JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM AND
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: MASTERS OF DISHONESTY
HOME PAGE | JUNK LAW | JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGE GRAHAM | SUA SPONTE ISSUED FILING INJUNCTION | JUDGE GRAHAM'S LAWSUIT | A TALE OF TWO APPEALS, SAME FACTS DIFFERENT RESULTS || ABOUT | JUDGE GRAHAM AWARDS $200,000 ATTORNEY'S FEES AGAINST INDIGENT
 |
Purpose and Background
This web page is part of collection of web pages on this
website, mmason.freeshell.org,
that documents Judicial
Misconduct and Abuse by U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham and the
extreme measures that his colleagues at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court
of Appeals will deploy to conceal the egregious conduct of Judge
Graham. The core allegations of misconduct and abuse by Judge Graham
are listed and documented at mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm.
There are scores of pages and documents on this website and they are all
interlinked. This website tells a story from many different angles
and perspectives. This page is a mere small part of many other pages that demonstrate that the behavior
of a judicial miscreant, Judge Donald L. Graham, will not be remedied by any of
the current methods of judicial discipline. The current methods of
federal judicial discipline are:
The web page, mmason.freeshell.org/methods.htm, documents
how these methods are mocked and abused by dishonest Federal
Judges.
UNDERMINING APPELLATE REVIEW BY REFUSING TO REVIEW INJUNCTIONS FOR VALIDITY
The Eleventh Circuit has not found a forum or legal vehicle where it was
prepared to do its job and perform appellate review. The following orders, [D.C. Case No.
99-14027-CV- Graham, [(Doc.
201), (Doc. 246)]
were rendered by a Magistrate, and are not valid and are violative of the First
Amendment, Tenth Amendment, 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 fails to meet the
legal requirements for a preliminary injunction:
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
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.
Communications Outlawed by Judge Graham
Judge Graham dismissed a lawsuit because out of court communications with a local government. See Report and Recommendation, "R&R",(DE #766); Order Adopting R&R, (DE #791). Highlands County filed motions for sanctions in the form of dismissal for the following conversations.During the week of February 5, 2001, Plaintiff knowingly violated this Court’s Orders of June 19, 200 and July 25, 2000. Plaintiff appeared at the office of Fred Carino, Human Resource Director of Highlands County and a supervisory employee of a named defendant in this action, and demanded to view his personnel file. This request was made directly to Mr. Carino’s office and not through Defendant Highlands County’s counsel.D.E. 511, ¶6, PG.3).
Plaintiff sent e-mail communications directly to supervisory employees of the Defendants, which discussed the "no trespass warnings" that were issued against Plaintiff,...D.E. 646, ¶10, PG.3).
Judge Graham was adamant that Mason not talk to the Highlands County Government. As a matter of fact, on September 20, 2001, three months after the case was closed, Judge Graham said:
[I]ncluding continual attempts to directly communicate with the Defendants rather their attorneys, the Court enjoined Mason from any further contact with the Defendants or Defendants'' employees. Mason, however, ignored the Court's order and continued to contact the Defendants...On June 20, 2001, in view of Mason's repeated refusal to comply with the Court's rules and orders, the Court dismissed case number 99-14027.See Docket No. 878, pgs. 4-5. God damn it, I told you not to talk to the government! Incidentally, this order, Docket No. 878, is pre-filing injunction which is invalid because it was issued sua sponte, or without notice and opportunity to respond prior to its issuance. “THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.” See Document No. 878, pg. 3. There is a string of U.S. appellate courts and state courts, including Florida and Georgia, who have consistently vacated pre-filing injunctions issued without notice and opportunity to respond. See mcneilmason.worpress.com, post entitled "Judge Graham Disagrees With The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, And DC Circuit Courts Of Appeal"
Eleventh Circuit Refuses to Review Orders For Validity
The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal has had a multiplicity of opportunities to review these orders,(DE #201) and (DE #246), but has declined to do so. Following is a
list[1]
of opportunities the Eleventh Circuit has had to review these orders:
a. Case
No. 01-13664
. The Eleventh Circuit rendered a prolix 14 page opinion on October 16, 2002 that
does not discuss the validity of these orders.
It is quite remarkable in that the Eleventh Circuit is single-mindedly focused on
alleged out of court communications by Mason with his government as alleged
violations of the orders above while steadfastly refusing to review the validity
of these orders. . “On
appeal, Mason argues that the magistrate's discovery orders enjoined him without
legal authority and violated his First Amendment and
Florida
state-law rights to petition
Florida
government officials and to request public records.” See
Pg. 10. Even though the Eleventh Circuit admitted the orders in question were being tested for validity on appeal,
the Eleventh Circuit refuses review these orders for validity! "It
is not proper for federal courts to proceed to a merits question despite
jurisdictional objections."
In re Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association,
173 F.3d 866; 335 U.S.
Case
No. 01-15754.
Among other things, the Eleventh Circuit again refuses to address this issue.
In fact, the entirety of the opinion is: “The "petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of
prohibition" is DENIED.”
c. Case
No. 02-13418.
This lawsuit was filed against Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Judge
Frank Lynch, Jr., for issuing these orders.
In an opinion rendered on Dec. 6, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit again declined to
discuss the validity of these orders while asserting in a mere conclusory
fashion that the Judges have "absolute immunity".
In reading the opinion, one can not determine what the judges are immune
from. There is absolutely no mention
of the orders which prompted the lawsuit.
d.
Case No.
01-13664.
Mason filed a Appellant’s Renewed Motion For Summary Reversal on or about
September 25, 2002. Yet again the Eleventh Circuit refuses to discuss the validity of these orders.
e. Case
No. 01-11305.
On April 26, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit yet again refused to review the validity of
theses orders. “With
regard to his requests for relief from the order granting the defendants’
motions for preliminary injunction, which the court construed as preliminary
discovery motion, Mason has alternative remedy.
He may either comply with the district’s courts discovery order and
challenge it on appeal from the final judgment, or refuse to comply with the
order and challenge its validity if cited for contempt”.
See Mandamus
Petition. Was Mason supposed to
wait until the end of trial to get his First Amendment rights back? The Eleventh Circuit
has answered this question with a resounding no.
"It
is well settled that the loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal
periods of time constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a
preliminary injunction." Cate
v.
Oldham
, 707 F.2d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir. 1983).
Fifth Circuit Holds These Orders are Invalid and Unconstitutional
Acrimony and Vitriol Between the Test Master's Litigants
In Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (Fed. 5th Cir., 2005), the district court "enjoined Singh from "communicating directly with, threatening, or harassing Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., its employees, staff, counsel, counsel's employees, or counsel's staff." Similarly, Judge Graham "enjoined" Mason from communicating with his local government, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. However, Judge Vanessa D Gilmore in Test Masters who was reversed, 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.
The district court's injunction was prompted by allegations from TES that Singh and his employees had called TES dozens of times a day, including seventy-one times on one day in May 2003. TES alleged that the calls included the screaming of obscenities. TES also claims that Singh's counsel, Sharon Naim, contacted TES's president, Roger Israni, and threatened to file suit against TES in other states. TES taped the phone conversation and offered it as evidence that Singh had Naim call Israni directly, which is against the rules of professional conduct for lawyers. TES avers that another person acting on behalf of Singh called the accounting department of TES's counsel, pretended to be a TES staff member, and obtained billing and insurance information about TES. TES also recorded a conversation with another of Singh's counsel who called TES offices in August 2003, pretending to be a student in order to gain information about TES. TES contends that it has a recording of that conversation. Finally, TES alleges that Singh sent a letter to TES's insurer, informing the insurer that it should not cover TES's costs should TES lose in court. In addition, TES's counsel and Singh did engage in a verbal and physical altercation in the hallway outside the district courtroom in California after TES's counsel accused Singh of verbally and physically threatening them. Singh denies threatening TES's counsel. The district court in California had to order the parties and their counsels to go straight from the courtroom to their cars and threatened them with jail time if another incident occurred.
Court's Conclusion
The district court prohibited Singh from "communicating directly with . . . TES employees, staff or TES's counsel, counsel's employees, or counsel's staff." To quote selectively from the district court, the court found that the parties had demonstrated an "immaturity" and "mean-spirited[ness]," and that Singh was pursuing "vexatious litigation." However, despite the perhaps need of these parties to never speak again, the court did not detail, and the record does not reflect, any "exceptional circumstances" to justify permanently enjoining Singh from generally communicating with TES, TES's counsel and their staff and employees. The district court's order enjoining Singh from communicating with TES employees, TES's counsel, and its counsel's employees was a prior restraint limiting Singh's first amendment rights, and because the injunction order is not supported by exceptional circumstances, it is an unconstitutional restraint on Singh's free speech rights.Testmaster at 579.[1] This list is not collectively exhaustive.