Sean David Morton at sea

[notorial dissent]

I keep wondering if he's really that stupid and really believes all that BS, or if it is all an act. He's pond scum and miserable excuse for a human being but I just keep wondering.

[grixit]

Assuming you could create bonds keyed to a legal action, how do they gain worth? Does Morton have some kind of exotic disease that causes his bones to turn into sapphires?

[Jeffrey]

I guess you could sell bonds which would then pay bondholders with any money won as the result of a judgement, but Sean's case is criminal, there's no money to be won.

[Arthur Rubin]

I guess you could sell bonds which would then pay bondholders with any money won as the result of a judgement, but Sean's case is criminal, there's no money to be won.

I thought that was often illegal.

[wserra]

Blah blah blah . . . And myself [sic] and my legal team, if I do say so myself, did such excellent and exemplary work on this . . . blah, blah, blah . . . UNOPPOSED and UNCONTESTED! . . . blah, blah, blah . . . gave up, left the field of battle, and by this admitted they had been caught red-handed and didn’t want to dig their graves any deeper by opening their mouths any wider!

To which the Court responded, in its entirety, as follows:

Appellant Sean David Morton’s requests for summary disposition (Docket Entry Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30) and to expedite his appeal (Docket Entry No. 32) are denied. The motion to stay briefing (Docket Entry No. 31) is denied as moot. Further filing of meritless motions may result in the court withdrawing appellant Morton’s leave to represent himself on appeal.

Good thing those motions were "excellent and exemplary, UNOPPOSED and UNCONTESTED!" Why, otherwise they probably would have been denied.

In [SDM's wife] Melissa’s case, she has a Public Defender who put in a simple motion for no probable cause and to void the search warrant as unlawful. These Deep State demons responded with a 99 page panicked answer that was all a cut and paste job of DEEP STATE FAKE NEWS SMEAR they dug up on the Internet…that was mostly about ME! . . . blah, blah, blah . . . The 9th acted almost IMMEDIATELY to slap them down, call the DOJ stupid, said their rebuttal was totally UNACCEPTABLE, had little to DO with Melissa

What the Ninth Circuit actually said, in its entirety:

The appellee’s motion (Docket Entry No. 38) to file an oversized answering brief is denied.
The Clerk shall strike the answering brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 36.
Within 21 days after the date of this order, the appellant shall file an answering brief that complies with Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1(a).

Did the Court call the govt "stupid"? Nope. "Totally UNACCEPTABLE"? Nope. "Had little to do with Melissa"? Nope.

I waived an oral hearing as all the facts and the law, and their OWN WORDS were enough to set me free.

Name: SEAN DAVID MORTON
Register Number: 73055-112
Age: 60
Race: White
Sex: Male
Release Date: 11/08/2022
Located At: USP Tucson

It appears not.

A legend in his own mind.

[notorial dissent]

I would assume that the gov't didn't file anything against SDM's "motions" in lieu of a brief because they were total twaddle and inappropriate and that the court would deny them for not complying with the requirements and twaddleness.

I have to admit I don't understand the issue with the gov'ts motion, but 99 pages doesn't sound even remotely panicked, more like overkill to me.

Otherwise, I would say SDM is winning!!!!!!!! NOT. I didn't realize he was that old.

[wserra]

I have to admit I don't understand the issue with the gov'ts motion, but 99 pages doesn't sound even remotely panicked, more like overkill to me.

Pretty simple: the govt filed an overlength brief (the "99 pages" part is Seriously Dumbass Morton's description; since it was ordered stricken, we don't know). While the govt did file a simultaneous motion seeking permission, the Circuit made clear that its preference is for the litigant ask for permission in advance. Nothing like SDM's grandiose delusion hypothesis.

[notorial dissent]

Sorry, yes, I understood the whole over length thing, I was wondering obviously pointlessly why they went over, which we'll probably never know.

The only similarities/realities between what SDM claims happened and what really happened is that a whole lot of paper got filed.

[Tevildo]

I guess you could sell bonds which would then pay bondholders with any money won as the result of a judgement, but Sean's case is criminal, there's no money to be won.

I thought that was often illegal.

Yes, that's champerty at common law. I don't know which (if any) jurisdictions in the States recognize it.

[Gannibal]

Odd update - CA9 just dismissed Morton's appeal, in what I think is a clerical error. Full text of the order:

A review of the docket demonstrates that appellant has failed to respond to the February 1, 2019 order of this court. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court.

There's no order docketed for February 1, though. The court set a briefing schedule in October 2018, then nothing until it denied Morton's motions and reset the schedule in April 2019. Morton's opening brief isn't due until May 20.

Seems like a mistake to me, such as docketing the order under the wrong file number. But god only knows if Morton can effectively bring that to the court's attention.

[TheCount]

He put 17-73215 (the incorrect case number) on a filing in February that seems to relate to his motions in 17-50351. There seems to be 4 difference appellate case numbers probably pretty easy to get confused.

That being said, I don't think I've ever seen a docketing error like that before. The federal court clerks are usually perfect and error-free.

[Gannibal]

Thanks for that pointer, I wasn't aware of his February filing. (How'd you even find that?)

Looks like he's responding to a notice from the court to correct the deficiency in his December '18 motions by serving the government, so presumably the newest order is referring to that notice? Still seems odd that they didn't docket the notice, and frankly a little silly and improper to dismiss an appeal for failure to serve courtesy copies of motions that the court has already denied.

[TheCount]

Found it by searching his name on Pacer. It seems there are a total of 4 appellate cases relating to the current conviction. I only looked at those two dockets, though. And with him putting the incorrect case number on filings, I'm sure a number of problems could occur.

Plus: Federal Court. Comply with timelines. Period.

[Gannibal]

Fair enough, and god knows Morton has had plenty of opportunities to just file a brief. Still, I think it's inappropriate for the clerk to dismiss an action because he failed to correct deficiencies in a motion the court has already denied. Especially when the court has also set a briefing date. (And I'm a little leery of requiring inmates to serve copies when they likely don't have dependable copy or fax machine access, although I'm more hesitant there because I don't really know what they have access to.)

I think this is probably down to the confusion in docket numbers? I'd be surprised if the clerk intentionally dismissed a case for failing to correct deficiencies in a denied motion, right after the court imposed a new briefing schedule.

But as you said, federal court. Deadlines. They don't screw around.

[TheCount]

I'm sure it was dismissed in error and there is a bunch of confusion due to him filing docs under the incorrect case numbers.

As far as requiring inmates to mail documents, etc, well, I'm quite sure his attorneys can take care of that. However, it is highly unlikely that he is actually required to mail anything; far more likely is that the deficiency is in some other documentation regarding service that is required and no provided, or possibly the court itself requires courtesy "hard" copies, but that's also doubtful.

TL:DR Williams screwed up his own documents.

[Gannibal]

I'm quite sure his attorneys can take care of that

That would be an excellent reason to have an attorney. Unfortunately for Mr. Morton, he went the other way. He's proceeding pro se.

[Gannibal]

Quick question - has anyone heard of something called the "Prachima Law Group"?

In Morton's last call from prison, he's asking for $500 to pay the "Prachima Law Group," or something like that. He refers to them as his "paralegals," and apparently they're preparing some briefs and motions for him (cert, etc.). Presumably this is not a serious or legitimate law firm, and I'm curious about the story here.

Anyone familiar with them?

You can hear him name the group at about 1:00 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL2W1TmOn-A

[notorial dissent]

Doesn't ring any bells. It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that if he is using them they are on a par with the Legal Bears bunch from FL. They might be paralegals, but you'd think they'd know better if they were. Most likely more pretend/pseudo law practitioners.

[Gannibal]

Yeah, the odds of that are virtually 100%.

[TBL]

Just so you all know, I was up until midnight reading this entire interesting chain of events. Thanks for ruining my sleepy time Q!