Whether the fact that the contempt charge was brought in response to Brian Clark's petition for a writ of prohibition required Judge Williams to recuse himself to comply with Brian Clark's due process rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The petitioner, Brian Hampton Clark (“Brian Clark”) seeks reversal of a conviction of contempt of court entered by the Honorable David V. Williams, chief judge of the Circuit Court of Patrick County, Virginia (“Judge Williams”) on grounds Judge Williams erred in denying Brian Clark’s motion for recusal of Judge Williams in this case. Brian Clark contends that Judge Williams’ denial of such recusal motion denied Brian Clark his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The questions for consideration by this Court are as follows: 1. Whether the fact that the contempt charge in this case was openly brought in response to Brian Clark’s petition for a writ of prohibition in the Virginia Supreme Court joining as respondent one of the judges of the Circuit Court of Patrick County, Virginia (“the trial court”) required that the Honorable David V. Williams (‘Judge Williams”), chief judge of the trial court, to comply with Brian Clark’s federal due process rights, to grant Brian Clark’s motion that Judge Williams recuse himself? 2. Whether the totality of the circumstances indicated that an average judge in the position of Judge Williams would have a “potential for bias” so as to require his recusal to comply with Brian Clark’s federal due process rights, where (a) Judge Williams had previously issued a written ii opinion stating that Brian Clark had “paranoid” views; (b) along with other judges of the trial court, Judge Williams had recused himself from Brian Clark’s divorce case; (c) Judge Williams would not have issued the contempt charge except that Judge Clark suggested he do so in response to Brian Clark filing an action in a higher court joining Judge Clark as respondent; (d) the outcome of the contempt charge in this case pending when Brian Clark moved for recusal at that time carried a manifest potential to affect the petition for prohibition (solely on state law grounds) then pending in the Virginia Supreme Court, and a case Brian Clark filed in federal court also challenging (solely on federal law grounds) Judge Clark’s order, issued without notice or opportunity for hearing conditioning Brian Clark’s access to the clerk’s office of the trial court on conditions not imposed on the general public; and (f) Judge Williams, in discussing linkage between the case Brian Clark filed in the Virginia Supreme Court and the contempt charge stated, “Well, the matter raised was your client didn’t have a chance to have a hearing, which is want your client wanted.”?