No.

22-6123

In The
Supreme Court Of The United States
BRIAN DAVID HILL,
Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent,

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW AND
DISQUALIFICATION OF AFFECTED HONORABLE
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WITH ACTUAL OR
PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Brian David Hill

Pro Se
Ally of Q, and Atty. Lin Wood
Former USWGO Alternative News Reporter
310 FOREST STREET, APARTMENT 2
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24112
Tel.: (276) 790-3505
E-Mail: c/o Roberta Hill at rbhill67@comcast.net
Dated: December 2, 2022

JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
JusticeForUSWGO.NL //
USWGO.COM

i
 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW AND
DISQUALIFICATION OF AFFECTED HONORABLE
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WITH ACTUAL OR
PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

To all of the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the

United States:

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21.2(c) and 28 USC § 455,

Petitioner Brian David Hill hereby moves for review and

disqualification of any Justice with actual or potential conflicts of

interest (or the appearance of same) “however small” as the statute

reads, with supported evidence in the attached Appendix. No affidavit

is available unless Attorney L. Lin Wood is compelled by this Supreme

Court to file a separate response or file a Declaration under oath in

response to this EMERGENCY MOTION’s request that Chief Justice

John Roberts recuse himself.

Petitioner Brian David Hill respectfully requests that Chief

Justice John Roberts recuse himself from participation at all stages of

the proceedings from Petitioner’s accompanying Petition for Writ of

Certiorari, the foregoing case.

Note: Petitioner requests that this Court order a response

directly from Attorney L. Lin Wood to explain about his claims against

Chief Justice John Roberts to ascertain the credibility of his claims

prior to disposition of this EMERGENCY MOTION. He can file an

1
Affidavit or Declaration about why he made those claims against John

Roberts and as to the credibility of his claims and vetting how those

claims came to be. Attorney Lin Wood should be questioned by this

Supreme Court before this EMERGENCY MOTION is denied or

granted. Petitioner respectfully requests that.

SUMMARY OF MOTION

This Court has jurisdiction for Petitioner's EMERGENCY

MOTION under Supreme Court Rule 21.2(c) and 28 USC § 455.

As set forth in the attached APPENDIX in attachment to this

EMERGENCY MOTION, Petitioner explains how the Honorable

Chief Justice John Roberts must recuse himself.

With the facts in support of this EMERGENCY MOTION, Petitioner

states as follows:

1. The Petition for the Writ of Certiorari is over a final

judgment/order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

This EMERGENCY MOTION is only to address an issue of significant

emergency importance for Chief Justice Roberts, and must be

addressed before any proceedings begin in Petitioner’s case for

petition for Writ of Certiorari.

2
 2. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari was timely filed on

November 7, 2022, and docketed on November 21, 2022. This issue

must be addressed before the petition is distributed to the justices

after the written response from the Respondent and/or reply from

Petitioner if necessary, unless government waives right to respond as

usual.

3. This EMERGENCY MOTION is extremely important due to

issues of a criminal nature (blackmail scheme, child rape and murder

allegation) which personally affect the facts surrounding the request

for a Special Master which includes the allegation against Chief

Justice John Roberts allegedly by Attorney L. Lin Wood. The

allegation in records of this appealed case and his name over issues of

blackmail as alleged by Attorney Lin Wood in his tweets in the case.

This attorney is compelled to tell the truth over the internet, pursuant

to RULE 7.1 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.

See Citation.

RULE 7.1 COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING A LAWYER'S

SERVICES
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about
the lawyer or the lawyer's services. By way of illustration, but not
limitation, a communication is false or misleading if it:
contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact
necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not
materially misleading;

3
is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer
can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results
by means that violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct or
other law;
compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services unless
the comparison can be factually substantiated;
fails to include the name of at least one lawyer responsible for its
content; or
contains any information regarding contingent fees, and fails to
conspicuously present the following disclaimer:
"Contingent attorneys' fees refers only to those fees charged by
attorneys for their legal services. Such fees are not permitted in all
types of cases. Court costs and other additional expenses of legal
action usually must be paid by the client."
contains the language "no fee unless you win or collect" or any
similar phrase and fails to conspicuously present the following
disclaimer:
"No fee unless you win or collect" [or insert the similar language
used in the communication] refers only to fees charged by the
attorney. Court costs and other additional expenses of legal action
usually must be paid by the client. Contingent fees are not permitted
in all types of cases.
A public communication for which a lawyer has given value must be
identified as such unless it is apparent from the context that it is
such a communication.
A lawyer retains ultimate responsibility to insure that all
communications concerning the lawyer or the lawyer's services
comply with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.

4. John Roberts has a personal interest or conflict of interest in

the outcome of the foregoing case, including any resolution or

dismissal of this final appeal to this Supreme Court from the Fourth

Circuit’s decision refusing to take action on the appeals requesting

remand of the order/decision denying the motion for a Special Master

4
and Motion to Reconsider the order/decision denying the motion for a

Special Master.

5. Whether or not John Roberts may or may not be in one of the

alleged blackmail videos as claimed by Attorney L. Lin Wood, it is still

a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and gives appearance on its face that it

is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST whether John Roberts is guilty or

innocent of the criminal act that Attorney L. Lin Wood had alleged of

Chief Justice John Roberts in printed Twitter tweets of Attorney Lin

Wood making the allegations against the Chief Justice. He is making

those claims as an officer of the court system, as an attorney, and did

not make any such disclaimer that the claims may not be true at face

value. This attorney made such claims against John Roberts and can

be held liable under RULE 7.1 of the Georgia Rules of Professional

Conduct, if he had lied about John Roberts on Twitter last year.

Petitioner will make one disclaimer, and that is the internet materials

were printed by the family members of Brian D. Hill, the Petitioner in

this case and the Petitioner does not need to use the internet to have

this evidence. This evidence is locally in PDF files on a computer

without internet access. That is the only disclaimer Petitioner feels

must be addressed in this EMERGENCY MOTION.

6. This issue is too important that it must be addressed before

the Petition for the Writ of Certiorari is considered by this Court to be

5
granted or denied. Federal law makes it clear, as well as ethics of the

Canons of Judicial Conduct, that no justice or judge should be partial

or have an interest in the outcome of any case even if it is an appeal

such as the final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A justice cannot

have an interest in the outcome of a case which involves the issues

and facts of a personal nature or criminal nature or both directly

involving the justice in question.

7. The U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to require recusal

of a justice with a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of

interest pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice,

judge, or magistrate judge. Congress created this law specifically to

recuse or disqualify a justice, judge, or magistrate judge under specific

circumstances. Says in section “(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.”

28 U.S. Code § 455 also says under the law that “(b) He shall also

disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a

personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge

of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…”.

8. If a single Justice in a case has a CONFLICT OF INTEREST,

prejudice, has an personal or ethical interest or issue in the outcome

6
of a case which may negatively affect that involved justice, or has a

bias then he must disqualify himself as a matter of law.

8. The following appealed consolidated cases being appealed by

the Petition for Writ of Certiorari concern the denied Motion

requesting a Special Master and denied Motion for Reconsideration of

the order denying the Motion requesting a Special Master. Those

motions exist because of written statements by Attorney L. Lin Wood

who allegedly claimed that “judges” and “officials” were involved as

targets of a blackmail scheme of being videotaped committing acts of

child rape and murder. This attorney is compelled under the Bar

Rules to tell the truth or he risks being sanctioned, disbarred, or

penalized by the State Bar of Georgia as a practicing attorney.

9. If this Court were to recognize the truth of Attorney L. Lin

Wood’s claims (including against John Roberts) involving this alleged

“blackmail scheme” of child rape and murder captured on videotape.

That had caused Petitioners’ staggering allegations against the Chief

Judge and former Chief Judge, which had further caused the filing of

a Motion requesting that the alleged blackmail videos need to be

reviewed by a Special Master to determine if Chief Judge Thomas

David Schroeder and former Chief Judge William Lindsey Osteen

Junior are in any of the blackmail videos. If they are then then causes

a big concern as this “attorney from Georgia” may have “John Roberts”

7
as one of the suspected named individuals who this attorney claimed

were “targets of a blackmail scheme” involving child rape and murder.

9. Attorney L. Lin Wood said in writing to the same effect that

he mentioned the name CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS as an

allegation as alleged by this attorney. He mentioned John Roberts in

some of his tweets, and his published photograph of a letter directed

to Lin Wood also mentioned Roberts by saying “The first goal is to get

Roberts to resign or recuse, and Pence to make the right choice on Jan

6.” So that letter had mentioned about asking Lin Wood to get John

Roberts to resign over the alleged blackmail recordings or recuse

himself over whatever cases to recuse over, Petitioner does not know,

but Lin Wood may know. See APPENDIX (“App.” is page number

marker referring to the exact page of attached Appendix to this

application) pages numbered App. 3, App. 5, App. 6, App. 8, App. 14,

App. 16-18, App. 24 (photograph of John Roberts and Barack Obama

under Attorney Lin Wood tweet), App. 30, App. 34-35, App. 46-47, and

App. 52.

10. Read all of the Appendix index pages attached to this

EMERGENCY MOTION directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, also

a circuit assignment to the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of

Appeals. Just the very justice Petitioner had filed an application

directed to Chief Justice Roberts (filed on November 21, 2022) to

8
directly and kindly asking that he recuse himself from this entire

Certiorari case. He does not need to be involved with or associated

with any decisions, or any work dealing with the foregoing Certiorari

case because this recusal is necessary even though the main focus was

requesting a Special Master to deal with possibly blackmailed

compromised federal judges. That was due to the source or sources of

Attorney L. Lin Wood who made public statements about all of this on

Twitter last year (App. 26, App. 28, App. 30), and such blackmail

videos could prove which federal judges are being blackmailed with

child rape and murder, it is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and

unethical for Chief Justice John Roberts to be involved with this

Certiorari case since he was named by Attorney L. Lin Wood. As of

the date of filing this EMERGENCY MOTION, John Roberts has not

recused himself and is either ignoring the “Request for recusal” or will

not recuse himself after reviewing over the appendix if he even

reviewed over the appendix.

11. John Roberts is the only federal jurist or federal justice

directly named as an accused of being a target of the blackmail scheme

by Attorney L. Lin Wood in this alleged Lizard Squad hacking group

obtaining videos of the alleged blackmail scheme. This makes this

particular Chief Justice more inclined to sabotage the Certiorari

petition case, to prevent the Petition from being granted or discussed

9
in an impartial manner, or may even attempt to prevent the case from

moving forward, or may pull some other stunt which negatively affects

the lives of Petitioner and Attorney L. Lin Wood. The risk of possible

or probable retaliation by Chief Justice John Roberts is TOO HIGH if

he does not automatically recuse himself from proceeding in the

foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari case, as a matter of law.

12. Petitioner tried to resolve this matter with an application

to the individual justice to minimalize this issue being brought before

all nine (9) Supreme Court justices, but John Roberts had not made

any move to recuse himself as a matter of law as raised in the

EMERGENCY APPLICATION filed on November 21, 2022, as the

Clerk had dubbed the APPLICATION as the “Request for recusal

received from petitioner.”

13. Petitioner requests that this Court order a response directly

from Attorney L. Lin Wood to explain about his claims against Chief

Justice John Roberts over the alleged “blackmail scheme” concerning

acts of child rape and murder to ascertain the credibility of his claims

prior to disposition of this EMERGENCY MOTION. He can file an

Affidavit or Declaration under oath (under penalty of perjury) about

why he made those claims against John Roberts and as to the

credibility of his claims about Roberts and vetting how those claims

came to be. Of course he has the Fifth Amendment right to remain

10
silent, but this attorney should at least certify or declare to this Court

under penalty of perjury that he at least vetted the evidence or source

or sources about his alleged information concerning “John Roberts”

and the whole targeting of a child rape blackmail scheme. Attorney

Lin Wood should be questioned by this Supreme Court before this

EMERGENCY MOTION is denied or granted. Petitioner respectfully

requests that. Attorney L. Lin Wood can be contacted at the following

information below this paragraph:

Attorney L. Lin Wood, Esq.

GA Bar No. 774588
L. Lin Wood, P.C.
P.O. Box 52584
Atlanta, GA 30355-0584
Telephone: (404) 891-1402
Facsimile: (404) 506-9111
Email: lwood@linwoodlaw.com

14. Petitioner thought that by filing an application on

November 21, 2022 asking for recusal from Chief Justice Roberts, that

it would have been more appropriate to resolve this issue more

discreetly rather than filing a Motion to every justice of this Supreme

Court about questioning John Robert’s partiality and/or bias and/or

ethics issues over the Certiorari case regarding Petitioner’s request in

the U.S. District Court for a Special Master to investigate the

“blackmail scheme”. This is very important which is why Petitioner

had made the decision that if John Roberts doesn’t voluntarily recuse
11
himself at all, that this EMERGENCY MOTION would go in front of

all honorable justices with the evidence of statements by Attorney L.

Lin Wood regarding his alleged claims of John Roberts regarding

being a target of blackmail, which caused Petitioner to reiterate the

blackmail allegations and claims alleged by Attorney L. Lin Wood in

both Petitioner’s filed Motion for Special Master (Doc. #294 in the

District Court case appealed therefrom) and the Motion to

Reconsideration of the order denying the Motion for Special Master

(Doc. #301 in the District Court case appealed therefrom), as well as

those claims being brought up throughout the appeals. Even the

issues such as Attorney Lin Wood’s claims causing the Petitioner to

have referenced “John Roberts” in his faxed letter to Attorney Lin

Wood (App. 6) and referencing Attorney Lin Wood’s statements

regarding “John Roberts” in various case file documents at issue with

the Petition for the Writ of Certiorari case.

15. Petitioner had originally asked the Clerk in his separate

initial filing to allow the filed Emergency Application to be forwarded

to the Chief Justice as it was directed to Chief Justice John Roberts

rather than demand a motion (Citing SCOTUS filing: “Request for

recusal received from petitioner.” Dated Nov 21 2022) out of respect

to John Roberts to resolve this issue without involving every other

justice before this Court. Petitioner was hoping Roberts would have

12
just recused himself which would be a painless process, and with him

stepping out of the way, Petitioner can proceed with pushing for a

Special Master to investigate whether both the Hon. Chief Judge

Thomas David Schroeder and William Lindsey Osteen Junior was or

was not in any of the alleged blackmail videos alleged by Attorney L.

Lin Wood. Originally the intent of Petitioner was that he only wished

to have filed the EMERGENCY APPLICATION to the respect of Chief

Justice John Roberts to allow him to voluntarily recuse himself

pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or

magistrate judge. He has still not recused himself and this concerns

the Petitioner that now he may be forced to take a direct approach at

filing a motion for all justices to review.

16. If the Petitioner files evidence of claims by a credible

licensed attorney Lin Wood in this EMERGENCY MOTION in the

foregoing case for Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with fears that John

Roberts needs to recuse himself or it creates issues of partiality, bias,

and conflict of interest, then this EMERGENCY MOTION is the

appropriate vehicle under both Rule 21 and 28 U.S. Code § 455.

17. Again, 28 U.S. Code § 455 makes it clear: (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.

13
28 U.S. Code § 455 also makes it clear: (“(b)He shall also disqualify

himself in the following circumstances: (1)Where he has a personal

bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of

disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”).

18. It is clear that because Attorney Lin Wood said on Tweets

about the issues surrounding “John Roberts” and alleged “blackmail

scheme” which are permanently part of the records of the case of Brian

David Hill v. United States of America and in references of the Appeal

briefs and Petition for Rehearing, that “John Roberts” is part of

“personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the

proceeding”. Whether or not John Roberts wishes to admit to what

Attorney Lin Wood had accused him of in January, 2021, John Roberts

is an American citizen protected under the U.S. Constitution like

every other American. He is entitled to the Fifth Amendment where

he does not have to be a witness against himself and he does not have

to incriminate himself on anything. Regardless of whether Attorney

Lin Wood can or cannot actually prove John Roberts was being

blackmailed with a heinous sex crime of child rape and then child

murder, John Roberts is still entitled to the presumption of innocence

until ever being charged and ever proven guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt in a fair trial. Under that circumstance, this issue would be non-

existent and he would not be serving as a justice, but Chief Roberts

14
has not been charged or convicted over anything alleged by Attorney

Lin Wood unless fully proven in a court of law. Until that happens,

these issues of bias or partiality come into play here for this Certiorari

case.

19. However, Attorney Lin Wood has freedom of speech under

the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as long as he is truthful

and is not purposefully being defamatory or slandering against

another individual by name. He has not ever been disbarred over

those claims involving “John Roberts”, as far as Petitioner is aware of

since the date of filing this EMERGENCY MOTION. Petitioner is not

even aware of whether Attorney Lin Wood was even ever been

disbarred at all as far as the public record. If John Roberts feels that

Attorney Lin Wood is lying or making false remarks, he is free to

challenge those claims against Lin Wood by requesting a bar

complaint against this attorney and/or John Roberts would have the

right as an American citizen to have a civil lawsuit defamation trial

against Attorney Lin Wood, and allow both sides to present evidence,

arguments, and witnesses. If John Roberts does not wish to pursue

any lawsuits against Attorney Lin Wood, that is his right to do so,

whatever he legally wishes. He can freely choose to sue Lin Wood or

not, and face whatever consequences come as a result of that whether

the alleged blackmail evidence exists or whether this evidence does

15
not exist. If it does then John Roberts has another separate issue to

worry about such as possibly criminal charges if the U.S. Department

of Justice has any backbone to ever consider a prosecution or

requesting impeachment of John Roberts to take away his sovereign

immunity from criminal charges. However, this EMERGENCY

MOTION still brings this issue and rather ask this Court to compel

Honorable Chief Justice John Roberts to recuse himself and the

attached evidence now has to be filed in a motion before all justices

with the very same alleged claims and evidence of Tweets by Attorney

Lin Wood, archived for the entire country of the United States of

America and for the entire world to see. Petitioner feels he has no

choice but to file this motion.

20. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 13.1, the foregoing

case of the accompanying Petition for Writ of Certiorari was timely

filed. This EMERGENCY MOTION to request from all honorable

justices to compel recusal of John Roberts is submitted in good faith

to ensure that the disqualified justice John Roberts does the right

thing under federal law, under 28 U.S. Code § 455. Regardless of John

Robert’s guilt or innocence to Attorney Lin Wood’s alleged claims,

John Roberts still must recuse himself from the foregoing Petition for

Writ of Certiorari case. A disputed fact at issue, the involvement, it

requires recusal on its face.

16
 21. Indeed, the requested recusal in this EMERGENCY

MOTION in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari case is made because

of the vital importance associated with the issues at hand – the right

to a fair and reliable trial and hearings under Due Process of Law, as

well as ensuring that no federal judges are blackmailed or

compromised in any cases such as a criminal case or Habeas Corpus

2255 civil case with significant implications if the blackmail

allegations are not investigated, and video recordings to be reviewed

by a Special Master to ensure no conflicts of interest and to ensure no

ethics issues. It is respectfully submitted that Petitioner's duty to

present all authorized claims of constitutional error with care and

consider them with equal importance. Thus, it is key that Chief

Justice John Roberts recuse himself and have no further involvement

with any proceedings or any issues of Mr. Brian D. Hill’s petition with

the care demanded of such cases.

22. Petitioner had promised in his EMERGENCY

APPLICATION (filed November 21, 2022) to file such a motion (such

as this type of motion) to protect his Certiorari Petition case from any

possible retaliation or retribution out of Chief Justice Robert’s

personal or financial interests over this matter. Therefore, this

EMERGENCY MOTION hopefully is the appropriate vehicle. John

Roberts was not the primary issue of the Petition for the Writ of

17
Certiorari and was not the primary issue of the Motion for Special

Master and the Motion for Reconsideration, but to ensure that the

federal judges in the U.S. District Court level are not being

blackmailed by somebody in the United States Government and

particularly the United States intelligence agencies. If they are

blackmailed then they are constitutionally disqualified from

participating in Brian David Hill’s child pornography case and 2255

cases ever since the case first began in November 25, 2013. It would

create a major constitutional dilemma if not a pure constitutional

crisis requiring the entire case to be considered null and void on a

large legal-scale. So, John Roberts is not the primary focus of the

Petition for the Writ of Certiorari but his handling of the case would

require that he not be involved in those proceedings at all. HE MUST

RECUSE HIMSELF. Theoretically, he could retaliate or sabotage the

Certiorari case or ask the Clerks to sabotage or block filings, anything

illegal such as the clerk may just disappear filings and get away with

it, or anything unethical could happen by not requiring this recusal

for the sake of the best interests of justice. He must recuse himself, at

all costs.

23. There was sabotage in three other cases before this

Supreme court, because of the Clerk refusing to file documents and

not even return them to Petitioner either requesting correction. See

18
cases no. 21-6036, 21-6037, 21-6038. Petitioner has a reason to suspect

that if the Chief Justice was blackmailed, then he could have played

a role with the clerk disappearing attempted emergency motion

filings. Petitioner will try as hard as he can legally and lawfully to

ensure that his current EMERGENCY MOTION is not going to be

covered up by any deputy clerk like the cover ups of his emergency

motions in cases no. 21-6036, 21-6037, 21-6038.

24. Therefore, in light of Petitioner's current obligations and

the importance of the constitutional issues that will be presented in

this case, Petitioner submit that this EMERGENCY MOTION is

being filed to all honorable justices of this Court directed to compel

recusal of Chief Justice Roberts is necessary and appropriate in order

to effectively prosecute this Certiorari case and receive fair impartial

treatment in the petition for writ of certiorari of Mr. Brian D. Hill’s.

Petitioner wants to be fair with John Roberts and give him another

opportunity to voluntarily recuse himself.

25. Petitioner knows what it is like being falsely accused of a

sex crime such as child pornography for example, then falsely pleads

guilty for a crime he is innocent of, not allowed to review over all

discovery materials prior to pleading guilty, then later finding out how

fraudulent the child pornography prosecution truly was. Petitioner

was not given a fair trial, not given due process. Petitioner suspects

19
he had been set up, then the set up got solidified as if Petitioner was

now being blackmailed by and controlled by a set up which such fraud

coerced a false guilty plea of an actually innocent man. Brian Hill

knows what it is like being accused of a sex crime he is innocent of, as

a virgin who has never had sex. Brian rather not bring the Lin Wood

allegations of the facts presented in this APPLICATION to every

single justice if he does not have to. Hopefully every honorable justice

of this Court understands the significant legal importance of why this

EMERGENCY MOTION should be granted or considered to recuse

John Roberts and give him that chance to recuse himself for the

interest of justice and imprtiality. See family provided links:

https://wearechange.org/case-brian-d-hill/ and

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/06/can-of-worms-infowars-

targeted-by-child-porn-and-msm-not-the-first-time-alternative-

journalists-set-up.html Petitioner understands that regardless of

whether John Roberts is guilty or not guilty of Lin Wood’s alleged

claims, that John Roberts should have a right to quietly recuse himself

from the foregoing Certiorari case. Petitioner only wants true justice

and equity. He does not wish to ruffle up feathers and stir up hornets’

nests if he does not have to. Petitioner only wants justice, due process,

his guaranteed constitutional rights, and his liberty.

20
 26. Nothing in this motion should be interpreted to disparage

this high Court or suggest any impropriety whatsoever unless this

evidence of impropriety is proven factual and beyond a reasonable

doubt which those matters were brought up by a licensed attorney Lin

Wood. The goal is to assure that Petitioner and the public can access

a written record of this Court’s compliance with 28 USC § 455, which

is also a matter of procedural due process. The procedural due process

of the U.S. Constitution requires that John Roberts recuse himself

pursuant to 28 USC § 455, because of his name being accused by

Attorney Lin Wood of doing things that are at reference of the same

alleged blackmail scheme claims which accumulatively all come

together like a jigsaw puzzle with a lot of potentially serious questions

of both a criminal nature and of a nature of safeguarding due process

of law of a petitioner in a Certiorari case or any case for request a

Extraordinary Remedy.

27. With the utmost respect for this high Court and its

honorable Justices, Petitioner respectfully moves for an openly

published review of this Court’s conflict of interest regarding only a

single justice which such issue can easily be remedied by simply

recusal of this single justice, and this issue of whether this justice is

truly blackmailed or not can be left for another day for another case

or for an investigation or anything outside of the scope of this case.

21
Petitioner simply wishes this Court to address this issue regarding

any recusals/disqualifications as required by federal law and the U.S.

Constitution’s due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to

ensure not only this Court’s fair discussion in conference behind closed

doors, but the appearance of same to those outside the doors.

PRAYER TO GOD AND JESUS CHRIST FOR THIS COURT TO

BRING EQUITABLE RELIEF, PRAYER FOR ALL JUSTICES TO
CONSIDER THIS EMERGENCY MOTION BEFORE
CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI

Wherefore, in the best interest of justice and for good cause shown,

Petitioner Brian David Hill respectfully request that all justices of

this Court consider this EMERGENCY MOTION to compel Chief

Justice John Roberts of this Court to recuse himself from all

proceedings in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari case, the foregoing

case.

Wherefore, in the best interest of avoiding conflicts of interest whether

perceived or actual conflicts of interest, Petitioner Brian David Hill

respectfully requests from this Court from the honorable justices that

Chief Justice John Roberts of this Court recuses himself from all

proceedings in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari case, the foregoing

case, pursuant to 28 USC § 455.

22
Wherefore, Petitioner requests any other relief that this Court finds

to be appropriate or necessary to attain the ends of justice.

God Bless You all. Where We Go One We Go All.

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________
Brian David Hill
Pro Se Petitioner
Ally of Q and Atty Lin Wood
Former USWGO Alternative News Reporter
310 FOREST STREET, APARTMENT 2
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24112
Tel.: (276) 790-3505
E-Mail: c/o Roberta Hill rbhill67@comcast.net
JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
JusticeForUSWGO.NL

23
 No. 22-6123

In The
Supreme Court Of The United States
BRIAN DAVID HILL,
Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent,

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit
APPENDIX TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW
AND DISQUALIFICATION OF AFFECTED
HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS WITH
ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Brian David Hill

Pro Se
Ally of Q, and General Flynn
Former USWGO Alternative News Reporter
310 FOREST STREET, APARTMENT 2
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24112
Tel.: (276) 790-3505
E-Mail: c/o Roberta Hill at rbhill67@comcast.net
Dated: November 7, 2021

JusticeForUSWGO.wordpress.com
JusticeForUSWGO.NL //
USWGO.COM

i
 APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: EXHIBIT 3 for MOTION To Reconsider the

Order/Judgment Under Document #300 Denying Petitioner's
Document #294: "Motion For Appointment of Special Master for
Proceedings and Findings of Fact of Ground VII"; And
Document #296: "Motion For Appointed Counsel to Assist in
2255 Case Motion and Brief/Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion by Brian David Hill." re 300 Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, 296
MOTION to Appoint Attorney filed by BRIAN DAVID HILL by
BRIAN DAVID HILL (March 11, 2022)...................... App. 1-12

Appendix B: EXHIBIT 9 for Federal Criminal/Civil case --

BRIEF / MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ATTACHED
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTION
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE BY A
PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY. MOTION UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 by Brian David Hill (January 27,
2022)…………………………………………………..….. App. 13-14

Appendix C: EXHIBIT 6 for MOTION To Reconsider the

Order/Judgment Under Document #300 Denying Petitioner's
Document #294: "Motion For Appointment of Special Master for
Proceedings and Findings of Fact of Ground VII"; And
Document #296: "Motion For Appointed Counsel to Assist in
2255 Case Motion and Brief/Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion by Brian David Hill." re 300 Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, 296
MOTION to Appoint Attorney filed by BRIAN DAVID HILL by
BRIAN DAVID HILL (March 11, 2022).................... App. 15-22

Appendix D: EXHIBIT 10 for Federal Criminal/Civil case --

BRIEF / MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ATTACHED
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTION
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE BY A
PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY. MOTION UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 by Brian David Hill (January 27,
2022)…………………………………............................. App. 23-24

Appendix E: EXHIBIT 11 for Federal Criminal/Civil case --

BRIEF / MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ATTACHED
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTION
ii
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE BY A
PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY. MOTION UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 by Brian David Hill (January 27,
2022)…………………………………............................. App. 25-26

Appendix F: EXHIBIT 12 for Federal Criminal/Civil case --

BRIEF / MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ATTACHED
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTION
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE BY A
PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY. MOTION UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 by Brian David Hill (January 27,
2022)…………………………………............................. App. 27-28

Appendix G: EXHIBIT 14 for Federal Criminal/Civil case --

BRIEF / MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ATTACHED
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTION
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT A SENTENCE BY A
PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY. MOTION UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2255 by Brian David Hill (January 27,
2022)…………………………………............................. App. 29-30

Appendix H: PETITION for rehearing and rehearing en banc by

Brian David Hill in 22-6325, 22-6501. [1001225916] [22-6325,
22-6501] KH [Entered: 09/07/2022 03:21 PM] (September 6,
2022)…………………………………............................. App. 31-53

iii
 App. 1
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 12
 App. 2
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 12
 App. 3
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 12
 App. 4
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 12
 App. 5
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 12
 App. 6
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 12
 App. 7
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 7 of 12
 App. 8
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 12
 App. 9
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 9 of 12
 App. 10
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 10 of 12
 App. 11
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 11 of 12
 App. 12
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-3 Filed 03/11/22 Page 12 of 12
 App. 13
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-8 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
 App. 14
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-8 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
 App. 15
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 8
 App. 16
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 8
 App. 17
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 8
 App. 18
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 8
 App. 19
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 8
 App. 20
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 8
 App. 21
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 7 of 8
 App. 22
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 301-6 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 8
 App. 23
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-9 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
 App. 24
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-9 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
 App. 25
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-10 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
 App. 26
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-10 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
 App. 27
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-11 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
 App. 28
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-11 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
 App. 29
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-13 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
 App. 30
Case 1:13-cr-00435-TDS Document 293-13 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 1 of 23

App. 31
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 2 of 23

App. 32
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 3 of 23

App. 33
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 4 of 23

App. 34
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 5 of 23

App. 35
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 6 of 23

App. 36
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 7 of 23

App. 37
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 8 of 23

App. 38
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 9 of 23

App. 39
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 10 of 23

App. 40
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 11 of 23

App. 41
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 12 of 23

App. 42
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 13 of 23

App. 43
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 14 of 23

App. 44
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 15 of 23

App. 45
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 16 of 23

App. 46
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 17 of 23

App. 47
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 18 of 23

App. 48
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 19 of 23

App. 49
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 20 of 23

App. 50
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 21 of 23

App. 51
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 22 of 23

App. 52
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6501 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/06/2022 Pg: 23 of 23

App. 53