The Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C )( In the 294th District Court.
v. Udo Birnbaum )( Of Van Zandt County
v. The Three Westfalls )(
Motion for Recusal of Judge Banner
This motion is by reason of Judge Banner communicating ex-parte with opposing counsel to plot a vituperative finding against Birnbaum's conduct, such finding diametrically opposite his prior finding of Birnbaum being WELL-INTENTIONED, such prior finding made extemporaneously and in the heat of battle and caught by the court reporter at the close of the Sanction Hearing on July 30, 2002.
Also by reason of Judge Banner having previously retaliated with a $62,000 sanction against Birnbaum for having exercised his statutory and Constitutional Right to make a civil RICO pleading, i.e. protected activity. Judge Banner's words that he imposed such sanction because Birnbaum had made a civil RICO pleading were also caught by the court reporter at the same hearing.
Also by having demonstrated that he cannot or will not abide by statutory law, the Rules of
Procedure, or the mandates of the Supreme Court of the
Also for now trying to "undo" his finding of my [Birnbaum] being well-intentioned, and with opposing counsel paint me as some sort of monster to the judicial system, all while the cause is on appeal in the Dallas Fifth, and while he has NO JURISDICTION.
Details to follow shortly.
UDO BIRNBAUM, Pro Se
540 VZ CR 2916
Before me, a notary public, on this day personally appeared Udo Birnbaum, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to above, and being by me first duly sworn, declared that the matters in his Motion for Recusal of Hon. Paul Banner are true and correct.
Given under my hand and seal of office this _30____ day of September, 2003
in and for The State of
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and
correct copy of this document has been served via Reg. Mail on this the _30___
day of September, 2003 upon Frank C. Fleming, 6611 Hillcrest,