IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

Come now the plaintiffs in the above styled cause and moves this Honorable Court to recuse the present Magistrate Judge, Vanzetta Penn McPherson, from further proceedings in this case. ⁽¹⁾

1. Judge McPherson's appointment to this case is in error. ⁽²⁾

2. Judge McPherson unconscionably applies a form of ethnic cleansing to her court procedures, by deliberately showing favoritism and partiality to the defendant's and their attorney.

3. Two (2) kinds of ethnic cleansing occur in the world today - one form requires the murder of innocent people in Yugoslavia, the other requires ostracizing disenfranchised fathers and those that hold unpopular views from meaningful access to the Courts.

4. Unfortunately for Fatherless America, society and most government agencys view, The National Congress for Fathers and Children (NCFC) as an organization holding an unpopular view.

5. Judge McPherson granted the defendants an illegal request, based on misquoted rules of court and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

6. The Court's Order discriminates against the plaintiffs because of their race, sex and ethnic association.

7. Defendants accepted service of the Complaint on March 30, 1999.

8. The defendants filed with the Court, twenty (20) days later, a frivolous Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint, on April 19, 1999.

9. Judge McPherson's responded by giving the defendants until and including June 24, 1999 to file a response to the Complaint.

10. Judge McPherson's Order gave the defendants a total of eighty-seven (87 ) days to respond to the Complaint.

11. "Unless a different time is prescribed in a statute of the United States, a defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint .....," Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 12 (a)(1)(A).

12. Thus, the defendants began their usual and clear pattern of willful delay.

13. Before the plaintiffs could respond to the defendant's request for extension, the Court filed its Order on April 28, 1999, only nine (9) days after defendant's illegal request for extension of time.

14. The Court's Order fails to provide the plaintiffs with the required ten (10) days to respond.

15. Judge McPherson violates establishes rules of court and statute law by failing to allow the plaintiffs time to respond to the defendants frivolous and illegal request.

16. In addition to gerrymandering court procedures, Judge McPherson wrongfully uses her association and friendship, outside the court system, with defendant's attorney, LaVette Lyas-Brown, to discriminate against the plaintiffs.

17. The defendants deliberately waited until the last day to respond to the Complaint and then filed an illegal extension of time.

18. "We will not time the filing or service of motions or pleadings in any way that unfairly limits another party's opportunity to responding." Professional Conduct Order, Middle District of Alabama, Lawyer's Duty to Other Counsel, Item #11.

"We will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote, or miscite facts or authorities in any oral or written communication to the court." Professional Conduct Order, Lawyers Duties to the Court, Item #5.

19. "We will not adopt procedures that needlessly increase litigation expense." Professional Conduct Order, Court's Duty to Lawyers, Item #11.

20. Judge McPherson is aware that the above case involves a Motion for Injunctive Relief and knows unnecessary, unreasonable and illegal delays are detrimental to the plaintiff's case.

21. Judge McPherson's conduct impedes the fundamental goal of resolving disputes rationally, peacefully, and efficiently and works to delay and deny justice.

22. Any reasonable person would conclude from Judge McPherson's actions, in collusion with the defendant's attorney, both inside and outside the Court process, that she is prejudice against the plaintiffs and must be recused under 28 U.S.C. § 455.

23. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot consent to Judge McPherson's jurisdiction as a Magistrate Judge in all pre-trial matters.

Wherefore premises considered, the plaintiffs respectfully moves this Honorable Court to:

1. Remove, reassign or recuse the present Magistrate Judge, Vanzetta Penn McPherson, from further proceedings in this case.

2. Reverse the unreasonable Order of Judge McPherson, allowing 87 days for the defendants to respond to the Complaint and Set a date for Pre-trial Conference.

Respectfully Submitted

Dated __________ day of May, 1999

1. Magistrate Judge McPherson proceed no further. Return justice and due process to this case immediately by removing yourself from this case.

A judge asked to recuse himself has no other or further duty to perform than that prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 144 of the Judicial Code. He is relieved from the delicate and trying duty of deciding upon the question of his own disqualification. Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 481, 485.

2. A judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, .... 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

Back to Child Support Homepage

[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]