Sunday, January 18, 2009

Dr. Brown objects to "Report and Recommendation"

(For clarity, please read this posting twelfth.)
Postings list is to the right on this page.
.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
(ATHENS DIVISION)
.
BRADFORD G. BROWN ................)
Petitioner, .......................................) Civil Case No. 3:05-cv-38
vs. ....................................................) Rule 60(b) Motion
..........................................................) Criminal Case 3:02-cr-14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Respondent. ...................................) District Judge Clay D. Land
________________________)
.
OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
.
COMES NOW Petitioner, and files this objection to this REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION ("Recommendation"), attached as
Exhibit A. In support, Petitioner respectfully states:

MOTION form, Item 12 contains CAUTION
(must contain all grounds).
1.
Item 12 of the MOTION Form for MOTION UNDER 28 USC § 2255
TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE BY A PERSON
IN FEDERAL CUSTODY (Exhibit B) states:
.
12. State concisely every ground on which you claim that you are
being held in violation of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States. Sumarize briefly the facts supporting each ground.
If necessary, you may attach pages stating grounds and facts
supporting same.
.
CAUTION if you fail to set forth all grounds in this motion, you
may be barred from presenting additional grounds at a later date.

MOTION form, Item 12 contains no ground assertion: 1994 tax
due = 0.
2.
In Item 12, there are four grounds for relief presented: 12A, 12B,
12C, and 12D. The ground, "The true tax liability for 1994 was
zero. Therefore, Petitioner could not have been guilty of tax
evasion for tax year 1994, pursuant to United States v.
Edwards, 777 F.2d 644, 650 (11th Cir. 1985)." is not amongst
said grounds. Notwithstanding Petitioner's attorney (Mark
Yurachek) attached the proposition (1994 tax due = 0) to his Brief
in Support of Defendant's Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 USC § 2255, neither Magistrate Judge
Faircloth (in his REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, Doc 85)
nor Judge Lawson(in his ORDER, Doc. 95) was under any
obligation to address said proposition (as none did address same).
.
Ground (1994 tax due = 0) rendered sentence inappropriate.
3.
The conviction sentence imprisonment, fine, and restitution were
determined by the amount of the associated tax loss for all
considered tax years. The associated 1994 conviction year tax
loss was $232,764.00, out of a total of $1,561,400.00. Therefore,
the tax loss was overstated by $232,764.00, rendering the
sentence imprisonment, fine, and restitution inappropriate
(inappropriate tax loss basis).
.
Ground (1994 tax due = 0) required hearing.
.
4.
.
Statute, Title 28 USC § 2255 states, as follows:
Unless the motion and files and records of the case conclusively
show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall
cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney,
grant prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make
findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. Since
the associated conviction tax loss was overstated by more than
two hundred thirty thousand dollars, the files and records of the
case can not conclusively show that prisoner is entitled to no relief.
Edwards.
.
HEARING would have shown1995 tax due = 0. Doc. 168.
.
5.
.
If Petitioner had been granted a hearing, he would have been able
to show, using information provided to his by the Department of
Justice, Tax Division Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") unit,
that he had zero tax liability for both conviction years (1994, 1995),
as he did demonstrate in Doc. 168.
.
HEARING would have shown IRS owed Petitioner for
unacknowledged levy extractions for 1993 forward
(implying fraud). Doc. 201.
.
6.
.
Petitioner requested from FOIA all IRS levy extraction records
for all money that IRS had extracted from insurance company
accounts that was destined to Petitioner for medical services
that Petitioner had rendered to company members for 1993
forward. On April 2, 2008, FOIA provided sixteen (16) pages
of levy extraction records (never before disclosed by IRS).
The per page medical payments yield was $7,140.06. FOIA
informed Petitioner that he must pay $1,176.00 to get the
remaining records (Petitioner paid the fee on April 24, 2008).
This information was in the hands of Petitioner's prosecutors
at the time of trial, implying a fraudulent scheme by said
prosecutors to convict Petitioner. See Petitioner's reply to
to Government's answer, Doc. 201. Note, Recommendation
does not address Doc. 201.
.
HEARING would have shown Petitioner was wrongfully convicted,
involving a fraud scheme by prosecutors at the level of more than
10 million dollars . Doc. 201.
.
7.
.
On July 22, 2008, FOIA informed Petitioner that 1,488 pages of levy
records had been located, and that said records were being sent to
IRS for verification. If the 1,488 per page yield is equal to that for
The 16 pages, the levy money extraction would be $10,624,409.28
(i.e., more than ten million dollars). At this time, the IRS is refusing
to provide the 1,488 pages to Petitioner, prompting him to file
motion to compel disclosure, Doc. 199. Therefore at the time of
Petitioner's tax evasion conviction, he had zero tax liability for all
conviction years, and the IRS owed Petitioner more than ten million
dollars. Hence, Petitioner was wrongfully convicted. See Doc. 201.
.
HEARING would have shown Petitioner was wrongfully
reimprisoned. Doc. 201.
.
8.
.
For all the reasons cited in the above paragraph, Petitioner's
reimprisonment on June 7, 2007 (Doc. 123) was wrongful. See
Doc 201.
.
HEARING would have shown Petitioner was wrongfully
reimprisoned for a second time. Doc. 201.
.
9.
.
For all the reasons cited in the above paragraph, Petitioner's
second reimprisonment on April 14, 2008 (Doc. 182) was
wrongful. See Doc 201.
.
WHEREFORE we have shown the most egregious misconduct
and fraud to fabricate evidence (millions of dollars), involving
Petitioner's attorney as well as prosecuting attorneys to convict
Petitioner, and Petitioner therefore respectfully requests:
.
a. that Recommendation be denied in favor of Petitioner's Motion
for Relief Under Rule 60(b);
.
b. grant Petitioner's Motion to Compel Disclosure, Doc. 199;
.
c. grant Petitioner's Motion for Injunctive Relief, to end his second
(current) wrongful reimprisonment, Doc. 198;
.
d. such other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
.
Respectfully submitted on January 15, 2009 by,
.
/s/ Bradford G. Brown, M.D.
_________________________________
Bradford G. Brown, M.D., ID#: 91022-020
Maxwell Air Force Base Federal Prison Camp
Montgomery B
Montgomery, AL 36112
.
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
.
This is to certify that the undersigned has this day served
interested parties with a copy of the within and forgoing
OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by
depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail with
postage properly affixed thereon, addressed to interested
parties as follows:

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey............ Dean S. Daskal
United States Attorney General................... Assistant U. S. Atty.
Department of Justice ...................................Post Office Box 2568
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. ..................Columbus, GA 31902
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 ....................(706) 649-7700 Ph.
...........................................................................(706) 649-7667 Fax
.
The Honorable Glenn A. Fine....................... Patrick J. Leahy
Office of The Inspector General ...................Chair, Cmte. Judiciary
Department of Justice ...................................433 Russell Ofc. Bldg
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Ste. 4706 .....United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001..................... Washington, D.C.
........................................................................... zip code 20510-0001
.
Frank Maxwell Wood ....................................H. Marshall Jarrett
U. S. Attotney for the ....................................Counsel OPR
Middle District of Georgia ............................U. S. D. O J.
Post Office Box 1702 ....................................950 Penn. Ave NW
......................................................................... Suite 3266
Macon, GA 31202-1702 ..............................Washington, D.C.
......................................................................... zip code 20530
.........................................................................Attn.: Shamelle Lyles
.........................................................................Program Analyst
.
on the 15th day of January, 2009
.
/s/ Bradford G. Brown, M.D..
_______________________________________
Bradford G. Brown, pro se, I# 91022-020
Maxwell Air Force Base, FPC
1001 Willow Street
Montgomery, AL 36112

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Judge Faircloth: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(For clarity, please read this posting eleventh.)
Postings list is to the right on this page.
.
On January 9, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge G. Mallon
Faircloth issued Doc. 203, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
stating as follows:
.
"Only the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge
or member of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in
which an attorney is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the
court." Rozier v. Ford Motor Co. 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir.
1978). "Less egregious misconduct, such as nondisclosure to the
court of facts allegedly pertinent to the matter before it, will not
ordinarily rise to the level of fraud on the court. Id. Thus, "it is
necessary to show an unconscionable plan or scheme which is
designed to improperly influence the court in its decision." Id.
By this authority, even if Attorney Yurachek had maintained
his original reservation and totally withheld the Amended
1994 Tax Return and Collier's Affidavit from the court, that
nondisclosure would not have risen to the level of fraud on the
court. There can not have been a fraud upon the court by either
of the choices Attorney Yurachek might have made. Petitioner
Brown cannot support his claim of fraud upon the court, the only
avenue available to him under Federal Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court noted in Gonzalez,
545 U.S. at 533, 125 S.Ct. at 2648, n. 5, that, "[A]n attack based
on the movant's own conduct, or his habeas counsel's omission
ordinarily does not go to the integrity of the proceedings, but in
effect asks for a second chance to have the merits determined
favorably."
.
All of Brown's claims and arguments, including his faulty claim
of fraud on the court, attempt to gain him a new trial as is
evident from his Motion For Relief From Judgement (Doc. 151)
and his Reply (Doc. 201). This court has had jurisdiction only
to consider Brown's claim of fraud on the court pursuant to Rule
60(b). Having found that claim to be without merit, the court
must recognize the limitation of its jurisdiction and that
Petitioner Brown has failed to invoke its jurisdiction at this
point in this case. For that reason his Motion for Injunctive
Relief (Doc. 198) as to his criminal adjudication and his Motion
for Disclosure (Doc. 199) amount to claims involving challenges
to his conviction and sentence that can be brought only in a
second or successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 2255. This court is
without jurisdiction to entertain such without authorization
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit. 28 U.S.C., Section 2244(b).
.
WHEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner
Brown's Rule 60(b) Motion be DENIED as failing to state a
claim upon which this court may grant relief. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C., Section 60(b)(1), Petitioner may serve and file
written objection to this Recommendation with the UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, WITHIN TEN(10) DAYS after
being served with a copy hereof.
.
SO RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January 2009.
.
S/ G. MALLON FAIRCLOTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Dr. Brown Requests Panel Review of Dismissal

(For clarity, please read this posting tenth.)
Postings list is to the right on this page.

Bradford G. Brown, M.D., ID #: 91022-020
Maxwell Air Force Base Federal Prison Camp
Montgomery B Unit
Montgomery, AL 36112
.
January 15, 2009
.
Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
.
Re: Petition for Panel Review of Order of Dismissal ("ORDER") of
Judicial Complaint No. 110890117 ("COMPLAINT"), Pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C., Section 352 and Addendum Rules 5,6,7 and 15
.
Dear Sir:
.
Judge Land acted as judge and prosecutor:
COMPLAINT provided notice and supporting proof that District
Judge Clay D. Land improperly acted as prosecutor when he
issued Notice of Final Hearing on Final Probation Revocation
(on March 17, 2008) without a request from either party.
ORDER dismissed this allegation, asserting it is "directly related
to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling", pursuant to
Chpter 16 of Title 28 U.S.C., Section 352(b)(1)(A). Petitionmer
does not complain about the decision, rather, Petitioner
complains about the fact that Judge Land acted as judge as well
as prosecutor. This prejudiced the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the Court, as Judge Land
became both judge and prosecutor (rendering the failure of the
judicial system). I therefore respectfully request Panel Review
of ORDER.
.
Judge Land refused to rule on any exonerative motions
(there were many):
COMPLAINT provided notice and supporting proof that Judge
Clay D. Land refused to rule on any exoneratived motions, of
which [DE-168 March 26, 2008] is one example; DE-198
(August 8, 2008), DE-199 (August 18, 2008), and DE-201
(October 9, 2008) are other such examples. ORDER asserts
that "the record clearly reveals that Judge Land issued a ruling,
unfavorable to Mr. Brown, fifty four days after the motion was
filed" [i.e., fifty four days after DE-168 which would be May 19,
2008]. With due respect, on May 19, 2008, Magistrate Judge
Faircloth (under the supervision of District Judge Clay D. Land)
issued order, denying DE-156 (DE-156 was request by
Petitioner for a stay, pending DE-151 ruling). Said ruling was
unfavorable to Petitioner, but it was not a ruling on DE-168.
As of the current date, DE-168 has not received a ruling from
any judge.
.
Note that DE-168 uses Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")
information from Department of Justice, Tax Division to
demonstrate that Petitioner had zero tax liability for all
conviction years (1994, 1995) at the time of trial, implying
innocence pursuant to United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d
644, 650 (11th Cir. 1985). The implication of this fact is that
Petitioner is an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted,
and continues to be wrongfully imprisoned (a fact that continues
to be possible because Judge Land refused to rule on exonerative
motions, such as DE-168, DE-198, DE-199 and DE-201).
.
Also, note that DE-201(October 9, 2008) uses FOIA information
to demonstrate that IRS extracted an estimated sum exceeding
ten million dollars from Petitioner for years, 1993 forward (a fact
that was not disclosed to Petitioner or jury at the time of trial).
To obtain the FOIA information that would provide the exact
information in place of the estimate referenced above, Petitioner
filed DE-199, Motion to Compel Disclosure of the 1,488 pages of
levy extraction records located by FOIA (paid for by Petitioner
$1,176.00) and sent to IRS instead of Petitioner. FOIA did send
16 pages of levy extraction records that amounted to
$114,241.00 in medical payments (implying average per page
levy extraction amount was $7,140.06), which implies 1,488
pages would yield 1,488 times $7,140.06 = $10,624,409.28
(ten million, six hundred twenty four thousand, four hundred
nine dollars and twenty eight cents). Therefore, Petitioner is an
innocent man wrongfully convicted for tax evasion (while IRS
owes him more than ten million dollars), and remains wrongfully
imprisoned because Judge Land refuses to rule on exonerative
motions that have been pending before him (since October 9,
2008 for DE-201) for almost one year (since March 26, 2008
in the case of DE-168).
.
This prejudiced (and continues to do so) the effective and
expeditious administration of the business of the Court,
rendering the continued failure of the judicial system. Said
conduct is willful. Petitioner therefore respectfully requests
Panel Review of ORDER.
.
Judge Land allowed docket record to be misrepresented:
COMPLAINT provided notice and supporting proof that Judge
Clay D. Land, as supervising district judge, allowed Magistrate
Judge Faircloth to issue erroneous order on June 12, 2008
(DE-189, Order Staying 151 Motion Pending Appeal). No
appeal was pending on June 12, 2008 (this was a clear
misrepresentation of the docket record). Petitioner notified
the Court of said erroneous order (July 17, 2008) by filing
DE-193, Motion to Correct Erroneous Order. DE-193 is yet
to receive a ruling, and erroroneous order DE-189 is yet to
be corrected (this issue was not addressed by ORDER). The
effect of this unaddressed order (DE-189) is to facilitate the
continued avoidance of a ruling on the pending exonerative
motions (facilitating the continued wrongful punishment of
an innocent man).
.
Judge Land ignoed request to issue subpoena:
COMPLAINT provided notice and supporting proof that Judge
Clay D. Land ignored Petitioner's request to order Clerk to
issue subpoena for the IRS levy records (1,488 pages, the
subject of DE-199 Motion to Compel Disclosure), for which
Petitioner paid $1,176.00 to FOIA.
.
This conduct effected a continuation of the prejudice of the
effective and expeditious administration of the business of
the Court, guaranteeing continued failure of the judicial system
(Petitioner known to be innocent, the proof of which is held in
the hands of District Judge Clay D. Land, continues to be
wrongfully imprisoned and punished because Judge Land
stands by and will not act). I therefore respectfully request
Panel Review of ORDER.
.
With respect,



/s/ Bradford G. Brown, M.D.
________________________________
Bradford G. Brown, M.D., ID#: 91022-020
Maxwell Air Force Base Federal Prison Camp
Montgomery B Unit
Montgomery, AL 36112

Friday, January 9, 2009

Judicial Complaint Dismissed on Technicality

(For clarity, please read this posting ninth.)
Postings list is to the right on this page.

On December 23, 2008, clerk of the Eleventh Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals sent the following letter to Dr. Bradford G. Brown:
.
United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
.
Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk
In Replying Give Number Of Case and Names of Parties
December 23, 2008
.
CONFIDENTIAL
.
Bradford G. Brown
ID# 91022-020
FPC Maxwell AFB
Montgomery, AL 36112
.
RE: Judicial Complaint No. 110890117
IN THE MATTER OF: Bradford G. Brown
.
Dear Mr. Brown
.
Enclosed is an order of Chief Circuit Judge J. L. Edmondson that has been received and filed in this office which is effective as the date filed. This determines the complaint of judicial misconduct or disability earlier filed by you pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., Sections 351 et seq. 364, the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability of the United States Judicial Conference, and Addendum III of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit.
Sincerely,
.
THOMAS K. KAHN, Clerk
.
Reply To: Ed McElhenney (404) 335-6577
.
Encl.
.
c:
Hon. Clay D. Land
Clerk's Secure File
________________________________________
________________________________________
CONFIDENTIAL
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE
OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Judicial Complaint No. 110890117
IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT FILED BY BRADFORD G. BROWN
.
_________________________________________________
IN RE: The complaint of Bradford G. Brown, against, Clay D. Land,
United States District Judge for the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia, under Chapter 16 of Title 28 U.S.C.,
Section 352(b)(1)(A)
_________________________________________________
.
ORDER
.
Mr. Bradford G. Brown filed this complaint against U. S. District Judge Clay D. Land, pursuant to Chapter 16 of Title 28 U. S. C., Section 352(b)(1)(A).
.
Mr. Brown complains that Judge Land improperly acted as prosecutor when he issued a Notice of Final Hearing on Final Probation Revocation without a request from either party. Mr. Brown also alleges that Judge Land refused to rule on an exonerative motion [DE-168], even though the record clearly reveals that Judge Land issued a ruling, unfavorable to Mr. Brown, fifty four days after the motion was filed.
.
The allegations of this Complaint are "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling". Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 16 of Title 28 U.S. C., Section 352(b)(1)(A) this Complaint is DISMISSED.
.
/s/ J. L. Edmondson
---------------------
Chief Judge

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Judicial Complaint against Judge Clay D. Land

(For clarity, please read this posting eighth.)
Postings list is to the right on this page.
On December 01, 2008, Dr. Brown filed Judicial Complaint (No. 110890117 with Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council) against District Judge Clay. D. Land, regarding his misconduct in criminal case 3:02-cr-14 (civil appeal case 3:05-cv-38) with associated facts, as follows:

REFUSED TO RULE ON EXONERATIVE MOTIONS;
INITIATED UNREQUESTED ACTION TO REIMPRISON PETITIONER;
IGNORED SUBPOENA REQUEST (all to detriment of Petitioner)
Judge Clay D. Land was assigned to instant case on March 17, 2008, at which time exonertive motions were pending (or became pending shortly thereafter) that demonstrated that Petitioner, not only did not owe any tax liability at the time of his tax evasion trial (for tax years 1994, 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 Petitioner by the Department of Justice, Tax Division Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") division. Said motions are described in the attached INDEX of docket entry ("Doc.") numbers (i.e., posting number seven of this blog). Of particular note are:
1. Doc. 121 10-23-2006 Motion for Reconsideration of Restitution and Fine - shows 1994 tax liability was zero.
2. Doc. 151 10-12-2007 Petitioner's 60(b) motion shows his Section 2255 attorney, Mark Yurachek, committed fraud upon the Court by refusing to assert "1994 liability was zero, as 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 shows extraordinary circumstances, "FOIA information arrived to demonstrate that at time of trial, Government had information that proved Petitioner 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 Government did not request revocation action, we have Doc. 162 on 03-18-2008, Government Motion for Clarification of Hearing Notice, in which Assistant U. S. Attorney ("AUSA") 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 appearance of impartiality. He subverted the administration of the business of the Court by ignoring pending exonerative motions. Doc 168 on 03-26-2008 (well before the hearing of 04-03-2008) established from FOIA records, Petitioner owed zero tax liability for conviction years (1994, 1995) to render tax evasion impossible, pursuant to United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644, 650 (11th Cir. 1985). Prosecutor AUSA Jennifer Kolman, at revocation hearing, acknowledged that Petitioner had no tax liability by withdrawing allegation 5. Doc. 177, p. 4, 6:12p.m.
.
Petitioner issued FOIA request on February 25, 2008 for IRS levy records for money extracted from insurance company accounts destined for him as payments for medical services rendered to their members for years, 1993 forward. On March 28, 2008, FOIA responded, indicating 23 boxes of IRS levy documentation resulted. On April 2, 2008, FOIA provided 16 pages from the 23 boxes reflecting 16 pages with levy amount of $114,241.00. Petitioner was informed that he must pay $1,176.00 for them to process the remaining boxes for levy pages. Petitioner paid the $1,176.00 fee, and on July 212, 2008, Petitioner was informed that the remaining boxes had yielded 1,488 pages; further, FOIA asserted that the 1,488 pages were being sent to the IRS for confirmation. IRS refuses to send the 1,488 pages to Petitioner (see letter from IRS, dated October 28, 2008, attached to Complaint 110890117 as Exhibit 5). Help is needed from the Court to compel disclosure (Judge Land has ignored request to order Clerk to issue subpoena). See Exhibit 6 of Complaint 110890117. Also, see Doc. 172, 175, 201.
.
If the per page yield for the 1,488 equals that for the 16 pages, the estimated levy extraction from Petitioner would be $10,624,409.28 (far in excess of tax liability attached to Petitioner's conviction). In light of this information, on 08-08-2008, Petitioner filed Doc. 198, Motion for Injunctive Relief. Also, on 08-18-2008, Petitioner filed Doc. 199, Motion to Compel Disclosure of the 1,488 levy pages. Both motions have been ignored.
.
As a result of Judge Land's unrequested action in the face of exonerative pending motions, we have Petitioner in prison for a crime for which his guilt is impossible (all because Judge Land refuses to rule on the motions that offer the Government's own proof if innocence - zero tax liability, Edwards, supra). In so doing, Judge Land prejudiced the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the Court (rendering clear judicial misconduct).
.
ALLOWED DOCKET MISREPRESENTATION "Fraud upon the Court"
On June 12, 20087, Magistrate Judge G. Mallon Faircloth issued Doc. 189, Order Staying 151 Motion Pending Appeal (asserting that Petitioner's motion for relief under Rule 60(b) can not proceed in District because Petitioner has an appeal pending in U. S. Court of Appeals). This assertion is a blatant misrepresentation of the docket sheet record in this case. In response, Petitioner filed Doc. 193, Motion to Correct Erroneous Order (Doc. 189 is contained in Doc. 193, as Exhibit A). Doc.193 is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 (ignored by Judge Land).
.
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 Petitioner's 60(b) motion, which was issued by Magistrate Judge Faircloth on October 19, 2007). However, Doc. 197 was issued approximately nine (9) months after Doc. 152, causing Petitioner 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 Petitioner's exonerative motions after Doc. 151, before Doc. 198 (prejudicing effective, expeditious administration of the business of the Court).