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:
