The Fox Should Not Be Allowed to Guard the Chicken Coop!
HOME | DOCUMENTED ACTS OF MISCONDUCT|JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGE GRAHAM |JUDGE GRAHAM OVERRULES THE FIRST AMENDMENT | In Forma Pauperis Mockery| METHODS USED TO UNDERMINE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
 |
 |
Table Of Contents
Dishonest Methods Used By Federal Judges
Culpability of Individual Judges
Acts of Misconduct U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham
Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 01-0054
Case No. 01-13664-A, A Direct Appeal
Judicial Misconduct No. 05-0008
Judicial Misconduct No. 05-0021
Introduction
This post will prove that Federal Judges can not be trusted to discipline other federal judges that have behaved in a manner contrary to law due to two powerful instincts, cronyism and fraternalism. Cronyism is defined as special treatment and preference given to friends or colleagues, especially in politics. See Microsoft Encarta. This post will take the case of U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham to show how the Judges and others at the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal undermined the legal system in order to save the career and reputation of Judge Graham. The American public has been asked to accept the notion that fraternal instincts are not involved when federal judges decide if one their colleagues have engaged in judicial misconduct or deliberately disregarded binding precedent or well established legal norms. Almost all of the states have boards or commissions that handle complaints of judicial misconduct. See http://www.ajs.org/ethics/eth_conduct-orgs.asp. These boards or commissions typically have citizen or laymen members on their boards in order to preclude judges from judging their own. In stark contrast, the federal system, which is covered by 28 U.S.C. § § 351, et.,al., formerly 28 U.S.C. § § 372(c), has no board as a single judge, the Chief Judge of the circuit, has the sole responsibility for investigations of misconduct. Federal Judges simply can not be trusted to judge other federal judges.Judicial Independence
"If the people and their elected representatives do not like a federal judge's decision, they have the right to seek the judge's reversal through appeal to a higher court, new legislation, or constitutional amendment." AJS [American Judicature Society] - Importance of Judicial Independence. "Judicial independence does not imply the absence of judicial accountability. Appellate courts can reverse erroneous lower court decisions on appeal. Collectively, other judges can discipline their peers through enforcement of ethical standards and administrative rules. Judges are in that sense accountable to one another. Judges are accountable to the public, always in the court of public opinion, and from time to time at the ballot box in those states where judges are selected or retained by election. Judges are accountable to the legislative branch, which can prospectively change the law in reaction to an opinion and can impeach judges for high crimes and misdemeanors." Judicial Independence: A Cornerstone Of Democracy Which Must Be Defended, American College of Trial Lawyers. This post clearly demonstrates that federal judges will undermine and mock the appellate process in order to keep from disciplining a fellow federal judge.This post demonstrates how the Eleventh Circuit undermined a direct appeal, petitions for mandamus, and the the Judicial Misconduct Act in order to keep from disciplining a rogue judge, U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham. In each of these instances, the Eleventh Circuit, with no small amount of ingenuity, found a way not only to fail to remedy judicial misconduct but even avoided discussing the allegations of misconduct and their veracity.
Dishonest Methods Used By Federal Judges
It is unremarkable and self-evident that the heart of our justice system lies in the integrity of the individual judges. Warranted or not, the American people have been conditioned to believe that judges are honest and will do their jobs no matter what. Specifically, this post will document the following methods of dishonesty used by federal judges:- Mischaracterization. This is easily the most prevalent method used by judges to arrive at the desired outcome.
- Outright Lying. The most difficult thing for the public to believe is that federal judges will outright lie in a heartbeat if they need to.
- Omission. Allegations of misconduct are simply not mentioned or disregarded when the judges can not disprove them.
- Secrecy. Judicial Misconduct complaints under 28 U.S.C. § § 351 are secret and confidential as a matter of law. Appellate decisions are often hidden from public view by making them unpublished and not releasing them to the Internet. Federal Judges have total control of the content and the decision of whether or not to make their opinions available.
- Strategy of Obtaining Submission by Attrition. The overall strategy is to wear out the complainant or litigant by simply using dishonest methods to make the complainant or litigant feel helpless and quit.
- Direct Appeal. In the direct appeal, Case No. 01-13664, the allegations of misconduct were simply ignored.
- Mandamus. The allegations of misconduct in Case No. 01-15754 were simply ignored. In Case No. 04-11894-B, the court resorted to mischaracterization, omission, and outright lying. Similarly, in Case No. 05-10623-I, the court resorted to outright lying again.
- Judicial Misconduct Complaints. In these complaints, Complaint Nos. 01-0054, 05-0008, and 05-0021, Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson simply defines judicial misconduct of existence and disregards the pattern and practice of misconduct committed by Judge Graham. More information and complaints of misconduct against Judge Graham are set forth at mmason.freeshell.org/372c.
Culpability of Individual Judges
Dishonesty has ruled the day with respect to concealing the misconduct of Judge Donald L. Graham. There have been varying degrees of culpability in this matter with Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson being the most culpable as aware of all the efforts mounting against Judge Graham and yet did nothing. Judges Susan H. Black, Rosemary Barkett, and Stanley Marcus simply ignored allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham without testing their veracity. See Case No. 01-15754. Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Susan H. Black, and Stanley Marcus simply ignored allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham without testing their veracity. See Case No. 01-13664. Additionally, these judges lied when they said they would not consider a pre-filing injunction in the appeal because it was beyond the scope of appeal. Judge Stanley Marcus behavior was particularly egregious as he was involved in both Case Nos. 01-15754 and 01-13664. In Case No . 04-11894-B, the Eleventh Circuit, Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull used mischaracterization, omission and outright lied on two occasions. See Case No . 04-11894-B. In Case No. 05-10623-I, the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Rosemary Barkett was blatantly untruthful. See Case No. 05-10623-I
Acts of Misconduct U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham
Judge Donald L. Graham,
“Teflon Don”, and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of
Appeal, abused the in forma pauperis to stop an appeal,
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, from going forward. Eleventh
Circuit Case No. 01-13664, an unpublished opinion, has been dubbed the “appeal
from hell” for its lawlessness, dishonesty, and ingenuity in
attempting to defeat an appeal. This remarkable story, “Eleventh
Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“, is fully
documented at:
http://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/eleventh-circuit-case-no-01-13664-the-appeal-from-hell/.
This particular post documents how U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham and
the Eleventh Circuit abused the in forma pauperis statutes,
28 U.S.C.
§1915, in order to deny appellate review of allegations of
misconduct against Judge Graham. These allegations included, but
definitely are not limited to, the following:
- Lying and intentionally misrepresenting law. See Core Allegations.
- Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for more than 17 months. See Core Allegations.
- Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being decided. See Languishing Motions.
- Usurping legal authority. Allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction prohibiting direct communication with the Highlands County Government. Additionally, prohibiting Marcellus Mason from making public records request under Florida Law directly to Highlands County. See Usurp, Usurp2, and Usurp3.
- Violating clearly established law and the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by issuing pre-filing injunctions without notice and opportunity to be heard. See Pre-filing Injunction.
- Abuse of the criminal contempt procedure. Judge Graham took a clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and made it the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction. See Framed.
- Lying and intentionally misrepresenting material facts. See Intentionally Misstating Facts.
- Ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court denying access to the courts by refusing to state any reason for denying IFP applications. See IFP Denials.
- Awarding attorneys’ fees of $200,000 against an indigent plaintiff in total disregard of the law and the United States Supreme Court. Massive Attorney's Fees Award.
This post is part of an overall pattern and practice of using extreme measures and lawlessness to conceal the misconduct of Judge Graham. See Documented Allegations of Misconduct. Incidentally, while not relevant to the discussion of this post, the Eleventh Circuit’s Chief Judge, J.L. Edmondson, has fought tooth and nail to keep from addressing a documented pattern and practice of disregarding well established law by Judge Graham.
Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 01-0054
Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 01-0054 accuses Judge Graham of misconduct; however on November 7, 2001, Judge R. Lanier Anderson, then Chief Judge, simply ignored the allegations and stated:
The allegations of the Complaint are "directly related to the merits 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.
See Order dated November 7, 2001.
Case No. 01-15754 Mandamus
A petition for mandamus was filed on September 29, 2001. On December 5, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit decided Case No. 01-15754 and stated:The "petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED.BEFORE: Susan H. Black, Rosemary Barkett, andBEFORE: Susan H. Black, Rosemary Barkett, and Stanley Marcus, Circuit Judges.
Case No. 01-13664-A, A Direct Appeal
Case No. 01-13664-A itself to the narrow issue that the Eleventh This post addresses itself to the narrow issue that the Eleventh Circuit refused to address allegations of misconduct on appeal and that Judge Graham should have disqualified or recused. However, this appeal, Case No. 01-13664, is replete with dishonesty as the Eleventh Circuit's behavior in this matter can be described as that of a "kangaroo court". See Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell, for appalling account of lawlessness and dishonesty.On October 16, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit, Judges Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Susan H. Black, and Stanley Marcus.
Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g.,..the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges,...See Opinion Case No. 01-13664. Additionally, in a motion for rehearing, (pps. 13-15), the Eleventh Circuit was specifically told that it failed to consider whether Judge Graham should have recused or disqualified; however, the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored this issue yet again and stated:
The petition(s) for rehearing filed by appellant, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr., is DENIED.See Order Denying Rehearing. This appeal was also made appalling and despicable because the Eleventh Circuit struck Marcellus Mason’s appellate brief for arguing against an order, a void sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, and then turned around and used the very same stricken sua sponte issued pre-filing to support their Opinion against Marcellus M. Mason. See mcneilmason.worpress.com, “Putrid Dishonesty:Beyond the Scope of Appeal” .
Initial Brief, Answer Brief, Reply Brief.
Case No. 04-11894-B
In this Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Frank M. Hull used the dishonest tactics of lying, mischaracterization, and omission to reach the desired outcome which was to avoid reaching a decision on whether or not Judge Graham should have recused or disqualified himself.
On May 20, 2004, Case No . 04-11894-B, the Eleventh Circuit, Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull stated:
- (1) he allowed many of Mason's motions to languish...See Opinion, pg. 2.
- (2) would not let Mason file a § 1981 claim, but did let another plaintiff with similar claims do so. See Opinion, pg. 3.
- As to the alleged languishing, a review of the district court docket sheet shows that the court ruled upon his motions in a timely manner. See Opinion, pg. 3.
Even more despicable than the blatant dishonest mischaracterizations and omissions is the outright lie that Judges Hull and Carnes told in this opinion when they stated:
Moreover, a review of Mason's complaint and the other plaintiff's complaint reveal that their claims are not similar. Mason's complaint alleges that county entities and employees violated his First Amendment rights, which is actually a 42 U .S .C . §1983 claim. The plaintiff to which Mason compares himself, however, brought racial and national origin discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U .S.C . § 2000e (Title VII) and § 1981. Both Title VII and § 1981 can be used to bring race discrimination claims.
See Opinion, pg. 3.. This is an outrageous and bodacious lie because the record clearly contradicts this assertion. Mason's complaint specifically alleges racial discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII) and § 1981. See (DE #321, pps. 1, 2, 11; 63-64, 65, ¶¶1, 2, 3, 85, 459-462, 465-466, 473-474).
The Eleventh Circuit also lied when it asserted:
Moreover, Mason had an adequate alternative remedy to mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20, 2001 order, but did not do so.
See Opinion, pg. 4. The "September 20, 2001" is pre-filing that was issued sua sponte in violation of well established law. See (D.E. #878). The record indicates that the Eleventh Circuit lied when it stated that Mason did not appeal the "September 20, 2001". Firstly, the mandamus petition above, Case No. 01-15754, clearly seeks review of the "September 20, 2001 order". There were multiple attempts to seek appellate review of this sua sponte issued prefiling injunction. See Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sets Guiness World Record For Refusing to Review Sua Sponte Issued Pre-Filing Injunction.
Case No. 05-10623-I
On March 16, 2005, Case No. 05-10623-I, the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Rosemary Barkett was blatantly untruthful when she stated:
In this case, Mason is not entitled to the recusal of Judge Graham because final judgment has been entered in his employment discrimination case, and he raised Judge Graham's denial of his recusal motion on appeal.See Opinion, pg. 2, Case No. 05-10623-I. The Eleventh Circuit lied as it fails to mention that it simply ignored the issue of whether or not Judge Graham should have disqualified in the direct appeal as fully documented above in Case No. 01-13664-A.
Judicial Misconduct No. 05-0008
On April 7, 2005, Judge Edmondson stated: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 t o 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 . The allegations of this Complaint are "frivolous", "successive", and "appropriate corrective action has been taken". Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 16 of Title 28 U .S.C. § 352 (b)(I)(ii) and Addendum III Rules 4 (b)(3) and (4) and 18(c) this Complaint is DISMISSED.
Judicial Misconduct No. 05-0021
On July 6, 2005, Judge J.L Edmondson stated:
In this complaint Mr. Mason repeats allegations, filed in previous complaints, that Judge Graham should have recused himself, that Judge Graham refused to rule on several motions, and that Judge Graham required him to seek permission from a private law firm to communicate with his government. The only new allegation in this complaint concerns the attorney fees awarded by Judge Graham to the defendants in the amount of $200,000.00. Mr. Mason claims Judge Graham lied in order to grant the fees. 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(e), this Complaint is DISMISSED.