CHIEF JUDGE J.L. EDMONDSON REFUSES TO
INVESTIGATE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS
HOME | DOCUMENTED ACTS OF MISCONDUCT|JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGE GRAHAM |JUDGE GRAHAM OVERRULES THE FIRST AMENDMENT | LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST JUDGE GRAHAM |Arbitrary In Forma Pauperis Denials Mockery| METHODS USED TO UNDERMINE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
 |
 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEGATIVE DEFINTION: THE PERFECT SCAM
Pending Judicial Misconduct Complaints
State Court Judges Are Held to Higher Standards
"ENDORSEMENTS" OF JUDGE GRAHAM'S CONDUCT
Judicial Misconduct Complaints
THESIS
"Judicial Independence" at the federal level does not work
because the evidence presented here will prove that federal judges
simply will not discipline other federal judges. Judicial Independence
equals non-accountability.
Pending Judicial Misconduct Complaints
Pending Complaints: Judicial Conference and Judge Edmondson.
It has been said that the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, has become quite serious in investigating federal judges for misconduct. According to law.com, in March of 2008, the Judicial Conference adopted the first-ever binding nationwide procedures for handling complaints of judicial misconduct. As a result of this, Mason submitted to complaints to both the Judicial Conference and Judge Edmondson again. Notwithstanding Judge Edmondson's past handlings of judicial misconduct complaints, he maybe forced to "investigate" previously submitted complaints against Judge Graham because the Committee On Judicial Conduct And Disability in a Memorandum of Decision has stated:
Moreover, there cannot be public confidence in a self-regulatory misconduct procedure that, after the discovery of new evidence or a failure to investigate properly or completely serious allegations of misconduct, allows misconduct to go unremedied in the name of preserving the finality of an earlier, perhaps misfired, proceeding.See Pgs.8,9. The Committee On Judicial Conduct And Disability, unlike Judge Edmondson, has also made clear that a judge's "rulings" are not sacrosanct and maybe properly be the subject of a misconduct complaint.
[A] judge’s pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay to litigants may be misconduct. However, the characterization of such behavior as misconduct is fraught with dangers to judicial independence. Therefore, a cognizable misconduct complaint based on allegations of a judge not following prevailing law or the directions of a court of appeals in particular cases must identify clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, that is, clear and convincing evidence of a judge's arbitrary and intentional departure from prevailing law based on his or her disagreement with, or willful indifference to, that law.See Pg.8. The overwhelming majority of the state's commissions on judicial misconduct have similar standards. See State Court Judges Are Held to Higher Standards Than Federal Judges, below.
SELF-POLICING DOES NOT WORK
Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson, or James Larry Edmondson, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, was appointed by President Reagan in 1986. Judge Edmondson's standards for judicial misconduct are significantly lower than all other legal authorities who have defined judicial misconduct. Chief Judge Edmondson has the responsibility to investigate complaints of misconduct committed by federal judges in the Eleventh Circuit. Complaints of Judicial Misconduct are currently governed by, Title 28, Part 1, Chapter 16, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, formerly 28 U.S.C. § 372. Complaints under these statutes are commonly referred to as "Section 372(c) complaints" or now "Section 351 Complaints" . John Dean has written an article on the subject, "Thoughts on the Law Addressing Bad Federal Judges: Self-Policing Isn't Working, But Is There a Good Alternative?" which can be found at http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/fedjudgeshowtopolice.htm . This web page will attempt to prove with record facts, incidentally records that judges keep "confidential", that federal judges can not be trusted to discipline other federal judges . In fact, this page will demonstrate the extraordinary efforts or extreme measures federal judges will employ to avoid disciplining a federal judge. A person not knowing the facts could easily conclude that the Congress can always impeach a judge. This is highly unlikely because according to the Federal Judicial Center, http://air.fjc.gov/history/topics/topics_ji_bdy.html , only 13 judges have been before the Congress on impeachment charges in the entire history of the United States. Of these 13 judges, only 7 have been kicked out of office: John Pickering, West H. Humphreys, Robert W. Archbald, Halsted L. Ritter, Harry E. Claiborne, Alcee L. Hastings, and Walter L. Nixon. Judge Mark H. Delahay resigned. It is easier to impeach the President of the United States than to impeach a federal judge. For example, of the 43 presidents of the United States, two have been impeached, Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, or about 4 per cent. According to the Federal Judicial Center, we have had 3055 federal judges, only 13, or about 0.004 per cent have been impeached. Moreover, you can not sue a judge even if he misbehaves badly because Judges have given themselves, not the US Constitution or a Congressionally enacted statute, "absolutely immunity" which makes it virtually impossible to sue a judge. "A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). For an example, a lawsuit was filed against Judge Graham for acting in clear violation of jurisdiction and for not acting in a judicial capacity; however, the Eleventh Circuit declined to discuss either of these issues on appeal and in a mere conclusory fashion simply asserted that Teflon Don had absolute immunity. See " FEDERAL JUDGE VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT, TENTH AMENDMENT RECEIVES ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ". Guess who decides whether to dismiss your lawsuit filed against a fellow Judge?It is no secret that there are problems with disciplining rogue federal judges. At the urging of Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Chairman, U.S. House Judiciary Committee, in 2004, a committee (The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee) by Chief Judge Rehnquist to study the problem of federal judicial discipline. The members of this committee are :
- Justice Stephen Breyer, chairman
- Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit);
- Judge Pasco M. Bowman (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit);
- Judge D. Brock Hornby (U.S. District Court for the District of Maine);
- Judge Sarah Evans Barker (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana); and
- Sally M. Rider (administrative assistant to the Chief Justice).
Judge Edmondson's colleagues, or more likely staff attorneys, at the Eleventh Circuit have similarly chosen to ignore allegations of misconduct in the appellate process. In their appellate decisions, the Eleventh Circuit don't even mention much less remedy allegations of misconduct. It is difficult to imagine more dishonesty in appellate decisions than those set forth in the following posts:
- Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell.
- Eleventh Circuit Disses The U.S. Supreme Court Chooses To Protect Judge Graham
BAG OF TRICKS
Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson and his colleagues on the Judicial Council at the Eleventh Circuit have used every trick in the book to avoid investigating allegations of misconduct against federal Judge Donald L. Graham, S.D. Fla, Miami, Fla.Judge Edmondson's arsenal of tools designed to obliterate complaints of judicial misconduct include, but is not limited to, the following:
- Negative Definition. This is the perfect scam in that Judge Edmondson does not have a definition of "judicial misconduct" as he defines "judicial misconduct" in the negative by simply denying that any allegation of misconduct in the complaint is not "judicial misconduct".
- Blame the Victim and Intimidation. Judge Edmondson
- MISCHARACTERIZTION. This is the first tactic used by Judge Edmondson. He condenses a five page complaint into a single paragraph. The characterization is designed to support his outcome generated order and predisposition to protect the complained of federal judge. .
- EVASIVENESS and
PREVARICATION. Judge Edmondson and his cohorts at the
Eleventh Circuit simply will not discuss allegations of misconduct if
you can prove these allegations. You can't pin Judge Edmondson
down to a core set of facts.
- UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSIONS. Judge Edmondson deploys this tactic by simply quoting the statute without elaborating.
- CONTORTED LOGIC
AND DERIVATIVE LEGITIMACY. Judge Edmondson employs this
tactic by simply saying that your new complaint is not valid because
you mentioned these allegations before and I did not investigate,
consequently, your new complaint is not valid.
NEGATIVE DEFINTION: THE PERFECT SCAM
Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson has used the perfect scam to defeat claims of judicial misconduct under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. The perfect scam is a "negative definition" of judicial misconduct. A negative definition is a "definition which states what a thing is NOT rather than what it is." http://academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/2/25negative.htm. Judge Edmondson does not define misconduct he simply disagrees with every act that alleges misconduct in the complaint is judicial misconduct. Consequently, a negative definition is used to define judicial misconduct out of existence. Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson's definition, or lack thereof, would suggest that federal judges are held to a lower standard than state court judges. Congress does not help as it chosen not to identify specific acts that it considers to be judicial misconduct for it has abrogated this responsibility and left it up to judges like Judge Edmondson to decide. Section 352 states:
(b) Action by Chief Judge Following Review.— After expeditiously reviewing a complaint under subsection (a), the chief judge, by written order stating his or her reasons, may—
(1) dismiss the complaint—
(A) if the chief judge finds the complaint to be—
(i) not in conformity with section 351 (a);
(ii) directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling; or
(iii) frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred, or containing allegations which are incapable of being established through investigation; or
Not Judicial Misconduct
Judge Edmondson has expressly stated that each of the following documented acts of misconduct are not misconduct under the Act.
- Lying and Intentionally misrepresenting the law.
- Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction during the entire pendency of the lawsuit from November 1999 to June 20, 2001 or about 19 months.
- Judge Graham falsely completed a Civil Justice Reform Act Report, “CJRA” to conceal the fact that he had a motion for a preliminary injunction pending for more than 17 months.
- Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate, Frank Lynch Jr., to issue preliminary injunctions two times.
- Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate to dictate to a non-lawyer that he must seek the permission of private attorneys in order to speak with a local government.
- Usurping authority by allowing a Magistrate to set restrictions on how Florida Public Records are to be accessed.
- Allowing scores of motions to go undecided for months.
- Intentionally misstating material facts in order to render a pre-filing injunction.
- Disrespecting several well-established Supreme Court decisions proscribing certain acts of Judges.
- Judge Graham has repeatedly and improperly denied access to the courts by arbitrarily denying in forma pauperis, “IFP”, petitions 18 separate times.
- Judge Graham has been involved in possible criminal behavior by issuing a void sua sponte pre-filing injunction which ultimately formed the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction.
- Judge Graham used the criminal contempt process to force the withdrawal of a lawsuit.
- Judge Graham awarded a massive $200,000 in attorney’s fees to Highlands County against an indigent plaintiff, Marcellus Mason, not on the quality of the underlying lawsuit, but based upon Judge Graham’s speculation about Mason’s motive.
- Judge Graham attempted to circumvent the appellate process by using intimidation.
These allegations and others fully documented at: (1)http://mmason.freeshell.org/CoreAllegations.htm; or (2)Documented Acts of Misconduct by U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham. As of this date, the Judges at the Eleventh Circuit have allowed Teflon Don to escape rebuke and condemnation as Judge Graham has not been punished in any way for these acts. For example, many of these allegations were mentioned in a direct appeal and simply ignored by the appellate panel, see “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“. Petitions for mandamus met with a similar fate, see for example, Case No. 01-15754, “Eleventh Circuit Disses The U.S. Supreme Court Chooses To Protect Judge Graham“.
BLAME THE VICTIM
Judge Edmondson grew tired of having to defend against Judge Graham's abhorrent behavior, consequently, he issued an "order to show cause". Rather than properly investigate the complaint, Judge Edmondson attacks Marcellus Mason.Mr. Mason's conduct raises an inference that he is abusing the judicial complaint procedure, in violation of Addendum IlI Rule 1(j)(l), by filing complaints that are vexatious, repetitive, harassing, or frivolous. Therefore, Mr. Mason shall file a written response, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, to show cause why his ability to file further Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability should not be limited or restricted by the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council in accordance with Rule 1(j)(1).
See Order To Show Cause. Judge Edmondson justifies his action with the following assertions:
Fourteen of the complaints involve United States District Judge Donald L. Graham of the Southern District of Florida, and stem from several civil cases over which Judge Graham presided and in which Judge Graham issued rulings that were unfavorable to Mr. Mason. Of the eight complaints not specifically naming Judge Graham as the complained--of judge, five name judges of this Court who served on panels reviewing Mr. Mason's appeals -- panels that affirmed decisions and rulings by Judge Graham. None of Mr. Mason's judicial complaints have prevailed. All of the complaints that have been resolved to date have been dismissed for some or all of the following reasons: the complaints were (1) plainly untrue; (2) frivolous; (3) successive; (4) conclusively refuted by objective evidence; (5) lacking in factual foundation; (5) lacking in evidence sufficient to raise an inference that misconduct had occurred; or (6) directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling.
This "Order To Show Cause" is quite remarkable for a few reasons. Firstly, by Judge Edmondson's standards this "Order To Show Cause" is quite verbose and long, 3 pages. If you read any of his orders dismissing complaints against Judge Graham, none of them fill a page, at most a paragraph. Based upon what Judge Edmondson states, how much do you really know about the nature of the complaints that were filed against Judge Graham? Which ones fit in the six categories that Judge Edmondson lists? Compare Judge Edmondson's unsupported assertions with this web page and its supports for its allegations. Who do you believe the person that provides support for his arguments or the one who merely asserts conclusions with no support?
Another instance where Judge Edmondson attacked Mason and shows his bias and propensity to protect Judge Graham was in Complaint No. 05-0008. Among other things, this complaint asserts that Judge Graham:(1)had refused to rule a motion for a preliminary injunction during the entire pendency of the case;(2)Judge Graham intentionally withheld this information in his Civil Justice Reform Act, "CJRA" report of March 2001. Refusing to investigate this matter, Judge Edmondson simply attacks the victim of this behavior.
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.
State Court Judges Are Held to Higher Standards Than Federal Judges
U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham has escaped discipline and possible removal for acts that state court judges would have been removed and/or severely disciplined for. Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson, Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, has statutory responsibility under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. for investigating allegations of misconduct for federal judges in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. However, Judge Edmondson has used a negative definition of judicial misconduct in such a manner that you can not possibly state a legitimate claim of misconduct against one of his colleagues. Judge Edmondson does not have a positive definition of judicial misconduct; consequently, he can keep saying "no that's not it". Additionally, Judge Graham has exhibited a reckless disregard for binding U.S. Supreme Court precedents with apparent impunity. See Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Poor People’s Right to Access The Courts , Florida Judge Thumbs His Nose at U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Due Process And Attorneys’ Fees, Is U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham Willfully Defying The United States Supreme Court? Judge Edmondson is of the apparent belief that a federal judge can make bad faith legal errors and escape discipline because the complaint is "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling". However, the State of Florida and other states disagree. "[T]he Florida Supreme Court has expressly held that a judge’s legal rulings can be the subject of judicial disciplinary proceedings." State of Florida, JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION,INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 06-52, CHERYL ALEMAN CASE NO. SC07-198. See also Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371("a judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights,intentional disregard of the law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty is subject to investigation."); In re Commission on Judicial Tenure, Rhode Island Supreme Court, No. 2003-512-M.P.(22-14) (quoting In re Curda, 49 P.3d 255, 258 (Alaska 2002))(“[L]egal error may amount to judicial misconduct if it is repeated, motivated by bad faith, accompanied by intemperate or abusive conduct, or irremediable by appeal.”). Judge Edmondson's contorted view of the law and ethics would hold federal judges to a lower standard than that expected of state court judges. Is Judge Edmondson's view of the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, et.seq. consistent with the intent of Congress?"ENDORSEMENTS" OF JUDGE GRAHAM'S CONDUCT
Federico Moreno, Chief Judge, S.D. Fla.
Judge Graham's Chief Judge, S.D. Fla., Federico Moreno offered the following tepid "endorsement":
I am in receipt of your letter written to me as a Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida about actions by Judge Donald Graham. In that letter, you also complained about the Chief Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson. As you can understand one district judge cannot review the actions of another district judge. This rule applies to the Chief Judge of the District as well. It is before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta that any complaint as to a ruling made by a District Judge can be made, I assure you that any decision rendered by Judge Graham was made in good faith upon what he perceived to be the law. Judge Graham has an impeccable reputation. However, if you feel that a judge has erred, the appellate judges in Atlanta are the ones who can decide what to do about it. Thank you for writing.See Letter dated April 4, 2008.
Judge William J. Zloch
Judge William J. Zloch, former Chief Judge, U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Fla., has expressly endorsed or approved of Judge Graham's misconduct. Judge Zloch was sent a letter on July 18, 2001 detailing the above behavior and Judge Zloch stated:The Judge to whom this matter was assigned is one of the very best Judges of this Court and your case is being appropriately handled. I have no authority to review any allegations you make in the documents you submitted.See Judge Zloch's Letter.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT DEFINED
Judge Graham's behavior easily fits within the definition of judicial misconduct as defined by the overwhelming majority of legal experts on judicial misconduct. Judicial Misconduct has been defined by Jeffrey M. Shaman, DePaul University Law, Steven Lubet, Professor, Northwestern University Law, James J. Alfini President and Dean, South Texas College of Law, U.S. Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in part as:
Judicial action taken without any arguable legal basis —and without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard to the party adversely affected—is far worse than simple error or abuse of discretion; it’s an abuse of judicial power that is “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 351(a); Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, supra, § 2.02, at 37 (“Serious legal error is more likely to amount to misconduct than a minor mistake.
See Opinion online at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/
F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement
.
“[A] judge is guilty of
“oppression in office” when that judge intentionally commits acts which
he or she knows, or should know, are obviously and seriously wrong under
the circumstances and amount to an excessive use of judicial authority.”
State v. Colclazier,
2002 OK JUD 1, 106 P.3d 138.
“Where honesty or integrity are at
issue, a single action can result in a finding of judicial misconduct.”
In re District Judge Ronald F. Kilburn, Case No. 90-478,
(Vermont Supreme Court 1991)(citing In re Hill, 152 Vt. 548, 572-75, 568
A.2d 361, 373-75 (1989)). See
http://dol.state.vt.us/SUPCT/157/op90-478.txt.
“Canon 3A(5) is violated where
there is a pattern of unreasonable delay or where a particular instance
is so lacking in legitimate justification that it is willful. See Matter
of Long, 244 Kan. 719, 724, 772 P.2d 814, 818 (1989) (Canon 3A(5)
violated where delay is “significant, extensive, and unjustified”);
Sommerville, 364 S.E.2d at 23 n.3 (sanctions appropriate under Canon
3A(5) where there is a pattern of delay resulting from either willful
neglect of, or manifest inability to effectively perform, judicial
duties); Matter of Alvino, 100 N.J. 92, 97 n.2, 494 A.2d 1014, 1016 n.2
(1985) (delay can violate Canon 3A(5) if “willful” or “typical of the
judge’s work”);” See URL:http://www.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/157/op90-478.txt.
"It has been said that judicial independence encompasses making mistakes and committing error, but does not afford protection to judges who repeatedly ignore the law." Arizona Supreme Court, Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, ADVISORY OPINION 92-10,(September 1, 1992). “Legal error and judicial misconduct are not mutually exclusive.” In Re Feinberg, 5 NY3d 206,New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. "A single instance of serious, egregious legal error, particularly one involving the denial to individuals of their basic or fundamental rights, may amount to judicial misconduct." In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172 (La., 1997). "[J]udicial misconduct (including improper ex parte communications) varies in degree from plainly criminal or corrupt misconduct, through injudicious (but not corrupt) misconduct, to misconduct committed for proper motives though pursued by prohibited means." Larsen, Matter of, 616 A.2d 529, 532 Pa. 326 (Pa., 1992). An emerging pattern of legal errors even though not an egregious legal error nor bad faith should be labeled misconduct because the continuing pattern of legal error constitutes neglect and ignorance of governing statutes. Miss. Com'n On Jud. Performance v. Britton, 936 So.2d 898 (Miss., 2006). See also In Re James Barr, 13 S.W.3d 525 (Tex.Rev.Trib., 1998)("legal error by a judge may constitute grounds for a finding of judicial misconduct if the commission of legal error is founded on bad faith.");Goldman v. Nevada Com'n on Judicial Discipline, 830 P.2d 107, 108 Nev. 251 (Nev., 1992)("An experienced trial judge's ignorance of proper contempt procedures, without more, has been held to constitute the bad faith necessary to a finding of willful misconduct." );
The University of New Mexico,
Institute
of Public Law, Judicial Education
Center, has put together a
Judicial Ethics Handbook which defines judicial misconduct.
If Judge Edmondson had an affirmative definition like the ones described above, then Judge Graham would have to disciplined. If the states are able to cite and list specific examples of judicial misconduct, then there is no reason why the federal judiciary can not do the same. To simply say, no that is not misconduct as Judge Edmondson does reflexively, is not enough.
Judicial Misconduct Complaints
The following complaints have been lodged against Teflon Don, or U.S.
District Judge Donald L. Graham.
- No. 01-0054
- No. 01-0054-Judicial Council
- No. 01-0068
- No. 01-68-Judicial Council
- INTERVENING MANDAMUS
- No. 02-0052
- No. 02-0059
- COMPLAINTS FILED IN 2005
- No. 05-0008
- No. 05-0011
- No. 05-0012
- No. 05-0013
- No. 05-0020
- No. 05-0021
| CASE
NO. |
COMPLAINT |
CHIEF
JUDGE REPLY |
JUDICIAL
COUNCIL REPLY |
|
| 01-0054 |
COMPLAINT-01-0054 |
JUDGE
ANDERSON'S REPLY-01-0054 |
JUDICIAL
COUNCIL-01-0054 |
|
| 02-0052 |
COMPLAINT-02-0052 | JUDGE
EDMONDSON'S REPLY-02-0052 |
not available |
|
| 05-0008 |
COMPLAINT-05-0008 |
|
PENDING |
The following responses are typical and representative. In the interest of brevity only few of the responses by the chief judge are listed. However, the read is encouraged to click on the links above and read the complaint and the orders dismissing the complaints.
Complaint and Order No. 01-0054.
November 7 2001, Judge R. Lanier Anderson, then Chief Judge renders order dismissing the complaint due to:
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
Complaint and Order No. 01-0054.
Complaint and Order Case No. 01-0068 December 14, 2001, Judge R. Lanier Anderson renders order dismissing the complaint due to:
The allegations of the Complaint are "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling". Additionally, this complainant currently has pending in this court several Petitions for Writs of Mandamus that address this issue. Consequently, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c)(3)(A) and Addendum Three Rule 4(a)(2) this Complaint is Dismissed.
See Complaint and Order Case No. 01-0068, Judicial Council Order.
PERTINENT CASE BACKGROUND
A lawsuit was originally filed in the Southern District of Florida bearing Case No.99-14027-CIV-Graham. This case was ultimately assigned to Judge Donald L. Graham. This case has had multiple appeals and petitions for mandamus associated with it. e.g., Eleventh Circuit Case Nos. , 01-11305, 01-15754-A, 01-13664, 01-11850. This case has more than 900 docket entries on the Pacer System. The Defendant in this case and all other related cases, the Highlands County Board County Commissioners, is a GOVERNMENT actor. Highlands County is located in Sebring, Florida which is in South Central Florida. Judge Graham's office is in Miami, Florida, or approximately 160 miles from where I reside in Sebring, Florida. Maria Sorolis and Brian Koji of Allen, Norton & Blue reside and work in Tampa, Florida, or some 90 miles away from Sebring, Florida. Court papers are filed in Fort Pierce, Florida, or some 75 miles away from Sebring, Florida. This lawsuit alleges discrimination, among other things, under Title VII, the ADA, and violations of §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 against the Highlands County Board County Commissioners and other government defendants and/or their agents. On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, the Magistrate Judge, Lynch, issued the following directives: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)
Plaintiff
shall correspond only with
Defendants' counsel
including any requests for public records. (DE
#246), page 2 of
2
pages.
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).
The case in question was closed on June 20, 2001. See URL: Report and Recommendation, (DE #766), http://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-766/de766.pdf , Order Adopting Report and Recommendation, (DE #791), HTTP://mmason.freeshell.org/DE-791/de791.pdf .
A direct appeal was originally docketed for Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A (D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV) on July 3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf .
Judge Graham, “sua sponte”, and without due process notice, wrote an order restricting my filings on September 20, 2001, or three months after the case was noticed for appeal. See DE-878, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/de878.pdf .
The appeal briefs were not actually filed until February and March of 2002. Appeal Briefs: First Initial Brief (Stricken), URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/InitialBriefPending.pdf Corrected Initial Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/CorrectedInitialBrief.PDF , Appellees' Answer Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/AppelleeBrief.pdf, Reply Brief, URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/ReplyBrief.pdf, Appellant's Motion For Rehearing.URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/MotionForRehearing.pdf
APPELLATE PROCESS
The Appellate Process was used to address the allegations of misconduct. However, this process was equally futile because the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored any allegation of misconduct.| CASE
NO. |
TYPE |
APPELLANT |
APPELLEE/DEFENDANT | ELEVENTH
CIRCUIT |
| 01-13664 |
DIRECT APPEAL |
INITIAL
BRIEF |
ANSWER
BRIEF |
OPINION |
| 01-15754 |
MANDAMUS |
PETITION |
COURT REFUSED TO MAKE
RESPONDENTS OR JUDGE GRAHAM REPLY TO PETITION |
OPINION |
| 04-11894 |
MANDAMUS |
PETITION |
COURT REFUSED TO MAKE RESPONDENTS OR JUDGE GRAHAM REPLY TO PETITION | OPINION |
| 05-10623 | MANDAMUS | PETITION | COURT REFUSED TO MAKE RESPONDENTS OR JUDGE GRAHAM REPLY TO PETITION | OPINION |
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.
- 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://www.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://www.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://www.mmason.freeshell.org/11305/P2176502.jpg,
page
2, URL: http://www.mmason.freeshell.org/11305/P2176601.jpg.
-
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://www.mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2394948.jpg; Page 2, URL: http://www.mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395120.jpg, Page 3, URL: http://www.mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395222.jpg, Page 4, URL: http://www.mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395620.jpg, Page 5, URL: http://www.mmason.freeshell.org/DE-435/New/P2395722.jpg, Page 6, http://www.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://www.mmason.freeshell.org/DE-466/P2392413.jpg, page 2, http://www.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. County of Volusia, 222 F.3d 891(11th Cir. 2000), in Case No. 00-14094-CIV-Graham. See Pages 2, Order on Summary Judgment, pages Case No. 00-14094, (PDF), url: http://www.mmason.freeshell.org/00-14094/de58.pdf, (Doc. 58, JPG), pps: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 27. Clearly, Judge Graham either lied to me or Fa Nina St. Germain as he could not have told the truth to the both of us.
- 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://www.mmason.freeshell.org/P2173532.jpg;
page
2, URL: http://www.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
Lawsuit.
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
DISPOSITION OF SECTION 372(C) COMPLAINTS
CASE NO. 01-0054
R. Lanier Anderson III disposed of this case on the following basis:
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 Nov. 7, 2001
Judge Edmondson refuses to discuss the veracity of
the allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham, or even mention
them for that matter as he simply quotes the statutes for his own
nefarious purpose. Judge Edmondson suggests that some
intervening event would remedy the problem.
INTERVENING
EVENTS-APPELLATE ACTION
CASE NO. 02-0052
After Judge EDMONDSON and his colleagues refused to
discuss, much less the very same allegations of misconduct against
Judge Graham through the appellate process, I then filed yet another
section 372(c) complaint informing Judge Edmondson that neither he or
his appellate court panels would discuss these allegations. Judge
Edmondson then disposes of this complaint. Chief Judge Edmondson
concludes the following:
In this complaint, Mr. Mason alleges that Judge Graham denied a motion to disqualify himself in case No. 99-CV-14027, that Judge Graham has failed to rule on several other motions filed in this and other cases, and that Judge Graham has engaged in unabated acts of aggression and usurpation by ruling that he was prohibited from making contact with any of the Defendants or their employees regarding any matter related to his case. Of these allegations, only the allegation concerning Judge Graham's denial of the disqualification motion is one that has not already been determined by previous order(s) of the Chief Judge,See Order dated Dec. 6, 2002
The unsupported allegations of this complaint are "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling" and/or "Successive". Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A) and Addendum III Rule(s) 4(a)(2) and 18 (c), this complaint is DISMISSED.
CASE NO. 05-0008
Chief Judge Edmondson concludes the following:
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.
See Order Dated April 7, 2005