[Valid RSS]
 
 

» trickery

 » Site Map

 »Undermining  Appeals 

 »Invalid Pre-Filing Injunction

»Tale of Two Appeals

 »$200,000 Attorney's Fees

 »Absolutely Immune

 »Framing An Innocent Man

 »No Right To have Motion  Decided

»MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS
01-0054
02-0052
05-0008
05-0011
05-0012
05-0013
05-0020
05-0021

» Junk Law

  » contact
 

  » about


Dirty Little Secrets of Judge Donald L.  Graham and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals

Last updated Sunday, March 23, 2014


Justice Turned On Its Head

Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don" , a President George H.W. Bush 1992 appointee

Judge Donald L. Graham is Above the Law!!!

Google Custom Search

!!New Blog on How the Eleventh Circuit Uses Unpublished Decisions Ton Conceal Misconduct

Google Custom Search

PENDING

On March 21, 2014, a NOTICE OF APPEAL, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was mailed to the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeal, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, and Highlands County, Florida.  This appeal or mandamus petition is about one of the most incredible stories of dishonesty and lawlessness that one could imagine.  On September 20, 2001, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham or "Teflon Don" issued a pre-filing injunction sua sponte.  See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878) .  Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. The Eleventh Circuit has absolutely refused to review this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction for validity, even while it is reversing other judges like U.S. District Judge Maurice M. Paul in Smith v. United States Of America, 386 Fed. Appx. 853; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14050 (11th Cir. 2010) for doing the exact same thing.  Read the opinion!  If you don't read anything else, please see  http://mmason.freeshell.org/blog/sets_sets_guiness_world_record.htm.  Judge Paul, his former law clerks, and every other federal judge at the Northern District of Florida are aware this matter because they were notified. 


What This Website is About

This site contains a wealth of information; It is difficult, if not impossible, to organize in any coherent way. However at its core this site tells at least three remarkable and incredible stories:

  • The first story is of judicial misconduct and abuse by U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don", a President George H.W. Bush 1992 appointee.  Serious charges are raised against Judge Graham, which if true, would require removal in almost every state.  See Core Allegations of Misconduct.  This website documents Judge Graham's lawlessness and complete disregard for any binding precedent he disagrees with.  Lastly, and more importantly, the reason why Judge Graham is derisively, but accurately referred to as "Teflon Don" is because Judge Graham has been able to perfectly escape any type of sanction without so much as a scratch. 

  • The second story is of the extreme measures taken by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal to conceal the judicial misconduct and abuse of U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don".  The primary method used to accomplish this objective is secrecy which is accomplished through unpublished decisions and confidentiality laws.  The public trust in the federal judiciary is exploited.  Malcontents are labeled as mere "disgruntled litigants" who simply "disagree". 

  • The third story is about a legal zone or domain that federal judges have created where lawlessness, dishonesty, and abusive behavior runs unabated or rampant .  This zone can also be thought of as a secret underground body of law.  This zone or domain is created for the express and nefarious purpose to concoct or manufacture an outcome that the facts and the law cannot otherwise justify.  For a single documented instance of this zone of lawlessness or secret underground body of law, see Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell or alternatively at http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/eleventh-circuit-case-no-01-13664-the-appeal-from-hell/.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pending Matters

Quick Bio

What This Website is About

Goals and Objectives

External Links

Background

A Tale of Two Appeals, Same Facts, Same Law, Different Results.

Judicial Independence Equals Non-Accountability

Judge Graham Defies The Supreme Court

Trickery

Abuse of Inherent Authority And Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction

Kangaroo Court or Sham Trial

Overruling the First Amendment

Allegations Of Misconduct Are Not Addressed

Junk Law

Blocking Access To The Courts and "IFP" Abuse

Documented Allegations of Judicial Abuse and Misconduct


Pending Matters

On March 21, 2014, a NOTICE OF APPEAL, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was mailed to the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeal, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, and Highlands County, Florida.  This appeal or mandamus petition is about one of the most incredible stories of dishonesty and lawlessness that one could imagine.  On September 20, 2001, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham or "Teflon Don" issued a pre-filing injunction sua sponte.  See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878) .  Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. The Eleventh Circuit has absolutely refused to review this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction for validity, even while it is reversing other judges like U.S. District Judge Maurice M. Paul in Smith v. United States Of America, 386 Fed. Appx. 853; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14050 (11th Cir. 2010) for doing the exact same thing.  Read the opinion!  If you don't read anything else, please see  http://mmason.freeshell.org/blog/sets_sets_guiness_world_record.htm.  Judge Paul, his former law clerks, and every other federal judge at the Northern District of Florida are aware this matter because they were notified. 

 


Quick Bio

U. S. District Judge Donald L. Graham is a 1992 President George Herbert Walker Bush appointee.  Judge Graham is presumably a 'strict constructionist' . In a letter to former Attorney General John Mitchell, now deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist then head of Office of Legal Counsel, described a strict constructionist as : "A judge who is a 'strict constructionist' in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs."  See FindLaw's Writ - Lazarus: Telling the Story of Justice Rehnquist's Nomination.  As this webpage will prove, Judge Graham is not a 'strict constructionist' , but an activist judge making up laws and disdaining binding precedent as he sees fit with apparent impunity.


Goals and Objectives

The goal of this website and related website is to assist in achieving the following:

  • More public awareness about the Federal Judiciary.

  • To abolish unpublished opinions.

  • To establish the fact that there is a secret underground body of law.

  • To show how one federal judge maybe favored another federal judge.

  • To help explain why a federal judge may not have a "paper trail".

  • To modify "Judicial Independence" to hold federal judges accountable when they willfully disrespect or ignore the rule of law. 


External Links

This site is augmented by other websites or blogs about Judge Graham. These sites include:


BACKGROUND

Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. of Sebring, Fl. filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and the Heartland Library Cooperative and other governmental entities and their individual government employees in February 1999.  See Docket Sheet. This case was originally assigned to Judge Edward Davis, retired, and ultimately assigned to Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don", 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 and constitutionally protected and legal communications between Highlands County and Mason. See "R&R" (D.E. 766), Order adopting R&R (D.E 791).  See Banned Communications.   On June 13, 2000 , the Government Defendants through their attorneys,  Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, filed a "DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (D.E. 199)" which specifically requested:  "Defendants move the Court for an injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting any of the Defendants and/or their supervisory employees...".  Defendant's counsel, Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, cited no legal authority for the requested relief.  On July 6, 2000, the Government Defendants through their attorneys,  Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji, filed a "DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (D.E. #231)", and requested the following relief:

Defendants respectfully renew their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Plaintiff from contacting the supervisory employees of the Defendants or the individual Defendants directly, and directing Plaintiff to make all public records requests through the undersigned counsel.

This motion, as the first motion cited no legal authority for the requested relief. These requests or motions for preliminary injunctions were granted on June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, respectively.  These orders required Mason, a nonlawyer, living in Sebring, FL to contact private attorneys some 90 miles away in Tampa, FL  to ask for permission to speak with his local government in Sebring, Florida.  These orders in pertinent part stated:   

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. 

Judge Graham has expressly stated that the issuance of the injunctions by Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. was not "clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law. See Docket Entry No. 407. However, Congress and the law disagree as the law expressly states that: "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary— a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief...,"  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).   Judge Graham has NEVER at any time cited legal authorities for these patently illegal orders even though there have been relentless requests.  See for example, and note that this list is not collectively exhausted, Case No. 99-14027 see Plaintiff’s  motions and responses, (Doc.#200);(Doc. #239); (Doc. #262);(Doc.  #264);(Doc. #284);(Doc.#334);(Doc. #509);(Doc. #515);(Doc. #526);(Doc. 554);(Doc. 632, pg.5);(Doc.#633);(Doc. 652);(Doc. 663); (Doc. 735); (Doc. 736); (Doc.738); (Doc. 783); (Doc. 787, pgs 2-3); (Doc. 810); (Doc. 812); (Doc.813); (Doc. 817); (Doc. 829), (Doc. 845);and the court's orders: (DE #201), (DE #246);(Doc. #279);(Doc. 281);(Doc. #407);(Doc.  #524);(Doc. #528);(Doc. #634);(Doc. 673);(Doc. 744);(Doc. 745);(Doc.  766);(Doc. 791);(Doc. 874, pg. 2);(Doc. 882, pgs. 1-2); (DE-890); (DE-928);(DE-931).

On March 2, 2001, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners attorneys, Allen, Norton & Blue, filed a "DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW".  See Docket Entry No. 511.  This motion sought dismissal of the lawsuit due to alleged out of court communications with the Highlands County Government in violation the injunctions mentioned above, (DE #201) and (DE #246).  On April 9, 2001, the Defendants' filed a second motion for sanctions in the form of dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit for more alleged out of court communications between Mason and the Highlands County Government.  See Docket Entry No. 646. On May 31, 2001, the Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr., prepared a Report and Recommendation, "R&R", (D.E. #766), recommended that the lawsuit be dismissed because of these out of court communications between Mason and his local government, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners.  Judge Graham accepted this R&R in whole with no changes or comments.  See (D.E. #791).

Additionally, in his Report and Recommendation that recommends that the lawsuit be dismissed because of alleged violations of the orders of June 19, 2000, (D.E. #201) and July 25, 2000, (D.E. #246), the Magistrate admits that the validity of these orders were being challenged, but he declines to assert legal authority for these orders by stating only:

The Plaintiff alludes to this Court's rulings, issued June 19 and July 25, 2000, directing that he should not contact any of the Defendants or individual Defendants, including their supervisory employees, regarding any matter related to this case except through their counsel of record. If the Plaintiff was represented, his attorney would know that this is proper procedure. The Plaintiff questions this Court's authority to enter an "injunction" as he calls it preventing him from contacting the parties directly. This Court has entered numerous orders on this issue in ruling on Plaintiff's many requests for clarification ito vacate, etc., of this issue and has attempted to clearly point out to the Plaintiff that it is a discovery issue and not one appropriate for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff has appealed those orders to the District Court and they have been affirmed by Judge Graham.

See Report and Recommendation, (D.E. #766, pg. 3, ¶5).  This case was closed on June 20, 2001.

 

Case Closure

The Case was closed on June 20, 2001. Docket Entry No. 791.  A Notice of Appeal was filed on June 25, 2001.  ( Docket Entry 795).  District Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham was assigned Eleventh Circuit Case No.  01-13664.  Consequently, the court never reached the merits of the  lawsuit as there were motions for summary judgments pending when the case was closed.  See Docket Sheet. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 769);(Doc. 770), and the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well, (Doc. 507); (Doc. 667); (Doc. 668); (Doc. 706); (Doc. 797). 

Post Closing Order(s)

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham rendered a pre-fling injunction sua sponte, or on his motion and without notice to the litigant Marcellus M. Mason.  See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878) .  Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.   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. See Web Page on Sua Sponte Issued pre-filing injunctions.  "Sua sponte, Latin for "of one's own accord," is a legal term that means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge, taken without a prior motion or request from the parties."  URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sua_sponte 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 Eleventh Circuit has refused to review this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction for validity in what has to be a record number of times .  See Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sets Guiness World Record For Refusing to Review Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction

Attorney's Fees

On July 23, 2001, the Defendants filed a motion for attorney's fees.  (D.E. #800). This motion sought to be awarded some $403,350.00 in attorneys' fees and costs.  On October 4, 2001, Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. issued his Report and Recommendation which recommended that the Defendants be awarded some $200,000 in attorneys' fees.  (D.E. #882).  On January 25, 2002, Judge Graham adopted this Report and Recommendation and issued an order awarding the Defendants $200,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.  (D.E. #891).  The entire matter is fully discussed on the web page "Judge Donald L. Graham Awards $200,000 Attorney's Fees Against An Indigent".

 


Tale of Two Appeals

Judge Graham has been affirmed on appeal while some of his colleagues at the S.D. Florida and other federal judges were reversed on the same set of facts.  The Eleventh Circuit used unpublished opinions to affirm Judge Graham while his colleagues were reversed using published opinions. Essentially the Eleventh Circuit has created a secret underground body of law.  See Tale of Two Appeals Home Page.  

Eleventh Circuit Uses Same Set of Facts To Reverse One Florida Judge While Affirming Another Florida Judge
U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham was affirmed or upheld on appeal for the exact same set of facts that his colleague, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, at S.D. Fla. was reversed on appeal. In Martinez, v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004), the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley's denial of an IFP application for failing to a reason for the denial.  However, Judge Donald L. Graham in the same Court, Southern District of Florida, did the exact thing as Judge Hurley, but Judge Graham was affirmed.  This fact can be verified in five minutes by reading mmason.freeshell.org/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.  


“Teflon Don” Avoids Reversal While Colleague Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages Suffers Reversal“.

U.S. Dist. Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages was reversed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit for failing to make Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)’s requisite finding that “lesser sanctions would not suffice” while her colleague U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, failed to make the same finding but was affirmed on appeal. 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.freeshell.org/WorldThrust.htm. As if this was bad enough, the Eleventh Circuit used an invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction that issued on September 20, 2001 to make an implicit finding under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) to justify a dismissal of a case that was closed three months earlier on June 20, 2001. The Eleventh Circuit used the very same invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction that it struck Mason's brief for arguing because the Eleventh Circuit claimed that this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was "beyond the scope of appeal." For more see, mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm

Same Facts, Judge Wilbur D. Owens Reversed, Judge Donald L. Graham Affirmed

The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal,  effectively affirmed or upheld U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham, Southern District of Florida,  on appeal for the exact same set of facts that his colleague, Senior Judge Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., Middle District of  Georgia, was reversed for on appeal. In their individual cases, both Judge Graham and Judge Owens used their inherent power to make a finding of “bad faith”; however, Judge Owens was reversed on appeal for failing to afford the sanctioned party due process while Judge Graham committed the exact same error but was not reversed. 

 

Eleventh Circuit Uses Unpublished Opinion and Omission(Deception) To Invoke Res Judicata

In Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 142 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999), U.S. Dist. Judge Marvin H. Shoob, Northern District of Georgia, a part of the Eleventh Circuit, was reversed on appeal for the same set of facts that Judge Graham was affirmed. Judge Shoob was victimized by a published decision while Judge Graham’s actions were saluted with an unpublished opinion. Other Judges in the Eleventh Circuit and particular judges at the Southern District of Florida have suffered reversals in published opinions for the same set of facts that Judge Graham has been affirmed for.

 

U.S. Dist. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas Reversed While Colleague Judge Donald L. Graham Affirmed by Killing The Appeal

U.S. Dist. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas was reversed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit for Imposition of Sanctions beyond the litigant’s ability to pay. During the same time period, Judge Dimitrouleas’ colleague, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, awarded $200,000 in attorneys’ fees against an indigent who was proceeding in forma pauperis but was nevertheless affirmed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Graham was affirmed by what can only be described as a very pernicious act in that the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Judge Graham by denying the indigent litigant the right to an appeal the mammoth award of $200,000 in forma pauperis. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit had to take the following extreme measures to keep from reversing “Teflon Don” in the underlying merits appeal, Case No. 01-13664:

Another One Bites the Dust: Same Set of Facts, Judge Graham Affirmed While Colleague Judge Forrester Reversed

U.S. Dist. J. Owen Forrester was reversed on appeal in a published opinion while U.S. Judge Graham was affirmed.  Judge Forrester.  In  Arsenio Leal v. Georgia Department Of Corrections, 254 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit held that a notice of appeal filed before the final judgment was issued met the legal requirements. In so doing, the Eleventh Circuit proceeded to the merits of the appeal and reversed.  In stark contrast, Mason filed a notice of appeal prior to final judgment and the Eleventh Circuit, using an unpublished opinion, dismissed the appeal to avoid reaching the merits of the appeal.  The order being appealed was a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction

 

Judge Graham Disagrees With The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals

Judge Vanessa D Gilmore in Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005)  who was reversed for issuing an unconstitutional prior restraint, while Judge Graham has escaped appellate review because the Eleventh Circuit has declined to review his orders or injunctions for validity in what has to be a record number of times. See this site's posting "Eleventh Circuit Repeatedly Refuses To Review Orders For Validity".

 


Judicial Independence Equals Non-Accountability

Judicial Independence as practiced by the Federal Judiciary means no accountability.   Judge Graham has committed egregious acts of abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct  that have been fully documented.  Judge Graham has been labeled "Teflon Don" because none of these egregious acts of abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct have been to stick to hime. "Judicial independence is the doctrine that decisions of the judiciary should be impartial and not subject to influence from the other branches of government or from private or political interests. In most cases, judicial independence is secured by giving judges long, and sometimes lifetime, tenure and making them not easily removable.See Wikipedia. Inherent in the notion of "judicial independence" with respect to the Federal Judiciary is the premise that federal judges can and will discipline each other without "interference" from the Congress and the public at large.  This website will prove that federal judges can not be trusted to discipline other federal judges.  Additionally, this website will prove that federal judges will take extreme measures to keep from disciplining a fellow judge.  Federal Judges can "discipline" or remedy bad conduct by a judge in several ways:

  • Appellate Process.  This process includes direct appeals, mandamus, and certiorari.  In this matter, Judge Graham's actions, though fully briefed in the appellate process on multiple occasions, are simply ignored and not addressed. 
  • Lawsuit Against Offending Judge. Judges have given themselves "absolute immunity" from lawsuits and the reality is that judges are absolutely immune from their misconduct no matter how egregious. 
  • Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. These complaints are routinely and summarily dismissed at a rate exceeding 90 per cent.  The chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit has defined judicial misconduct out of existence. 
  • Informal Methods.  This amounts to off the record communications with the offending judge.  The complainant has no proof that anything has been done to correct bad behavior. 

The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has undermined each of the preceding methods of discipline.  A detailed account of each of these methods were undermined is documented at:  http://mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm.

 


Judge Graham Defies The Supreme Court

Judge Graham has defied the authority of the United States Supreme Court.  In an apparent effort to demonstrate to Mason that he can do whatever he wants to do, Judge Graham has willingly chose to not to follow binding authority of the United States Supreme Court.  Judge Graham has chosen to ignore landmark and well established Supreme Court decisions in the following areas:

  • Due Process
  • Right of Access to the Courts
  • In Forma Pauperis
  • Attorneys' Fees.
  • Free Speech and Prior Restraints

Articles and posts listing Supreme Court binding precedent that Judge Graham has eschewed are:


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".  The trickery described in this web page perfectly exemplified in an extreme case and appeal.  See post "Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell".



Abuse of Inherent Authority And Sua Sponte Issued Pre-filing Injunction

"Inherent Authority"

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham rendered a pre-fling injunction sua sponte, or on his motion and without notice to the litigant Marcellus M. Mason.  See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878) .  Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.   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, Latin for "of one's own accord," is a legal term that means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge, taken without a prior motion or request from the parties."  URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sua_sponteSua 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 this same clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001and made it the basis of a criminal contempt complaint.  See the Government's Information.   

The Eleventh Circuit has taken dishonesty to a new "height" or "low" with its absolute refusal to review the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction for validity.  see  http://mmason.freeshell.org/blog/sets_sets_guiness_world_record.htm.


Kangaroo Court or Sham Trial

"Kangaroo courts are judicial proceedings that deny due process in the name of expediency."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court. A cursory examination of U.S. v. Marcellus Mason, Case No. 02-14020-CR-Moore will easily fit within the definition of a kangaroo court.  The legal rights of Marcellus Mason were summarily dismissed.  See Former U S Attorney Marcos Daniel Jimenz and AUSA Robert H. Waters, Jr.: Lapdogs For U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham?

 

 


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. Statutes, 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 accused 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 Circuit

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


BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND "IFP" ABUSE

In forma pauperis (IFP) is a legal term derived from the Latin phrase in the character or manner of a pauper.  In the United States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense.[2] The status is usually granted by a judge without a hearing, and entitles the person to a waiver of normal costs, and sometimes in criminal cases the appointment of counsel.  URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis

 

The United States Supreme Court has stated:" The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C. 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.  Toward this end, 1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit...1915(d) authorizes federal courts to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis "if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious."Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikelyDenton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). Both Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit have shown a blatant disregard and contempt for the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States by repeatedly denying in forma pauperis unlawfully for no stated reasons or reasons that are contradicted by the record or facts.  


JUDGE GRAHAM'S LAWLESS DENIALS OF IFP

Judge Graham has an incredible record of unlawful IFP denial fully listed at: mmason.freeshell.org/ifp.html#history. A mere sample is listed here.  

November 2, 2000, Judge Graham, who has a very long track record of denying in forma pauperis petitions for no stated reason demonstrated his arrogance and contempt for the Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.  For example:

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. # 2). UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion and the pertinent portions of the record, it is 
Order and Adjudged that Plaintiff's Motion be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.
See Case No. 00-14201, Docket Entry No. 9

 

November 2, 2000. Judge Graham denied IFP twice in the same day in two different cases for no apparent reason.  In Case No. 00-14202, Docket Entry No. 9, Judge Graham stated:

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. # 2). UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion and the pertinent portions of the record, it is Order and Adjudged that Plaintiff's Motion be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.

 On April 30, 2001, Case No. 00-14240, Docket Entry No. 43,

THIS CAUSE came before the court upon Defendant's Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (D.E. # 41) and Defendant's Motion for Clarification on Defendant's Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. THE COURT has reviewed Defendant's Motion, the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Defendant Marcellus M. Mason Jr. has several cases pending in the Court in which his various motions to proceed in forma pauperis have repeatedly been denied. As Defendant is well aware, the Court has already determined that he does qualify to proceed without the payment of fees. Accordingly, it is, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Proceed On Appeal In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. It is further, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Motion for Clarification Defendant's Motion to Proceed On Appeal In Forma Pauperis: DENIED as MOOT.

 On September 18, 2001, CASE NO . 99-14027-CIV-GRAHAM, Docket Entry No. 877,Judge Graham denied three motions, (D.E. 796),(D.E. 799), (D.E. 811)  to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in one fell swoop for the following  reason:

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon an Order of Reference from the Honorable Donald L . Graham, dated September 10 ,2001, and this Court having reviewed the aforementioned Motions and the pertinent portions of the record, and noting that in other actions filed by Plaintiff, Judge Graham has denied Plaintiff' s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Case Nos . 00-14116, 00-14201 ,00-14202, 00-14240), and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiff's previously filed IFP motions and accompanying affidavits with the instant motion and affidavit and has found no relevant difference, and being otherwise advised in the premises ,it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis are DENIED.

 


ELEVENTH CIRCUIT LAWLESS IFP DENIALS

The Eleventh Circuit, like Judge Graham, has a very long history of unlawful denials of IFP.  See mmason.freeshell.org/ifp/KilliingAppeal.htm.

MEAN SPIRITED, PERNICIOUS DENIAL EXAMPLE

On Aug. 23, 2002,  the Eleventh Circuit, and in particular, Judge Charles R. Wilson, without any elaboration, or factual support stated:  Appellant’s motion for leave to file an appeal is DENIED because the appeal is frivolous.  11th Case No. 02-10868.  Judge Charles R. Wilson does not share with us why he thinks it is frivolous to file an appeal of $200, 000 attorneys' fees award.  Judge Graham awarded the Defendant, Highlands County, attorneys' fees of $200,000 based upon an invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction.  The whole story is fully documented at:  mmason.freeshell.org/attorneysfees.htm.

&n 


Documented Allegations of Judicial Abuse and Misconduct

 

  • Judge Graham and his Magistrate usurped legal authority by allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction which is prohibited under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(a)("a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief,...") and ordering Mason not to communicate with his government, Highlands County Board of County Communications.   "[I]t is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED...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." See Docket Entry No. 201. Additionally, Judge Graham prohibited Mason from requesting public records directly from Highlands County. See Docket Entry No. 201.  Among other things, these orders are blatant violations of the First Amendment.  For legal authority, see Overruling the First Amendment
  •   Judge Graham and his Magistrate usurped legal authority by allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction which prohibited direct communication with the Highlands County government by a non-lawyer. "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). " Judge Graham has been both insular and insolent in his apparent belief that has such authority.  Judge Graham has refused to cite legal authority for these orders on multiple occasions. Docket No. 279; Docket No. 281; Docket No. 407; Docket No. 524; Docket No. 528; Docket No. 634; Docket No. 744; Docket No. 745; Docket No.874 Pg. 2; Docket No. 882; Docket No. 890; Docket No. 928; Docket No. 931. Judge Graham's order enjoys absolutely no support in the legal community as every jurisdiction to have considered the matter has rejected this type of order. See "Litigant's Right to Communicate With Government During Litigation", below  Judge Graham's insolence and obstinacy is exemplified below, see EXEMPLAR OF JUDGE GRAHAM'S HUBRIS, section.  Judge Graham has rejected the authority the United States Supreme Court who stated this type of order is an improper prior restraint of free speech.  See Judge Graham Thumbs Nose at Supreme Court's Rulings on Prior Restraints, below.  
  • Judge Graham and his Magistrate usurped legal authority by allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction that prohibited a litigant from requesting Public Records under Florida law directly from a Florida Governmental agency, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners.  "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED... Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any requests for public records."  See Docket Entry No. 246.
  • 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 does not dispute that he intentionally lied.  On December 16, 2004, Docket Entry No. 932, Judge Graham was presented with a letter or request to file a motion stating that he, Judge Graham, had lied, Judge Graham denied the right to file the motion without denying the allegation that he had lied.  See Docket Entry No. 931. Even more incredible, the Eleventh Circuit told two lies on two separate occasions in order to cover for Judge Graham's lie. See Lie# 1 and Lie# 2.
  • 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 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. Judge Graham's failure to rule on this motion is willful because on August 23, 2000, Mason submitted a  MOTION  for expedited ruling on prior request for preliminary injunction.  (D.E. #288). This motion was denied without explanation on September 6, 2000.   (D.E. #300).  An appeal of the Magistrate's denial of an expedited ruling was made to Judge Graham on September 21, 2000. (D.E. #333). This appeal was denied on November 2, 2000 by Judge Graham. (D.E. #410).  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 falsely completed a Civil Justice Reform Act Report, "CJRA" to conceal the fact that he had a motion for a preliminary injunction pending for more than 17 months.  As a matter of fact, Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, rather than investigate the matter simply chose to attack Marcellus Mason by stating 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 .
    See Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 05-008 and Order.
  • Judge Graham rendered a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte, or without notice and opportunity to respond.  Judge Graham has rejected the authority of the United States Supreme Court who has stated that the right of access to the courts is constitutionally protected and as such that any impingement, infringement, or encroachment on a constitutional requires due process. See "The Importance of Due Process" and "Right of Access To The Courts is Constitutionally Protected", below. On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham rendered a pre-filing injunction against the Plaintiff Marcellus M. Mason sua sponte or own his motion. See Docket Entry NO. 878, (D.E. #878, pg. 3). Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. Judge Graham disagrees with the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal and all other U.S. Courts of Appeals who have decided cases involving pre-filing injunctions.  See "Case Law On Pre-Filing Injunctions", below.  Additionally, this sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction is invalid because it also makes a "finding of bad faith".   Judge disagrees with the Supreme Court's requirement on due process for making "bad faith findings". See "U.S. SUPREME COURT ON FINDING OF BAD FAITH", below. Sua Sponte means on the Judges own motion and without notice and opportunity to respond prior to the issuance of the injunction. The law and Constitution requires such notice. In Weaver v. Sch. Bd., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (unpublished) (11th Cir. 2006), the Court held that a litigant was entitled to “notice and an opportunity to be heard” before a restriction was imposed on the litigant’s ability to challenge an injunction. 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 had previously admitted that a pre-filing injunction lacked a sufficient legal basis.  The Defendants, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners and Heartland Library Cooperative filed a separate action, lawsuit, Case No. 00-14240, seeking among other things, a pre-filing injunction.  On February 13, 2001, Judge Graham accepted his Magistrate's Report and Recommendation which stated: "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).  In the period between February 13, 2001 and September 20, 2001, Mason did not file any new lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida. 
  • Judge Graham has been involved in possible criminal behavior by issuing a void sua sponte pre-filing injunction which ultimately formed the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. See Framing An Innocent Person. “Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60 (b) (4) “if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. (emphasis added)” E.g.,Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001). A void judgment is from its inception a legal nullity. U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990)Equally egregious, the Eleventh Circuit, has used all manner of tactics to avoid reviewing this clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunctionSee Sua Sponte page.  
  •  Judge Graham outright lied or stated misleading facts in order to justify rendering a clearly void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001, (DE 878). In order to justify a pre-filing injunction a judge has to prove that the legal process has been abused by the litigant filing an extreme amount of frivolous lawsuits. “Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as a demonstrated history of frivolous and vexatious litigation, or a failure to comply with sanctions imposed for such conduct, a court has no power to prevent a party from filing pleadings, motions or appeals authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Richardson Greenshields Securities, Inc v. Lau, 825 F.2d 647, 652 (2nd Cir. 1987).  Consequently, in order to meet the legal requirements, Judge Graham lied about the amount of lawsuits filed. At pages 1, 2, and 3 of Judge Graham's sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, he attempts to list eleven lawsuits that he claims were filed by Mason in the S.D.Fla. Mr. Graham states, “Marcellus M. Mason ("Mason") has filed eleven (11)cases and/or counterclaims in this District…”  For the purpose of justifying the injunction,  Mr. Graham counted the following lawsuits as being "filed": (1) Case No. 00-14202, (2)Case No. 00-14201, (3) Case No. 00-14116, (4) Case No. 01-14074, (5) 01-14078. In each of these cases Mason filed petitions to file the lawsuit without payment of filing fees due to financial hardship, in forma pauperis, "IFP".   According to Mr. Graham’s own definition of “filing”, "A complaint is not considered filed until the filing fee is paid.See  (DE -10) Case No. 00-14201.  See also (DE -10) Case No. 00-14202.  No filing fee was paid in either of the above cases because Graham arbitrarily denied Mason the benefit of the in forma pauperis statutes.  Using Graham’s own definition there were only 11 minus 5 or 6 lawsuits “filed.”  Case No. 00-14240 which Graham also counts was actually filed by Highlands County, not Mason.  Now Graham has only 5 lawsuits filed.  Case No. 01-14230 was filed in state court and removed to the S.D. Fla. by Highlands County after Graham crafted the injunction where they knew the case would be assigned to Graham.  See Notice of Removal, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-14230/NoticeOfRemoval.pdf.  Graham now has only four lawsuits that Mason filed, not the 11 he concocted.   See Litigation Summary, URL:http://mmason.freeshell.org/LitigationSummary.doc .  The four remaining lawsuits Case Numbers 99-14042, 99-14257, 99-14314 were consolidated with Case number 99-14027.  Judge Graham files to identify a single lawsuit that Mason that was frivolous. 
  • Judge Graham used the criminal contempt process to force the withdrawal of a lawsuit.  Robert Waters, AUSA, in a three way conversation, stated that Judge Graham would drop the impending contempt charge if Marcellus Mason would drop his lawsuit against Judge Graham, however, Marcellus Mason declined.  Marcellus Mason has complained to the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice and offered to take a polygraph under the penalties of perjury. 
  • Judge Graham awarded a massive $200,000 in attorney's fees to Highlands County against an indigent plaintiff, Marcellus Mason, not on the quality of the underlying lawsuit, but based upon Judge Graham's speculation about Mason's motive.&  Judge Davis who was originally assigned the case prior to retirement allowing Mason to proceed in forma pauperis.  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.  The award was based upon a void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction.  See Docket Entry #882.  Judge Graham had pending summary judgment motions that he could have used to determine whether the lawsuit had merit or not but he refused to do so.  Judge Graham has rejected the authority the United States Supreme Court by inherent power to sanction without due process and by failing to follow binding precedent in awarding attorney's fees in civil rights or Title VII cases, see "U.S. SUPREME COURT ON FINDING OF BAD FAITH" and "Judge Graham Rejects U.S. Supreme Court's Rulings On Awarding Attorney's Fees". Judge Graham expressly stated that he was not going to follow the Supreme Court's requirement: "This takes the case beyond the analysis of frivolity. See Report and Recommendation, "R&R", (D.E. #882, pgs. 4).  Judge Graham expressly found that the underlying lawsuit was not frivolous and had merit. "However, there remain, as this Court recommended, various viable claims for trial." See Report and Recommendation, (D.E #766, pg. 5), and Order Adopting R&R, (D.E. 791).
  • Judge Graham has repeatedly improperly denied access to the courts by arbitrarily denying in forma pauperis, "IFP", petitions.  In forma pauperis, or "IFP" allow indigents to file lawsuits by waiving filing fees. Judge Graham denied 18 IFP petitions for no stated reason.  Judge Graham absolutely refused to cite any reason for his denials.  See IFP denial history.  These 18 separate acts constitutes a defiance of the United States Supreme Court who has said that in forma pauperis may only be denied if the lawsuit is frivolous or the allegation of poverty is untrue.  See "The United States Supreme Court On In Forma Pauperis", below.  As a consequence,  to the extent that Teflon Don denies IFP to proceed on appeal, Judge Graham has necessarily arrogated his authority by denying appellate review of his lawless decisions. 
  • Judge Graham attempted to circumvent the appellate process by using intimidation.Mr. Mason advised by the court that he is to no longer file pleadings in this case because it is closed.”  See D.E. 934. On January 9, 2005, Judge Graham issued an order that he termed a "Notice of Hearing" in a civil case, 99-14027 to be held on January 14, 2005. See D.E. 933.  This hearing on a civil motion required U.S. Probation and Lynn Waxman, appellate attorney, in a criminal case to be present.  This hearing was held under the guise of deciding Mason's pending one page request to file a Rule 60(b)(4), Fed.R. Civ. P. motion.  At this hearing, Judge Graham kept saying the case is closed. Judge Graham decided something that day but he refused to put in writing because he knew Mason would attack his ruling, so he had court reporter hand write a threatening letter.  See D.E. 934. Judge Graham knows full well that "[e]ven after a judgment has become final and even after an appeal has been lost, Civil Rule 60(b) gives losing parties additional, narrow grounds for vacating the judgment"  GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corporation, 477 F.3d 368;2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 3102 (6th Cir., 2007).