Judge Land Allowed Docket Misrepresentation

(For clarity, please read this posting sixth.)

Postings list is to the right on this page.

On June 12, 2008, Magistrate Judge G. Mallon Faircloth issued Doc. 189, Order Staying 151 Motion Pending Appeal (asserting that Dr. Brown's motion under Rule 60(b) can not proceed in District Court because he has an appeal pending in the U. S. Court of Appeals). This assertion is a blatant misrepresentation of the docket sheet record in this case. In response, Dr. Brown filed Doc. 193, Motion to Correct Erroneous Order, on July 17, 2008. Doc. 193 was ignored by Judge Land (fraud upon the Court)

On July 29, 2008, Magistrate Judge Faircloth issued Doc. 197, Order Lifting Stay And Order to Answer. This is equivalent to Doc. 152 (the original order to the Government to respond to Dr. Brown's 60(b) motion for relief, which was issued by Magistrate Judge Faircloth on October 19, 2007). However, Doc. 197 was issued approximately nine (9) months after Doc. 152, causing Dr. Brown to lose the benefit of all the exonerative FOIA discoveries that were presented to the Court between October 19, 2007 and July 29, 2008. This nullified all of Dr. Brown's exonerative motions after Doc. 151, before Doc. 198 (prejudicing the effective expeditious administration of the business of the Court). In response, Dr. Brown filed Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 110890117 against Judge Land, with the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council.

Judge Land Ignored Levy Records Subpoena

(For clarity, please read this posting fifth.)

Postings list is to the right on this page.

IRS conducted levy, 1993 forward:
On February 25, 2008, Dr. Brown made FOIA request for all records resulting from levy activity against insurance account funds intended for Dr. Brown for medical services rendered to members by Dr. Brown, 1993 forward.

FOIA located 23 boxes of levy information:
On March 28, 2008, FOIA responded (indicating 23 boxes of IRS levy documentation resulted). As a result, Dr. Brown filed Doc. 172, DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED REPLY TO SHOW EXISTENCE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING A DEFECT IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS (attaching FOIA notice as Exhibit B). The amount of money extracted from Dr. Brown, repesented by the 23 boxes, is critical to a rational understanding of Dr. Brown's income tax liability picture. The IRS never disclosed to Dr. Brown the money quantity of this protracted levy extraction, and neither did it share same with the trial jury, rendering a strikingly bizarre Giglio extraordinary circumstance. See Dr. Brown's amended reply Doc. 168 (Giglio violation characterization).

On March 28, 2008, Dr. Brown requested FOIA to render all twenty-odd boxes under "expedited request" and "fee waiver", pursuant to public interest in understanding the operations and activities of our Government to prevent the devastating and torturous punishment of an innocent American citizen. See Exhibit C of Doc. 172.

In Doc. 172, Dr. Brown asked the Court to order FOIA to render all boxes of levy records, in expedited fashion with fees waived. Judge Land ignore Dr. Brown's requests, Doc. 168 and Doc. 172, by never ruling.

On April 2, 2008, FOIA provided to Dr. Brown sixteen (16) pages of levy records from the first two boxes (from the total of 23 boxes). The amount of levy extraction money represented by the 16 pages is $114,241.00. See Doc. 201, Exhibit B, for verification.

FOIA denied Dr. Brown's request for fee waiver for the remaining levy record, and demanded $1,176.00 for production of same. Dr. Brown paid the $1,176.00 on April 24, 2008. See Exhibit D of Doc. 201 for verification of payment.

FOIA located 1,488 pages of potentially responsive levy information:
On July 22, 2008, FOIA notified me (Martin L. Brown) that they had completed their review and that they had identified 1,488 pages that appear to be responsive to Dr. Brown's request of February 25, 2008. See Exhibit B of Doc. 199, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE for FOIA certified response letter. FOIA informed me that they were sending the 1,488 pages to the IRS for verification. Recall that FOIA refers to Freedom of Information Act component of the Department of Justice, Tax Division (which acts as legal counsel for the IRS, a fine distinction).
The IRS has informed me that they will not disclose the levy records. See (IRS letter) Exhibit 4 of Doc. 202, MOTION TO RECUSE, submitted to Judge Land.

1,488 levy pages represent estimated extraction of $10,624,409.28:
Given that the 16 levy pages provided to Dr. Brown on April 2, 2008 contained $114,241.00, the money average yield per page is $7,140.06. Therefore, 1,488 pages would represent $10,624,409.28. This quantity of money owed to Dr. Brown by the IRS dwarfs the tax liability associated with Dr. Brown's tax evasion case, rendering guilt an impossibility, Edwards.

Subpoena for the 1,488 is needed for exact value for estimate above:
This is an estimate, and Dr. Brown wants the levy records so that he has exact knowledge of how much the IRS extracted from him by way of its levy extractions, 1993 forward. Judge Land ignored subpoena request for the 1,488 pages of levy records, and in response, Dr. Brown filed Doc. 202, MOTION TO RECUSE, requesting recusal of Judge Land. This issue was also included in the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council complaint against Judge Land (Complaint No. 110890117), filed by Dr. Brown on December 1, 2008.

Judge Land responded with an unnumbered text only docket entry (i.e., there is no docket document) order, denying Dr. Brown's motion request for his recusal.

Wrongful Reimprisonment Number 2

(For clarity, please read this posting fourth.)

Postings list is to the right on this page.

On March 17, 2008, Judge Clay D. Land was assigned to Dr. Brown's case, at which time exonerative motions were pending (or became pending shortly thereafter) that demonstrated that Dr. Brown, not only did not owe any tax at the time of his tax evasion trial (for years 1994 and 1995), but was owed money by the IRS - estimated to be more than ten million dollars, based on the documents that have been disclosed to Dr. Brown by the Department of Justice, Tax Division Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") agency.

Judge Land committed misconduct as follows:
a. refused to rule on exonerative motions;
b. initiated unrequested action to reimprison Dr. Brown;
c. ignored subpoena request for FOIA levy documents (representing more than ten million dollars), for which Dr. Brown had already paid;
d. allowed docket misrepresentation (fraud upon the Court).

Dr. Brown reported this conduct by judge Land to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Counsel on December 1, 2008 in COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 110890117. The response of the Judicial Council to this complaint is now pending.

On the day that Judge Land arrived (March 17, 2008) or shortly thereafter, exonerative motions were pending, as follows:
1. Doc. 121 10-23-2006 Motion for Reconsideration of Restitution and Fine - showed 1994 true tax liability was zero;
2. Doc. 151 10-12-2007 Motion for Relief from Judgement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), pursuant to Fraud upon the Court. In Dr. Brown's Section 2255 appeal motion, Attorney Mark Yurachek committed fraud upon the Court by refusing to assert "1994 true tax liability was zero, as a ground for relief" in spite of being asked in writing to do so;
3. Doc. 168 03-26-2008 Amended Reply to Response to Petitioner's 60(b) motion. This motion shows extraordinary circumstances,"FOIA information arrived to demonstrate that at the time of trial, IRS had information that proved Dr. Brown owed zero tax for all conviction years, 1994 and 1995".

In the face of these pending exonerative motions, Judge Land effectuated unrequested damaging action by issuing, on March 17, 2008, Notice of Hearing on Final Probation Revocation Hearing set for 04-03-2008. Since the Government prosecutor did not request this revocation action, he issued Doc. 162 on 03-18-2008, Government Motion for Clarification of Hearing Notice, in which Assistant United States Attorney Dean Daskal asserts, "The docket sheet does not reflect that a revocation petition of any nature is pending before the Court." This shows that Judge Land acted as Prosecutor - losing his appearance of impartiality towards Dr. Brown. In so doing, Judge Land was subverting the administration of the business of the Court, and rendering himself unqualified to preside over Dr. brown's case, pursuant to Title 28, Section 455(a).

This standard "appearance of impartiality to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process" was set by the Supreme Court in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. 466 U.S. 847, 860 (1988).

Judge Land held the revocation hearing on April 3, 2008, in which Attorney Jennifer Kolman acted as prosecutor (Chief Judge Hugh Lawson was also in attendance). At the revocation hearing, Dr. Brown informed the Court that FOIA had provided on the preceding day (April 2, 2008), 16 pages of levy records that appeared to be responsive to Dr. Brown's FOIA request of February 25, 2008 for IRS levy extractions from insurance accounts destined to Dr. Brown for medical services provided to their members by Dr. Brown for years 1993 until the present. The 16 pages were from the first two boxes (from a total of 23 boxes), and only contained some of the activity for 1994 and 1995. To formalize this exonerative disclosure to the Court, Dr. Brown filed Doc. 175 on the day of the revocation hearing (April 3, 2008). Upon this (levy) disclosure by Dr. Brown, Prosecutor Jennifer Kolman moved the Court to dismiss allegation 5 (this is the allegation concerning Dr. Brown's restitution obligation). This was a tacit admission by Prosecutor Kolman that Dr. Brown owed no tax liability for the conviction years, which implies tax evasion is impossible for said years, United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644, 650 (11th Cir. 1985). See Doc. 177, Minutes Entry for revocation proceeding before Judge Land (page 4, 6:12 p.m.) for Prosecutor Kolman's request for dismissal.

Under these extraordinary circumstances, Judge Land revoked Dr. Brown's supervised release (for failure to work regularly) and sentenced Dr. Brown back to prison for 14 months.

Note that, on June 3, 2005, Dr. Brown suffered a back injury while working on a prison work detail, which caused him to be unable to walk for an extended period of time. Upon release from prison, the residual effects persists until the present. The verification of this fact arrived May 28, 2008 in the form of an FOIA response to a request (to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), Request No. 2008-06964) that Dr. Brown made for the medical records, maintain by BOP on Dr. Brown.

Wrongful Reimprisonment Number 1

(For clarity, please read this posting third.)

Postings list is to the right on this page.

On January 10, 2007, Dr. Bradford G. Brown's case (Case 3:02-cr-14) was reassigned to Judge C. Ashley Royal from Judge Hugh Lawson.

On that day (January 10, 2007), Dr. Brown filed Doc. 122, MOTION TO AMEND MOTION FOR RECONDERATION OF RESTITUTION AND FINE. Doc. 122 was an effort to inform the Court of the further discoveries of Dr. Brown's true tax liability for the conviction years, in light of the defensive filings (by CPA Arthur Smith) that were the basis for the conviction.

Doc. 122 was the result of careful review of the records provided to Dr. Brown during the reciprocal discovery period just before trial and claiming never before taken deductions:
a. nontaxable deposits that had been treated as taxable by CPA Smith's defensive filing strategy; b. business expenses that had been ignored by CPA Smith's defensive filing strategy.

The result was that for all conviction years (1994, 1995), Dr. Brown's tax liability was zero (amended returns for 1994, 1995) had at that point been formally presented to the Court and the IRS. Therefore, pursuant to Edwards, tax evasion for the conviction years (1994, 1995) was impossible.

Doc. 121 and Doc. 122 (motions for reconsideration of restitution and fine) have never been ruled on. Judge Royal never took any action on Doc. 121 or Doc. 122.

On January 29, 2007, Doc. 123 (MOTION for Action re: Defendant's Probation/Supervised Release for Bradford G. Brown) was entered. This was a sealed motion (i.e., no one has ever seen this motion). That same day (January 29, 2007), Judge Royal entered ORDER (Doc. 124) for Dr. Brown be summoned to answer Doc. 123, at HEARING scheduled for February 27, 2007 and later rescheduled for March 1, 2007, and again for March 9, 2007.

On February 15, 2007, Attorney Charles Cox was appointed to represent Dr. Brown during the revocation proceedings (as Dr. Brown was without counsel). Dr. Brown and I explained to Attorney Cox that Doc. 121 and Doc. 122 were pending (i.e., evidence of zero tax liability for the conviction years was on hand). Attorney Cox took the position that it would not be wise to raise the issue of Doc. 121 and Doc. 122, as it would not sit well with Judge Royal (and would likely evoke an unpleasant response). We are aware that this conduct by Attorney Cox is inconsistent with minimum acceptable standards for client advocacy (specified by the State Bar of Georgia). However, Attorney Cox is a small player in this drama (unworthy of focus at the moment). We shall invite Attorney Cox before the State Bar of Georgia to answer for his misconduct in due course.

On March 9, 2007, Judge Royal revoked Dr. Brown's supervised release and sentenced him to 3 months in prison (ordered to surrender on June 7, 2007 to begin serving) .