Emergency Motion Recusal
Emergency Motion Recusal
22-6123
In The
Supreme Court Of The United States
BRIAN DAVID HILL,
Petitioner,
v.
JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
JusticeForUSWGO.NL //
USWGO.COM
i
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW AND
DISQUALIFICATION OF AFFECTED HONORABLE
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WITH ACTUAL OR
PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
United States:
directly from Attorney L. Lin Wood to explain about his claims against
1
Affidavit or Declaration about why he made those claims against John
Roberts and as to the credibility of his claims and vetting how those
SUMMARY OF MOTION
states as follows:
2
2. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari was timely filed on
after the written response from the Respondent and/or reply from
usual.
allegation in records of this appealed case and his name over issues of
This attorney is compelled to tell the truth over the internet, pursuant
See Citation.
3
is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer
can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results
by means that violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct or
other law;
compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services unless
the comparison can be factually substantiated;
fails to include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for its
content; or
contains any information regarding contingent fees, and fails to
conspicuously present the following disclaimer:
"Contingent attorneys' fees refers only to those fees charged by
attorneys for their legal services. Such fees are not permitted in all
types of cases. Court costs and other additional expenses of legal
action usually must be paid by the client."
contains the language "no fee unless you win or collect" or any
similar phrase and fails to conspicuously present the following
disclaimer:
"No fee unless you win or collect" [or insert the similar language
used in the communication] refers only to fees charged by the
attorney. Court costs and other additional expenses of legal action
usually must be paid by the client. Contingent fees are not permitted
in all types of cases.
A public communication for which a lawyer has given value must be
identified as such unless it is apparent from the context that it is
such a communication.
A lawyer retains ultimate responsibility to insure that all
communications concerning the lawyer or the lawyer's services
comply with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.
dismissal of this final appeal to this Supreme Court from the Fourth
4
and Motion to Reconsider the order/decision denying the motion for a
Special Master.
innocent of the criminal act that Attorney L. Lin Wood had alleged of
not make any such disclaimer that the claims may not be true at face
value. This attorney made such claims against John Roberts and can
Petitioner will make one disclaimer, and that is the internet materials
this case and the Petitioner does not need to use the internet to have
5
granted or denied. Federal law makes it clear, as well as ethics of the
such as the final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A justice cannot
28 U.S. Code § 455 also says under the law that “(b) He shall also
6
of a case which may negatively affect that involved justice, or has a
child rape and murder. This attorney is compelled under the Bar
Judge and former Chief Judge, which had further caused the filing of
Junior are in any of the blackmail videos. If they are then then causes
a big concern as this “attorney from Georgia” may have “John Roberts”
7
as one of the suspected named individuals who this attorney claimed
to Lin Wood also mentioned Roberts by saying “The first goal is to get
Roberts to resign or recuse, and Pence to make the right choice on Jan
6.” So that letter had mentioned about asking Lin Wood to get John
himself over whatever cases to recuse over, Petitioner does not know,
but Lin Wood may know. See APPENDIX (“App.” is page number
under Attorney Lin Wood tweet), App. 30, App. 34-35, App. 46-47, and
App. 52.
8
directly and kindly asking that he recuse himself from this entire
with any decisions, or any work dealing with the foregoing Certiorari
case because this recusal is necessary even though the main focus was
Attorney L. Lin Wood who made public statements about all of this on
Twitter last year (App. 26, App. 28, App. 30), and such blackmail
videos could prove which federal judges are being blackmailed with
the date of filing this EMERGENCY MOTION, John Roberts has not
recused himself and is either ignoring the “Request for recusal” or will
9
in an impartial manner, or may even attempt to prevent the case from
moving forward, or may pull some other stunt which negatively affects
the lives of Petitioner and Attorney L. Lin Wood. The risk of possible
all nine (9) Supreme Court justices, but John Roberts had not made
from Attorney L. Lin Wood to explain about his claims against Chief
acts of child rape and murder to ascertain the credibility of his claims
credibility of his claims about Roberts and vetting how those claims
10
silent, but this attorney should at least certify or declare to this Court
November 21, 2022 asking for recusal from Chief Justice Roberts, that
had made the decision that if John Roberts doesn’t voluntarily recuse
11
himself at all, that this EMERGENCY MOTION would go in front of
both Petitioner’s filed Motion for Special Master (Doc. #294 in the
justice before this Court. Petitioner was hoping Roberts would have
12
just recused himself which would be a painless process, and with him
stepping out of the way, Petitioner can proceed with pushing for a
Lin Wood. Originally the intent of Petitioner was that he only wished
magistrate judge. He has still not recused himself and this concerns
foregoing case for Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with fears that John
be questioned.
13
28 U.S. Code § 455 also makes it clear: (“(b)He shall also disqualify
scheme” which are permanently part of the records of the case of Brian
Attorney Lin Wood had accused him of in January, 2021, John Roberts
he does not have to be a witness against himself and he does not have
Lin Wood can or cannot actually prove John Roberts was being
blackmailed with a heinous sex crime of child rape and then child
until ever being charged and ever proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt in a fair trial. Under that circumstance, this issue would be non-
14
has not been charged or convicted over anything alleged by Attorney
Lin Wood unless fully proven in a court of law. Until that happens,
these issues of bias or partiality come into play here for this Certiorari
case.
even aware of whether Attorney Lin Wood was even ever been
disbarred at all as far as the public record. If John Roberts feels that
complaint against this attorney and/or John Roberts would have the
against Attorney Lin Wood, and allow both sides to present evidence,
any lawsuits against Attorney Lin Wood, that is his right to do so,
15
not exist. If it does then John Roberts has another separate issue to
MOTION still brings this issue and rather ask this Court to compel
with the very same alleged claims and evidence of Tweets by Attorney
Lin Wood, archived for the entire country of the United States of
America and for the entire world to see. Petitioner feels he has no
to ensure that the disqualified justice John Roberts does the right
thing under federal law, under 28 U.S. Code § 455. Regardless of John
John Roberts still must recuse himself from the foregoing Petition for
16
21. Indeed, the requested recusal in this EMERGENCY
of the vital importance associated with the issues at hand – the right
to a fair and reliable trial and hearings under Due Process of Law, as
with any proceedings or any issues of Mr. Brian D. Hill’s petition with
as this type of motion) to protect his Certiorari Petition case from any
Roberts was not the primary issue of the Petition for the Writ of
17
Certiorari and was not the primary issue of the Motion for Special
Master and the Motion for Reconsideration, but to ensure that the
federal judges in the U.S. District Court level are not being
cases ever since the case first began in November 25, 2013. It would
large legal-scale. So, John Roberts is not the primary focus of the
Petition for the Writ of Certiorari but his handling of the case would
illegal such as the clerk may just disappear filings and get away with
for the sake of the best interests of justice. He must recuse himself, at
all costs.
18
cases no. 21-6036, 21-6037, 21-6038. Petitioner has a reason to suspect
that if the Chief Justice was blackmailed, then he could have played
covered up by any deputy clerk like the cover ups of his emergency
Petitioner wants to be fair with John Roberts and give him another
sex crime such as child pornography for example, then falsely pleads
guilty for a crime he is innocent of, not allowed to review over all
discovery materials prior to pleading guilty, then later finding out how
was not given a fair trial, not given due process. Petitioner suspects
19
he had been set up, then the set up got solidified as if Petitioner was
a virgin who has never had sex. Brian rather not bring the Lin Wood
single justice if he does not have to. Hopefully every honorable justice
John Roberts and give him that chance to recuse himself for the
https://wearechange.org/case-brian-d-hill/ and
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/06/can-of-worms-infowars-
targeted-by-child-porn-and-msm-not-the-first-time-alternative-
claims, that John Roberts should have a right to quietly recuse himself
from the foregoing Certiorari case. Petitioner only wants true justice
and equity. He does not wish to ruffle up feathers and stir up hornets’
nests if he does not have to. Petitioner only wants justice, due process,
20
26. Nothing in this motion should be interpreted to disparage
Wood. The goal is to assure that Petitioner and the public can access
Attorney Lin Wood of doing things that are at reference of the same
Extraordinary Remedy.
27. With the utmost respect for this high Court and its
recusal of this single justice, and this issue of whether this justice is
truly blackmailed or not can be left for another day for another case
21
Petitioner simply wishes this Court to address this issue regarding
ensure not only this Court’s fair discussion in conference behind closed
Wherefore, in the best interest of justice and for good cause shown,
case.
respectfully requests from this Court from the honorable justices that
Chief Justice John Roberts of this Court recuses himself from all
22
Wherefore, Petitioner requests any other relief that this Court finds
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Brian David Hill
Pro Se Petitioner
Ally of Q and Atty Lin Wood
Former USWGO Alternative News Reporter
310 FOREST STREET, APARTMENT 2
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24112
Tel.: (276) 790-3505
E-Mail: c/o Roberta Hill [email protected]
JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
JusticeForUSWGO.NL
23
No. 22-6123
In The
Supreme Court Of The United States
BRIAN DAVID HILL,
Petitioner,
v.
JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
JusticeForUSWGO.NL //
USWGO.COM
i
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
App. 1
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 12
App. 2
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 12
App. 3
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 12
App. 4
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 12
App. 5
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 12
App. 6
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 12
App. 7
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 7 of 12
App. 8
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 12
App. 9
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 9 of 12
App. 10
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 10 of 12
App. 11
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 11 of 12
App. 12
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 12 of 12
App. 13
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-8 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
App. 14
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-8 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
App. 15
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 8
App. 16
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 8
App. 17
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 8
App. 18
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 8
App. 19
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 8
App. 20
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 8
App. 21
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 7 of 8
App. 22
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 8
App. 23
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-9 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
App. 24
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-9 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
App. 25
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-10 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
App. 26
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-10 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
App. 27
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-11 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
App. 28
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-11 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
App. 29
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-13 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
App. 30
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-13 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 1 of 23
App. 31
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 2 of 23
App. 32
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 3 of 23
App. 33
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 4 of 23
App. 34
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 5 of 23
App. 35
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 6 of 23
App. 36
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 7 of 23
App. 37
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 8 of 23
App. 38
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 9 of 23
App. 39
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 10 of 23
App. 40
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 11 of 23
App. 41
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 12 of 23
App. 42
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 13 of 23
App. 43
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 14 of 23
App. 44
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 15 of 23
App. 45
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 16 of 23
App. 46
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 17 of 23
App. 47
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 18 of 23
App. 48
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 19 of 23
App. 49
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 20 of 23
App. 50
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 21 of 23
App. 51
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 22 of 23
App. 52
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 23 of 23
App. 53