Dirty Little Secrets of Judge Donald L.
Graham and the
Eleventh Circuit
********************************************
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
New Postings
A Tale of Two Appeals, Same Facts, Same Law, Different Results
Documented Allegations of Judicial Abuse and Misconduct
Purpose of Web Page
Background
Trickery
Abuse of Inherent Authority
Overruling the First Amendment
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT ARE
NOT ADDRESSED
Junk
Law
******************************************************************************************************
DISHONEST TECHNIQUES USED BY JUDGE DONALD L.
GRAHAM AND THE ELEVENTH TO UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW. See
mmason.orgfree.com./integrity.htm
**************************************************************************************************
A
tale of two Appeals: Two S.D. Fla. Judges, Precisely the Same Facts,
Different Result on Appeal. Tale
of Two Appeals Home Page.
In Martinez, v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364
F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) and the Eleventh Circuit
vacated and remanded Judge Hurley's denial of an IFP application.
You might be curious to know that Judge Donald L. Graham in the
same Court, Southern District of Florida did the exact thing as
Judge Hurley, but Judge Graham was affirmed. Take five
minutes and read mmason.orgfree.com/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.
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.orgfree.com/WorldThrust.htm
.
**************************************************************************************************
Mason v. Highlands County Board of
County Commissioners, et.al.,
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A, is an unpublished opinion
that was never released by the Eleventh Circuit on their web
site. This decision shows the extreme and
unlawful measures the Eleventh Circuit have taken to affirm
Judge Graham. See mmason.orgfree.com/01-13664/OrderAffirmingTrialCourt/Opinion-OCR.htm
.
*****************************************
Purpose of Web Page
This web page describes some of the
trickery, lies, and deceit used by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of
Appeals to conceal the misconduct of Judge Donald L. Graham, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida.
PREMISE: JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM IS
CLEARLY ABOVE THE LAW AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, US COURT OF APPEAL
WILL NOT DISCIPLINE JUDGE GRAHAM UNDER ANY OF THE LEGAL VEHICLES
AVAILABLE. MOREOVER, THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT WILL NOT EVEN
DISCUSS THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN ANY OF THEIR OFFICIAL
WRITINGS. THIS PAGE AND RELATED PAGES DOCUMENTS THIS
FACT. MASON HAS TRIED EVERYTHING TO GET RELIEF AND THIS
STORY OUT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS
TRIED TO STOP MASON FROM PUBLISHING THIS INCREDIBLE STORY.
SEE http://mmason.orgfree.com/DisdainFirstAmendment.html
**************************************************************************************
CORE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE OF POWER BY JUDGE DONALD
L. GRAHAM:
- Judge Graham and his Magistrate usurped legal authority by
ordering Mason not to communicate with his government,
Highlands County Board of County
Communications. See Docket
Entry No. 201. Additionally, Judge Graham prohibited
Mason from requesting public records directly from Highlands
County. See Docket
Entry No. 246. These injunctions were issued by a
Magistrate in violation of 28
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1)(a), which in part states:
"a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any
pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief,..."
Judge Graham himself has characterized these orders as
injunctions. See Docket Entry 407,
(D.E. #407). Additionally, these orders are blatant
violations of the First Amendment. See Overruling
the First Amendment.
- Judge Graham lied and intentionally misrepresented the
law. Judge Graham told Mason that the law
precluded him from asserting claims of intentional
discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981 against a state actor, Highlands
County Board of County Commissioners. See Docket Entries Nos. 435
and 466. At
the very same time, Judge Graham was allowing a plaintiff in
another case [Fa Nina St. Germain v. Highlands County,
Case No. 00-14094] to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981
against the very same state actor, Highlands County
Board of County Commissioners. See Summary
Judgment, Case No. 00-14094. It might be noted that
Ms. St. Germain was represented by counsel, Peter Helwig,
Lakeland, FL and Mason was not represented by
counsel.
- Judge Graham refused to rule on a motion for a preliminary
injunction by Marcellus Mason. The motion was submitted
on November 24, 1999 (Docket Entry No. 39) and was never ruled
on by Judge Graham. It was made moot on June 20, 2001
when Judge Graham dismissed the case because of alleged out of
court communications by Mason with the Highlands County
Government. As late as April 2001, or 17 months after Mason
filed the motion, the Eleventh Circuit said a mandamus
petition was frivolous, because Mason had no right to have his
motion decided. See No
Right To have Motion Decided
- Judge Graham allowed scores of other important motions to
simply linger without addressing them. Some of these
filings languished for as long as eight
months. See Languishing
Motions.
- Judge Graham abused the criminal contempt procedure by
taking a sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and making
it the basis of a criminal contempt information. On
September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issued a pre-filing
injunction against Mason sua sponte. Additionally,
the Eleventh Circuit, has used all manner of tactics to avoid
reviewing this clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction.
See Sua
Sponte page and Contempt
page.
- Judge Graham intentionally misrepresented
the amount of lawsuits that were filed in order to justify the
sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. See Law
Suites Filed. More importantly, Judge Graham, himself, on the Defendants'
motion (Highlands County),
for a filing injunction against Mason, stated: "However, at this point, none
of those other cases
have totally dismissed with prejudice. There are viable claims
pending in those cases. * * * 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 for justifying injunctive
relief." Case No. 00-14240, (D.E. #27, dtd.
1-16-01)(D.E. 33 dtd.
2-13-01).
- Judge Graham awarded a massive $200,000 in attorney's fees
to Highlands County against Mason, not on the quality of the
underlying lawsuit, but based upon Judge Graham's speculation
about Mason's motive. Judge Graham used the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction
to award $200.000 against Mason, a man Judge Graham knew
didn't have the money because he was proceeding in forma
pauperis. See Attorneys'
Fees or Docket
Entry #882.
*****************************************************************************************************
BACKGROUND
Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. of
Sebring, Fl. filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against
Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and Heartland
Library Cooperative and other governmental entities and
individual government employees in February 1999. This
case was ultimately assigned 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.
In June and July 2000, Maria
Sorolis and Brian Koji, Allen,
Norton & Blue asked the Magistrate to grant them
preliminary injunctions that required Mason to contact them
before he could talk to the government defendants. These
orders required Mason, 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. Both are attached to this
email
“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.
******************************************************************************************************
TRICKERY
The webpage entitled Eleventh Circuit, USCA: Trickery Raised
to Art form sets out an an incredible tale of lawlessness using
acts of artifice, trickery, chicanery, dishonesty, and
usurpation. The stories you are about read are incredible and
seemingly delusional, however, these incredible stories are fully
documented with RECORD facts. One should be
skeptical at the outset, however your skepticism will fade as you are
overwhelmed with record facts.
The Congress, and more importantly, the American people should be made
aware of these facts as both are culls, otherwise there would be
genuine outrage and a political firestorm permeating the country.
Res
Ipsa Loquitur !!!
For the Latin challenged, "the thing speaks for itself".
*******************************************************************************************
Abuse of Inherent
Authority
"Inherent
Authority"
One
of the most troubling abuses of power by Judge Graham is his
willingness to issue a pre-filing injunction sua
sponte, or without notice and opportunity to be heard [due
process] prior to rendering the injunction. Sua
Sponte pre-filing injunctions have been rejected
universally by almost every jurisdiction in the United
States. Equally troubling is the fact that the Eleventh
Circuit, US Court of Appeal refuses to overrule Judge
Graham. The Eleventh Circuit uses a two pronged attack to
deny appellate review. The Eleventh Circuit simply ignores
fee paid petitions for relief, direct appeal or mandamus.
Secondly, the Eleventh Circuit simply claims that in
forma pauperis (filing fee waived) applications, appeal or
mandamus, are frivolous, for a different reason each time relief
is requested. The bottom line is that the sua
sponte issued pre-filing is effect and the Eleventh
Circuit knows this.
Judge
Graham then took clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing
injunction and made it the basis of a criminal contempt
complaint.
******************************************************************************************************
Overruling
the First Amendment
The webpage entitled Judge
Donald L. Graham: Inherent Authority to Overrule
the Constitution of the United States lists some examples where
"Inherent Authority" has been blatantly and possibly criminally
abused. For a really interesting story, see how Judge Graham issues a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte, without notice and opportunity to respond and watch how the Eleventh Circuit avoids appellate review of the matter. Sua Sponte Injunction According
to Judge Donald L. Graham, his
Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of
Appeals,
each of them have the inherent authority to simply ignore the decisions
of the
U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Statutues, the United States Constitution, the
Florida
Constitution, and the Florida Statutes whenever they see fit.
This "inherent authority" includes, but is not limited to the following:
- The power to order that a
nonlawyer not speak directly with his government directly, but request
the permission of a private for profit attorney.
- The power
to order that a nonlawyer not request public records under Florida law
with his government
directly, but request the permission of a private for profit attorney.
- The power to dismiss a lawsuit
if a nonlawyer speaks with his government directly.
- The power to award attorneys'
fees of $200,000 against an indigent Plaintiff based solely upon Judge
Graham's mere rank speculation about the Plaintiff's motives, merits of
the lawsuit be damned.
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT ARE
NOT ADDRESSED
The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal,
will not even discuss, much
less remedy, factual allegations of misconduct against Judge Donald L.
Graham. Allegations of misconduct have been leveled at Judge
Graham in the following forms: direct appeal, mandamus, personal
letters, and
Section 372(c) complaints. Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson makes a mockery
of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Chapter 16 of Title
28 U.S.C. §351-364, formerly 28 U.S.C. §372(c). See Chief Judge J. L.
Edmondson Judicial Misconduct Complaint Investigation Tactics.
These allegations are not denied because they can not be, but simply
ignored. Judge Graham has
been
accsused of: intentionally lying and misrepresenting the law; refusing
to rule
on a motion for a preliminary injunction for more than 15 months;
allowing scores of motions to go undecided; usurping legal
authority. The webpage entitled Eleventh
Circuit Refuses to Discuss Substantiated Factual Allegations of
Misconduct Against Judge Donald L.
Graham lists some specific examples.
*****************************************************************************************************
Junk Law Created by
Judge Graham and the Eleventh
JUNK LAW
The Eleventh Circuit has been quite proficient at making "junk
law". "Junk law" being defined as court opinions that simply
ignore well-established written law. "Junk law" is by definition
not published because no inferior court judge would write an opinion
that is clearly contradicted by the law, or overrule
the Supreme Court
of the United States. The junk law page demonstrates how the
Eleventh Circuit can prevaricate and mischaracterize. The page
also demonstrates a first time use of res judicata that applies the
concept to new causes of action that accrue after a former lawsuit, or
"prospective" res judicata. The page also shows that a federal
magistrate may issue an injunction so long as he does not call it an
injunction. See Junk Web Page.
|
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
