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

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

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

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

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).

INDEX List of Important Pleadings

(For clarity, please read this posting seventh.)

Postings list is to the right on this page.

Dr. Brown's case (3:02-cr-14) docket ("Doc.") contains all referenced documents at the Middle District of Georgia Courthouse in Macon, Georgia. Dr. Brown made numerous requests from the Department of Justice, Tax Division Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") division. Therefore, a reference below to FOIA is a reference to this entity. One accepted standard in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for proof of innocence of tax evasion is zero tax liability for the considered tax year, according to the landmark case : United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644, 650 (11th Cir. 1985). We shall use this fact often below, by referring to Edwards. We present important pleading documents in date order below; we note that those motions that were exonerative to Dr. Brown are still pending (i.e., have not received a ruling from a judge):

Doc. 121 10-23-2006 Motion for Reconsideration of Restitution and Fine - showed 1994 tax liability was zero, using existing records (and information provided by IRS Agent James Kohler on March 30, 2004). IRS return and affidavit were produced by Certified Public Accountant Edisel Collier. Note that Dr. Brown's evasion conviction was for tax years, 1994 and 1995.

Doc. 122 01-10-2007 Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Restitution and Fine - showed 1994 and 1995 tax liabilities were zero, using Doc. 121 and existing records. IRS return for 1995 was not produced by a Certified Public Accountant.

Doc. 151 10-12-2007 Motion for Relief from Judgement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) Pursuant to Fraud Upon the Court - showed that Dr. Brown's Section 2255 attorney (Mark A. Yurachek, with the knowledge of presiding judge - Hugh Lawson) committed fraud upon the Court, by refusing to assert "1994 tax liability equals zero, as ground for relief" in spite of being asked to do so (in writing more than once). See Doc. 88 12-07-2005 for Judge Lawson's letter to Dr. Brown that asserts, "Dear Dr. Brown: I have your letter of November 30, 2005, in which you request that I order the Grievance Committee to investigate Mark Yurachek's handling of your 2255 petition for relief. I do not believe that your disagreement with your attorney about the substance of your section 2255 petition is the proper subject of a Grievance Committee investigation and I decline to refer the matter to them."

Note that Section 2255 refers to the statute, Title 28 - Section 2255, that allows a federal defendant to present to the Court evidence that would justify setting aside or correcting his conviction and sentence (within one year after the time allowed said defendant to petition the Supreme Court for appeal of his criminal conviction judgement). This is a kind of last chance appeal, available to the defendant. Also, fraud upon the Court (the intentional misleading of the Court by a lawyer or a judge) is forbidden by Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Doc. 152 10-19-2007 ORDER TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) PURSUANT TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT - issued by Magistrate Judge G. Mallon Faircloth for the Government to respond to Doc. 151 within 60 days.

Doc. 154 11-01-2007 JUDGEMENT of U. S. Court of Appeals, re: 137 notice of appeal. Brown's revocation of supervised release and accompanying sentence affirmed (CCA# 07-11354). - showed that Dr. Brown's notice of appeal (Doc. 137) had been resolved by mandate of the U. S. Court of Appeals on November 1, 2007.

Note that Judge Faircloth will issue (erroneous order) Doc. 189 06-12-2008 to assert that Dr. Brown had the appeal associated with Doc. 137 still pending resolution at the U. S. Court of Appeals, requiring a STAY of Doc. 151 (i. e., Doc. 151 must be put on hold). This is a misrepresentation of the docket record in this case.

In response, Dr. Brown issued Doc. 193 07-17-2008 Motion to Correct Erroneous Order. On July 29, 2008, Judge Faircloth will issue Doc. 197 07-29-2008 ORDER LIFTING STAY AND ORDER TO ANSWER. This gives the impression that Judge Faircloth is correcting the erroneous order (Doc. 189), but he really is not, since we have a nine (9) month gap (from November 1, 2007 until July 29, 2008) within which no action is taken on the exonerative motion, Doc. 151 (even though the Government has met its Doc. 152 responsibility to respond within 60 days).

This could be interpreted as a good faith mistake in the absence of Doc. 193 07-17-2008, which makes it clear that November 1, 2007 is the resolution date for Doc. 137. Therefore, Judge Faircloth willfully continues the misrepresentation when he ignores Doc. 193 and orders the Government to answer again in Doc. 197 07-29-2008. This constitutes fraud upon the Court by Judge Faircloth. Note that Judge Land was the district judge to whom this case was currently assigned, and was therefore responsible for the case administration (thus, shared in this fraud upon the Court).

Doc. 155 12-11-2007 GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO BROWN'S PRO SE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT - asserted that Dr. Brown should prevail only if he could show (not only innocence), but he must also show (extraordinary circumstances affecting the integrity of the judgement proceeding).

Note that Dr. Brown will show innocence (i.e., zero tax liability for both conviction years, 1995 and 1995), since tax evasion is not possible in the face of zero tax liability according to Edwards case. He will show extraordinary circumstances, because he will use the Government's records to do so (FOIA records). In addition, the Government extracted levy money (more than ten million dollars) from Dr. Brown (without notifying him) over a period of time, 1993 until the present. Dr. Brown simply thought that the insurance companies were just refusing to pay him (in reality, the IRS had initiated a levy extraction process that redirected insurance payments from Dr. Brown over to the IRS). This will be made clear in Doc. 201.

Doc. 156 12-18-2007 MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 62(b) PENDING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) PURSUANT TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT - requested stay of remaining unsatisfied aspects of the criminal judgement of conviction and sentence until a ruling on Doc. 151.

Doc. 157 12-18-2007 DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) PURSUANT TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT - showed 1994 and 1995 tax liabilities were zero, based on Doc. 121 and Doc. 122.

Case Reassignment 03-17-2008 Case 3:02-cr-14 assigned to Judge Clay D. Land from Judge C. Ashley Royal.

Notice of Hearing 03-17-2008 - unrequested supervised release action initiated by Judge Land, scheduled for 04-03-2008.

Doc. 162 03-18-2008 Government Motion for Clarification of Hearing Notice - since the Government did not request a revocation hearing, Assistant U. S. Attorney Dean Daskal asserts, "The notice declares that this defendant shall have a final probation revocation hearing on April 3, 2008. However, the defendant is not subject to sentence of probation. After he was imprisoned and later released pursuant to the judgement of conviction, defendant's supervised release was revoked in early 2007, and he was sentenced to serve 3 months. (Doc. Nos. 135 and 136). On appeal, the revocation and sentence were affirmed. (Doc. No. 154). The docket sheet does not reflect that a revocation petition of any nature is pending before the Court."

Note. At this point, Judge Land had lost "the appearance of impartiality towards Dr. Brown". He had begun to act as "prosecutor against Dr. Brown"; therefore, had become disqualified to preside over Dr. Brown's case (as presiding judge), pursuant to Title 28, Section 455(a).

Doc. 168 03-26-2008 DEFENDANT'S 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 - shows "extraordinary circumstances". FOIA information arrived on Junuary 30, 2008 to demonstrate that at the time of trial, Government had IRS generated BANK DEPOSIT ANALYSIS, BRADFORD G. BROWN, MD PC ("MDPC") report that showed that the returns of record taxable deposit income (imputed to Dr. Brown) was overstated as follows: 1994 taxable MDPC deposits = $608,222.11, and 1995 taxable MDPC deposits = $436,913.23; it should have been 1994 taxable MDPC deposits = $44,995.89, and 1995 taxable MDPC deposits = $61,171.77. Therefore, the returns of record at the time of trial overstated Dr. Brown's taxable income by $563,226.22 for 1994, and by $375,741.46 for 1995.

When this pleading was filed, supporting FOIA documentation for above mentioned overstatement of taxable income (containing complete detail, front and back of cancelled checks, etc.) was submitted to the docket in the form of three books, as follows: MDPC Deposit Analysis 1994 1995, Book 1; MDPC Deposit Analysis 1994 1995, Book 2; BDC Deposit Analysis & Bank Statements 1995.

The FOIA information contained unclaimed (on the returns of record) deductible disbursements as follows: 1994 unclaimed deductible disbursements of $333,434.97; 1995 unclaimed deductible disbursements of $1,045,326.12.

When this pleading was filed, supporting FOIA documentation for above mentioned unclaimed deductible disbursements (containing complete detail, front and back of cancelled checks, etc.) was submitted to the docket in the form of three books, as follows: MDPC, BBS 1995 Expense Checks; BDC 1995 Expense Checks; MDPC, BDC 1994 Expense Checks.

1994: conviction associated tax loss was $232,764.00. Overstated taxable income was $608,222.11. Unclaimed deductible disbursements were $333,434.97. This implies a 1994 tax liability of $232,764.00 - .33($608,222.11 + $333,434.97) = $232,764.00 - $310,746.83 = minus $77,982.83 (i.e., 1994 tax liability is less than zero).

1995: conviction associated tax loss was $341,476.00. Overstated taxable income was $375,741.46. Unclaimed deductible disbursements were $1,045,326.12. This implies a 1995 tax liability of $341,476.00 - .33($375,741.46 + $1,045,326.12) = $341,476.00 - $468,952.30 = minus $127,476.33 (i.e., 1995 tax liability is less than zero).

Therefore, this pleading (using only FOIA provided information) shows, "the true tax liability for all conviction years (1994, 1995) was less than zero". This renders tax evasion for the conviction years (1994 and 1995) impossible according to the Edwards standard.

Doc. 172 03-31-2008 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 - FOIA information (resulting from request of February 25, 2008) arrived to show 23 boxes of IRS records were being searched for IRS levy extractions from insurance company accounts of payments to Dr. Brown for medical services that he had rendered to said insurance company members.

Note that since it was established in Doc. 168 (using only FOIA records) that Dr. Brown had zero tax liability for the conviction years (1994, 1995), these levy extractions are owed back to Dr. Brown. Hence, not only does Dr. Brown not owe the IRS for the conviction years (1994, 1995), the IRS owes Dr. Brown for said years. This surely qualifies as, "extraordinary circumstances" involving the integrity of the underlying criminal judgement, as well as the Section 2255 proceedings. This pleading is still pending (i.e., no judge has ruled on this motion).

Doc. 175 04-03-2008 DEFENDANT'S THIRD 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 - FOIA information arrived (April 2, 2008) to demonstrate that sixteen (16) pages of levy extraction records had been located. Those 16 pages came from the first two boxes, and were only some of the extractions for 1994 and 1995 (more than twenty boxes remain to be examined). The amount of extractions was $114,241.00 (a more complete explanation will be given in Doc. 201).

Hearing 04-03-2008 Unrequested Supervised Release Revocation Hearing (ordered by Judge Land and also attended by Chief Judge Hugh Lawson) - was held.

Doc. 177 04-03-2008 Minutes Entry for revocation proceeding before Judge Land - Dr. Brown informed the Court that Doc. 168 was pending (since 03-26-2008) indicating by means of FOIA supplied information that the true tax liability for all conviction years (1994, 1995) was zero. Also, Dr. Brown went on to inform the Court that Doc. 175 was just filed (also totally based on FOIA supplied information), indicating that (not only did he have zero tax liability for the conviction years) the IRS owed levy extraction to Dr. Brown for more than $114,241.00 for said years. At that point, Prosecutor Assistant U. S. Attorney Jennifer Kolman moved the Court to dismiss allegation 5 (allegation pertaining to restitution). This exchange is found on page 4, at 6:12p.m.

This is acknowledgement by Prosecutor Kolman that Dr. Brown had zero liability for the conviction years. Judge Land proceeded to find Dr. Brown guilty of "failure to work regularly", and to sentenced him to 14 months reimprisonment.

Doc. 182 04-14-2008 AMENDED JUDGEMENT - Judge Land found Dr. Brown guilty of failure to work regularly and sentenced him to a term of fourteen months of reimprisonment. Note that Doc. 168 and Doc. 172 demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances: Dr. Brown owed zero tax liability for all conviction years (1994, 1995), and IRS owed Dr. Brown for levy extractions for said years (an unknown amount, exceeding $114,241.00). The exact amount of the levy extractions is the subject of a subpoena that Dr. Brown is struggling to obtain Court assistance to issue.

Dr. Brown filed a notice of appeal (pro se) of this revocation, to assert "no basis for revocation in the face of zero tax liability". Dr. Brown was unable to follow through from prison, and the appeal was dismissed on 07-02-2008 (Doc. 192) for failure to litigate.

Doc. 189 06-12-2008 ORDER STAYING 151 PENDING APPEAL - order asserts that Dr. Brown's notice of appeal (Doc. 137, on March 26, 2007) to the U. S. Court of Appeals is still pending. See Doc. 154 and Doc. 162 to confirm that said appeal was already concluded by mandate of the U. S. Court of Appeals on November 1, 2008. Therefore, this is an erroneous order. Notification of this fact (erroneous order) was filed by Dr. Brown in Doc. 193.

Doc. 193 07-17-2008 Motion to Correct Erroneous Order - as there is no appeal pending in U. S. Court of Appeals, Doc. 189 misrepresents the docket sheet record. the details of this misrepresentation are described in this motion. No judge has ruled on this motion (i.e., motion still pending).

Doc. 197 07-29-2008 ORDER LIFTING STAY AND ORDER TO ANSWER - this (order by Magistrate Judge G. Mallon Faircloth) is equivalent to Doc. 152, but 9 months later. Thus, we have lost 9 months, since Doc. 193 never received a ruling. Dr. Brown lost the benefit of the exonerative pleadings (Doc. 168 through Doc. 175), which were sufficient to reverse his conviction and end his inprisonment.

Doc. 198 08-08-2008 Motion for Injunctive Relief - this is a request in the face of the extraordinary circumstances (Doc. 168 shows zero tax liability for convictionyears; Doc. 175 shows IRS owes Dr. Brown for levy extraction in conviction years), Dr. Brown qualifies under the most strengent standards for injunctive relief. This request is still pending (i.e., yet to receive a ruling by a judge).

Doc. 199 08-18-2008 Motion to Compel Disclosure of Petitioner's IRS Levy Records - to determine the exact amount of money the IRS extracted from Dr. Brown by way of levy extractions for years, 1993 forward.

Doc. 201 10-09-2008 PETITIONER'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 60(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO FRAUD UPON THE COUNT - this is in response to Doc. 197 (the most recent order from Magistratge Judge Faircloth to reply to Government's response to Doc. 151). FOIA responded on July 22, 2008 to assert: 1,488 pages of apparent levy records have been located, and are being sent to IRS for verification. IRS claims they must not disclose the records for fear of compromising some unspecified law inforcement efforts.

Note that Dr. Brown paid an FOIA demanded fee of $1,176.00 for the records.

Since the 16 pages (provided by FOIA on April 2, 2008) contained $114,241.00, we use the per page money yield ($114,241.00 / 16), of $7,140.06 to estimate the total money yield for the 1,488 pages to be $10,624,409.28.

Therefore, this is a bizaare extraordinary circumstance: Dr. Brown is in prison for tax evasion, and the IRS actually owes him more than ten million dollars.

The person assigned (February 15, 2007) to audit and review Dr. Brown's case is: Trail Attorney Carol Koehler Ide / Department of Justice, Tax Division / Civil Trial Section / Southern Region /P. O. Box 14198 / Washington, Dc 20044. She has been provided all of Dr. Brown's documents that have been referenced in this INDEX Listing. Ms. Ide is unable (or unwilling) to provide a finding to Dr. Brown. Hence, Dr. Brown languishes in Maxwell Air Force Base Federal Prison Camp / Inmate # 91022-020 / Montgomery B Unit / Montgomery, Alabama 36112.

This will be an unhappy Christmas.

Judicial Complaint 12-01-2008 Complaint Number 110890117 at the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council - Judge Land: refused to rule on exonerative motions; initiated unrequested action to reimprison Petitioner; ignored subpoena request; allowed docket misrepresentation.

Doc. 202 12-10-2008 MOTION TO RECUSE - Judge Land has: refused to rule on Dr. Brown's exonertive motions; initiated unrequested action to reimprison Dr. Brown; ignored levy record subpoena request; allowed docket sheet record misrepresentation. Thus, Dr. Brown filed motion requesting Judge Land to recuse himself, pursuant to Title 28, Section 455(a).

Judge Land rules 12-11-2008 ORDER DENYING Doc. 202 MOTION TO RECUSE - this is an unnumbered, text only entry (i.e., there is no document number; there is no document).

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) .

Fraud Upon the Court by Attorney Mark Yurachek

(For clarity, please read this posting second.)

Postings list is to the right on this page.

On March 30, 2004, IRS agent, James Kohler, provided to Dr. Brown through me, $186,945.00 of nontaxable deposit items for 1994 that had been treated as taxable during indictment, trial and sentencing. Agent Kohler published his report of this matter on June 29, 2004. Said report is attached to Doc. 151 as Exhibit A.

On or about May 27, 2004, Dr. Brown's family hired Attorney Bruce S. Harvey to produce his Title 28, Section 2255 Appeal (MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR CORRECT ERRONEOUS SENTENCE). Attorney Harvey assigned Attorney Mark A. Yurachek to handle the appeal.

On January 19, 2005, Dr. Brown filed amended 1994 return with the IRS that reflected zero tax liability and more than $64,000.00 of negative income available to reduce the 1995 taxable income. Said return was prepared by CPA Edisel Collier. Return and Collier affidavit are attached to Doc. 151 as Exhibit B.

On February 5, 2005, Dr. Brown wrote letter to Attorney Yurachek to inform him of all the case information that had come light so far (especially the zero tax liability for 1994). Attorney Yurachek responded on February 10, 2005 (acknowledging receipt of the letter of February 5th). However, Attorney Yurachek filed Dr. Brown's 2255 appeal motion (Doc. 79, May 19, 2005, Civil Action # 3:05-cv-38-HL) without including, as ground for relief (1994 true tax liability was zero with more than $64,000.00 of negative income left to reduce the 1995 tax liability).

On November 30, 2005, Dr. Brown wrote letter to Judge Lawson to report that Attorney Yurachek was refusing to include, as ground for relief, the amended 1994 return that reflected zero tax liability and more than $64,00.00 of negative income available to reduce the 1995 taxable income in his 2255 motion (Dr. Brown requested Grievance Committee investigation of this extraordinary attorney misconduct situation). Judge Lawson responded, refusing to order investigation, on December 7, 2005. See Doc. 151, Exhibit C for the letter exchanges.

Tax evasion is not possible in the face of zero tax liability. United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644, 650 (11th Cir. 1985). Judgment reversal and sentence correction for year 1994 would have been guaranteed for Dr. Brown, if Attorney Yurachek had included in Dr. Brown's 2255 motion, as ground for relief: 1994 tax liability was zero.

By refusing to inform the Court that Dr. Brown's 1994 tax liability was zero (as ground for relief), Attorney Yurachek knowingly engaged in a material misrepresentation that deprived the Court of essential information, allowing the Court to render a ruling that was inconsistent with established case law in the Eleventh Circuit, Edwards. This kind of conduct on the part of a judicial officer (attorneys and judges are judicial officers) is known as fraud upon the Court. Once fraud upon the Court occurs, the judgments resulting from said fraud are invalid and must not stand, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Note that Judge Lawson was notified of this fraud upon the Court on November 30, 2005, and Judge Lawson did not render his ruling (denying) Dr. Brown's 2255 motion until June 5, 2006. Therefore, Judge Lawson was in complicity with Attorney Yurachek's fraud upon the Court (relinquishing his appearance of impartiality toward Dr. Brown). This violates the Supreme Court standard set in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 21294 (1988), rendering self-executing recusal appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a).

To address this fraud upon the Court and seek relief (October 12, 2007), Dr. Brown (pro se) filed Doc. 151, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) PURSUANT TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT. This motion is still pending in the District Court, Middle District of Georgia.