FREE HIT COUNTER

CONFIDENTIAL
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE  

OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Miscellaneous No. 05-0020

Actual Document PDF file
FILED
JUNE 27, 2005
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL.
THOMAS K. KAHN

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT FILED BY MARCELLUS M. MASON



IN RE: The complaint of Marcellus M. Mason, against Donald L. Graham, United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Chapter 16 of Title 28 U.S.C. § 351-364.


ORDER

Mr. Marcellus M. Mason filed this complaint against U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham pursuant to Chapter 16 of Title 28 U.S.C. § 351(a) and Addendum III to the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit.

 

In this complaint Mr. Mason, although worded differently that his previous complaints, re-makes the allegation that Judge Graham denied him access to the courts by summarily denying a string of motions for in forma pauperis and that Judge Graham did not identify either of the only two reasons allowed for such denial.

 

The allegations of this Complaint are "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling" and "successive". Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 16 of Title 28 U.S.C. 352(b)( 1 )(ii) and Addendum III Rules 4(b)(2) and 18(c), this Complaint is DISMISSED.


 

Docket No. 05-0020

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

 

J.L. Edmondson

c/o Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
56 Forsyth St. N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 3030

 

 

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)http://secretlaw.com; (2)http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/ ; (3)http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com; (4)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.  Under the standard set forth in Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corporation, 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997), Mr. Graham should have been disqualified for failing to manage the docket alone, without mentioning the lying and usurping legal authority, either of which required disqualification.  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, denying in forma pauperis applications arbitrarily.  Mr. Graham is not permitted to thwart access to the Courts. 

 

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 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee, 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.  

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This Complaint should not only be viewed and adjudged on its own merits, but it should also be viewed in context with the other 372(c) complaints filed against Mr. Graham and docketed under Case Nos.  05-0008, 05-0011, 05-0012, and 05-0013.  The totality of these complaints will demonstrate a reckless behavior and contempt for the laws of this country.  These documented acts of misconduct easily support the notion that “Judge” Graham must be impeached forthwith. 

 

On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham rendered an injunction or “pre-filing” screen requirement against me which subjects my right to seek redress in the courts against alleged government tortfeasors involved in this matter.  See 99-14027-CV_Graham, (DE #878), URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-878/de878.pdf .  In this order, Judge Graham boldly admits that it was issued sua sponte

 

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD

 

 

 

Case No.

Docket Entry #

URL

1

00-14201

9

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14201/de9.pdf

2

00-14201

12

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14201/de12.pdf

3

00-14201

13

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14201/de13.pdf

4

00-14201

20

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14201/de20.pdf

5

00-14201

22

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14201/de22.pdf

6

99-14027

877

http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-877/de877.pdf

7

99-14027

906

http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-906/de906.pdf

8

00-14202

9

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14202/DE-9/de9.pdf

9

00-14202

10

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14202/DE-10/de10.pdf

10

00-14202

12

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14202/DE-12/de12.pdf

11

00-14202

19

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14202/DE-19/de19.pdf

12

00-14202

22

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14202/DE-22/de22.pdf

13

00-14116

10

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14116/de10.tif

14

00-14240

43

http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14240/de43.pdf

15

01-14230

57

http://mmason.freeshell.org/01-14230/de57.pdf

16

01-14310

101

http://mmason.freeshell.org/01-14310/de101.pdf

17

01-14078

8

http://mmason.freeshell.org/01-14078/de8.pdf

18

99-14027

939

http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-939/de939.pdf

 

 

 

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.  Mr. Graham, Do you understand this matter is NOT over?  Do you understand?  In fact, I am reviewing Graham’s record for more 372(c) complaints.  Given Graham’s extensive history this is an easy task.  The other here is to have the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee and Congress watch “sausage” being made with respect to section 372(c) complaints. 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Marcellus M. Mason

218 Atterberry Drive

Sebring, FL 33870

Phone: 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 M. Bowman II

Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse

Room 24.329

111 South 10th Street

St. Louis, MO 63102

 

Judge D. Brock Hornby

U.S. District Court for the District of Maine

PORTLAND COURTHOUSE

156 Federal Street

Portland, Maine 04101

 

Judge Sarah Evans Barke,

United States District Court

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

 

 


In Addition to the Internet, these allegations are fully supported and documented in my Complaint dated January 29, 2005, Complaint No. 05-0008, ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, pps. 2-4.

  “(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings”  Code Of Conduct For United States Judges, Canon 3A“(5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.” Id.

 

 This order actually arbitrarily denies three different IFP motions.  See (DE #796, #799,&#811 ).

 

 This is a really outrageous abuse of the IFP statute and an insidious attack my right for appellate review in that this IFP denial takes away my right to oppose a whopping $200,000 attorney’s fees judgment that Graham imposed against me. 

 In addition to denying the in forma pauperis application, Graham also expressly refuses to disclose his reasons for denying the IFP application by denying a Defendant's Motion for Clarification on Defendant's Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis by stating: “Defendants Motion for Clarification on Defendant's Motion to Proceed On Appeal In Forma Pauperis:is DENIED as MOOT. ”.

 

 This was a particularly offensive abuse of the IFP statute because Graham disallowed me the opportunity fight off a judgment awarding attorney’s fees of $5340.00 when it knew for a fact that such a award would bankrupt Mason. (DE #48, pg. 4);(DE #51).

 I had to file two motions for a ruling on his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (DE #5);(DE #7).

 This arbitrary denial comes despite the fact that Graham knows he has four 372(c) pending.