No. 24-5562

In Re Will Graven

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2024-09-17
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: appeal-procedure court-process docket-forgery judicial-corruption judicial-misconduct mandamus
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-12-13 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Supreme Court condone judicial misconduct including docket forgery, court process manipulation, and refusal to rule on matters?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTION 1: Have our Judges now been approved by this Supreme Court to forge their Dockets, and rule by their forgeries, at will? (.e., when it is in a Judge’s best interest to commit such errant acts.) QUESTION 2: Have our Clerks of Court now been approved by this Supreme Court to manipulate Court processes, such as sandbagging properly filed pleading, at will (please see Note 1)? (See my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed yesterday, Tuesday, 9/17/24, against your Clerk of Court.) QUESTION 3: Have our Judges and/or Appeal Panels now been approved by this Supreme Court to refuse to rule on a matter, at will? (I.e., when it is in the Judge’s/Appeal Panel’s interest to refuse to rule on a matter; and/or in the Clerk’s interest to manipulate Court processes for a Judge/himself.) QUESTION 4: Does this respected United States Supreme Court not see its approval for our Judges to forge their Dockets, and rule by those forgeries; and does this Court not see its approval for a Judge and/or an Appeal Panel to refuse to rule on matters; and does this Court not see its approval for a Clerk of Court of Court manipulating Court processes, by a Judge’s and/or Appeal Panel’s instruction, and/or on his own; as recipes for Judicial anarchy and corruption (be it by Judges and/or Clerks)? Note 1: I note this Court’s Clerk of Court has now used similar errant tactics as the ones you approved for the Ninth Circuit (and that the Arizona District Court has now also followed suit by using similarly creative, errant tactics [which this Petition it seeking to overcome); more than twice refusing (by sandbagging, and directly) to Docket my Supplemental Brief; my Application to Remove him from my Case; and my Motion to Vacate the Court’s Denying my Petition for a Mandamus, in Case No.: 24-7130, Graven Brnovich, et al (again, see my Writ of Mandamus filed yesterday, on Monday, 9/17/24, against your Clerk of Court).

Docket Entries

2024-12-16
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2024-11-26
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024.
2024-11-19
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2024-11-18
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2024-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2024.
2024-10-01
Letter of petitioner with supplemental appendix materials received.
2024-09-12
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 17, 2024)

Attorneys

Will Graven
Will Graven — Petitioner
Will Graven — Petitioner