Secretlaw.com

JUNK LAW  PAGE
"Unpublished Opinions" that violate clearly established law and are offensive to the "rule of law"
 		HOME PAGE
 A comprehensive look at the misconduct of Judge Graham and how the Eleventh Circuit conspires to conceal this misconduct.
TRICKERY PAGE
Tricks Used by the Eleventh Circuit to Undermine Appeal Rights
 JUDGE EDMONDSON MAKES MOCKERY OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS
Underming an Appeal Right
See how the Eleventh Circuit undermines an appeal that attacks  Judge Donald L. Graham for misconduct. The Allegations of misconduct never reach the light of day.  Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit is also adept at undermining a petition for mandamus to conceal Judge Graham's misconduct. 
ABUSE OF INHERENT AUTHORITY BY JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM
Judge Graham's Blog
A quick summary of Judge Donald L. Graham's Lawless and Arrogant Behavior
 Refusal to Discuss Appellate Issues
Describes how the Eleventh Circuit evades  issues on appeal in order to get the desired outcome.  The Eleventh Circuit is quite adept at this tactic. 




Judges ED CARNES:

"YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RULING ON YOUR PENDING MOTION"


In Yet Another Landmark "unpublished Opinion", the Eleventh Circuit asserts that a petition for mandamus is frivolous if seeks to force Judge Donald L. Graham to rule on a motion that has been pending for more than 16 months. 






"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 by Eleventh Circuit and Judge Ed Carnes rendered on April 26, 2001. 

The Eleventh Circuit has virtually ruled that a party does not the have right to have his motion decided.  







The mandamus petition sought to force Judge to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending since November 24.1999, Docket Entry No. 39.  Judge Graham never ruled on this motion.   See below for more details.






The following facts are excerpted from the petition for mandamus:



Plaintiff petitioned the Court on November 24, 1999 for a preliminary injunction to reinstate him to his former position.  (DE #39).  An evidentiary hearing was held on February 28, 2000.  (DE #160).  At this evidentiary hearing, Mason was the only witness to offer any sworn testimony.  Defendants through their counsel opted not to testify and subject themselves to cross-examination. In this matter, defendants have no testimony on the record. Additionally and equally important, defendants offer no documents in support of “legitimate” reason to fire Mason. This Court in Baker,Infra, held that a plaintiff was entitled to presumption of irreparable harm as a matter of law if the administrative requirements of the EEOC were complied with.  The burden is on the defendants to overcome the presumption of irreparable harm.  Plaintiff was also entitled to irreparable harm as set forth in his PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION (DE #288) and APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE OF MAGISTRATE’S ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION. (DE #333)..  Moreover, plaintiff also submitted to the court a statement of uncontested facts in support of his motion for a preliminary injunction.  (DE # 507). 


Mason filed a motion for clarification with respect to his prior motion for a preliminary injunction on or about February 26, 2001 [DE #485].  The court denied Mason’s motion for clarification without any explanation [DE #493]. See Exhibit A-1.  Mason had previously filed two motions for an expedited ruling [DE #’s 288, 305] which were both denied without explanation by the Magistrate Judge. See Exhibits A-2 and A-3.  Plaintiff also filed an appeal [DE #333] of the Magistrate’s Judges denial of plaintiff’s motion for an expedited ruling with the District Judge which was denied. See Exhibit A-4.