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?
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.
