Judge Donald Graham, U.S. District Court, Southern District
                                                          

(b) Action by chief judge following review. After
expeditiously reviewing a complaint under subsection (a),
the chief judge by written order stating his or her reasons,
may –
    (1) dismiss the complaint –
        (A) if the chief judge finds the complaint to be –
                (i) not in conformity with section 351(a);
                (ii) directly related to the merits of a decision
                    or procedural ruling; or
                (iii) frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence to
                    raise an inference that misconduct has occurred, or
                    containing allegations which are incapable of being
                    established through investigation;

        (B) when a limited inquiry conducted under
            subsection (a) demonstrates that the allegations in the
            complaint lack any factual foundation or are conclusively
            refuted by objective evidence; or
    (2) conclude the proceeding if the chief judge finds
        that appropriate corrective action has been taken or that
        action on the complaint is no longer necessary because of
        intervening events.

• Justice Stephen Breyer, chairman
• Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit);
• Judge Pasco M. Bowman (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit);
• Judge D. Brock Hornby (U.S. District Court for the District of Maine);
• Judge Sarah Evans Barker (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana); and
• Sally M. Rider (administrative assistant to the Chief Justice).

• MISCHARACTERIZTION.  This is the first tactic used by Judge Edmondson.  He condenses a five page complaint into a single paragraph.  The characterization is designed to support his outcome generated order and predisposition to protect the complained of federal judge.  .
• EVASIVENESS and PREVARICATION.  Judge Edmondson and his cohorts at the Eleventh Circuit simply will not discuss allegations of misconduct if you can prove these allegations.  You can't pin Judge Edmondson down to a core set of facts. 
  
• UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSIONS.  Judge Edmondson deploys this tactic by simply quoting the statute without elaborating.
• CONTORTED LOGIC AND DERIVATIVE LEGITIMACY.  Judge Edmondson employs this tactic by simply saying that your new complaint is not valid because you mentioned these allegations before and I did not investigate, consequently, your new complaint is not valid.  
  

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), page 2 of 2 pages.

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 case in question was closed on June 20, 2001.  See URL:  Report and Recommendation, (DE #766), http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-766/de766.pdf , Order Adopting Report and Recommendation, (DE #791), HTTP://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-791/de791.pdf .  A direct appeal was originally docketed for Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A (D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV) on July 3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf .  Judge Graham, “sua sponte”, and without due process notice, wrote an order restricting my filings on September 20, 2001, or three months after the case was noticed for appeal.  See DE-878, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/de878.pdf .  The appeal briefs were not actually filed until February and March of 2002.  Appeal Briefs:  First Initial Brief (Stricken), URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/InitialBriefPending.pdf   Corrected Initial Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/CorrectedInitialBrief.PDF , Appellees' Answer Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/AppelleeBrief.pdf, Reply Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/ReplyBrief.pdf,  Appellant's Motion For Rehearing.URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/MotionForRehearing.pdf 

Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law.  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.



See Page 3, Report and Recommendation, (DE #435), Page 1, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-435/New/P2394948.jpg; Page 2, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-435/New/P2395120.jpg,  Page 3, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-435/New/P2395222.jpg, Page 4, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-435/New/P2395620.jpg, Page 5, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-435/New/P2395722.jpg, Page 6, http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-435/New/P2395812.jpg, Page 7, Page 8, and Page 9.  Graham signed this Report and Recommendation.  See Order (DE #466), URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-466/P2392413.jpg, page 2, http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE-466/P2395357.jpg. 

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 claims were 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.  See Pages 2, Order on Summary Judgment, pages Case No. 00-14094, (PDF), url: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/00-14094/de58.pdf,   (Doc. 58, JPG), pps: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 27.  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.



• Refusing to Rule on an important motion.  Allowing a motion for a preliminary injunction for to languish in court for 574 days and not making a ruling.  The motion for preliminary injunction was initially filed on November 24, 1999. See (DE #39).  See PacerReportsDocketEntries99-14027.html, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/PacerReportsDocketEntries99-14027.html.   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, http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/11305/MandamusPetition.pdf.  (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 Order Dated April 26, 2001, page1, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/11305/P2176502.jpg,  page 2, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/11305/P2176601.jpg.
  

• Allowing scores of motions to languish in court for up to 8 months and not taking any action[1].

• Usurping legal authority by telling me, a non lawyer,  that I must seek the permission of a private for profit law firm in order to request public records under Florida Law, or to speak with the government directly.  Moreover, this injunction is was issued by a mere Magistrate Judge who by law can not issue an injunction.  In fact, no judge has the authority to tell anybody that they cannot communicate with the government.  This is a really stupid order that is not worth debating.    “Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any requests for public records.” (DE #246), URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/P2173532.jpg; page 2, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/P2173717.jpg;   See also (DE #201), URL: http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE201Orders/de201.pdf,  where Judge Graham's Magistrate outlaws direct communication with the government.  Additionally, even though Judge Graham was sued personally for acting in clear violation of all legal authority, neither Judge Graham, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, nor the Eleventh Circuit would state where Judge Graham got the legal authority to render these orders, (DE #201), URL: http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE201Orders/de201.pdf;(DE #246), http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/DE201Orders/de246.pdf.  See Graham's Lawsuit, http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/GrahamLawsuit.html. 
  
• 
  
Concealing Information and falsely completing a Civil Justice Reform Act Report.  When Judge Graham completed his Civil Justice Reform Act Report for March 31, 2001, he shows that he had 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, URL: http://www.secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters/CivilJusticeReformActReport.pdf.  See above.  Congress did not engage in a meaningless exercise in passing the Civil Justice Reform Act, it wanted accurate information.  Mr. Graham does not have the legal authority to conceal the fact that he failed to rule on a motion for more than 15 months.



---

[1] 438     11/29/00            667       4/18/01
439       11/29/00            703       5/07/01
440       11/29/00            709       5/10/01
441       11/29/00            710       5/10/01
518       3/5/01   711       5/10/01
544       3/12/01             712       5/10/01           
561       3/16/01             714         5/10/01
563       3/18/01             715       5/10/01           
607       3/28/01             716  5/10/01
632       4/4/01   724  5/11/01     
660       4/13/01             726  5/16/01
693       4/30/01             741  5/21/01
694       5/1/01   742       5/21/01
702       5/7/01   749       5/23/01           
723       5/11/01             NA  6/15/01733            
5/18/01 NA4       6/18/01 734       5/18/01            
NA       6-18-01           
NA       6-2-01  NA       6-2-01



Judge William J. Zloch
Judge William J. Zloch, Chief Judge, U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Fla., has expressly endorsed or approved of Judge Graham's misconduct.  Judge Zloch was sent a letter on July 18, 2001 detailing the above behavior and Judge Zloch stated:



The Judge to whom this matter was assigned is one of the very best Judges of this Court and your case is being appropriately handled. I have no authority to review any allegations you make in the documents you submitted.


See Judge Letter.





DISPOSITION OF  SECTION 372(C)  COMPLAINTS

CASE NO. 01-0054
R. Lanier Anderson III disposed of this case on the following basis:


The allegations of the Complaint are "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling" and/or Action on the complaint is no longer necessary because of intervening events, and therefore moot". Consequently. pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 372(c)(3)(A) and (3)(B) and Addendum Three Rule 4 (a)(2), this Complaint is DISMISSED.


See Order dated Nov. 7, 2001


Judge Edmondson refuses to discuss the veracity of the allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham, or even mention them for that matter as he simply  quotes the statutes for his own nefarious purpose.   Judge Edmondson suggests that some intervening event would remedy the problem.


INTERVENING EVENTS-APPELLATE ACTION


CASE NO. 01- 13664 (DIRECT APPEAL)


The Direct Appeal raises these issues of misconduct by Judge Graham and further that Judge Graham should have disqualified himself, however the Eleventh Circuit, in a very verbose opinion, makes no mention of these allegations of misconduct or whether Judge Graham should have disqualified himself.  See (dated Oct. 16, 2002) Opinion.  



CASE NO. 01-15754 MANDAMUS


In denying mandamus, the Eleventh Circuit does not discuss any issue.  In a very terse statement, the Eleventh Circuit simply denies the mandamus petition without any comment.  See (December 5, 2001) Opinion. 







CASE NO. 02-0052


After Judge EDMONDSON and his colleagues refused to discuss, much less the very same allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham through the appellate process, I then filed yet another section 372(c) complaint informing Judge Edmondson that neither he or his appellate court panels would discuss these allegations.  Judge Edmondson then disposes of this complaint.  Chief Judge Edmondson concludes the following:


In this complaint, Mr. Mason alleges that Judge Graham denied a motion to disqualify himself in case No. 99-CV-14027, that Judge Graham has failed to rule on several other motions filed in this and other cases, and that Judge Graham has engaged in unabated acts of aggression and usurpation by ruling that he was prohibited from making contact with any of the Defendants or their employees regarding any matter related to his case. Of these allegations, only the allegation concerning Judge Graham's denial of the disqualification motion is one that has not already been determined by previous order(s) of the Chief Judge,

The unsupported allegations of this complaint are "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling" and/or "Successive". Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A) and Addendum III Rule(s) 4(a)(2) and 18 (c), this complaint is DISMISSED.


See Order dated Dec. 6, 2002

CASE NO. 05-0008
Chief Judge Edmondson concludes the following:


In this complaint, the single (unsupported) allegation that has not already been determined in previous complaints filed by Mr. Mason against Judge Graham is that Judge Graham intentionally falsified his March 31, 2001, Civil Justice Reform Act Report in an attempt to conceal the fact that he had not ruled on one of Mr. Mason's motions for over 15 months. Not withstanding the fact that the motion in question was pending for more than six months, and the fact that the March 31, 2001 report is incorrect, Mr. Mason has not presented any information, evidence or documentation to support his claim to suggest that the omission of this motion on this CJRA report was an intentional attempt by Judge Graham to conceal his failure to rule on the motion.

The allegations of this Complaint are "frivolous", "successive", and "appropriate corrective action has been taken". Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 16 of Title 28 U.S.C. § 352 (b)(I)(ii) and Addendum III Rules 4 (b)(3) and (4) and 18(c) this Complaint is DISMISSED.


 
 See Order Dated April 7, 2005























JUNK LAW  PAGE	HOME PAGE
GRAHAM'S LAWSUIT	GRAHAM'S BLOG




Email This Article





MainPage
http://secretlaw.com/NewComplaint/HelpLetters