Update 8/8/24: Here is my Letter and Exhibits, to Clerk of Court Scott Harris, described earlier today…

Will Graven

2700 S. Woodlands Village Blvd.; Suite 300-251

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Email: will@willgraven.com; Phone: 928-890-8825

Mr. Scott Harris,                                                                          August 8, 2024

Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States;

Mr. Danny Bickell, Asst to Mr. Harris; and

CC: Ms. Angela Jimenez, Asst. Clerk

1 First Street, NE; Washington, DC 20543

Re: Your letter of July 26, 2024, regarding my Case No. 23-7130.

Mr. Harris and Mr. Bickell: 

You killed my Petition for a Mandamus, by manipulating standard processes, for my Supplemental Brief, to prevent it from being considered by the Justices, or made public. 

You did this because my Brief exposes my Appeal Panel of 3 GOP Judges at the Ninth Circuit acting corruptly to Affirm a GOP District Court Chief Judge; who had errantly acted to protect several of his fellow Arizona GOP Power Elites...and you did not want this corrupt reality to become public. 

This is a reality that would have forced the Justices to grant my Petition, and it would have been scandalous. You acted to protect the powers at be, at the cost of my right to Justice. 

You did this, in part, by not notifying me there were any alleged faults in my Brief, as you did not want to alert me to the fact that you were tanking my Brief, and you did not want me to ask/expect that I would have had the opportunity to correct my Brief, to resubmit it, as I had been able to with any other pleading that your Office told me needed correcting.  

That is why you did not return either my May 8 Brief version/copies or my May 15 version /copies, as is your standard process. I note you still have not returned them. 

Here are 3 more of your clandestine acts of cleverness (you should move over to the CIA): 

1.) I highlighted my Brief in my 1st Petition for Reconsideration (on 6/3), you did not say anything about my Brief being disqualified (e.g., “Oh by the way, your Brief was ...”);

2.) I again highlighted my Brief in my 1st Petition for Rehearing (6/20), which you rejected, but said nothing of my Brief;

3.) I again highlighted my Brief in my 2nd Petition for Rehearing (7/1), which you accepted, but said nothing of my Brief. The basis of my Rehearing is my missing Brief. 

I now understand, why, when I repeatedly asked your staff why my Brief was not yet Docketed, I always received the same rehearsed/mechanical answer: “There is a copy in the file.” You instructed your staff to be a part of your fraud, by telling them to not say a word to me about your having “disqualified” my Brief (which see your staff perform).I note that by your cleverness, you hid my Brief and the fact that you were sandbagging me until well after my Conference on 5/30; and well after I filed my Petition for Rehearing. 

You are kidding yourselves if you think I will quietly accept your sandbagging me on a major pleading, to then claim I did not follow the Rules. I believe what you have done is commonly known as fraud. 

I will show you by 4 Sections here how badly you have documented yourselves as errant: 

I.)    A Brief Review of your letter dated July 26, 2024;

II.)  How Faulty Pleadings are Actually Handled by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court;

III.)  An Example of the Cooperative Nature for How Faulty Pleadings were Actually Handled Between Will Graven and the Clerk of the US Supreme Court; and

IV.)   A Detailed History of our Interactions. 

I. A Brief Review of your letter dated July 26, 2024 

In your letter (which see Brief Review Ex 1, as attached), you stated/admitted, that by a “determination” which you “made at that time” (May 13), my Brief did not meet the requirements of Rule 15.8. 

But before addressing your canard of a “determination,” I want to comment on your (Ref 1) “RE: Letter of July 16, 2024,” and your first line (Ref 2): “This letter is in response to your letter of July 16, 2024.”  

No Mr. Harris and Mr. Bickell, you are not responding to my letter of July 16...you are responding to my letter of May 15 (which see my May 15 letter as Brief Review Ex 2), which you should have responded to 2 1/2 months ago; and you should have rescheduled my Conference by, as I offered (2 months/10 days earlier, to be exact). 

In your letter, you claimed my Brief (BR Ex 1 Ref 3) “was received by this office on May 13, 2024.” and a (BR Ex Ref 4): “determination was made at that time that the brief did not comply with Rule 15.8...” 

But you do not have a pleading from me dated May 13 (I am using your standard procedure, referring to pleadings as being received as of the date they were handed over to a carrier/delivery service). 

You did not yet have a copy of my Supplemental Brief on Monday the 13th...you did not have copy until it arrived Thursday the 16th, with my detailed cover letter, which you have not referred to, at all (BR Ex 2). 

And as your “determination was made...” by my May 8th version, which was pulled at my request by “Laurie,” (I sent you the wrong version, which see) in your Office, which she confirmed; so you made your determination by a voided pleading. 

Let me provide you the actual facts here, which you apparently thought your letter could make invisible...your letter, the grand finale to your fraud of making my Brief vanish:I mistakenly sent you an incorrect version of my Supplemental brief on May 8; which you received from me on Friday morning, May 10 (which see later, the pleading and the FedEx delivery receipt]). But by sometime first thing Monday morning, May 13, my FedEx envelope had been pulled from circulation in your Office; due to my voicemessages of later Sunday afternoon the 12th; and Monday morning the 13th; for which I received a call in response to my voicemessages, confirming that the envelope had then already been pulled; and at which time I was asked what I would like done with the pleading; to which I responded that I hate to trouble you with sending it back; to which I was told that is your standard procedure; to which I responded: yes, that is certainly what I have experienced, and so I thank you for that; and I added, oh by the way, you don’t need to bother with a cover letter; to which the woman I was speaking with said thank you, and that she would drop the envelope off to your mailroom and ask for everything to be sent back to me. On Tuesday the 14th, I learned that FedEx had sent my Replacement Brief to Dover, NH; and that I would need to resend my Brief; which I did the next day, Wednesday the 15th; which arrived your Offices on the 16th. I described the ordeal I had gone through to be able to send you a replacement for my lost FedEx package. I left a voicemessage at your Office regarding the delay. Due to the delays, I stated in my cover letter to my Replacement Brief: 

“I desperately would like this Supplemental Brief to be considered with my Petition, including, if you need to reschedule my Petition for a later conference, I wholeheartedly would accept that.” (Why didn’t you do this for me? I’m guessing delays do occur.) 

Please turn to my letter of May 15th, which is the cover letter to my replacement Supplemental Brief that I asked be filed (see Brief Review Ex 2, attached [and see the FedEx delivery receipt as the last page to this Ex]): 

Ref 1: “I mistakenly sent you the wrong version, on the afternoon of Wednesday, May 8.”; 

Ref 2: “...and so called Sunday (12th) evening, leaving a voice-message,...” (see phone records as Ex 3); 

Ref 3: “...and then again Monday (13th) morning,...” (see phone records as Ex 4); 

Ref 4: “...asking if you could throw that version out,...”; 

Ref 5: “...and by the courtesy of “Laurie,” she called me to say she would take care of that. (Thank you Laurie!) .” (see phone records as Ex 5); 

Ref 6: “...but they sent my envelope to Dover, NH.”; 

Ref 7: “I called and left a voicemessage regarding the delay.” (see phone records as Ex 6); 

Ref 8: “I have just spent almost 10 hours traveling from the bush in British Columbia, to Bellingham, WA, to resend the enclosed...please use this letter and version, to help me try to get (push) this through your process(es), before Conference on May 30 (or, for a later Conference, which see).” 

Ref 9: “I desperately would like this Supplemental Brief to be considered with my Petition, including, if you need to reschedule my Petition for a later conference, I wholeheartedly would accept that.” 

Mr. Harris and Mr. Bickell: Which part of my being desperate/begging for your help wasn’t clear? (But how naive of me...you weren’t guided by serving Justice, or me...) 

And Mr. Harris and Mr. Bickell: What pleading are you claiming to have received on May 13, and made a “determination” by? You had no pleading; you had voicemessages and staff who knew I had pulled my May 8 version (and my version to be filed was not received by your Office until May 16); and your staff were to return my May 8 version and copies to me (which you just did with my July 16 re-file; and as is your standard procedure for faulty pleadings [which see me discuss such in Sec’s II and III]); and as you rejected my Brief, where are my at least 10 returned copies? (10, if you in fact put a copy in my file [Ref 9], but then we all know “ the brief was added to the file” is smoke and mirrors on your part). Why have you ignored my May 15 letter? Where are those 11 copies? 

II.)  How Faulty Pleadings are Actually Handled by the Clerk of the

US Supreme Court 

On 10 different occasions in my dealings with the Supreme Court, I sent a document/ pleading that was to the wrong party; and/or had other errors; and/or was a document I sent in error, and asked to be pulled...and 8 times, the Clerk of Court returned that document/ pleading back to me (including even my original cover letter); with detailed instructions as to what I had done wrong (often, reference materials were included, which see); and every time with at least 1 phone call (on several occasions, this involved several calls, which see); explaining my error, with detailed instructions how to correct my errors; and how much time I had to make those corrections, and resubmit; the Court often acted on the same day they received my error filled pleading, but was almost always within a two or three days (but as per above, it took you 2 ½ months to act on my Briefs of May 7 and 15). 

Oh, and what of the 2 of the 10 times my pleadings weren’t returned/nothing was said? 

Not coincidentally, they are my Supplemental Briefs of May 7 and 15 (which are still missing). Now you are trying to complete your bastardization of Justice by having first concealed, then retroactively disqualifying those pleadings, with your July 16 letter. 

I must first say, in spite of my having no legal training, nor any real sense of how the black magic of law is practiced, I never felt any angst nor impatience by the Clerk’s staff who had contacted me, and were trying to walk me through what I had done wrong, and needed to fix, to try again (as embarrassing as this is, it once took me a 3rd try/document to have the Clerk’s Office approve/accept/Docket it).

It is the 9th and 10th times that are at the root of my allegations here, and as has been described above by an overview of the errant acts it took to commit fraud on this Court, Lady Justice, the American Public, and me, by a party or parties within the Clerk’s Office. 

I would like to demonstrate how well the Clerk assists us In Pro Se’s, with their expertise, and great patience. (I have often been reminded, by your staff’s immeasurably important and patient assistance, of what Justice Black was quoted to have said sometime in the early 50’s...something to the effect that if the Right to Self Representation had not been included with the Bill of Rights, and acted on by the first Session of the 1st Congress, it is doubtful the Constitution would have been ratified [taxation without representation was the Colonialists’ biggest gripe, but the tyranny of the English Courts was a close second]): 

Faulty Pleading Ex 1: See my letter with Exhibits to Justice Kagan on 2/23/24 (which I thought I could do under Rule 22), returned with an overview of why my letter was being returned; and an extremely insightful bit of legal advice: How to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and the timing I needed to be mindful of. A copy of the Court’s Rules was included, as well a sample petition of certiorari. 

Ex 2: See my letter with Exhibits to Justice Kagan on 2/29/24returned with an overview of  why my letter was being returned; and an extremely insightful bit of legal advice: How to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and the timing I needed to be mindful of. A copy of the Court’s Rules was included, as well a sample petition of certiorari. 

Note 1: I had an issue with receiving my mail at this time, and was not aware I was receiving the Court’s letters, and so the error of my (4) letters to Justice Kagan were not known to me until the Clerk of the Court’s Office called me in late-March. I learned a great deal in that first phone call. 

Ex 3: See my letter with Exhibits to Justice Kagan on 3/5/24 returned with an overview of  why my letter was being returned; and an extremely insightful bit of legal advice: How to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and the timing I needed to be mindful of. A copy of the Court’s Rules was included, as well a sample petition of certiorari. 

Ex 4: See my letter with Exhibits to Justice Kagan on 3/5/24 returned with an overview of  why my letter was being returned; and an extremely insightful bit of legal advice: How to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and the timing I needed to be mindful of. A copy of the Court’s Rules was included, as well a sample petition of certiorari. 

I submitted a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on 3/28/24; it was Docketed on 4/1/24; and the Ninth Circuit was Ordered to respond by May 2. The Ninth Circuit did not Respond. 

Ex 5: See Mr. Donald Baker of the Clerk of Court’s Office write me explaining that my Reply to the Ninth Circuit’s “non response” did not translate to my being able to file a Reply. But, Mr. Baker was extremely helpful in explaining that if I wished to supplement my case, I could do so in the form of a supplemental brief, under Rule 15.8. Mr. Baker included a copy of the Court’s Rules. 

Please note the date of Mr. Baker’s latter: May 8, 2024. 

Ex 6: See my 1st Supplemental Brief (this is the May 8 Brief that arrived the Court on May 10, which I then had pulled/returned to me Monday morning the 13th, as confirmed by “Laurie” in the Clerk’s Office, and for which she stated she would drop my error filled Brief off at the mailroom to be returned. 

This is the (voided by me/by Laurie’s pulling it from circulation) version by which Mr. Bickell claims he made a “determination” that my Brief did not fall within the Rules.  

Please note the date of my Brief: 5/8/24: The same day Mr. Baker was writing me from the Clerk’s Office, telling me my Reply pleading was not acceptable, and suggesting I file a Supplemental Brief.  

How could I be responding to his letter the same day, before it was even sent? See Ex 7. 

Ex 7: See a screenshot of my phone calls log, please note a call I received dated, coincidentally, May 8, and see that it was a call from the Clerk of the US Supreme Court. 

Per my rhetorical question just above: How could I be responding the same day? Because since I started receiving calls from the Clerk’s Office (late March), I already knew my Reply was being disqualified; that a Supplemental Brief was being suggested; and, with the multiple copies of the Rules that I had received, I had already been able to start preparing a Supplemental Brief, even before Mr. Baker had finished writing me (in fact, I was just waiting to hear [per Ex 7] that he was putting his letter in the mail, to send my Brief). 

Ex 8: See my cover letter to my 2nd (replacement) Supplemental Brief (my May 15 version), as discussed above in “A Brief Review,” Ex 2. I have this letter here, to demonstrate that not only did the Clerk’s Office at times reject my submitted pleading... they also allowed me to reject/pull my own pleadings (see Ex 8 Ref’s 1 – 5) when I discovered an error(s). 

Ex 9: As described above, the Supreme Court was set to consider my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus at Conference on May 30, at which time they voted to Deny my Petition, which was posted on 6/3/24. That very afternoon, I filed this Petition for Reconsideration. 

Ex 10: First, please look at page 2, and see my cover letter to my Petition for Reconsideration dated 6/3/24...and see the Clerk’s Received stamp as 6/6/24. And now, note the date of the letter, sending my Petition back: June 6. So, Received by the Clerk, and returned in the same day. And of course, the letter tells me what to do to make good, and (Ref 1): “Please correct and resubmit as soon as possible.” 

Please note: There is no comment in the Court’s cover letter informing me that they noted my Petition for Reconsideration was in part based on a Brief (my Supplemental Brief), that they had disqualified 3 weeks earlier, and so by your Rules, the usage of that pleading is invalid; i.e., I should not have used an invalid pleading.

Ex 11: This is my response to the Clerk’s Office returning my Petition for Reconsideration, as there is no such Petition...it is properly called a “Petition for Rehearing.” Please note my bit of sarcasm: 

“IS THIS A RULE 44 PETITION FOR A REHEARING?

I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.” 

My sarcasm was due to I did not believe I was for a Rehearing...but a first time Hearing...but his time with my missing Supplemental Brief ((which see my cover letter go on and one about my missing Brief). 

The “I DO NOT BELIEVE SO” will lead a number of “debates” between Ms. Angela Jimenez, Asst Clerk, and myself, and result in the Clerk’s Office rejecting this version of my Petition for Rehearing (which see below as Ex’s 12 and 13 on July 8). 

Note 2: I believed this Petition about a first, complete, Hearing, not a Rehearing. 

Note 3: Although my cover letter is based on my Brief; the Petition itself is based on my Brief; and my Brief is Ex 2; all of these make it clear my Petition is based on the Justices needing to consider my Petition for a Mandamus, with my Supplemental Brief; the Clerk’s Office will not say a word about your having disqualified my Brief, without giving me chance to correct and resubmit, or return my 2 originals (May 8 and May 15), and 10 copies of each, as they did for ever other pleading you see here. 

Note 4: My efforts for Rehearing without my Brief, are likely wasted efforts...but the Clerk’s Office said nothing, as outlined above (i.e., the sandbagged me). 

Ex 12: This is the Clerk’s Office telling me I need to correct and replace, what is already on the way, because we had discussed, even “negotiated” my Ex 12. But “I do not believe so” voided that version. 

Ex 13: This is another one of those instances, where my resubmission is dated the same day as the being rejected/returned pleading I am replacing. This Exhibit is my replacement Petition for Rehearing (replacing Ex 11). 

Note 5: See Ex’s 11, 12, and 13 as the basis for the next Section: “III. An Example of the Cooperative Nature for How Faulty Pleadings are Actually Handled by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.” 

Ex 14: This Exhibit is my trying to re-file my missing Supplemental Brief (which the Clerk’s Office staff will only respond to my demanding to know where it is, with” “There is a copy in the file.” 

Ex 15: Oh, now the Clerk’s Office will follow procedure and return errant pleadings...in part, because I refilled my Brief; and in part, because I left Mr. Harris 3 voicemessages asking to meet in early September, to settle this issue. Why didn’t you return my May 8 and May 15 Briefs, earlier...or even now? 

Conclusion to Section II: The Clerk’s Office was wonderfully helpful; patient; and most of all, flexible... allowing my personal In Pro Se incompetence, with no demeaning responses by the exceptionally bright and talented staff of the Clerk’s Office. 

But you sandbagged me...not letting me you allegedly had issues with my Brief; not returning my originals and/or copies. And you kept me in the dark, until 2 months after Conference, and 6 weeks after I filed my original Petition for Reconsideration. This is a fraud scheme to protect GOP Judges. 

III.)            An Example of the Cooperative Nature for How Faulty Pleadings were Actually Handled between Will Graven and the Clerk of the

US Supreme Court 

As an example of how well your staff and I have worked together (except, apparently, someone telling your staff to not tell me my Supplemental Brief had been rejected, since May 13), I would like to review one particularly interactive exchange between myself and Ms. Jimenez. 

The point here, and as you saw in Section II: Your office is interactive, supportive, patient...and that is a part of what made it obvious: You sandbagged me on the matter of my Brief. 

As I mentioned above, the interactive exchange between myself and Ms. Jimenez in those Ex’s 11, 12, 13, and Note 3, you will see the depth of our cooperation, and the dark contrast to what you did to me/my Supplemental Briefs. 

Cooperation Ex 1: As described above, the Supreme Court was to consider my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus at Conference on May 30, at which time they voted to Deny my Petition, which was posted on 6/3/24 (the Justices did not, of course, have my Supplemental Brief...you did). That very same day, I filed this Petition for Reconsideration (on 6/3/24). 

Ex 2: This is the Clerk’s Office telling me I needed to correct and resubmit my Petition of 6/3/24 (Ref 1), that there is no such Petition as a Petition for Reconsideration. Please note, the Clerk’s Office received my Petition on 6/6, and Ms. Jimenez wrote on that same day (not 2 ½ months later, as you did in your July 26 letter).  

Please note: There is no comment in the Court’s cover letter informing me that they noted my Petition for Reconsideration was in part based on a Brief (my Supplemental Brief [see page 2]), that they had disqualified 3 weeks earlier, and so by your Rules, the usage of that pleading is invalid; i.e., I should not have used an invalid pleading. 

Ex 3: This Exhibit is my replacement Petition for Rehearing (replacing Ex 1). This is a “real” Petition for Rehearing. Please note my May 15 Supplemental Brief is Ex 2. Please note I even included my May 15 cover letter, and FedEx delivery receipt, to explain why it had not arrived later. See the delivery date for this Exhibit by UPS as Monday, June 24. 

Note 6: Ms. Jimenez will reject this draft (which see Ex 14). And although my cover letter; my Petition for Rehearing; and my Ex 2, the Brief, are all about my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus being mistakenly Denied because the Justices did not have my Brief at Conference (on 5/30), Ms. Jimenez will say nothing to be about my Brief having been “determined” to fall within the Rules. She did tell me, when I asked, she doesn’t know what happens to pleadings after they are received in the Clerk’s Office (which see below). 

Ex 4: This Exhibit is a screenshot of my phone logs of my calling Ms. Jimenez on the morning of June 25, to ask if she had received my Replacement Petition for a Rehearing. 

Ex 5: Ms. Jimenez must have seen my call, as she called me back within the same minute (6:33AM). She quickly told me that she had received my voicemail from Saturday evening; that not received my Replacement Petition (received by the Clerk’s Office the day before, June 24); and I asked why my Supplemental Brief had not been Docketed, to which she confirmed they had received my Brief on May 16, and explained that there is a copy of it in my file; and that she does not handle/does not know what happens to pleadings after they leave her Office, so she could not comment on why it had not been Docketed. 

Ex 6: Following my conversation with Ms. Jimenez, I texted my very good friend Harry about my call with Ms. Jimenez. 

Ex 7: Following my text to Harry regarding conversation with Ms. Jimenez, I texted my very close friend Laura about my call with Ms. Jimenez. 

Ex 8: I called Ms. Jimenez on the afternoon of June 26, asking if she had received my replacement Petition for Rehearing yet. 

Ex 9: The next morning (June 27), Ms. Jimenez called at 9:05AM EDST, leaving the following voicemessage: 

“Hello, my name is Angela. I’m calling from the clerks office with the US Supreme Court in Washington DC returning your call. I have received your submission. I have not reviewed it yet. I will be reviewing it in the. If you have Any further questions feel free to call me back in 202-479-3392 thank you...”

Ex 10: On Sunday evening, June 30, I called and left Ms. Jimenez a voicemessage asking about the status of her accepting my replacement Petition for Rehearing. 

Ex 11: On Monday morning, July 1, Ms. Jimenez called at 9:30AM EDST, leaving the following voicemessage: 

“Hello, my name is Angela. I’m calling from the clerks office with the US supreme court returning your phone call. Feel free to give me a call back at 2-20479-3392 two thank you...” 

Ex 12: On that Monday morning, July 1, I returned Ms. Jimenez’s earlier, leaving her a voicemessage at 7:34AM RMST. 

Ex 13: Four minutes later, Ms. Jimenez returned my call, and we spoke for 10 minutes (as fast/succinct as she is, we covered quite a lot). She told me that she was happy with the language of the title of my replacement Petition (as I mentioned above in Section II, Ex 11, she did not like: “I DO NOT BELIEVE SO”). I asked about my Supplemental Brief. She said: “There is a copy in the file.” I said but it should be Docketed...there are people who are missing it...I said the Justices might even be missing it, to which she said: “There is a copy in the file.” I said I will not push/argue with any longer on this, but to me, there is something strange about this, even your own website explains how people can electronically access/obtain copies of pleadings...I said no one can do that for my Brief. 

I asked her to let me know what she decides on the language of my replacement Petition as soon as she can (I told her I had been reviewing my as-submitted draft, for changes that  she might want). 

Ms. Jimenez made no comment about your having “disqualified” my Supplemental Brief 7 weeks earlier. 

Ex 14: Ms. Jimenez called me back a few minutes later and said she could not accept “I DO NOT BELIEVE SO” in my title; and I apologized for being so much trouble. She said she would return it, and I said I would send her off a “new and improved” version yet today. 

Ex 15: Ms. Jimenez returned my June 20 draft (which was replacement to my June first Petition for Reconsideration). There is no comment in the Court’s cover letter informing me that my Petition for Reconsideration was in part based on a Brief (my Supplemental Brief) that they disqualified 3 weeks earlier.  By your Rules, I should not have used a voided pleading. 

Ex 16: I sent my now approved by Ms. Jimenez Petition for Rehearing...which is based on my Supplemental Brief. 

We had a great working relationship (except for her hiding the truth about my Supplemental Brief), and this example was a representative effort by us.

IV. A Detailed History of our Interactions 

I yet have upwards of 40 more bits and pieces of what I could fill this Section with...but you know where you are...what you have done...so I will just conclude. 

CONCLUSION

As I began to write you, I found myself wondering, as you have documented/admitted you “mishandled” my Supplemental Brief, and so killed my best chance for a Writ of Mandamus to correct documented corrupt acts at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I find myself wondering if you will do the right thing(s), to restore Justice to my Petition process here, or will you make excuses, perhaps even try to gaslight me, as you did with your July 26 letter...or will just ignore me, as you did for almost 2 ½ months, while my American Right to EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW slipped away.

It wasn’t until I re-filed my Supplemental Brief on 7/16/24, and that I left Mr. Harris 3 voicemessages (after attempting to re-file my Brief), about meeting to discuss your not having filed my Supplemental Brief, that you started to come clean.

I hope you continue to come clean... 

Sincerely, 

Will Graven, In Pro Se; as Petitioner, Appellant, Plaintiff