JUDGE DONALD L. GRAHAM AND
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: MASTER 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 | METHODS
 |
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 placeholder and a pointer, or a central starting point to other pages that demonstrate that the behavior of a judicial miscreant, Judge Donald L. Graham, is not remedied by any of the current methods of judicial discipline. The current methods of federal judicial discipline are:
- Impeachment
- Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act
- Lawsuits Against Judges
- Appellate Review
FAILURE TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE ISSUE
This web page will take one issue, failure to disqualify, and demonstrates how the Eleventh Circuit simply ignores an issue. In ignoring this issue, the Eleventh Circuit also: Outright Lied, Omitted Material Facts, and Exceeding the Scope of Appeal. The Eleventh Circuit was briefed on this issue, failure to disqualify or recuse, in Case Nos. 01-13664, direct appeal, 01-15754, 04-11894, 05-10623, mandamus petitions. Case Nos. 01-13664 and 01-15754 were fee paid petitions, while Case Nos. 04-11894 and 05-10623 were in forma pauperis, IFP, petitions, which were denied as frivolous.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case No. 01-13664
Case No. 01-15754
Case No. 04-11894
Case No. 05-10623
TIMELINE
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664
The Eleventh Circuit admitted that it was briefed on appeal on the issue of whether or not Judge Graham failed to disqualify under the law. The Eleventh Circuit stated:
Mason
also raises issues that relate to non-sanction matters, e.g., the
dismissal of individual defendants from the second consolidated amended
complaint, the dismissal of claims from his fourth consolidated amended
complaint, the denial of his motions to disqualify the district court
and magistrate judges,...
The opinion is 14 pages in length and makes no other mention of the disqualification issue. Acknowledging that it was briefed on a matter does not constitute "meaningful appellate review".
See Opinion (html), pdf.
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-15754
IGNORING THE ISSUE
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.
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 04-11894
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.").
Eleventh Circuit Case No. 05-10623
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.
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 decision. See 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.