Update 8/8/24: I wrote to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Scott Harris [click here], asking him to take corrective action for his and his staff’s having sandbagged me/my Supplemental Brief.

I properly submitted a Rule 15.8 Supplemental Brief, which the Clerk received on 5/16/24.

While I was waiting for my Brief to be Docketed; distributed; and considered at Conference on May 30 (or returned, which it was not); the Court Denied my Petition.

The Clerk “sandbagged” me/my Brief, i.e., the Clerk did not return either of my Brief’s (one sent in error, and one filed); nor did the Clerk notice me, until July 26, that he had “disqualified” my Brief on May 13!

Thusly, the Court did not see/consider my Brief; nor did the Appeals Court see it, to possibly be prompted to Respond; nor was the Public allowed to see it, possibly prompting support.

My Brief exposes 3 GOP Appeals Judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal using a forged Docket to make false case law citations  by; to Affirm a GOP District Court Chief Judge; who had acted errantly to Dismiss my Complaint against several of his Arizona GOP Power elites.

I am confronted with/fighting corruption at all 3 levels of our Federal Courts.

Update 8/3/24: Since receiving Asst Clerk of the Supreme Court Danny Bickell’s letter of 7/26/24 this past Wednesday the 31st (as reported in my “Update 8/2/24” yesterday, which see), by which he represented/signed for Mr Scott Harris, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, I have spent a number of hours trying to avoid what have become several inescapable conclusions as to what the Clerk of the Supreme Court has done to Lady Justice, and me…net/net:

They have cheated (screwed) us/me, and they have made it obvious.

I really do not want to think this, nor experience it, but Asst Clerk Bickell actually documented their errant behavior, almost in the form of a signed confession, and doing so, very directly, very simply, admitted they had sandbagged me.

Let’s take another look his letter, beginning at Ref 1, with [click here ]:

“This letter is in response to your letter of July 16, 2024.”

No it isn’t, and he admitted it’s not at Ref 2 [click here ]:

“Your supplemental brief to your petition for a writ of mandamus in case No. 23-7130 was received by this office on May 13, 2024.”

So his letter is actually in response to my letter and Supplemental Brief filed on 5/8/24...and as will be seen, which the Clerk claims I submitted on the 13th, was thrown out (at my request), and it is the Brief I submitted on 5-15-24 that he should have addressed.

In other words, by my 5/15/24 date, he is writing 2 months and 11 days after the Clerk of Court received my Brief.

And see Asst Clerk Bickell admit at Ref 3 that [click here]:

“A determination was made at that time...” (This is not a recent decision!)

Which time? Which see just before his quote, at Ref 2 [click here]:

“...May 13, 2024.”

They sure didn’t tell me “…at that time!"

So, by my 5/15/24 date, he is writing to tell me that 2 months and 11 days earlier, that “a determination was made at that time” that my Brief allegedly did not comply with Rule 15.8.

This is the only pleading the Clerk’s Office did not notify me of a possible deficiency, and allow me the opportunity to fix it (see at least 4 examples tomorrow of their having allowed me to fix other pleadings).

I note that the Supreme Court Conference at which my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus was to be considered, was on 5/30/24...2 months less 4 days before he wrote me.

Please see in my cover letter to my 5/15/24 Supplemental Brief filing (Asst Clerk Bickell is wrong about his 5/13/24 date, which see below) at Ref 1 [click here], that:

“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.”

I note that my Petition was Denied at that Conference on 5/30/24, without, of course, my disqualified Brief.

And I note, emphatically, the version Asst Clerk is basing his letter on (per his letter, 5/13/24), and basing their decision on, is wrong, and was thrown out by another Asst Clerk, back on that very day (by another Asst Clerk), as can be seen in my cover letter to my 5/15/24 filing, at Ref’s 2 and 3 [click here ], see the accompanying Brief [click here ]:

“In my anxiousness to re-file my Reply, as a Rule 15.8 Supplemental Brief, I mistakenly sent you the wrong version, on the afternoon of Wednesday, May 8.

In reviewing my Supplemental Brief over this past weekend, May 11-12, I realized I had sent you the wrong version, and so called Sunday (12th) evening, leaving a voice-message, and then again Monday (13th) morning, asking if you could throw that version out, and allow me to replace it...and by the courtesy of “Laurie,” she called to me she would take care of that. (Thank you Laurie!)”

And see Asst Clerk Bickell admit at Ref 4 that my Brief [click here]:

“...does not appear on the docket,” (But, of course, it would not, after secretly being disqualified).

So…out of the dozens of times that I have had contact with different parties at the Clerk of the Supreme Court’s Office, since they received my Supplemental Brief on 6/16/24…not once did anyone from the Clerk’s Office say anything about my Brief being disqualified, until this letter which I received on July 31, 2024. (which see many of those dozens of times in the next Update, which will include a hell-raising letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court).

The Clerk of the Supreme Court has grossly cheated Lady Justice, and me.

So, in a final death knell my Petition for a Rehearing for my Denied Writ of Mandamus, which was Distributed the day before Asst Clerk Bickell’s letter, it will be left to rot without my Brief being Docketed (“docketed,” aka, readily see/referenced by the Justices, who live by the Docket, of course). 

Update 8/2/24:  Like most people, I am fed up with gaslighting.

The just recent Director of the Secret Service claimed she had not posted a SS sniper on the roof where would-be sniper Crooks shot former President Trump and others from, because the roof was too steep, and so too dangerous to post one of her people there (as a former developer and contractor of steel buildings [one of which was large enough to cover 2 US football fields, clear-span], I can say the assassin’s roof was almost flat [perhaps more so than the 2 buildings where she did have snipers posted]).

And now the acting Director, in explaining why the SS and local law enforcement had not communicated prior to the shooting (because they couldn’t, technically, at that rally), stating that while it is technically possible, it would have taken months of planning...for a single, short/maybe 8 hour event.

Regardless of one’s politics, we immediately knew these 2 people were flat-out lying, I mean gaslighting, us.

On May 16, the Clerk of the US Supreme Court received my Supplemental Brief [click here].

I was expecting my Brief to be Docketed, of course, and Distributed for Conference on May 30, to be considered with my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Ninth Circuit.

My Brief details “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit repeatedly forging the Docket to my Appeal there (by claims not seen in District Court); and my Appeal Panel of 3 GOP Judges Affirming the 1st of 2 Orders of Dismissal I appealed, through false Case Law Citations based on those forgeries (for a GOP District Judge, and GOP Defendants). My Petition for a Writ of Mandamus details my Appeal Panel refusing to rule on the 2nd Order I had appealed, and that was argued On-Appeal, by both sides, but my Petition did not cover/detail the forgeries, and their usage, as my Brief does (hence, the reason for my Brief).

While waiting for my Brief to be Docketed (or returned, which it wasn’t [please see Note 1]), Distributed, and considered, May 30 came, but my Brief was nowhere to be seen.

Note 1: Four times now I have submitted pleadings that the Clerk of the Supreme Court has rejected. I received a call each time, with an Asst Clerk explaining why my pleading was being rejected; what I needed to do to correct/accomplish what I was attempting; and the Asst Clerk would ask if I wanted my rejected pleading returned, or simply thrown away. This call would come the day of or the day after they received my pleading, which would be followed that day or a day later with a cover letter and my rejected pleading. Sometimes, after a bit of back and forth, my pleading would be accepted.

One June 3, the Supreme Court Denied my Petition for a Mandamus [click here].

I submitted a Motion for Reconsideration, which was rejected, and which I replaced with a Rule 44 Petition for a Rehearing [click here] (which was finally approved, after a bit of back and forth, on 7/9/24, but Docketed as 6/3/24, and then Distributed on July 25, and so is currently pending [click here]).

I began asking about my missing Brief (I believed its being missing is why my Petition for a Mandamus was Denied), and I was told on 3 separate occasions (by an Asst Clerk) that it would not be Docketed, but “A copy is in the file.” (As described throughout various “Updates” below.)

On July 16, I Re-filed my Supplemental Brief [click here] (I was/am desperate to make certain the Justices are seeing it, and will see it for my Rehearing).

Please see my full “Update 7/17/24” below, but which starts like this:

“Update 7/17/24: The Supreme Court has been evading Docketing my Supplemental Brief as described in several Updates below (yesterday was the 2 month anniversary of the Court receiving my Brief, which the Clerk of the Supreme Court has confirmed, twice).”

And please see my “Footnote” to that Update (and the Asst Clerk confirming a 3rd time they have it, including their having received in on 5/16/24, but that they would not be posting it...as “A copy is in the file.”).

For the 3rd time, over a 2 month period, no reason was given as to why my Brief would not be Docketed (except that “A copy is in the file.”).

I made a lot of noise within this website (and to Congress), questioning why the Supreme Court was hiding my Brief. (It couldn’t be because my Brief exposes GOP corruption at the Ninth Circuit, and below, could it?)

Earlier this week (7/30/24), I received a letter from a Mr Bickell in the Clerk’s Office [click here], apparently writing on behalf of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Mr Scott Harris (returning my Re-filed Supplemental Brief, from 7-16/24, but not the original from 5/16/24).

Mr Bickell now claims, after 2 months and 10 days (his letter is date 7/26/24), post receiving my original Supplemental Brief (which he also confirmed), that my Brief did not comply with Rule 15.8.

Two months and 10 days?

What happened to 1, 2, or 3 days?

What happened to letting me know there was a problem with one my pleadings, and giving me some idea of how to overcome whatever the supposed deficiency was?

The Supreme Court is gaslighting me. It did not 2 months and 10 for this all to happen.

They are doing this to hide GOP corruption at the Ninth Circuit, to protect 3 GOP Panel Judges, who acted errantly to protect a District Court GOP Judge, who acted errantly to protect several of his fellow Arizona GOP Power Elites.

I had not posted to this website since receiving Mr Bickell’s letter, as I was saddened to see our Supreme Court hiding the information in my Brief (rather than seeking to fix these injustices), and their so obviously resorting to gaslighting.

In closing, for those that have seen what my allegations of forging are about: One of the forgeries used by my Appeal Panel was “Someone” forging my individual Defendant Mark Brnovich, sued in part under 42 USC Sec 1983 “for acts as” Attorney General [click here], as Docketed correctly in District Court [click here], but was forged to Mark Brnovich Attorney General, Attorney General [click here]. My Appeal Panel then Affirmed 1 of 2 appealed Orders by false Case Law Citations based on these forgeries.

So, in other words…I submitted what would normally be considered a make or break pleading (my Supplemental Brief), and I was not told for one month and 27 days, after that pleading should have been considered (and that I was counting on it being considered) with my Petition for a Writ Mandamus, that it was rejected, and not considered?

And I am being told this, 2 months and 27 after the Clerk of the Supreme Court received my Brief?

Not to mention, this is entirely different than every other exchange I have had with the Supreme Court. This is American Justice?

There is no conclusion to be drawn but the Supreme Court is trying to hide the Judicial corruption my Brief exposes.

Update 7/26/24: My Rule 44 Petition for a Rehearing [click here] with the US Supreme Court for my Denied Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Ninth Circuit was Distributed late yesterday [click here].

My Petition for a Writ of Mandamus [click here] was necessitated by the corruption of 3 GOP Appeal Panel Judges; who acted for a GOP District Court Judge; who had acted errantly for Arizona GOP Power Elite Defendants.

But as can be seen on the Supreme Court’s Docket [click here], they have not yet Docketed my Supplemental Brief, which they received on 5/15/24 [click here], and which I tried to Re-file/have Docketed on 7/16/24 [click here].

See the Supreme Court (twice) refuse to Docket/make public my Supplemental Brief, defending their refusal to follow standard procedure with: “But there’s a copy in the file.”

Since when don’t major pleadings get Docketed? Isn’t that how Judges/Justices review cases, by turning to the Docket?

There is no way to know if my Supplemental Brief was considered at Conference, with my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus…I believe it was not, or our Supreme Court could not have Denied my Simple request for a Mandamus for the Ninth Circuit to explain why it used forged Docket Entries to Affirm the 1st Appealed Order, and why they had not ruled on the 2nd Order.

And my Brief was certainly not seen by either the Senate or House Judiciary Committees, public watchdogs, or the public.

Note: Now see a copy of my Supplemental Brief as Exhibit 2 to my Petition for a Rehearing (the first “click here” above).

My Brief details “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit repeatedly forging the Docket to my Appeal there (by claims not seen in District Court); and my Appeal Panel of 3 GOP Judges Affirming the 1st of 2 Orders of Dismissal I appealed, through false Case Law Citations by those forgeries. My Petition for a Writ of Mandamus details my Appeal Panel refusing to rule on the 2nd Order I appealed, and that was argued On-Appeal, by both sides. Note: My Defendants had split themselves into 2 different Groups, by my different allegations, with the 2nd Group/Defendant not having worked as an employee for the State.

One of the forgeries used by my Appeal Panel was “Someone” forging my individual Defendant Mark Brnovich, sued in part under 42 USC Sec 1983 “for acts as” Attorney General [click here], as Docketed correctly in District Court [click here], but was forged to Mark Brnovich Attorney General, Attorney General [click here].

I ask rhetorically: What is an “Attorney General, Attorney General”? Is that a Department: the Attorney General’s Office? Or is that a person: the Attorney General?

Apparently, forging my individual Defendant Mark Brnovich to Mark Brnovich Attorney General, Attorney General, made him both AGO/AG...as my Appeal Panel first Affirmed, as if I had sued the Attorney General’s Office [click here] (see pg 3), citing Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, ruling I had no standing to do so; and secondly, this forgery made it as if I had sued my Defendant as the Attorney General (per “Attorney General, Attorney General”), citing Linda RS v Richard D [click here] (again see pg 3), ruling I had no rights by his nonprosecution.

See my 10 other Defendants have their names, with no titles, being sued “for acts as” maintained as exactly that in the Ninth Circuit Docket. Only my individual Defendant Mark Brnovich had a title added to his name, and “for acts as” deleted.

And now, in a Rehearing, will the Supreme Court reverse its having Denied my simple Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, asking the Ninth Circuit to explain why it used forged Docket Entries to make false Case Law citations by, and why they did not Rule on the 2nd of Orders argued On-Appeal, by both sides?

Or will the Supreme Court reaffirm its approval of our Courts forging their Dockets (to rule as they wish), and refusing to rule on appealed matters?

Said somewhat differently, will the US Supreme Court affirm its already approved (by Denying my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus) Judicial anarchy and open-ended Judicial corruption?

Update 7/25/24: Late today, my Petition for a Rehearing was Distributed to the Justices [click here] (see Update 7/26/24 for a full review).

Update 7/19/24: I called the Clerk of the Supreme Court this morning, Mr Scott Harris, and left a voicemessage saying that it made no sense to me that I could end up being a witness for questions regarding Supreme Court ethics, or how our Federal Courts are run, because his Office will not Docket my Supplemental Brief.

See my again attempting to have my Supplemental Brief Docketed [click here] [click here]. My Brief details how “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals forged the Docket to my Appeal there, and how my Appeal Panel of 3 GOP Judges used those forgeries to make false Case Law Citations by, to Affirm my District Court GOP Judge.

I again asked for him to call me, and offered to meet face to face in early September.

I have not heard back from him. He well could be taking a deserved break as the Court went into recess as of Tuesday afternoon…time will tell.

Update 7/18/24: I called the Clerk of the Supreme Court this morning, Mr Scott Harris (not just my “Contact” there), and left a detailed voicemessage (as his message invites a caller to do). 

I explained what has been happening to my Supplemental Brief, which his Office first received on 5/16/24, but has not yet been Docketed (I do not know who the “gatekeeper” for this matter is: My “Contact" at the Court? Mr Harris? Someone further up at the Court?)

I read to him from the Supreme Court’s own website, under “Case Documents,” which includes:  “The most common way to find information about a case is to review the case’s docket – a list of all of the filings and rulings in that case, arranged in chronological order.” (Bold underline by me.) 

But then it is no secret that every Court in this Country Dockets all measurable activity. 

A Supplemental Brief to a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is certainly measurable. 

I commented that by the Court’s not Docketing my Brief, it would not be available by Searches on the Court’s own website; through services such a LexisNexis; or Westlaw; or others; or a simple Internet Search. 

And, it is even possible that certain/most/all Justices may not have seen my Brief (don’t Judges/Justices now just work from fully e-Dockets?), and thereby Denied my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (for which I filed a Petition for a Rehearing, and which has been Docketed). 

I commented that it appears the Court is hiding my Supplemental Brief (because it details forgeries to the Docket at the Ninth Circuit, and how my Appeal Panel ruled by those forgeries, thereby making false Case Law citations by those forgeries). 

I complemented my “Contact” there in the Clerk’s Office. 

I asked Mt Harris to contact me, and ended my call. 

PS: I then called back and added a “PS” to my first voicemessage, inviting him to this website by “judicialethics.net,” for my version of what has happened since they first received my Brief (on 5/16/24), up to and including his Office receiving a replacement copy of my Brief to file on Tuesday (7/16/24). 

I also noted that my version of what should happen to correct this matter was in my cover letter to the replacement copy of my Brief his Office received on Tuesday. 

I pray Mr Harris will correct this matter...a matter that at face value, appears to be, a gross manipulation of Justice, and even worse, reflective of happened to me at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (someone there forged several entries to my Appeal Case Docket, and my Appeal Panel ruled by those forgeries, and thereby making false Case Law citations).

Am I exposing a deep dark secret? Our US Courts regularly forge their Dockets to deny Justice to In Pro Se litigants? (Is this how our Courts get rid of a large portion of the 90% of their case load they must get rid of/do not have time/resources for?)

Update 7/17/24: The Supreme Court has been evading Docketing my Supplemental Brief as described in several Updates below (yesterday was the 2 month anniversary of the Court receiving my Brief, which the Clerk of the Supreme Court has confirmed, twice).

Why won’t they Docket it? I have never seen, read of, nor even heard of a Court not Docketing a major pleading.

Could it be because my Brief details 3 GOP Appeals Panel Judges Affirming my District Court GOP Judge (the Chief Judge for the District) by using "Someone's" forgeries of my Appeal case Docket (by entries/deletions not seen in District Court), for my Panel to thereby make false case law citations by those forgeries? (Not to mention, my Judge errantly Dismissed my lawsuit against several of his fellow Arizona GOP Power Elites, including my lead Defendant, who is married to one of his Judges [to whom my lawsuit was first assigned].)

So I have Re-filed my Brief, which should be heard at the Rehearing of my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (I filed a Rule 44 Petition for a Rehearing, which has been Docketed), which was Denied on 6/3/24...by the Supreme Court's having excluded my Supplemental Brief (see my cover letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court [click here] , and my re-filed Supplemental Brief [click here], noting with particularity, my signature; the date of; and accompanying note; on page 7).

The Court received my Re-file for my Supplemental Brief this morning at 9:41 [click here] [click here] . Let’s see what they do with it…

Footnote to my Re-filing efforts: I just called my Contact at the Clerk of the Supreme Court’s Office to leave a voicemessage that there was an envelope that had arrived to her Attention; she answered, and when I explained why I was calling, she asked what it is; I said a Re-file of my missing Supplemental Brief; she said there is already a copy of it in the file, which the Justices can access, and that my new copy would not be Docketed, but just be added to the file; I asked why it wouldn’t be Docketed; she said its already available to the Justices as it is in the file; I said but there are many others who look at the Docket, and won’t see it if it is not Docketed; she said anyone can ask for a copy; I said but they won’t know that it exists, if it is not on the Docket; she said it will not be Docketed; I said it is an important part of my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and that I had never seen a Court not Docket a major pleading, but that I would not argue any further; she said have good one.

Update 7/16/24: Last evening, I called my Contact at the Clerk of the Supreme Court's Office and left a voicemessage again regarding my yet missing/not yet Dockted Supplemental Brief (which I reminded my Contact that she has twice confirmed they received on 5-16/24).

It is 2 months today since they received my Brief.

My Brief details how "Someone" at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals forged their Docket, and how my Appeal Panel of 3 GOP Judges Affirmed my District Court Judge, also GOP, by those forgeries.

Update 7/15/24: Please allow me to introduce myself, and give you an overview of what I am up against by 5 approximately 1 to 2 minute video segments:

Segment 1: Introduction of myself and my legal Odyssey [click here];

Segment 2: Judge Snow’s errant Dismissal; “Someone” at the Appeals Court forges their Docket [click here];

Segment 3: My GOP Appeal Panel Affirms by a forged Docket; my efforts with the US Supreme Court [click here];

Segment 4: the Supreme Court misplaces my Supplemental Brief, and Denies my Petition [click here]; and

Segment 5: If the Supreme Court does not Rehear and correct itself [click here].

Update 7/12/24: Last evening (7/11/24), I called my Contact at the Clerk of the Supreme Court’s Office and left a voicemessage regarding my earlier sent/but not yet Docketed Supplemental Brief [click here] (I often prefer using voicemail rather than interrupting someone during their workday).

I originally sent my Brief with a cover letter on 5/15/24 [click here] [click here].

The Court received my Brief on 5/16/24, which they have since confirmed, twice (see my “Update 7/1/24”).

But at that time (5/16/24), someone at the Court misplaced/lost my Brief, and so it was not Docketed, distributed, or considered at Conference for my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on 5/30/24.

My Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (without my Supplemental Brief) was Denied on the morning of 6/3/24.

I then filed a Petition for a Rehearing (which has been Docketed, which see in “Update 7/10/24” just below), which was filed partly based on my Supplemental Brief not having been considered with my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus at Conference (my Petition for a Rehearing contains a copy of my Brief and cover letter as Ex’s 2 and 1 [per the above 2 “click here’s”]).

But my original Supplemental Brief of 5/16/24 has not yet been Docketed, nor the date it arrived noted.

So, in my voicemessage last evening, I asked when my original Supplemental Brief (which, again, the Court has) would be Docketed, and being Docketed as the Court having received it on 5/16/24, but noted as not Docketed until the date it is, to bring the Court’s Docket up to date, to continue documenting my case as it has actually unfolded.

I am now waiting for the Court to Docket my Supplemental Brief as it was submitted, dated as recevied on 5/16/24, but noted it was not Docketed until the date it is.

Update 7/10/24: Late yesterday afternoon, the Supreme Court Docketed my Rule 44 Petition for a Rehearing [click here], which includes as Ex 2, my missing Supplemental Brief (which I filed on 5/15/24, but which went missing as “someone” at the Court misplaced/lost my Brief) .

I note that because my Supplemental Brief was lost [click here], it was not Docketed nor distributed for Conference (on 5/30/24), and so not considered at Conference when my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus was thereby incompletely considered/Denied.

When I first filed my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on 3/28/24 [click here], it was filed to obtain an Order of Mandamus for the Supreme Court to Order that a new Appeal Panel be appointed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to then rule on the 2nd of 2 District Court Orders of Dismissal which I had Appealed (the 1st Order was Ruled on, which see); which was argued On-Appeal, by both sides; but not ruled on (and the Ninth Circuit refused to respond to any of my 6 pleadings questioning why they did not Rule on the 2nd Order [see my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus for the 6 pleadings, Apndx E1-6]).

I made mention in my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus of what I thought were irregularities (forgeries) to the Appeals Court’s Docket Header and various Docket Entries. And I asked that the new Appeal Panel I was requesting be Ordered to also review the one/the 1st of the 2 Orders of Dismissal my Appeal Panel did Rule on, as that Order looked suspect.

I was not experienced/bright enough to pick up on what those forgeries meant to my Appeal Panel when they considered, and then ruled on, my Appeal of the 2 District Court Orders I had appealed.

Upon further study and reflection of those “irregularities,” I realized what “Someone’s” forgeries to the Appeals Court’s Docket Header and various Docket Entries meant, and how my Appeal Panel had errantly used them to Affirm the 1st of the 2 Orders of Dismissal I had appealed (and why they ignored my 8 pleadings asking about those forgeries [see Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Apndx I]).

So, I filed a Supplemental Brief that focused on the forgeries and how my Appeal Panel used “Someone’s” forgeries to make false Case Law citations by to corruptly Affirm the 1st of the 2 Orders of Dismissal by the District Court I had appealed (again, see a copy of my replacement Supplemental Brief as submitted on 5-15-24 [click here], which, again, appears above as Ex 2 to my just Docketed Petition for a Rehearing). As noted above, my Brief was misplaced/lost/or pulled by someone at the Court (I say this as the Clerk of Supreme Court has confirmed to me they had received my Brief on 5/15/24).

Note: “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit forged “Attorney General, Attorney General” on to the Docket (a title not seen in District Court); deleted “for acts as” from the Docket (also not seen in District Court), and committed other forgeries not seen in District Court. These forgeries occurred to just 1 of my 11 Defendants/Appellees. My Appeal Panel then used these forgeries to Rule by, making fraudulent Case Law citations (see my replacement Supplemental Brief at the just above “click here” or as Ex 2 to my Petition for a Rehearing).

My Appeal Panel also refused to Rule on the 2nd Order I had Appealed, and that was argued On-Appeal, by both sides (see my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus). Apparently, the Ninth Circuit could not think of a forgery to commit to Rule by for this 2nd of 2 Appealed and argued On-Appeal Orders.

I pray our respected Supreme Court will now Grant my simple, straightforward Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to Order the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to explain:

1.) why there are at least 15 forged Entries to their Docket for my Appeal (forged with titles/deletions that appeared nowhere in District Court);

2.) why my Appeal Panel used certain of those forgeries to make false Case Law citations by to Affirm the 1st of the 2 Orders of Dismissal I appealed; and

3.) why my Appeal Panel refused to Rule on the 2nd of the 2 Orders I appealed; and that was argued On-Appeal, by both sides.

These simple, basic requests, must be an unquestionable part of American Justice, including Due Process.

The Dismissal of my lawsuit in District Court by 2 errant Orders of Dismissal; my Appeal of the 2 Orders to the Ninth Circuit; and then my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the US Supreme Court, and my missing/now replaced Supplemental Brief; document a string of Republicans corruptly protecting one another, treating Lady Justice with disdain (I am a moderate Independent).

Update 7/9/24: I am waiting for my Petition for a Rehearing to be Docketed (the Clerk of the Supreme Court received it one week ago this morning [noting the 4th of July Holiday]).

This Petition contains a replacement copy of my Supplemental Brief which someone at the Supreme Court either misplaced, lost, or pulled, and so was not Docketed nor therefor seen by interested parties or considered at Conference by the Court when it considered my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (and thusly, my Petition was Denied).

My Supplemental Brief documents “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit of Appeals having forged Docket entries there (“entries” including deletions); and then my Appeal Panel of 3 (GOP) Judges Affirming the 1st of 2 Orders of Dismissal by the Arizona US District Court Chief (GOP) Judge I had Appealed; Affirming him by false Case Law citations based on “Someone’s” forgeries (the Chief District Court GOP Judge errantly Dismissed my lawsuit against several of his fellow Arizona GOP Power Elites).

Note: “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit forged “Attorney General, Attorney General” on to the Docket (a title not seen in District Court); deleted “for acts as” from the Docket, and committed other forgeries. These forgeries occurred to just 1 of 11 Defendants/Appellees. My Appeal Panel then used these forgeries to Rule by, making fraudulent Case Law citations (see my replacement Supplemental Brief as Ex 2 to my Petition for a Rehearing).

My Appeal Panel also refused to Rule on the 2nd Order of the 2 Orders I Appealed, and that was argued On-Appeal, by both sides (see my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus). Apparently, the Ninth Circuit could not think of a forgery to commit to Rule by for this 2nd of 2 Appealed and argued On-Appeal Orders.

The Dismissal of my lawsuit in District Court by 2 errant Orders; my Appeal of the 2 Orders to the Ninth Circuit; and then my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the US Supreme Court, and my missing/now replaced Supplemental Brief; document a string of Republicans corruptly protecting one another, treating Lady Justice with disdain (I am a moderate Independent).

Update 7/8/24 10:12 AM: My Contact in the Clerk of the Supreme Court’s Office called and left a voicemessage repeating that they do have my Petition for a Rehearing, but they have not had time to review it yet, but would be doing so soon…she noted that with the July 4th Holiday, and all that is going on at the Court, they just have not had time, but soon would, and that I should “just hang tight.” My Contact invited me to call if I have any further questions.

Update 7/8/24 early AM: I called the Supreme Court late last evening (7/7/24) and left a voicemessage for my Contact there, saying:

“Good morning...this is Will Graven checking in.

I hope you had a 4 day weekend...now back to work.

I have 2 short items on my list for this call:

1)   a quick reminder that I would appreciate your letting me know when there has been movement on my Petition for a Rehearing being Docketed (besides myself, there are a number of people wondering if the Court will Docket this, or bury it like my Supplemental Brief);

2)   you hadn’t said anything about receiving my message regarding my website, so I wanted to make certain you received that information...you can find my site by 1 of 3 addresses;

a.    senatejudiciarycommitteeforsupremecourtethics.com;

b.    housejudiciarycommitteeforsupremecourtethics.com; or

c.     judicialethics.net

There are a lot of people following my case that do not believe what the Ninth Circuit did was right...nor do they believe the Supreme Court denying my Petition was right.

I guess you realize my case involves someone at the Ninth Circuit forging that Court’s Docket...and that my Appeal Panel ruled by those forgeries for the 1st of 2 District Court Orders I Appealed...and that the Ninth simply refused to rule on the 2nd Order.

Thank you...I look forward to hearing from you.”

I am waiting for my Petition for a Rehearing to be Docketed…

Update 7/5/24: I am waiting for the Supreme Court to Docket my Petition for a Rehearing [click here], with my lost-by-the-Court/now replaced by me Supplemental Brief (see Ex 2 to this new Petition), to then correct their having approved/condoned (by Denying my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, the result of someone at the Court having lost/pulled my Brief) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for having forged various Entries to the Docket (yes, entries forged at/by the Ninth), and then having used those forged Docket Entries to make false Case Law Citations by those forgeries, to Affirm the 1st of 2 District Court Orders I appealed for the District Court’s errant Dismissal of my lawsuit (see my Supplemental Brief as Ex 2 just above); and the Ninth having simply refused to Rule on the 2nd of the 2 Orders I Appealed, that were argued On-Appeal (by both sides), but which the Ninth refused to Rule on (see my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus just below at “click here”).

Comments: The Ninth Circuit refused to answer where those forgeries came from, as they refused to respond to my 8 pleadings regarding such (see my Supplemental Brief as Ex 2 above), and they refused to respond to the Supreme Court’s Order to respond to my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (which see below at “click here”); and the Ninth also refused to answer why they would not Rule on the 2nd Order, as they refused to respond to my 6 pleadings regarding such (see my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus at “click here”), and they refused to respond to the Supreme Court’s Order to respond to my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (which see [click here]).

If the Supreme Court does not correct itself through a Rehearing, we will have 3 (new?) precedents for Judicial anarchy, and endless Judicial corruption:

1.) the Supreme Court’s approval for our Courts to forge their Docket Entries (as happened to me) (please see Notes 1, 2, and 3 in my Update 7/3/24 just below);

2.) the Supreme Court’s approval for our Courts to use their forged Docket Entries to rule by (e.g., to make false Case Law citations by those forged Docket Entries [as happened to me]); and

3.) the Supreme Court’s approval for our Courts to simply refuse to Rule (as happened to me).

Any one of these 3 “precedents” being used by our Courts, let alone 2 or 3, would be the end of American Justice (as it has been for me).

Update 7/4/24: Happy Birthday USA!

I pray we still have Justice in this great Country…

Update 7/3/24: Early this morning, before the Supreme Court opened, I left a voicemessage asking my Contact there to let me know, if convenient, when there has been movement on Docketing my Petition for a Rehearing (in truth, it would be my first-time Hearing, with both my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and my Supplemental Brief being considered together).

As the Supreme Court’s Denial of my Petition now stands, by someone at the Court having buried my Supplemental Brief, the Court has given us a two-part recipe for Judicial anarchy (and/or 3 clever tools to dismiss/rule against/eliminate Pro Se litigants, en masse):

1.) The US Supreme Court has approved/condoned US Courts forging their (the forging Court) Docket (noting, the forging Court does not need to explain why/where these forgeries came from), and

2.) Then using those forgeries to make false Case Law citations by to manipulate their (the forging Court) rulings (see Notes 1, 2, and 3 below); and

3.) The US Supreme Court has approved/condoned US Appeals Court simply refusing to rule on Appealed/argued On-Appeal Orders (noting, the belligerent Court does not need to explain why they did not/will not rule).

Note 1: “Someone” at the Appeals Court forged “Attorney General, Attorney General” (yes, they said/forged it twice, in a row) into several entries on that Court’s Docket for one individually named Defendant/Appellee (who was sued in part under 42 USC Sec 1983), and that “Someone” at the Appeals Court also deleted “for acts as” from that same Appellee’s Defendant Header, while leaving “for acts as” in place for the 10 other Defendants/Appellees, and not randomly giving/forging unwarranted titles to any of the 10 others, as the Appeals Court did the one Defendant/Appellee.

Note 2: My Appeal Panel gave 2 citations of Case Law by the forgery of “Attorney General, Attorney General” and the forgery/deletion of “for acts as” to Affirm the 1st of 2 Orders that I had Appealed and that were argued On-Appeal (argued by both myself as the Appellant, and the Appellees).

Note 3: The term “Attorney General, Attorney General” was not used anywhere for this Defendant/Appellee in District Court (not by me/not by the Defendant(s)/not by the Judge).I will certainly post when my Petition for a ReHearing is Docketed.

Update 7/2/24: At 10:06AM this morning, my Petition for a Rehearing arrived to the Supreme Court [Click Here] [Click Here].

My Petition for a Rehearing simply states that if the Court does not Re-Hear my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, considering such with my Supplemental Brief (which someone at the Court lost/pulled, and so it was not Docketed), and thereby reverse its Denial of my request for an Order of Mandamus, the Court will be approving and setting precedent for:

1.) US Federal Courts would now be openly approved/condoned to forge entries on a Court’s Docket, by which a/any Court can manipulate how it rules (is this our Federal Courts’ “secret weapon" against In Pro Se litigants?);

2.) US Appeals Courts would now be openly approved/condoned to simply ignore ruling on an Appealed and argued On-Appeal Order (for my Appeal, argued by both sides), for whatever reason it chooses, and without explanation to the Appellant (another tool for our Federal Courts to wage war against In Pro Se litigants?)

This is clearly a two-part recipe for Judicial anarchy (and/or clever tools to dismiss/rule against/eliminate In Pro Se litigants, en masse).

Is allowing our Courts the tool of forgery, a “deep state” vehicle for manipulating Justice, and protecting those privy to the deep state? (In my Case, our GOP controlled Supreme Court is Denying my Appeal/Petition to protect 3 GOP Appeals Court Judges who Affirmed by 2 false case law citations that were based on the Docket of my Appeal being forged; and simply refusing to rule on a 2nd Appealed/argued On-Appeal Order, to protect a GOP Chief District Court Judge who errantly Dismissed my lawsuit to protect fellow GOP Power Elites).

Is allowing our Courts the tool of simply refusing to rule on an Appealed Order, also a “deep state” vehicle for manipulating Justice, and protecting those privy to the deep state?

I argued that I had not been given a “Complete Petition Process" (i.e., the Justices did not see my Supplemental Brief; nor did potential “Friends of the Court” see my Brief, and so could not have been motivated to join in; nor was my Brief seen by the Appeals Court, possibly soliciting a response from them).

I reminded the Court (in my Petition for a ReHearing [2nd blue “click here” just above]) how “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit had used forgery to give my 3 GOP Judge Appeals Panel a false basis to Affirm the GOP Chief Judge for the District of Arizona (who had errantly Dismissed my lawsuit against several Arizona GOP Power Elites):

Note 1: “Someone” at the Appeals Court forged “Attorney General, Attorney General” (yes, they said/forged it twice, in a row) into several entries on that Court’s Docket for one individually named Defendant/Appellee (who was sued in part under 42 USC Sec 1983), and that “Someone” deleted “for acts as” from that same Appellee’s Defendant Header (the Appeals Court did not respond to any of my 8 different pleadings I filed asking about these forgeries, see my Petition), while leaving “for acts as” in place for the 10 other Defendants/Appellees, and not randomly giving/forging unwarranted titles to any of the 10 others, as the Appeals Court did the one Defendant/Appellee.

Note 2: The term “Attorney General, Attorney General” was not used anywhere for this Defendant/Appellee in District Court (not by me/not by the Defendant(s)/not by the Judge).

And I reminded the Court that my 3 GOP Judge Appeal Panel adamantly refused to rule on the 2nd of the 2 Orders I had Appealed (and that had been argued On-Appeal, by both sides). They did not even explain why they had not ruled (although I filed 6 different pleadings asking why they did not rule on the 2nd Order).

I am now waiting to see if the Court will post my Petition for a ReHearing (or will they hide that also? [as they did my Supplemental Brief]).

Update 7/1/24 mid AM: Not long after the Court opened this morning, my Contact returned my voicemessage, and we spoke.

My Contact explained the only pleading I could at this time (post Denial) was a Rule 44 Petition for a rehearing.

I noted that it did not seem to me I should be asking for a Re-Hearing, when I had really not been given a first-time Hearing (at Conference) as the Court Denied my Petition by only considering my Petition, and not with my Supplemental Brief, as it had not been Docketed; or apparently, distributed. My Contact confirmed there was a copy in the Court’s folder for my Case.

I explained my “Prayer Pleading” (which see late in my “Update 6/28/24,” the 2nd of 3 “click here” buttons) did ask for a Hearing, a first time Hearing, with my Petition and Brief being considered together, with my Brief being what it was intended for: to be Supplemental to what is not in my Brief.

My Contact could not confirm that although they received my Brief on 5/16/24, and there is a copy in my folder there (but again, it was not Docketed), that it was distributed and considered at Conference.

My Contact again stated that a Rule 44 Petition for a Rehearing was the only pleading I could now file. She said she would return my Prayer Pleading with a cover letter explaining this.

By this time on the 1st, I had approximately 6 hours to convert my Prayer Pleading to a Petition for a ReHearing, which I immediately set about doing.

My Petition for a ReHearing was sent just before the 4:30PM cutoff (where I am) for overnight delivery to the Court the next morning (7/2/24).

Update 7/1/24 early am: I called and left a voicemessage for my contact at the Supreme Court asking if she would let me know when my Replacement Supplemental Brief had been forwarded to the next department for Docketing (and I commented that they had received my Replacement Brief 1 week ago this morning).

I noted it was someone at the Court who had lost or pulled my Brief, and thereby caused the Court’s Consideration of my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus at my Conference to be incomplete, causing a Denial of my Petition.

I noted it was not my fault we have this mess/redo being required.

I noted I was concerned my Brief would be lost or pulled again.

I suggested the Court take a look at my/this website: judicialethics.net

I thanked my contact for her time and efforts.

I am now waiting for the Court to set a new Conference for a “Complete Hearing” (my Petition being considered with and supported by my Replacement Supplemental Brief [which contains information not in my Petition, and so information not considered at Conference on 5/30/24]).

Update 6/28/24: Here is what I am waiting for the Supreme Court to do, to fix, and why: On 5/16/24, the Clerk of the Supreme Court received my Rule 15.8 Supplemental Brief to my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (the Clerk actually suggested the Supplemental Brief, with a mistaken/returned pleading I had submitted). I sent my Supplemental Brief on 5/10/24, to arrive on 5/13/24 (but which the Court did not receive until 5/16/24). The Clerk of the Supreme Court has confirmed they received my Brief on 5/16/24 (which see here, and in detail in my “Update 6/24/24” below). My Petition was Docketed on 4/1/24 as having been sent/filed on 3/28/24; and by which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was Ordered on 4/2/24 to Respond to my Petition by 5/2/24 (Case No 23-7130).

Yes, the Clerk of the Supreme Court received my Supplemental Brief on 5/16/24, reviewed it, approved it, and forwarded it to the next “department” for Docketing (see the Clerk confirm this). In my cover letter to my Brief, I offered to have my Conference moved to a later date/Conference if more time was needed for the Justices to review my Brief for Conference (on 5/15/24, the Court scheduled the Conference for 5/30/24),.

But then, after the Clerk of the Supreme Court forwarded my Supplemental Brief to the next department, someone in that department, or another party at the Court, “misplaced” or “lost” (or pulled?) my Brief, so it was not Docketed, nor distributed, so therefore, not considered at Conference, as intended/filed: To support my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with new information/detail not in my Petition (at Conference on 5/30/24).

The Court therefore “considered”” and Denied my Petition at Conference without my Supplemental Brief (which someone at the Court lost/pulled).

My “lost” Supplemental Brief details corrupt acts by 3 Ninth Circuit GOP Judges (which see my Note just below). My “lost” Brief and the implications of it being lost are suspect (the Supreme Court of the United States does not lose/misplace pleadings).

Note: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not respond to the Supreme Court’s Order to respond to my Petition (the Ninth Circuit was to respond by 5/2/24). The Ninth Circuit was to respond to why they had used forged Docket entries to rule by on the 1st of 2 District Court Orders I had Appealed (forged Docket entries with information that appeared no where in District Court); and why they refused to rule at all on the 2nd Order. So, although the Ninth Circuit refused to explain their errant acts as I alleged and documented in my Petition, the Supreme Court Denied my Petition for an Order of Mandamus to force them to explain their errant acts on the 1st Order Appealed, and to rule on the 2nd Order (but then again, I believe the Supreme Court Denied my Petition because someone lost/pulled my Supplemental Brief and so it was not considered in the Court’s decision making process at Conference on 5/30/24).

My Supplemental Brief just vanished after being processed/approved by the Clerk of the Supreme Court (as told to me by the Asst Clerk of the Supreme Court: After they received my Brief on 5/16/24, they reviewed/approved and then passed my Brief on to the next department to be Docketed [again, see the Clerk of the Supreme Court confirm this in my “Update 6/24/24”]).

On 6/3/24, as I was waiting for my Supplemental Brief to be Docketed (or returned with comment, which it wasn’t), the Court Denied my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus...I immediately filed a Petition for Reconsideration (not yet knowing that my Supplemental Brief had been lost/pulled, and so had not been used/not considered at Conference). It was not until 6/19/24 that I realized/knew my Brief had been lost/misplaced/pulled by someone at the Supreme Court, and so not considered at Conference. (I realized my Brief had not been used/not considered/had disappeared, when the Clerk of the Supreme Court returned my Petition for Reconsideration [suggesting an alternate], but did not return any other pleadings [i.e., they did not return my Supplemental Brief, which had been submitted 3 weeks earlier than my Petition for Reconsideration], and my Brief was not Docketed [i.e., it had disappeared].)

So, on 6/20/24, I sent the Supreme Court what I called my “Prayer Pleading” (which see just below) as a “replacement” or “alternate" to my returned Petition for Reconsideration (or a Petition for a Re-Hearing), with a copy of my previously filed Supplemental Brief the Court had lost, asking the Court to step back from its having Denied my Petition, and take a good/fair look at my Petition, by including what they had lost: My Supplemental Brief.

I have not asked for a “Re-Hearing” (Rule 44), I have asked for a “first-time” Hearing, a “Complete Hearing“ if you will, of my Petition and my “lost” Brief, together: See my “Prayer Pleading” cover letter [click here]; my Prayer Pleading, with a copy of my original Supplemental Brief as earlier filed/but lost/pulled by someone at the Court [click here]; and my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus [click here].

The Clerk of the Supreme Court also confirmed (which again see below in my “Update 6/24/24”) they received my voicemessage on Friday morning 6/21/24 that my overnight envelope with my Replacement Supplemental Brief (the Prayer Pleading) would be delayed until Monday morning 6/24/24, and that they had received my Replacement Brief that morning (6/24/24).

How could the Supreme Court of the United States lose/misplace (be pulled by someone?) such an important pleading, and not take steps to correct whatever happened, by holding a new Conference, a “Complete Hearing”? Is our GOP controlled Supreme Court protecting 3 Ninth Circuit GOP Judges, and a GOP Chief District Judge (who errantly dismissed my lawsuit against Arizona GOP Power Elites) by evading my Supplemental Brief (which documents and details corruption by these 4 GOP Judges)?

I whole heartedly believe our Supreme Court will do the right thing and hold a new Conference with my Petition and Brief being considered, together.

Updated 6/27/24: I received a callback/voicemessage from the Clerk of the Supreme Court first thing this morning, in response to my 2 voicemessages from yesterday, saying they have received my replacement Supplemental Brief, but that it has not been processed so not yet posted, but that they would be doing so, in time, inviting me to call back if I had any further questions. I did make a quick callback, thanking the Asst Clerk for their call and voicemessage.

I am now waiting to see when my replacement Supplemental Brief will be posted, and distributed, for a new Conference, to then be considered as the properly submitted and accepted Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, supported by a Supplemental Brief, that I filed (which, as recounted below, my Brief was misplaced or pulled from consideration by someone at the Court, so it was missing at my first Conference, which led to my Petition being Denied. This Denial thereby put our Supreme Court in the position of having approved/condoned documented corrupt acts by 3 Ninth Circuit GOP Judges. The 3 GOP Appeal Judges used forged Docket entries [that are documented to have occurred at the Ninth Circuit] to make false citations by to Affirm a District Court GOP Judge, who had errantly Dismissed my case against Arizona GOP Power Elite Defendants; and the Supreme Court’s Denial approved/condoned my 3 Appeal Judges flat-out refusing to rule on the 2nd of 2 District Court Orders that I had Appealed, and that had been argued On-Appeal [argued by both sides]).

Updated 6/26/24 PM: I called and left another message with the Clerk of the Supreme Court asking when my replacement Supplemental Brief would be posted…I again expressed my concern that my replacement would be lost/pulled, as the first one was (I believe this happened/is happening because it exposes 3 Ninth Circuit GOP Judges corrupt acts).

Updated 6/26/24 AM: I called the Clerk of Supreme Court this morning leaving a voicemessage (for my established contact there) commenting that my replacement Supplemental Brief had arrived Monday morning at 9:36AM, but I note that it has not yet been posted to the Docket...and that I am concerned it will be lost (or pulled) by someone at the Court again...and I asked the Clerk of Court’s Office to please advise.

I understand the Clerk may need to investigate what happened to my first/lost/pulled Supplemental Brief, but that should not slow them down from posting my replacement copy, distributing it, and setting a date for a new Conference to consider my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with my Supplemental Brief, together.

Updated 6/25/24: On Monday, 6-24-24, a Member of the Clerk of the Supreme Court’s Staff called me (I am withholding the Staff Member’s name, but I do have proof of the call).

The Staffer confirmed that they had received my voice-message from Friday morning that my overnight envelope with my replacement Supplemental Brief (which, per my Update below on 6-24-24, the replacement was needed because “someone” at the Court either misplaced my Brief, or pulled it from the Court’s processes, which see) would not be arriving that Friday (6-21-24), as it should have, but that it would be arriving yesterday morning (which it did, Monday, 6-24-24, at 9:36AM [click here]).

In Speaking with the Staffer, she confirmed that they had received my original Supplemental Brief on 5-16-24, and then after processing, they passed it on (as I claimed in my Update below, on 6-24-24, and pleadings filed that day; see both blue “click here” buttons towards the end of my 6-24-24 Update for those pleadings).

The Staffer did not offer an explanation of what happened to my originally submitted Brief, that has gone missing, and is yet missing, since the Clerk’s Office processed it, and passed it on (and this is why I had to send a replacement Brief, and ask for the Court to hold a new Conference to consider my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and my Supplemental Brief, together).

Thusly, it has been confirmed: I filed a Supplemental Brief (which detailed the forged Docket my 3 GOP Judge Appeal Panel ruled by); it was not posted; nor distributed for Conference; and so not considered at Conference (on 5-30-24), as supplemental material to support my Petition.

And so, the Court needs to step back, and consider my Petition and my Supplemental Brief, together, at a new Conference.

Oh, and…where is my missing Brief? Who misplaced/pulled it? Why? (I believe, it was pulled to protect a string of errant GOP Judges and Republican stalwart Defendants).

Things just don’t get misplaced at the US Supreme Court…someone pulled it, to increase the likelihood that my Petition, representing only 1/2 of my case/argument, would be Denied.

Thank you for visiting my website. Will Graven, Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff

Updated 6/24/24: Was my Supplemental Brief lost by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, or pulled by someone at the Court? (More SCOTUS ethics questions?)

Yes…my Supplemental Brief was received by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, but not posted on to the Docket, nor distributed, and so not considered at Conference to support my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to Order my Appeal Panel of 3 GOP Judges at the Ninth Circuit to explain their errant acts (my Panel acted errantly to Affirm the Chief Judge for the District of Arizona, a GOP Judge who had Dismissed my Lawsuit against several of his fellow Arizona Republican Power Elites [my lead Defendant, who is Arizona GOP royalty, is married to one of that GOP Chief Judge’s District Court Judges] [noting: my GOP Appeal Panel Affirmed 1 of 2 District Court Orders I Appealed, by documented forged Appeals Court Docket entries, making false citations by those forgeries; and they simply refused to rule on the 2nd Appealed Order] [See my 6-11-24 Update below for more detail on these matters.]).

The SCOTUS “erred” in Denying my Petition because “someone” at the Court lost/pulled my Supplemental Brief. (Was this done by someone in the Clerk’s Office, or higher? Who was it done for? This string of GOP stalwarts?) But then again, my Petition covered much of the events described above (So why did our GOP controlled Supreme Court not Order 3 GOP Appeals Court Judges to explain whey they used a forged Docket to rule by, and why ignored the 2nd of 2 Appealed District Court Orders?).

I have asked the Supreme Court to step back from their Denying my Petition, by mangled input, and give my Petition a “Complete Hearing” at a new Conference…with my Supplemental Brief being considered as it was intended/filed: As important supplemental material to my Petition [click here] [click here].

Thank you for visiting my website. Will Graven, Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff, In Pro Se

Updated 6/11/24: Our GOP controlled Supreme Court of the United States has just ruled by the errant ethics our US Senate Judiciary Committee is attempting to fix: GOP Federal Judges are above the law (as just documented in my own case, No 23-7130 [click here]). 

And see the GOP Justices of our Supreme Court attempt to hide this corrupt GOP Judicial reality (by not publishing, considering, returning, but rather hiding, Petition documentation I submitted to advance my case).

I need your help, our Country needs your help…to expose errant, albeit, somewhat clever, case reversing, GOP Judicial frauds (some of which are criminal, which see) they use to protect their own (be it GOP District Court Judges protecting Republican defendants, or senior Courts GOP Judges protecting lower court GOP Judges).

US Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Welch, and Booker, amongst others, have been diligently working on the Senate Judiciary Committee to improve the errant ethics of our Supreme Court.

Thank you for visiting my website.

Introduction: Yes, our GOP controlled US Supreme Court has ruled: GOP Federal Judges (i.e., not only GOP Supreme Court Justice, but GOP Appeals Court and District Court Judges) are above the law, even when their (the GOP Judges) errant and corrupt acts are documented by their own records. My GOP Appeals Court Judges’ corrupt acts include (which the Supreme Court just approved): 

(1)   Affirming a District Court GOP Judge’s Order by an anonymously forged Appeals Court Docket Header (“forged” by terms not seen/used/nor even claimed by anyone in the District Court [not by the District Court Judge, not by the Defendants, nor by me]), and other forged Docket Entries (which see these seemingly outrageous allegations fully documented); and 

(2)   refusing to Order my GOP Appeal Judges to rule on the 2nd of 2 Appealed and argued On-Appeal District Court Orders (which later see this [by our Supreme Court] refusal translate into other errant/corrupt GOP Judge supporting acts).  

To be clear on No (1): “Someone” at the Appeals Court forged the Appeals Court’s Docket for my Appeal…and those forgeries are what my GOP Appeal Panel Judges ruled by…protecting the District Court GOP Judge and my GOP Power Elite Defendants (this is fully documented, which see),

My Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Panel of 3 GOP Judges refused to take action, or explain their acts, when I repeatedly questioned them about these matters by a series of pleadings (i.e., after I realized what they had done/were doing). You will see these multiple pleadings below.

These GOP Appeal Judges refused to respond to the GOP controlled Supreme Court because they (the GOP Appeal Judges) knew the Supreme Court would back them up. 

The Supreme Court just (on June 3) allowed these corrupt acts by 4 GOP Judges to stand (my 3 Appeal Judges, and my 1 District Court Judge, which see), and the Supreme Court allowed their (the GOP Judges) refusing to act, or respond, to stand (post the Supreme Court having ordered the Appeals Court Judges to Respond to my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus [which they did not]). 

In other words, the Supreme Court just accepted/condoned 4 GOP Judges not only acting errantly, but committing criminal acts, as using forged portions of the Appeals Court Docket to issue false Federal documents by (e.g., Court Orders); and other, here, are not just corrupt, they are criminal. 

The Supreme Court did not require the Appeal Judges to take action or explain their acts, and so thereby accepted/endorsed these Appeal Judges’ documented errant acts by their (the GOP Appeal Judges) non-responses.

To state this clearly, without the Appeal Judges explanation, the Supreme Court decided on its own (although the Supreme Court had the physical evidence of the Appeals Judges’ criminal acts): These GOP Appeal Judges’ documented criminal acts are acceptable (perhaps the Supreme Court was acting to protect the useful tools of corruption my Appeals Judges used on me, as much as they [the Supreme Court] were protecting the GOP Appeal Judges). 

Will other Federal Courts now use these corrupt acts (forging the Docket; and ignoring Appealed Orders, only ruling when and on what they want to for whom they want) to manipulate “Justice” in their own Courts, for their own purposes? (Or, are other GOP Judges already using these corrupt acts?)

Isn’t the Supreme Court stoking the fires of the Judicial anarchy that are now so widely causing concern in our great Country (and even causing concern worldwide)?

Is this another example of the out of control Judicial Ethics our US Senate Judiciary Committee is currently pursuing?

And again, yes, I just experienced this myself, in my own case (again, on June 3), at the US Supreme Court (Case No 23-7130), and it is documented, as you will see below. 

Background: I filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for Arizona, in Phoenix. My lawsuit was against a number of then current/former State employees (and a former State retained civil defense attorney), whom I sued in part under a Federal law, 42 USC Sec 1983, which is for suing State employees who acted under the color of State law (see Note 7 for more on Sec 1983). After a flurry of activity, my case was Dismissed, and so I Appealed that Dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after which I went to the US Supreme Court (which see my lawsuit: Graven v Brnovich et al, Case No 2-22-cv-00062-GMS [click here]; see my Appeal to the Ninth Circuit as Case No 22-16909 [click here]; and again, see my Supreme Court case as No 23-7130 [click here]. 

Note 1: Please take note of my Defendant Header to my District Court lawsuit [click here], and that I sued these Defendants individually “for acts as” (which a part of Sec 1983), and that I sued for personal liabilities, that I excluded the State’s Treasury [see the importance of this in Dugan v Rank, US], and etc, all making it a personal liability lawsuit). And also please note that the terms “Attorney General, Attorney General” or “Attorney General’s Office” do not appear there, nor will it be seen in any other District Court documentation, including in any of the Judge’s Orders, e.g., in his 2 Orders of Dismissal [click here] [see the Order Header, and page 6 for the 2 Orders]). Please take particular note that the qualifier of “for acts as” appears with every one of my Defendants [click here] (Noting, with particularity, “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit will later delete “for acts as” from my lead Defendant, Mark Brnovich [click here] [which see, at the bottom of page one]). See the legal importance of “for acts as” in Note 7.

Note 2: Please take note, neither Mark Brnovich nor any of his 10 fellow Defendants claimed, at anytime, in any pleading, in District Court or at the Ninth Circuit, that I had sued him as the as the “Attorney General, Attorney General,” or “Attorney General, “ or as the “Attorney General’s Office” (they did not make these claims, because I I had not). But “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit later forged the Appeal Docket for my Appeal Panel to rule by (and thereby Affirm District Court Judge Snow), claiming I allegedly sued him as both “the “Attorney General, Attorney General” and the “Attorney General’s Office” (which see). 

Note 2 1/2: Forging the Docket to add “Attorney General, Attorney General,” a term which changes the legal nature of my Defendants, is not just clever attorney shit (and it was done by “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit, not the Defendants’ attorney), it is criminal (as is ruling by such a forgery).

Note 3: Please take note, my Defendants themselves, in their own pleadings, used the term “for acts as” (e.g., see their own Headers in their 2 Motions to Dismiss [click here] [click here]) (noting, with particularity, my lead Defendant, Mark Brnovich), but that “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit later deleted “for acts as” for Defendant Brnovich (but no one else [28 click]), and then also ruled by this forgery (which see). Again, see the legal importance of “for acts as” with Note 7.

Note 3 1/2: Forging the Docket, by deleting a term which changes the legal nature of a Defendant, is not just clever attorney shit (and it was done by “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit, not the Defendant’s attorney), it is criminal (as is ruling by such a forgery).

Note 4: My District Court Judge was G Murray Snow, a well known Arizona Republican. One of his Judges, Susan Brnovich, is married to my lead Defendant, well known Arizona Republican Mark Brnovich (most of my Defendants are Arizona Republican Power Elites [again, later see all 3 of my Ninth Circuit Appeal Panel Judges being Republican]). 

My lawsuit had 11 Defendants, who divided themselves into 2 Groups by my different allegations, and so the 2 Groups filed 2 different Motion to Dismiss [click here] [click here]. 

Judge Snow considered the 2 Motion to Dismiss, and Granted both Motions.

Judge Snow committed no less that 20 clear/obvious frauds in Dismissing my Defendants, many of whom are his fellow Arizona Republican Power Elites (and again, one of his Judges is married to my lead Defendant).

The Appeals Court forging my individual Defendant to “Attorney General, Attorney General” and deleting “for acts as” is the platform my GOP Appeal Judges created to Affirm District Court GOP Judge Snow, and save my Republican Power Elite Defendants. 

I Appealed District Court Judge Snow’s 2 Dismissals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: I Appealed both Orders of Dismissal to the Ninth Circuit; both Orders were argued, by myself as the Appellant, and the 2 Groups of Defendants as then Appellees. 

Note 5: The Chief Judge for the Ninth Circuit is Judge Mary Murguia, a longtime Phoenix attorney, and then Judge, who has long officed and worked with Judge Snow, and Judge Brnovich. Although she (Judge Murguia) has long been on the Ninth Circuit, she has done so from Phoenix. 

Note 6: Somehow, in an Appeals Court with less than ½ of the Judges being Republican appointees, all 3 of my Appeal Panel Judges are Republican (clearly, they were handpicked, to Affirm Republican Judge Snow [likely, by his long-term office neighbor, Chief Judge Murguia]).

“Someone” at Ninth Circuit Forged the Docket for my Appeal Panel to Rule by: Here is where the errant, blatantly criminal corruption of my GOP Appeal Panel, becomes apparent (and will later [again, on June 3rd] be accepted/endorsed by our Supreme Court).

My Appeal begins: Let’s begin with the first communication I received from the Ninth Circuit [click here]. Please take note, the Header, or “Short Title” of of the Appeal that the Ninth Circuit had opened was, clearly, “William Graven v Mark Brnovich et al” (point here: There is no “Attorney General, Attorney General, nor even just “AG” before or after my individual Defendant Brnovich)

But then, ”Someone” at the Ninth Circuit forged my lead individual Defendant (Mark Brnovich), to “Attorney General, Attorney General” (yes, saying Attorney General, twice) on to the Appeal Court’s Docket Header [click here], and in other Docket Entries (at least 15 times). Please see the Docket Header of this Exhibit for Defendant Mark Brnovich, versus my lawsuit, my Defendants own pleading Headers (which all have no title for Defendant Brnovich, and have “for acts as” for him ), and the see the next 10 Defendants names, all with “for acts as” (just like my pleadings, and just like my Defendants’ pleadings), then see the Docker Summary at the top of page 5 to this Exhibit; and then see the 1st Entry to the Docket at the top of page 6 (these are just 3 of the 15 plus times “Someone" at the Ninth Circuit forged the Docket).

This term “Attorney General, Attorney General” appeared nowhere in District Court, and the term “for acts as” always did.

Yes, that “Someone” deleted “for acts as,” but only for Defendant Brnovich, no other Defendant (which see [click here] at the bottom of page one]). (Please see Note 7 just below for the importance of this particular forgery.)  

Note 7: Using “for acts as” is a part of suing under 42 USC Sec 1983, which is a Federal Law that allows aggrieved parties to sue (in Federal Court) State employees who acted under the color of State law. Again, deleting “for acts as” and forging “Attorney General, Attorney General” on to the Docket was not just clever attorney shit...it is criminal, as is ruling by it...and it wasn’t the Defendants’ attorney who forged these items, it was “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Note 8: As I am certain is entirely obvious, even to us non-attorneys, forging “Attorney General, Attorney General” on to the Docket, and having deleted “for acts as,” entirely changed the legal nature of my Defendants (“Appellees” at the Ninth Circuit)…from a group of individuals, to the State…which errantly/criminally gave my individuals a number of protections…and a number of errant/criminal avenues for my Appeal Panel to Affirm GOP Judge Snow, and save my Republican Power Elite Defendants…

…which is, of course, why that “Someone” committed these forgeries/criminal acts! To corruptly Affirm District Court Judge Snow (and save my Arizona GOP Power Elite Defendants).

Have you ever seen the term “Attorney General, Attorney General”?

Neither have I.

Have you ever seen a Court forge the Docket?

Neither had I (until recently…).

 Again, the Defendants did not use the term of “Attorney General, Attorney General,” but they did use the term “for acts as,” as has/can be seen. Again, for example, in their own Headers of their 2 Motions to Dismiss in District Court which see [click here] [click here], nor did Judge Snow use this term, nor did I.

My point here? None of these forgeries had occurred in District Court (i.e., these forgeries all occurred at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).

If I had sued the “Attorney General, Attorney General”...If I had sued the “Attorney General, Attorney General,” or the “Attorney General,” or the “Attorney General’s Office,” or not used “for acts as,” my Defendants would have absolutely used either/both of these titles in their Motions to Dismiss, and claimed I had not sued my Defendants as individuals (which is what “for acts as” is a part of: suing individuals).

And by the way, neither did my Defendants use any of these forgeries/false claims in our District Court Ordered Rule 12.1(c) Meet and Confer Conference...or, again, in any of their District Court pleadings (and again, neither did Judge Snow use/delete such). Nor did my Defendants, as Appellees at the Appeals Court, use/claim/delete any of these terms.

I yelled and screamed at the Appeals Court about their use of the term “Attorney General, Attorney General:” I raised this matter of “Attorney General, Attorney General” with my Appeal Panel of  GOP Judges...8 times! (See Docket No’s 23, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, and 84 below [e.g., see Dkt 84 [click here], which reviewed my earlier pleadings raising this matter].)

But my GOP Appeal Panel refused to address this obvious forgery of the Docket Header and Docket Entries (again, there are at least 15 such forged uses of “Attorney General, Attorney General” or “Attorney General” or the delelted “for acts as”).

By ignoring my 8 pleadings, my Appeal Panel Judges were able to criminally Affirm Judge Snow.

My Appeal Panel affirms just the 1st Oder On-Appeal: My Appeal Panel of GOP Judges Affirmed the 1st Order of Dismissal by using the forged title of “Attorney General, Attorney General” from the forged Docket Header, and by using the deleted “for acts as.” See Dkt No 65 for my Panel’s Order Affirming 1 of 2 of Judge Snow’s 2 Orders of Dismissal (please note the Order Header [click here]).

My Appeal Panel of GOP Judges used Forged Docket Entries to Rule on the 1st of the 2 Appealed District Court Orders: Please take note of the 2 cases my Appeal Panel cited to support their Affirming Judge Snow’s 1 of 2 Orders of Dismissal: Lujan [click here, see page 3] and Linda RS [click here, see, page 3], both of which were cited based on the forged “Attorney General, Attorney General” and the deleted “for acts as” (forged by “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit [no one else would have had access]). Again see the Appeals Court’s Docket Header ([click here] (Please see the Docket Header of this Exhibit for Defendant Mark Brnovich, versus my lawsuit, my Defendants own pleading Headers [all of which have no title for Brnovich, and have “for acts as” for him], and the see the next 10 Defendants names, all with “for acts as” [just like my pleadings, and just like my Defendants’ pleadings]; then see the Docket Summary at the top of page 5 to this Exhibit, and then see the 1st Entry to the Docket at the top of page 6) . 

My Appeal Panel citing Lujan is based on my allegedly having sued my individual Defendant as the Attorney General’s Office (see more about this in my Supplemental Brief to the Supreme Court below). Apparently, Someone” having forged my individual to “Attorney General, Attorney General” (whatever that means) morphed him to being the Attorney General’s Office (that is what Lujan is about, government agencies, and the standing required to sue them).

My Appeal Panel citing Linda RS is based on my allegedly having sued my individual Defendant as the Attorney General (see more about this in my Supplemental Brief to the Supreme Court below). Linda RS is about private citizens, such as myself, not having any right to sue a prosecutor for not having charged a party (this is based on one of my Defendants’ frauds, which Judge Snow used in Dismissing my lawsuit).

“Bottom line:” If my Appeal Panel had not had the forged “Attorney General, Attorney General” and the deleted “for acts as” to rule by, they would not have been able to Affirm Judge Snow’s 1 Order of Dismissal (the only Order my Appeal Panel Affirmed).

Note 9: I will later detail these forgeries of “Attorney General, Attorney General” and the deleted “for acts as” to the Supreme Court [click here] [click here], but they will find my GOP Appeal Judges ruling by these criminal forgeries acceptable.

Note 10: Please note, my Appeal Panel also used “Attorney General, Attorney General” and the deleted “for acts as” for their Header of their Order Denying my Motion for Reconsideration [click here]. 

Note 11: Please note, my Appeal Panel also used “Attorney General, Attorney General” and the deleted “for acts as” for their Header of their Case Mandate [click here]. 

I yelled and screamed to the Appeals Court about their having “missed” the 2nd of the 2 Judge Snow Orders that were On-Appeal...I raised this matter with my Appeal Panel of their only having Affirmed only 1 of 2 Orders...6 times! (See Docket No’s 85, 86, 88, 92, 93, and 95 below). 

But my Appeal Panel did not respond to any of my 6 pleadings raising their having “missed” the 2nd Order (they needed to ignore me, and their not having ruled on the 2nd Order (which see why in Note 12 just below). 

Note 12: I believe my Appeal Panel Judges could not find a way to Affirm Snow’s errant 2nd Order of Dismissal (as his ruling was contrary to long established Ninth Circuit Case Law, and the Ninth Circuit’s own “Section 1983 Outline”), and so my Appeal Panel simply did not rule on it, and even refused to acknowledge they had not ruled on it (i.e., they could not think of a way, by case law, nor even forging the Docket again, to Affirm Judge Snow’s 2nd Order…so they simply ignored his 2nd Order of Dismissal, and me). 

I detailed my Appeal Panel of GOP Judges having “missed” the 2nd Order to the Supreme Court [click here] [click here], but they (the Supreme Court) apparently found GOP Judges ruling or not ruling on an Appealed and argued On-Appeal Order, for whatever reason, acceptable. 

My Appeal Panel of GOP Judges themselves documented that their own ruling in the Appeals Process was corruptly voided: What does my Appeal Panel not ruling on the 2nd Order mean? Asked somewhat differently: What does it mean when my Appeal Court Panel belligerently will not explain itself for not having ruled on an Appealed and argued On-Appeal Order, in spite of their having been asked why not, 6 times?

It means my Appeal Panel did not read the District Court Orders, nor any Appeal documents (or they would have known they needed to rule on 2 Orders).

And it means my Appeal was told how to rule, and whomever told them, missed that there were 2 Orders of Dismissal, for 2 Groups of Defendants/Appellees, that had been Appealed, and argued On-Appeal, by both myself as the Appellant, and the 2 Groups of Defendants/Appellees. 

Clearly, the Appeal Process was corruptly/criminally voided. 

So, I  went to the Supreme Court of the United States: I filed a Petition with the Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus for my Appeal Panel to be Ordered to explain its having used a forged title from a forged Docket Header and other forged Docket Entries to rule by for the 1st Order [click here], and [click here] and for not having ruled on the 2nd Order. By my Petition, I asked for an Order of Mandamus to compel the Ninth Circuit to correct these matters. 

I made certain the Supreme Court knew that I had not only Served my Petition on my Appeal Panel of 3 GOP Judges, but all other related parties [click here].

The Supreme Court accepted my Petition: Interestingly (amazingly [they have such limited time, and so may Petitions] ), the Supreme Court accepted my Petition, and Ordered the Ninth Circuit to respond to my Petition...but the Ninth Circuit did not Respond (I note the adverse inference of that non-response [click here]).

Post the Ninth Circuit not responding, the Supreme Court Distributed my Petition for Conference for May 30 [click here]. 

I then became concerned that in my having tried to keep my Petition as short as I could, I had missed a number of salient points, and so I filed a Supplemental Brief [click here]. 

Note 13: I note that I filed my Supplemental Brief on 5-15-24, 2 weeks before Conference, but that the Supreme Court neither posted my Brief to the Court’s Docket, nor have they returned it (my experience is that they return pleadings with errors, and/or pleadings filed in error). As of today, 6-11-24, they still have not posted or returned it (and the 10 copies).

Note 13 1/2: By not posting my Supplemental Brief, I believe the Supreme Court was trying to hide the detail I gave of the Ninth Circuit’s forgeries to the Docket Header and Docket Entries, which I gave in my Supplemental Brief. I had not given much detail for the forgeries in my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and so apparently, the Supreme Court quickly accepted and distributed my Petition for my Appeal Panel having “missed” the 2nd Order of Dismissal. But when the Supreme Court saw my Supplemental Brief on the forgeries (see even just the Synopsis [click here, see page one]), they withheld/buried my Supplemental Brief (and they Denied my Petition).

The Supreme Court Denied my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus [click here], and allowed the GOP Judges’ errant, blatantly criminal acts, to stand (isn’t that endorsing such?): But then, the Supreme Court Denied my Petition (with no explanation of why).

The Supreme Court thereby endorsed my GOP Appeal Panel using “Someone’s” criminal forgeries to rule by, and ignoring an Appealed and argued On-Appeal District Court Order (argued by both sides) . 

Thusly, 4 GOP Judges were excused for documented/errant/corrupt/criminal, acts. 

I filed a Petition for Reconsideration: I immediately filed a Petition for Reconsideration [click here], as I just cannot believe our Supreme Court allows our Courts to forge Docket Headers and other Docket Entries, so an Appeal Panel (or a Federal District Court) can rule as they want (for whomever they want), or that our Courts can simply decide not to rule on a matter (e.g., a matter they cannot find a way to rule on as they want to, for whomever they want).

Note 14: I note that I filed my Petition for Reconsideration on 6-3-24, but that as of the posting this website update (on 6-11-24), it has not been posted on the Supreme Court’s Docket.

UPDATED: 2/22/24 : The Ninth Circuit has become belligerent, made clear by their refusing to acknowledge the documented corrupt actions by my Panel of 3 Republican Judges...who had been handpicked to Affirm Republican Arizona District Court Chief  Judge Snow...who had dismissed my Defendants, Arizona Republican Elites, including that my lead Defendant (a well known GOP  stalwart) is married to one of Judge Snow’s Judges...so I detailed the documented reality that proves my Panel acted corruptly, and that the Ninth is running a Watergate-like cover-up: Dkt No 93 (Also see Dkt No’s 85/86/92.)

UPDATED: 2/16/24: In the Court’s abuse of its power, see the Court ignore that my Panel’s Order Affirming Judge Snow documented their corrupt actions in Affirming him; see the Court ignore that “Someone” in the Clerk’s Office had forged who my Defendant is (Dkt No 84); and see the Court ignore that Appellee Dangerfield had not been Affirmed by my Panel’s Affirming Judge Snow (per Dkt No’s 85/86/88).

UPDATED: 2/16/24: See a major new development with my Panel having inadvertently documented their acting corruptly, in their Affirmation of 10 of 11 Defendants: Dkt No’s 85; 86; and 88

UPDATED: 2/09/24: Please see three new sections, with headers in Red, providing further detail, and proof, that Chief Judge Murguia and certain parties under her direction at the Ninth Circuit are acting corruptly (e.g., see “Someone” at the Ninth Circuit forge one of my individual Defendants to a government official, thereby attempting to gift my Defendants the absolute protection of Sovereign Immunity [see Red Header 1 below]; having someone in the IT Department forge who one of my Defendants is [Red Header 2 below]; and having me blocked from e-filing pleadings [Red Header 3 below] [I wonder what else?]; which see [I had to drive from Arizona to San Francisco to file my 2 most recent pleadings: Dkt No’s 82/83/84, which also see]).

How Two Longtime Phoenix Based Judges Became Corrupt for One to Rescue the Other as Both Sought to Protect Also Longtime and Influential Associates/Friends.

“Arizona’s Corruption Only Provides Justice For Some”

I would appreciate your time and permission to allow me to introduce you to a travesty of Justice caused by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Mary H. Murguia, who herself has long been based in Phoenix, and has been moving in the upper echelon of Arizona legal circles for over 30 years; the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge G. Murray Snow (the District Office is in Phoenix), who has been moving in the upper echelon of Arizona legal circles for over 35 years; a formidable group of Arizona “Power Elites” (11 of whom, for my injuries, by their documented criminal acts, became/are Defendants to a Complaint I filed [a “Complaint” is a lawsuit, for us laypeople]) (see an overview of who these Power Elites are in my Opening Brief below, Chapter 3, Sec III as Exhibit 7 in Ex packet 1-13), who are “the protected” here; and a Phoenix law firm, more powerful than the law firm in John Grisham’s novel, “The Firm” (this Phoenix based firm is commonly know as the “evil empire” in Arizona legal circles); creating an incredibly powerful, and corrupt, Phoenix centric “cabal,” if you will. Please see an 8 page narrative for much more on this story and my below pleadings and Court records, by clicking here.

The evidence/records I have, take us way beyond the Civil standard of “a preponderance of the evidence”...I have proof by the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Exhibits 12 & 13 prove that Defendants did not act by “declining to indict” but they acted by committing criminal acts as in my Complaint.

Supressing the Truth

The Arizona Daily Independent tried to cover/tell my story… but they were harassed, and even threatened (see the below headlines from the ADI, and click [when the ADI; ABC Phoenix; CBS Phoenix; and my State Representative were scared away, I began a series of legal actions, although I had/have no education or skills for such, nor for creating a website.

My State Representative tried to help, until he was harassed, and threatened. See his attempt to bring this corruption to the Arizona House floor in the article below:

Click video for Investigators PPT report

My Opening Brief

As described throughout, Judge Snow forged who my 11 individual Defendants are, to the State, thereby gifting them Sovereign Immunity (although, Defendants did not claim such, not in our Court Ordered Meet and Confer, nor even in their 2 Motions to Dismiss); and, by using Defendants’ fraud that I alleged they simply “declined to indict,” he ruled that I had “no standing,” rather than rule by what my Complaint actually says: my Defendants injured me by their documented corrupt and criminal acts; and Judge Snow dismissed, by boldface lying, saying I did not give “any reason” why the Statutes of Limitation had been suspended, or Res judicata voided, when my Complaint Sec II, is 42 pgs with 76 Ex’s and over 300 references to those Ex’s why they are suspended/voided; and Judge Snow ignored 5 AGO Records my Defendants had earlier forged and based their later “defenses” on, but such a scheme has been not accepted in American Colonial/US Courts, not since 1694/5, see Booth v Lord Warrington (Ch’s 1a/1b); and Judge Snow dismissed Defendant Dangerfield saying that his (Dangerfield’s) merely being my Defendants’ past, successful, attorney, does not give any basis for liability, when the Ninth Circuit has well settled that attorneys representing State employees and/or entities having acted under the color of law, can also held liable under 42 USC Sec 1983. 

Again, please see my Brief Chapters 1a/1b re the 5 Forged AGO Records voiding any potential defense; see Ch’s 2/3 re my Defendants’ lack of immunity but Judge Snow gifting them such; Ch 4 re “declined to indict” et al; Ch 5 re Statutes of Limitation and Res judicata; and Ch 6 re Dangerfield’s liability (all of which my Appeals Panel of 3 Judges will ignore, which see).

The evidence/records I presented, take us way beyond the Civil standard of “a preponderance of the evidence”...I have proof by the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Ninth Circuit Panel of 3 Judges Affirmed Judge Snow

With all of the work I put into my Opening Brief (and a number of related Motions, et al), Chief Judge Murguai’s 3 handpicked Republican appointed Judges (Judge Snow, and most of my Defendants are prominent Arizona Republicans), they issued a 2 sentence Affirmation of Judge Snow, not addressing any of my arguments or evidence in my Brief, saying:

“The district court properly dismissed Graven’s action because Graven failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing” (see Judge Snow’s Order of dismissal as Ex 5 to the pleading “A Desperate…” at Dkt No 77 below).

In other words, because I had supposedly alleged my Defendants had “declined to indict,” although that is nowhere in my Complaint, but my alleging they injured me by criminal acts is, over 100 times, I had no standing. And, because my Defendants, as AGO employees/prosecutors have the right to “decline to indict,” my Panel ruled I have no say in that:

“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” 

But...I did not allege they “declined to indict”! See Opening Brief, Ch 4. I challenged the Court to run a search of my Complaint…to look for ”declined to indict”…it is not there, not anywhere (except my describing Defendants’ previous use of this fraudulent claim of ”declined to indict” [and derivatives of it, e.g: “ refusal to indict”; “decision not to indict; ” et al]).

See my efforts just below at Dkt No 73 to have the Court(s) recognize that I had not used ”declined to indict” et al by requesting the Court take “Judicial Notice” of this fact.

My Panel ignored all of Judge Snow’s other obvious signs of a corrupt ruling, including they ignored he had not followed the Rules of Civil Procedure and Case Law for a motion to dismiss (which requires the Judge to take what the plaintiff says as factual/truthful; see the plaintiff ‘s claims in the most favorable light; and more that is favorable to the plaintiff).

1. Further Evidence of Judge Murguia’s corruption: She had someone forge one of my individual Defendants from being an individual to being a State Official, thereby attempting to support Judge Snow’s having forged my individual Defendants to the State, to gift Sovereign Immunity to my individual Defendants (who had no immunity, by Statute, Case Law, and the Arizona State Agency Handbook).

“Someone” in the Ninth Circuit Clerk of Court’s Office, and/or “Someone” who has access to the Court’s Docket, attempted to mislead my Panel by creating the illusion that my individually named Defendant Mark Brnovich, for corrupt and criminal acts he committed as Attorney General...was actually named in my Complaint as Attorney General Mark Brnovich. (As his/his Co-Defendants’ corrupt and criminal acts were outside their Scope of Employment/Authority, he/they severed himself/all Defendants from the State, and they disqualified themselves from Qualified Immunity [as individuals, they would not have had Sovereign Immunity]).

Why is this important? Why did “Someone” at the Court commit this criminal act? Because suing a State Officer is the same as suing the State (see Will v Michigan, US Supreme Court), meaning the Official/State is protected by the 14th Amendment for State Sovereign Immunity.

I excluded the State, and its Treasury, throughout my Complaint (see the importance of this in Dugan v Rank, US, as I have cited it in various pleadings [if the plaintiff is seeking State funds, the lawsuit is against the State]); my Defendants’ Summons were in their individual names (see Ex’s 3-11) ; each was Served at home (Ex’s 3-11); I sued, in part, under 42 USC §1983 (which allows for State parties who acted under the color of State law to be sued as individuals) (see my Opening Brief above, Ex 1; or see my Complaint below, Causes of Action); my Defendants’ acts were outside their Scope of Employment/Authority, so they severed themselves from the State, and they disqualified themselves from Qualified Immunity; etc (see my Opening Brief Ch 2).

My Defendants’ attorneys did not claim to be representing the State (Ex 5); my Defendants did not claim to be the State, nor did they claim Sovereign Immunity, in our Court Ordered Meet and Confer Proceedings (again, Ex 5), or in their Motions to Dismiss (Ex 4) (they do later cite Judge Snow gifting them Sovereign Immunity, but do not argue for it in their Answer Brief, or anywhere else). The State did not: Retain counsel in District Court; did not file a Joinder in District Court; did not retain counsel for this Appeal; the State did not ask to be a part of this Appeal.

But Someone at the Ninth Circuit forged my individual Defendants Mark Brnovich to Attorney General, Attorney Genera (yes, they repeat it twice)l Mark Brnovich (Ex’s 6 and 7).

This “description” of my individual Defendant Brnovich did not come the District Court Docket (Ex ‘s 2 and 3), nor my Complaint (see below at “My Complaint…”), nor any of the District Court’s Orders (e.g., my Opening Brief, Ex 22) , nor any of my other pleadings, nor any of my Defendants’ pleadings.

There was no place to copy “Attorney General Brnovich” from...”Someone” at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals simply made it up/forged it.

Here is the short version of proving what I have just alleged: Please see the Defendants’ header of my Complaint below at “My Complaint…” and/or see their own headers on their own pleadings (e.g., Ex 4), all of which list individuals for acts at what their position was when they committed their criminal acts; please see the District Court Docket (Ex 2), and please note that each of my Defendants is lsited as an individual (i.e., there no one, such as Mark Brnovich, who is listed by his/her title, such as Attorney General Mark Brnovich)…bu then see the Appeals Court’s Docket (Ex 7), e.g., as the first Defendant/Appellee, or at Entry 1, in which individual Mark Brnovich is then listed as Attorney General, Attorney General (yes, twice) Mark Brnovich; and see my Emergency Motion (Ex 8) to have the Court correct the many fraudulent entries of Attorney General Brnovich on the Court’s Docket (see 12 such forged entries, in my Motion for Default Judgment, Ex 11 Sec II).

The Court, and my Panel who Affirmed Judge Snow, ignored my efforts to raise this issue, in the following pleadings (see Ex’s 8-13):

a.) MY CORRESPONDENCE 3 WITH THE COURT: APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO HAVE THE CLERK CORRECT THE DOCKET MIS-ENTRIES FOR DEFENDANT MARK BRNOVICH (Ex 1);

b.) APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR THE COURT TO RECOGNIZE AND ELIMINATE ARIZONA DISTRICT COURT CORRUPTION THAT HAS MADE ITS WAY TO THIS RESPECTED NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (See Form 16 Attchd as Exhibit 1.) (Ex 8);

c.) My CORRESPONDENCE 4: A COORDINATED, FORGED/CORRUPT PLAN TO MANIPULATE THIS COURT INTO A MAL-INFORMED AFFIRMATION OF JUDGE SNOW’S ERRANT DISMISSAL OF MY COMPLAINT HAS BEEN EXPOSED (See my Corr 3, Dkt No 47; my Emergency Motion, Dkt No 48 (filed 1 month ago); and my Reply to Appellees’ No-Response, Dkt No 49.) (Ex 10);

d.) My MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO REVERSE JUDGE SNOW FOR APPELLEES AND COURT PERSONNEL FRAUDS ON THIS COURT (Ex 11);

e.) APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT TO OVERTURN JUDGE SNOW FOR APPELLEES’ CONTINUED, DELIBERATE, VOLUMINOUS, FRAUDS ON THE COURT (SEE APPELLEES’ ALLEGED MOTION TO BAR, DKt No 56, WHICH IS AT CONTROVERSY HERE) (Ex 13).

Not only did the Court do nothing about this fraudulent effort by “Someone” forging who my Defendant really is, in my Panel’s Affirming Judge Snow, they stuck their collective finger in my eye, as they themselves used Attorney General, Attorney General Mark Brnovich (again, per just above, The Ninth Circuit Panel Affirmed in Dkt No 65, page 1) (albeit, they did not Affirm by Someone’s attempt to give my Defendants’ Sovereign Immunity):

“MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

To me, my Panel using the forgery of my individual Defendant Mark Brnovich to Attorney General, Attorney General Mark Brnovich…while ignoring my pleadings repeatedly raising this issue…is a testament to their corruptly Affirming Judge Snow by an allegation that is not in my Complaint, and is in fact antithetical to my Complaint (again, see Dkt No’s 68-79). Doesn’t this forgery raise the issue of what other corrupt acts by the Court, are there?

My 1st Motion for Reconsideration

Within hours of receiving my Panel’s just above Affirmation of Judge Snow, I had (too hurriedly) filed my first Motion Reconsideration. I will admit, I was, at the risk of being melodramatic, in a state of shock. Shortly after filing (hours, not days) my first drafted Motion, I noticed a number of errors, and so I refiled my Motion to correct those errors (hence, my pleading says: “Notice of Errata,” meaning, for us laypeople: Notice of Errors), and I added that I would like an “En Banc” panel, meaning an 11 Judge Panel, rather my original 3 Judge Panel would review the Affirmation. 

As you will see, in this Motion, I was yelling and screaming, at the top of lungs, that I did not allege “declined to indict” et al anywhere in my Complaint. My yelling and screaming will get louder, as I had been screwed by this fraudulent claim...this/one too many times.

How could my Panel Affirm by a claim that is not in my Complaint, which was actually covered in my Complaint and Brief as “watch-out for this fraud, it’s not true but Defendants will use it”...this fraud was very well covered in my Brief Ch 4 (see a portion of Ch 4 in this Motion). I have covered this fraud in a number of pleadings...but it is such a good one, Defendants and corrupt Judges have used and reused it.

I Re-Filed my Earlier Filed Dkt No 35 for 2 Requests for Judicial Notice (“RJN”)

For the not-legally experienced reading this, a “Request for Judicial Notice” is a simple, but interesting/useful legal maneuver. If a party asks for the Court to take Judicial Notice of one issue/fact or another (the opposing party may fight the Request), and if the Court grants Notice, there is then no arguing later as to the truthfulness of that issue/fact or its being admitted in Court.  

The textbook example of this was a young attorney representing someone who had been accused of murder...the young attorney asked for the Court to take Notice that on the night of the murder there was no moon. Later, when the prosecutor’s star witness was called, and testified that he could see the defendant commit the murder...the young attorney stood up and noted that the witness was some blocks away, on a pitch black dark night (reminding the Court of its taking Notice of there being no moon on the night of the murder), and so the witness could not have seen that distance to the scene of the crime or what had happened at that distance.

The case was dismissed...the young attorney was Abraham Lincoln.

I Requested the Court take Judicial Notice that there is no place in my Complaint that I alleged “declined to indict” et al or that I had claimed to have a Federal Right to have someone prosecuted (another fraudulent claim my Defendants used to confuse the Judge[s]).

Please note, this RJN was first  filed on 6/2/23, 6 months before my Panel Affirmed by Defendants and Judge Snow’s very fraudulent claim of: “declined to indict” et al.

Also please note (in this RJN), I reminded the Court that I had filed a Motion for an Accelerated Ruling at the very beginning of my Appeal (Court of Appeals Dkt No 3), asking the Court to quickly overturn Judge Snow’s dismissal, because...you guessed it...because I had not claimed my Defendants had “declined to indict” et al as Judge Snow had dismissed by.

Neither the Appeals Court at large, nor my Panel responded to, or even mentioned my extremely probative Requests for Judicial Notice (which were for facts as important as there being no moon on the night of the murder).

I filed a Desperate Correspondence to Chief Judge Murguia

I was coming unglued, plain and simple, and I filed a desperate plea for Justice with Chief  Judge Murguia. 

Why did I approach/bother the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for my simple case?

Because I had discovered that as Chief Judge, she was not in San Francisco, where the Ninth Circuit is “located,” but that she was in known-to-be-corrupt Arizona, Phoenix, and had always been there, not only since joining the Arizona District Court, so even before she was moved up to the Ninth Circuit she had been in Phoenix...but I had learned that she has been an attorney at the US Attorney’s Office in Phoenix for a number years before becoming a Judge...and so collectively, she had been in the upper echelon of Arizona legal circles for over 30 years (i.e.., she well knew Judge Snow; my Defendants; and the law firm they had acted to protect.

So had I learned, that she had long been working right next door to District Court Chief Judge Snow, for almost 20 years (and that her Chambers are in the same locale as the wife of my lead Defendant Mark Brnovich, Judge Susan Brnovich).

So again, I realized, she had long worked with, as Judge Snow has also, most of my Defendants, and the law firm they acted to protect, and so I filed my desperate Correspondence.

With these waves of information, and what I then perceived as what was behind why Chief Judge Murguia (Democratically appointed) having handpicked a Panel of 3 Republican Judges. I realized: she picked a Panel to Affirm/rescue her longtime associate Republican Judge Snow, and most of my Defendants, also well-known Republican Power Elites in Arizona, as is the law firm known to be a supporter of Republican causes (e.g., Snell & Wilmer was Mark Brnovich political sponsor for Attorney General).

Plain and simple: Judge Murguia handpicked a Panel to rescue/Affirm Judge Snow; rescue my Defendants; and indirectly benefit the law firm.

So I filed this emotional plea (Dkt No 77) to Chief Judge Murguia, begging her to bring Justice back into my Case…by arguing every point by which Judge Snow had clearly, corruptly, dismissed my Complaint, and how my Panel had merely followed her instructions to rubber stamp/Affirm…by an assertion of Judge Snow’s, that is not even in my Complaint (while ignoring all else Judge Snow had done errantly), and has been shown to be Defendants’ fraud, countless times.

My Complaint is Against 11 Individuals Who Injured me by Their Corrupt and Criminal Acts

In my Complaint, I alleged, over 100 times, my Defendants injured me by their documented corrupt and criminal acts, first as they “exonerated” the Snell Parties (who had been approved to be indicted by the just previous Attorney General); and then when they committed more criminal acts as they attempted to cover their tracks from having criminally “exonerated” the Snell Parties; and then, they committed even more criminal acts as they “defended” themselves in Court(s) against my legal efforts. See Exhibit 11 AGO Special Agent’s PPT for the Grand Jury for the grand jury to indict the Snell case suspects.

For examples of their documented acts, see just below, and see such throughout my Complaint; see in my Opening Brief Chapter 7 Statement of the Case (which is Ex 9 above in my Opening Brief Exhibit packet No’s 1-13). For the just below examples of my Defendants’ corrupt and criminal acts, see my Complaint Ex’s 12 and 13 in the packet of Complaint Exhibits No’s 10-19. 

Documented Examples of Defendants Corrupt and Criminal Acts

Defendant Ahler gave Notice (Ex 12 at Ref 1) that he was conflicted with the prosecution/continuing investigation of the Snell & Wilmer Criminal Case (Ref 2) (in part, as his son is an attorney with Snell [they were also Defendant Brnovich’s political sponsor]). 

Six Snell Case suspects were found during the investigation and were then approved to be indicted by then-Attorney General Tom Horne. 

Ahler’s boss, Defendant Conrad, Screened him (Ref 3), as required by Statute; Case Law; and the Arizona Agency Handbook (the State’s employee manual).  The evidence/records I have, take us way beyond the Civil standard of “a preponderance of the evidence”...I have proof by the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Exhibits 12 & 13 prove that the Defendants did not act by “declining to indict” but they acted by committing criminal acts.

But then, Ahler participated (Ex 13 at Ref 1) with Conrad and Defendant Waters in the Snell Case Charging Papers, removing the names of the 4 Snell Parties (the law firm and 3 of its attorneys) (Ref 2). This left just 1 suspect to be indicted... but for conspiring with the 4 Snell Parties (Cmplnt Ex 14) (see Note 1). 

The 6th suspect had already signed a Plea Agreement (Cmplnt Ex 10), for conspiring with the 5 Snell Case suspects, agreeing to testify against the remaining 5 suspects. 

Ahler participating in the Snell Case Charging Papers is Criminal Conflict of Interest (ARS 38-510); Conrad enabling Ahler is Criminal Facilitation (ARS 13-1004); Conrad, Ahler and Water discussing these matters is Criminal Conspiracy (ARS 13-1003); their removing the Snell Parties names is Criminal Forgery (ARS 13-1002); etc.

Defendants then dismissed a number of confessed felons, who, not coincidentally, were to testify against the 5 remaining Snell Case suspects (cases dismissed included the one Snell Case defendant who had pled guilty and signed a Plea Agreement; and others felons who had knowledge of the Snell Case crimes but had been convicted for different, but related crimes); felons whose cases were dismissed included felons that were paying me restitution; and many more injurious acts (see their “Supporting Acts” below; in my Opening Brief Ch 1b, Sec I; and see my Cmplnt Sec II-I, Par’s 407-409 and Ex’s). 

For even more of Defendants’ crimes, see my Complaint Paragraphs 33-45, with more evidence/Exhibits. 

Note 1 This is the same Snell & Wilmer that is a part of the Ninth Circuit’s Pro Bono Program. 

Supporting Acts

Quickly, Defendants “Supporting Acts” include (which see where described above): they concealed records; refused records requests; denied records existed; fired active investigators; threatened witnesses; forged records to stop restitution I was receiving; manufactured evidence; dismissed completed criminal cases against already convicted criminals (who were to testify against the Snell Parties); committed repeated Frauds and other deceptive acts on the Court(s); and hid their corrupt and criminal acts behind/abused the 11th Amendment for State Sovereignty... all to exonerate the Snell Parties for their criminal acts, and to cover their own tracks left from the acts they committed exonerating the Snell Parties, and then they committed even acts “defending” themselves in Court against my legal efforts. 

As I stated many times: I alleged and provided evidence for my injuries by Defendants’ documented corrupt criminal acts, not their allegedly having “declined to indict,” et al the Snell Parties; and for dismissing cases against convicted felons who were paying me restitution; and much more.

I filed a Desperate Correspondence to Chief Judge Murguia:

I was coming unglued, plain and simple, and I filed a desperate plea for Justice with the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit of Appeal, Judge Mary H. Murguia.

I had discovered that as Chief Judge, she was not in San Francisco, where the Ninth Circuit is “located,” but that she was in Phoenix, and had always been there since joining the Ninth Circuit... and that she had been an attorney at the US Attorney’s Office in Phoenix for a number years...and so had been in Arizona legal circles for over 30 years.

And so I realized, she had been working right next door to District Chief Judge, G Murray Snow, for almost 20 years (and that her Chambers are in the same locale as the wife of my lead Defendant Mark Brnovich, Judge Susan Brnovich).

And so I realized, she had long worked with, as Judge Snow has also, most of the Defendants, and the law firm they acted to protect.

With these waves of information, and what I perceived as the corruption behind why Chief Judge Murguia (Democratically appointed) handpicked a Panel of 3 Republican Judges, to rescue Republican Judge Snow, and most of my Defendants who are well-known Republican Power Elites in Arizona, Judge Murguia handpicked a Panel.

So I filed an emotional plea, to Chief Judge Murguia, to bring Justice back into my Case…by arguing every point by Which Judge had clearly, corruptly, dismissed, and how my Panel and merely followed her instructions to rubber stamp/Affirm…by an assertion of Judge Snow’s, that is not in my Complaint, and has been shown to be Defendants’ fraud, countless times.

My Open Correspondence 1 to Judge Murguia

As I regained my senses/balance, and could see just how corrupt, and why my Panel had Affirmed Judge Snow (again, see who my Defendants are), and that this corruption had infected my Panel/the Ninth Circuit through Judge Murguia’s obvious associations/conflicts, it became apparent that she had acted corruptly to protect her longtime office neighbor, Judge Snow, my Defendants, and the law firm they acted to protect (I made this an “Open” Correspondence, hoping other Circuit Judges, and other servants of Justice at the Ninth Circuit would see my Correspondence). 

In my Open Correspondence 1, I called the situation what it is, saying that it had blown up in her Court, and that she needed to clean-up this/her mess. 

I asked if she would pull a “Watergate,” and ignore/make the situation worse, or meet this mess head-on and do the right thing(s). 

I told her I wanted to see that she had set a Hearing to clean this mess up (per my Motion for a Hearing in Dkt No 77), and that I wanted to see that Hearing set by Friday, January 19, at 5:00PM (this Correspondence was on a Thursday, the week before the week of Jan 15/19). 

I concluded my Open Correspondence 1 by saying there was no legitimate reason to not grant me a Hearing.

My Final Plea for a Hearing by Open Correspondence 2 to Chief Judge Murguia 3 days Before my Deadline of 5:00 PM on 1/19/24 to have a set Hearing

On the Wednesday morning before my Friday deadline, I filed one last plea for a Hearing, giving Chief Judge Murgia 9 bullet points of why Judge Snow’s dismissal was clearly corrupt, and that her Panel’s directed rubber stamp Affirming Judge Snow, was also, clearly, blatantly, corrupt.

And I reminded Judge Murguia that someone in the Clerk’s Office had forged my individual Defendant Mark Brnovich, to Attorney General, Attorney General, Mark Brnovich (a title, which until this forgery, appeared nowhere in the record: not in the Appeals Court; not in District Court; not in any of my or my Defendants’ pleadings). I filed an Emergency Motion asking for this forgery to be stricken, Dkt No’s 47/48, but the Court ignored such. 

My Panel, so as to stick their collective finger in my eye, used Attorney General, Attorney General, Mark Brnovich on the cover of their Order Affirming Judge Snow (see their Order above at Dkt No 65). 

I did not hear from Judge Murguia by 5:00 PM January 19, 2024, so my website went live Sunday January 21, 2024.

The time by which I had asked Chief Judge Murguia of the Court of Appeals to set a time/date for a Hearing, which was 5:00PM, on Friday, January 19, to confront the corrupt Affirmation of Judge Snow by my Panel, came and went.

Although I had been hopeful Judge Murguia would not ignore/hide from what she had done to support her longtime Judicial neighbor in Phoenix, Republican Judge Snow and protect my Republican Power Elite Defendants, that is exactly what she did. 

Although I had been hopeful, I was prepared for her taking the wrong direction and  using the “Nixon/Watergate” route, which, as is well known, is to attempt to evade/cover-up what she had done for Judge Snow, by her handpicked Panel. 

So the website I had prepared for Judge Murguia possibly taking the wrong direction, went live Monday morning, January 22. 

And although she had attempted to steal the balance of my life, and my Family’s futures, with her corruption, I extended her the courtesy of providing her notice of the website, and its address.

I have filed a number of pleadings regarding “ declined to indict,” et al (in just my most recent Case, which is my 5th Complaint over the past almost 8 years), in my efforts to achieve Justice for the criminal acts and resulting injuries by my influential and powerful Defendants.

I am particularly disgusted, almost overwhelmingly, by the...is “overt” corruption the right adjective? Blatant? Flagrant?  

I’ll go with flagrant, as what Republican Judge Snow did (several of my 11 Defendants are Republican Power Elites in Arizona), and Judge Murguia arranged to be Affirmed, by her handpicked Panel of 3 Republican Judges, are gross violations and abuses of our Rule of Law; Judicial Ethics; and of our Justice System. 

My Panel Affirmed Judge Snow’s dismissal of my Complaint by his having ruled that I had alleged in my Complaint that my Defendants had merely “declined to indict” the Snell Parties, which is in stark contrast to what my Complaint actually alleges, more than 100 times, and provides evidence for...which is that I alleged and provided evidence for my Defendants having injured me by their documented criminal acts. 

I had filed a number of pleadings detailing how Defendants’ defense by “declined to indict” et al, was fraudulent, and Judge Snow’s use of it was fraudulent.. 

To make it clear to one and all (particularly for the ethical parties at the Ninth Circuit), although my Panel’s corrupt Affirmation is obvious, as there are so many pleadings that detail how “declined to indict” et al, is a fraud, I decided to file a Correspondence with the Court of Appeals listing the pleadings in my Appeal that my Panel could not have accidentally missed, which made clear: “declined to indict” et al, was fraudulent (both by my Defendants’ use, and then by Judge Snow’s use).

2. Judge Murguia endeavors to prove her Court is corrupt, by having senior level IT parties secretly block me from e-filing my pleadings, while not informing IT Staff of her having blocked me.

On Thursday morning, February 1, 2024, I signed into my CM/ECF account at the Ninth Circuit (Ex 1a), as I have done many, many times. This time, to file what would be Dkt No 82 (my Notice of Intent, which because of the Court’s Order of handling my in-person filed pleading, became Dkt No 83) 

I moved through the Court’s e-form, filling in where required, to e-file my Notice of intent (Ex’s 1a and 1b [see Ex’s 1a, 1b, and 1c just above]).

When I clicked the Court’s e-file “Continue” button (which see at the bottom of the page of Ex 1b), I received the standard Internet “Error 404” noting “Object not found!” message (Ex 1c).

While I am jumping ahead a bit, please note the Court’s URL address following a click of its “Continue” button, which takes the user to the “Submit” page, at the top of Ex 1c...and compare it to an email I will receive from the Court later in that day, with the Court asking/confirming that I am entering the correct URL address (Ex 1d).

You will see the address given by me by my clicking the Court’s “Continue” button (again, at the top of Ex 1c), is the same address as what the Court gave/asked for confirmation of in Ex 1d (i.e., my clicking “Continue” should have taken me to the “Submit” page).

Please note: I do not manually enter this URL address (although the Count, in Ex 1d, asked if I was using the correct address/link), it is “entered” by the Court’s own “Continue” button/instructions... I have no input into what address I am being linked to (it is the link to the Submit page, at which, when I click the “Submit” button, my pleading is e-filed).

Thusly, by realizing the Court enters the URL, that the URL entered by my clicking “Continue” was entered by the Court’s CM/ECF system, and that the address the Court system did enter the court URL (which see at the top of the page of Ex 1c), which matched the URL address the Court asked me to confirm, so all match...but I received the Error 404 message...means, what?

It means that some senior IT party put a false link in my CM/ECF account, to prevent me from filing any any pleadings (please see mutiple partes at the Court, including IT Staff, spend that day, Thursday. trying to overcome this false link/block [Ex’s 2 through 33, with Ex’s 30-33 showing my several calls to the Court], and conclude there was nothing they could do to fix it...agreeing I should use FedEx... [Ex’s 25a and 25b] [by which I suspected my FedEx package would “be lost” in the mailroom]).

I repeatedly stated in my communications with the Court that it was clear to me that there was a “bug” in their system, and that I was being blocked.

I asked several times if I Should FedEx my pleadings (meant to be tongue in check).

Court IT staff will inadvertently confirm that some form of senior party(ies) IT corruption had been used in my CM/ECF account to block me from e-filing my pleadings, which see below in Red Header 3 below.

So on Thursday February 1, I learned I was blocked from my CM/ECF account, by apparently senior level parties at the Ninth Circuit (as several parties including the IT Staff I worked with in attempting to overcome the technical “issue” I was having, and others at the Court who assisted, were not able to overcome the issue that was keeping me from e-filing , and they clearly did not have any knowledge of my being blocked).

The next day, Friday, I was feeling badly about being blocked, and not being able to file what I believed was an important pleading (that was to be Dkt No 82, but because of the Court’s timing, became No 83 [which see below]), giving Notice of Intent to file a lawsuit against my 5 Judges, as individuals), trying to decide how I could have my pleading filed (and how I would file a planned follow-on pleading, which should have been Dkt No 83, but which see as No 82).

I did not believe sending my pleading via FedEx would work, as I was quite certain my envelope would get lost in the mailroom (I asked the IT Staff, et al, on Thursday, if my envelope would get lost, but no one answered).

While giving thought to all of this (Ex’s 1a and 1b), I recalled that the IT Staff, et al, had commented the day before that they had confirmed I was not blocked (Ex’s 2a and 2b); and they could not “reproduce” the issue I was having (Ex’s 3a, 3b, and 3c); and I recalled they had confirmed the URL address that my clicking the “Continue” button should take me to (Ex 4, which compare to the header in Ex 3c).

At the end of the day Thursday (see Ex 5a, 4:57PM MST), IT Staff, et al, gave up, and suggested I use FedEx to file my pleading (Ex 5a and 5b):

“Thank you for trying again. Since we cannot provide you with any further assistance, yes, please FedEx your filing.

Once received by the Court, it will be entered on the docket in your case.”

So, on Friday...as I did “the math” of IT Staff, et al, telling me my account was not blocked (Ex 3a); that they could not “reproduce” the issue I was having (also Ex 3a); and that the URL address the Court’s “Continue” button was taking me to was the correct URL (Ex’s 4/Ex 3c); and that they could not overcome the issue (Ex’s 5a/5b), it occurred to me on Friday afternoon, that as they could not reproduce my issue...who/how were they signing in as, may be the root of issue.

So, I emailed IT Staff, asking (Ex 6):

“I have a question for you: when you say you could not reproduce my issue, had you signed in as yourself, or as me?”

Their response is very telling (Ex 7):

“We have a test user account, so we can log in as a public (non-court) filer for testing purposes.”

In other words, it is just me, Will Graven, who had been blocked (by someone with access to the inner workings of the Court’s CM/ECF system.

3. Court IT Staff inadvertently confirm/prove that senior level Court parties had secretly and corruptly blocked me from e-filing pleadings (I drove from Flagstaff, Arizona to San Francisco to file Dkt No’s 82 and 83 below).

I informed the Ninth Circuit that I would be filing a civil lawsuit against my five documented, corrupt, Judges, as individuals: Dkt No 83

Quite simply, now (post my Notice of Intent, Dkt No 83) that Judges Murguia, Snow, Wallace, Lee, and Bumatay know I will be filing a civil Complaint against them, they should not be a part of my Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration En Banc. 

And so I filed this Emergency Motion to Disqualify them from my Appeal. 

This is the second document I filed by my having driven to San Francisco to file. 

This second pleading was filed at 10:20AM, on Monday, February 5 (the first pleading was filed at 9:11AM), and should have appeared as Dkt No 83. 

But the Court processed this Emergency Motion first, and so it became Dkt No 82, and the second pleading (my Notice of Intent) became Dkt No 83 (so some context in the two documents is out of order).

As my five documented, corrupt, Judges, now know I will be filing a civil lawsuit against them, and so we are known adversaries, I filed a Motion with the Ninth Circuit to disqualify the 4 Circuit Judges from participating in my Motion for Reconsideration En Banc: Dkt No 82

My Panel of 3 Republican Judges, handpicked by Judge Murguia, Affirmed Republican Judge Snow on 12-15-23. 

I filed a Motion for Reconsideration later that day (Dkt No 68), and I filed have a series of important pleadings since (which see here on this webpage, Dkt No’s 73, 76, 77, 78 and 79). 

Over this period since 12-15-23, including my recently finding out I had been secretly blocked by senior Parties at the Ninth Circuit from e-filing any pleadings (IT Staff, et al, was not aware of or able to overcome this blocking), it has become clear that, Judge Murguia is taking the “Watergate” route of making the cover-up as bad as or even worse than the original acts committed. 

As a result, I have decided to file a civil complaint (lawsuit, not a Judicial Complaint) against Judges Murguia, Snow, Wallace, Lee, and Bumatay. 

Contrary to popular belief, a Federal Judge can be sued for acts that: 

1.)    were outside of their Judicial capacity/scope of authority/employment;2.)    were with malice;

3.)    were corrupt;

4.)    were connected/coordinated;

5.)    violated Federal Statutes; and

6.)    violated Constitutional Rights. 

And so, I gave this Notice to the Ninth Circuit that I would be filing a Complaint against 4 of its Judges. 

I drove from Flagstaff, Arizona to San Francisco to file this and one more related pleading. 

This pleading was filed at 9:11AM on 2-5-24, and should have been Dkt No 82. 

The second pleading, an Emergency Motion to Disqualify the 4 Ninth Circuit Judges from my Appeal, was filed at 10:20AM, and should have appeared as Dkt No 83. But the Court processed my Emergency Motion first, and so it became Dkt No 82 (so some context in the two documents is out of order).

In reviewing my pleadings and overall efforts, while working on this website… I was reminded, and shocked by, the fact that I had several outstanding pleadings regarding someone in the clerks office, or someone who had access to the courts docket, having forged who my lead defendant is, from an individual defendant, to being an officer of the state.
My individual lead defendant was Mark Brnovich, whose wife is a judge on Judge Snow’s court .

There is nowhere on the district court docket, in any of my pleadings, in any of the Defendants’ pleadings, or in any orders from any judge in the District Court, in which Mark Brnovich is referred to as Attorney General Attorney General Mark Brnovich (see why I repeat Attorney General twice, below)..

But someone at the Ninth Circuit forged individual Mark Brnovich to being Attorney General, Attorney General Mark Brnovich .

Why is this significant?

Because suing an officer of the state is the same as suing the state, which thereby gives the Defendant or Defendants state sovereign immunity (see Will v Michigan, US supreme court) .

Someone at the Ninth Circuit forging individual Mark Brnovich to Attorney General, Attorney General Mark Brnovich was a set up to thereby affirm judge snow by my allegedly having sued an officer of the state .

And so, in the pleading I filed here at docket number 84, (which see, click the blue header above) I asked the court if it realized that when my panel affirmed judge snow, that they (my Panel) had ignored the forgery of my lead defendant.

And I asked the court, more than once, doesn’t the corruption required to forge my lead defendant on the Ninth Circuit’s docket, suggest that there may be, or likely is, other corruption involved in the appeals court’s affirming Judge.  

With the 2-month anniversary of my Panel Affirming 10 of my 11 Defendants fast approaching, I filed a Motion with the Court, asking the Court to Clarify/Make Known that Appellee Dangerfield’s dismissal had not been Affirmed: Dkt No 85

With the 2 month anniversary of my Panel’s Affirming the dismissal of 10 of my 11 Defendants by District Court Judge Snow fast approaching, it became apparent to me that my Panel (of 3 Circuit Judges) would not be ruling on my 11th Defendant, Mark Dangerfield, who is also all Defendants lead attorney in my District Court case and in this Appeal. 

I filed a Motion with the Court asking them to Clarify/Make known that Defendant/Appellee Dangerfield’s dismissal had not been Affirmed (nor considered, as best I could determine). 

It appears my Panel missed there being 2 separate Motions to dismiss, by Defendants having separated themselves in 2; which see Judge Snow list in his Oder, and my Panel missed that he granted those 2 Motions separately in his Order of dismissal. 

It also appears my Panel missed that these 2 separate Motions/Order of dismissal were argued in a number of Appeal pleadings (both by the Defendants/Appellees, and me). 

The implications of my Panel not seeing the separate Motions/Orders/Appeal pleadings will become numbing (i.e., it shows/proves my Panel did not even read Judge Snow’s Order of dismissal, or any Appeal pleadings...they were directed by someone as what to say in Affirming my 10 Appellees...and that this someone missed Dangerfield was a separate Motion/Appeal). 

So, in a “Correspondence with the Court,” I asked if the Court realized that the separate dismissal of Appellee Dangerfield had not been Affirmed?

Following my Correspondence with the Court raising the issue of Defendant/ Appellee Dangerfield’s dismissal not having been ruled on, and so was yet outstanding, I filed a Motion for Summary Reversal of his dismissal:  Dkt No 86

Defendant/Appellee Dangerfield is not a prosecutor. 

This is important as my Panel had Affirmed the dismissal of someone/10 of 11 of my Defendants by declined to indict/prosecutorial discretion (“someone,” as my Panel did not specify whom they were Affirming). 

My allegations against Dangerfield were different than those against my 10 other Defendants: I sued him for acts in his past legal representation of defendants in previous actions I had filed, as clearly stated/agreed by Judge Snow in his Order of dismissal. 

Dangerfield filed his own Motion to dismiss, separating himself from my 10 other Defendants. He began that separation in their (the 10’s) filed-first Motion to dismiss. 

My Panel Affirmed for “Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Attorney General; et al.” (see this forgery of individual Defendant Mark Brnovich in Dkt No 84) ; Dangerfield was not included, either by name; by his separate Motion for dismissal; or by his having any part in “...the prosecution or non-prosecution of another” (again, Dangerfield is not a prosecutor).  

Dangerfield’s dismissal has not been Affirmed by my Panel’s Affirming Judge Snow’s dismissal of the 10, so I filed a Motion for Summary Reversal of his dismissal. 

Judge Snow’s dismissal of his longtime associate and fellow active Church member is clearly corrupt, including I never anywhere claimed “declined to indict,” resulting in prosecutorial my Panel Affirming by discretion…I alleged my injuries were by Defendants’ criminal acts, including documented forgeries, and so Judge Snow’s order should be reversed.

As a result of Dangerfield not having been Affirmed, and the obviousness of his dismissal being corrupt, I filed a Motion for Summary Reversal of his dismissal. 

As mentioned just above (in Dkt No 85), the implications of my Panel not having ruled on/seen Dangerfield’s separate dismissal are numbing. So, I filed a Correspondence with the Court asking if it understood their delay in undoing that corruption of certain judges was further exposing the corruption: Dkt No 88

In this Correspondence with the Court, I stated to the Court that it must have become obvious with my Motion to Clarify/Make Known my Panel did not rule on Defendant/Appellee Dangerfield’s separate Motion to dismiss/dismissal by Judge Snow (Dkt No 85), and my Motion for Summary Reversal of Dangerfield (Dkt No 86): As my Panel was rushed to Affirm Judge Snow the Friday before Appellees’ response to my Motion for Summary Reversal was due on Monday, in Judges Muguia/Snow’s haste, their coaching of my Panel was incomplete, they thereby documented their corruption.  

By this documentation, it is clear my Panel did not read Judge Snow’s Order of dismissal; or any Appeal pleadings, they simply took instructions from Judge Snow to use his/my Defendants’ fraud of “declined to indict,” and they Affirmed (ignoring my Opening Brief Ch 4; seen everywhere else).  

How can I claim that my Panel read nothing, including that they ignored my Ch 4, et al? 

Because they did not see/act on even the first sentence of Judge Snow’s Order of dismissal:  

 “Before the Court are State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33), Mark Dangerfield’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34); ...” (Bold underline added by me.) 

Had my Panel seen this sentence, they would have also known to rule on Dangerfield’s separate Motion to dismiss.  

Or, had they read Judge Snow’s CONCLUSION to his Order, they would have known to also rule on his second dismissal:

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Mark Dangerfield’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.” 

That my Panel did not read Judge Snow’s Order or any Appeal documents is obvious: They did not even know there were 2 dismissals that were moved for; granted; and then argued here, so they did not rule on Dangerfield’s dismissal/Appeal. 

How could my Panel rule on whether or not to Affirm, without reading Judge Snow’s Order? 

How could my Panel rule on whether or not to Affirm, without reading any Appeal pleadings?

My Reply to Appellees’ Response to my Emergency Motion to Disqualify 4 Specific Circuit Judges from my pending Motion for Reconsideration EN Banc for 10 of 11 Appellees, or Ruling on Separate Appellee Dangerfield’s yet outstanding dismissal. Dkt No 89

With what I knew at that time (prior to realizing my Panel’s Order documented their corruptly Affirming Judge Snow), I filed an Emergency Motion to Disqualify Judges Murguia, Wallace, Lee, and Bumatay based the facts I then knew (see Dkt No 82 above, based on Dkt No’s 68/76/73/81/84 and Red Title 1). Appellees’ response was a litany of how rude of me to allege errant behavior by these honorable Judges and providing a discussion for the standard for Recusal. In my Reply (Dkt No 89). In my Reply, I sought to support my Motion to Disqualify by my now realizing my Panel had documented their corrupt Affirming of Judge Snow (Dkt No’s 85/86/88).

My Motion to add an Addendum to my Motion for Consideration En Banc Dkt No’s 68/76, regarding my having realized my Panel had documented its own corruption in Affirming Judge Snow (per Dkt No’s 85/86/88 above): Dkt No 90

Quite simply, when my Panel first Affirmed Judge Snow, and I was in shock, over how short their Order was, and that they ruled by Defendants/Appellees’ fraud of “declined to indict,” and Judge Snow’s use of it, I did not realize that my Pane’s Order Affirming Judge Snow actually documented the corruptness of their ruling, or that Defendant/Appellee Dangerfield’s dismissal had not yet been ruled on (per Dkt No’s 85/86/88).

Now that I had come to the realization of what my Panel’s Order exposed, none of which I knew when I filed my Motion to Disqualify (Dkt No 82), I filed a Motion to add and Addendum that explained what I had come to realize.

 As I have experienced more than once: When the Appellees or the Court are under pressure to recognize my opposing party has lost on an issue (Appellees had a response due today), they simply rule against me...this time, adding, case now closed (noting, Appellee Dangerfield’s dismissal is yet outstanding/has not been Affirmed): Dkt No 91

The Appellees needed to file a response on 2-22-24 to my Motion to Clarify/Make Known Appellee Dangerfield’s dismissal had not been Affirmed (Dkt No 85). And once again (see the Court do this earlier on 12-15-23 at Dkt No 65), the Court helped them out by issuing their Order to Deny to my Motion for Reconsideration on 2-22-24. Their Order was again very brief, with no actual legal reasoning...and they did not confront the reality that Appellee Dangerfield ahd not been Affirmed (Dkt No’s 85/86/88). Neither did the Court confront the forgery of who my lead Defendant/Appellee is (Dkt No 84). 

My correspondence with the Court, post the Court denying my Motion for Reconsideration, asking: When will the Court rule on separate and outstanding not-yet-ruled-on Appellee Dangerfield? Dkt No 92

In the Court’s Denying my Motion for Reconsideration, and being just plain sloppy, I suppose in part by their immense and virtually unchecked power, and maybe in rushing to complete something they knew was corrupt, they did not rule on, let alone acknowledge, Appellee Dangerfield’s dismissal had not been Affirmed.

And so I asked them what they were going to do about this...

Appellant’s Correspondence with the Court: The Record documents that there is a yet outstanding, separate dismissal, of remaining Defendant/Appellee Dangerfield that has not been ruled on: Dkt No 93

The Ninth Circuit has become belligerent, made clear by their refusing to acknowledge the documented corrupt actions by my Panel of 3 Republican Judges...who had been handpicked to Affirm Republican Arizona District Court Chief  Judge Snow...who had dismissed my Defendants, Arizona Republican Elites, including that my lead Defendant (a well known GOP  stalwart) is married to one of Judge Snow’s Judges...so I detailed the documented reality that proves my Panel acted corruptly, and that the Ninth is running a Watergate-like cover-up.  

Dangerfield is not a State employee; he is not a prosecutor; his name is not mentioned in my Panel’s Order Affirming Judge Snow’s dismissal of the 10, nor in their Order Denying my Motion for Reconsideration; Judge Snow’s Order of Dismissal for Dangerfield is not mentioned in the Court’s Order Affirming Judge Snow, nor in their Order Denying my Motion for Reconsideration; and, again, Dangerfield’s separate Motion to Dismiss was Granted by Judge Snow for legal reasoning different than his reasoning for the 10  (i.e., prosecutorial discretion for the 10 versus Dangerfield supposedly having no liability for being an outside attorney (Ex 1, pg 3, lns 16-28).

DKT 94 The judgment of this Court, entered December 15, 2023, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DKT 95 APPELLANT’S CORRESPONDENCE: I RECEIVED YOUR MANDATE FOR MY PANEL’S AFFIRMING THE 1ST OF JUDGE SNOW’S 2 ODERS OF DISMISSAL...I AGAIN ASK: WHEN WILL YOU RULE ON THE 2ND ORDER OF DISMISSAL, FOR APLEE DANGERFIELD?

DKT 96 NOTICE OF A CIVL COMPLAINT HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST 5 FEDERAL COURT EMPLOYEES: G. Murray Snow; Mary H. Murguia; John C. Wallace; Kenneth K. Lee; and Patrick J. Bumatay, for documented, fraudulenf corrupt and injuriouso acts. APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A CIVL

DKT 97 APPELLANT’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT: I HAVE FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR A MATTER THIS COURT HAS LEFT OUTSTANDING, AND SEEMINGLY REFUSES TO ACT ON

DKT 98 PETITIONER’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH RESPONDENTS AND THE COURT: I HAVE WITHDRAWN MY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS FILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ORIGINALLY FILED ON 3-22-24

DKT 99 Appeals Court Case No: 22-16909 APPELLANT’S NOTICE TO THE COURT: I HAVE FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR A MATTER THIS COURT HAS LEFT OUTSTANDING, AND SEEMINGLY REFUSES TO ACT ON