Justice Turned On Its Head

 

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





Eleventh Circuit Refuses to Discuss Substantiated Factual Allegations of Misconduct Against Judge Donald L. Graham


Google Custom Search
The Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, will not even discuss, much less remedy, factual allegations of misconduct against Judge Donald L. Graham.  Allegations of misconduct have been leveled at Judge Graham in the following forms: direct appeal, mandamus, personal letters, and Section 372(c)complaints.  These allegations are not denied because they can not be, but simply ignored.  Judge Graham has been accused of: intentionally lying and misrepresenting the law; refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction for more than 15 months; allowing scores of motions to go undecided; usurping legal authority, concocting a criminal contempt complaint.

RECORD SUPPORT OF ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
The beauty of the Internet is that one can make documents that would otherwise be held secret by the courts be held up to public scrutiny.

  • Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law.  A judge’s honesty and integrity lie at the very heart of that system. See In re Shenberg,632 So. 2d 42, 47 (Fla. 1992).  Donald L. Graham lied by telling me one version of the law and another version of  the law to a different Plaintiff.  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 42U.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 §1981claims.  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 Page3, Report and Recommendation, (DE #435), Page1, Page2, Page3, Page4, Page5, Page6, Page7, Page8, and Page9.  Graham signed this Report and Recommendation.  See Order (DE#466), page2.  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)   (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.
  • 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 November24, 1999. See (DE #39).  See 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 (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, page2.
  • Allowing scores of motions to languish  in court for up to 8 months and not taking any action.  See Eleventh Circuit Special Docket No.: 01-0054, HTML Format.
  • Usurping legal authority by telling a non litigant that he must seek the permission of a private for profit law firm in order to request public records under Florida Law.  “Plaintiffshall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any requests for public records.” (DE#246), page2.  See 01-0054, HTML Format.  See also (DE#201) 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), (DE#246).  See Graham'sLawuit.  
  • Judge Graham abused the criminal contempt procedure to intimidate mea nd attempt to force me to drop an embarrassing lawsuit filed against him.  See mmason.freeshell.org.   Even though the process had started over two years ago and a complaint was filed by the U.S. Attorney, there has been no action in the case.  I demanded this case proceed on the merits so that I could confront and cross-examine Judge Graham.  A complaint was filed in December 2002.  For more information, see ContemptAbuses page.  
  • Concealing Information and falsely completing a Civil Justice Reform Act Report. When Judge Graham completed his Civil Justice Reform Act Report for March 31, 2001, he shows that he had no motions pending for more than 6 months.  This information is false because the motion for a preliminary injunction had been pending for more 492 days or about 16.4months.  CJRA Report.  See above. 

EFFORTS TO SEEK REDRESS AT THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

The Eleventh Circuit undermined every effort made to have the allegations of misconduct and judicial abuse, as described above, investigated.  No matter the forum or venue, the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the allegations.
 


Case No. 01-13664
This is a direct appeal that accuses Judge Graham of the above misconduct, however, while very verbose, the Eleventh Circuit makes no mention of these allegations even though the Appellant's brief argues that Judge Graham should have disqualified because of the above allegations of misconduct.  Appellant'sCorrectedInitial Brief, and Eleventh Circuits unpublished opinion

Personal Letters-Case No. 01-13664
Personal letters were sent to Judges Marcus, Black, and Birch informing that their unpublished opinion did not address serious allegations of misconduct.  Along with this letter, a CD with the actual briefs and their opinion along with supporting documents was sent to them.  These Judges declined to respond to the letter and CD.  There was a second letter sent to these judges informing them that these matters were being posted to the Internet.  Again these judges declined to respond. 


Case No. 01-15754
This is a mandamus petition that accuses Judge Graham of the above misconduct, however, in a very terse statement (one word), the Eleventh Circuit simply denies the petition and Circuit makes absolutely no mention of these allegations even though the Petitioner's brief argues that Judge Graham should have disqualified because of the above allegations of misconduct.  See Mandamus Petition and Order Denying Mandamus. The mandamus petition is very specific and 24 pages in length. 

Personal Letters-Case No. 01-15754
Personal letters were sent to Judges Marcus, Black, and Marcus informing them that their unpublished opinion did not address serious allegations of misconduct.   These Judges declined to respond to the letter and CD. 

Case No. 01-0054
Case No. 01-0054 is a Section 372(c) Complaint which, among other things, specifically complains of the above allegations of misconduct. See Complaint.  There is no mention, much less acknowledgment of the veracity of the allegations of misconduct.  Chief Judge Lanier Anderson simply states:  "The allegations of the Complaint are "directly related to the merit 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 Judge Lanier Anderson's Order.   A petition for review was subsequently filed with the Judicial Council who declined to investigate this matter.  See Judicial Council's Declination Order




There is even more to this story to be added at future date !!




 




his Article




Main Page
http://mmason.freeshell.org