The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Courtof Appeal, will not even discuss, much less remedy, factual allegationsof misconduct against Judge Donald L. Graham. Allegations ofmisconduct have been leveled at Judge Graham in the following forms:direct appeal, mandamus, personal letters, and Section 372(c)complaints. These allegations are not denied because they can notbe, but simply ignored. Judge Graham has been accsused of:intentionally lying and misrepresenting the law; refusing to rule on amotion for a preliminary injunction for more than 15 months; allowingscores of motions to go undecided; usurping legal authority, concoctinga criminal contempt complaint.
RECORD SUPPORT OF ALLEGATIONSOF MISCONDUCT
The beauty of the Internet is that one can make documents that wouldotherwise be held secret by the courts be held up to public scrutiny.
- Lying andintentionally misrepresenting the law. A judge’s honestyand integrity lie at the very heart of that system. See In re Shenberg,632 So. 2d 42, 47 (Fla. 1992). Donald L. Graham lied by tellingme one version of the law and another version of the law to adifferent Plaintiff. Graham stated in my lawsuit that I could notstate a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against a state actor whileat the very same time he allowed a Plaintiff to state a claim under 42U.S.C. § 1981 against the very same state actor. In mylawsuit, Case No. 99-14027-CIV-Graham, Graham's Court stated: "Counts Eight, Nineteen,Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and Twenty-Five deal with §1981claims. This Court believes that those claims should likewise bedismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Buttsv. 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 forviolation of rights contained in §1981. The Plaintiffhas a valid §1983 count pending concerninghis termination of employment. He has two Title VII claims as well as adisparate treatment claim pending. The Plaintiffs response does notgive sufficient reason why he is entitled to plead a §1981 claimin light of the Buffs decision. Therefore, this Court is going torecommend to the District Court that Counts Eight, Nineteen,Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and Twenty-Five be dismissed with prejudice." See Page3, Report and Recommendation, (DE #435), Page1, Page2, Page3, Page4, Page5, Page6, Page7, Page8, and Page9. Graham signed this Report and Recommendation. SeeOrder (DE#466), page2. At the very same time, Graham was saying that I could notstate a claim against a state actor under §1981, he was allowingthe Plaintiff to state a claim under §1981 against the very samestate actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, in CaseNo. 00-14094-CIV-Graham, FaNina 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 Buttsv. 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) (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 hecould not have told the truth to the both of us.
- Refusing to Rule onan important motion. Allowing a motion for a preliminaryinjunction for to languish in court for 574 days and not making a ruling. The motion for preliminary injunction was initially filed on November24, 1999. See (DE #39). See PacerReportsDocketEntries99-14027.html. Essentially, Graham gave himself permission not to rule on a motion forinjunctive relief. Despite repeated requests, Graham refused todisclose why he wouldn't rule on the motion for a preliminaryinjunction. As a side matter, when I filed petitionfor mandamus (Case No. 01-11305) with the Eleventh Circuit, theEleventh Circuit simply stated: "Hismandamus petition, however, is frivolous because he has failed toestablish that he is entitled to mandamus relief to compel the districtcourt to rule on his motion for preliminary injunction." See Order Dated April 26, 2001, page1, page2.
- Allowing scores of motions to languishin court for up to 8 months and not taking any action. SeeEleventh Circuit Special Docket No.: 01-0054, HTMLFormat.
- Usurpinglegal authority by telling a non litigant that he must seek thepermission of a private for profit law firm in order to request publicrecords under Florida Law. “Plaintiffshall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any requestsfor public records.” (DE#246), page2. See 01-0054, HTMLFormat. See also (DE#201) where Judge Graham's Magistrate outlaws direct communicationwith the government. Additionally, even though Judge Graham wassued personally for acting in clear violation of all legal authority,neither Judge Graham, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, nor the EleventhCircuit would state where Judge Graham got the legal authority torender these orders, (DE#201), (DE#246). See Graham'sLawuit.
- JudgeGraham abused the criminal contempt procedure to intimidate meand attempt to force me to drop an embarrassing lawsuit filed againsthim. Seeorgfree.com. Even though the process had started overtwo years ago and a complaint was filed by the U.S. Attorney, there hasbeen no action in the case. I demanded this case proceed on themerits so that I could confront and cross-examine Judge Graham. Acomplaint was filed in December 2002. For more information, see ContemptAbuses page.
- ConcealingInformation and falsely completing a Civil Justice Reform Act Report. When Judge Graham completed his Civil Justice Reform Act Report forMarch 31, 2001, he shows that he had no motions pending for more than 6months. This information is false because the motion for apreliminary injunction had been pending for more 492 days or about 16.4months. CJRAReport. See above.
EFFORTS TO SEEKREDRESS AT THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
The Eleventh Circuit undermined every effort made to have theallegations of misconduct and judicial abuse, as described above,investigated. No matter the forum or venue, the Eleventh Circuitsimply ignored the allegations.
Case No. 01-13664
This is a directappeal that accuses Judge Graham of the above misconduct, however,while very verbose, the Eleventh Circuit makes no metntion of theseallegations even though the Appellant's brief argues that Judge Grahamshould have disqualifed because of the above allegations ofmisconduct. Appellant'sCorrectedInitial Brief, andEleventh Circuits unpublishedopinion.
Personal Letters-CaseNo. 01-13664
Personal letters were sent to Judges Marcus,Black, and Birch informing that their unpublishedopinion did not addressserious allegations of misconduct. Along with this letter, a CDwith the actual briefs and thier opinion along with supportingdocuments was sent to them. These Judges declined to respond tothe letter and CD. There was a secondletter sent to thesejudges informing them that these matters were being posted to theInternet. Again these judges declined to respond.
Case No. 01-15754
This is a manamuspetition that accuses Judge Graham of the abovemisconduct, however, in a very terse statement (one word), the EleventhCircuit simply denies the petition and Circuit makes absolutely nometntion of these allegations even though the Petitioner's brief arguesthat Judge Graham should have disqualifed because of the aboveallegations of misconduct. See MandamusPetition and OrderDenying Mandamus. The mandamus petition is very specific and 24 pages in length.
Personal Letters-CaseNo. 01-15754
Personalletters were sent toJudges Marcus, Black, and Marcus informing them that their unpublishedopiniondid not address serious allegations of misconduct. TheseJudges declined torespond to the letter and CD.
Case No. 01-0054
Case No. 01-0054 is a Section 372(c) Complaint which, among other things, specificallycomplains of the above allegations of misconduct. See Complaint. There is no mention, much less acknowledgment of the veracity of theallegations of misconduct. Chief Judge Lanier Anderson simplystates: "The allegations of theComplaint are "directly related to the merit of a decision orprocedural ruling" and or Action on the complaint is no longernecessary because of intervening events, and therefore moot".Consequently, pursuant to 28 U,S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A) and (3)(B) andAddendum Three Rule 4 (a)(2), this Complaint is DISMISSED." SeeJudge Lanier Anderson's Order. A petition for reviewwas subsequently filed with the Judicial Council who declined toinvestigate this matter. See JudicialCouncil's Declination Order.
There is even more to this story to be added at future date !!
|
