No. 00-00619

THE LAW OFFICES OF

G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C.

Plaintiff

v.

UDO BIRNBAUM

Defendant/Counter-Plain tiff

G. DAVID WESTFALL, CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN,

Counter-Defendants

§ § § § § § § § § § § § § §

S

"

LUU:, C ,:, :~ i IN THE DISTRICT COURT

294th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

On April, 2004, came on to be heard, defendant, Udo Birnbaum's ("Birnbaum") Motion

for Recusal of Judge Paul Banner. Prior to the hearing, the Court and Mr. Birnbaum were each

served with notice of a Motion for Sanctions filed by G. David Westfall, P.C., Christina Westfall,

and Stefani Podvin (referred to herein collectively as the "Sanctions Movants") and that Motion for

Sanctions was also heard. The Sanctions Movants appeared by their attorney of record. Birnbaum,

appeared in person, pro se. All parties announced ready for the hearing.

Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the evidence presented at the motion hearing, and

the arguments of counsel and the arguments of the pro se defendant, the Court is of the opinion that

Birnbaum's Motion to Recuse Judge Paul Banner should be in all things be denied.

Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the evidence presented at the motion hearing, and

the arguments of counsel and the arguments of the pro se defendant, the Court is of the opinion that

the Sanctions Movants are entitled to prevail on their claim for sanctions against the Defendant,

Udo Birnbamn.

Order on Sanctions PAGE1of8

westfall\udo\pleadings\Order 02

It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the motion by the

defendant, Udo Birnbaum, that Judge Paul Banner be recused from further matters effecting this

cause of action is denied.

It is therefore, FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Plaintiff,

G. David Westfall, P.C., and Counter-Defendants, Christina Westfall and Stefani Podvin, are

awarded damages as a sanction against and to be paid by defendant, Udo Birnbaum, to G. David

Westfall, P.C., Christina Westfall, and Stefani Podvin as follows:

reasonable value of the legal services rendered to the Sanctions Movants by their attorney for the

defense of Birnbaum's Motion to Recuse and the prosecution of the Sanctions Movants' Motion for

Sanctions.

to serve as a deterrent to prevent Birnbaum from committing further similar acts again in the future.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the judgment here rendered shall bear interest at the

rate of five percent (5%) from the date of the signing of this order, until paid.

All other relief regarding any motions for relief on file in this cause of action not expressly

granted in this order is hereby denied.

With regard to the award of sanctions, the Court makes the following findings and

conclusions in support of the Court's award of sanctions and in support of the type and dollar

amount of the sanctions imposed:

Order on Sanctions PAGE 2 of8

westfall\udo'.pleadings\Order 02

Findings of Fact

groundless, vacuous, manufactured, and totally unsupported by any credible evidence

whatsoever.

merit and brought for the purpose of harassment and/or delay.

biased, not credible, and totally uncorroborated by any other evidence.

Banner recused was an attempt to harass, intimidate, and inconvenience the Sanctions Movants.

against judges that rule against him in litigation.

Judge Paul Banner had conducted himself in a manner that showed bias and a lack of impartiality.

have had nothing at all to do with the conduct of the judges that Birnbaum has appeared before, but

instead, is a delusional belief held only inside the mind of Birnbaum.

courts in an attempt to re-litigate issues which a court has already ruled upon and which all

appropriate courts of appeal have affirmed.

pattern and practice of behavior engaged in by Birnbaum over many years and currently ongoing

now in this court and in other federal courts.

Order on Sanctions PAGE 3 of8

westfall\udo\pkadings\Order 02

ruled against him in litigation.

attorneys, and other individuals in an attempt to gain tactical advantage in other ongoing litigation.

Court against Judge Paul Banner, G. David Westfall, Christina Westfall, and Stefani Podvin. This

new Federal lawsuit attempts to re-litigate the same issues Birnbaum unsuccessfully raised in this

lawsuit.

Movants, Frank C. Fleming. Birnbaum admitted in open court that he has never had any dealings

with Frank C. Fleming other than in connection with Mr. Fleming's representation of the Plaintiff

and the counter-defendants in this cause of action. Birnbaum admitted in open court that the legal

basis of his lawsuit against Mr. Fleming, civil RICO, is the same basis Birnbaum was previously

sanctioned in this lawsuit for attempting to bring against Christina Westfall and Stefani Podvin.

been vindictive, unwarranted, mean-spirited, frivolous, and totally without substantiation on any

legally viable theory for the recusal of Judge Banner.

frivolous, vindictive, and brought for the purpose of harassment.

was engaged in by Birnbaum willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm the Sanctions

Movants, Judge Paul Banner, and the attorney for the Sanctions Movants, Mr. Fleming.

Order on Sanctions PAGE 4 of8

westfall\udo\pleadings\Order 02

Motion to Recuse Judge Banner was not withdrawn, that if it became appropriate, the Court would

hear the Motion for Sanctions. In response to this admonition, Birnbaum unequivocally elected to

move forward with a hearing on his Motion in an attempt to have Judge Banner recused.

Court has not been presented with any evidence to believe that the amount of the sanctions award is

excessive in relation to the net worth of Birnbaum.

which the Court seeks, which is to stop this litigant and others similarly situated from filing

frivolous motions, frivolous lawsuits, frivolous defenses, frivolous counter-claims, and new

lawsuits which attempt to re-litigate matters already litigated to a conclusion.

to the amount of harm caused by the offensive conduct to be punished.

claims and Birnbaum's motion to recuse. These damages include expenses (in addition to taxable

court costs), attorney's fees, harassment, inconvenience, intimidation, and threats.

Conclusions of Law

credible evidence to substantiate any of his claims.

presented at the hearing.

biased and with a lack of impartiality, was brought for the purpose of harassment. The Court makes

Order on Sanctions PAGE 5 of8

westfall\udo\pJeadings\Order 02

this conclusion based upon the fact that Birnbaum was not a credible witness, that other credible

witnesses totally contradicted Birnbaum's version of the facts, and that evidence was presented

establishing that Birnbaum has had a track record and history of harassment towards other opposing

litigants, opposing counsels, and other judges before whom Birnbaum has appeared.

Banner was a violation of one or more of the following: §§1O.001, et seq., Tex .. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code, Rule 13, T.R.C.P., and/or the common law of Texas.

against Birnbaum for the filing and prosecution of a frivolous motion. This authority stems from

one or more of the following: §§ 10.001, et seq., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, Rule 13, T.R.C.P.,

and/or the common law of Texas.

claim against Judge Paul Banner calls out for the award of both actual and exemplary (and/or

punitive) damages to be assessed against Birnbaum.

frivolous Motion to Recuse, is an award of $1,000.00 in attorney's fees. The Court makes this

award under power granted to the Court by §§10.001, et seq., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, Rule

13, T.R.C.P., and/or the common law of Texas.

frivolous Motion to Recuse is an award of $124,770.00 to be paid by Birnbaum to the Sanctions

Movants.

Order on Sanctions PAGE 6 of8

westfall\udolpleadingslOrder 02

11.

The award of exemplary and/or punitive damages is an appropriate amount to seek to gain

the relief sought by the Court which is to stop Birnbaum and others like him from filing similar

frivolous motions and other frivolous lawsuits.

12. The amount of the exemplary and/or punitive damage award is narrowly tailored to the

harm done.

coincide with the amount (in total) assessed against Birnbaum to date in this litigation. This amount

was selected by the Court deliberately and on purpose to send a clear message to Birnbaum. The

message this award of damages is intended to relay to Mr. Birnbaum is that this litigation is over,

final, and ended. The message is that further attempts to re-open, re-visit, and re-litigate matters

which have already been decided in court, reduced to judgment, and affirmed on appeal will not be

tolerated; and that further attempts by this litigant to engage in such activity will not be conducted

without the imposition of very serious and substantial monetary sanctions imposed upon Mr.

Birnbaum.

14. Authority for an exemplary and/or punitive damage award is derived from §§10.001, et

seq., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, Rule 13, T.R.C.P., and/or the common law of Texas.

Any finding of fact herein which is later determined to be a conclusion of law, is to be

deemed a conclusion of law regardless of its designation in this document as a finding of fact. Any

conclusion of law herein which is later determined to be a finding of fact, is to be deemed a finding

of fact regardless of its designation in this document as a conclusion of law.

Order on Sanctions PAGE 7of8

westfall\udo\pleadings\Order 02

THIS JUDGMENT RENDERED ON APRIL 1, 2004, AND SIGNED THIS

Order on Sanctions PAGE 8 of8

•

westfallludolpleadingslOrder 02