(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).
