Dirty Little Secrets of Judge Donald L.
Graham and the
Eleventh Circuit
Justice Turned On Its Head
 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
New Postings
A Tale of Two Appeals, Same Facts, Same Law, Different Results
Documented Allegations of Judicial Abuse and Misconduct
Background
Trickery
Abuse of Inherent Authority
And Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction
Overruling the First Amendment
Allegations Of Misconduct Are Not Addressed
Junk
Law
Blocking Access To The Courts
and "IFP" Abuse
JUDGE GRAHAM'S LAWLESS DENIALS OF IFP
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
LAWLESS IFP DENIALS
MEAN SPIRITED, PERNICIOUS DENIAL
EXAMPLE
CULTURE OF CORRUPTION?
Corruption is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle". Given that definition and the documented facts presented here, it can not be reasonably argued that the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Dist. Ct., Southern District Florida is not infected by a culture of corruption.
William J. Zloch, former Chief Judge, Southern District of Florida,
in a letter dated August
10, 2001, when told of Judge Graham's miscreant behavior stated:
"The Judge to whom this matter was
assigned is one of the very best Judges of this Court and your case
is being appropriately handled. I have no authority to review any
allegations you make in the documents you submitted."
Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson, knowing full well that the allegations
of judicial misconduct can not be denied and have not been remedied
or addressed, has attempted intimidation in order to stop
Mason from exposing Judge Grahams' miscreant behavior. Mr.
Mason's conduct raises an inference that he is abusing the judicial
complaint procedure, in violation of Addendum IlI Rule 1(j)(l), by
filing complaints that are vexatious, repetitive, harassing, or
frivolous. See Show
Cause Order. Judge Edmondson is clearly not troubled
by any of the documented abuse and misconduct by Judge Graham.
Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson's view of the Judicial
Misconduct and Disability Act does not include acts of misfeasance,
malfeasance, or nonfeasance by Judge Donald L Graham. Judge
Edmondson frequently uses the term "directly related to the
merits" to dispose of Complaints. See mmason.freeshell.org/372c/index.htm.
What acts are covered under the Judicial
Misconduct and Disability Act?
FEDERAL JUDGES CAN NOT BE TRUSTED TO DISCIPLINE FEDERAL JUDGES.
For Proof, See mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm.
Current Methods of Judicial Federal Discipline Are Ineffective
Impeachment
Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act
Appellate Review
Lawsuits Against Judges
Current methods, excepting
impeachment, of Judicial Discipline calls for
"self-policing" or allowing other federal judges to
discipline federal judges. This
website takes the case of U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham and proves
that federal judges can not be trusted to discipline other federal
judges. This website will prove, with
documents, that federal judges will take extreme and lawless
measures to keep from disciplining other federal judges. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit will not even discuss the allegations
of misconduct in any of their official writings. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Government,
while portraying Judge Graham as some type of victim, has tried
to stop Mason from publishing this incredible story. See mmason.freeshell.org/DisdainFirstAmendment.html.
Marcellus Mason has futilely attempted to have the misconduct and
abuse of Judge Graham reviewed by the methods listed above.
See mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm.
Additionally, or alternatively the dishonesty of Judge Graham, Judge J. L. Edmondson, and the Eleventh
Circuit is fully documented at URL: mmason.freeshell.org/dishonesty.htm.
The one informal and little used deterrent to judicial
misconduct is public and media scrutiny. Federal Judges fear
public and media scrutiny. This website seeks public and media
scrutiny.
Judge Donald L. Graham is clearly above the law
and The Eleventh Circuit, US Court Of Appeal will not discipline
Judge Graham under any of the legal vehicles available.
JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM
IS LIAR, AND SO ARE HIS ENABLERS. For proof, See mmason.freeshell.org/liar.htm.
A
tale of two Appeals: Two S.D. Fla. Judges, Precisely the Same Facts,
Different Result on Appeal. Tale
of Two Appeals Home Page.
In Martinez, v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364
F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004), the Eleventh Circuit
vacated and remanded Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley's denial of an IFP application for failing to a reason for the denial.
However, Judge Donald L. Graham in the
same Court, Southern District of Florida, did the exact thing as
Judge Hurley, but Judge Graham was affirmed. This fact can be verified in five
minutes by reading mmason.freeshell.org/martinez.htm
. Incidentally, Judge Graham has a documented history of
denying in forma pauperis petitions without providing any
explanation. See Judge
Graham's History of Arbitrary IFP denials.
Similarly in World Thrust Films v. International
Family Entertainment, 41 F. 3d 1454 (11th Cir. 1995), U.S.
District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, was reversed on appeal for
failing to make an explicit finding under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b),
while U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, S.D. Fla., failed to
make the same explicit finding, but was affirmed on appeal.
See mmason.freeshell.org/WorldThrust.htm. As if this was bad enough, the Eleventh Circuit used an invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction that issued on September 20, 2001 to make an implicit finding under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to justify a dismissal of a case that was closed three months earlier on June 20, 2001. The Eleventh Circuit used the very same invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction that it struck Mason's brief for arguing because the Eleventh Circuit claimed that this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was "beyond the scope of appeal." For more see, mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm
**************************************************************************************************
Mason v. Highlands County Board of
County Commissioners, et.al.,
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A, is an unpublished opinion
that was never released by the Eleventh Circuit on their web
site. This decision shows the extreme and
unlawful measures the Eleventh Circuit have taken to affirm
Judge Graham. See mmason.freeshell.org/01-13664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion-OCR.htm
.
CORE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE OF POWER BY JUDGE DONALD
L. GRAHAM:
- Judge Graham and his Magistrate usurped legal authority by
ordering Mason not to communicate with his government,
Highlands County Board of County
Communications. See Docket
Entry No. 201. Additionally, Judge Graham prohibited
Mason from requesting public records directly from Highlands
County. See Docket
Entry No. 246. These injunctions were issued by a
Magistrate in violation of 28
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1)(a), which in part states:
"a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any
pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief,..."
Judge Graham himself has characterized these orders as
injunctions. See Docket Entry 407,
(D.E. #407). Additionally, these orders are blatant
violations of the First Amendment. See Overruling
the First Amendment.
- Judge Graham lied and intentionally misrepresented the
law. Judge Graham told Mason that the law
precluded him from asserting claims of intentional
discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981 against a state actor, Highlands
County Board of County Commissioners. See Docket Entries Nos. 435
and 466. At
the very same time, Judge Graham was allowing a plaintiff in
another case [Fa Nina St. Germain v. Highlands County,
Case No. 00-14094] to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981
against the very same state actor, Highlands County
Board of County Commissioners. See Summary
Judgment, Case No. 00-14094. It might be noted that
Ms. St. Germain was represented by counsel, Peter Helwig,
Lakeland, FL and Mason was not represented by
counsel.
- Judge Graham refused to rule on a motion for a preliminary
injunction by Marcellus Mason. The motion was submitted
on November 24, 1999 (Docket Entry No. 39) and was never ruled
on by Judge Graham. It was made moot on June 20, 2001
when Judge Graham dismissed the case because of alleged out of
court communications by Mason with the Highlands County
Government. As late as April 2001, or 17 months after Mason
filed the motion, the Eleventh Circuit said a mandamus
petition was frivolous, because Mason had no right to have his
motion decided. See No
Right To have Motion Decided
- Judge Graham allowed scores of other important motions to
simply linger without addressing them. Some of these
filings languished for as long as eight
months. See Languishing
Motions.
- Judge Graham abused the criminal contempt procedure by
taking a sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and making
it the basis of a criminal contempt information. On
September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issued a pre-filing
injunction against Mason sua sponte. Additionally,
the Eleventh Circuit, has used all manner of tactics to avoid
reviewing this clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction.
See Sua
Sponte page and Contempt
page.
- Judge Graham intentionally misrepresented
the amount of lawsuits that were filed in order to justify the
sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. See Law
Suits Filed. More importantly, Judge Graham, himself, on the Defendants'
motion (Highlands County),
for a filing injunction against Mason, stated: "However, at this point, none
of those other cases
have totally dismissed with prejudice. There are viable claims
pending in those cases. * * * While there are other pending
cases between these parties, there is nothing near the extent
of the litigation which this Court and the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals usually look for justifying injunctive
relief." Case No. 00-14240, (D.E. #27, dtd.
1-16-01)(D.E. 33 dtd.
2-13-01).
- Judge Graham awarded a massive $200,000 in attorney's fees
to Highlands County against Mason, not on the quality of the
underlying lawsuit, but based upon Judge Graham's speculation
about Mason's motive. Judge Graham used the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction
to award $200.000 against Mason, a man Judge Graham knew
didn't have the money because he was proceeding in forma
pauperis. See Attorneys'
Fees or Docket
Entry #882.
BACKGROUND
Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. of
Sebring, Fl. filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against
Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and Heartland
Library Cooperative and other governmental entities and
individual government employees in February 1999. This
case was ultimately assigned Judge Donald L. Graham and
Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr., Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch.
After protracted litigation, the case was dismissed, not on the
merits of the case, but based upon banned and irrelevant out of
court constitutionally protected and legal communications between Highlands County and Mason. "R&R"
(D.E.
766), Order
adopting R&R (D.E
791). See
Banned Communications.
In June and July 2000, Maria
Sorolis and Brian Koji, Allen,
Norton & Blue asked the Magistrate to grant them
preliminary injunctions that required Mason to contact them
before he could talk to the government defendants. These
orders required Mason, a nonlawyer, living in Sebring, FL to
contact private attorneys some 90 miles away in Tampa, FL .
These orders were granted on
June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000 in part stated:
“Plaintiff
shall be prohibited from contacting any of the Defendants,
including their supervisory employees and/or the
individual Defendants, regarding any matter related to this
case.” (DE
#201).
This order is dated June 19, 2000,
“Plaintiff
shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any
requests for public records.” (DE
#246).
“Plaintiff shall be
prohibited from contacting any of the Defendants, including
their supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants,
regarding any matter related to this case.”
(DE
#246).
This order is dated July 25, 2000.
Judge Graham has expressly stated that the issuance of the injunctions by Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. was not "clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law." See Docket Entry No. 407. However, Congress and the law disagree as the law expressly states that: "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary—
a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief...," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
TRICKERY
The webpage entitled Eleventh Circuit, USCA: Trickery Raised
to Art form sets out an an incredible tale of lawlessness using
acts of artifice, trickery, chicanery, dishonesty, and
usurpation. The stories you are about read are incredible and
seemingly delusional, however, these incredible stories are fully
documented with RECORD facts. One should be
skeptical at the outset, however your skepticism will fade as you are
overwhelmed with record facts.
The Congress, and more importantly, the American people should be made
aware of these facts as both are culls, otherwise there would be
genuine outrage and a political firestorm permeating the country.
Res
Ipsa Loquitur !!!
For the Latin challenged, "the thing speaks for itself".
Abuse of Inherent
Authority And Sua Sponte Issued Pre-filing Injunction
"Inherent
Authority"
On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham rendered a pre-fling
injunction sua
sponte, or on his motion and without notice to the litigant
Marcellus M. Mason. See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878)
. Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS
CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. One
of the most troubling abuses of power by Judge Graham is his
willingness to issue a pre-filing injunction sua
sponte, or without notice and opportunity to be heard [due
process] prior to rendering the injunction. "Sua sponte, Latin
for "of one's own accord," is a legal term that means to act
spontaneously without prompting from another party. The term is usually
applied to actions by a judge,
taken without a prior motion or request from the parties." URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sua_sponte.
Sua
Sponte pre-filing injunctions have been rejected
universally by almost every jurisdiction in the United
States. Equally troubling is the fact that the Eleventh
Circuit, US Court of Appeal refuses to overrule Judge
Graham. The Eleventh Circuit uses a two pronged attack to
deny appellate review. The Eleventh Circuit simply ignores
fee paid petitions for relief, direct appeal or mandamus.
Secondly, the Eleventh Circuit simply claims that in
forma pauperis (filing fee waived) applications, appeal or
mandamus, are frivolous, for a different reason each time relief
is requested. The bottom line is that the sua
sponte issued pre-filing is effect and the Eleventh
Circuit knows this.
Judge
Graham then took this same clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing
injunction of September 20, 2001and made it the basis of a criminal contempt
complaint. See the Government's
Information.
Overruling
the First Amendment
The webpage entitled Judge
Donald L. Graham: Inherent Authority to Overrule
the Constitution of the United States lists some examples where
"Inherent Authority" has been blatantly and possibly criminally
abused. For a really interesting story, see how Judge Graham issues a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte,
without notice and opportunity to respond and watch how the Eleventh Circuit avoids appellate review of the matter. Sua Sponte Injunction According
to Judge Donald L. Graham, his
Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of
Appeals,
each of them have the inherent authority to simply ignore the decisions
of the
U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Statutes, the United States Constitution, the
Florida
Constitution, and the Florida Statutes whenever they see fit.
This "inherent authority" includes, but is not limited to the following:
- The power to order that a
nonlawyer not speak directly with his government directly, but request
the permission of a private for profit attorney.
- The power
to order that a nonlawyer not request public records under Florida law
with his government
directly, but request the permission of a private for profit attorney.
- The power to dismiss a lawsuit
if a nonlawyer speaks with his government directly.
- The power to award attorneys'
fees of $200,000 against an indigent Plaintiff based solely upon Judge
Graham's mere rank speculation about the Plaintiff's motives, merits of
the lawsuit be damned.
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT ARE
NOT ADDRESSED
The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal,
will not even discuss, much
less remedy, factual allegations of misconduct against Judge Donald L.
Graham. Allegations of misconduct have been leveled at Judge
Graham in the following forms: direct appeal, mandamus, personal
letters, and
Section 372(c) complaints. Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson makes a mockery
of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Chapter 16 of Title
28 U.S.C. §351-364, formerly 28 U.S.C. §372(c). See Chief Judge J. L.
Edmondson Judicial Misconduct Complaint Investigation Tactics.
These allegations are not denied because they can not be, but simply
ignored. Judge Graham has
been accused of: intentionally lying and misrepresenting the law; refusing
to rule
on a motion for a preliminary injunction for more than 15 months;
allowing scores of motions to go undecided; usurping legal
authority. The webpage entitled Eleventh
Circuit Refuses to Discuss Substantiated Factual Allegations of
Misconduct Against Judge Donald L.
Graham lists some specific examples.
Junk Law Created by
Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit
JUNK LAW
The Eleventh Circuit has been quite proficient at making "junk
law". "Junk law" being defined as court opinions that simply
ignore well-established written law. "Junk law" is by definition
not published because no inferior court judge would write an opinion
that is clearly contradicted by the law, or overrule
the Supreme Court
of the United States. The junk law page demonstrates how the
Eleventh Circuit can prevaricate and mischaracterize. The page
also demonstrates a first time use of res judicata that applies the
concept to new causes of action that accrue after a former lawsuit, or
"prospective" res judicata. The page also shows that a federal
magistrate may issue an injunction so long as he does not call it an
injunction. See Junk Web Page.
BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND
"IFP" ABUSE
In forma pauperis (IFP) is a legal term derived from the
Latin
phrase in the character or manner of a pauper.
In the United
States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to
someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit
or a criminal defense.[2]
The status is usually granted by a judge
without a hearing, and entitles the person to a waiver of normal costs, and
sometimes in criminal cases the appointment of counsel.
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis.
The United States Supreme Court has stated:" The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892
and presently codified as 28 U.S.C. 1915, is designed to ensure
that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal
courts. Toward this end, 1915(a) allows a litigant to
commence a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma
pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter alia,
that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit...1915(d)
authorizes federal courts to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis
"if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied
that the action is frivolous or malicious.""
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
324 (1989). [A] finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level
of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in
forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply
because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely.
Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). Both Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit have
shown a blatant disregard and contempt for the Congress and the
Supreme Court of the United States by repeatedly denying in forma
pauperis unlawfully for no stated reasons or reasons that are contradicted by
the record or facts.
JUDGE GRAHAM'S LAWLESS DENIALS OF IFP
Judge Graham has an incredible record of unlawful IFP denial
fully listed at: mmason.freeshell.org/ifp.html#history.
A mere sample is listed here.
November 2, 2000, Judge Graham, who has a very long track record of denying
in forma
pauperis petitions for no stated reason demonstrated his arrogance and
contempt for the Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. For example:
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. # 2). UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion and the pertinent portions of the record, it is
Order and Adjudged that Plaintiff's Motion be, and the same is hereby, DENIED. See
Case
No. 00-14201, Docket Entry No. 9.
November 2, 2000. Judge Graham denied IFP twice in the same day in two different
cases for no apparent reason. In Case No. 00-14202, Docket Entry
No. 9, Judge Graham stated:
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed
in forma pauperis (D.E. # 2). UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion and the
pertinent portions of the record, it is Order and Adjudged that
Plaintiff's Motion be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.
On April 30, 2001, Case
No. 00-14240, Docket Entry No. 43,
THIS CAUSE came before the court upon Defendant's Motion to Proceed
on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (D.E. # 41) and Defendant's Motion for
Clarification on Defendant's Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma
Pauperis. THE COURT has reviewed Defendant's Motion, the pertinent
portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
Defendant Marcellus M. Mason Jr. has several cases pending in the
Court in which his various motions to proceed in forma pauperis have
repeatedly been denied. As Defendant is well aware, the Court has
already determined that he does qualify to proceed without the payment
of fees. Accordingly, it is, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Proceed On Appeal
In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. It is further, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Defendants Motion for Clarification Defendant's Motion to Proceed On
Appeal In Forma Pauperis: DENIED as MOOT.
On September 18, 2001, CASE NO . 99-14027-CIV-GRAHAM, Docket
Entry No. 877,Judge Graham denied three motions, (D.E.
796),(D.E. 799), (D.E. 811) to proceed
on appeal in forma pauperis in one fell swoop for the following
reason:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon an Order of Reference
from the Honorable Donald L . Graham, dated September 10 ,2001, and
this Court having reviewed the aforementioned Motions and the
pertinent portions of the record, and noting that in other actions
filed by Plaintiff, Judge Graham has denied Plaintiff' s motions to
proceed in forma pauperis (Case Nos . 00-14116, 00-14201 ,00-14202,
00-14240), and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiff's
previously filed IFP motions and accompanying affidavits with the
instant motion and affidavit and has found no relevant difference, and
being otherwise advised in the premises ,it is hereby ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis are
DENIED.
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
LAWLESS IFP DENIALS
The Eleventh Circuit, like Judge Graham, has a very
long history of unlawful denials of IFP. See mmason.freeshell.org/ifp/KilliingAppeal.htm.
MEAN SPIRITED,
PERNICIOUS DENIAL EXAMPLE
On Aug. 23, 2002,
the Eleventh Circuit, and in
particular, Judge Charles R. Wilson, without any elaboration, or factual
support stated: Appellant’s motion for leave to file an appeal is DENIED because the appeal is frivolous.
11th Case No. 02-10868. Judge Charles R. Wilson does not share with us why he
thinks it is frivolous to file an appeal of $200, 000 attorneys' fees
award. Judge Graham awarded the Defendant, Highlands County,
attorneys' fees of $200,000 based upon an invalid sua sponte issued
pre-filing injunction. The whole story is fully documented at: mmason.freeshell.org/attorneysfees.htm.
|
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
