JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM AND ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: MASTER OF DISHONESTY 

 

  HOME PAGEJUNK LAW  |  JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGE GRAHAM   |  SUA SPONTE ISSUED FILING INJUNCTION JUDICIAL DISHONESTY HOME PAGE  | A TALE OF TWO APPEALS, SAME FACTS DIFFERENT RESULTS|CORE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY JUDGE GRAHAM  || ABOUT |

Justice Turned On Its Head

Judge Donald L. Graham is Above the Law!!!

 

UNDER CONSTRUCTION !!!

 


Judge Donald L. Graham

 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 

Judge Graham Lies about the Law.  

IGNORING ISSUES, OMITTING PERTINENT FACTS

OMITTING MATERIAL FACTS

Lying About Appellate of Review Of Judge Graham's Disqualification

LYING TO COVER A LIE

The Beyond the Scope of Appeal and Jurisdiction Lie

 

Google Custom Search

DON'T HATE THE PLAYER, HATE THE GAME !!!


 

It has been said that the Federal Judges will demonstrate a lack of candor in its opinions in order to reach the desired outcome.  This page, along with the referenced pages, and the actual documents will demonstrate all of the following:

  • Judges will lie or intentionally misrepresent the law.

  • Judges will omit material and pertinent facts from their opinions.

  • Judges will ignore issues that they have been briefed on.

  • Judges will remain silent and won't give a reason for its actions.

  • Judges use non-published opinions to undermine the rule of law.  

The aforementioned tactics and dishonest acts are not mutually exclusive in that any or all of them may be present in any one opinion or case.  Each of these acts of dishonesty were implemented using unpublished and virtually invisible opinions.  This page will attempt to organize the wealth of material so that the reader can evaluate for himself the accuracy or veracity of the allegations.  You can come to this page by way of the many pages dedicated to exposing U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham.  The tactics described here were abused solely to conceal egregious misconduct by Judge Graham.  See Core Allegations of Misconduct

Google Custom Search

Judge Graham Lies about the Law

INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTING THE LAW

Judge Donald L.  Graham told that Mason that he could not state a claim against a state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, for a violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, while he was simultaneously allowing another Plaintiff in another case to state a claim under for a violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 against the very same state actor, Highlands County Board of County Commissioners.  This lie is fully documented at: http://mmason.freeshell.org/liar.htm .  

 

IGNORING ISSUES, OMITTING PERTINENT FACTS

Eleventh Circuit #01-13664, Direct Appeal, Opinion, (Photocopy pdf).  

Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr.,  Judge Susan H. Black , Judge Stanley Marcus are said to have rendered this Opinion.  See Opinion, html version, used for ease of reference.  Please refer to the timeline below.  This opinion implements every dishonest act set forth above.

 

Eleventh Circuit #01-15754, Mandamus, Opinion, (Photocopy pdf).  

All of the above allegations are present in this opinion as well.   

 

Google Custom Search

OMITTING MATERIAL FACTS WITH RESPECT TO  RES JUDICATA

For the nonlawyers, res judicata is defined:

  • A rule of civil law that once a matter has been litigated and final judgment has been rendered by the trial court, the matter cannot be relitigated by the parties in the same court, or any other trial court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.

  • Res judicata compares two lawsuits, a former, and a later filed lawsuit.  Res judicata means that any claims that could have brought when the former lawsuit was filed are barred in the later filed lawsuit provided that the former ended with a final Judgment. 

What is important here is that res judicata can not applied to any claim that did not exist at the time of the former or first lawsuit was filed.  In other words, you can't sue for a claim that does not exist.  In the cases that will be referenced here, Judge Graham and his enablers at the Eleventh Circuit have said that res judicata applies to all future claims that arose after  February 1999, when the former lawsuit, Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham was filed.  This is not contrary to common sense, but blatantly contemptuous of the rule of law.  

 

The Dishonest act committed by Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit is simply citing a prior filed lawsuit and then citing the law on res judicata thereby seemingly rendering a lawful and just decision.  Nowhere in the discussion of their opinions do either Judge Graham or the Eleventh Circuit state the date the claims or cause of action arose.  Four cases are documented that show how dishonest Judges can be in their opinions.  See mmason.freeshell.org/pleming.htm

Google Custom Search

Eleventh Circuit LYING And Other Acts of Dishonesty.  

 

The context for this lie is set forth below in the timeline below.  On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issued a pre-filing injunction against Mason while an appeal was pending.  This sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction is remarkable in that it has survived a host of legal attacks even though it is clearly invalid.  See mmason.freeshell.org/SuaSponte.htm . As documented below, on December 5, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit decline to review this sua sponte issued pre-fling injunction by way of mandamus.  In March 2002, the Eleventh Circuit, struck Mason's brief on appeal for arguing against the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 because the court claimed the injunction was "beyond the scope of appeal".  On October 16, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit, among other dishonest acts, affirmed Judge Graham on appeal using the same  sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 that it had previously stated was "beyond the scope of appeal".  

THE ACTUAL LIE(S)

Subsequent to October 16, 2002, Mason filed a couple of petitions for mandamus seeking appellate review of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001.

On March 16, 2005, Case No. 05-10623, pg. 2, the Eleventh Circuit asserted the following:  Furthermore, Mason appealed the dismissal of his case as well as the district court's injunction order of September of 20, 2001..." See Pg. 2.  This statement is directly contradicted by this Court’s prior assertion of May 20, 2004, Case No. 04-11894, pg. 4:  "Moreover, Mason had an adequate remedy to mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20, 2001, but did not do so.   The statement is still yet contradicted by the fact this Court struck Mason’s appellate brief for arguing against the order of September 20, 2001. 

Mason included arguments relating to the September 20, 2001 order entered after the notice of appeal was filed.  This Court granted in part, the appellees' motion to strike Mason's brief, holding that the portions of the brief that related to the September 20, 2001 were beyond the scope of appeal."

See pgs. 4-5, Case No. 04-11894, May 20, 2004.  


Lying About Appellate of Review Of Judge Graham's Disqualification

On March 16, 2005, Case No. 05-10623, pg. 2, the Eleventh Circuit asserted the following:

  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.

This is a classical example of how a half-truth can be a lie because it is misleading.  Mason did raise the issue of Judge Graham's failure to disqualify (Case No. 01-13664), however, the Eleventh Circuit refused to review this issue or to test the veracity of the allegations of misconduct and abuse by Judge Graham which Mason had asserted in his brief.  The Eleventh Circuit's only comment on the matter was: ("Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, ... the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges,").  See Opinion dated October 16, 2002.  It can hardly be argued that this represents appellate review.  

 


LYING TO COVER A LIE

On May 24, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit stated (lie in red):

Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because...(2) would not let Mason file a § 1981 claim, but did let another plaintiff with similar claims do so ...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

"Case No. 04-11894, Order dtd. 5-24-2002, pgs. 1,2.  

Both Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit know that this assertion is false because 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), URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/ConsolidatedAmendedComplaint.doc. It is hard to imagine that judges would outright lie when they know the record clearly contradicts their statements. Aren't Judges required under the law to tell the truth? What is the punishment for judges that intentionally lie and misrepresent the truth.

On May 2004, the Eleventh circuit, Judges Carnes and Hull , Case No. 04-11894, were willing to lie or intentionally misstate the facts in order to cover for Judge Graham
. Proof?
Mason merely asserts that Judge Graham was not impartial because (1) he allowed many of Mason's motions to languish...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 pgs. 2, 3 Case No. 04-11894 Opinion.
How is NEVER ruling on scores of motions and filings ruling "upon his motions in a timely manner"? This answer is false, dishonest, absurd, and insulting. Judge Graham allowed a motion for a preliminary injunction to languish without a ruling, (D.E. 39), from November 24, 1999 until the case was closed on June 20, 2001.  Additionally, Judge Graham allowed scores of other motions to go undecided as well for months. See Languishing Motions. Review the docket and see where Graham never ruled on the motions and filings listed above. See  Docket.  

Lastly as stated in this document and countless other places on this website, though fully briefed, the Eleventh Circuit declined to review the issue of Judge Graham's disqualification on direct appeal Case No. 01-13664 ("Mason also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, ... the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court and magistrate judges,").  and mandamus petition, Case No. 01-15754 ("The "petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED."). 


The Beyond the Scope of Appeal and Jurisdiction Lie

On May 20, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit, in denying mandamus stated:

 

Mason also contends that Judge Graham did not have jurisdiction to enter the September 20, 2001 order enjoining Mason's future filings.. Mason's case , he filed a notice of appeal as to the dismissal of his civil case . The September 20, 2001 order did not relate to the issue on appeal, but instead enjoined Mason from filing any further pleadings in the district court without permission . Because the order related to collateral issues, the district court had jurisdiction to issue it.  
See pgs. 3,4, Case No. 04-11894 Opinion.

A couple of facts need mentioning here.  Firstly, the Notice of Appeal, which the Eleventh Circuit references,  was filed on June 25, 2001.  See Timeline, below.  Secondly, the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 that prohibits the filing of pleadings and motions by Mason came three months after the case was noticed for appeal.   More importantly, the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction is patently invalid as U.S. Courts of Appeal universally reject sua sponte issued pre-filing injunctions.   See mmason.freeshell.org/SuaSponte.htm and mmason.freeshell.org/RejectSuaSponte.htm .  

However, on October 16, 2002, when the Eleventh Circuit rendered their unpublished opinion, it stated:

Moreover, despite the closure of the case by the district court, Mason's continual filing of motions with the court addressing matters previously settled prompted the district court to prohibit Mason from further filings without explicit permission and initiate criminal contempt proceedings. Therefore, the record supports the district court's implicit finding that a sanction less than dismissal of the action with prejudice would have had no effect.

See pgs. 13, 14, Opinion.   

It is clear that when the Eleventh Circuit needed to affirm Judge Graham on direct appeal on October 16, 2002, the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001 was involved in the appeal and used to affirm Judge Graham, but on May 20, 2004; however, when Mason filed a mandamus petition challenging jurisdiction of Judge Graham to issue the invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit claimed the injunction did not relate to the issue on appeal   

The most egregious, dishonest, and despicable act of all was that the Eleventh Circuit struck Mason's brief for arguing against the invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction of September 20, 2001because they claimed it was beyond the scope of appeal.  See "beyond the scope of appeal" below. 


 

Concealing Allegations of Misconduct

The Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C.§§351, et.al., formerly,  28 U.S.C.§372(c)

 

Miscellaneous No. 01-0054

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse include, but are not limited to the following:  

  • Lying and Intentionally misrepresenting the law.

  • Usurping legal authority

  • Refusing to rule on a motion for  a preliminary injunction for more than 15 months.

  • Allowing scores of motions and motions to go undecided or languish.

  • Improperly refusing to disqualify

 

Judge Anderson does not, because he can not,  dispute the accuracy of the allegations he simply characterizes them in a fortuitous fashion.  

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.

Miscellaneous No. 01-0054, November 7, 2001, Judge R. Lanier Anderson . This link is a copy of the complaint that was filed along with PDF copy of Judge Anderson's Order dismissing the Complaint.   

The Judicial Council also dismissed the complaint.   See Order dated March 5, 2002.   

 

 

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 to 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.

 

 CJRA


ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APPELLATE TIMELINE

  • A Notice of Appeal was filed on June 25, 2001.  (Docket Entry 795).  District Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham was assigned Eleventh Circuit Case No.  01-13664.

  • On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham issues a pre-filing injunction, sua sponte.   See Docket Entry Number 878, (D.E. # 878) . Page 3, of this document boldly asserts: "THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte."  This injunction was issued was the appeal was pending and briefs had not been filed.  

  • October 2, 2001, Mason files a Petition for Mandamus with the Eleventh Circuit seeking among other things, to vacate the sua sponte issued pre-fling injunction of September 20, 2001.   The mandamus petition is assigned Case No. 01-15754. Mason files mandamus petition despite pending appeal.  

  • December 5, 2001, the Eleventh denies mandamus petition in a terse, one sentence page opinion.  See Opinion.  The " petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED.”  The direct appeal, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, was still pending and no briefs had been filed at this point.

  • December 12, 2001, the Eleventh denies an in forma pauperis and refuses to waive the filing fee for the direct appeal, Case No. 01-13664-A, without providing any facts, the Eleventh Circuit simply asserts in mere conclusory fashion, "appellant has not truthfully provided this Court with information concerning his ability to pay filing and docketing fees."  Order Denying IFP.  

  • January 25, 2002, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 01-157154, deny motion for clarification and rehearing, and refuse to provide legal or factual basis for denying mandamus petition.  Order Denying Clarification.   

  • On March 6, 2002, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, the Eleventh Circuit struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the September 20, 2001 sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit ordered Mason to file all new initial briefs less any mention of the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction. The Eleventh Circuit claimed the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction was beyond the scope of appeal”. See Order Striking Appellant's Brief.  

  • On March 25, 2002, 19 days after the Eleventh Circuit, struck Mason’s brief for arguing against the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, Highlands County argued for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in their Answer Brief on pages 18 and 19. However, the Eleventh Circuit, while granting Mason’s motion to strike Highlands County brief for arguing for the same sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction, did not make Highlands County file all new answer briefs as they had done Mason. The Eleventh Circuit claimed that it would not consider the sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction in its decisionSee Order Striking Appellees' Brief.  

  • On October 16, 2002, the Eleventh Circuit decided the direct appeal, D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham, 11th Cir. Case No. 01-13664. Opinion (pdf). In the entirety of the very verbose 14 page (unpublished) opinion, there is no discussion as to why the so-called “discovery orders”,[(D.E. #201); ,[(D.E. #246)] were or were not violative of the First Amendment; however, there is ample discussion about Mason’s so-called violation of these “discovery orders.”  The Eleventh Circuit ignores the issue of whether or not Judge Graham should have disqualified even though it admitted it had been fully briefed on the issue.   See Disqualification Issue.   Additionally, the Eleventh does not mention the record acts of judicial misconduct and abuse that were cited to support to support the issue of disqualification.  Lastly, and even more egregious, the Eleventh Circuit uses the sua sponte issued pre-fling injunction of September 20, 2001 that it said it was “beyond the scope of appeal” and promised not consider to justify a Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. that occurred on June 20, 2001.  See "Implicit finding Beyond the Scope.", pgs. 13, 14, Opinion.