Source: http://mmason.freeshell.org/edmondson/
Timestamp: 2017-08-22 01:39:07
Document Index: 738370010

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', '§ 351', '§ 372', '§ 351', '§ 351', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§1981', '§1983', '§1981', '§1983', '§1981', '§1981', '§1981', '§1981']

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
State Court Judges Are Held to Higher Standards
"ENDORSEMENTS" OF JUDGE GRAHAM'S CONDUCT
Federico Moreno, Chief Judge, S.D. Fla.
William J. Zloch, Former Chief Judge, S.D. Fla.
History of Judicial Misconduct Complaints Against Judge Graham
"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. As will be proven below, U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham has escaped all forms of discipline for the conduct alleged on this page. Moreover, and even more significant, the Eleventh Circuit refuses to state the allegations of misconduct directed at Judge Graham, much less remedy them. Judge Graham's misconduct has not been reviewable on appeal. See post, "Are Allegations of Misconduct Reviewable on Appeal? ". Even in a lawsuit filed against Judge Graham, the Eleventh Circuit does not discuss what Judge Graham did on appeal. 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 ". If the allegations of misconduct set forth in this web page are true, then Judge Graham is clearly above the law, and appropriately called "Teflon Don".
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.
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.
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 :
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.
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. .
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“.
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.
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?
Judge Graham's Chief Judge, S.D. Fla., Federico Moreno offered the following tepid "endorsement":
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.
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:
"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 following complaints have been lodged against Teflon Don, or U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL REPLY
COMPLAINT-01-0054
JUDGE ANDERSON'S REPLY-01-0054
JUDICIAL COUNCIL-01-0054
COMPLAINT-02-0052 JUDGE EDMONDSON'S REPLY-02-0052
COMPLAINT-05-0008
JUDGE EDMONDSON'S REPLY-05-008
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:
See Complaint and Order No. 01-0054.
Complaint and Order Case No. 01-0068
See Complaint and Order Case No. 01-0068, Judicial Council Order.
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
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.
APPELLEE/DEFENDANT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
COURT REFUSED TO MAKE RESPONDENTS OR JUDGE GRAHAM REPLY TO 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
The Direct Appeal raises these issues of misconduct by Judge Graham and further that Judge Graham should have disqualified himself, however the Eleventh Circuit, in a very verbose opinion, makes no mention of these allegations of misconduCt or whether Judge Graham should have disqualified himself or not. See Opinion.
In denying mandamus, the Eleventh Circuit does not discuss any issue. In a very terse statement, the Eleventh Circuit simply denies the mandamus petition without any comment. See Opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 16.4 months. CJRA Report, URL: http://www.mmason.freeshell.org/CivilJusticeReformActReport.pdf. See above. Congress did not engage in a meaningless exercise in passing the Civil Justice Reform Act, it wanted accurate information. Mr. Graham does not have the legal authority to conceal the fact that he failed to rule on a motion for more than 15 months.
[1] 438 11/29/00 667 4/18/01