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).