Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 15-1195

PAUL L. MUCKLE
Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK; PREMERE ASSET SERVICES; U.S. BANK

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; S.G. MORTGAGE; SEAN R. HIGGINS; NELSON,
MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; PAUL J. MULLIGAN; MICHAEL MYLETT;
BOSTON POLICE; CITY OF BOSTON; SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; SPENCER LORD; MATHEW FITZGERALD; JANINE
D'AMICO; DAVID MCGOWAN; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;
MICHAEL SCHAFF; BROCKTON POLICE; CITY OF BROCKTON; U.S.
MARSHALS SERVICE; MATHEW DUMAS; JONATHAN LEMAY; JUDGE
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK; JUDGE ANNETTE FORDE;
JUDGE WILBUR P. EDWARDS.

Defendants - Appellees
______________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT RESPOND TO THIS COURT’S NOTIFICATION THAT

JUDGE DAVID BARRON HAS REPENTED AND RECUSED HIMSELF FROM
HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE MARCH 25, 2016 JUDGMENT IN THIS INSTANT
CASE DUE TO A FINANCIAL INTEREST WITH WELLS FARGO BANK.
PLAINTIFF PETITIONS THE COURT FOR RECUSAL OF THE ENTIRE PANEL,
VACATE DECISION, AND REASSIGMENT CASE TO A NEW PANEL

Surely, some of you reading this respond may have heard of “a certain type animal which

would chew off its own leg to escape a trap. That is an animal kind of trick, a clever human like

Paul L. Muckle would remain in the trap, enduring the pain and feigning death, so that he may

1
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

pounce on the unsuspecting trappers killing them, thus removing the constant threat to himself

and his kind, because the people upon whom judgment is passed must feel the Fairness of it”.

Now from this document everyone will fully comprehend what I truly meant in that alleged

threatening email I sent to the defendant Sean R. Higgins saying, “Foxes will be left in the

ditches to get slaughtered, while the weasels like Sean Higgins try to weasel his way out of it”

And now comes Paul L. Muckle pouncing, the Plaintiff-Appellant in the above

entitled matter and present his respond in accordance with this Court’s invitation

to respond in regard to the May 18, 2018 notification that Judge David Barron, who

participated in this court’s March 25, 2016 Judgment in this above-referenced case, was at that

time disqualified from rendering any such judgment due to a financial interest with one of the

defendants, Wells Fargo Bank, at the time of his judgment, and of his repentance and

contriteness in recusing himself from his judgment in accordance with Canon 3C(1)(c) of the

Code of Conduct for United States Judges and 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) due to a conflict of

interest”. As Such, Muckle respond as follows:

1) Indeed, “There is a Higher Court than courts of justice, and that is the Court of the

conscience. It supersedes all other courts”. I wanted to know who was Mister Barron. I

was waiting for him to come because I knew he had a confession. I did not know it was

Judge David Barron when I kept posting his name for the past several months on my

Facebook page asking who he was, but I know it is him now. The Court of the

conscience of the Honourable Judge David Barron has unleased Pandora’s Box with all

its plagues upon the defendants in this case. Judge Barron’s recusal and notification of

his disqualification due to the discovery of a financial interest in Wells Fargo Bank may

not void the ruling in this instant appeal, however it will be the catalyst for the

2
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

nullification of the rulings and orders of the defendant Judge Douglas P. Woodlock in

case number 07-11437-DPW. Now everyone will understand what I meant in that alleged

threatening email to the defendant Sean R. Higgins stating, “Foxes will be left in the

ditches to get slaughtered while the weasels like Sean Higgins try to weasel his way out

of it. Those words were never meant as a threat of physical harm or slaughter to Sean

Higgins or to anyone else, that was my way of foretelling the story of the legal battle

which will come in the future when the foxes, who are the government officials, and Sean

Higgins, the weasel, think that they have me completely beaten trapped, and subjugated,

a grand event would come about and I would rise up and slaughter them judicially in the

very same pit of the justice system which they thought they had trapped and buried me in.

I was talking about a legal slaughter in the courtrooms using the law when I expose the

frauds and improprieties perpetrated upon me by the courts, and reverse the malicious

persecutions, unlawful convictions, false imprisonments, and theft of my property

committed against me by Sean Higgins with the aid of law enforcement officials, but

Sean Higgins will try to weasel his way out of responsibility by putting all the blame on

the government and saying he is not a government official so he cannot be held liable for

any illegal action or tort the government committed against to Paul Muckle.

2) The slaughter has begun! It started in the Massachusetts Supreme Court and is now

boiling over into the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals and will crescendo in

the U.S District Court when I move to nullify Judge Woodlock ruling in the 2007 case. I

was enduring the pain and feigning death.

3) Upon the grounds of Fairness, because the people upon whom judgment is passed must

feel the Fairness of it, Muckle respectfully moves the two remaining judges on the panel

3
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

to also recuse themselves from their participation in the judgment of 3/25/2016, and to

vacate their decision and assign the case to a new panel for rehearing,

because Judge Barron’s notification and disclosure of his financial interest

with the defendant Wells Fargo Bank at the time of his vote for judgment in

favor of Wells Fargo Bank concerns the appearance of impropriety, and there

is a grave concern that his conflict of interest may have caused him to apply

undue influence and pressure on the other members of the panel to effect

their vote for judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank.

4) In the absence of a fully written memorandum and order stating the separate

opinion and mindset of the other two members of the panel, there is no way of

gauging the amount of influence the disqualified Judge Barron may have had

on the other members of the panel in reaching their decision to enter

judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank.

5) From that memo he wrote which President Obama used to assert legal rights

to assassinate American citizens without a tribunal Judge David Barron is on

record saying that the government has a right to illegally murder its citizens

or commit all types of crimes against them without having to answer for it in

a court of law. That being stated, if Judge David Barron is on the record

showing he has no respect for the rule of law when it comes to government

murdering its citizens who stands up against American injustices, am I Paul

L. Muckle who ‘s lawsuits are against government injustices to accept Judge

Barron denials that he did not know of his financial interest at the time of his

4
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

participation in the appeal, and am I to believe the Panel’s denials that Judge

Barron did not influence their decisions?

6) In light of the fact that the Panel’s Memorandum and Order affirming the

lower court’s dismissal of the complaint contains no language from which any

fair and rational reviewer of the facts can determine that the other two

members of the panel came to their decisions independently without undue

pressure and influence from Judge Barron who knew or had an absolute duty

to know that he had a financial interest with a party to this suit. The panel’s

decision is in boilerplate form stating, “Appellant Paul Muckle, proceeding pro se,

appeals from the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint for failure to state a

claim. Having carefully examined the amended complaint and the appellant's arguments

on appeal, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.” From this boilerplate language there is

absolutely no evidence to indicate that the disqualified Judge Barron did not write it,

there is nothing whatsoever to be gleaned from it which would indicate that the other two

judges even read Muckle’s brief. In fact, the decision is not even signed by any of the

judges on the panel, the order affirming the dismissal was signed electronically by the

clerk, therefore, where is the evidence to prove that the panel’s participation was fair,

independent of Judge Barron’s improper influence, and impartial? Perhaps this case will

set the precedent requiring judges to write their independent opinions in deciding

controversial appellate cases to prove their full participation and independence, thus

avoiding situations like this where one party is certain to feel that they were denied

justice. “The people upon whom judgment is passed must feel the Fairness of it”, a fully

written memorandum would have unimpeached the panel’s credibility in my eyes.

5
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

7) So, what have we here now, in the presence of a lack of proof that the

disqualified and recused Honorable Judge Barron, should I the one who lost the

appeal partially in part by the vote of a disqualified member of the panel, still turn around

and take the panel’s word for it that it even participated fully in any deliberations and that

they were not strongly influenced by Judge Barron’s in his defense of his financial

interest in the outcome of the case? My lawsuit was an attempt to bankrupt Wells Fargo

Bank, or heavily effects it stocks, surely, Judge Barron had an interest in protecting his

financial interest.

8) Perhaps I would accept the Honorable Judge Barron’s words for it and accept the other

two members of the panel’s word for it as to their honesty and impartiality in their

decision and rulings in this case if Judge Barron’s confession had not opened Pandora’s

Box and thrown this case and the other two cases in the series into a tailspin. Judge

David Barron’s notification of his disqualification because of his financial interest may

not nullify the ruling in this instant appeal, however it will be the catalyst to the

nullification of the ruling and orders of the defendant Judge Douglas P. Woodlock in case

number 07-11437-DPW, because in that case defendant Judge Douglas P. Woodlock

violated the Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and the

broke the law, statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144 in his failure to recuse

himself from that case and notify the clerk and the parties in that case that

he was disqualified from presiding over that case because of a post-judgment

discovery of a financial interest in one of the defendants in that case.

9) Judge Woodlock was disqualified from presiding over the first case filed in this series of

lawsuits, case number 07-11437-DPW, because at the time of his Order dismissing the

6
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

complaint Judge Woodlock had a financial interest in one of the defendants in that case.

Judge Woodlock violated the Canon Code of Conduct and broke the law because he

failed to do as Judge Barron did by notifying the Clerk of his disqualification in presiding

over that case and his automatic recusal which would have vacated his judgment which

he made in favor of the defendant with whom he had a financial interest at the time.

10) In August 2012, after Muckle filed a second lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank et al., in

State Court, attorney Sean Higgins, seeking a favorable decision from Judge Woodlock

removed the case to federal court to Judge Woodlock, Case number, 12-11517DPW.

However, Judge Woodlock rejected the case on the grounds that he was required to

recuse himself from the case because of the death of a family member in May 2012 and

because they were in the process of settling the estate he may “Now” deemed to have a

financial interest in a party. (See Exhibit -A-).

11) Despite his notification of his financial interest in a defendant and his recusal in the 2012

case, he did not do the same thing for the previous case as he was required to do. In the

2007 case, Judge Woodlock violated Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Code of Conduct for United

States Judges and broke the law 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 (a), which states in parts:

28 U.S. Code § 455 (a) “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the
United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also disqualify
himself in the following circumstances:
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or
minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the
subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship
to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

7
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(c)A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary
financial interests and make a reasonable effort to inform himself
about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children
residing in his household.

12) Surely, in his obvious choice of wording in his Memorandum and Order recusing himself

from the second case in this Trinity of Lawsuits involving the same defendant, the

defendant Judge Douglas P. Woodlock is erroneously alleging that he is deemed to have

a financial interest “within the meaning of the law” only after the death and settling of the

estate of a family member in May of 2012 from whom he inherited the financial interest.

The defendant is erroneously contending that his financial interest in one of the

defendants to that suit became effective only after the death of his family member in May

of 2012, two years after his rulings in the previous case. If The dead family member had

that financial interest at the time Judge Woodlock was presiding over the 2007 case, and

if judge Woodlock at that time stood to inherit that financial interest or was slated to have

some form of fiduciary duty towards that financial interest after the death of the family

member, or if the family member was a close relative of the judge to the third person,

then under the law Judge Woodlock is deemed to have had a financial interest with the

defendant during the time he was presiding over the case.

13) Judge Woodlock was required by law and Code to notify the Clerk and Muckle of his

disqualification from presiding over case number 07-11437-DPW and his recusal because

he now discovered that at the time of is actions in that case he would have been

disqualified because of his newly discovered financial interest. Advisory Opinion No.

71 (“Disqualification After Oral Argument”), issued by the Judicial Conference’s

8
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

Committee on Codes of Conduct, provides the following guidance for addressing a

disqualification that is not discovered until after a judge’s participation in the case:

[A] judge should disclose to the parties the facts bearing on

disqualification as soon as those facts are learned, even though that
may occur after entry of the decision. The parties may then
determine what relief they may seek and a court (without the
disqualified judge) will decide the legal consequence, if any, arising
from the participation of the disqualified judge in the entered decision.
Similar considerations would apply when a judgment is entered in a district
court by a judge and it is later learned that the judge was disqualified

14) At the time Judge Woodlock allegedly discovered that he had a financial

interest with one of the defendants in the case in which he gave my home

away to there was still time for Judge Woodlock to undo his great error

because the home had not yet been sold to a private buyer, and Muckle was

still living in it, but Judge Woodlock remained silent and violated Advisory

Opinion 71 which directed him to recuse himself and give notification of his

disqualification in 07-11437-DPW even though the judgement before it was

learned that he had a financial interest in one of the defendants.

15) The similarities and the contrasts surrounding district court Judge Woodlock and appeals

court Judge Barron disqualification and recusal are too stunning to be

ignored as mere coincidence, and too Divine to not be looked upon as a dire warning of

more exposure of the great cover up of all those who conspired against me. Whatever you

did against me in darkness will come out to the light.

a) In March 2010, Judge Woodlock, who later was disqualified himself from

presiding over the 2012 case because he had a financial interest with one

of the defendants in that case, entered judgment against Muckle in favor of

the very same defendant in which he had a financial interest.

9
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

b) Six years later in 2016, in the same month of March as the Judge

Woodlock ruling, Appeals Court Judge Barron was disqualified from

participating in the decision in this instant case because he had a financial

interest with one of the defendants who was also a defendant in the Judge

Woodlock case

c) Two years after his order dismissing case 07-11437-DPW in favor of the

defendants, on August 18, 2012, Judge Woodlock disclosed his financial

interest in one of the same defendants in the case which he had presided

over.

d) Two years after his participation in affirming the lower court decision

dismissing the underlying complaint of this appeal Judge Barron on May

18, 2018, disclosed his disqualification and recused himself from his

participation in that case because he discovered that he had a financial

interest two year after his decision. The 18th date in both cases and the two

years after are the significance here, Judge Woodlock Disclosure was on

August 18th while Judge Barron’s disclosure was on May 18th. Then Judge

Woodlock claims that his financial interest came as a result of the death of

a family member in May of 2012 which is two years after his order of

dismissal in March 2010. On the other hand, Judge Barron alleges that he

only discovered his disqualification in “May” of 2018, also two years

later, as Judge Woodlock, after his judgment.

e) Now that May month is also of great significance because on May 1,

2012, Muckle was arrested for allegedly violating the Boston Municipal

10
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

Court Order to not contact the Attorney Sean Higgins who was the alleged

victim in 4 pending criminal charges filed against Muckle. On May 2,

2012, Muckle’s bail was revoke and Muckle was ordered held without bail

on the government appeal to the magistrate sense of comradeship by

deliberately and intentionally lying and telling the Magistrate that Muckle

had made threats to Judge Woodlock, and that “Those threats included

threats to kill”. At the very instant, May 2, 2012, while Muckle’s bail was

being revoked on the deliberate lie that he had threatened to kill Judge

Woodlock, Muckle’s home was foreclosed on and auctioned off, the buyer

was Wells Fargo Bank, a defendant in the case which Judge Woodlock

failed to disqualify himself from because of his financial interest in one of

the defendants. While Muckle was held in jail without bail in May 2012

on lies that he had threatened to kill Judge Woodlock Judge Woodlock

family member died, thus giving Judge Woodlock a financial interest in

the foreclosure and sale of Muckle’s home. Then not only did Appeals

Court Judge Barron discover his disqualification in the month of May, but

on May 21, 2014 Muckle discovered that he had been unlawfully

convicted in the BMC on intimidation charges against Sean Higgins,

Muckle gave his attorney two days to get him into court and stop the

illegal sentence Two days later, on May 23, 2014, the trial judge revised

and revoked Muckle prison sentence on the intimidation charge. But here

is where it gets interesting, on the very same exact date May 23, 2014

when the judge revoke Muckle’s jail sentence in the conviction which is

11
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

the focus of this instant complaint Judge Barron received his judicial

commission on May 23, 2014. Does anyone reading this still

believe in coincidence? “I want to know who is Mister Barron”. I

waited for him, I knew he would come he would bring me

Fairness.

16) Do those of you reading this remember the story I told about remaining in the trap and

feigning death? I was enduring the pain from the knowledge that Judge Woodlock had

unfairly dismissed my case and gave my home away to Wells Fargo Bank while he had a

financial interest with the defendant, but did Judge did as Judge David Barron so

honorably did by recusing himself from presiding over case number 07-11437-DPW and

notify the Clerk of his disqualification in that case because he found out in May 2012,

due to a death in his family, that he in fact had a financial interest with one of the

defendants in that case? No, Judge Woodlock did not recuse himself and notify the clerk

of his disqualification, he remained silent about it, and I held on to that pain of the

knowledge that he had a financial interest with the defendants, I also remained silent

because I knew in my soul that one day that financial interest which Judge Woodlock

have in one of the defendants would come back to haunt him because he had dealt with

me unfairly and treacherously, and I had such high respect and admiration for him. I was

waiting for Judge David Barron, but I did not know who he was. Judge David Barron’s

notification may not nullify the ruling in this instant appeal, however it will help to

nullify Judge Woodlock’s judgment in case number 07-11437-DPW because Judge

Woodlock violated the Canon Code of Conduct for Federal Judges and violated the law

12
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

in his failure to recuse himself from case number 07-11437-DPW and give notification of

his disqualification in that case.

17) Had it not been for Judge Barron’s notification Muckle would have never known that

Judge Woodlock had a mandatory ethical duty under the Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Code of

Conduct for United States Judges to notify the Clerk and parties of his financial interest

during that case, nor would Muckle have known that Judge Woodlock had a command

under the law, 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144, to give disclosure to the parties in that

lawsuit of his financial interest in a party to the action, even if the discovery is made

years after the judgment had been issued and the case closed. Judge Woodlock failed to

honor his code and he broke the law.

18) With all these illegal government actions against me now being exposed in

the federal civil courtrooms and the State criminal court rooms, from my

illegal conviction and incarceration which the Supreme Judicial Court

reversed, to two judges in the federal civil actions admitting to having

financial interest in the defendants after already ruling against me in favor

of the defendant, how can any of these judges who have touched this case

look at the evidence and say I have failed to state a claim on which relief can

be sought? Should I not then believe that all of you have a financial interest

with these banksters?

19) So, what have we here, do I hang on a cliff like Dredd Scott, a born slave who

have no standing to assert claims against the officials when the officials

commits injustices against me, and when they illegally conspired together to

unlawfully imprison me and to intimidate me from furthering my civil

13
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

lawsuit to the U.S Supreme Court and in the Housing Court? Should I just

accept me fate because I have no rights which the officials have to respect

because they are sovereign and immune from having to answer to anyone for

their crimes against me? Is that the thinking of the Courts when they just

throw my lawsuit out with the trash without writing a fully detailed opinion?

What a calamity! And they call it “patriotism” when Patrick Henry picked up

his gun and cried, “Give me liberty or give me death”, but they say it is a

criminal offense when Muckle sends an email and say, “The revolution has

begun! Foxes will be left in the ditches to get slaughtered, while the weasels

like Sean Higgins try to weasel his way out of it!” Just look at the legal mess,

this pit, which Sean Higgins has gotten all of you into just so that he could

force me out of my house and sell it to get his cut, was it worth it to any of

you to have aided him in his illegal conspiracy against me? And now he will

try to weasel his way out of it.

20) I may not be well schooled in drafting a civil complaint like any skilled

attorney can, therefore, my civil complaint may have failed to state a “legal”

claim upon which relief can be sought, however, in spite of the legal

shortcomings of the complaint, it clearly spells out a very credible case,

backed up with official evidence, which proves an illegal conspiracy by the

defendants named in this complaint to shut Muckle up, to intimidate him

from furthering his civil suits to prevent Sean Higgins and Well Fargo Bank

from taking Possession of the home and evicting him and to remove him from

14
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

his home so that Sean Higgins could sell it. Does not Muckle’s Natural

Human Rights to be free from government illegal conspiracy trump’s the

defendants claim of sovereignty and immunity from claims by its citizens?

Are the defendants in this complaint above the law, or are they just above

Muckle’s standing?

21) From April 13, 2012 after his initial arrest through his criminal trial in April

2014, from the time Muckle was in jail because his bail had been revoke on

the government deliberate and outrageous lie and perjury to the magistrate

that Muckle had made threats to Judge Woodlock, which included threats to

kill, Judge Woodlock had a financial interest in one of the parties to the case

he presided over, however, Judge Woodlock who knew that his name was

used in the complaint to have me arrested did not make any efforts nor did he

send the federal Marshals to contact Muckle’s attorney, nor did Judge

Woodlock reach out to the Boston Municipal Court and notify them that Sean

Higgins and Prosecutor Spencer Lord were lying about Muckle making

threats to kill him.

22) Therefore, in respond to the notification of Judge Barron’s disqualification

and recusal, the fact that two of the judges involved in deciding these series

of cases with the same defendants and plaintiff have disclosed financial

interest with the defendants well after they had already done irreparable

harm to Muckle is too overwhelming of an obstacle to overcome in which

Muckle will ever be satisfied that the ruling of the panel on March 25, 2016

15
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

was Fair, Impartial, and without the undue influence of the disqualified

judge, Judge David Barron. Where is the evidence to prove that these two

disqualified judges with financial interest in the defendants did not apply

undue influence on all the other judges who have participated in all of the

cases in this series of lawsuits involving the same Plaintiff and defendants?

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, in the interest of Fairness and to eliminate any question of

impropriety, Muckle respectfully moves the two remaining judges on the Panel to
recuse themselves from their participation in the case, vacate their order, and send
the case for reassignment to a new Panel, or at best, send the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings. Muckle is not asking for Justice because my
quest to the Courts was never a quest for justice, it has always been a question for
Fairness. To quote the author Frank Herbert “Justice requires a resort to law”, and
Muckle knows that there is no law which will require the other two judges on the
panel to recuse themselves just because its third member was compromised,
therefore, Muckle is not asking for Justice, because, as Frank Herbert went on to
say, “Justice is a fickle Mistress which is subject to the whims and prejudices of the
ones administrating the law”, that is why Muckle is seeking Fairness in asking the
panel to recuse itself so as to eliminate any question of improper influence by the
disqualified Judge David Barron over their decisions, because the people upon
whom judgment is passed must feel the Fairness of it. Fairness is a concept which
goes deeper and further than Justice which can only resort to law, whereas, as
Frank Herbert also wrote, “Being fair requires agreement, predictable constancy,
and above all else, loyalty upwards and downwards in the hierarchy. Leadership
guided by such principles requires no outside control. You keep your oath and you
did your duty that you swore to do because it is right, it is Fair. And you did not
obey because it was predictably correct, you did it because the rightness was a thing
of this moment”. Just as it was the right thing of the moment when Judge David

16
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299723 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

Barron unlike judge Woodlock, so honorably came forward and notified the parties
of his disqualification and recusal from the case because two years later he
discovered that he has a financial interest with the defendant Wells Fargo Bank,
Judge Barron could have remained silent like Judge Woodlock did and not notify
anyone of his disqualification and Muckle might have never known about it.
Therefore, I envision The Honorable Judge Barron’s notification as an act of
Fairness, I do not believe that he did it because the law requires him to do so, the
man supports the government’s unconstitutional rights to assassinate its citizens
without having to resort to a court of law, I cannot imagine him confessing to
Muckle out of respect to any legal rights Muckle think he have, Judge David Barron
notified Muckle because it is right, it was Fair. And he did not obey his conscience
because it was predictably correct, he did it because the rightness was a thing of
this moment, Justice, which requires a resort to law, had nothing whatsoever to do
with his honorable decision. But, what good is Judge David Barron’s honorable and
Fair act of recusing himself if it stands alone with the other two parts of the three-
legged panel declining to support him and stands clinging to each other in their
resort to the protection of the law?

Muckle respectfully moves the other two remaining judges on the panel to stand
with the Honorable Justice David Barron in the interest of Fairness, and step down.
Let me not question your impartiality, do not place such an honor upon me. Let not
your brother’s act of Fairness be in vain, step down with him and recuse yourselves
because it if Fair it is Right, and you are not obeying because Paul L. Muckle ask
you to and because it is predictably correct, you must recuse yourselves now because
the rightness is a thing of this moment. “The people upon whom judgment is passed
must feel the Fairness of it”. ASHAY!

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul L. Muckle pro se

June7, 2018.

17
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793
Case: 15-1195 Document: 00117299725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Entry ID: 6175793

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Paul Laurenton Muckle, do hereby certify, that on June 10th 2018, I have

caused a copy of this within Respond to the Notification of Judge Barron’s

recusal and disqualification from his participation in the March 25, 2016

decision in the within case to be served upon the defendant through this

Court’s electronic filing and notification system, Pacer.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul L. Muckle, pro se

June 10, 2018