14

that has extensively presented Rule 11

with prevailing precedents explaining the Rule explicitly, both RAMIREZ and LYNN had foreknowledge sufficient to prevent them from committing a violation of law. Both chose to proceed with the violation and commit criminal acts colluding with the RICO conspiracy and each committing two predicate crimes directly related to the RICO case before them. 4.21 Because they used or caused the use of the Court electronic ECF system to propagate their fraud upon the Court, they each committed numerous instances of wire fraud.

(...continued) prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. 13 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. 14 MOTION TO STRIKE FROM THE RECORD OF THIS CASE THE PURPORTED MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANT MARK ALAN GELAZELA and COLLATERAL ATTACK ON MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 357)
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

12

Page 20

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 21 of 27 PageID 4547

Each transmission being a separate instance of wire fraud. This does not take into account numerous other predicate crimes committed by RAMIREZ and LYNN such as obstruction of justice and other high crimes and misdemeanors. 4.22 RAMIREZ and LYNN did knowingly and intentionally use the wires and

communications facilities of the United States for electronic mail and one or more facilities in interstate commerce, with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, to wit: an illegal enterprise in the Courthouse of the United States to aid and abet an ongoing criminal enterprise and hinder the lawful prosecution of a Racketeering case before the Court in violation of both State and Federal civil statutes and criminal codes, pretending and thereafter did perform and attempt to perform such promotion, management, establishment, carrying on and facilitation of the promotion, management establishment and carrying of such unlawful activity, contrary to criminal RICO statute 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968. 4.23 Further, the two judges agreed to the commission of the foregoing acts, each one of which constitutes an act of Racketeering. 4.24 A more definitive explanation of the activity and violation that took place may be found in Document 357 Filed 06/10/13.

Irma Carrillo Ramirez's and Barbara M.G. Lynn's Prejudicial Binding of the Plaintiffs Hands 4.25 RAMIREZ intentionally and with malice, not affording Plaintiffs discovery, and tying their hands behind their back, where instead, the Court should have allowed discovery and received interrogatories, depositions, or "any combination of the recognized methods of discovery" therefrom to help resolve the jurisdictional issues, especially where: Page 21

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 22 of 27 PageID 4548

Plaintiffs had incorporated, re-averred and re-alleged their pleas of delayed

discovery from their First Amended Complaint (FAC) consistently in their pleadings related and relevant to the instant issue of defendants motion to dismiss, making the Court fully aware on numerous occasions of their discovery needs to prosecute the case and defend jurisdiction where Court was continually informed by means of the re-averred and re-alleged pleas that follow: # FAC IX 9.4 PLAINTIFFS' PLEA OF DELAYED DISCOVERY & INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE # FAC IX 9.5 PLAINTIFFS' PLEA OF DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR RACKETEERING & PREDICATE CRIMES (Doc. 36 at 211) # FAC IX 9.6 PLAINTIFFS' PLEA OF DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THIS FRAUD (Doc. 36 at 213) # FAC IX 9.7 PLAINTIFFS' PLEA OF DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF FACTS UNDER DEFENDANTS' CONTROL (Doc. 36 at 214) # FAC IX 9.8 PLAINTIFFS PLEA OF DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, INCLUDING THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE (Doc. 36 at 215) # FAC IX 9.9 PLAINTIFFS PLEA OF DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR CONCERT OF ACTION (Doc. 36 at 215) # FAC IX 9.10 PLAINTIFFS' PLEA OF DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR INCLUSION OF NOMINAL DEFENDANTS (Doc. 36 at 216) # FAC IX 9.11 PLAINTIFFS' PLEA OF PRECLUSION FROM CLAIMING A BAR BY LIMITATIONS. (Doc. 36 at 216) 4.26 Courts refusal to allow Plaintiffs discovery, has clearly prejudiced them in efforts to prove jurisdiction as well as the merits of their case. When the defendant disputes the factual bases for jurisdiction, as W&S does here, the court may receive interrogatories, depositions, or "any combination of the recognized methods of discovery" to help it resolve the jurisdictional issue. The court has discretion as to the type and amount of discovery to allow. But even if the court receives discovery materials, unless there is a full and fair hearing, it should not act as a fact finder and must construe all disputed facts in the plaintiff's favor and consider them along with the undisputed facts. Moreover, at this stage the plaintiff is required to present only a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has explained why: If the court determines that it will receive only affidavits or affidavits
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 22

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 23 of 27 PageID 4549

plus discovery materials, these very limitations dictate that a plaintiff must make only a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts through the submitted materials in order to avoid a defendant's motion to dismiss. Any greater burden such as proof by a preponderance of the evidence would permit a defendant to obtain a dismissal simply by controverting the facts established by a plaintiff through his own affidavit and supporting materials. Ultimately, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction is proper. Often, the determination of whether this standard is met is resolved at trial along with the merits. This is especially likely when the jurisdictional issue is intertwined with the merits and therefore can be determined based on jury fact findings.

In this situation, it is often "preferable that [the jurisdictional] determination be made at trial, where a plaintiff may present his case in a coherent, orderly fashion and without the risk of prejudicing his case on the merits." But this court has said that after a pretrial evidentiary hearing confined to the jurisdictional issue, where both sides have the opportunity to present their cases fully, the district court can decide whether the plaintiff has established jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court relied on these cases and required Delasa to establish more than a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction because, in its estimation, it was deciding the jurisdictional issue following an evidentiary hearing. This was error. Walk Haydel & Associates v. Coastal Power Prod. 517 F.3d 235 (2008) (footnotes omitted)

The continuous and extraordinary interference with due process and the proper administration of the Court were wholly the criminal calculus of malice aforethought by Magistrate Judge IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ and
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 23

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 24 of 27 PageID 4550

Judge BARBARA M.G. LYNN. 4.27 The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in all cases. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). 4.28 The purpose of this motion to recuse, asks a judge and magistrate to remove themselves from the case so another judge can hear it. The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution entitles the Plaintiffs, as well as all parties, to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases, and it may serve as the basis for recusal. See Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868,889 (2009); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). The Due Process Clause, however, provides only the "outer boundaries" of judicial disqualification, and Congress and the states can impose more rigorous standards. Caperton, 556 U.S. at 889; Aetna life Ins. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 828 (1986). 4.29 A judge should recuse himself or herself if the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a); In re Kensington Intl, 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Recusal is proper if a court determines that a reasonable person would perceive a significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. See Sao Paolo State of Federative Republic of Braz. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 232-33 (2002); Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865-67 (1988). 4.30 The personal bias or prejudice of the Judge and Magistrate will deprive Plaintiffs of a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause. See Caperton, 556 U.S. at 872; Marshall, 446 U.S. at 242-43. 4.31 If a judge has a personal bias or prejudice against a party, in favor of an adverse party, or about the subject matter of the suit, the Judge and Magistrate should recuse

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 24

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 25 of 27 PageID 4551

themselves. See, 28 U.S.C. {144/455(b)(1)}; also Sao Paolo State of Federative Republic of Braz. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 232-33 (2002). The Court should grant Plaintiffs motion to recuse for the following reasons: 4.32 Judge BARBARA M.G. LYNNS and Magistrate IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ bias and prejudice is directed against both Plaintiffs. See Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, Ark., 722 F.2d 1390, 1398-99 (8th Cir. 1983). 4.33 Judge BARBARA M.G. LYNNS and Magistrate IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ should recuse themselves for the following reasons: 4.33.1 There is a reasonable factual basis for calling the judges impartiality into question. See United States v. Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1998); Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351-52 (10th Cir. 1995). 4.33.2 The judge and magistrate have exhibited actions from which a reasonable inference of partiality may be drawn. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993). 4.33.3 If the judge and magistrate do not recuse themselves, the publics confidence in the judiciary will be irreparably harmed. Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 162 (3d Cir. 1993). 4.33.4 A reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judges impartiality. Alexander, 10 F.3d at 164; Cooley, 1 F.3d at 993.

V CONCLUSION 5.1 Because BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ, exhibited bias and prejudice by their abuse of authority and process, their continued presence in the Court will prevent the Plaintiffs from receiving a fair trial, thusly, BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ should recuse
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 25

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 26 of 27 PageID 4552

themselves or otherwise be disqualified.

WHEREFORE THE FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, if the Judge and Magistrate refuse to recuse, Plaintiff asks the presiding judge to refer this motion to another judge for a resolution on the merits or otherwise remove BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ from the case pursuant to 455; that orders, dismissals, and rulings issued by BARBARA M.G. LYNN, JUDGE and IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, USMJ be DECLARED VOID and STRICKEN from the record of the Court; that a stay of the proceedings issue, except for injunctive relief where property, or disputed property may be in jeopardy of loss or where rights or liberty are threatened, or for other good cause, and that the stay be in place until such time that Plaintiffs have been released as witnesses for the prosecution in the fore-mentioned criminal case pending in Alabama; and for any other relief deemed just and proper. Respectfully Submitted on Wednesday, March 19, 2014.

s/ R. LANCE FLORES Lead Attorney 3314 Pleasant Drive Dallas, Texas 75227 USA Tel. (Dallas): +1 (214) 272-0349 ECF & Case Management E-mail: LF_legaldept@MockingbirdFilms.com Attorney for the Plaintiff VI VERIFICATION I, R. Lance Flores, hereby declare, verify and certify under penalty of perjury as provided by 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I am a Plaintiff in the above-styled and -numbered cause of action, that I have read the foregoing instrument, that I am familiar with the contents therein, and that the matters contained in the motions are true and correct to my own
20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 26

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 394 Filed 03/19/14

Page 27 of 27 PageID 4553

knowledge, except those matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct. Good Faith Statement I certify that I have read and am intimately familiar with this motion to recuse, alternatively the motion to disqualify, and incorporate in this affidavit my affirmation that the motion is made in good faith. SUBSCRIBED AND EXECUTED on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:

s/ R. LANCE FLORES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On Tuesday, Wednesday, March 19, 2014, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) of the Court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel and/or pro se parties of record electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal rule of Civil Procedure 5 (b)(2).

s/ R. LANCE FLORES CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Plaintiff Flores certifies that on Tuesday, March 18, 2014, Plaintiff attempted to confer about issues pertinent to stay and collateral attack with all defendants all of which did not respond to calls except Adam Gallegos, attorney for John Childs, whose phone after numerous attempts continued to ring without an answer therefore Plaintiffs submit their motion to the Court for determination. s/

20140312142923 Motion for Recusal.wpd

Page 27