SECRETLAW.COM |
A SECRET SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE

 

 

 

 

Justice Turned On Its Head
 

Google Custom Search

 

Judge Donald L. Graham

 


Purpose of this Page

This page's purpose is to expose the trickery used by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal to conceal the egregious misconduct of U.S Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, S.D. Fla, Miami.  Trickery is used to obtain the desired outcome while appearing to a largely uninformed American public as being perfectly legitimate.  This page attempts to list the treachery used by the U.S. appellate courts in a quickly readable fashion.  Please visit the other links that cover this incredible, but true story, in depth:

Core Allegations of Egregious Committed by Judge Donald L. Graham.

Wordpress Blog.  Judicial Abuse written with the layman in mind.

Methods Web Portal.  This page's purpose is to demonstrate, with undisputed facts, that "Judicial  Independence" as it is presently implemented with respect to the Federal Judiciary equals non-accountability. "Judicial  Independence" in the Federal Judiciary relies solely upon federal judges to implement The problem is federal judges are a relatively small fraternity that meet at least annually at a Judicial Conference and other events Federal Judges have and use the unfettered right to use unpublished opinions.  Complaints of misconduct against federal judges are kept confidential under the Judicial Misconduct Act.  This web page analyzes all the legal vehicles available to address judicial misconduct of Judge Donald L. Graham, "Teflon Don".  This page documents and illustrate how the Eleventh Circuit used dishonesty to undermine the rule of law.

Judicial Misconduct Act, 28 U.S.C. 351 et.al.  This page demonstrates how federal judges define misconduct out of existence.

Framed.  This page documents how Judge Donald L. Graham framed an innocent person.  This is a must read.

The above links are a part of a vast network of websites related to the judicial misconduct of Judge Donald L. Graham and how it was hidden from public view by using unpublished decisions and secret documents.  Link these sites to your website and tell your friends. Congressman, and legal authorities about these pages.  Judges should not be allowed to police themselves!


 

Eleventh Circuit, USCA: Trickery Raised to Art form

For a perfect and outrageous example of the tricks described below, click on this link, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell, which renders an unpublished opinion.  Additionally, for a really egregious example, see how Eleventh Circuit Case No. 00-16512, an unpublished decision, and Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 02-16019, a published decision, Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir., 2004),  involving the same pertinent facts yielded two very different outcomes.  In a free society, this type of jurisprudence simply can not be tolerated.  See Eleventh Circuit Uses Same Set of Facts To Reverse One Florida Judge While Affirming Another Florida Judge .   

Same Set of Facts Yield Different Outcomes-Unpublished v. Published Decisions

The system is often unfair to other federal judges in that an unpublished opinion can be used to undermine binding precedent and affirm a judge for the very same thing that another judge was reversed and excoriated for.  As a benefit of the appellate court's largess, the favored judge lacks a paper trial of reversal should a Senate Confirmation be held for circuit nomination.  See Blog, mcneilmason.wordpress.com and postings:

         Eleventh Circuit Uses Same Set of Facts To Reverse One Florida Judge While Affirming Another Florida Judge

           "Teflon Don" Avoids Reversal While Colleague Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages Suffers Reversal

         U.S. Dist. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas Reversed While Colleague Judge Donald L. Graham Affirmed by Killing The Appeal

         Eleventh Circuit Uses Unpublished Opinion and Omission(Deception) To Invoke Res Judicata

         Judge Graham Disagrees With The Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals

 


TABLE OF TRICKS (CONTENTS)

The Old "Do Not Publish" trick

The Old "rehearing denied" trick

The old "gotcha" trick".

The "beyond the scope of appeal" trick

The old "ignore issue" trick

The old "mischaracterize trick"

If all else fails, then lie.

The old "arbitrarily deny IFP" trick

The Old "you failed to file an appeal" trick

The old "dog chasing tail" or "wrong remedy" trick.  

LEGAL STANDARD ON IFP APPLICATIONS

 


TRICKERY, TREACHERY, AND CHICANERY

The Eleventh Circuit employs all the above methods to crush appeals and hide blatant misconduct of Judges like Donald L. Graham.  It is widely rumored that the Eleventh Circuit does not treat pro se appeals with the legal respect they require.  This author was well aware of this rumor and prepared for it by scanning official court documents and publishing them to the Internet. None of the decisions referenced here can be found by searching the Eleventh Circuit's website for they reside on the scrap-heap of justice, however, all is not lost because I have published all their "DO NOT PUBLISH" opinions.   The stories you are about read are incredible and seemingly delusional, however, these incredible stories are fully documented with RECORD facts.  Incidentally, the government tried to jail me for a mass emailing campaign that told members of the legal community of these incredible stories.  See Government's Motion To Amend Bond.  Why are these people fighting so hard to conceal their "good law". 


The Old "Do Not Publish" trick.
This is a widely used trick.  The Eleventh Circuit has total, 100% discretion about the cases it publishes and does not publish.  The people do not have the right to demand their federal judges publish their decisions and state the reasons for making them.  As a matter of fact, if you go the Eleventh Circuit's website, you can't even find these "unpublished cases" that I and the Defendants were involved in.  Consequently, if you don't know these" unpublished cases" exist, they will be placed on the scrap heap of justice.   Seeing is believing, go to the Eleventh Circuit's website (choose "Search the Opinions Database" ) and enter "MARCELLUS Mason" or "mason" or "Heartland Library", or "Highlands County"; and you won't find a single case involving Marcellus Mason and Heartland Library Cooperative or Highlands County. However, there are quite a few cases involving these parties.  See Unpublished.  Why all these unpublished cases? 




The Old "rehearing denied "trick.
THE NO REHEARING SLIGHT OF HAND

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NO. 01-15754


Federal Rules Appellate Procedure 40
(2) Contents. The petition must state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended and must argue in support of the petition. Oral argument is not permitted.

One of tricks the Eleventh Circuit uses is to deny a petition or appeal and offer no reason. For example in Case No. 15754, a mandamus petition, in denying the mandamus petition the court simply stated:

The "petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition" is DENIED.”

See "Order".  

Consequently, when you file your motion for rehearing the Eleventh Circuit can simply say:

 

“Petitioner has offered no reason sufficient to warrant either reconsideration or clarification of this Court's Order.”

See Rehearing Denied

You can not “state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended”, if the court never states its reason in the first place.

GREAT TRICK, ISN’T IT?

 

 

Coming in the near future as my webmaster needs time!!!

The old "gotcha" trick"
D.C. Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th Circuit Case No. 01-16512

 

A judge can deny an IFP application for two reasons only. See below LEGAL STANDARD ON IFP APPLICATIONS. First, the obligation of poverty has to be untrue.  Secondly, the complaint must be frivolous and frivolous means almost delusional, a very high standard indeed.   In Summary, Judge Donald L. Graham denied me in forma pauperis status and provided no reason at all.  Judge Graham provided nothing that even looked like a reason for denial of my IFP application.  On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit, who allowed me to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, affirmed Judge Graham's arbitrary denial because I "refused" Judge Graham's order to pay the filing fee.  Incredible, but true.  See this incredible story in a section called AN EXTREME EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL ABUSE OF IFP STATUTES-

D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th Circuit Case No. 01-11305,01-13664

Gotcha coup de grace

The first example of "gotcha" jurisprudence was small potatoes.  The gotcha coup de grace occurred in D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th Circuit Case No. 01-11305and 01-13664.. This gotcha coup de grace is attributed to /s/ Ed Carnes, United States Circuit Court Judge.  In summary the Eleventh Circuit told me that I could not seek review of an injunction via appeal or mandamus and that I must either wait until the case closes or violate the injunction and get cited for contempt and then I could appeal.  Incredible !  Consequently, when I allegedly violated the injunction, Judge Graham dismissed my case and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed?  What happened to my right to appellate review of an injunction?  Have you seen it?  Here is the full documented story:

 

The Defendant(s) in this case and all other related cases,  the Highlands County Board County Commissioners, is a GOVERNMENT.  Highlands County is located Sebring, Florida which is 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. 

 

On June 19, 2000 and July 25, 2000, a 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),
              page 2 of 2 pages.

              

“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),
         page2 of 2 pages.

Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Frank Jr., (Frank Lynch Jr), decided they had the authority to prohibit me from speaking to my government out of court unless I had the permission of Allen, Norton, & Blue, a private lawfirm.  Judge Graham and his Magistrate, Frank Jr., ( Frank Lynch Jr) have never stated where they got this authority from.   On June 20, 2001, Judge Graham decided to dismiss my lawsuit because he alleged that I communicated with my government, Highlands County Board County Commissioners, without the permission of private for profit attorneys.  See  (DE #766), page 2, page 3, page 4, and page 5; Pdf format   (DE #791), page 2Pdf format.  I repeatedly and incessantly challenged the jurisdiction of the court with  respect to these illegal injunctions, (DE #201), page 2(DE #246), page 2  ,  however, Judge Graham absolutely refused to state where he got the legal authority to issue the orders in question.  Judge Graham has NEVER at any time cited legal authorities for these patently illegal orders even though there have been relentless requests.  See for example, and note that this list is not collectively exhausted, Case No. 99-14027 see Plaintiff’s  motions and responses, (Doc.#200);(Doc. #239); (Doc. #262);(Doc.  #264);(Doc. #284);(Doc.#334);(Doc. #509);(Doc. #515);(Doc. #526);(Doc. 554);(Doc. 632, pg.5);(Doc.#633);(Doc. 652);(Doc. 663); (Doc. 735); (Doc. 736); (Doc.738); (Doc. 783); (Doc. 787, pgs 2-3); (Doc. 810); (Doc. 812); (Doc.813); (Doc. 817); (Doc. 829), (Doc. 845);and the court's orders: (DE #201), page 2,(DE #246), page 2,;(Doc. #279);(Doc. 281);(Doc. #407, pg. 2  );(Doc.  #524);(Doc. #528);(Doc. #634);(Doc. 673);(Doc. 744);(Doc. 745);(Doc.  766);(Doc. 791);(Doc. 874, pg. 2);(Doc. 882, pgs. 1-2), (DE-890), (DE-928),(DE-931).

I filed a mandamus petition seeking to have these patently illegal "injunctions" reversed, however the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Carnes stated:

"With regard to his requests for relief from the order granting the defendants' motions for preliminary injunction, which the court construed as a preliminary discovery motion, Mason has an alternative remedy. He may either comply with the district court's discovery order and challenge it on appeal from the final judgment, or refuse to comply with the order and challenge its validity if cited for contempt . See Rouse Constr. Int'l, Inc. v. Rouse Constr. Corp ., 680 F.2d 743, 745(11th Cir . 1982) ."

When I filed an appeal, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13364, guess what the Eleventh Circuit did?  Yes that right, gotcha.  See Unpublished "Opinion".   The Eleventh Circuit stated that I violated the court orders, (DE 201), (DE246), and communicated with my government without the permission of a private for profit law firm.   Essentially and factually, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a Magistrate may issue an injunction that violates my rights under the First Amendment, Florida Public Records Act, and the Florida Constitution so long as the Magistrate calls his injunction a "discovery order" and not an injunction. Semantics is the key here, not substance.  Incredible, but true.  e.g. "which the court construed as a preliminary discovery motion", 11th Circuit Case No. 01-11305;  "the magistrate judge issued a discovery order prohibiting Mason from contacting the defendants or their employees http://mmason.freeshell.org" pg. 3, Unpublished "Opinion"; " the magistrate judge and district court attempted to clarify with Mason that the Orders were not injunctions, but rather necessary for the orderly litigation of the case " pg. 12, Unpublished "Opinion".

Legal Problems Associated with these Patently Illegal Injunctions, (DE 201), (DE246).

1.        These orders, (DE 201), (DE246), “preliminary injunctions” are invalid because this issue was not referred to the Magistrate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Additionally, these orders invalid because the Defendants failed to file a complaint and failed to meet the requirements for a “temporaryrestraining order,” or “TRO,” or injunction.   See Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995).  See also Hill v. Butterworth, 941 F. Supp. 1129,1136  (N.D.Fla. 1996)(“Plaintiff is not entitled to issuance of a TRO because he has filed neither an affidavit accompanying his petition, nor a verified complaint.”).

2.        A Magistrate does not have the legal authority to issue an injunction. “A judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for  injunctive relief…” 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A).  “[A] magistrate lacks power to enter an injunction even in a case where the district court has jurisdiction.”  United Steelworkers Of America, v. Bishop,598 F.2d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 1979).  There is no difference between a “pretrial discovery issue and not an injunction per se” and an injunction or restraining order . A district court’s characterization of a “restraining order” or an“ injunction is not dispositive.  Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412, 1421-2 (11th Cir.1995) (“where the order has the effect of a preliminary injunction this court has jurisdiction to review the order and is not bound by the district court’s designation of the order”); Geneva Assur. v. Medical Emergency Services, 964 F.2d 599, 600 (7th Cir.1992) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 85-88, 94S.Ct. 937, 950-951, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974)) (“What is true, [i]s that the name which the judge gives the order is not determinative.”).

Restraining Order- An order in the nature of an injunction.  Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, West Publishing Company, Copyright @ 1968.

Injunction- A judicial process operating in personam, and requiring person to whom it is directed to do or refrain from doing a particular thing.  See Blacks’ Law, supra.   “1. An enjoining; forbidding; command. Something enjoined; command; order. 3. A writ or order from a court prohibiting a person group from carrying out a given action, or ordering a given action to be done.”  Webster’s New World TM Collegiate Dictionary, Fourth Edition, MacMillan USA, Copyright @1999, Pg. 736.

3.        A federal judge has no authority to regulate how the Plaintiff accesses public records under Florida law.  Public records under Florida law is not any of the federal government’s business.   “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution. “Courts created by statute only have such jurisdiction as the statute confers.”  Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.,486 U.S. 800, 820 (1988).  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal jurisdiction.  In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories, 72 F. 3d 842,843 (11th Cir. 1995)(citing Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 368-370 & n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 &n. 7, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978)).  See also Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Lower federal courts can exercise this power only over cases for which there has been a congressional grant of jurisdiction”).  Plaintiff challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, but the Magistrate failed to respond.  (Doc. 738, pgs. 7-8). Assuming the Magistrate had jurisdiction to direct that the Plaintiff shall correspond only with Defendants' counsel including any requests for public records, the order would still be improper because Florida Courts, Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeals, don’t feel they do not have the right to take such liberties. “We would be less than candid if we did not acknowledge that, as the present case demonstrates public agencies are placed at a disadvantage, compared to private person’s, when faced with potential litigation claims.  It is also pertinent to observe that the wisdom of such a policy resides exclusively within the province of the legislature.”  Toberv. Sanchez, 417 So 2d 1053, 1055 (App. Dist. 3 1982). "[P]ublic officials must conduct public business in the open and . . .public records must be made available to all members of the public."  Henderson vs. State Of Florida, 745 So. 2d 319,325 n.5; (Fla. 1999).  "[W]e do not equate the acquisition of public documents under chapter 119 with the rights of discovery afforded a litigant by judicially-created rules of procedure”  Id.  "Courts cannot judicially create any exceptions, or exclusions to Florida's Public Records Act."  Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County v. D.B.,784 So. 2d 585, 591(Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

4.        The district court punished the Plaintiff for exercising his right of “free speech” by dismissing this meritorious lawsuit.  Plaintiff has a clear right to communicate with his government about the matters in this controversy, litigation notwithstanding. “[T]here is nothing that prohibits one party to a litigation from making direct contact with another party to the same litigation.  These rules are designed to regulate the conduct of nonlawyers, and simply do not apply to the conduct of nonlawyers.”  E.E.O.C. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 948 F.Supp. 54, 55 (E.D.Mo. 1996)See also Rule 4-4.2, R.Regulating Fla. Bar and 99, Restatement Third The Law Governing Lawyers.  See (Doc. 738,pgs. 3-6);(Doc. 783, pg. 3).  Mason repeatedly attacked these illegal orders and the district court has adamantly refused to cite legal authority for its actions each time.

 

 

Coming in the near future as my webmaster needs time!!!

 

The "beyond the scope of appeal" trick

This is the dirtiest and the most dishonest trick that the Eleventh Circuit pulled, which is very dirty even for the Eleventh Circuit.  In D.C. Case No.99-14027-CV-Graham, Judge Graham wrote a "pre-filing" screening injunction against me on September 20, 2001, (DE #878), Flash Document (de 878) .  However, the case was closed on June 20, 2001, and noticed for appeal on July3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf and docketed under Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664..  Without addressing the merits of the injunction, which has HUGE legal and factual problems, the facts are limited here to strictly the "beyond the scope of appeal"  trick or issue.   Keep the above dates in mind.  In summary, the Eleventh Circuit struck my Initial Brief for arguing the injunction described above,  September20, 2001, (DE #878),because they said it was beyond the "beyond the scope of appeal". In fact this order , (DE #878), September20, 2001, really was beyond the scope of appeal which was docketed on July 3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf.  However, the Eleventh turned around and used the same order or injunction, September 20, 2001, (DE #878)  that they struck my brief for arguing to affirm the district judge's, Donald L. Graham, dismissal of a case on June 20, 2001, and noticed for appeal on July 3, 2001, See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf with an order rendered on September 20, 2001, (DE #878),  The Eleventh Circuit badly need this order of September 20, 2001, (DE #878), in order to affirm a FRCP Rule 41(b) dismissal on June 20, 2001. Unbelievable ?  Consider the following record facts along with the above:

 

As recently as May 20, 2004, The Eleventh Circuit claimed that I did not appeal the injunction of September 20, 2001, (DE#878).  On May 20, 2004 [Eleventh Circuit Case No. No.04-11894-B], the Eleventh Circuit made the following bold, false, and inaccurate assertion:

Moreover, Mason had an adequate alternative remedy to mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20, 2001 order, but did not do so.

See Page 4, Opinion, Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/04-11894/04-11894.tif.  A direct appeal was originally docketed for Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A (D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV) on  July3, 2001. See Appeal Docketing Letter , URL: http://www.geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/docketappeal.pdf. Judge Donald L. 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.pdfAppellant's Motion For Rehearing.URL:   The Eleventh Circuit struck my brief for arguing the order of September20, 2001 because they claimed it was "beyond the scope of appeal."  See attached 01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf,URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf . The really appalling and despicable act of dishonesty here is that the Eleventh Circuit turned around and used the same order or injunction of September 20, 2001  that they struck my brief for arguing to justify affirming the dismissal of the case, 99-14027 pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. which was closed on June 20, 2001. 

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 Opinion_OCR.htm, pg. 14, http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/Opinion-OCR.htm.  On September 29, 2001, even though the case was already on appeal [D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV], I filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus And Petition For Writ Of Prohibition.  See Petition, URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/15754/WritOfMandamusAndWritOfProhibition.pdf. A mandamus petition filed with the court and the opposing party satisfies the requirement for a "notice of appeal".  It seems absurd to argue otherwise, which indeed no one has.  The Eleventh Circuit and the US Supreme Court have held that a timely filed mandamus petition satisfies the notice of appeal requirement.  See YATES v. MOBILE COUNTY PERSONNEL BD.,658 F.2d 298,299 (5th Cir. 1981) .  SMITH v. BARRY, 502 U.S. 244(1992).   See also U.S. v. GRANT, 256 F.3d1146 (11th Cir. 2001); STEVENS v. HEARD, 674 F.2d 320 (5th Cir.1982).  Rather than rule on the merits of this petition, the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the petition on December 5, 2001. See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/P2185803.jpg. Additionally, the Eleventh refused a subsequent motion for rehearing demanding to know the reason for refusing to rule on the merits, however, the Eleventh Circuit, simply ignored the request again. See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/RehearingDenial.tif  

 

The Eleventh Circuit and Judge Graham are dishonest and are involved in a conspiracy to conceal Judge Donald L. Graham's misconduct and arrogance.  .  

 

 




The old "ignore issue" trick

CASE NO. 01-13664-A

If the Eleventh Circuit doesn't like an issue and can not come up with a plausible and spurious answer, the Eleventh Circuit will simply ignore the issue.  The ultimate appellate issue is that the Judge should have disqualified himself.  The issue of disqualification, a jurisdictional issue, must be resolved before any other issue on appeal.  This fact is self-evident to everybody except the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, and specifically Judges, BIRCH, BLACK, and MARCUS.   In Case No. 01-13664-A, I mount a scathing attack of Judge Graham and accuse him of the following:

1.        Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law

2.        Usurping legal authority

3.        Failing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction

4.        Allowing scores of motions to go undecided

See Initial Brief, pgs. 30-33, and Court's Unpublished Opinion.  This garbage opinion makes no mention of disqualification issue on appeal.  

 

CASE NO. 01-15754-A

I filed a petition for mandamus and accused Judge Donald L. Graham of the following, among other things:

1.        Lying and intentionally misrepresenting the law

2.        Usurping legal authority

3.        Failing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction

4.        Allowing scores of motions to go undecided

The Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the entire petition and refused to give an explanation.  See "Order".  




The old "mischaracterize trick"
Coming in the near future as my webmaster needs time!!!



If all else fails, then lie.

 

CASE NO. 04-11894

Yes, you heard me !! The Eleventh Circuit will tell an outright lie to conceal the behavior of a Judge if they have to.  Specifically, Judges CARNES and HULL were willing to tell an outright lie in order to save Judge Graham from Judge Graham's RECORD.  Consider the following and follow the links and read for yourself. 

Judge Graham stated in my lawsuit that I could not state a claim under 42U.S.C. 1981 against a state actor while at the very same time Judge Graham allowed a Plaintiff to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1981 against the very same state actor.  In my lawsuit, Judge Graham stated:

Counts Eight, Nineteen, Twenty-One, Twenty-Three and Twenty-Five deal with 1981 claims.  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 Butt's decision. 

See Page 3, Report and Recommendation, (DE #435),URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/99-14027/DE-435/de435.pdf.  At the very same time that Judge Graham was saying that I could not state a claim against a state actor under 1981,Judge Graham was allowing another 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 was 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 (Doc. 58, Pages 2) Order on Summary Judgment, URL :http://mmason.freeshell.org/00-14094/de58.pdf. Clearly, somebody was lied to, either me or Fa Nina St. Germain. On May 20, 2004 [Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B], the Eleventh Circuit made the following bold, false, and inaccurate assertion:

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. 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.  Moreover, 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. Both Title VII and 1981 can be used to bring race discrimination claims.

See pgs. 2-3, Opinion, EleventhCircuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/04-11894/04-11894.tif. Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit knows full well that the Eleventh Circuit’s assertion is false because my 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 difficult to imagine that judges would tell such an outright lie when they know the RECORD fully contradicts them.  This is example of extreme hubris and nauseating dishonesty. 





The old "arbitrarily deny IFP" trick

 

CASE NO.01-13664-A

One of the other tricks the Eleventh Circuit will pull to deny appellate relief is simply to deny the indigent access to the courts for an arbitrary reason or make a false assertion that the Eleventh Circuit can not prove.  For example, I filed a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.  The Eleventh Circuit denied this motion by saying I was being untruthful and offered no proof.  See IFP Denial. On a motion for rehearing, I begged the Eleventh Circuit for proof, and the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it does need to have proof of its' assertions.   See Denial of Motion To Clarify. As a matter of fact, both the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Donald L. Graham have an extensive history of denying in forma pauperis motions for no reason at all.  See Arbitrary Denials.  

 

 

 

The Old "you failed to file an appeal" trick

D.C. Case No.  99-14027-CV

Eleventh Circuit Case Nos.-01-13664, 01-15754, 04-11894

This is another example of extreme dishonesty and artifice.   The Eleventh Circuit is now claiming that I did not appeal an injunction rendered by Judge Graham on September 20, 2001, (DE #878).  On May 20, 2004 [Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B], the Eleventh Circuit made the following bold, false, and inaccurate assertion:

 

Moreover, Mason had an adequate alternative remedy to mandamus relief in that he could have timely appealed the September 20, 2001 order, but did not do so.

See Page 4, Opinion, Eleventh Circuit Case No. No. 04-11894-B, URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/04-11894/04-11894.tif.  A direct appeal was originally docketed for Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664-A (D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV) on  July3, 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.  The appeal briefs were not actually filed until February and March of 2002

Appeal Briefs: 

First Initial Brief (Stricken), 

Corrected Initial Brief

Appellees Answer Brief

Reply Brief

  Appellant's Motion For Rehearing .  

The Eleventh Circuit struck my brief for arguing the order of September 20, 2001 because they claimed it was "beyond the scope of appeal. "  See attached 01-13664_Order_Striking_Appellant_Brief.pdf.The really appalling and despicable act of dishonesty here is that the Eleventh Circuit turned around and used the same order or injunction of September 20, 2001  that they struck my brief for arguing to justify affirming the dismissal of the case,99-14027 pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. which was closed on June20, 2001. 

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 Opinion_OCR.htm, pg. 14, http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-13664/Opinion-OCR.htm.  On September 29, 2001, even though the case was already on appeal [D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV], I filed aPetition for Writ of Mandamus And Petition For Writ Of Prohibition.  See Petition, URL: http://mmason.freeshell.org/15754/WritOfMandamusAndWritOfProhibition.pdf. A mandamus petition filed with the court and the opposing party satisfies the requirement for a "notice of appeal".  It seems absurd to argue otherwise, which indeed no one has. The Eleventh Circuit and the US Supreme Court have held that a timely filed mandamus petition satisfies the notice of appeal requirement.  See YATES v. MOBILE COUNTY PERSONNEL BD.,658 F.2d 298,299 (5th Cir. 1981)SMITH v. BARRY, 502 U.S. 244(1992).   See also U.S. v. GRANT, 256 F.3d1146 (11th Cir. 2001); STEVENS v. HEARD, 674 F.2d 320 (5th Cir.1982).  Rather than rule on the merits of this petition, the Eleventh Circuit simply ignored the petition on December 5, 2001. See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/P2185803.jpg. Additionally, the Eleventh refused a subsequent motion for rehearing demanding to know the reason for refusing to rule on the merits, however, the Eleventh Circuit, simply ignored the request again.  See URL: http://geocities.com/mcneilmason/secret/01-15754/RehearingDenial.tif  

What happened to my appeal?? Have you seen my appeal? Mamma, the Eleventh Circuit has my appeal right and won't give it to me! 

 

 

Coming in the near future as my webmaster needs time!!!


The old "dog chasing tail" or "wrong remedy" trick.  

For example specific and documented allegations of misconduct were leveled at Judge Graham in every conceivable legal manner, but the Eleventh Circuit simply will not address these issues. 

 

 

LEGAL STANDARD ON IFP APPLICATIONS

  According to Congress and the United States Supreme Court, an in forma pauperis (IFP) application may only be denied if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is totally frivolous and has no merit under any possible legal theory.  " The federal in forma pauperis 28 U.S.C. 1915, allows an indigent litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. The statute protects against abuses of this privilege by allowing a district court to dismiss the case "if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious."  SEE DENTON v. HERNANDEZ, 504U.S. 25, 27 (1992).  "[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless,"490 U.S., at 327, a category encompassing allegations that are "fanciful," id., at 325, "fantastic," id., at 328, and "delusional," ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction."  SEE DENTON v. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S.25, 32-33 (1992).