The weakest link in our system of justice is the judge. The American system of justice is held hostage to the personal integrity of the judges. If the judge lacks personal integrity then justice may never be found. "The integrity of the judge is, in the final analysis, the keystone of the judicial system; for it is integrity which enables a judge to disregard personalities and partisan political influences and enables him or her to base decisions solely on the facts, and the law applicable to those facts. It is, therefore, imperative that a judicial candidate's integrity and character with regard to honesty and truthfulness be above reproach. An individual with the integrity necessary to quality must be one who is able, among other things, to speak the truth without exaggeration, admit responsibility for mistakes and put aside self-aggrandizement. Other elements demonstrating integrity are intellectual honesty, fairness, impartiality, ability to disregard prejudices, obedience to the law and moral courage."
URL:http://court.nol.org/manual/aba.htm, American Bar Association's Guidelines for Reviewing Qualifications of Candidates for State Judicial Office. If a Judge intentionally lies and misrepresents the law, why should the system protect such a Judge?

Email

I have discovered that there is no effective way to discipline a rogue federal judge. It is my hope that this blog along with my websites, Direct Appeal, Opinion,Case No. 01-13664-A, mmason.freeshell.org, and geocities.com/mcneilmason/, will aid or provoke conscientious minded citizens into action. The action I seek is to get the Congress to enact some much needed judicial reform. I use the misconduct of Judge Donald L. Graham to document just how badly a federal judge can run amuck of the "rule of law" and get away with it. Judge Donald L. Graham has done all the following and gotten away with it:

* Lied and intentionally misrepresenting the law. Donald L. Graham did this by telling me one version of the law and another version of the law to a different Plaintiff. Graham stated in my lawsuit that I could not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against a state actor while at the very same time he allowed a Plaintiff to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against the very same state actor. In my lawsuit, Case No. 99-14027-CIV-Graham, Graham's Court stated: "Counts Eight, Nineteen, Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and Twenty-Five deal with §1981 claims. This Court believes that those claims should likewise be dismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Butts v. County of Volusia, 222 F.3d 891(11th Cir. 2000). In Butts, the Eleventh Circuit held that §1983 constituted the exclusive remedy against state actors for violation of rights contained in §1981. The Plaintiff has a valid §1983 count pending concerning his termination of employment. He has two Title VII claims as well as a disparate treatment claim pending. The Plaintiffs response does not give sufficient reason why he is entitled to plead a §1981 claim in light of the Buffs decision. Therefore, this Court is going to recommend to the District Court that Counts Eight, Nineteen, Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and Twenty-Five be dismissed with prejudice." At the very same time, Graham was saying that I could not state a claim against a state actor under §1981, he was allowing the Plaintiff to state a claim under §1981 against the very same state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, in Case No. 00-14094-CIV-Graham, Fa Nina St. Germain v. Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. Fa Nina St. Germain's §1981 was disposed of on the facts, not the law and not Butts v. County of Volusia, 222 F.3d 891(11th Cir. 2000), in Case No. 00-14094-CIV-Graham. Clearly, Judge Graham either lied to me or Fa Nina St. Germain as he could not have told the truth to the both of us. See Page 3, Report and Recommendation, (DE #435). Graham signed this Report and Recommendation. See Order (DE #466).
See Secretlaw.com and geocities.com/mcneilmason/.

On May 2004, Judges Carnes and Hull , Case No. 04-11894, were willing to lie or intentionally misstate the facts in order to cover for Judge Graham. Proof?

Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because … (2) would not let Mason file a § 1981 claim, but did let another plaintiff with similar claims do so... Moreover, a review of Mason’s complaint and the other plaintiff’s complaint reveal that their claims are not similar. Mason’s complaint alleges that county entities and employees violated his First Amendment rights, which is actually a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The plaintiff to which Mason compares himself, however, brought racial and national origin discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and § 1981. Both Title VII and § 1981 can be used to bring race discrimination claims.

See pgs. 2-3, Opinion, Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/04-11894/04-11894.pdf. Both Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit know that this assertion is false because my complaint specifically alleges racial discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and § 1981. See (DE #321, pps. 1, 2, 11; 63-64, 65, ¶¶1, 2, 3, 85, 459-462, 465-466, 473-474), URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/ConsolidatedAmendedComplaint.doc. It is hard to imagine that judges would outright lie when they know the record clearly contradicts their statements. Aren't Judges required under the law to tell the truth? What is the punishment for judges that intentionally lie and misrepresent the truth.

*Usurped legal authority in violation of the First and Tenth Amendment. Judge Graham issued orders stating that I must request the permission of private for profit attorneys in order to speak to the government or request Public Records under Florida law. Judge Graham actually dismissed a lawsuit because he said I talked to the government without the permission of a private for profit lawfirm. See Court Orders, (Doc. #201), (Doc. 246) . See Secretlaw.com and geocities.com/mcneilmason/.


* Allowing a motion for a preliminary injunction for to languish in court for 574 days and not make a ruling. The motion for preliminary in injunction was initially filed on November 24, 1999. Essentially, Graham gave himself permission not to rule on a motion for injunctive relief. Despite repeated requests, Graham refused to disclose why he wouldn't rule on the motion for a preliminary injunction. As a side matter, when I filed petition for mandamus (Case No. 01-11305) with the Eleventh Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit simply stated: "His mandamus petition, however, is frivolous because he has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief to compel the district court to rule on his motion for preliminary injunction." See Secretlaw.com and geocities.com/mcneilmason/.

On May 2004, Judges Carnes and Hull , Case No. 04-11894, were willing to lie or intentionally misstate the facts in order to cover for Judge Graham. Proof?

Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because (1) he allowed many of Mason's motions to languish...As to the alleged languishing, a review of the district court docket sheet shows that the court ruled upon his motions in a timely manner .

See pgs. 2, 3 Case No. 04-11894 Opinion.
How is NEVER ruling on scores of motions and filings ruling "upon his motions in a timely manner"? This answer is false, dishonest, absurd, and insulting. Review the docket and see where Graham never ruled on the motions and filings listed above. See PacerReportsDocketEntries99-14027.html.

* Allowing scores of motions to languish in court for up to 8 months and not taking any action. For a complete listing, see web page languishing motions .


* Concealing Information and Falsely Completing a Civil Justice Reform Act Report. When Graham completed his Civil Justice Reform Act Report for March 31, 2001, he shows that he has no motions pending for more than 6 months. This information is false because the motion for a preliminary injunction had been pending for more 492 days or about 16.4 months. CJRA Report.

* Abuse of the Criminal Contempt Procedure. Judge Graham abused the criminal contempt procedure to intimidate me and attempt to force me to drop an embarrassing lawsuit filed against him. See Grahams Lawsuit and Contempt Abuse.

The Eleventh Circuit will not discuss, much less remedy, any of the allegations of misconduct. These allegations have been repeatedly mentioned through various legal mechanisms, however the Eleventh Circuit, while deployed "unpublished and unsigned" "Opinions", refuse to even state the allegations in their "unpublished and unsigned" "Opinions". Want Proof? Consider the following:

01-15754-A Mandamus Petition

petition

Direct Appeal Case No. 01-13664-A

Initial Brief

 

04-11894 Petition For Mandamus

Mandamus Petition

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal are masters of artifice, treachery, trickery, and dishonesty. The Eleventh Circuit employed these techniques as a part of an overt conspiracy to conceal Judge Graham's misconduct and abuse of power. Even though all manner of appeals, mandamus, and Section 372(c) complaints have been filed, you will not even see these allegations in the Eleventh Circuit's secret and unpublished "opinions". See the Trickery web page for a listing of these techniques. The Eleventh Circuit's "creativity"in avoiding discussing these serious allegations is only exceeded by its dishonesty.


The foregoing are but the tip of iceberg. There is more outrageous behavior by both Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit. See Secretlaw.com, mmason.freeshell.org, and geocities.com/mcneilmason/ for more information and atrocities.




Email

Judge Graham Dismisses Lawsuit Because Plaintiff makes Florida Public Records Request

Highlands County through its attorney, Maria Sorolis, asked Judge Graham to dismiss a lawsuit, because the Plaintiff, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. made a public records request under Florida Law. Here is what the Defendants asked Judge Graham for and got, verbatim.

6) During the week of February 5, 2001, Plaintiff knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000. Plaintiff appeared at the office of Fred Carino, Human Resource Director of Highlands County and a supervisory employee of a named defendant in this action, and demanded to view his personnel file. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County’s counsel.1 Notwithstanding, his file was produced to him. During this visit, Plaintiff pointed out that certain portions of the contents of his personnel file should be removed. (Exhibit 5). These acts were done with apparent intent to challenge this Court’s authority to issue Orders enjoining Plaintiffs conduct.
(7) On February 13, 2001, Plaintiff appeared at Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation. Mr. Mason left before the records could be produced. Id.
‘In an effort to cooperate with Plaintiff, Defendants’ counsel has allowed the production of a document to take place at Mr. Carino’s office. Notwithstanding, Defendants’ counsel has always required Plaintiff to make his request for the particular production only through them.
(8) On February 14, 2001, Plaintiff returned to Fred Carino’s office and demanded to view attorney billing records from Defendant Highlands County’s counsel relevant to its defense of his litigation. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County’s counsel. Notwithstanding, the records were produced to him. Id.
(9) After reviewing the, records, Mr. Mason penned a note to Mr. Carino stating that he wanted unredacted portions of billing records and if he did not get them he will file a lawsuit by February 16, 2001.2 Id
(10) Mr. Mason returned to Mr. Carino’s office a second time on February 14, 2001 and knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 200 and July 25, 2000. He demanded to view Defendant Highlands County’s Insurance Document of Coverage, a docuthent that had previously been produced to him. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and :not through Defendant Highlands County’s counsel. Notwithstanding, the document was produced to him. Id.
(11) During this visit, Plaintiff became loud, aggressive, disruptive, and questioned the need for Mr. Carino’s presence during his review of the document. Plaintiff suggested to Mr. Carino that his time could be better spent responding to Plaintiffs many interrogatories. Id.
(12) During his confrontation, Mr. Mason made threatening gestures to Mr. Carino with his hands that came within six (6) inches of Mr. Carino’s face. Plaintiff threatened Mr. Carino numerous times that Plaintiff would have him arrested if he arrested if he did not turn over whatever documents Plaintiff demanded. Plaintiff also threatened to go directly to the courthouse and file suit against Highlands County and Mr. Carino individually. Plaintiff promised Mr. Carino that he would continue to return to his office to demand public records and documents. Id.
(13) Subsequent to these events, and up to the time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has continued to violate this Court’s Order by personally contacting Mr.Carino’s office for discovery matter in a harassing manner without first going through Defendant’s counsel. (Exhibit 7).
(14) Plaintiff has demonstrated a blatant disregard for this Court’s authority and a resolve indicative of bullying his way through this litigation on his own terms. (Exhibit 6).
(15) Plaintiffs conduct in violation of this Court’s Orders of June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000 require a dismissal with prejudice of all of plaintiff’s claims in the above-referenced matter.

See DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The first motion was not good enough, so Highlands County asked for another motion not to be communicate with.

(10) Since April 3, 2001 - subsequent to the Court’s March 27th Order - Plaintiff has repeatedly personally contacted supervisory employees and/or the individual Defendants about matters related to this case. Specifically, Plaintiff sent e-mail communications directly to supervisory employees of the Defendants, which discussed the “no trespass warnings” that were issued against Plaintiff, Plaintiffs tortious interference claim, as well as Allen, Norton & Blue’s “track record” of litigating appeals (including Eleventh Circuit appeals). (Exhibit 1).
(11) Clearly, Plaintiffs “no trespass” and tortious interference claims were an integral part of Plaintiffs present litigation, and involve the same set of facts that Plaintiff continues to rely on in pursuing his present claims. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint alleged several causes of action based on the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff’s “no trespass” claims were ultimately dismissed by the Court (D.E.’s #435; 466), Plaintiff has recently indicated his intent to appeal the Court’s dismissal of all claims in his Fourth Amended Complaint. (Exhibit 2). Consequently, the issuance of the “no trespass” warnings against Plaintiff are still part of this present litigation.
(12) In addition, Plaintiff’s communications regarding Defendants’ counsel’s Eleventh Circuit “track record” clearly have no relevance to his state court claim(s), and pertain only to his federal litigation.
(13) All of Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same set of facts and are all related, and he should simply not be allowed to continuously disregard Orders of this Court and blatantly challenge the Court’s authority.
(14) Plaintiff has continued to violate this Court’s Order by personally contacting these individuals, despite clear warnings by the Court that any future violations will result in the recommendation of dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claim(s). Plaintiff has demonstrated a blatant disregard and disdain for this Court’s authority, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s statement that “ANYBODY, who supports your position. . . is a racist and is part of the problem. I fear no man!!! This includes white men wearing robes” and “I aint afraid of a white men wearing robes of any color.” (Exhibit 1, e-mails dated 4/03/01 at 10:57 a.m. and 4/06/01 at 8:33 a.m. respectively)
(15) Plaintiff’s continuous violation of this Court’s Orders mandate a dismissal of all of plaintiffs claims in the above-referenced matter with prejudice.

WHEREFORE, Defendants’ request that this Court dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiffs claims in the above-referenced matter.

See DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW


The "Court" or Judge Donald L. Graham granted these patently illegal motions.

See (Doc 766, Report and Recommendtion); (Doc. 791, Order Adopting Report and Recommendtion).