So, if anything, Land should be biased against Obama, not in favor of him.
In any event, stock ownership doesn't disqualify a judge from any case unless the company whose stock he owns is a party or has a direct financial interest in the outcome.
Finally, if you think a judge's stock ownership disqualifies him, the law is that you have to say so before the judge rules on your case. Otherwise you can go into the hearing and say, "if I win I won't say anything but if I lose I'll say the judge is biased." Courts don't stand for that kind of gamesmanship.
Yes, that's the general way that the judicial ethics rule is stated. But Ms. Taitz was possibly thinking of the (proverbial) unseen 800 pound gorilla in the room: Obama's FCC, which could possibly harm Comcast (and any shareholder's interest in it) in retaliation if Judge Land didn't dismiss her case against Obama quickly. This administration is capable of things more vindictive than that - it's called "the Chicago way."
Yes, that's the general way that the judicial ethics rule is stated. But Ms. Taitz was possibly thinking of the (proverbial) unseen 800 pound gorilla in the room: Obama's FCC, which could possibly harm Comcast (and any shareholder's interest in it) in retaliation if Judge Land didn't dismiss her case against Obama quickly. This administration is capable of things more vindictive than that - it's called "the Chicago way."