Misconduct of Federal Judge Donald L. Graham

State Court Judges Are Held to Higher Standards Than Federal Judges

THESIS: "Judicial Independence" at the federal level does not work because the evidence presented here will prove that federal judges simply will not discipline other federal judges. Judicial Independence equals non-accountability. U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham has escaped discipline and possible removal for acts that state court judges would have been removed and/or severely disciplined for. For a concrete example of this assertion, see post entitled "Contempt Abuse Is Misconduct Under State Law But Is Not Judicial Misconduct Under the Federal Statutes". Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has statutory responsibility under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. for investigating allegations of misconduct for federal judges in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. However, Judge Edmondson has used a negative definition of judicial misconduct in such a manner that you can not possibly state a legitimate claim of misconduct against one of his colleagues. Judge Edmondson does not have a positive definition of judicial misconduct; consequently, he can keep saying "no that's not it". Additionally, Judge Graham has exhibited a reckless disregard for binding U.S. Supreme Court precedents with apparent impunity. See Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People’s Right to Access The Courts , Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Due Process And Attorneys’ Fees, Is U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Willfully Defying The United States Supreme Court? Judge Edmondson is of the apparent belief that a federal judge can make bad faith legal errors and escape discipline because the complaint is "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling". However, the State of Florida and other states disagree. "[T]he Florida Supreme Court has expressly held that a judge’s legal rulings can be the subject of judicial disciplinary proceedings." State of Florida, JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION,INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 06-52, CHERYL ALEMAN CASE NO. SC07-198. See also Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371("a judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights,intentional disregard of the law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty is subject to investigation."); In re Commission on Judicial Tenure, Rhode Island Supreme Court, No. 2003-512-M.P.(22-14) (quoting In re Curda, 49 P.3d 255, 258 (Alaska 2002))(“[L]egal error may amount to judicial misconduct if it is repeated, motivated by bad faith, accompanied by intemperate or abusive conduct, or irremediable by appeal.”). Judge Edmondson's contorted view of the law and ethics would hold federal judges to a lower standard than that expected of state court judges. Is Judge Edmondson's view of the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. consistent with the intent of Congress?

Not Judicial Misconduct

Judge Edmondson has expressly stated that each of the following documented acts of misconduct are not misconduct under the Act.

Lying and Intentionally misrepresenting the law.

Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction during the entire pendency of the lawsuit from November 1999 to June 20, 2001 or about 19 months.

Judge Graham falsely completed a Civil Justice Reform Act Report, “CJRA” to conceal the fact that he had a motion for a preliminary injunction pending for more than 17 months.

Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., to issue preliminary injunctions two times.

Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate to dictate to a non-lawyer that he must seek the permission of private attorneys in order to speak with a local government.

Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate to set restrictions on how Florida Public Records are to be accessed.

Allowing scores of motions to go undecided for months.
Intentionally misstating material facts in order to render a pre-filing injunction.

Disrespecting several well-established Supreme Court decisions proscribing certain acts of Judges.

Judge Graham has repeatedly and improperly denied access to the courts by arbitrarily denying in forma pauperis, “IFP”, petitions 18 separate times.
Judge Graham has been involved in possible criminal behavior by issuing a void sua sponte pre-filing injunction which ultimately formed the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction.

Judge Graham used the criminal contempt process to force the withdrawal of a lawsuit.

Judge Graham awarded a massive $200,000 in attorney’s fees to Highlands County against an indigent plaintiff, Marcellus Mason, not on the quality of the underlying lawsuit, but based upon Judge Graham’s speculation about Mason’s motive.

Judge Graham attempted to circumvent the appellate process by using intimidation.

These allegations and others fully documented at: (1)http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm; or (2)Documented Acts of Misconduct by U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham. As of this date, the Judges at the Eleventh Circuit have allowed Teflon Don to escape rebuke and condemnation as Judge Graham has not been punished in any way for these acts. For example, many of these allegations were mentioned in a direct appeal and simply ignored by the appellate panel, see “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“. Petitions for mandamus met with a similar fate, see for example, Case No. 01-15754, “Eleventh Circuit Disses The U.S. Supreme Court Chooses To Protect Judge Graham“. Judge Graham's Chief Judge, S.D. Fla., Federico Moreno offered the following tepid "indorsement":

I am in receipt of your letter written to me as a Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida about actions by Judge Donald Graham. In that letter, you also complained about the Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson. As you can understand one district judge cannot review the actions of another district judge. This rule applies to the Chief Judge of the District as well. It is before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that any complaint as to a ruling made by a District Judge can be made, I assure you that any decision rendered by Judge Graham was made in good faith upon what he perceived to be the law. Judge Graham has an impeccable reputation. However, if you feel that a judge has erred, the appellate judges in Atlanta are the ones who can decide what to do about it. Thank you for writing.

See Letter dated April 4, 2008.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT DEFINED

Judicial Misconduct has been defined by Jeffrey M. Shaman, DePaul University Law, Steven Lubet, Professor, Northwestern University Law, James J. Alfini President and Dean, South Texas College of Law, U.S. Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in part as:

Judicial action taken without any arguable legal basis —and without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard to the party adversely affected—is far worse than simple error or abuse of discretion; it’s an abuse of judicial power that is “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 351(a); Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, supra, § 2.02, at 37 (“Serious legal error is more likely to amount to misconduct than a minor mistake.

See Opinion online at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/
F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement .

“[A] judge is guilty of “oppression in office” when that judge intentionally commits acts which he or she knows, or should know, are obviously and seriously wrong under the circumstances and amount to an excessive use of judicial authority.” State v. Colclazier, 2002 OK JUD 1, 106 P.3d 138.

“Where honesty or integrity are at issue, a single action can result in a finding of judicial misconduct.” In re District Judge Ronald F. Kilburn, Case No. 90-478, (Vermont Supreme Court 1991)(citing In re Hill, 152 Vt. 548, 572-75, 568 A.2d 361, 373-75 (1989)). See http://dol.state.vt.us/SUPCT/157/op90-478.txt.

“Canon 3A(5) is violated where there is a pattern of unreasonable delay or where a particular instance is so lacking in legitimate justification that it is willful. See Matter of Long, 244 Kan. 719, 724, 772 P.2d 814, 818 (1989) (Canon 3A(5) violated where delay is “significant, extensive, and unjustified”); Sommerville, 364 S.E.2d at 23 n.3 (sanctions appropriate under Canon 3A(5) where there is a pattern of delay resulting from either willful neglect of, or manifest inability to effectively perform, judicial duties); Matter of Alvino, 100 N.J. 92, 97 n.2, 494 A.2d 1014, 1016 n.2 (1985) (delay can violate Canon 3A(5) if “willful” or “typical of the judge’s work”);” See URL:http://www.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/157/op90-478.txt.

“Legal error and judicial misconduct are not mutually exclusive.” In Re Feinberg, 5 NY3d 206,New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The University of New Mexico, Institute of Public Law, Judicial Education Center, has put together a Judicial Ethics Handbook which defines judicial misconduct.

If Judge Edmondson had an affirmative definition like the ones described above, then Judge Graham would have to disciplined. If the states are able to cite and list specific examples of judicial misconduct, then there is no reason why the federal judiciary can not do the same. To simply say, no that is not misconduct as Judge Edmondson does reflexively, is not enough.