FREE WEB COUNTER
Docket No. 05-0008
Saturday, January 29, 2005
J.L. Edmondson
c/o Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk
56 Forsyth St. N.W.
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://mmason.freeshell.org; (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. 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. Graham stated in
my lawsuit that I could not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
against a state actor while at the very same time he allowed a
Plaintiff to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against the very same
state actor. In my lawsuit, Case No. 99-14027-CIV-Graham,
Graham's Court 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.
- 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 action[1].
- Usurping 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 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
[1] 438 11/29/00 667 4/18/01
439 11/29/00 703 5/07/01
440 11/29/00 709 5/10/01
441 11/29/00 710 5/10/01
518 3/5/01 711 5/10/01
544 3/12/01 712 5/10/01
561 3/16/01 714 5/10/01
563 3/18/01 715 5/10/01
607 3/28/01 716 5/10/01
632 4/4/01 724 5/11/01
660 4/13/01 726 5/16/01
693 4/30/01 741 5/21/01
694 5/1/01 742 5/21/01
702 5/7/01 749 5/23/01
723 5/11/01 NA 6/15/01733
5/18/01 NA4 6/18/01 734 5/18/01
NA 6-18-01
NA 6-2-01 NA 6-2-01