Misconduct of Federal Judge Donald L. Graham

Open Letter To Just The Beginning Foundation

2009-12-22T13:35:00.003-05:00

Just The Beginning Foundation

233 South Wacker Drive

Suite 6600

Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Board Member:

Please disassociate yourself with U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham as he is not a positive role model, Mr. Graham, is an example of what not to be, a negative role model. Eventually Judge Graham is going to publicly rebuked for his egregious behavior. Read the material and supporting documents they should give you pause about Mr. Graham. Sadly, Judge Graham is both a liar and a bully. This letter is posted at: http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-letter-to-just-beginning.html. Rather than resign, Mr. Graham allows his colleagues to make decisions and ruin their reputation.

Judge Graham is supposed to have values which the community and kids are supposed to be proud of, a role model of sorts. On the contrary, Judge Graham has a very dark record that displays a distinct lack of personal integrity and character. Judge Graham is currently has a complaint of gross judicial misconduct pending against him. It is difficult to see how he won’t suffer some severe discipline. These allegations are fully set forth at mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm. Moreover, read the statement of his chief Judge below. Judge Graham made up law and put an innocent man in jail. See how at: mcneilmason.wordpress.com, post “Eleventh Circuit Sits Idly By While A Clearly Void Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction Wreaks Havoc On A Man’s Life’ Have your attorneys look over the matter and see if Judge Graham exhibits the kind of values you want to impart to kids.

Despite the myriad of allegations thrust about the personal integrity of Judge Donald L. Graham, the best his Chief Judge, Federico A. Moreno is the following statement:

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 from Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno. Notice that this is not an endorsement, nor a denial that should tell you something.

Pending Judicial Misconduct Complaints

Complaint	Status
Judicial Conference	pending
Reconsideration	pending
June 25, 2008	pending
July 9, 2008	pending
July 15, 2008	pending

It has been said that the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, has become quite serious in investigating federal judges for misconduct. According to law.com, Binding National Rules Adopted for Handling Judicial Misconduct Complaints, in March of this year, the Judicial Conference adopted the first-ever binding nationwide procedures for handling complaints of judicial misconduct. U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham has escaped discipline for his abusive and possible criminal behavior. As a result of this, Mason submitted complaints to both the Judicial Conference and Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeal, again. These complaints are governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, "The Judicial Improvements Act of 2002" formerly "The Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act". Previously, Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, had been misconstruing the statute and summarily dismissing complaints of misconduct by simply regurgitating the statutory language at 28 U.S.C. § 352 which allows him dismiss complaints that are "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling". Judge Edmondson is alone in his view that legal error and judicial misconduct are mutually exclusive. For more discussion on "legal error" and judicial misconduct, see article Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson Uses Perfect Scam of Negative Definition To Defeat Complaints of Misconduct Under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act .

Contempt Abuse Is Misconduct Under State Law But Is Not Judicial Misconduct Under the Federal Statutes

2008-10-19T16:37:00.032-04:00

Federal Judicial Misconduct

U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham is a rogue judge by any reasonable and objective standard.

Complaints of Judicial Misconduct against federal judges are currently governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, formerly 28 U.S.C. § 372. Complaints under this act are supposed to be confidential. Judges like U.S. Circuit Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals have used the perfect scam to defeat claims of judicial misconduct under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. The perfect scam is a "negative definition" of judicial misconduct. A negative definition is a "definition which states what a thing is NOT rather than what it is." See http://academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/2/25negative.htm. Judge Edmondson does not define misconduct as he simply disagrees with every act that alleges misconduct in a complaint is not judicial misconduct. It is difficult, if not impossible to find an affirmative definition of what judicial misconduct is under the federal statutes. Consequently, a negative definition is used to define judicial misconduct out of existence. As a result of the way Judge Edmondson and his minions interpret the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act and coupled with confidentiality and secrecy, it is virtually impossible to find information with respect to what constitutes judicial misconduct under the federal statutes. As a consequence of this lack of information, this post uses documented cases of judicial misconduct under state law on the premise that, at the very least, federal judges are held or should be held to the same standard as state court judges. What a radical concept! U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, given his entire record, would be removed from office under any state statute.

State Court Judges Disciplined For Contempt Abuse Under Judicial Misconduct Statutes

Richard S. Lawrence, a Judge of the Family Court, Nassau County, New York received an official admonition from the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct for contempt abuse. See URL: http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/L/lawrence.htm. In this matter, the court concluded that Judge Lawrence's "failure to adhere to mandated contempt procedures -- which he clearly knew about but disregarded -- constitutes misconduct warranting public discipline". Judge Lawrence was found guilty of the following:

Failure to comply with well-established procedural safeguards for summary contempt.
Hastily incarcerating and detaining a litigant without procedural justification.
Improperly and repeatedly raising the sentence of litigant and his attorney. The Commission concluded: "Under these circumstances the escalation of the sentence -- from five days to ten days to twelve days -- was a gross abuse of discretion and a substantial overreaction to their efforts to protest his ruling."

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Karto, 94 Ohio St.3d 109;2002 Ohio 61; 760 N.E.2d 412; 2002 Ohio LEXIS 23,* (2002), Judge Steven Ray Karto, among other things, was disciplined for bringing a contempt action without formal proceedings and for threatening an individual with contempt. Judge Karto was suspended from the practice of law for six months and suspended without pay from his position as judge. As documented below, Judge Donald L. Graham was guilty of far more egregious conduct but suffered nothing.

U.S. Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson Says Contempt Abuse Is Not Judicial Misconduct

U.S. Circuit Judge, J.L. Edmondson, Chief Judge, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court does not consider abuse of the federal contempt power to be judicial misconduct. See Complaint and Order, Case No. 02-0059; Combined Complaint And Order, Case No. 05-0011; Combined Complaint And Order, Case No. 05-0013.

U.S. Dist Judge Donald L. Graham has exhibited a total and utter disregard for the rule of law with respect to the federal contempt laws and procedures. It is difficult to argue that Judge Graham’s behavior has not been contemptuous and disdainful to the rule of law. Judge Graham’s defiance of well established law has inflicted the following damage on Mason:

Judge Graham has terrorized both Mason his children who had to live with Judge Graham’s reckless and lawless behavior.
5 years supervised release probation
A special condition that precluded Mason’s use of the Internet. This is a really pernicious punishment as Mason made his living as a MCSE, Micrsoft Certified System Engineer, CNE, Certified Novell Engineer working on computer networking and internetworking systems.
$200,000 in legal fees when Judge Graham had ceded jurisdiction of the case.
Use of U.S. Marshal and Power of U.S Attorney to Stop Criticism of Judge Graham, See mcneilmason.wordpress.com, post “Power of US Government Used To Suppress Criticism of U.S. Dist. Judge Graham“.

In order to inflict this damage, Judge Graham intentionally disregarded prevailing legal standards and fundamental notions of due process which included, but is not limited to the following patently unlawful behavior:

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

Support for these allegations are fully set forth at “http://mmason.freeshell.org/blog/should_us_dist_judge_graham_be_criminally_indicted.htm” and “http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-us-dist-judge-donald-l-graham.html“. These sites ask the question: “Is U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham a Criminal?” Additionally, even more outrageous conduct is set forth at: Egregious Documented Acts of Judicial Misconduct by Judge Donald L. Graham

Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno Declines to
Endorse Judge Graham

Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, was sent a letter on March 25, 2008 and told of the behavior described above and declined to endorse Judge Graham's behavior or deny any of the allegations listed above. In a letter dated April 4, 2008, Judge Moreno wrote:

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.

Pattern And Practice

This post is part of an overall pattern and practice of using extreme measures and lawlessness to conceal the misconduct of Judge Graham. See Documented Allegations of Misconduct. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Judicial Conference, Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability has stated:

[A] judge’s pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay to litigants may be misconduct. However, the characterization of such behavior as misconduct is fraught with dangers to judicial independence. Therefore, a cognizable misconduct complaint based on allegations of a judge not following prevailing law or the directions of a court of appeals in particular cases must identify clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, that is, clear and convincing evidence of a judge's arbitrary and intentional departure from prevailing law based on his or her disagreement with, or willful indifference to, that law.

See http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/jcdopinions108.pdf.

The Eleventh Circuit's Chief Judge, J.L. Edmondson, has fought tooth and nail to keep from addressing a documented pattern and practice of disregarding well established law by Judge Graham. See mmason.freeshell.org/372c or mmason.freeshell.org/edmondson/edmondson. Judge Graham's misconduct and Judge's Edmondson's defense of Judge Graham's misconduct are fully documented in the following judicial misconduct complaints:

No. 01-0054; No. 01-0054-Judicial Council; No. 01-0068; No. 01-68-Judicial Council; INTERVENING MANDAMUS; No. 02-0006; No. 02-0006 -Judicial Council; No. 02-0029; No. 02-0034; No. 02-0052; No. 02-0059; COMPLAINTS FILED IN 2005; No. 05-0008; No. 05-0011; No. 05-0012; No. 05-0013; No. 05-0020; No. 05-0021.

The following complaints of judicial misconduct are currently pending against Judge Graham:

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

2008-09-11T10:11:00.059-04:00

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".

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell

2008-08-19T23:46:00.015-04:00

Purpose of This Post

The purpose of this post is to set forth documentation to prove that the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, will take extreme measures to keep from holding U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham accountable for his abusive behavior and lawless decisions. This post examines two opinions of the Eleventh Circuit, an unpublished opinion and a published opinion, that were rendered within two days of each other. The published opinion declared "prior restraints" to be in violation of the first amendment. The unpublished opinion, which also involved prior restraints, declines to discuss the validity of the prior restraints. The unpublished opinion avoids appellate review of orders or injunctions that were rendered by Judge Grahams' Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr. Additionally, the unpublished opinion declines to discuss other important issues such as whether Judge Graham should have disqualified or not. Simply put, the unpublished Opinion was deployed to attain the desired result. In summary, the "rule of law" was a casualty in the unpublished opinion. Lastly, this post documents other cases where the Eleventh Circuit used unpublished opinions to make lawless decisions that are completely at odds with published opinions involving the same material facts.

Thesis

Unpublished dispositions mark out a zone where no law prevails, but only the predilections and preferences of the judges. Stated alternatively, unpublished opinions very often have nothing to do with the law or the facts. In fact, material facts are often omitted and "new facts" maybe conjured up. If a US Circuit Court Appeals Judge desires a certain outcome, he or she can whip out an unpublished opinion and get the desired outcome. No less a "disgruntled litigant", then former U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Arnold, now deceased, suggested such a thing could happen:

If, for example, a precedent is cited, and the other side then offers a distinction, and the judges on the panel cannot think of a good answer to the distinction, but nevertheless, for some extraneous reason, wish to reject it, they can easily do so through the device of an abbreviated, unpublished opinion, and no one will ever be the wiser. (I don’t say that judges are actually doing this–only that the temptation exists.) Or if, after hearing argument, a judge in conference thinks that a certain decision should be reached, but also believes that the decision is hard to justify under the law, he or she can achieve the result, assuming agreement by the other members of the panel, by deciding the case in an unpublished opinion and sweeping the difficulties under the rug. Again, I’m not saying that this has ever occurred in any particular case, but a system that encourages this sort of behavior, or is at least open to it, has to be subject to question in any world in which judge share human beings.

1 J. App. Prac. & Process 219 (1999). UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS: A COMMENT, Richard S. Arnold, Copyright © 1999 University of Arkansas - Little Rock School of Law ; Richard S. Arnold. In fact, Judge Arnold felt uneasy about his own participation in unpublished opinions. Judge Arnold surely cannot be resting comfortably. In Anastasoff. v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), Judge Arnold and his panel declared unpublished opinions to be unconstitutional. This opinion was subsequently vacated on other grounds, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000) by an en banc court.

The Published Opinion

On October 18, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit decided Weaver v. Bonner, 309 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2002), a published opinion. On this date, the Eleventh Circuit was adamantly opposed to "prior restraints" and held:

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...." U.S. Const. amend. I.

Weaver at ¶21.

"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S.Ct. 631, 639, 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963). "The term prior restraint is used `to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.'" Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 2771, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993) (quoting M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 4.03 (1984)). "Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions — i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities — are classic examples of prior restraints." Id.

Weaver at ¶32.

In Weaver, the Eleventh Circuit held that a "cease and desist order" which prohibited false statements by a judicial candidate to be an unconstitutional prior restraint.

The Unpublished Opinion

Two days prior to deciding Weaver, October 16, 2002, the court decided another case involving a prior restraint, Mason v. Heartland Library Cooperative, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, No. 01-13664, (11th Cir. 2002). In Mason v. Highlands County, Judge Graham's Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr. issued the following injunctions:

“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. These orders are clearly prior restraints according to the Eleventh Circuit's and the Supreme Court's definition as a mere Magistrate prohibited direct communication with the government defendants in this matter. In their unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Stanley Marcus, and Judge Susan Black, while refusing to cite legal authority, apparently considered the following communications with the government to be unprotected speech.

"They claimed that, during the week of 5 February 2001 , Mason had demanded to yiew his personnel file from Highlands County's Human Resource Director Fred Carino, a named defendant in the case." Opinion, pg. 4.
They stated that, on 13 and 14 February 2001, Mason also appeared at Carino's office and demanded to view the billing records for Highlands County's attorney and Highlands County's liability insurance documents. Opinion, pgs. 4,5.
They asserted that Mason made these requests of Carino without first requesting the documents from their counsel in compliance with the magistrate judge's order and became aggressive, disruptive, and threatening with Carino. Opinion, pgs. 5.
They indicated that they had produced the documents for Mason, and attached a copy of a letter from Carino to Mason reminding Mason that he was to correspond only with their counsel. Opinion, pgs. 5.

Case No. 01-13664 is a virtual cesspool of dishonesty and trickery. See Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell. It is impossible to exaggerate the odor that surrounds this opinion.

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Unpublished Appeal From Hell

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, an unpublished opinion, represents Circuit Judge Richard Arnold's worst fears. See "Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell". This opinion is incredulous in the level of dishonesty involved. It is hard to imagine a more dishonest opinion. The tactics used by the Eleventh Circuit to reach the desired outcome, a vindication of Judge Graham personally, included, but is not limited to the following:

The Eleventh Circuit chose an unpublished opinion.
The opinion was never released the Internet.
The Eleventh Circuit denied a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
The Eleventh Circuit attacked the Appellants briefs for superficial reasons such as not having "indexing tabs".
The Eleventh Circuit denied multiple requests to review its jurisdiction.
The Eleventh Circuit struck the Appellant's Brief for arguing against a sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction because they said it was "beyond the scope of appeal". The Eleventh Circuit made the Appellant go through the expense of filing all new briefs less any mention of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. See Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal”.
The Appellees filed their brief and argued in support of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. The Eleventh Circuit granted the Appellant's motion to strike the Appellees Briefs, but declined to make the heavily insured Appellees all new briefs as they had done to the mere pro se Appellant. The Eleventh Circuit stated that it would not consider the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in its decision.
The Eleventh Circuit declined to review and omitted pertinent issues on appeal from discussion.

The Eleventh Circuit declined to review the validity of the very orders that it claimed the Appellant [Mason] violated, the orders of June 19, 2000, (DE #246), and July 25, 2000, (DE #246), that caused the case to be dismissed. See Background.
Judge Graham is accused of misconduct, abuse, and mismanagement and that Judge Graham should have recused or disqualified because of this behavior. There is no discussion of this issue in the appeal, much less a remedy. This issue and the allegations supporting it are simply ignored.
The Appellant challenged the authenticity and relevancy of emails that were used as evidence of violations of out of court communications in violations the orders of June 19, 2000, (DE #246), and July 25, 2000, (DE #246).
On October 16, 2002, when the Eleventh Circuit rendered its opinion, it then used the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction that it had previously said it was "beyond the scope of appeal" and struck the Appellant's brief to affirm Judge Graham.

See "Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell". Similarly, along this same time interval, a petition for mandamus was filed which, among other things, accused Judge Graham of misconduct, abuse, and mismanagement. The petition met a similar and even worse fate. See Eleventh Circuit Disses The U.S. Supreme Court Chooses To Protect Judge Graham.

I Got Your Lawless Unpublished Depositions

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on "Unpublished Judicial Opinions", Judge Alex Kosinski stated:

Lawyers sometimes darkly suggest that unpublished dispositions make up a secret body of law wholly at odds with our published decisions—that unpublished dispositions mark out a zone where no law prevails, but only the predilections and preferences of the judges. We have discussed this among the judges of my court and are, frankly, baffled by the claim because none of us perceives that this is what we are doing. These claims are always made with reference to some unnamed earlier case; lawyers seldom, if ever, present concrete evidence of lawlessness in unpublished dispositions to back up their claims. This is surprising because if the practice were happening with any frequency, the losing lawyers would have every incentive to make a fuss about it.

Nevertheless, we have worried about claims like these, and so in recent years we have taken two initiatives to help discover whether unpublished dispositions are, in fact, in wholesale, lawless conflict with published precedents. First, in February and March 2000 we distributed a memorandum to all district judges, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, lawyer representatives, senior advisory board members, and law school deans within the Ninth Circuit, as well as other members of the academic community, seeking information on unpublished dispositions that conflicted with other published or unpublished decisions. The memorandum was also posted on the court's website. Responses were collected by e-mail, fax, and a response form at the website. Only six responses were received. Of these, we found two to be meritorious and, despite our instructions, both responses identified conflicts between two published Ninth Circuit decisions—conflicts of which we were already aware. No one identified an unpublished disposition that conflicted with a published opinion or with another unpublished disposition.

See URL: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju80454.000/hju80454_0f.htm. The Eleventh Circuit has a series of unpublished opinions that are directly at odds with published opinions

A Tale of Two Appeals, Same Facts, Same Law, Different Results.

Judge Graham has been affirmed on appeal while some of his colleagues at the S.D. Florida and other federal judges were reversed on the same set of facts. The Eleventh Circuit used unpublished opinions to affirm Judge Graham while his colleagues were reversed using published opinions. Essentially the Eleventh Circuit has created a secret underground body of law. See Tale of Two Appeals Home Page.

Eleventh Circuit Uses Same Set of Facts To Reverse One Florida Judge While Affirming Another Florida Judge U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham was affirmed or upheld on appeal for the exact same set of facts that his colleague, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, at S.D. Fla. was reversed on appeal. In Martinez, v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11^th 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.

“Teflon Don” Avoids Reversal While Colleague Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages Suffers Reversal“.

U.S. Dist. Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages was reversed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit for failing to make Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)’s requisite finding that “lesser sanctions would not suffice” while her colleague U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, failed to make the same finding but was affirmed on appeal. 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

Eleventh Circuit Uses Unpublished Opinion and Omission(Deception) To Invoke Res Judicata

In Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 142 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999), U.S. Dist. Judge Marvin H. Shoob, Northern District of Georgia, a part of the Eleventh Circuit, was reversed on appeal for the same set of facts that Judge Graham was affirmed. Judge Shoob was victimized by a published decision while Judge Graham’s actions were saluted with an unpublished opinion. Other Judges in the Eleventh Circuit and particular judges at the Southern District of Florida have suffered reversals in published opinions for the same set of facts that Judge Graham has been affirmed for.

U.S. Dist. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas Reversed While Colleague Judge Donald L. Graham Affirmed by Killing The Appeal

U.S. Dist. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas was reversed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit for Imposition of Sanctions beyond the litigant’s ability to pay. During the same time period, Judge Dimitrouleas’ colleague, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, awarded $200,000 in attorneys’ fees against an indigent who was proceeding in forma pauperis but was nevertheless affirmed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Graham was affirmed by what can only be described as a very pernicious act in that the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Judge Graham by denying the indigent litigant the right to an appeal the mammoth award of $200,000 in forma pauperis. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit had to take the following extreme measures to keep from reversing “Teflon Don” in the underlying merits appeal, Case No. 01-13664:

The Eleventh Circuit, though admittedly briefed, failed to review for validity the very orders that were used by Judge Graham to justify dismissal of the case under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See Documents Nos. 201 and 246. The Eleventh Circuit was quite willing to discuss violations of these orders, but not their validity. See Post, “Eleventh Circuit Repeatedly Refuses To Review Orders For Validity“
The Eleventh Circuit, though admittedly briefed, failed to review the issue as to whether or not Judge Graham should have disqualified or not. See post, "Are Allegations of Misconduct Reviewable on Appeal?"
The Eleventh Circuit struck Mason the Appellant/Plaintiff’s brief for arguing an order that it deemed beyond the scope of appeal and then turned around used the very same order to affirm Judge Graham. “Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal”

Another One Bites the Dust: Same Set of Facts, Judge Graham Affirmed While Colleague Judge Forrester Reversed

U.S. Dist. J. Owen Forrester was reversed on appeal in a published opinion while U.S. Judge Graham was affirmed. Judge Forrester. In Arsenio Leal v. Georgia Department Of Corrections, 254 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit held that a notice of appeal filed before the final judgment was issued met the legal requirements. In so doing, the Eleventh Circuit proceeded to the merits of the appeal and reversed. In stark contrast, Mason filed a notice of appeal prior to final judgment and the Eleventh Circuit, using an unpublished opinion, dismissed the appeal to avoid reaching the merits of the appeal. The order being appealed was a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction.

Judge Graham Disagrees With The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals

Judge Vanessa D Gilmore in Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) who was reversed for issuing an unconstitutional prior restraint, while Judge Graham has escaped appellate review because the Eleventh Circuit has declined to review his orders or injunctions for validity in what has to be a record number of times. See this site's posting "Eleventh Circuit Repeatedly Refuses To Review Orders For Validity".

2008-07-16T13:11:00.003-04:00

U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Construes Recusal Statute To His Liking and Sets About Wreaking Havoc

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

J.L. Edmondson

c/o Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
56 Forsyth St. N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

RE: Complaint of Misconduct Against U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham[1]

Dear Judge Edmondson:

Please consider this complaint along with my prior complaints to further buttress my argument that Judge Graham has engaged in a pattern and practice of disregarding prevailing legal standards. On January 8, 2008, the Committee On Judicial Conduct And Disability, with whom you apparently disagree, proclaimed:

[A] judge’s pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay to litigants may be misconduct. However, the characterization of such behavior as misconduct is fraught with dangers to judicial independence. Therefore, a cognizable misconduct complaint based on allegations of a judge not following prevailing law or the directions of a court of appeals in particular cases must identify clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, that is, clear and convincing evidence of a judge's arbitrary and intentional departure from prevailing law based on his or her disagreement with, or willful indifference to, that law.

See Opinion online at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement. I refer you specifically to the following complaints: No. 01-0054;No. 01-0054-Judicial Council;No. 01-0068;No. 01-68-Judicial; Council;No. 02-0052;No. 02-0059;No. 05-0008;No. 05-0011;No. 05-0012;No. 05-0013;No. 05-0020;No. 05-0021 and the Complaints dated June 25, 2008 and July 9, 2008 and the Motion for Reconsideration.

It is somewhat ironic that Judge Graham doesn’t respect your authority either even though you have been Judge Graham’s chief protagonist and apologist. Judge Graham has totally disrespected you and the opinion you authored in Bradley Murray v. Ray W. Scott, Jr., B.A.S.S., Inc., 253 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001).

Background Facts

I filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and Heartland Library Cooperative and other governmental entities and individual government employees in February 1999. The case was originally assigned to then Chief Judge Edward Davis who retired. On February 20, 1999, Judge Davis allowed me to proceed in forma pauperis, "IFP", or to proceed without paying the required filing fee for a lawsuit. Docket Entry No. 3. This case was ultimately assigned to 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, http://mmason.freeshell.org/OverRuleFirstAmendment.htm.

In June and July 2000, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, Allen, Norton & Blue asked the Magistrate to grant them preliminary injunctions that required me to contact them before I could talk to the government defendants. These orders required me, 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,

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). I appealed this matter, but the Eleventh Circuit just issued an unpublished opinion and ignored the above orders and Judge Graham’s failure to disqualify. This appeal, Case No. 01-13664-A , has been referred to as the “appeal from hell”. See mcneilmason.wordpress.com, post entitled “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell”.

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. This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, though clearly void, formed the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. See mcneilmason.wordpress.com, post entitled “Eleventh Circuit Sits Idly By While A Clearly Void Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction Wreaks Havoc On A Man’s Life”.

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD

Judge Graham has usurped authority by making decisions in a case, 99-14027-CIV, where he was legally disqualified. On May 7, 2002, Judge Graham issued an order recusing himself from Case No. 99-14027-CIV-Graham for “contempt proceedings only” by stating that:

[T]he undersigned district judge, to whom the above styled case has been assigned, hereby recuses himself for contempt proceedings only and refers the case the Clerk of Court for reassignment for contempt proceedings only pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and Local Rule 3.6..

See (D.E. #908). If your published opinions and that of the Eleventh Circuit mean anything, then Judge Graham was acting without legal authority for all actions taken in Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham after May 7, 2002.

But when a district judge considers recusal, he must consider his potential conflict with regard to the overall case, not just his potential conflict for each separate issue or each stage of the litigation. See United States v. Feldman, 983 F.2d 144, 145 (9th Cir. 1992) ("[W]hen a judge determines that recusal is appropriate it is not within his discretion to recuse by subject matter or only as to certain issues and not others.").

See Bradley Murray v. Ray W. Scott, Jr., B.A.S.S., Inc., 253 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001). "Once a judge has disqualified himself, he or she may enter no further orders in the case.... His power is limited to performing ministerial duties necessary to transfer the case to another judge (including the entering of `housekeeping' orders." See In re: Bellsouth Corporation, In re: Terry Price and Lehr, Middlebrooks, 334 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2003)(quoting Moody v. Simmons, 858 F.2d 137, 143 (3rd Cir.1988)).

Judge Graham has used his usurped authority by taking the following adverse and abusive actions against me when he had no legal authority to act in Case No. 99-14027.

On 09/13/2002, Judge Graham entered a final judgment against me which awarded $200,000 in legal fees against me. (D.E. #911).
On 12/20/2002, Judge Graham has arrogated his own authority by arbitrarily denying the right to appeal in forma pauperis when he had no authority to act. (D.E. #927).
01/04/2005, Judge Graham refused to disqualify himself again. (D.E. #931).
I submitted several requests to file motions for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) that Judge Graham failed to act on or to properly file with the Clerk of Court. These requests were dated: (1) December 11, 2004; (2) Friday, December 24, 2004; (3) December 28, 2004; (4) January 03, 2005. However, Judge Graham hand selected a request to file a motion and did actually file that request. See Letter dated 12/16/04, (D.E. #932). Judge Graham is cherry picking requests to file motions that he does not have the legal authority to decide.
01/9/2005, Judge Graham ordered me to come from my home in Sebring, FL to Fort Pierce, FL, some 80 miles for a “status conference” in Case No. 99-14027-CV. (D.E. #933).
On 1/14/05, Judge used this “status conference” not to decide any motion, but to “advise” me “not to file any future pleadings” in a case that he had disqualified from. See (D.E. #934). Judge Graham used the so-called “status conference” for intimidation. In this unsigned document, (D.E. #934), Judge Graham ordered someone to file a document stating: “Mr. Mason cautioned that his actions may have adverse affect on his criminal case.” There was absolutely no discussion of the merits of the one page requests to file motions that I had submitted. Judge Graham knew that I was on probation at the time. Judge Graham ordered, Frank Smith, U.S. Probation, Robert Waters, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Lynn Waxman, an appellate attorney, to be present at this “status conference”. Judge Graham refused to memorialize his usurped “authority and “commands” to writing. Judge Graham attempted to sua sponte modify the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001, (D.E. #878). Rather than write an order himself, Judge Graham had a clerk to file an unsigned piece of paper.
On 02/14/2005, Judge Graham has arrogated his own authority by arbitrarily denying the right to appeal in forma pauperis when he had no authority to act. See Order dated 02/14/2005 (D.E. #939). As a result of this adverse action, I lost my right to appeal his abusive behavior.

Judge Edmondson could you please help stop this man from terrorizing me and my family? It appears Judge Graham is above the law and will not be disciplined under any set of circumstances. Judge Edmondson, please keep in mind that other Judges and the legal community is watching how you handle this matter.

Sincerely,

Marcellus M. Mason

214 Atterberry Drive

Sebring, FL 33870

[1] An online version of this complaint is available at: http://mmason.freeshell.org/372c/Complaint_07152008.doc ; This document has embedded clickable links for ease of investigation by the Judicial Council and other interested parties. This complaint will also be featured in a post at http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com .

2008-06-21T12:47:00.044-04:00

U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Disagrees With The United States Supreme Court Yet Again!

Preface

"A district judge may not respectfully (or disrespectfully) disagree with his learned colleagues on his own court of appeals who have ruled on a controlling legal issue, or with Supreme Court Justices writing for a majority of the Court. Binding authority within this regime cannot be considered and cast aside; it is not merely evidence of what the law is. Rather, case law on point is the law. If a court must decide an issue governed by a prior opinion that constitutes binding authority, the later court is bound to reach the same result, even if it considers the rule unwise or incorrect. Binding authority must be followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so...A decision of the Supreme Court will control that corner of the law unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules or modifies it. Judges of the inferior courts may voice their criticisms, but follow it they must." Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001). ""Thumbing your nose at the U.S. Supreme Court is almost unheard of in the judicial system," said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director." U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham made a command decision on his own motion to restrict Marcellus M. Mason's right of access to the courts without giving him due process of law or notice and opportunity to respond prior to the issuance of a pre-filing injunction on September 20, 2001. This denial represents an apparent snub and disdain for the United States Supreme Court and the Congress. Even more outrageous, is that the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has given its stamp of approval to Judge Graham's disdain and contempt for the United States Supreme Court as the Eleventh Circuit, U.S Court of Appeal has refused to review this pre-filing injunction for validity. See Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sets Guiness World Record For Refusing to Review Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction. The Eleventh Circuit has made the value judgment that Judge Graham's career and reputation is more important than the life of a nobody like Marcellus M. Mason Jr. If Judge Graham and his enablers won't respect the law and the United States Supreme Court then who should?

POINT OF THIS POST

This page will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don", has displayed a willful contempt or otherwise thumbing his nose at decisions of the United States Supreme Court, "SCOTUS". Judge Graham has freely admitted that he is legally bound to follow the decisions of both the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S . Court of Appeal. See Skylark v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10554 (S.D. FLA 2002) ("In the case of the Southern District of Florida, the only courts it must be obedient to are [the Eleventh Circuit] and the Supreme Court of the United States."). Specifically, this post will address the single issue that Judge Graham eschewed well established law and the Supreme Court's edict that a well grounded lawsuit may not be enjoined even if it could be proven that a Plaintiff had a retaliatory motive in bringing the lawsuit. Other jurisdictions have similarly found that it is no defense to a valid cause of action that the motive or ulterior purpose of the plaintiff in bringing the suit is based on animosity or malice. Additionally, this post will demonstrate that Judge Graham has ignored binding precedent with impunity. In fact, what you will find is that the Eleventh Circuit has used unpublished opinions to contort the law and the facts to keep from rebuking Teflon Don. A perfect example of this tactic is set forth in a blog post entitled "Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell". This appeal from hell is not consistent with the American Bar Association Statement that:

There are checks on the judiciary and channels to correct improper decisions. The appeal process affords litigants the opportunity to challenge a judicial ruling.

See About Us - ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence.

While not the subject of this post, this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction is plagued with legal problems, including the following:

Pre-filing injunctions require notice and opportunity to respond prior to its issuance. See Judge Donald L. Graham and The Eleventh Circuit USCA: Sua Sponte Issued Pre-filing Injunctions are Valid.

This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction also made a "finding of bad faith" which requires notice and opportunity to respond prior to making the "finding of bad faith". JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM: I HAVE THE POWER TO VIOLATE YOUR RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS.

This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction also made material misrepresentations of fact. See Judge Graham Misstates Material Facts and Law To Support Pre-Filing Injunction.

This sua sponte issued uses email that was not authenticated. See Judge Graham Uses Unauthenticated Fraudulent Paper Email.

This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction though clearly void was used to form the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. See Eleventh Circuit Sits Idly By While A Clearly Void Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction Wreaks Havoc On A Man’s Life

Motive

It is well-settled law that if a litigant has a valid claim, then the litigant can not as a matter law be guilty of bringing his action(s) in bad faith. Contrary to Judge Graham's personal opinion, the United States Supreme Court has expressly stated that a well founded lawsuit may not be enjoined even if the Plaintiff has a bad motive or a retaliatory motive in bringing the suit. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983)("The filing and prosecution of a well-founded lawsuit may not be enjoined as an unfair labor practice, even if it would not have been commenced but for the plaintiff's desire to retaliate against the defendant for exercising rights protected by the Act."). See also CHI. R.I. & PAC. RY. v. Dowell , 229 U.S. 102, 114 (1913) (“If the plaintiff had a cause of action which was joint and had elected to sue both tort-feasors in one action, his motive in doing so is of no importance.”); Chi., Rock Island RY. v. Whiteaker, 239 U.S. 421, 424-5 (1915) (“ the motive of plaintiff, taken by itself, does not affect the right to remove" and that "if there is a joint liability he has an absolute right to enforce it, whatever the reason that makes him wish to assert the right.“); Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Schwyhart("Again, the motive of the plaintiff, taken by itself, does not affect the right to remove. If there is a joint liability, he has an absolute right to enforce it, whatever the reason that makes him wish to assert the right."); Glorsky v. Wexler, 142 N.J. Eq. 55, 57 (1948) (“[a]n improper motive cannot defeat the enforcement of a lawful right “); Nika v. Danz, 199 Ill.App.3d 296(1990) (“Plaintiff is correct that a party's bad motives in commencing an action are not a valid defense to the action and are immaterial “); Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 622-3(1914) (“[U]sually the court will not inquire into the motives of a party in doing an act such as making an assignment or changing his domicil, the court will not hold that one is not a citizen of a State when, in fact, he is a citizen, solely because his purpose in becoming such a citizen was to enable him to bring a suit.”). Hostility between parties or their counsel ought not to invalidate a lawsuit brought to obtain proper legal relief for potentially meritorious claims.” Colombritov. Kelly , 764 F.2d 122 (2nd Cir. 1985). " Courts will generally not inquire into the motives which actuate the plaintiff in bringing his action, if he has a legal right which he seeks to protect. It is no defense to a valid cause of action that the motive or ulterior purpose of the plaintiff in bringing the suit is based on animosity or malice. Where the plaintiff shows aright to the relief sought, it is immaterial that he is seeking it for purposes other than the ascertainment and enforcement of the rights which here lies." 1 Fla.Jur. 2d, Actions, Section 29, Page 289.

The Act that Defies The United States Supreme Court

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. EVEN MORE INCREDIBLE IS THE FACT THAT THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT REFUSES TO REVIEW THIS SUA SPONTE ISSUED PRE-FILING INJUNCTION FOR VALIDITY. See "Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sets Guiness World Record For Refusing to Review Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction". This type of injunction is commonly referred to under several different names: "leave to file injunction", "vexatious litigant injunction", "pre-filing injunction", "filing injunction", "1651 injunction". This sua sponte issued pre-filing uses the following unauthenticated email to speculate about Mason's motive:

Bad Faith
It has become clear to the Court that Mason is proceeding in bad faith. Indeed, he has admitted as much in his own pleadings and correspondence. Mason has written:
I treated your lawsuit with the contempt and disrespect it deserved . . now you are about to be punished for filing this frivolous action. . . Later, chumps.
(Case No. 01-14240 Defendants' Response to Mason's Motion to Amend, Exhibit 1.)
[Deposition of a witness will be] a fishing expedition [where Mason will seek information] relevant or not"
"[A]re you people learning something from the multiplicity of pleadings you are receiving from me."
(Case No. 00-14240 Complaint, Exhibit 1, Compilation of e-mail transmissions).
These statements are just examples of the numerous comments made by Mason, both to Defendants and to the Court of his intent to needlessly protract litigation and harass the Defendants. Such activity is in bad faith and will not be permitted by the Court.

See Sua Sponte Issued Pre-filing Injunction, (D.E. #878, pgs. 5,6).

Provisions of this sua sponte issued include, but are not limited to, the following:

Plaintiff Marcellus M. Mason is Permanently enjoined from filing any additional pleadings in case numbers 99-14027- CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14116-CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14201-CIV-GRAHAM, 00-I4202- CIV-GRAHAM, 00-14240-CIV-GRAHAM, 01-14074-CIV-GRAHAM, 01-14078- CIV-GRAHAM, and 01-14230-CIV-GRAHAM or from filing any new lawsuit which relates in any way to Plaintiff Marcellus M. Mason's former employment and/or subsequent interactions with Defendants without first receiving permission from the Court, as set forth below. This injunction shall apply equally to any persons or entities acting at the behest, direction, or instigation, or in concert with Marcellus M. Mason.

Any request for permission to file a new lawsuit relating to the issues in the above captioned cases and/or Mason's former employment and/or subsequent interactions with Defendants SHALL be in the form of an application filed with the Clerk of Court and addressed to United States District Judge Donald L. Graham. This application shall consist of a one paragraph explanation of the issues in the proposed lawsuit, shall contain the names of all proposed parties and shall not exceed one page. The application shall not include any proposed pleadings.

Any request for permission to file additional pleadings in the above captioned cases already before the Court SHALL be in the form of an application filed with the Clerk of Court and addressed to United States District Judge Donald L. Graham. This application shall consist of a one paragraph explanation of the requested relief in the proposed pleading, and shall not exceed one page. The application shall not include the proposed pleading.

See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878, pgs. 8,9).

The Lawsuit Was No Frivolous

On June 20, 2001, Judge Graham expressly found that this lawsuit was not frivolous and had merit. "However, there remain, as this Court recommended, various viable claims for trial." See Report and Recommendation, (D.E #766, pg. 5), and Order Adopting R&R, (D.E. 791). Judge Graham and his Magistrate had previously ruled that such an injunction was improper. Highlands County specifically asked for the type injunction that Judge Graham concocted on September 20.2001 in a lawsuit that it filed in Case No. 00-14240. However, on January 16, 2001 and February 13, 2001, Judge Graham and Judge Graham's own Magistrate stated: “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 to for justifying injunctive relief.” See Case No. 00-14240 (DE 27, pg. 3)(DE 33), URL: Report and Recommendation,"R&R", (D.E. #27), Order Adopting Report and Recommendation,"R&R". In the period between February 13, 2001 and September 20, 2001, Mason did not file any lawsuit in the S.D. FL.

No History of Sanctions For Filing Frivolous Motions

In a very litigious case with filings approaching a thousand docket entries, Judge Graham fails identify a single instance where he sanctioned Mason or threatened to sanction Mason for filing frivolous pleadings. See Complete Docket, Case No. 99-14027-Civ-Graham/Lynch. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support. See Lectlaw, Legal Definition of Sanctions, Rule 11. Judge Graham was certainly aware of the fact that he could have imposed sanctions under Rule 11 for filing a frivolous pleadings because in Attwood v. Singletary, Case No. 95-5294, 105 F.3d 610 (11th Cir. 1995)he dismissed the case and imposed sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)because the Plaintiff falsely stated his financial status in his in forma pauperis affidavit. In this matter, Judge Graham had from February 1999 to June 20, 2001 when the case was closed and 791 filings, yet Judge Graham did not find one single motion filed by Mason to be worthy of Rule 11 sanctions. All of sudden on September 20, 2001, or three months after case was closed, Judge Graham concocts a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte.

Pattern And Practice

Judge Graham has a pattern and practice of ignoring binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent anytime he disagrees with it. A serious allegation such as this should be supported by facts. Since this a fact oriented website, please see the following posts for support of the allegation that Judge Graham ignores binding precedent by the Supreme Court anytime he sees fit:

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

Judge Graham Thumbs Nose At US Supreme Court And Rejects the First Amendment’s Petition Clause

U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham Disagrees with The Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, And Every Other Jurisdiction

Is U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Willfully Defying The United States Supreme Court?

LEGAL ERROR AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has statutory responsibility under 28 U.S.C. §351 et.seq., to "handle" complaints of judicial misconduct. 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". See for example, Complaint No. 05-0008. It has been said that judicial independence encompasses making mistakes and committing error, but does not afford protection to judges who repeatedly ignore the law." Arizona Supreme Court, Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, ADVISORY OPINION 92-10,(September 1, 1992). “Legal error and judicial misconduct are not mutually exclusive.” In Re Feinberg, 5 NY3d 206,New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. "A single instance of serious, egregious legal error, particularly one involving the denial to individuals of their basic or fundamental rights, may amount to judicial misconduct." In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172 (La., 1997). "[J]udicial misconduct (including improper ex parte communications) varies in degree from plainly criminal or corrupt misconduct, through injudicious (but not corrupt) misconduct, to misconduct committed for proper motives though pursued by prohibited means." Larsen, Matter of, 616 A.2d 529, 532 Pa. 326 (Pa., 1992). An emerging pattern of legal errors even though not an egregious legal error nor bad faith should be labeled misconduct because the continuing pattern of legal error constitutes neglect and ignorance of governing statutes. Miss. Com'n On Jud. Performance v. Britton, 936 So.2d 898 (Miss., 2006). See also In Re James Barr, 13 S.W.3d 525 (Tex.Rev.Trib., 1998)("legal error by a judge may constitute grounds for a finding of judicial misconduct if the commission of legal error is founded on bad faith.");Goldman v. Nevada Com'n on Judicial Discipline, 830 P.2d 107, 108 Nev. 251 (Nev., 1992)("An experienced trial judge's ignorance of proper contempt procedures, without more, has been held to constitute the bad faith necessary to a finding of willful misconduct." )

BACKGROUND

Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. of Sebring, Fl. filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and the Heartland Library Cooperative and other governmental entities and their individual government employees in February 1999. See Docket Sheet. This case was originally assigned to Judge Edward Davis, retired, and ultimately assigned to Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don", 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 and constitutionally protected and legal communications between Highlands County and Mason. See "R&R" (D.E. 766), Order adopting R&R (D.E 791). See Banned Communications. On June 13, 2000 , the Government Defendants through their attorneys, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, filed a "DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (D.E. 199)" which specifically requested: "Defendants move the Court for an injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting any of the Defendants and/or their supervisory employees...". Defendant's counsel, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, cited no legal authority for the requested relief. On July 6, 2000, the Government Defendants through their attorneys, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, filed a "DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (D.E. #231)", and requested the following relief:

Defendants respectfully renew their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff from contacting the supervisory employees of the Defendants or the individual Defendants directly, and directing Plaintiff to make all public records requests through the undersigned counsel.

This motion, as the first motion cited no legal authority for the requested relief. These requests or motions for preliminary injunctions were granted on June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, respectively. These orders required Mason, a nonlawyer, living in Sebring, FL to contact private attorneys some 90 miles away in Tampa, FL to ask for permission to speak with his local government in Sebring, Florida. These orders in pertinent part stated:

“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.” ("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). Judge Graham has NEVER at any time cited legal authorities for these patently illegal orders even though there have been relentless requests. See for example, and note that this list is not collectively exhausted, Case No. 99-14027 see Plaintiff’s motions and responses, (Doc.#200);(Doc. #239); (Doc. #262);(Doc. #264);(Doc. #284);(Doc.#334);(Doc. #509);(Doc. #515);(Doc. #526);(Doc. 554);(Doc. 632, pg.5);(Doc.#633);(Doc. 652);(Doc. 663); (Doc. 735); (Doc. 736); (Doc.738); (Doc. 783); (Doc. 787, pgs 2-3); (Doc. 810); (Doc. 812); (Doc.813); (Doc. 817); (Doc. 829), (Doc. 845);and the court's orders: (DE #201), (DE #246);(Doc. #279);(Doc. 281);(Doc. #407);(Doc. #524);(Doc. #528);(Doc. #634);(Doc. 673);(Doc. 744);(Doc. 745);(Doc. 766);(Doc. 791);(Doc. 874, pg. 2);(Doc. 882, pgs. 1-2); (DE-890); (DE-928);(DE-931).

On March 2, 2001, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners attorneys, Allen, Norton & Blue, filed a "DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW". See Docket Entry No. 511. This motion sought dismissal of the lawsuit due to alleged out of court communications with the Highlands County Government in violation the injunctions mentioned above, DE #201) and (DE #246). On April 9, 2001, the Defendants' filed a second motion for sanctions in the form of dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit for more alleged out of court communications between Mason and the Highlands County Government. See Docket Entry No. 646. On May 31, 2001, the Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., prepared a Report and Recommendation, "R&R", (D.E. #766), recommended that the lawsuit be dismissed because of these out of court communications between Mason and his local government, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. Judge Graham accepted this R&R in whole with no changes or comments. See (D.E. #791).

Additionally, in his Report and Recommendation that recommends that the lawsuit be dismissed because of alleged violations of the orders of June 19, 2000, (D.E. #201) and July 25, 2000, (D.E. #246), the Magistrate admits that the validity of these orders were being challenged, but he declines to assert legal authority for these orders by stating only:

The Plaintiff alludes to this Court's rulings, issued June 19 and July 25, 2000, directing that he should not contact any of the Defendants or individual Defendants, including their supervisory employees, regarding any matter related to this case except through their counsel of rec6rd. If the Plaintiff was represented, his attorney would know that this is proper procedure. The Plaintiff questions this Court's authority to enter an "injunction" as he calls it preventing him from contacting the parties directly. This Court has entered numerous orders on this issue in ruling on Plaintiff's many requests for clarification ito vacate, etc., of this issue and has attempted to clearly point out to the Plaintiff that it is a discovery issue and not one appropriate for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff has appealed those orders to the District Court and they have been affirmed by Judge Graham.

See Report and Recommendation, (D.E. #766, pg. 3, ¶5). This case was closed on June 20, 2001.

2008-06-09T12:05:00.021-04:00

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.

Judicial Misconduct Complaints

The following complaints have been lodged against Teflon Don, or U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham.

No. 01-0068

No. 01-68-Judicial Council

INTERVENING MANDAMUS

No. 02-0052

No. 02-0059

COMPLAINTS FILED IN 2005

No. 05-0008

No. 05-0011

No. 05-0012

No. 05-0013

No. 05-0020

No. 05-0021

2008-05-20T06:27:00.005-04:00

U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don" was sent the following letter below. Let's see how long he take to answer. Apparently Teflon Don is of the belief that he can exercise power without explaining the source of this power. Let's see if Judge Graham can provide legal reasoning for his behavior.

Tuesday, May 3, 2008

214 Atterberry Drive
Sebring, FL 33870

Donald L. Graham
99 N.E. 4th Street, Room 1155
Miami, Florida 33132
RE: FYI: DC Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch

Dear Mr. Graham:

Firstly, this is a legal document and I expect it to be a part of the record. In my opinion, you have shown a reckless disregard for the rule of law and binding precedent. Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno has said of you: “I assure you that any decision rendered by Judge Graham was made in good faith upon what he perceived to be the law.” I reject this notion as I believe you are trying to teach me the lesson that as a federal judge you can do whatever you damn well please. This is a notion I cannot and will not accept.

On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, your Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. issued the following “commands”:
"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).

"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).
The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this type of injunction as unconstitutional.
I will need a legal memorandum as to the following:
• This court lacked jurisdiction to render these orders because the Defendant, Highlands was without standing to seek these orders. See Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. Ga. 2005). Secondly, no complaint was filed.
• Assuming arguendo, this court had jurisdiction, these orders were in violation of 28 U.S.C §636(b)(1)(a).
• Assuming arguendo, this court had jurisdiction, these orders were in violation of the First Amendment.
• Assuming arguendo, this court had jurisdiction, these orders were in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
For legal authority against these orders, see your docket or Google “June 19, 2000 (de #201)” or “99-14027 doc. 201”. As a matter of fact, you can Google any number of different phrases and get information regarding these orders and yourself as well.

On September 20, 2001, you issued a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte. (Doc. 878). It is black letter law pre-filing injunctions require due process or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to issuance. If you need case law authority, simply go to Google and type in “sua sponte prefiling injunction”. As of today, you will find that the first 10 items lead back to you and ample case law authority. I am going to have insist that my constitutional rights be respected. Please explain why this order is not void. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that due process is mandatory for a constitutionally protected right. Are you rejecting the authority of SCOTUS?

You are damaging the reputation not only of yourself, but of your colleagues as well. Can anything be worth all this? I implore you to comply with the rule of law even if you disagree with SCOTUS.

Marcellus M. Mason, Jr.

2008-04-14T08:00:00.010-04:00

Judge Donald L. Graham

Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno Refuses to Endorse Judge Graham's Behavior

Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno who when told of these same
allegations via us Mail, and email, and the Internet stated:

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.

SeeLetter from Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno. Notice that this is not an endorsement, nor a denial that should tell you something.

March 25, 2008
214 Atteberry Drive
Sebring, FL 33870

Federico A. Moreno
Chief United States District Judge
99 N.E. 4th Street #1061
Miami, Fl 33132

Dear Judge Moreno:

RE: Judge Donald L. Graham: An Expose In Hubris, Misconduct, and Criminality

Firstly, I have made this letter publicly available online at

My ultimate goal is to have Judge Donald L. Graham impeached and have his pension forfeited. I would like nothing better than to see Judge Graham called before a Congressional committee to testify under oath about his behavior. To this end, I have been and continue to be relentless in pursuit of these goals.

I know that you have a great deal of expertise on federal judicial misconduct. When the time permits, I would appreciate it if you would read the information and links provided. Upon verifying the veracity of these allegations, I would appreciate it if you would pass this information along to the proper authorities.

One of the most serious allegations is that Judge Donald L. Graham framed a man with the help of the U.S. Attorney. This is a quick read less than five minutes. See http://mmason.freeshell.org/framed.htm/#quick .

The misconduct is really a two part story consisting of Judge Graham's misconduct and his colleagues efforts to conceal it. One of the problems I have had is not documenting these allegations, but organizing them. I have a massive amount of information on a website. mmason.freeshell.org.

I have a page called Core Allegations of Misconduct at : http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm .
This page contains links that document the following:

Judge Graham lied and intentionally misrepresented the law.

Judge Graham and his Magistrate usurped legal authority by allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction which is prohibited under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(a) and ordering Mason not to communicate with his government, Highlands County Board of County Communications.

Judge Graham refused to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction by Marcellus Mason that had been pending for more than 17 months. As a matter of fact, the Eleventh Circuit refused to make Judge Graham ruled on the motion by denying mandamus even after the motion had been pending for about 15 months.

Judge Graham allowed scores of other important motions to simply linger without addressing them.

Judge Graham abused the criminal contempt procedure by taking a void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and making it the basis of a criminal contempt information.

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 has repeatedly improperly denied access to the courts by arbitrarily denying in forma pauperis, "IFP", petitions. As a consequence, Judge Graham has necessarily arrogated his authority by denying appellate review of his lawless decisions.

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

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, U.S. COURT OF APPEAL

The Eleventh Circuit has used every trick in the book to avoid scrutinizing the behavior of Judge Graham. It has been unwilling to test these allegations. The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has refused to test these allegations of misconduct for veracity, much less remedy them. This is really an incredible story of dishonesty. The methods employed by the Eleventh Circuit to circumvent legitimate appellate review are many and seem to be only limited by the Eleventh Circuit's imagination. See mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm.

Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit, primarily Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, has mocked and contorted the Judicial Misconduct Act by refusing to investigate these allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham even though he knows full well that the appellate process has refused to address these allegations of misconduct. See Judicial Misconduct Home Page.

UNFAIRNESS TO OTHER FEDERAL JUDGES

Judge Graham appears to be a favored judge in that Judge Graham has been affirmed on appeal at the Eleventh Circuit, while some of his other colleagues at the S.D. Fla. and other District Courts have been reversed and excoriated on appeal for the same set of facts. This allegation is fully documented at http://mmason.freeshell.org/tale.htm . This page contains links to other web pages that demonstrate how judges U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages, S.D. Fla., mmason.freeshell.org/WorldThrust.htm , U.S. District Judge John Antoon II, M.D. Fla., http://mmason.freeshell.org/collins.htm, U.S. District Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, mmason.freeshell.org/martinez.htm ,S.D. Fla., U.S. District Judge Marvin H. Shoob, N. D. of Georgia, mmason.freeshell.org/pleming.htm, all were reversed and excoriated on appeal while Judge Graham was affirmed for the exact same set of facts.

2008-04-05T13:55:00.001-04:00

U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, US Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, AUSA Theodore Cooperstein, and AUSA Robert Waters used a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction to form the basis of a criminal contempt complaint. On September 20, 2001 [Civil Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham, Mason v. Highlands County], 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 ) . Page 3 of this document boldly asserts: "THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte." The law is quite clear and unequivocal in that a filing injunction requires notice and opportunity to be prior to its issuance. See U.S. v. Powerstein, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14928,*;185 Fed. Appx. 811 (11th Cir. 2006)("litigant entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court imposed the injunctive order"). See Case Law, below. "Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) “if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.”" Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001). Additionally, this sua sponte issued filing injunction made a so-called finding of "bad faith" that also requires due process.
Bad Faith
It has become clear to the Court that Mason is proceeding in bad faith. Indeed, he has admitted as much in his own pleadings and correspondence. See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878,Page 3 ). See law on bad faith finding. It is black letter law and a bedrock legal principal that an order issued in violation of due process is void and a legal nullity. See Definition of Void, below. On December 3, 2002 [Case No. 02-14020-CR-Moore], AUSA Robert Waters initiated a contempt complaint by way of an information with this clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001. See Information, below. “A void judgment is from its inception a legal nullity.” U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile, 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990). A criminal contempt conviction was obtained on based upon this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001by way of a bench trial. This criminal contempt conviction led to Marcellus Mason being jailed for 41 days and sentenced to 5 years of supervised probation. See Probation.
The consequences of this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction has been devastating and disastrous. For an example, this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was used to award $200,000 against Marcellus Mason who was and is indigent.

2008-03-26T09:05:00.006-04:00

FRAMING AN INNOCENT PERSON AND OTHER CRIMINALITY AND MISCONDUCT

One of the most serious allegations is that Judge Donald L. Graham framed a man with the help of the U.S. Attorney. This is a quick read less than five minutes. See

http://mmason.freeshell.org/framed.htm#quick. This page documents how U.S. Judge Donald L. Graham used US Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, AUSA Theodore Cooperstein, and
AUSA Robert Waters U.S. Judge Donald L. Graham to frame an innocent by concocting a criminal misdemeanor. This story is incredible in that these people took a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and made it the basis of criminal contempt complaint. Even more incredible is that the Eleventh Circuit has absolutely refused to review this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction on multiple occasions. See http://mmason.freeshell.org/framed.htm#appellate_review

The misconduct is really a two part story consisting of Judge Graham's misconduct and his colleagues efforts to conceal it. One of the problems I have had is not documenting these allegations, but organizing them. I have a massive amount of information on a website. mmason.freeshell.org.

I have a page called Core Allegations of Misconduct at : http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm .
This page contains links that document the following:

Judge Graham lied and intentionally misrepresented the law.

Judge Graham and his Magistrate usurped legal authority by allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction which is prohibited under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(a) and ordering Mason not to communicate with his government, Highlands County Board of County Communications.

Judge Graham refused to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction by Marcellus Mason that had been pending for more than 17 months. As a matter of fact, the Eleventh Circuit refused to make Judge Graham ruled on the motion by denying mandamus even after the motion had been pending for about 15 months.

Judge Graham allowed scores of other important motions to simply linger without addressing them.

Judge Graham abused the criminal contempt procedure by taking a void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and making it the basis of a criminal contempt information.

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 has repeatedly improperly denied access to the courts by arbitrarily denying in forma pauperis, "IFP", petitions. As a consequence, Judge Graham has necessarily arrogated his authority by denying appellate review of his lawless decisions.

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

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, U.S. COURT OF APPEAL
The Eleventh Circuit has used every trick in the book to avoid scrutinizing the behavior of Judge Graham. It has been unwilling to test these allegations.
The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has refused to test these allegations of misconduct for veracity, much less remedy them. This is really an incredible story of dishonesty. The methods employed by the Eleventh Circuit to circumvent legitimate appellate review are many and seem to be only limited by the Eleventh Circuit's imagination. See mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm.

Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit, primarily Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, has mocked and contorted the Judicial Misconduct Act by refusing to investigate these allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham even though he knows full well that the appellate process has refused to address these allegations of misconduct. See Judicial Misconduct Home Page.

2007-09-28T07:25:00.000-04:00

Beyond the Scope of Appeal: A
Despicable and Egregious Act of Dishonesty

Dist. Ct. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A, Decided Oct. 16, 2002
Before: Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Stanley Marcus, and Judge Susan H. Black

Extracted from: mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm

In what can only be described as an act of blatant dishonesty and treachery, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit struck Marcellus Mason's brief for arguing against an invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction because they claimed it was beyond the scope of appeal. However, the Eleventh Circuit then turned around and used the very same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction to affirm Judge Graham when it decided the appeal. What is even more incredible, the Eleventh Circuit accomplishes the impossible by justifying the dismissal of a case closed on June 20, 2001 with a sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction rendered on September 20, 2001. Additionally, the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction has been declared invalid by more courts than you can shake a stick at. See mmason.freeshell.org/SuaSponte.htm. It is clear that the Eleventh Circuit will destroy its own integrity and legitimacy in order to conceal the misconduct and abuse by Judge Donald L. Graham. Do you want proof of these serious allegations? Consider the following and read the provided links to documents.

In Dist. Ct. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham, a Notice of Appeal was filed on
June 25, 2001. (Docket Entry 795).

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issues a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte. See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878).

On March 6, 2002, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, the Eleventh Circuit struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the September 20, 2001 sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit ordered Mason to file all new initial briefs less any mention of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001. The Eleventh Circuit claimed the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was “beyond the scope of appeal”. See
Order Striking Appellant's Brief.

On March 25, 2002,19 days after the Eleventh Circuit, struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, Highlands County argued for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in their Answer Brief on pages 18 and 19. However, the Eleventh Circuit, while granting Mason’s motion to strike Highlands County brief for arguing for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, did not make Highlands County file

all new answer briefs as they had done Mason. The Eleventh Circuit claimed
that it would not consider the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction
in its decision. See Order Striking Appellees' Brief , which states:

("Appellant's motion to strike Appellees' brief is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Appellees cite to the District Court's September 2001, Omnibus Order, as that order is outside the scope of this appeal. This Court will disregard any references in Appellees' brief to matters outside the scope of this appeal.").

As stated above,in its opinion of October 16, 2002,
Case No. 01-13664, pgs. 13-14, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

Moreover, despite the closure of the case by the district court, Mason's continual filing of motions with the court addressing matters previously settled prompted the district court to prohibit Mason from further filings without explicit permission and initiate criminal contempt proceedings. Therefore, the record supports the district court's implicit finding that a sanction less than dismissal of the action with prejudice would have had no effect.

It is outrageous that the Eleventh Circuit would uses the same sua sponte
pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 that it struck Mason's brief for
arguing in order to make a finding to support a Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
dismissal. See "Implicit
finding Beyond the Scope.", pgs. 13, 14, Opinion.

2007-09-24T22:44:00.000-04:00

Mockery and Meaningless Appeal

Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeal
Case No. 01-13664, Oct. 16, 2002, Direct Appeal
Case No. 01-15754, Dec. 5, 2001, Mandamus
Before: Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Judge Stanley Marcus, and Judge Susan H. Black

Extracted from: mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm
.
If appeal briefs are filed and the appellant calls the district judge, Donald L. Graham, a liar; one would think that such an allegation would be vehemently denied if false, and remedied if true. See Direct Appeal Briefs, Mandamus Petition. However, one would be dead wrong. Judge Graham is excoriated for judicial misconduct and abuse; however, rather than confront these allegations, the Eleventh Circuit simply ignores them. Marcellus Mason filed appeal briefs asserting that Judge Graham should have recused or disqualified due to the following:

Lying and intentionally misrepresenting law.

Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for more than 17 months.

Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being decided.

Usurping legal authority. Allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction prohibiting direct communication with the Highlands County Government.
Additionally, prohibiting Marcellus Mason from making public
records request under Florida Law directly to Highlands County.

Violating clearly established law and the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by issuing pre-filing injunctions.

Abuse of the criminal contempt procedure. Judge Graham took a clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and made it the basis of a
criminal contempt complaint and conviction.

Lying and intentionally misrepresenting material facts.

Ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court denying access to the courts by refusing to state any reason for denying IFP applications.

In the direct appeal, the Eleventh Circuit's "review" [a 14 page opinion] of these issues and allegations consisted of solely the following:

Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g., the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges,

See the Unpublished Opinion, Case No. 01-13664-A. There is no suggestion that the above allegations are not true, they are simply ignored because they can not be denied.

The order denying Mandamus, Case No. 01-15754, a one page and one sentence "opinion", is even worse. "The "petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED" .

These are but two instances where the Eleventh Circuit has ignored allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham. There is a whole history of dishonesty set forth at mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm . This page documents that the futility of attempting to hold a federal judge accountable for misconduct and abuse.

2007-09-23T19:07:00.000-04:00

The Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States and the Eleventh Circuit
in particular have developed the perfect mechanism for disposing of
complaints of judicial misconduct and avoiding public scrutiny.
Complaints of judicial misconduct can come in principally three forms:

Judicial Misconduct Disability Act Complaint, 28 U.S.C.
§§351

Petition for Mandamus

Direct Appeal

Nonpublished or Secret Opinions

The first hurdle to public scrutiny is that the results of the above are beyond public scrutiny because the results are not published and released. The Courts give themselves permission not to publish opinions with respect to mandamus and direct appeals. Judicial Misconduct Act Complaints are confidential by law. The public can not scrutinize what it does not knows exists.

Isolation

A litigant can initiate complaints through all three methods. The Eleventh Circuit will claim that the methods are mutually exclusive. This is a perfect strategy. Having made this claim of mutual exclusiveness, the Eleventh
Circuit is now free to dispose of valid complaints on this procedural
ground. There is no law that says the methods are mutually exclusive.

Valid complaints in the form of mandamus and the Judicial Misconduct Act
will be summarily dismissed on the "plausible" ground that they are properly
handled under the direct appeal. These summary dismissals, when viewed
in isolation can appear to be plausible.

Herding

Herding or Shepherding for the purpose of this website means guiding a
complaint of judicial misconduct towards a particular method. The
Eleventh Circuit guides the other forms of judicial complaints towards the
direct appeal method. Having guided the other forms of judicial
misconduct towards direct appeal, the Eleventh Circuit is now free to ignore
the complaint of judicial misconduct altogether by rendering unpublished opinion or by basing this opinion upon facts that are directly contradicted by the record. The reader must bear in mind that the only thing he or she knows is what the opinion says even if you could get your hands on the unpublished opinion.

This Blog is only a sample of the whole story, please see mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm It is impossible to overstate the level of dishonesty and lawlessness on the part of Judge Donald L. Graham and his enablers. What you will find is a cesspool of injustice in that Federal Judges use unpublished opinions to ignore facts, manufacture facts, lie, and all manner of other dishonest measures to achieve the desired outcome. mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm fully documents each and every assertion put forth here.

2007-09-23T01:47:00.000-04:00

Judge Donald L. Graham is a Liar!

mmason.freeshell.org/liar.htm

If one assumes that the the personal integrity of Federal Judges is
important and essential to the rule of law, then one of the most pernicious
acts committed by Judge Graham and his enablers is outright lying. Firstly,
Judge Donald L. Graham lies by intentionally misrepresenting the law.
Secondly, Judge Graham's enablers at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court
of Appeal, Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Frank Hull, realizing this lying is a problem, then lie to cover Judge Graham's lie, a truly remarkable story. Judge Graham told Marcellus Mason that he could not state a claim against a state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners for violations 42 U.S.C. §1981. At the very moment Judge Graham told Mason
he could not state a claim against a state actor, Highlands County
Board of County Commissioners for violations 42 U.S.C. §1981, he was
allowing another Plaintiff in another case, Case No. 00-14094-CV-Graham, to
state a claim against the very same state actor, Highlands County
Board of County Commissioners for violations 42 U.S.C.
§1981. The Eleventh Circuit, Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Frank Hull,
then tried to cover for this lie by asserting that Marcellus Mason had not
sought claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981. It is difficult to imagine that anybody, much less a Federal Judge, would tell a lie that is easily proven with documents. For a complete discussion
and documentation of both lies, see mmason.freeshell.org/liar.htm

2007-07-07T20:51:00.004-04:00

Judge Donald L. Graham's Magistrate,

Frank Lynch Jr., Issues First Prior Restraint

on Pure Speech

In Over Two Hundred Years.

This blog is part of series that seeks to gain public scrutiny and a little sunshine into the "Culture of Corruption" that exists within the Federal Judiciary. See mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm which will demonstrate that Federal Judges are accountable to no one and to see how dishonest Federal Judges can be. In reality there is no such thing as discipline of a Federal Judge!! If you ask the fox to guard the chickenhouse, then you should not be surprised when the fox eats the chicken.

In February of 1999, Marcellus Mason filed a suit against the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and other governmental officials in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No, 99-14027-CV-Graham.

On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, the Magistrate Judge, Frank Lynch Jr., issued the following directives or "discovery orders":

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).

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).

“Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary-(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court except a motion for injunction relief,…” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A).

Judge Graham has held that the above are orders are not "clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law." Specifically Judge Donald L. Graham held:

On June 19, 2000, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch entered an Order granting Defendants a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff from contacting any of the Defendants in this action. Upon notice that Plaintiff was violating this order, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2000, Magistrate Judge Lynch entered an Order granting Defendants' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, once again prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting any of the Defendants in this action or their supervisory employees. Magistrate Judge Lynch also ordered that Plaintiff shall only correspond with Defendants' counsel.

Plaintiff then moved to rescind the July 25, 2000 order, however, on August 15, 2000, Magistrate Judge Lynch denied Plaintiff's Motion to Rescind. Plaintiff appeals the August 15, 2000 ruling. After careful review of the file and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Lynch's ruling is not clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see also Cooper-Houston v. Southern Railway Company, 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994).

See Docket Entry No. 407 dated November 2, 2000.

Judge Graham has stated: "including continual attempts to directly communicate with the Defendants rather their attorneys, the Court enjoined Mason from any further contact with the Defendants or Defendants' employees. Mason, however, ignored the Court's order and continued to contact the Defendants." Docket No. 878.

Eleventh Circuit, US Court of Appeal
The Eleventh Circuit, Circuit Court Judge Ed Carnes, has apparently taken the view that a Magistrate may issue an injunction and a prior restraint so long as the Magistrate does not call it an injunction or a prior restraint, but calls these orders "discovery orders". In denying an in forma pauperis petition for mandamus on April 6, 2001, to vacate these orders, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

With regard to his requests for relief from the order granting the defendants' motions for preliminary injunction, which the court construed as a preliminary discovery motion, Mason has an alternative remedy. He may either comply with the district court's discovery order and challenge it on appeal from the final judgment, or refuse to comply with the order and challenge its validity if cited for contempt . See Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. or ., 680 F.2d 743, 745 (11th Cir . 1982).

See Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-11305, Order Denying Mandamus. However, on direct appeal, Case No. 01-13364-A, the Eleventh Circuit, Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Ed Carnes, and Stanley Marcus apparently have upheld the first prior restraint on pure speech in over 200 years by simply ignoring the issue altogether. See
Case No. 01-13364, Direct Appeal Opinion dated October 16, 2002.

Direct Appeal Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664

In this appeal the Eleventh Circuit takes the absurd position, that it can not review the validity of the injunctions because they are "discovery orders". See "discovery orders", above. As fully, set forth above, Judge Graham called these orders injunctions and the Defendant asked for and got the very injunctions granted they sought. In this appeal Mason attacked the validity of these orders because of the following reasons:

Docket entries 201 and 246 or "discovery orders" are really injunctions and a federal Magistrate may not issue an injunction.
These Orders violate the First Amendment, Tenth Amendment, and the Florida Constitution.

In this appeal, the Eleventh Circuit boldly admits to the following:

On appeal, Mason argues that the magistrate's discovery orders enjoined him without legal authority and violated his First Amendment and Florida state-law rights to petition Florida government officials and to request public records

See Illegal Orders, below. This opinion is 14 pages long and discusses alleged violations of these so-called "discovery orders", Docket entries 201 and 246 , but refuses to discuss the validity of these so-called "discovery orders".

LAW ON PRIOR RESTRAINTS
“[P]ure speech –[is]- speech not connected with any conduct..” In Re Providence, at 820 F.2d 1348. “'Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.'; see also Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283

U.S.

697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). The Government 'thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.'” New York Times Company v. United States United States v. Washington Post Company, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971)(citing Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S.Ct. 631, 639, 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963)) . “[T]he principal purpose of the First Amendment's guaranty is to prevent prior restraints.” In Re Providence at 820 F.2d 1348. “Prior restraints are presumptively unconstitutional and face strict scrutiny.” Burk v. Augusta-Richmond County, 365 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir., 2004). "In its nearly two centuries of existence, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint on pure speech. " Providence Journal Co, at 820 F.2d 1348. The presumption of unconstitutionally of prior restraints has been described as “virtually insurmountable” by Supreme Court judges and others. In Re Providence, at 820 F.2d 1348 (citing Near, 283 U.S. at 713). The Supreme Court has refused to uphold a “prior restraint” even when the matter of national security was involved. See New York Times, at 403 U.S. 713, above. In over two centuries, the United States Supreme Court, composed of nine Article 3 judges, has never upheld a prior restraint involving pure speech; however, in this matter, a statutory judge, Magistrate Judge Lynch breezes right through this barrier and issues a prior restraint on pure speech with no problem.

In Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 578 (Fed. 5th Cir., 2005), the district court “enjoined Singh from communicating directly with, threatening, or harassing Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., its employees, its staff, or TES's counsel, counsel's employees, or counsel's staff.” The Fifth Circuit, (citing Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993), defined “prior restraints” thusly: Prior restraints are "administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur." Id. at 579. The Fifth Circuit then expressly declared: “The district court's order enjoining Singh from having any future communication with the specified persons was a prior restraint.” Id. The Court went on to find:

To quote selectively from the district court, the court found that the parties had demonstrated an "immaturity" and "mean-spirited[ness]," and that Singh was pursuing "vexatious litigation." However, despite the perhaps need of these parties to never speak again, the court did not detail, and the record does not reflect, any "exceptional circumstances" to justify permanently enjoining Singh from generally communicating with TES, TES's counsel and their staff and employees. The district court's order enjoining Singh from communicating with TES employees, TES's counsel, and its counsel's employees was a prior restraint limiting Singh's first amendment rights, and because the injunction order is not supported by exceptional circumstances, it is an unconstitutional restraint on Singh's free speech rights. *** The cantankerous relationship between these parties is clearly evident from the record in this case. There is enough evidence presented in the record to justify an injunction order prohibiting Singh from threatening or harassing TES, its employees, its staff, TES's counsel, counsel's employees, or counsel's staff. However, the injunction here went beyond enjoining harassing and threatening conduct. The district court's order swept too broadly when it prohibited all communication between Singh and TES employees, staff or TES's counsel, counsel's employees or counsel's staff.

Id. at 579-80.

U.S. Const. amend. I states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Article 1, Fla. Const., in pertinent part states:

SECTION 4. Freedom of speech and press.—

Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

SECTION 9. Due process.—

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

SECTION 24. Access to public records and meetings.--

Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution

Fla.Stat., §119.07, in pertinent part states:

(1)(a) Every person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records.

2004-05-28T10:56:00.000-04:00

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?

2004-04-21T12:27:00.000-04:00

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

2004-02-20T17:22:00.000-05:00

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).

Misconduct of Federal Judge Donald L. Graham

Open Letter To Just The Beginning Foundation

Pending Judicial Misconduct Complaints

Contempt Abuse Is Misconduct Under State Law But Is Not Judicial Misconduct Under the Federal Statutes

Federal Judicial Misconduct

State Court Judges Disciplined For Contempt Abuse Under Judicial Misconduct Statutes

U.S. Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson Says Contempt Abuse Is Not Judicial Misconduct

Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno Declines toEndorse Judge Graham

Pattern And Practice

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

Purpose of This Post

Organization Of This Post

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell

Purpose of This Post

Thesis

The Published Opinion

The Unpublished Opinion

Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Unpublished Appeal From Hell

I Got Your Lawless Unpublished Depositions

A Tale of Two Appeals, Same Facts, Same Law, Different Results.

U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Construes Recusal Statute To His Liking and Sets About Wreaking Havoc

U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Disagrees With The United States Supreme Court Yet Again!

Preface

POINT OF THIS POST

Motive

The Act that Defies The United States Supreme Court

The Lawsuit Was No Frivolous

No History of Sanctions For Filing Frivolous Motions

Pattern And Practice

LEGAL ERROR AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

BACKGROUND

State Court Judges Are Held to Higher Standards Than Federal Judges

Not Judicial Misconduct

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT DEFINED

Judicial Misconduct Complaints

Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno Refuses to Endorse Judge Graham's Behavior

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, U.S. COURT OF APPEAL

UNFAIRNESS TO OTHER FEDERAL JUDGES

Beyond the Scope of Appeal: ADespicable and Egregious Act of Dishonesty

Mockery and Meaningless Appeal

Judge Donald L. Graham is a Liar!

Direct Appeal Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664

Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno Declines to
Endorse Judge Graham

Beyond the Scope of Appeal: A
Despicable and Egregious Act of Dishonesty