It seems Kenneth Wayne Leaming has been keeping busy prior to his Sentencing Hearing by filing many more of his imaginative and internet based fantasy legal theories. Judge Leighton continues to exercise restrain in his responses to these filing, although he periodically does get in a jab or two in his comments. The latest filings from Leaning are:
- DEMAND FOR Declaratory Judgment as to Adjudicative Facts
- NOTICE to the Record of Bias and Notice of Duty to Recuse
- MOTION for Acquittal by Kenneth Wayne Leaming
- PETITION for Declaratory Judgment and MOTION to Arrest/Vacate Judgment
- MOTION to Vacate/Dismiss all Counts for lack of evidence, jurisdiction, etc
Leaming is all about persistence, as his filings suggest; if only he was using established laws with which to argue his case, not some garbage he found on the internet. But then, it wouldn’t be his notable and signature style. Judge Leighton issued an ORDER on the Motion for Recusal as follows:
Defendant, recently convicted, has filed a “Notice to the Record and Notice of Duty to Recuse,” which the Court will treat as a motion to recuse. Under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal of a federal judge is appropriate if a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). “In the absence of specific allegations of personal bias, prejudice, or interest, neither prior adverse rulings of a judge nor his participation in a related or prior proceeding is sufficient” to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).
Defendant has provided no grounds for recusal. He states only that he has filed a “Judicial Misconduct/Disability Complaint” against the undersigned with the Ninth Circuit and believes that the filing itself “EVIDENCES the prejudice and BIAS of Leighton, and Leighton is mandated to recuse himself for Bias and Prejudice.” A defendant’s filing of a document is not evidence of bias. The motion is DENIED and the Clerk is directed to REFER the motion to the Chief Judge.
Defendant has also filed a “Demand for Declaratory Judgment as to Adjudicative Facts.” Like many of Defendant’s previous filings, the document references “International Law Ordinances” from the internet and asks “[i]s there any FACT and LAW upon which the International Law Ordinance . . . is not binding on the above captioned tribunal and its officers?” Yes. It is not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Defendant’s filing goes on to ask similar vague questions about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. The answers to his question are as follows: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of Independence provide no binding law; the Constitution does. To the extent that this document is meant as a motion, it is DENIED.
Judge Leighton also issued an Order regarding Leaming’s Motion for Acquittal (emphasis added):
Defendant has moved for acquittal on all counts, arguing that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to convict and that various unspecified arguments he presented at trial mandate acquittal.
Under Fed. Crim. R. P. 29, a defendant may move for judgment of acquittal within 14 days after a guilty verdict, and the court must acquit the defendant of “any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. Crim. R. P. 29(a), (c). Defendant was convicted on three counts of retaliating against a federal official by filing a false claim (in this case, liens), one count of concealing a person from arrest (Dkt. #169), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Dkt. #183).
The evidence on all counts was overwhelming. First, Defendant admitted on the stand that he knowingly possessed the firearms in question because he wanted to challenge the law at the Supreme Court. (For Defendant’s benefit, the Supreme Court has upheld the law banning felons from possessing as recently as 2008. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (“[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons . . . .”).)
Second, the evidence supporting his false-claims convictions was equally strong. Defendant admitted to filing liens against a group of federal officials for absurd sums, $225 billion in one case. The only link any of these officials had to each other was their participation in the prosecution of a Ponzi scheme on the east coast. The evidence demonstrated that Defendant was “helping,” as he put it, certain individuals who were aggrieved by the prosecution of the Ponzi scheme. On Count 3, phone calls between the co-defendants plainly established that Mr. Leaming believed the IRS was for some reason going to collect these absurd sums from two prison officials. The calls show that Mr. Leaming filed the liens in retaliation for the officials performing their duties, i.e., holding Mr. Stephenson.
Lastly, the evidence overwhelmingly supported Defendant’s conviction of concealing a person from arrest. The Government established that Defendant knew certain individuals were sought in relation to a postal-scam, that Defendant allowed them to stay in his home, helped them trade cars, and otherwise supported them.
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (Dkt. #203) is DENIED.
The Ponzi scheme mentions above is none other than ASD/AdCashGenerator, formerly run by the now 3 time convicted Felon named Thomas Anderson (Andy) Bowdoin, Jr.. The individuals targeting in both the False Liens and the $225 Billion dollar lawsuit are closely associated with ASD’s Civil and Criminal cases. Leaming thought it prudent to go after them to correct some perceived wrongdoing, much like the “ASD Justice” group has unsuccessfully attempted to get the ASD cases overturned on the grounds of a defective and deficient Affidavit.
I have no doubt that Leaming will continue to file more frivolous wastes of paper and quoting more legal nonsense up to and after his sentencing in May. He has a lot of time on his hands and a lot of notebook paper on which to do his hand written filings of puerile and superfluous prattle. He may yet wear on Judge Leighton’s last nerve in the near future.