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 !!
|
