Docket No. 05-0008
J.L.
Edmondson
c/o Thomas K. Kahn, ClerkU.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th CircuitAtlanta , Georgia
Judge
Edmondson, I believe your job is to investigate, not to seek a contrived or
concocted reason for a summary dismissal. However, I have lightened your
load by making all the documentation necessary to investigate this matter
publicly available on the Internet. In general you can visit any of four
different websites for documentation: (1) (1)http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/
; (2)http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com ;
(3)http://mmason/freeshell.org ;
Moreover, I have cited to the Internet where the appropriate documents can be
downloaded.
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; and usurping legal
authority. These allegations were specifically mentioned and supported by
actual documents in the following cases with the Eleventh Circuit: Direct
Appeal, Case No. 01-13664-A, mandamus, Case No. 01-15754,
however there is no mention of these allegations in any of these actions.
It would appear that a law clerk at the Eleventh Circuit gave himself
permission to simply ignore these very serious allegations because they can not
be denied. This is unacceptable and simply will not be tolerated.
Mr. Donald L. Graham is going to be held accountable for his actions.
Please see URL: http://mmason/freeshell.org/refusetodiscuss.html
; and http://mmason/freeshell.org/trickery/trickery.htm .
It would appear that the Eleventh Circuit is unwilling to address allegations
of misconduct by a federal judge either by the appellate process or by Section
372(c) complaint. Congress did make the appellate process and section
372(c) mutually exclusive. Your court has refused to address these
allegations of misconduct in all forums, as your court has not found a forum
where it wants to discuss and investigate these allegations. Answers like
the following are insufficient and simply will not be tolerated:
The allegations of the Complaint are "directly
related to the merit 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 .
There
is no such thing as lying on the merits, or refusing to rule on motions on the
merits, or usurping legal authority on the merits. You are going to have
to insult the Congress and the Supreme Court’s intelligence now.
Congress
did not intend for Chief Judges to rid themselves of complaints of misconduct
by simply citing, without investigation and substantiation, the summary
dismissal clause of the statute. However, if they did, they should
know. To that end, a copy of this complaint has been mailed to the 2004
Rehnquist-Breyer Commission, the Chairman and ranking
member of both the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives and
Subcommittee on Courts, and J. Kennedy and Chief Justice Rehnquist as
well.
ALLEGATIONS
OF MISCONDUCT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD
Lying
and intentionally misrepresenting the law 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://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2394948.jpg ;
Page
2 , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395120.jpg ,
Page
3 , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395222.jpg ,
Page
4 , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395620.jpg ,
Page
5 , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395722.jpg ,
Page
6 , http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395812.jpg ,
Page
7 , Page
8 , and Page
9 . Graham signed this Report and Recommendation. See Order
(DE
#466) , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-466/P2392413.jpg ,
page
2 , http://mmason.freeshell.org/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://mmason.freeshell.org/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://mmason.freeshell.org/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://mmason.freeshell.org/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://mmason.freeshell.org/11305/P2176502.jpg ,
page
2 , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/11305/P2176601.jpg .
. Allowing scores of motions
to languish in court for up to 8 months and not taking any actionUsurping 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://mmason.freeshell.org/P2173532.jpg ;
page
2 , URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/P2173717.jpg ;
See also (DE
#201 ), URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/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://mmason.freeshell.org/DE201Orders/de201.pdf
;(DE
#246 ), http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE201Orders/de246.pdf
. See Graham's
Lawuit , http://mmason.freeshell.org/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://mmason.freeshell.org/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.
I
am going pound away at Judge Graham’s RECORD. This Court is
powerless to stop the truth of these allegations. The Eleventh Circuit
and individual judges can only ruin its own reputation. Judge
Graham’s record has been downloaded by every segment of the legal
community.
Sincerely,
Macellus M. Mason
218 Atterberry Drive
Sebring FL
33870
Pohone : 863-314-9307
CC:
Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist
Office Of The Clerk
Supreme Court Of The United States
Washington, D. C. 20543
Justice
Stephen G. Breyer
Office Of The Clerk
Supreme Court Of The United States
Washington, D. C. 20543
Anthony
M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
Office Of The Clerk
Supreme Court Of The United States
Washington, D. C. 20543
Judge
J. Harvie Wilkinson III
255 West Main Street
Charlottesville VA 22902
Judge
Pasco
Thomas
F. Eagleton Courthouse
Room
24.329
111 South 10th Street
St. Louis MO 63102
Judge
D. Brock Hornby
U.S.
PORTLAND COURTHOUSE
156 Federal Street
, Maine 04101
Judge
Sarah Evans Barke ,
United States
105
U.S. Courthouse
46 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis IN 46204
Sally
M. Rider
Office
of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice
Supreme
Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20543