Is U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham a Criminal?

An Extract from, "U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Uses Office To Commit Criminal Acts To Save His Career".

Purpose of This Post

The purpose of this post is to make the case that the United States Department of Justice, "USDOJ", should indict U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham on criminal charges and allow a jury to decide the dispositive fact issue of "intent". This post will document multiple instances where Judge Graham has demonstrated a complete and utter disregard for the rule of law. At the very least, the Dept. Of Justice should bring an indictment to set the boundary for where a "judicial act" ends and criminal conduct begins. At the bottom, Judge Graham's behavior is "only" arguably criminal which is enough to create a fact situation for a jury to decide. Under the facts described in this post, it is difficult to see how anybody not wearing a robe would not have been indicted and tried. While not the primary purpose of this post, the behavior of the individual judges of the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of appeal is implicated as well. The Eleventh Circuit, with full knowledge of almost every allegation leveled herein, has taken extreme measures to avoid disciplining Judge Graham thereby enabling him by emblazoning an "S" on Judge Graham's chest. It appears that the Eleventh Circuit is composed of mere syncopants for Judge Graham. If Judge Graham is guilty of criminal conduct, then certain members of the Eleventh Circuit are co-conspirators. If Judge Graham and other federal judges were held to same ethical and moral standards as U.S. Army Officers, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be, then Judge Graham and other culpable judges would be court-martialed and others would be forced to resign their seat on the bench or "command".

This post will make the case that Judge Graham and others have violated 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 by willfully and deliberately violating Marcellus Mason's civil rights. These statutes are not so infrequently invoked by the DOJ to prosecute police officers who improperly and criminally violate civil rights. The case will be made by documenting the following:

• Listing the standards for prosecutions based upon 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 .
• Listing clearly unlawful acts committed by Judge Graham.
• Prove intent of "bad faith" by offer of an affidavit under the penalty of perjury and an offer to take a polygraph test, with a challenge to Judge Graham and his supporters to do the same.
• Prove intent of "bad faith" by circumstantial evidence.
• Prove intent of "bad faith" by deductive reasoning. Judge Graham has intentionally misstated material facts in order to get the result he desired. This post will prove that Judge Graham had no reason to believe that his lawless behavior was taken for any known lawful reason, leaving only unlawful motives as the real possibilities for his lawless behavior.
  

Lastly, an ancillary or incidental purpose of this post to demonstrate how Judge Graham and his supporters like Chief Judge Larry Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, and others cynically mock the American Bar Association, "ABA", and its' koolaid of "judicial independence".

Organization Of This Post

This was a rather large and somewhat time consuming post; consequently it has been shortened and the full text is available at: http://mmason.freeshell.org/blog/should_us_dist_judge_graham_be_criminally_indicted.htm. As this post accuses a Federal Judge, Donald L. Graham, of possible of criminal behavior it must have substantial factual and legal support. This post is divided into legal authority and factual support. This entire post can be read in less than five minutes by simply referring back to this section and following the support for each argument listed below. This post argues that Judge Graham should be criminally indicted because his behavior crossed the line between a "judicial act" and "criminal conduct". This post alleges criminal violations of civil rights and concealing U.S. Government documents. Firstly, under the guise of a "judicial act", Judge Graham committed a "criminal act by violating the civil rights of Marcellus Mason by manufacturing a criminal contempt complaint and conviction out of whole cloth. This allegation is supported by the following facts:

• Judge Graham denied Mason due process by disregarding the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b) by failing to state "the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged" and describing them as such. The supposed show cause order rendered by Judge Graham describes "contemptuous acts" that are completely different from the information filed by the Government. The bench trial proceeded based upon the information and not the "essential facts" or ""contemptuous acts" listed in the show cause order. See "Judge Graham Violated Mason's Due Process Rights by Disregarding the Criminal Contempt Procedure".


• Judge Graham used a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing that was rendered on September 20, 2001 [Docket Entry No. 878 or (D.E. 878)] to form the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. The information alleges a violation of this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction has multiple due process flaws and jurisdictional defects. This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction lacks the requisite factual finding. This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction misstates material facts. Judge Graham is willingly flaunting the law.  See "Judge Graham Is Willfully Flaunting The Law".


• The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of appeal assisted Judge Graham in denying Mason's civil rights by repeatedly refusing to review this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction for validity.  See "The Co-Conspirators and Appellate Review". This sua sponte issued pre-filing has never been reviewed for validity.


• Judge Graham was motivated in part by his desire to intimidate and retaliate against Mason for filing 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) against him.  See "Circumstantial Evidence and Judge Graham's Motive ".


• Judge Graham used the criminal contempt procedure to attempt to force Mason to drop a lawsuit against him.  See "Contempt Abuse And Coercion To Drop Lawsuit Against Judge Graham ".


• Judge Federico A. Moreno, a colleague of Judge' Graham refuses to endorse Judge Graham's abusive conduct with respect to the contempt procedure and conviction. Judge Moreno makes only the mitigating argument that Judge Graham did not act in bad faith. See "Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno Declines to Endorse Judge Graham".

Secondly, Judge Graham gave himself permission to conceal and withhold from public scrutiny and the Clerk of Court documents belonging to the United States Government. Judge Graham acted in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 2071.  See "Judge Graham Concealed United States Court Documents".


For the full incredible Story, See "U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Uses Office To Commit Criminal Acts To Save His Career".