Doc. 394 -- Recusal of Judge Lynn and Rameriz -Disqualification - Mtn for Stay

7/22/2019 Doc. 394 -- Recusal of Judge Lynn and Rameriz -Disqualification - Mtn for Stay

1/27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISION

R. Lance Flores,Vicki Clarkson,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Scott Anthony Koster, et al.Defendants.

C I V I L ACT I ON

3:11-cv-00726-M -BH

In the Matter of:

Barbara M.G. Lynn, Judge, andIrma 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 THEPLAINTIFFS 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, USMJto recusethemselves pursuant1

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 and2

Appointed by William J. Clinton - Year Service: 20001

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. 455(a) provides that [a]ny judge of the United States shall disqualify himself2

in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In keeping with the aim ofpromot[ing] confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of improprietywheneverpossible, 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 1 of 27 PageID 4527


2/27

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 ofconduct 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 States4

where rule governing cause to recuse is identified under 28 U.S.C. 144 for such an5

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

(...continued)2

disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was soughtwould 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]

U.S.C. 455. Recusal under 455 includes all federal judges, the grounds in subsection (a) are waivable3

only after full disclosure on the record, the grounds in subsection (b) are not waivable, and the party is notlimited to one motion.

The D.C. Circuit has stated that [t]he Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of4

federal judges. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

[A]ny doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal. Patti, 337 F.3d at 1321, infra.5




3/27

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 VOIDand STRICKENfrom 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 Proceedingsissue, 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 5 Circuit Court of Appeals/JudicialTH

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.




4/27

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 CARRILLO6

RAMIREZ, USMJ, should be brought before a tribunal assembled by the Chief Judge to

determine the disciplinary action or removal.

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 highoffice 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 person6

may file a complaint against a judge for conduct that contravenes court processes.




5/27

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.7

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.

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 Filed7

03/19/12)




6/27

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




7/27

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 Pattior 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 thefacts 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.




8/27

! Deprivation of Honest Services (Honest Services Doctrine) The Supreme Court of

the United States in the case of Skilling v. United Statesruled 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.

8Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the Fifth Circuits requirement of a violation of state law to support9

an honest services fraud conviction served the objectives of: giving public officials fair notice of what conductwould subject them to federal prosecution; minimizing the potential for selective enforcement against publicofficials; and limiting the influence federal prosecutors would have over state and local public ethicsstandards. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit joined the majority of circuits, including the First, Fourth andEleventh, holding that 1346 prescribes a uniform federal standard for honest services, neither tethered tonor limited by applicable state statutes, even though those circuits could not agree on the precise contours ofthat standard. The Ninth Circuit found no evidence that Congress had intended to condition the meaning ofhonest services on state law or that it intended the criminality of official conduct under federal law todepend on geography. It also reasoned that Congress has a legitimate interest in ensuring that legitimatestate action affecting federal priorities (such as energy policy) is not improperly influenced and that Congressability to protect federal interests through the federal fraud statutes should not be unduly hampered by thevagaries of and variations between state ethics laws.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that, in reinstating the honest services doctrine after McNally[McNally v. UnitedStates, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)], Congress intended to bring at least two core categories of official misconductwithin the reach of 1346, regardless of whether a state law had been violated: (1) taking a bribe orotherwise 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 andthe 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 ifit expressly condoned or excused the conduct involved in the federal prosecution of a public official or on therole of state law in honest services fraud prosecutions in the private context. The full text of the Ninth Circuitdecision can be found at United States v. Weyhrauch, 548 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2008).


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1394Reissue.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1394Reissue.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1394Reissue.pdf


9/27

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.




10/27

Thereafter the Judge and Magistrate began wielding their abuse of power as a weapon of

their cabal ministryto 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 thebeginning 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.




11/27

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 Industryand 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 over sixteen years, Madoff was not caught.10

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; Congress10

Starts Review of SEC Today; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111743915052731.html


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111743915052731.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111743915052731.html


12/27

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

challenged by Plaintiffs with proof of the frauds and11

falsifications. Both RAMIREZ and LYNN were fully aware of Divens falsificationsand 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 cashfrom 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 Filed8/17/12).

! 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.11

DIVENSs ANSWER FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY THE PERJURY AND FALSE STATEMENTS OFJON A. DIVENS and MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE SEC V. WILDE, ET AL. DEPOSITION OFFRANCIS E. WILDE and MOTION FOR FINDINGS OF FACT ON PLAINTIFFS PROVE-UP OF PREDICATE CRIMESand MEMORANDUM LAW (Doc. 207 Filed 09/21/12 PageID 3164)




13/27

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 handsthrough 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 handshiding 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 IVas 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

his arrest and revocation of bond. See also, Plaintiffs

Exhibits 299, 300 and 302.! Entered the Court with unclean handsby engaging in fraud

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 AbettingFraud, Civil Theft, and Conversion. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 304.

! Childs is also a defendant named in the civil case Oil Korea Co., Ltd., vs

John Thomas Childs IV

Baldwin CountySheriff's Office

Bay Minette, Alabama




14/27

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 theopportunity. 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 handshiding 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 notdefended. 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



aiding and abiding the perjury and obstructing justice, thus biasing the Court




15/27

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



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 Colkeras 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

4.11 Scott Anthony Kosteras RICO Defendant

! Koster is named as a co-defendant indicted on securities

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

fraudulent statements in his answer to the Plaintiffs Second

Amended Complaint. His fraud and falsifications were

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

Brandon Colker

Baldwin CountySheriffs Office


Scott Anthony KosterFugitive

Wanted by theBaldwin CountySheriffs Office





16/27

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 Divensand 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 handsthrough 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 handshiding them from the light of day, therebyaiding 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 AlabamaBaldwin Co. Case No. CC-2014-0123. See also Plaintiffs

Exhibit 299.

! RICO Co-conspirator was the money manfor John Childs, and

Escrow Attorney in the Oil Korea fraud scheme using Busch

Law Center as the RICO Enterprise. In the Oil Korea fraudscheme he and Childs absconded with funds from investors

which were immediately transferred to offshore accounts to

Larry J. Busch, Jr.

Baldwin CountySherriff's Office





17/27

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 ofemploying 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 Gelazelaprinciple 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 anyill-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.




18/27

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




19/27

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 the12 13

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES12

CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS:

241. Conspiracy against rightsIf 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 theConstitution 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...)




20/27

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 (3 Cir. 1994) (emphasis added)rd

4.20 Because Plaintiffs had filed an objection that has extensively presented Rule 1114

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)12

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.

242. Deprivation of rights under color of law13

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects anyinhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities securedor 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 thepunishment 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 ifdeath results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

MOTION TO STRIKE FROM THE RECORD OF THIS CASE THE PURPORTED MOTION TO DISMISS OF14

DEFENDANT MARK ALAN GELAZELA and COLLATERAL ATTACK ON MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 357)




21/27

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:




22/27

# 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. Buteven 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




23/27

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 andsupporting 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




24/27

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




25/27

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




26/27

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 VOIDand STRICKENfrom 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 FLORESLead Attorney3314 Pleasant DriveDallas, Texas 75227 USATel. (Dallas): +1 (214) 272-0349ECF & Case Management E-mail:[email protected]

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




27/27

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/orpro separties 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/


Documents

Doc. 394 -- Recusal of Judge Lynn and Rameriz -Disqualification - Mtn for Stay